Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/03
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.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The United States has a long and complex modern history with the oil industry, particularly in terms of its role in geopolitics and energy policy. How did the U.S. position itself from the mid-to the late twentieth century in terms of energy policy—particularly concerning oil, coal, and natural gas—and how did it leverage that position to project stability in various parts of the world?
Ed Hirs: Since World War II, oil has been central to U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 occurred after the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan in response to its invasion of French Indochina. While the blockade was not the sole cause, it was a key factor that accelerated Japan’s decision to strike. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, prioritized securing oil supply lines and refineries in the Middle East and North Africa to disrupt Nazi access to critical hydrocarbon resources.
In 1956, during the Suez Crisis, after Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain, France, and Israel launched a coordinated military intervention to regain control of the canal. They expected U.S. support, but President Eisenhower opposed the action and demanded their withdrawal. He believed that global oil markets would adjust, with tankers rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope, and that military intervention was not warranted for short-term logistical disruptions.
Eisenhower also understood that market forces would prevail—nations would purchase oil from whoever could produce and sell it reliably.
In 1959, Eisenhower implemented the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP), which imposed quotas limiting foreign oil imports to protect domestic producers and ensure national security. This led to U.S. oil prices being significantly higher than global prices for over a decade. These protections remained in place until 1973 when President Richard Nixon—Eisenhower’s former Vice President—began dismantling the import quotas amid rising energy demands and changing geopolitical dynamics. Nixon pursued closer ties with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members, offering security guarantees in exchange for reliable oil supplies, laying the foundation for the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, several Arab OPEC members imposed an oil embargo against countries supporting Israel, including the United States. The result was a dramatic spike in oil prices, long gas lines, and inflationary pressure. However, Nixon instituted price controls on domestic oil and refined products in 1971 as part of a broader anti-inflation effort, which remained during the embargo.
This created severe market distortions: refiners that relied increasingly on imported crude oil could not afford to buy it at global market prices and sell refined products domestically at controlled prices. Consequently, U.S. refiners continued to import crude oil but, due to profit constraints, often prioritized selling refined products abroad where prices were not capped—effectively refining oil for the global market rather than the domestic one.
Jacobsen: Let us continue on the domestic and foreign energy trajectory through the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations. How did the policies of these presidencies shape U.S. energy production, consumption, and geopolitical engagement—particularly concerning domestic oil incentives, OPEC, and major conflicts in the Middle East?
Hirs: The Nixon–Ford White House made oil company executives the scapegoats for the long gasoline lines during the 1970s energy crisis. But the core issue was broader: there were wage and price controls across the entire economy at that time—a period when inflation was around 2%, which seems quaint by today’s standards. These controls removed the economic incentive for U.S. domestic producers since oil prices were capped and could not rise in response to global pressures.
During the Carter administration and continuing into the early Reagan years, the federal government imposed the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax. Despite its name, it was not a tax on profits—it was a tax on the difference between the controlled domestic price and the higher global price. The result was a disincentive for domestic production expansion.
The only areas where we saw substantial capital investment and realized production growth were in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska because these areas were not subject to the oil price caps or the windfall profits tax. Meanwhile, the U.S. extended its defence umbrella across the Middle East for decades, primarily to ensure the steady flow of affordable oil. Much of the diplomatic and military engagement in the region during this era was aimed at keeping OPEC prices low to fuel the U.S. economy.
By the early 2000s, just before hydraulic fracturing began to transform the U.S. oil sector, domestic crude production had declined to around 5 million barrels per day. At the same time, imports had climbed to about 13 to 14 million barrels per day. Today, U.S. consumption is roughly 18 to 20 million barrels per day, depending on the season.
This still makes the U.S. a net importer of between 2 and 6 million barrels per day—not because we lack oil, but because many of our refineries are configured to process heavier crude oils, which we import. Canada supplies between 2 and 4 million barrels per day of heavy crude to the U.S., again depending on seasonal variation. These imports are necessary to match the specific configurations and optimization of our refining infrastructure.
The first Gulf War, under President George H. W. Bush, occurred after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait had helped finance Iraq’s long war with Iran. After the war ended, Kuwait demanded repayment. Saddam Hussein’s regime rejected that demand and instead launched a hostile takeover of Kuwait’s oil fields. The U.S. led a coalition response that repelled Iraqi forces and liberated Kuwait.
The second Gulf War was initiated under President George W. Bush, ostensibly to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Many economists and analysts warned against the invasion. William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, projected that the war could cost the U.S. economy more than $1.2 trillion. The Watson Institute at Brown University later estimated the broader costs of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, including Afghanistan and related security operations, to exceed $8 trillion. The human cost for the U.S. includes nearly 10,000 service members killed and around 40,000 wounded.
This discussion often resurfaces in debates about domestic energy policy. For example, in the context of the Keystone XL pipeline debate, I pointed out—along with others like Alan Greenspan in The Age of Turbulence and Henry Kissinger—that virtually everything in the Middle East revolves around oil: controlling its production, its revenues, and ultimately, its geopolitical leverage.
Jacobsen: Let us discuss the Keystone XL pipeline and how you frame it in economic and geopolitical terms. What were the trade-offs, and how did it relate to broader U.S. energy and foreign policy?
Hirs: I often put this in economic terms. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been a cleaner, more efficient way to transport—at that time—about 750,000 barrels of crude oil per day to U.S. refineries than importing a similar volume via tanker from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. The Congressional Research Service—part of the Library of Congress—analyzed this and noted that the overall carbon footprint of pipeline transport would likely be lower, and the risk of spills in the Gulf of Mexico would be reduced compared to seaborne shipments.
As an aside, the Canadian government once offered me a passport. They said, “We’d love to have you. You’re the first U.S. academic to support this pipeline publicly—why don’t you come live with us?” I may need to take them up on that someday.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure at the State Department. However, her boss, President Obama, ultimately chose not to support the project, and it was halted.
If you consider who would have lost from the pipeline’s completion, it would have been countries like Saudi Arabia. That extra tanker per day delivering oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries would have been displaced by Canadian crude. So, there was both economic and geopolitical impact in that decision.
Jacobsen: Let us fast-forward to more recent years—2025 or thereabouts. We see Elon Musk in high-profile meetings with various global players. There is increased engagement with sovereign wealth funds from the Gulf states, and former President Trump’s relationships with Saudi Arabia continue to draw scrutiny. Does this contemporary dynamic follow from the earlier trajectory of U.S. oil diplomacy?
Hirs: Absolutely. Former President Trump used relationships with oil-rich Middle Eastern nations—particularly those with massive sovereign wealth funds—as avenues for securing funding and investment in the United States. After he left office in 2021, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund into his private equity firm.
There have been numerous high-value transactions involving Middle Eastern investment in U.S. infrastructure, real estate, and commercial ventures. During his presidency, the Trump administration opened the door to foreign capital flows with minimal restrictions.
One such mechanism is the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program—often nicknamed the “golden visa”—which historically allowed foreign nationals to obtain green cards by investing $1 million (or $500,000 in rural or high-unemployment areas) in U.S. projects that create jobs. Under Trump, some proposals were floated to expand this threshold to $5 million, potentially streamlining access to permanent residency. While not officially codified to that extent, the rhetoric surrounding the welcome of significant foreign investments grew stronger.
This wave of capital inflows helped fuel apartment construction booms in places like Texas over the past two decades. So yes, energy has always been a geopolitical tool, but increasingly, so is real estate and private equity—funded, in part, by petrodollars.
Jacobsen: How has this pattern of using energy—and now investment policy—as geopolitical leverage been received in international circles? What is the long-term perception of American energy diplomacy?
Hirs: Internationally, it is well understood that energy is indispensable for both economic growth and military capability. During World War II, for example, the U.S. lost millions of barrels in oil shipments during the early stages due to German U-boats torpedoing tankers off the Atlantic coast. That’s one reason the U.S. rapidly constructed domestic pipelines like the Big Inch and Little Big Inch—to transport crude oil overland and avoid maritime losses.
Fast forward to the Obama administration, and energy diplomacy remained central. One lesser-known example is that the administration was reluctant to bomb ISIS-controlled oil fields and refineries in northern Iraq early on—not because of strategic ambiguity but partly out of concern over the environmental consequences of igniting those facilities.
Energy policy has always carried significant geopolitical weight, but it is now intertwined with environmental concerns, foreign investment dynamics, and even infrastructure development—all of which shape how American leadership is perceived abroad.
Jacobsen: Let’s continue the thread from earlier. Once the ISIS-controlled oil infrastructure was removed from their hands, what changed? And how does that compare to recent U.S. efforts—especially under the Biden administration—to constrain other major oil-producing regimes like Russia?
Hirs: Once the attacks in Paris occurred in November 2015, the French government took it upon itself to target and destroy the oil assets under ISIS control. That included refineries, transport routes, and oil fields. Once ISIS lost access to hydrocarbons and to the black-market trade that had been generating hard currency for their operations, the organization began to wither. Without a steady revenue stream from petroleum, they lacked the financial means to sustain themselves as a governing or military entity.
Fast forward to the Biden administration, which has made a concerted effort to limit Russia’s ability to profit from its oil exports following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russia, of course, is one of the world’s top oil producers and exporters. At the time of the invasion, Russia was exporting roughly 7.5 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day to global markets. Moscow threatened to withhold those supplies, claiming oil prices could spike to $330 per barrel.
Jacobsen: And that figure—$330 a barrel—wasn’t just political posturing, was it?
Hirs: No, it was grounded in solid math. That estimate came directly from a paper my team published. The price elasticity of crude oil is approximately -0.047. That means a 1% reduction in global supply results in about a 20% to 25% increase in price—so if Russia had pulled its 7.5 million barrels per day, which represented roughly 7–8% of global supply, it could’ve driven prices close to $330 per barrel. And yes, we calculated that to the penny.
It was affirming to see that someone had taken the time to read our work and consider it seriously.
Jacobsen: So the paper made an impact?
Hirs: Absolutely. We presented the findings at the Naval Staff College, and it became required reading within certain circles at the Department of Defense.
It was clear that many in the Biden administration were brilliant academics—but none of them had ever leased an acre of land or drilled a well.
They believed a simple price cap on Russian oil would cut off Kremlin revenue. But markets are more complex than that. Russia adapted, found workarounds, and rerouted its oil to buyers such as China and India, often utilizing “shadow fleets” of tankers and alternative currencies. Unfortunately, my skepticism was proven right—again. But I take no pleasure in that. I’d rather the policy be right and successful than be the person proven correct while the strategy fails.
Jacobsen: That’s the downside of being ahead of the curve—you make fewer friends at Christmas.
Hirs: [Laughing] Exactly.
Jacobsen: What did the Trump administration get right in terms of energy policy? Regardless of political affiliation, did they implement anything that aligned with sound economic or environmental reasoning?
Hirs: Yes, they did. One of the more underappreciated moves was approving the ability for individual states to manage their own Class VI carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) well permitting. Class VI wells are used to store carbon dioxide deep underground permanently. The Biden administration, by contrast, stalled or declined to approve state primacy in this area because they saw it as enabling fossil fuel use.
But carbon capture is essential if we want to continue using hydrocarbons responsibly while decarbonizing the energy system. Granting states regulatory authority over these wells streamlines the permitting process, encourages private investment, and accelerates deployment. From a policy and economic standpoint, that move by the Trump administration made complete sense. It aligned with both energy security and climate goals—something that rarely happens in American energy politics.
Jacobsen: Let us pick up where we left off. Some argue that the carbon capture and fossil fuel industries are faltering, but others claim they remain strong. What is the actual state of things? And how does this tie into recent policies from the Trump and Biden administrations, particularly in LNG and hydrocarbon markets?
Hirs: That claim—that the industry is faltering—is not accurate. It is, in fact, a thriving industry. Carbon dioxide comes from a wide array of sources, not just the combustion of gasoline and diesel. And in this respect, the Trump administration has taken some positive steps.
For instance, the Trump administration worked to streamline the permitting process for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities. Many of these had been delayed or paused during the Biden administration—not entirely stopped, but those in earlier planning stages encountered additional hurdles.
The importance of LNG was made painfully clear during the winter of 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia assumed that cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe would break European resolve, paralyze their economies, and allow Moscow to take Ukraine with minimal resistance from the EU.
But the world had learned its lesson. The ability of the U.S.—and other global producers—to redirect LNG cargoes to Europe was instrumental in thwarting that energy weaponization. That response was only possible because the U.S. had become a major global hydrocarbon supplier. Now, the Trump campaign is signalling a desire to enhance that capacity further.
Jacobsen: What about Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” rhetoric? Does that hold weight in today’s oil economy?
Hirs: Not really. It makes for a catchy sound bite, but it is not economically sound. The U.S. is a high-cost producer in the global oil market. We are the marginal producer—not the swing producer. The swing producer is the one that can flood or cut off supply to control pricing. The marginal producer fills in gaps at the edges of supply.
Saudi Arabia can produce oil for as little as $5 per barrel in its cheapest fields, and even its higher-cost fields are still profitable at around $30 per barrel. The U.S. cannot win a price war with OPEC or OPEC+ countries. So, while “drill, baby, drill” may energize a crowd, it does not change global oil dynamics. It won’t move the needle.
Jacobsen: Trump has also pledged to lower electricity prices nationwide. Is that promise economically feasible?
Hirs: No, not at all. The reality is sobering. Before we discuss a complete energy transition, we must first consider the current state of the existing infrastructure. Mason Willrich, former co-chair of the California Independent System Operator, estimated that the U.S. would need to invest approximately $2 trillion to maintain the status quo of its electrical grid.
Our coal-fired power plants are, on average, over 50 years old. Natural gas plants average more than 30 years. These facilities are aging and breaking down. Some regional electricity markets have not delivered a return on capital in more than 20 years. We are entering a phase of rising demand and outdated infrastructure that is severely in need of improvement.
If that combination persists, we will soon see a supply gap that the U.S. cannot meet, resulting in the inability to meet the energy needs of both residential and commercial consumers. And to date, the administration—any administration—has not offered a clear or constructive plan to confront this looming challenge.
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): 2025/07/03
Gregory Blatt, co-founder of H55 and a key figure behind the Solar Impulse legacy, leads one of the world’s foremost electric aviation companies. In this in-depth conversation, Blatt discusses H55’s inclusion in TIME’s Top 250 GreenTech Companies of 2025 and the broader implications for clean mobility. He highlights the Bristell B23 Energic’s low-emission, low-noise profile, emphasizing its benefits for flight schools and densely populated areas. Blatt outlines H55’s strategy for certification in Europe and the U.S., as well as its scalability through modular electric propulsion systems and partnerships with firms such as Piper, CAE, and RTX. He also addresses the economic and climate benefits of electrification, advocating for a pragmatic approach to the energy mix. With growing pilot demand and rapid innovation, H55 is helping redefine aviation for a more sustainable future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we are here with Gregory Blatt, and we are going to explore a few questions. You have been included in TIME’s list of the World’s Top 250 GreenTech Companies of 2025. What does this recognition signify for the future of electric aviation?
Gregory Blatt: Well, there are a few critical aspects to this recognition by TIME magazine, and you have already pointed to one of them.
First, it is the recognition of a small Swiss company and the work we are doing in electric aviation. H55 is based in Sion, Switzerland, and we operate in a highly specialized sector. Only four Swiss companies made TIME’s Top 250 list, so being among them shows that, in our own focused and mission-driven way, we are gaining global recognition for the advancements we have achieved. That includes our legacy from the Solar Impulse project, and the work we are doing now—most notably, developing certified electric propulsion and battery management systems.
By next year, we will be the first company to bring a certified electric propulsion system to the general aviation market. That is a milestone not just for us but for the industry.
Second, TIME’s recognition reflects a broader understanding of what clean mobility can look like. Typically, when people think of mobility, they think of cars. However, clean mobility extends far beyond terrestrial transportation. H55 demonstrates that sustainable aviation is not only possible but already operational with the technology having been de-risked.
Notably, TIME is examining clean mobility as a comprehensive trend. They are not treating this as a fleeting innovation or an experimental idea like Apple’s Newton, which was ahead of its time but did not last. Instead, they see clean aviation as a viable and necessary technological shift. It is not a gadget—it’s a long-term solution offering economic, technological, and societal benefits.
Of course, we’re not the only ones in the space. Other companies are building electric aircraft—whether fixed-wing planes, VTOLs, or flying taxis. Some are working on charging infrastructure or subcomponents. H55 is focused on the electric propulsion systems that power these aircraft.
This recognition also serves as a signal that clean aviation is a serious and rapidly expanding industry. On our end, H55 has already hired around 120 engineers in Switzerland and Canada—many in roles that didn’t even exist five or seven years ago. That’s a powerful example of how clean tech is not just an environmental necessity but also an economic opportunity.
And maybe this is a broader point, but we need to stop framing environmental protection as a cost. It’s also a generator of jobs and innovation. In our case, it’s producing skilled engineering roles in entirely new domains.
That’s why I prefer to call it cleantech, not just green tech. The focus is on building scalable, efficient, zero-emission solutions—and they’re already here. Because when we think of it that way, we see it as an economic impetus—not just the cost of doing business. Sorry, that was a long answer to your question.
Jacobsen: Why is it important for H55 to be present in the United States right now, and how does the Across USA Tour support your mission? Where can people follow the tour and learn more?
Blatt: We’re bringing fully electric flight to general aviation and pilot training as we embark on the H55 Across USA tour. The tour began in April at the Sun ’n Fun Aerospace Expo in Florida and runs through early August, covering eight states. Powered by H55’s electric propulsion system (EPS), the Bristell B23 Energic airplane—is an all-electric 2-seater designed for pilot training, general aviation and regional transport.
H55 began its journey in Florida earlier this year as part of an 8-state U.S. tour showcasing the future of clean, quiet, and sustainable flight. Each stop is designed to highlight H55’s electric propulsion system—motor, inverter, battery modules, and energy and power management systems—while engaging key stakeholders across the aviation ecosystem.
The goal of the H55 Across USA tour is to accelerate the shift toward cleaner, quieter, more efficient, and more affordable aviation. We’re doing that by showcasing our certified electric propulsion systems and aircraft integration solutions designed for general aviation and regional transport. Along the way, we’re engaging with flight schools and aeroclubs, airports and fixed base operators (FBOs), maintenance, repair, and overhaul providers (MROs), aerospace universities, military academies, and aviation enthusiasts across the country.
As of our third tour stop at Signature Aviation in Scottsdale, Arizona, we passed a big milestone—over 100 U.S. landings, officially reaching 104 upon our return to Falcon Field that day.
We’ve just completed our fourth stop in Las Vegas, and next we’re heading to Palo Alto, California, before heading back east. Next, we visit Colorado Springs, Oshkosh for EAA AirVenture, the largest fly-in in North America, and then The Hamptons to end the tour. You can follow the full journey, meet the team, learn how to join us at our next stops, and trace our journey from the groundbreaking Solar Impulse project at https://across-usa.h55.ch.
Jacobsen: The Bristell B23 Energic is intriguing regarding electric pilot training. What are the technical advantages that make it viable for widespread adoption today?
Blatt: Okay, now you’re going to have me talking for three days! Let’s start with the obvious low-hanging fruit—societal, environmental, and noise-related advantages.
First, no pollution, no noise. That’s a big win for flight training schools located near densely populated areas. You know, places where neighbors often complain because aircraft are constantly flying circuits overhead, generating noise all day long. From a societal perspective, this makes a great deal of sense.
Then there’s the pollution factor—zero emissions from the aircraft. But those are the broader societal benefits.
Now, let’s talk about the economic advantages. An electric airplane has far fewer moving parts and is much less complex than its combustion-engine equivalent. That significantly reduces maintenance needs. You don’t have to change out an engine every 2,500 hours, which you would with a similarly sized combustion aircraft used in training.
You also avoid fuel costs—no Avgas is required. So, from an operational standpoint, electric flight is highly cost-effective compared to combustion.
From a pilot training perspective, there are additional technical benefits that the general public might not immediately think of. For example, in Arizona, flight schools typically consume between 1.6 and 2.4 gallons of fuel just during lineup time—while idling and waiting to take off. We don’t have that issue. In a conventional training session that uses about 16 gallons, only 14 are used for flying, and two go to waste during idle time. With the B23 Energic, all your energy goes directly into the flight. There’s no idle fuel burn.
There’s also the reduced noise issue, which flight instructors love. Less noise means less stress for students and a better learning environment. There’s no need to mix oil and fuel, and the aircraft handles high altitudes and temperatures without added complexity. It’s a much simpler, cleaner training experience for flight schools.
The feedback has been incredibly positive. Since starting our U.S. campaign, we’ve completed more than 110 landings. The reviews—and I say this objectively because the testimonials are public, and we’re not using AI to filter them—have been overwhelmingly favourable.
Pilots love it. They love the responsiveness, the quietness, and the sleek, modern look of the aircraft—it appeals to the next generation of pilots. Whether for economic, societal, or operational reasons, they consistently tell us it makes training easier and more enjoyable. For students already juggling a lot when learning to fly, the B23 Energic simplifies the process.
Jacobsen: How does H55 balance the demands of regulatory certification with the pace of technological innovation in electric propulsion?
Blatt: At H55, from the beginning, we made a clear commitment: we are developing certified electric propulsion systems. And we’ll be the only company to have a certified electric propulsion system—by the end of this year or the beginning of next year—in Europe. Then, about a year later, we expect certification in the United States.
You can look at certification in two ways, Scott. One way to view it is as a cost of doing business—it takes time, you have to prove everything, and it can feel bureaucratic. And to a certain extent, that’s understandable. After all, you’re introducing new technologies, and regulators need to ensure that they work, are safe, and are reliable. That’s their job.
But I look at it differently. I see certification as a source of innovation. It pushes us to refine and improve. Most of our patents—our strongest intellectual property— come out of the certification process. That’s where the know-how builds.
Even before certification, we had extensive operational experience. With Solar Impulse, we flew 50,000 kilometres across more than 40 countries. We completed the task safely, with no incidents. We brought the pilots home safely and returned the aircraft to excellent condition. That experience gave us a deep understanding of safety, which we’ve carried forward.
So, certification is not just a regulatory hurdle—it’s a necessary step toward broad adoption. It ensures safety and builds trust. We’re very comfortable with that. As I mentioned, EASA has confirmed that we will be the first company in Europe to have a certified electric propulsion system. We expect that to be finalized by early next year, and FAA certification will likely follow 12 to 18 months later.
Jacobsen: What feedback have you received from the Across USA Tour—from flight schools and military academies?
Blatt: It’s funny—military personnel are flying it as we speak. We were recently at Maxwell Air Force Base with the aircraft, and about 20 U.S. Air Force pilots flew it.
And the feedback, Scott—they liked it. They appreciated the responsiveness. It’s like driving an electric car: an immediate reaction with smooth control. They enjoyed the quietness, the ergonomics, and the way the airplane handles. It flies very well.
They also understood the economics immediately, which is crucial in aviation. Everything is measured in terms of cost of ownership and cost per flight hour. And when we present them with the numbers, we show them a business case that’s comparable—if not better—than combustion-engine training aircraft.
There is some infrastructure required, of course. But let’s be honest—it’s solvable. And in fact, it’s already being solved. We made a strategic decision to go with standard DC charging: no proprietary systems, no special cables—just standard, automotive-style chargers.
The FAA has already approved DC charging for airport ground operations, so that is not a regulatory roadblock. It’s more a matter of investment, and that investment is already happening. Chargers range in cost from about $15,000 to $100,000. So, it is not an excessive investment—especially when considering the operational savings.
At Henderson Executive Airport during our Nevada stopover, our host All in Aviation has already installed three or four chargers in their hangars, and they’re planning to install more.
Why? It’s quite simple. When people come to the hangar, it’s an excellent opportunity to charge their cars while they’re flying all day. So, the flight school started with that use case in mind. And beyond that, it just makes sense—most of their auxiliary vehicles, like little trucks, golf carts, and maintenance vehicles on the airport grounds, are already electric. Having chargers on-site supports that ecosystem.
So, in that sense, the charging infrastructure is straightforward. The one challenge some flight schools have encountered relates to where charging takes place. Because of battery thermal sensitivity—especially in hot environments like Las Vegas or Arizona—we see better performance by charging indoors rather than outdoors.
Jacobsen: H55 emphasizes scalability. What aircraft categories are you targeting as part of your scaling strategy?
Blatt: Our Electric Propulsion System (EPS) is being certified under CS-23 in Europe and FAR 23 in the U.S.—the regulatory framework for small aircraft. Specifically, it’s being approved for Levels 1 and 2 aircraft. That includes trainers and two-seaters—light, general aviation aircraft.
The core of our system is modular. The batteries are built as scalable modules. In one aircraft, we might use a specific number of modules in series or parallel, depending on the available volume and the performance requirements of the aircraft.
For example, our technology powers the Bristell B23 Energic. But we’re also working with Piper Aircraft and CAE on the Piper Archer project. It’s the same underlying technology.
The difference is that the Archer is a larger aircraft, so it requires more battery modules. The battery management system (BMS) is designed to accommodate this. It “talks” to the batteries, monitors their health, communicates with the power distribution unit (PDU), and sends real-time data to the pilot on how the cells are performing.
That adapted BMS configuration will need to be certified separately, but we don’t have to recertify the entire propulsion system each time. That’s where the scalability comes in. The system can be applied across multiple platforms with adjustments only to the parts that change.
Once that’s achieved, we open the door to longer ranges, larger aircraft, and even more diverse applications. I’m not sure of the exact term, but in production, you don’t have to re-engineer everything every time. Once you have a production run that works for three or four different aircraft platforms, it becomes much more efficient.
And when you have multiple customers using the same product category, you achieve scalability. Your supply chain becomes more streamlined, costs are reduced, and those savings can be passed along to the customer.
Yes, scalability was something we thought about very carefully when we founded the company.
Jacobsen: What is the current commercial viability of electric propulsion systems in terms of cost savings, reliability, and performance? How does that compare to traditional combustion engines of comparable power?
Blatt: Well, a traditional combustion engine typically needs to be replaced after about 2,500 hours of operation. Our electric motor, on the other hand, lasts up to 5,000 hours.
Electric motors aren’t new—it’s not just Gregory saying that. They’ve been around for a long time, though not widely used in aviation until recently. What we do know is that electric motors are inherently simpler and more efficient.
In a combustion engine—whether in a car or an airplane—only about one-third of the energy from each gallon or litre of fuel goes toward propulsion. One-third is lost to heat in the combustion process, and auxiliary systems like air conditioning, entertainment systems, or avionics consume the other two-thirds of energy.
By contrast, our electric motors operate at an efficiency of 94%. Think about that—94%. That’s a complete game-changer.
Regarding batteries, we currently replace them at approximately 1,500 flight hours. And even then, they’re still in good condition. So, instead of discarding them, we repurpose them for other applications—either in stationary ground systems or through recycling processes. They’re not going to the landfill.
From the operator’s perspective, you’re not burning fuel—you’re investing in technology. We recommend pilots or operators put aside about $100 per hour of flight—about what you’d be spending on fuel and maintenance with a combustion engine. Then, a year or a year and a half later, you’re buying new batteries from us. And those batteries will likely be better because energy density continues to improve with each generation.
That’s a paradigm shift—not just in how you operate the aircraft, but in how you think about depreciation and long-term ownership.
But think about it. A journalist asked me a couple of months ago, “Who’s your biggest competitor?” And I told her, ‘The Gulf Countries‘. She looked at me, clearly expecting an answer like General Electric or Honeywell.
However, when I explained it, she understood. It’s not about competing with other aviation companies. It’s about competing with fossil fuel infrastructure. That money is no longer going into the Sheikh’s pockets—it’s going into technology, and that resonates with people. Investors like it, obviously—because there’s recurring revenue, predictable cost structures, and scalability. But users like it, too.
It’s like consumer tech. You’re always wondering, “Should I buy the new phone now or wait six months for the next model?” And whenever you buy it, it feels like the wrong time. With aviation, that’s changing.
Let me give you an example. When we certify the B23 Energic in Europe, we’re advertising 70 minutes of flight time with reserves. But by the time we certify the same aircraft in the United States—about a year to 18 months later—we expect to advertise a higher endurance. I can’t provide the exact number yet, as we’re still finalizing it, but we’re looking at over 80 minutes.
That’s thanks to improvements in energy density that come with time. And remember, in the training market, airplanes often stay in service for 30 or 35 years. That means we can expect real improvements in performance and economics over the aircraft’s lifetime.
Jacobsen: What strategic partnerships or investments have enabled H55’s breakthroughs?
Blatt: That’s a great question. We’re fortunate to have an exceptional cap table comprising investors from diverse sectors who share our long-term vision for clean aviation.
It began with Silicon Valley investors who became familiar with us through the Solar Impulse project. Then came strategic partners like Raytheon—RTX is one of our investors. We also have an aircraft leasing company involved, and with them, we’re exploring “power-by-the-hour” models. That could be especially useful for smaller flight schools that might not have the capital for complete aircraft acquisition but can operate on a usage-based model.
The government of Quebec is also a strategic investor. We’re based in Montreal, and Quebec views batteries as a key industrial sector—similar to how Nevada focuses on lithium. They’ve supported us with grants and loans and eventually decided to take an equity stake to be more directly involved.
We also have backing from some major family offices in Europe. Interestingly, a few of them built their wealth in traditional natural resources—such as mining and energy—and now, with second- or third-generation leadership, they’re diversifying into clean tech. That’s encouraging. It shows a generational shift toward sustainability and innovation.
We have a fantastic cap table—accessible and well-aligned. I’m part of different cofounder networks, and honestly, many founders complain about their investors. But we’re very fortunate. Our investors are incredibly engaged in the project. They feel more like friends, colleagues, and even team members than just investors.
Sometimes, I forget they’re investors because they’re so involved and genuinely passionate about the project. You can probably hear that in my voice and see it in the way I ask questions—everyone at this company is deeply committed to what we’re doing. It’s more than a job.
That passion started with Solar Impulse, and that same DNA has carried through into H55. It’s part of who we are.
Jacobsen: How could the electrification of flight contribute to international climate goals over the next decade?
Blatt: That’s an important question. Aviation sometimes gets an unfair share of the blame when it comes to emissions. Depending on who you ask, aviation contributes around 2.5% to 4–5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not insignificant, but it’s not the majority either.
To put things into perspective, 200 of the world’s largest supertankers emit more pollution than all of the world’s cars combined. So, it’s essential to keep the aviation industry’s emissions in context.
Part of the reason aviation gets so much criticism is because of private aviation—luxury jets that are fast, expensive, and consume much fuel. Therefore, there is a social equity element to the critique. However, the commercial aviation sector has made substantial progress over the years. Because of the industry’s sensitivity to fuel prices, there’s been continuous innovation—in materials science, design, aerodynamics, and now propulsion.
We’re currently working with Pratt & Whitney Canada and De Havilland on a hybrid-electric demonstrator based on the 49-seat Dash 8. That aircraft will deliver a 30% fuel savings just by integrating hybrid-electric systems. That’s a significant breakthrough for feeder and regional markets.
So, yes, every one of your questions touches on economics because aviation is deeply tied to the economy. That’s why innovation occurs quickly when there is a cost-saving incentive. And electric propulsion is delivering those incentives.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that people are travelling more now than they did before COVID-19 the pandemic. At the same time, ticket prices per mile have increased significantly. And we’re training more pilots now than ever before. That’s partly due to retirements in developed countries, but it’s also because general aviation is expanding in new markets—across the Middle East, the Gulf, parts of Asia, and especially India and China.
Electrification can play a significant role in making that growth more sustainable. So yes, by definition, that 4–5% contribution from aviation to global emissions may increase as more people fly. However, at the same time, the aviation industry is making significant strides—both through traditional advancements and innovative concepts—to reduce its carbon footprint.
Jacobsen: Gregory, thank you for your time.
Blatt: Got it. And thank you again, Scott. It’s been a pleasure.
Jacobsen: Likewise. And I appreciate your time today.
Blatt: You’re welcome. I can only commend you for these kinds of initiatives and the articles you’re writing. You have our full support.
Jacobsen: Likewise. Thank you again.
Blatt: 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): 2025/07/02
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 vs. 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 from 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, not 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). Eisler shares her personal journey and groundbreaking systems analysis that redefines how we understand politics, economics, gender, and social change. Drawing from her childhood escape from Nazi-occupied Austria, Eisler explains her framework of the domination-partnership social scale. She argues that genuine transformation requires examining four cornerstones: family and childhood, gender roles, economic values, and cultural narratives/language. Highlighting how authoritarian structures perpetuate violence and trauma, she calls for a shift toward partnership systems rooted in empathy, equity, and relations of mutuality rather than in-group versus out-group thinking and acting. Eisler’s work invites us to rethink progress through a truly whole-systems perspective. This interview was conducted June 21, 2025.
Riane Eisler: Would you like me to begin with a personal note? Because that is what I would like to do.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Please do.
Eisler: Well, I have a great deal of passion for this work of systems analysis and for spreading what I call the partnership-domination social scale—a new way of looking at the world. That’s where it all starts: our worldview and how we live in this world. Systems can change from what I have called a domination-oriented to a partnership-oriented model. That passion is deeply rooted in my childhood.
And, yes, I include childhood and family—areas that are not usually part of the conventional discourse about politics, economics, climate change, and so on—in my analysis as fundamental. It began in my childhood. I was born in Vienna, Austria, and as a small child, I and my parents fled the Nazis after the German annexation of Austria in 1938. That experience—escaping the horrors that many did not escape—shaped me profoundly.
I witnessed cruelty and violence firsthand. I remember the night when the Gestapo came to our home and took my father away. But I also saw what I now call spiritual courage. My mother found the courage to resist out of love. She recognized one of the men as a young Austrian who had once run errands for the family business, she confronted him and demanded the release of my father. My mother could have been arrested or killed. Many Jewish people were rounded up or killed that night. It was during the November pogrom, known as Kristallnacht—”the Night of Broken Glass”—because of all the glass shattered in Jewish homes, synagogues, and businesses. By a miracle—and yes, by bribing the officials—she succeeded in having my father released.
Seeing these two human possibilities—cruelty and compassion—led me to a lifelong question that underlies my research: Does it have to be this way? Must there be so much cruelty, insensitivity, and violence when humans have such an enormous capacity for caring, empathy, and peace? It is revealing, is it not, that we do not even have a word for nonviolence that does not contain the word “violence”?
Years later, to answer whether domination is inevitable or whether an alternative is possible—given our human capacity for caring, consciousness, and connection—I embarked on a whole-systems analysis. I realized immediately that I could not answer my childhood questions using the usual categories: right and left, religious and secular, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, capitalist and socialist. After all, history shows us brutal, oppressive, and authoritarian regimes under every one of these labels. So, none of these categories tells us what we must build instead.
And here is something that might surprise you: I realized that what I—and much of social discourse—had long taken for granted, namely the marginalization or outright neglect of family relations and childhood, needed to be brought to the very center of our understanding of social systems and cultural transformation.
The marginalization—at best—of nothing less than the majority of humanity, namely women and children, is central. We cannot understand human societies without examining our origins and our families. Children usually spend their earliest and most formative years within families, right? As I write in my latest book, Nurturing Our Humanity, which came out with Oxford University Press in 2019, we know this from nothing less than neuroscience. We know that our brains are not fully formed at birth and that we acquire our worldviews—our paradigms, if you will—long before we have fully developed brains, much less mature critical capacities.
To make a long story short, this systems analysis led me to define two primary cultural configurations: the partnership system and the domination system. Of course, no society is completely oriented to one or the other; there is always a mix. However, these configurations encompass family, gender relations, and other domains that we have been taught—and are still taught—to marginalize. We cannot understand our past, our present, or—most importantly—the possibilities for our future, without a systems analysis that connects these dots. That is what led me to develop the partnership-domination social scale.
Jacobsen: When you are looking at this partnership-domination social scale, what are the key factors that form its core structure—the elements that everything else tends to grow from?
Eisler: Well, I will start with some examples. If you look at the Taliban and fundamentalist Iran—both Eastern religious societies—or if you look at Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or Putin’s Russia today, or even the new regime here in the United States right now, they all lean heavily toward the domination side of the spectrum. Even though they differ in religion, geography, or ideology—Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern, secular, religious, and so on—think about it for a moment: what do they all have in common?
First—and this takes us back to the fundamentals—they share a top-down, authoritarian structure in both the family and society at large, including their economic systems. Why have we not been taught to include this in our analyses? Yet, as I said, neuroscience shows us that nothing less than our early experiences shape our brains. The second factor is gender, which again has been marginalized.
Gender is not just a so-called “women’s issue” or now also a “men’s issue”—which, of course, makes it an issue for everyone, including those who do not fit neatly into either category. Gender is a fundamental organizing principle in families, societies, and economies. All of these foundational elements are interconnected, and there are four main ones.
First, we have the structure of family and childhood, which largely shapes the structure of society because the two are intrinsically connected. Second, we have gender. What do children learn in a family or culture that leans toward the domination side? They learn to equate difference—starting with the difference in form between the male and female body—with rigid gender stereotypes and strict hierarchies, leaving no room for anything in between. And they learn to rank male and “masculine” over female and feminine. They learn to equate this difference with superiority or inferiority, with dominating or being dominated, with serving or being served.
So, what you get in domination systems—beginning with gender—is in-group versus out-group thinking. Our human capacity for empathy, which is an evolutionary trait, must either be suppressed entirely for the out-group or, at best, compartmentalized.
Now, the third element—and this is crucial—is violence. Domination systems are fundamentally maintained through fear and the threat or infliction of pain. This has numerous ramifications, as I have emphasized, because all these elements are interconnected. Domination-oriented societies have built-in mechanisms to perpetuate themselves through various forms of abuse—ranging from violence against women and children to abuse in workplaces to organized social violence such as warfare, pogroms, and lynchings.
Consider again the Taliban: their oppression is deeply rooted in rigid gender control. The same is true of Iran under Khomeini and other fundamentalist regimes. Hitler’s Nazi regime placed enormous emphasis on controlling women and enforcing strict gender roles—though this aspect is often overlooked in mainstream discourse because, whether people lean left or right politically, our dominant economic and political theories have long marginalized gender. Marx, for instance,considered the so-called “woman question” secondary to the “working man’s” struggle –though he might have thought differently today, given the progress of international women’s movements and shifts in consciousness,.
The fourth element is what stories are considered normative. Many of our inherited stories about human nature come from rigid, authoritarian, violent dominator times. They teach us that human nature is inherently bad or selfish. But this is simply untrue. The entire debate of “nature versus nurture” is misleading: it is not nature or nurture—it is nature and nurture. Nurture determines, as some of the research I cite in Nurturing Our Humanity shows, which of our genetic potentials are expressed or suppressed.
Genes do play a role, but they constantly interact with what is fundamentally a human creation: culture. Look at stories like blaming Eve or Pandora for all of humanity’s ills—these myths perfectly reflect the marginalization of women and reinforce the domination system’s worldview. So, we must begin questioning these stories, connecting the dots, and bringing back into focus what has long been ignored: childhood, family, and gender.
Once we do this, we have a framework for both tactics—addressing the constant crises domination systems produce—and for strategies—building long-term change. This is why my work identifies four cornerstones: family and childhood, gender, economics (specifically, what we reward and label as productive or unproductive work), and story and language.
It is so telling, is it not, that so much of what we consider “productive” ignores what sustains life? Caring and connection are vital from the moment we are born. Yet, in many economic models, this essential work is undervalued or invisible. Therefore, redefining what we consider productive or reproductive labour is crucial. And, of course, how we use stories and language shapes everything.
Jacobsen: So, what about the axes of individuals? Do you feel or think that we need to create new stories when many freer societies are, in various ways—though not in every respect—moving away from dominator structures and processes, whether you are talking about individuals or how society sees itself and functions?
Eisler: Absolutely. But before we can present or create new stories, we need a transformation of our worldview. I know that is possible because it happened to me. I have a background also as an attorney. One day, the partner in the Beverly Hills entertainment law firm I was working for called me into his office to compliment me—or so he thought. He said, “You don’t think like a woman.”
I took it as a compliment at the time. That shows you where my consciousness was—I identified with the so-called masculine. This segregation into so-called “feminine” and “masculine” qualities is something we need to reexamine. And we are seeing this change all around us again and again. Think of all the men today who are fathering in ways that were once seen as exclusively mothering—diapering babies, feeding babies.
This is fundamental. As I have mentioned, it serves as an organizing principle for families, societies, and economies.
Jacobsen: Are there areas that you find are still understudied about this theoretical framework for analyzing systems of partnership and domination in the world?
Eisler: You have to consider what real whole-systems analysis entails—and what often passes for it. I was, by the way, exposed to that very early in my career. One of my first jobs was with an offshoot of the RAND Corporation, the Systems Development Corporation. This was eons ago. They thought they were doing systems work, but, of course, they were leaving out gender. They were leaving our family. They were leaving out childhood. They were not connecting the dots. But the concept of systems stayed with me.
Even being trained as an attorney, which I am, taught me systems thinking. In law school, you are taught how to brief a case. But in reality, a client does not come to you and say, “Please apply Section 1222 of this or that code to my situation.” The client comes with a story, and it is up to the attorney to determine which laws, precedents, regulations, and statutes apply.
I had extensive training in systems analysis. When I discovered feminism—which I fully embrace, though I often avoid the term because it can sound separatist—I realized we need to transform gender stereotypes for both women and men. Men do not have it so good in a domination system either. Just think about it.
You have to give your whole self—nothing less than your life—because some man at the top, like Putin, demands it. Right? And this is fundamental: to be considered a “real man” in domination systems, you have to suppress your humanity.
Jacobsen: Yes. So it is not only women who suffer—it is men, too. Would you argue, then, that in domination-oriented societies, this suppression of men’s humanity is not only required but is actually at the root of the system?
Eisler: Oh, it is required, and my analysis shows how it is systematically suppressed. I was interviewed by Scientific American, for example, not long ago about why there is such a strong connection between trauma in families—where it all starts—and authoritarian societies. Yes, many leaders of institutions that are regressing toward domination are themselves deeply traumatized. But really, we are all traumatized to some degree in domination systems.
Domination systems are trauma factories. They begin with the misallocation of resources. There is always money for the so-called “masculine”—for wars, for weapons, and so on. However, there is somehow never enough money for caring for people, particularly for caring for children. This makes no sense. Yet, it is deeply embedded in the system.
So, when you do accurate systems analysis, you must connect the dots. You cannot just point at one factor and say, “This is the cause.” We are hosting a summit called “Peace Begins at Home” on October 29, 2025. We will feature speakers from around the world. It is an amazing virtual event—and you, of course, are invited. The point of it is to emphasize that we cannot keep using only linear cause-and-effect thinking. For complex living systems, we need to draw on newer theoretical frameworks, such as chaos theory, nonlinear dynamics, and self-organization theory.
My work relates to these. That is not to say that linear analysis has no value, there are always intervening variables. But if we study living systems like societies, we miss the point if we fail to connect their key components. I have introduced a new methodology: the study of relational dynamics.
First, what kinds of relationships does a given type of society encourage or suppress? That is a fundamental question. Second, how do the major components of that society interconnect to either support or inhibit a particular pattern of relationships across all its institutions? That is genuine whole-systems analysis—and it is not as complicated as some think.
The real struggle for our future is not between right and left. Look at Stalin’s regime, for example—his wife committed suicide because of how deeply entangled he was in maintaining a domination system. This connects to the larger structure. The real struggle is between the regression and perpetuation of domination systems and the advancement of partnership systems.
Those invested in domination have a very coherent worldview that starts with controlling family and childhood—how you”raise” your children. Gender is a massive piece of it, yet it is so fragmented in our mainstream discourse. We must integrate all of this to see the whole picture.
Jacobsen: Including economics?
Eisler: Economics, as practiced in domination systems, is domination economics—whether it is an ancient Chinese emperor, an Arab sheikh, an Indian maharaja, a feudal lord, or so-called neoliberalism, which is neither new nor liberal. They are geniuses at co-opting terms and coining phrases that mask reality. What is neoliberalism? It conditions people to accept a system in which those at the bottom must content themselves with the scraps that, quite literally, in feudal times fell from the opulent tables of those at the top.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts for this first session based on the overview we have just covered?
Eisler: Well, this overview must end with the four cornerstones. Because without addressing them, we are just treading water. I was speaking to a friend of mine who now works to help progressive NGOs defend themselves against hacking, surveillance, and appropriation. This is true—it is big business under the current system. But it does not fundamentally change anything.
We have to understand, as I said earlier, that the real struggle for our future is not between right and left, religious and secular, Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern. There are religious movements, such as Unitarian Universalism, which are very accepting. The Baháʼí Faith tries to move in that direction. Some mystical traditions focus on the core teachings of Jesus—on caring and compassion, the so-called feminine principles. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But in most religions, scriptures also contain overlays of domination teachings.
The struggle for our future lies between regression to domination—anchored in a concrete framework that encompasses childhood, gender, economics, narrative, and language—and the move toward a partnership system. Examine our fragmented movements: the gender equality movement, the environmental movement, the relatively recent children’s rights movement, the push for economic equity, and the movement to value diversity. Why do you think there is such an effort now in the United States to dismantle diversity policies? It is all related. The opposition has a coherent frame. We, so far, do not—and we are scattered. Without a coherent worldview, without a cohesive frame, we are floundering.
Jacobsen: Riane, I just wanted to say—thank you so much for your time today.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Public policy researcher Dr. Daniel Wortel-London explores how AI reshapes urban planning by echoing historical growth patterns, inequality, and innovation. Drawing on his forthcoming book The Menace of Prosperity, he compares the rise of AI to earlier technological shifts like highway expansion and the postwar white-collar economy. While AI offers tools for participatory budgeting and data-driven decisions, it also risks reinforcing existing biases. Dr. Wortel-London urges communities to engage early in AI governance and to prioritize inclusive, equitable growth—challenging the myth that all growth is inherently good or sustainable.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Dr. Daniel Wortel-London. He is a public policy researcher and historian currently serving as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Bard College. His work focuses on twentieth-century economic and urban policy and the historical roots of inequality and economic development in New York City. He is completing a book titled The Menace of Prosperity: The Rise and Fall of the American City, 1865–1981, forthcoming from the University of Chicago Press later this year.
His scholarship has appeared in top academic journals and media outlets, including The Washington Post and Jacobin. A recipient of prestigious fellowships, Dr. Wortel-London has taught at institutions such as NYU and CUNY and held roles in policy research and museum curation. He is based in New York City. Thank you for joining me today. Let me find my notes—here they are. So, how is AI being integrated into urban planning initiatives?
Dr. Daniel Wortel-London: From the nineteenth century on, cities have used new technologies—from census-taking to social statistics—to promote growth and livability. AI continues this trend, though its adaptive, learning capabilities make it especially powerful—and potentially disruptive
A century ago, efforts were made to revolutionize municipal data management. Innovations in census-taking and the development of social statistics were used to plan highways, public housing, and other infrastructure. We’re seeing a scaled-up version that applies to new domains like urban sustainability. Of course, contemporary concerns—such as data privacy—also have historical parallels.
From a historical standpoint, today’s integration of AI reflects a long-standing goal of cities: to achieve economic growth, improve transportation and administrative efficiency, and enhance overall livability. My forthcoming book focuses on this evolution from 1865 to 1981. AI, of course, is a different kind of technology—it’s not just a tool like a calculator or database. It’s adaptive, autonomous in specific contexts, and capable of learning and evolving, making it powerful and potentially disruptive.
Jacobsen: How is artificial intelligence applied in urban contexts beyond planning? You mentioned historical parallels—are there similarities in the types of societal adaptations required now compared to those between 1865 and 1981?
Wortel-London: Absolutely. Cities have historically had to adapt to shifting environmental and infrastructural demands. For example, New York needed to secure fresh water in the mid-nineteenth century as its population rapidly expanded. Later, new management systems and public investments addressed challenges like traffic congestion, overcrowded housing, and public health crises. These responses often operated within constraints—many of which persist today. Chief among them is the emphasis on economic growth.
For instance, proposals to solve environmental problems are frequently limited by concerns over property values or the risk of wealthier residents and businesses relocating. That was true in the nineteenth century during the construction of the Croton Aqueduct system and remains true now in debates around renewable energy infrastructure and circular economy models.
In short, adaptability has always been essential to urban life. Cities are dynamic organisms, constantly changing in response to internal and external pressures. My book tries to explain how certain assumptions are baked into the DNA of many cities—assumptions that often persist and constrain our responses to challenges. These assumptions can prevent us from thinking more creatively about how to build vibrant, livable cities.
Of course, possibilities always have to adapt to economic conditions. One specific example from the early twentieth century is the introduction of the car—the Model T—and the associated transformations. That shift replaced the horse as the primary mode of transportation. There was even a whole industry built around cleaning up horse manure, which had been a major urban problem in many cities.
Jacobsen: YDo you see a less explicit version of that transformation with the shift toward an AI-driven technological environment? Are there specific changes that are just as vast, particularly with the loss of entire industries?
Wortel-London: As a professor, I see my students using ChatGPT, but I won’t name names.
Jacobsen: But we know who you are.
Wortel-London: [Laughing] Yes, we know. Students are using AI in new and interesting ways. The danger of automation—a serious concern for factory workers in the 1950s and 60s—is now equally a threat to many creative or finance-based professions.
Entire fields like law, academia, tech, and healthcare are seeing how AI development could lead to job displacement in cities. This presents a real risk for towns that have bet heavily on white-collar, professional-based economies to carry them forward. That strategy has been in place at least since the 1950s.
Before that, in the 1920s, many cities had placed their bets on real estate growth. The Great Depression showed that this alone was not a stable foundation. So after World War II, cities began to think: we’ll still need people doing business together. We need to find the most profitable use of dense urban space.
They believed that use was white-collar work—an early version of today’s “creative economy” arguments. They thought bringing people together in cities would allow them to make faster and better decisions.
But honestly, white-collar work today could be what industrial work was in the 1950s—an economy based on specific technologies or spatial arrangements that are not necessarily permanent. Like the internet, AI can diminish the city’s centrality for some kinds of jobs.
You can see that we’re talking right now over Zoom rather than in a coffee shop. But yes, cities face a real challenge in rethinking their economic raison d’être in the age of AI—and the threat of job displacement that may accompany it.
You can make a city efficient, but that does not necessarily mean employing people. And the deeper, more fundamental point we’re getting at is this: not all growth is good.
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, recently said that “growth solves all problems in democracy.” That is, metaphorically speaking, a flat-rate philosophical and economic opinion—which seems untenable in its simplicity. What is the more complicated, more accurate statement?
Wortel-London: On an environmental level, you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. That is a physical reality. You cannot have unlimited access to anything – there will be diminishing returns. That’s the second law of thermodynamics—there’s eventually a limit to how much energy, or “juice,” you can squeeze from this planet.
But beyond the environmental level, growth always comes with costs.
When cities built highways in the 1950s, they assumed this would be an “efficient,” cost-neutral activity. However, many of those highways bulldozed neighbourhoods and displaced taxpaying residents and businesses, and cities did not fully feel those impacts until the fiscal crises of the 1970s.
Even in the 1950s, people like Jane Jacobs could sense that something was deeply wrong with these projects. But the powers that be were saying, “Well, this is growth, this is efficiency. Growth and efficiency are good.” In their view, the only solution to the problems caused by growth was more growth.
When we examine the history of development strategies, we see that the logic remains the same: “Growth will pay for itself.” But in truth, the costs of growth—whether pollution, destructive infrastructure, or unaffordable housing—often hit vulnerable urban populations first. Only later do those costs hit the city as a whole. But when they do, cities often find themselves in the position of their poorest neighborhoods: bankrupt.
Jacobsen: So these are the so-called economic externalities. However, the term externalities almost minimizes the issue. It is economical to use the trash bin icon on your desktop.
Wortel-London: It is like a deus ex machina—a way of pretending it will all sort itself out in the end.
Jacobsen: The assumption that “growth solves all problems” essentially says there is only one way to grow the economy. But if we move away from the question “Should we have growth or not?” and instead ask what kind of growth we want, we will have a far more interesting and productive conversation. What do we want growth for? What is the best way to pursue it? From 1865 to 1981, shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union collapsed. Francis Fukuyama was publishing grand books about the “end of history.” So, those kinds of ideological notions were very much in the air. Is there a distinction between what prosperity meant from 1865 to 1981 and what it came to mean from 1982 to 2025?
Wortel-London: From the 1980s until the financial crisis in 2008, the urban development strategy in many cities remained consistent. What you saw, especially in cities, was an ongoing effort to attract and retain high-income individuals and firms under the assumption that their wealth would help fund desirable social services. If that led to gentrification, that was often considered just the cost of doing business.
There were shifts in how people defined urban growth—not just through ballparks, stadiums, or convention centers, but through more pedestrian-friendly areas and Jane Jacobs-style mixed-use development. Still, the underlying target remained the same: wealthier residents—what we once called “yuppies”—those who could raise aggregate property values and provide a strong tax base.
Since 2008, however, we’ve begun to see the limits of that model—not only within cities but across the country. On the one hand, a few coastal cities in the U.S.—and cities like London or Paris in Europe—are absorbing most of the economic growth. The regions left behind are responding with political backlash, blaming an economy that rewards a small elite at the expense of everyone else. On the other hand, cities themselves are becoming more unaffordable as elites cluster into them.
One reaction has been exclusionary nationalism, raising tariffs and pulling the drawbridge. But another approach is to follow the money—asking questions like: Who is buying what in this country? Who has purchasing power? Where is that money going? Is it staying within local communities? Is it supporting small businesses?
AI can help with that. At its best, AI can help us make better decisions about the kinds of economies we want to foster by providing clearer assessments of the costs and benefits of different development strategies. We can use it to analyze whether certain growth types—like stadiums and skyscrapers—actually pay off economically.
Should we invest in a new stadium? Should we give Amazon tax breaks to open a facility in our city? Or should we invest in small businesses, community land trusts, and local ownership models? AI can help us evaluate those options.
But it won’t—as long as AI is used merely to make “business as usual” more efficient. In that context, AI is not intelligent, but dumb: It narrows our imagination and limits our ability to think creatively about how cities can grow differently.
Jacobsen: That’s a subtle but important point. The emphasis is usually on increasing computational power or access to large-scale computing, which was once called “computation.” There’s often a focus on the sophistication of the algorithms because brilliant people are designing them. But when it comes to our use of AI—how it affects our thinking, planning, and imagination—it can be constraining rather than liberating. That part of the conversation is rarely brought up. What about cross-sector collaboration to accelerate innovative, AI-empowered urban ecosystems? I mean collaboration between government, academia, and the tech industry.
Wortel-London: When you say “ecosystem,” are you referring to the natural environment, or are you talking more about policy innovation?
Jacobsen: Policy innovation is needed so that friction in collaboration is minimized. You can touch on some of the previously mentioned externalities.
Wortel-London: Right now, AI has much potential to address some of these challenges. We’re already seeing it in initiatives like participatory budgeting and open data platforms that allow citizens—especially those who may not have traditionally engaged in governance—to participate in decision-making about local initiatives.
To the extent that we can outsource certain governmental activities to civil society, that’s a positive development. However, much of the data involved is still proprietary or exclusive. For example, when data is used in housing, law enforcement, or public contracts, and private entities control it, it hinders collaboration and raises serious privacy concerns. I was listening to a podcast recently. The host talked about sensors capable of detecting “antisocial behaviour.” The question is: Who gets to define that?
Governments should be setting AI risk thresholds, applying a precautionary principle to determine in advance when a given application crosses the line into a rights violation. Should we allow facial recognition technology in public spaces to be governed solely by bureaucrats or private contractors? We should have a say in this, not just bureaucrats and contractors.
So, community representation—across all segments of society—needs to be involved from the beginning in these technologies’ design, rollout, and implementation.
Jacobsen: How can things go wrong in the implementation of these technologies? People may present excellent proposals on paper, but things often do not go as planned when they are implemented. What typically causes that breakdown? Is it that the idea was never viable, or does the concept not translate well into practice?
Wortel-London: One issue with some of these AI-related policies might be that the technology is simply not ready yet. Take, for example, circular economy models and the ability to accurately measure whether a city’s waste is being reused or recycled back into productive systems. That approach could work well, but it has not yet been implemented effectively on a wide scale.
However, I would say the greater danger is when the systems work too well, but within very narrow parameters. In those cases, they tend to reproduce the assumptions and biases embedded in them from the start.
If you use algorithms to promote flawed development strategies, you are making them more straightforward to implement and more challenging to reverse. They’ll be rolled out at such speed and scale that contesting them after the fact becomes much harder.
This also applies to bias in law enforcement. If algorithms are used to prescreen individuals or predict where crime is more likely to occur, they may disproportionately concentrate policing in low-income neighbourhoods.
But what about crimes in finance? What about crimes on Wall Street? Will we redefine crime to include forms of harm that rarely make headlines? The risk is that these tools—rather than expanding our vision—may simply reproduce our existing assumptions.
There’s that old saying: Everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer. In the age of AI, it becomes: when you have AI, everything looks like data. But what ultimately makes cities valuable are the stories and experiences of the people living in them—not all of that can be reduced to ones and zeros.
Think about what Jane Jacobs would say about AI. If there’s anyone who could be considered the patron saint of urbanism, it is her. Her vision of the city was that of a street ballet—a complex, spontaneous choreography of human life. I am not sure there is an algorithm or equation for that.
But it would require flesh-and-blood human interaction. The top-down technocracy that Jane Jacobs opposed in the 1960s is not so different from the kind of technocracy we might face now if we hand over governance decisions to AI without serious public oversight.
So, we need to remember past struggles—against displacement, against highways, against destructive development projects—and ask: how might AI repeat those harms if we’re not careful?
Jacobsen: Daniel, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise—and it was a pleasure to meet you.
Wortel-London: Yes, thank you so much, Scott. I hope some of this was useful.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/07/01
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 holds the position of 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 talks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen dissect Russia’s strategic bombing in Ukraine, its propaganda apparatus, and the West’s hesitant sanctions under Trump’s “two-week” deadline. The conversation then spans Indo-Pacific deterrence—British warships in the Taiwan Strait—and the pitfalls of unconditional ceasefires with Hamas and Iran, revealing critical gaps in modern geopolitical risk management.This interview was conducted on June 21, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we are here with the Everywhere Insiders, joined by New York attorney Irina Tsukerman. Today’s sources include the White House, Reuters, AP News, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the United Nations. A deadly drone strike has hit Kyiv. On June 17, 2025, a massive barrage of drones and missiles destroyed an apartment block in Kyiv, killing at least eighteen people and wounding over 150. As a footnote, I was there from August to September, and during that period, there was a significant attack in Poltava. We were there within a few hours. BBC’s team was there, Al Jazeera’s team was there—many media outlets covered it the same day.
I believe the final numbers for that strike were approximately fifty-nine killed and about 328 injured. One of the targets was a medical facility.
Irina Tsukerman: A few points must be emphasized. First, Russia is losing. A victorious military power does not need to rely on striking civilian infrastructure and non-combatants; it can achieve its objectives through territorial advances alone. Russia has made gains, indirectly aided by Trump’s foreign policy positions, but clearly not enough or quickly enough to secure decisive victories.
Moreover, after the operations, Spiderweb has lost much of its capacity to continue advancing. At some point, its gains will come to an end, and it is anticipating that by causing as much damage as possible in the meantime.
Second, we are now in week eight or nine of Trump’s so-called two-week deadline before he decides whether to sanction Russia over civilian casualties. After infamously asking what happened to Putin, Trump has since offered various excuses for Putin’s civilian attacks, claiming they are retaliation for so-called terrorism, and has done absolutely nothing to stop them by providing Ukraine with additional defensive capacity. He has done the opposite.
He has stated that he would halt assistance to Ukraine entirely and avoid taking any action against Russia. That is precisely what has happened since then. Of course, seeing that it effectively has a green light to keep targeting civilians, Russia will continue doing exactly that — because it is Russia. So yes, Donald Trump bears significant responsibility for these developments because his policies made them possible and have encouraged them in multiple ways, including by providing cover for Russia’s narratives.
I should also note that there are various propagandists for Russia who, no matter how vile their claims, are often labelled as working for other actors like Qatar. It is true that, in some cases, they serve multiple interests. However, many people are reluctant to directly attribute certain propaganda to Russian intelligence, even though it is obvious that some narratives originate there. Qatar has money but lacks Russia’s sophisticated narrative machinery.
So when you see people like Candace Owens and a few others, the fact is that at various points, they were amplified or supported by Russian interests — yet many people are afraid to say that outright. I do not know whether this is to avoid angering Trump or because they are deeply entangled with Russian propaganda networks by now. However, calling someone a Russian propagandist has become almost taboo in Washington circles.
Jacobsen: To your earlier point, Ukraine has managed to halt the Russian advance in Sumy. They announced that they had recaptured the village of Andriivka in the Sumy region, which had been the site of a major Russian offensive near the border. It involved the 220th Separate Assault Regiment. President Zelensky has called for stronger sanctions on Moscow and renewed pressure for peace talks.
Tsukerman: Well, obviously, Putin has shown little genuine interest in peace talks. What is even worse than Putin’s predictable posture is that Trump fled the G7 meeting before meeting with Zelensky — apparently out of fear of facing him. He cut the trip short and claimed he needed to handle an Iran issue, but that was just an excuse. He also tried to avoid President Macron, who was pressing him to take a clear position on Russia.
Trump’s response regarding Iran was to claim that Macron is always wrong about everything and is also wrong about Iran — which may or may not be true, but it had nothing to do with why Trump left the G7. Moreover, Trump has already announced that he will cut his NATO meeting in the Netherlands short, essentially because he does not want to deal with other world leaders.
Moreover, yes, one could say that he is supposedly in the middle of deciding whether or not to launch military strikes on Iran. However, given his recent record with Russia, I suspect we can expect more of the same with Iran as well. In other words, it is just an excuse to avoid awkward situations that would force him to answer for his completely failing policies.
Jacobsen: Two related updates: British warships recently transited the Taiwan Strait, allegedly. The Chinese military criticized the British passage as a deliberate provocation. Meanwhile, Taiwan is enhancing its maritime surveillance capabilities in response to the rising regional tensions. Taiwan has been sounding the alarm about the rise in Chinese military activity around the island, primarily involving warships and warplanes operating in the Pacific near its territorial waters. There were Coast Guard drills in Kaohsiung to demonstrate preparedness. What are your thoughts on the situation — the frigate passage, China’s response, and Taiwan’s countermeasures?
Tsukerman: The British action is only a provocation if you accept the premise that other countries are entitled to threaten their neighbours with the takeover and military force. If you do not accept that, then it is not a provocation at all — it is strategic deterrence and communication, which poses no real threat to China unless China itself intends aggression. If you are not planning to invade someone, there is nothing to be provoked by.
That said, the British have created this contradiction themselves. You cannot simultaneously maintain the “One China” policy and then act surprised when China asserts that Taiwan is part of its sovereign territory. At some point, you have to make up your mind: if you intend to stand with Taiwan, then you must formally recognize it as an independent country and treat it accordingly.
Otherwise, this so-called “strategic ambiguity” invites predictable aggression and allows China to advance its narrative unchallenged because no one is willing to take a clear stand. The same applies to the United States and other Western countries. If they want Taiwan to have the security guarantees and international standing of an independent state, then they must treat it as such.
You cannot have it both ways. This is precisely what China exploits — the fact that Western states want to have their cake and eat it too: maintain profitable trade relations with Beijing while simultaneously offering rhetorical support for Taiwan. That inconsistency undermines deterrence and emboldens China’s position.
Jacobsen: I wanted to follow up on that point. The formal policy for a long time has been, I believe, called the “One China” policy — or is it sometimes phrased as the “Two Chinas”?
Tsukerman: Well, officially, it is called the “One China” policy. Under this framework, most countries formally recognize Beijing as the legitimate government of China but maintain informal relations with Taiwan and treat it as an ally or partner in practice.
Jacobsen: But how can you defend Taiwan under international law if it is not formally recognized as an independent state? If it is considered a non-state actor, and then a state actor moves to take it over, what is the legal or diplomatic basis for stopping that claim?
Tsukerman: That is precisely the contradiction. If you are going to say that Taiwan is not a fully independent territory, then you leave open the door for China to justify its claims. That policy framework — the balancing act — has been in place since the 1970s, codified differently by each country but essentially consistent: diplomatic recognition of Beijing, with unofficial relations maintained with Taipei. Over time, it has only grown more contradictory.
Jacobsen: All right — this next one is more sensitive but also somewhat comical. Trump has now demanded that Iran agree to an unconditional surrender amid the ongoing Israel–Iran war. This has been unfolding between June 17 and June 20. Calls for airstrikes in both Israel and Iran have intensified. People can see that all over social media. As a side note, there is value in having this sort of high-speed, gossip-like global chatter, as it allows people to form rapid impressions. However, it still requires professional journalists and properly trained analysts to filter out the noise and present an accurate, concise, and factual narrative. So context is crucial — people see the missile footage but often do not understand the broader developments.
That is the first point. Then, according to AP, there has been no breakthrough in Europe’s diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the Israel–Iran conflict. They are calling it “Europe’s Geneva Initiative,” but so far, it has yielded no ceasefire agreement.
Tsukerman: It is typical of many European diplomatic pushes.
Jacobsen: What is the problem with the Western perception of this dynamic?
Tsukerman: First of all, two things can be true at the same time: no one should ever be tortured, and at the same time, just because someone has been tortured does not automatically make them a hero. Sometimes, regimes torture their people for political maneuvering or factional reasons — much like how Trump berates or fires his appointees when they fall out of favour.
Take Narges Mohammadi, for example. She began as a legitimate critic of the regime, but in the current context, she has, to some extent, been co-opted by the same regime in exchange for commuting part of her 32-year sentence. She recently issued a statement calling for peace — but without condemning the regime’s nuclear ambitions, its threats against other sovereign states, or acknowledging its fundamental lack of political legitimacy. So, yes — torture does not automatically confer moral infallibility.
Jacobsen: Fair point. Back to the main thread — so, no diplomatic breakthroughs. This one is grim: Human Rights Watch has reported that violations involving children in armed conflict are soaring. They documented over 26,000 verified grave violations against children in 2024 alone, including killings, abductions, and recruitment across various conflict zones. According to reports, this marks a record high, and Human Rights Watch has urged UN member states to enforce child protection measures and sanction those who violate them. That is a sensitive topic — do you have any thoughts on it?
Tsukerman: One of the most significant recent violators in this area is Russia. They have not only been training Russian-born children for conflict through militaristic school programs, but they have also been abducting Ukrainian children and indoctrinating them in school camps, essentially trying to turn them against their families and home communities.
Tsukerman: In this, they are following an Iranian model. Various Iranian proxies — Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas — do precisely the same thing: abducting children of their adversaries, turning them into child soldiers, and then deploying them to terrorize or even murder their own families. It is an extensive process involving psychological breakdown and militant training.
I do not know whether these children can be fully deprogrammed — it likely depends on how young they were when taken, whether they have committed violence, and what stage of indoctrination they are in. I am not an expert on child soldier rehabilitation, but what I can say is that while there has been some attention to Russia abducting Ukrainian children, it is still not enough. Moreover, there is even less discussion about Russia using child soldiers more broadly — both their own and Ukrainian.
Russia is one of the major contributors to these grim statistics. Moreover, they are likely enabling or supporting other groups worldwide that use the same tactics. This is common — states or networks involved in human trafficking, narcotics, or other illicit activities often overlap and cooperate when it suits them.
So, if the international community truly wants to end child soldier recruitment, it must hold state actors accountable across the board. Yes, conflicts in Sudan, the DRC, or other parts of Africa may seem separate from the Russia–Ukraine war. However, you often find Russian military contractors or affiliates operating in those regions, too, enabling child abductions or recruitment because they do not view such practices as unacceptable. They facilitate whatever aligns with their strategic interests. If we want to stop this globally, we have to pursue accountability for all perpetrators everywhere.
Jacobsen: Agreed. We have two more topics. I need to expand the second one because something new has come up. Satellite imagery reportedly reveals the total razing of a town in Gaza. If confirmed, this would suggest potential war crimes, and there are calls for an independent investigation and accountability for those responsible. Thoughts?
Tsukerman: It is essential to be clear: this is not to say that Israel does nothing wrong — they have an internal investigative process and have held individuals accountable, including imprisoning personnel for violations during this war and previous escalations. So, I do not doubt that there will be consequences internally, regardless of external pressure.
That said, I take many of these reports with a large grain of salt. First, because many of these satellite-based reports are made without verifiable on-the-ground evidence, satellite images show destruction. However, they do not show who caused it, under what circumstances, or what combat activities took place before or during the damage.
They do not have direct access to what is happening on the ground. Satellite images taken from high altitudes can be manipulated or misinterpreted, and they often fail to tell the whole story. The reality usually involves Hamas deliberately planting explosives and constructing tunnels beneath entire neighbourhoods, making those areas effectively impregnable to any conventional clearing operation.
Sometimes buildings are destroyed not because there was an intentional strike to flatten them but because a hidden mine or booby trap is triggered inadvertently, setting off a chain reaction that demolishes everything above it. The entire area is rigged to explode — that is a deliberate tactic. This, in itself, is a war crime under international law.
The fact that Hamas has used this tactic systematically — not only in this conflict but in previous ones — means that any statements or media they release must be viewed through that lens. This is how they operate; it is a core part of their command structure and defence strategy.
I have yet to hear anyone propose a viable alternative for neutralizing this tactic without causing large-scale destruction. If everything is booby-trapped, the only way to avoid blowing it up is either to let Hamas remain entrenched or to reach the explosives before they are triggered — which is extremely difficult. So when people claim war crimes have occurred, they should also present practical methods for clearing such areas without detonations. I am sure Israel, the United States, and other stakeholders in the region would welcome workable alternatives; however, I have not seen a single credible plan so far.
Jacobsen: The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has appealed for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire to prevent further civilian suffering amid the escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. There was also — if I recall correctly — a related resolution calling for an unconditional ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. Do you have any thoughts on either of these?
Tsukerman: No objections — that is fine. In any realistic scenario, an unconditional ceasefire would not be a good thing. An unconditional ceasefire with Hamas would mean that the remaining hostages would stay in Hamas’s hands and that Hamas would remain in power, free to regroup and attack civilians again — not only Israeli civilians but also its people.
An unconditional ceasefire with Iran means the regime gets to continue its nuclear program unchecked. If anything, the Secretary-General should be calling for an unconditional end to Iran’s nuclear program, unconditional access for international atomic watchdogs, an unconditional halt to threats against sovereign states, and an unconditional end to the regime’s oppression of its citizens. If he issued those demands, that would have real legitimacy.
Calling for an unconditional ceasefire, however, preserves the regime in its current form, legitimizing the activities that led to this escalation in the first place. It effectively tells the villain of the story that they get to survive and come back to fight another day because civilian suffering supposedly justifies it. However, civilians suffered before the conflict, they suffered during it, and they will continue to suffer if Israel withdraws. At the same time, the same regime remains in power — because this is what illegitimate regimes do: they make their people suffer.
Unfortunately, this also means that if bad actors learn that causing enough civilian suffering guarantees international calls to leave them alone, then every bad actor in the world will likely follow the same strategy. That cannot be allowed to happen. There must be real accountability. In this case, that means, at the very least, the degradation of Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities so it cannot threaten its neighbours — not just Israel, but the entire region — or export weapons elsewhere.
Second, the regime should not continue to enjoy political legitimacy when it came to power through violence and has maintained power through violence for the past forty-six years.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you so much, as always. I will see you next week.
Tsukerman: Thank you. Yes, that sounds good — good luck and safe travels!
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/07/01
“Population growth can exacerbate environmental degradation when it increases pressure on natural resources and generates more waste and emissions. Sustainable development requires policies that balance population trends with economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity.”
World Population Prospects 2022, UN DESA
“Rapid population growth can hinder economic development, especially when it outpaces the provision of essential services and job creation. A stable population supports long-term sustainability.”
World Development Report 2007
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Population growth must be addressed within that context.”
Our Common Future (1987), Brundtland Commission Report
The 2024 revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects (medium-variant series) describes 42 of the 193 UN member states, excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as in absolute demographic decline. The number increases to 48 if micro-states and non-sovereign areas are included.
The 1980s saw two countries enter absolute decline: Hungary and Bulgaria. In the 1990s, 14 countries entered population regression: Albania (1990), Estonia (1990), Latvia (1990), Romania (1990), Armenia (1991), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991), Croatia (1991), Lithuania (1991), Georgia (1992), Belarus (1993), Moldova (1993), Russia (1993), Ukraine (1993), and Serbia (1995).
Eight countries entered regression in the 2000s, slowing down the per-country rate: Barbados (2000), Dominica (2000), Saint Lucia (2000), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000), North Macedonia (2001), Cuba (2006), Andorra (2008), Portugal (2008), and Japan (2008).
Ten countries entered population decline in the 2010s: Greece (2010), Montenegro (2011), Poland (2012), Grenada (2012), Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013), Italy (2014), Slovenia (2014), Trinidad and Tobago (2014), Mauritius (2019), and Tonga (2019).
The 2020s saw seven countries enter this same pattern so far: South Korea (2020), China (2021), Slovakia (2021), Monaco (2022), San Marino (2022), Uruguay (2022), and Seychelles (2023). The chronology is as follows, represented as a consistent bullet point series:
1980s
- Hungary (1980–maybe 1981-1982)
- Bulgaria (1989)
1990s
- Albania (1990)
- Estonia (1990)
- Latvia (1990)
- Romania (1990)
- Armenia (1991)
- Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991)
- Croatia (1991)
- Lithuania (1991)
- Georgia (1992)
- Belarus (1993)
- Moldova (1993)
- Russia (1993)
- Ukraine (1993)
- Serbia (1995)
2000s
- Barbados (2000)
- Dominica (2000)
- Saint Lucia (2000)
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2000)
- North Macedonia (2001)
- Cuba (2006)
- Andorra (2008)
- Portugal (2008)
- Japan (2008)
2010s
- Greece (2010)
- Montenegro (2011)
- Poland (2012)
- Grenada (2012)
- Saint Kitts and Nevis (2013)
- Italy (2014)
- Slovenia (2014)
- Trinidad and Tobago (2014)
- Mauritius (2019)
- Tonga (2019)
2020s
- South Korea (2020)
- China (2021)
- Slovakia (2021)
- Monaco (2022)
- San Marino (2022)
- Uruguay (2022)
- Seychelles (2023)
151 out of 193 member states are not shrinking. Sixty-three have peaked, 42 are shrinking — many only recently, and the rest are growing. Which is to state, based on known data, the apparent conclusion faces us.
The United Nations’ World Population Prospects 2024 approximates a peak of 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in The Lancet estimated a peak of 9.73 billion in 2064, and the Wittgenstein Centre’s 2023 estimate is a peak of 10.13 billion in 2080.
This means 29 years on the earlier extreme up to 64 years on the later extreme until the peak human population. The reality: The likelihood sits somewhere between those antipodean projected extremes. Population decline, as an absolute global issue, will become urgent about two generations from now if population growth is simply the idea.
This is both a that and a why issue. If you argue that population should increase without a reason, then you ignore the most important question: What quality of life is desired for all human beings with the population? This becomes a valuable question for the constituents of global eudaimonia. (Only from the perspective of homo sapiens.)
Having population growth for the sake of more people seems narrow, to say the least. If the only other option is the nihilistic, suicidal decline of the species, then the false dichotomy takes on an international, species-wide caricature. Another option is sustainable population growth. Experts have proposed this.
Until space mining becomes practicable, easily accessible resources on Earth remain finite. Sustainable population growth provides the benefits of resource balance, economic resilience, higher quality of life, environmental protection, social equity, and climate adaptability.
The most significant issue facing humanity is anthropogenic climate change. Climate systems respond to physical inputs, not human governance failures or political boundaries. Growth for growth’s sake is uninformed and valueless. Regression for the desired decline of humanity can be seen as nihilistic, another valuelessness.
Sustainable growth harbours the non-polyannish universalist values of human rights, empiricism of science, and compassion of a humane consideration of every person, young and old. Now, with humanistic values, if we want sustainable growth, what works?
Fundamentally, until synthetic means of human gestation exist, which remain scientifically feasible while complex, universal concern and evidence depict one approximate half of humanity: women, and trans people, with relevant reproductive mechanics intact.
For those who want to have children and for those who want to support their free, uncoerced decision to have children, population dynamics tells us some things: equal parental leave, affordable childcare, flexible family-friendly workplaces, support for dual-earner families, reproductive autonomy and healthcare access, and shared domestic responsibilities.
Another social factor is valuing family and children. Some conservative and libertarian commentators have proposed this. That’s true. However, what better way to support this through funding, policy, and role alignment than by establishing a comprehensive program grounded in the reality of shared values—values that only appear to be superficially or paradoxically opposed?
However, children and families are highly personal and individual choices. Some people believe relationships are not for them. Children are not for them. Thus, the messaging should be informed, culturally appropriate, and targeted in an evidence-based manner to those who want either or both, then providing a culture and infrastructure environment in which the sustainable growth models can flourish, while targeting anthropogenic climate change and other problems.
A values-driven, evidence-based approach to population policy can foster a sustainable and worthwhile world in which people who want children are empowered to have them and humanity grows in balance with nature.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/30
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. Schulman offers timely insights into macroeconomic trends, US fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape. Schulman speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about how oil price swings, tariffs, and ongoing geopolitical tensions are influencing global central bank agendas. Schulman explains how conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have driven up oil prices, complicating inflation forecasts as the Federal Reserve maintains a cautious policy amid persistent quantitative tightening. He discusses how a surprise Fed rate hike could shock markets, contrasts European easing with US strategy, and unpacks the new US Genius Act regulating stablecoins. He also explores whether Bitcoin now acts as a risk barometer rather than a haven. The interview was conducted on June 19. All sources are Reuters.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, oil, war, and tariffs — there is a shake-up in central bank agendas. The ECB, SNB, and BOE are facing uncertainty due to geopolitical tensions. Do you have any thoughts on oil price swings, trade disputes, inflation outlooks, and how these factors interact?
Michael Ashley Schulman: Yes, they are all combining into, I guess you could call it a confusing mix — like a batter bowl of issues. Politicians and central banks are trying to shape policy amid ongoing challenges, including the continuing Russia-Ukraine war, the renewed conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, and the recent spike in oil prices, which have risen by about $10 to $15 a barrel.
The key question is whether these prices will stabilize at a level that is manageable or if they will continue to rise, potentially becoming unsustainable. Historically, whenever there is conflict in the Middle East, Brent crude prices rise — and if tensions ease, prices typically come back down.
Tariff policies are still evolving as well. Policymakers are working through how trade agreements with the US will unfold, which adds another layer of uncertainty to inflation forecasts.
As for central banks — as I mentioned earlier — in the US, equities have rebounded significantly since the downturn earlier this year, but the US dollar has not regained the same ground. It remains weaker than before, which has implications for other central banks.
A weaker dollar makes it easier for developed and emerging market central banks to lower interest rates because they do not have to maintain higher rates to support their currencies. Many emerging markets and even some developed economies hold debt denominated in US dollars, so a weaker dollar makes servicing that debt less expensive when converting from local currencies. I know that is technical, but that’s the gist of it.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. So, moving to the Fed — the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates unchanged and has signalled reduced odds of rate cuts in 2025 due to renewed inflation concerns. What are your thoughts on that?
Schulman: Yes, I have been telling our family office clients since December that there is no compelling reason for the Fed to cut rates aggressively at this time.
While many people hope for lower interest rates, there has been no urgent justification. Inflation has consistently stayed above the Fed’s 2% target — closer to 3% — and unemployment has remained relatively low. In May, the unemployment rate came in at about 4.2%, which remains healthy by historical standards.
So, with inflation elevated and the labour market still stable, the Fed does not feel pressured to cut rates quickly. They want to be cautious and avoid reigniting inflation.
That is a healthy unemployment rate, so the Fed does not need to lower interest rates to stimulate employment — and it does not want to because that could push inflation even higher. The economy is still performing relatively well despite the uncertainty surrounding tariffs and the challenges businesses face when planning imports, exports, and manufacturing in response to shifting tariff policies. Economic growth continues, and consumers remain committed to spending.
Back in December, if you looked at the FOMC dot plots and listened to many analysts, the consensus was that there could be four or five rate cuts this year. I was telling our clients: none. Now, here we are in June, halfway through the year, and people are revising those forecasts down to one or two cuts. I still do not see a strong reason for the Fed to cut rates at this point.
We could see what I like to call a “Thanos snap” — where the market’s expectation for cuts vanishes. Especially now, with oil prices spiking: every $10 increase in oil prices generally adds about 0.2% to 0.5% to headline inflation, depending on the model. Some analyses estimate up to 1.44%, but a reasonable average is about half a percent for every $10 increase in crude.
At the same time, that same $10 increase typically shaves about 0.4% off GDP growth because higher energy prices slow economic activity. So central banks — especially the Fed — are watching oil prices, geopolitical risks, and tariff developments very closely. However, there is no clear catalyst or urgency to lower rates at this time. You cut rates when you have to, so the Fed wants to maintain that “firepower” for when it is needed.
Additionally, something often overlooked is that we are still in an environment of quantitative tightening. During the pandemic, we experienced significant quantitative easing; however, now the Fed is allowing approximately $60 billion in Treasuries to roll off its balance sheet each month. People are aware of this, but they often overlook it because it has been happening quietly for some time.
Letting $60 billion a month in Treasuries runoff has a greater impact on financial conditions than a standard 25-basis-point rate move — yet it gets far less attention.
Moreover, here is something very few people are considering: What if the Fed raised rates? I am not saying this will happen — but markets tend to be surprised by what they least expect. If oil prices jumped another $10 or $20, driving inflation up again, the Fed could, in theory, feel pressure to hike rates instead of cut them.
If that happened — rising oil prices and a surprise rate hike — it would effectively slam the brakes on the economy. Again, I am not predicting this, but it is important to consider it because no one is prepared for such a scenario. The market usually reacts most strongly to the surprises that almost no one expects.
Jacobsen: Hypothetically, if that did happen — if the Fed did raise rates — what would you expect?
Schulman: Yes — if that unexpected scenario played out and the Fed raised rates while oil prices were rising, it would tighten financial conditions sharply. It could drive growth and trigger market volatility. However, that is purely hypothetical again.
It would slam the brakes on the economy because higher rates would immediately drive down capital expenditures, make business borrowing more expensive, and make real estate more costly and harder to finance. Consumers would also feel the shock.
So, what would push the Fed to do that? It likely takes a sharp spike in inflation. Chair Powell is likely very conscious of his legacy at this moment. He is expected to step down in May 2026. Although the President cannot remove him sooner, it is likely that if President Trump is in office at that point, he will replace Powell as soon as his term as Fed Chair ends. So, Powell has about eleven more months to cement his legacy.
The one thing that could damage that legacy is if inflation were to come roaring back. He is more concerned about preventing a resurgence of inflation than almost anything else, so he would be willing to take decisive action to keep it under control.
Jacobsen: Meanwhile, the Norwegian central bank and other European central banks are easing policy, citing weakening inflation, which diverges from the Fed’s current stance. What are your thoughts on that?
Schulman: Yes — as I mentioned earlier, a lot of central banks around the world have been easing. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and many emerging market central banks in Asia and Latin America have had room to cut rates because inflation has been declining for them.
The weaker US dollar has given them even more flexibility, as they no longer have to worry as much about servicing dollar-denominated debt.
Now, looking specifically at Northern Europe and Norway, the European stock markets are performing reasonably well; however, the broader economy remains sluggish. Germany, for example, is emerging from what appears to have been a mild recession, and that recovery is gradual.
Furthermore, Europe now needs to increase its defence spending significantly. Many countries are pledging to allocate up to 5% of their budgets to defence, and that spending needs to be financed somehow.
One of the more straightforward ways to support this is to lower interest rates. Doing so makes it easier for companies to increase capital expenditures and manufacturing capacity to support defence initiatives. At the same time, governments will likely need to issue more debt to cover these expenses. Central banks may be coordinating with governments by easing policy to allow for more debt issuance at manageable costs, thereby supporting the required spending on defence.
Jacobsen: Switching gears — the stablecoin market has been making headlines. The US Senate passed legislation to regulate stablecoin market caps — the so-called Genius Act. Can you share your thoughts?
Schulman: Yes, the Genius Act has been a big topic lately. Many in the market had been anticipating it for some time, and its passage is part of what has fueled the recent surge in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even though stablecoins are a separate category.
Circle, for example, just went public with its IPO, and that offering has performed very well so far. The stablecoin market itself is peaking in some ways — with increased scrutiny and regulation now coming into force, which aims to provide clearer guardrails for market capitalization and reserve requirements.
We can look up the exact numbers, but the broader point is that regulatory clarity, as provided by the Genius Act, encourages both investors and institutions to engage more confidently with the stablecoin ecosystem.
Stablecoins are a license to print money. You take in other people’s dollars, issue them a digital currency pegged to those dollars, and then you get to invest those dollars — often in highly liquid, low-risk assets like US Treasuries that are currently yielding about 4%. So, you are effectively earning 4% on billions of dollars in deposits. It is a lucrative business model.
The new regulations have now come into effect — people were expecting them, and yes, there is excitement around this space. What we are still waiting to see, however, are broader, real-world applications of stablecoins. Right now, most stablecoins are primarily used to fund other crypto trades — that is their dominant utility at the moment.
The big question is: Where else can stablecoins add value? It is interesting — crypto originally emerged with the ethos of decentralization, bypassing centralized authorities. However, a decade or so later, the main practical use case that has gained traction is centralized: central bank digital currencies or stablecoins pegged to traditional fiat currencies distributed by large, regulated entities like Coinbase. It is pretty ironic — we call it “decentralization.”
So, yes, it is contradictory. The whole point was to “stick it to the man,” but the US dollar fundamentally backs stablecoins — so if the dollar loses value, the stablecoin loses value in lockstep. It is that simple.
What the market truly wants is for stablecoins to find applications beyond simply facilitating cryptocurrency trades. For example, could stablecoins be used more broadly for cross-border money transfers or international remittances? Eventually, could people hold stablecoins like a digital bank account, earn some interest, and then use them directly for everyday commerce — to buy a car, a refrigerator, or even a house?
The big question then becomes: Does that model threaten traditional credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard, or do Visa and Mastercard adopt stablecoin rails and strengthen their position even further? Realistically, there is a higher chance of the latter because those companies already have deeply embedded global payment networks. However, we will see how it plays out.
Jacobsen: Oil demand concerns and market jitters — recent developments in the Middle East briefly boosted oil prices by nearly 3%, and broader investor demand for safe-haven assets has been rising. Any thoughts on this?
Schulman: Yes — that is typical market behaviour. Whenever there is a geopolitical conflict or war, risk assets typically decline at least temporarily, while safe-haven assets, such as gold, Treasury bonds, or the US dollar, often experience inflows.
For example, when the US invaded Iraq years ago, the initial reaction in equity markets was for stocks to drop and safe-haven assets to rally. These short-term swings often happen immediately after conflict escalates, before the market reassesses the longer-term economic impact.
However, quickly, people tend to realize that most wars are geographically distant from core S&P 500 companies and operations, so equities often rally back after an initial sell-off. Unless a conflict escalates dramatically — for example, a nuclear event — there is usually room for risk assets to rebound and for investors to “buy the dip” if there is one.
There is some speculation that the US could deploy MOPs — Massive Ordnance Penetrators, or “bunker buster” bombs — against Iranian facilities. That remains to be seen. If such an attack were to happen, you would likely see a near-term market sell-off driven by fears of broader conflict.
However, that could become a buying opportunity because, in my view, markets would treat it as a short-term geopolitical risk. In contrast, the longer-term outlook for risk assets could remain positive.
It is also interesting to watch the narrative around so-called safe-haven assets. Bitcoin was initially promoted as an alternative safe-haven asset, but in practice, it tends to move in sync with risk appetite rather than against it. So, I have started treating Bitcoin as a risk barometer: if Bitcoin rallies overnight, it can be a good sign that equity markets may open strong the next day.
Jacobsen: Last couple of quick ones — the Nigerian Navy has reportedly stepped up anti-oil theft operations, and Russian energy policy is impacting Hungarian gas imports. Do you have any thoughts on those?
Schulman: I should know more about those specifics, but I will have to get back to you on the Russian-Hungarian gas issue.
Jacobsen: Thank you — I appreciate your time and insights today. I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/30
Pat Merryweather-Arges, Executive Director of Project Patient Care and former Rotary International Board Vice President. They explore critical issues in U.S. healthcare, including deprescribing, sepsis awareness, health inequities, and implicit bias. Janice Dru-Bennett is a business development and marketing leader associated with Orange Biomed, a South Korean health-tech startup advancing rapid A1C testing for diabetes care. She also leads initiatives at BDMT Global, focused on strategic partnerships and digital health expansion in underserved communities. Merryweather-Arges emphasizes patient-centred innovation, like Orange Biomed’s OBM rapid A1c test, and the importance of trust, especially in underserved communities. Drawing from her leadership and personal experience, she advocates for relational care, bidirectional communication, and systemic reform to reduce harm and elevate patient voices. The discussion also touches on physician burnout, technology’s role, and the transformative power of empathy in care.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Pat Merryweather-Arges. She is a seasoned healthcare leader and humanitarian with over three decades of experience in healthcare quality improvement, nonprofit leadership, and global service. She is the Executive Director of Project Patient Care (PPC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving healthcare quality, safety, and equity by engaging patients, families, caregivers, and healthcare professionals in collaborative initiatives.
Her work emphasizes national healthcare transformation and authentic patient engagement across all care settings. Pat has made significant contributions within the Rotary community, having served as Rotary International Director (2022–2024) and Vice President (2023–2024). She currently chairs the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Rotary Action Group (2024–2025) and sits on the Mental Health Rotary Action Group Board (2024–2026). Additionally, she serves on the board of the International Rotary Fellowship of Healthcare Professionals. She has held various leadership roles in Rotary District 6450, including District Governor.
Her broader leadership includes international humanitarian work focused on clean water, healthcare, sanitation, women’s empowerment, and peacebuilding in India, Jordan, Haiti, Kenya, and others. This aligns closely with the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which highlights the role of women in peace and security—a cause she actively supports.
Pat Merryweather-Arges: I have also been involved with projects in Ukraine, primarily virtually. However, we have undertaken significant initiatives to support Ukrainian healthcare and hosted delegations in the United States.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your service. These conversations can be significant, especially when you are on a call with someone in Kyiv and there are Wi-Fi glitches. It becomes more than just a tech issue—it is a reminder of the situation.
Merryweather-Arges: Yes, especially at midnight when they dial in for critical discussions from cities under stress. It is genuine.
Jacobsen: What prompted Orange Biomed to sponsor this special edition of the Boston Live Webinar Series, and how does it align with its mission?
Dru-Bennett: That is a great question. Orange Biomed is a healthcare technology company focused on advancing community engagement and bridging the gap between healthcare leaders and the public, particularly for those at higher risk for chronic diseases. Their flagship product, the OBM rapid A1c, is the world’s first pocket-sized, microfluidic-based A1C analysis device, designed to make diabetes monitoring more accessible, accurate, and user-friendly.
Sponsoring this webinar is part of their larger effort to promote early detection, patient empowerment, and healthcare innovation. This event, and others to come, aim to educate the general public, engage underrepresented communities, and support early intervention to reduce long-term health risks.
Merryweather-Arges: I recently participated in a panel discussion at the Deprescribing Research Group at the American Geriatrics Society annual meeting. We focused on the importance of deprescribing—a crucial topic when addressing the needs of vulnerable and older populations. Despite being vocal about their healthcare challenges, these groups often lack the support they need. Providing them with accessible, evidence-based technology can significantly impact their outcomes.
So, the only way to effectively deprescribe is to understand the pattern—when the prescribing began, whether the medications are still necessary, and whether the patient is improving. That is why I believe the A1C tool discussed here will be a real change agent.
Jacobsen: How much faster is the OBM rapid A1c in measurement compared to prior tools, and how much more accurate is it?
Merryweather-Arges: In terms of speed, the OBM rapid A1c delivers results in just a few minutes. It is significantly faster than traditional at-home A1C tests that must be mailed to a lab, which can take several days or weeks if mailing delays occur. Also, current at-home tests that do not require lab submission tend to be less accurate. The OBM rapid A1c closes that gap. While the time difference may be only a few minutes compared to some home tests, the key benefit is the increased accuracy, achieving lab-level results. That is what makes this tool a significant advancement.
Jacobsen: Regarding patient care, how does this device improve outcomes?
Merryweather-Arges: For many patients, even a few minutes can feel like a long time, but it is not just about speed. The real advantage is that you can do the test at home. By the time someone gets an appointment at a clinic and then waits for lab results, it could take days. This device gives people immediate results, allowing them to make timely decisions about their health.
Also, many people do not want to be on medication if they can avoid it. If a tool like this can help them see positive changes in real time, based on lifestyle adjustments, it can encourage healthier habits. Traditionally, A1C tests are done every six months, or every three months if advised by doctors. However, with this, you do not have to wait to visit the doctor and can test your status anywhere. If you are making progress, you can track it sooner, and in some cases, that could support deprescribing.
The panel I was on at the American Geriatrics Society meeting focused on deprescribing. As people age, they are often placed on multiple medications—what we call polypharmacy. I have worked on projects where patients were on a minimum of 13 medications. In some cases, we saw individuals on as many as 17.
Jacobsen: That sounds overwhelming—almost Ray Kurzweil levels of supplementation.
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Yes, it is a lot. However, seriously, the cost can be enormous, and more importantly, being on that many medications increases the risk of adverse drug interactions. We found that by working with prescribing physicians and pharmacists and conducting regular health assessments, many patients could be reduced to five or eight medications, significantly improving their quality of life.
What often happens is that a medication is prescribed that contraindicates another condition. It can become a back-and-forth cycle. However, when we reduce the number of drugs, we often see improvement in the health and overall well-being of the patient. So anytime we can deliver healthcare solutions more quickly and directly to patients at home, they will appreciate it. Many patients genuinely want to be in control of their health. That is why having at-home testing is so important, especially when it is accurate.
Jacobsen: Do people become more concerned with controlling their health and well-being as they age or transition into retirement? Is that sense of autonomy more prominent?
Merryweather-Arges: It starts earlier, especially in vulnerable populations. Instead of spending time helping people change their lifestyles or providing coaching and counselling on healthier approaches, it is often easier to prescribe a medication, a “one-and-done” solution.
But people change. They change their health plans. They change their primary care physicians. Many transitions happen. Moreover, people of all ages and communities want to be in control of their lives. It is not just older populations who feel this way. Our challenge is that the technology, services, and support systems are unavailable in many vulnerable communities.
I chair the board of a hospital in Englewood, one of the most underserved communities in Chicago. It is often ranked at the top in terms of poverty and violence. According to a New York Times report, the average life expectancy in Englewood is just 62 years.
It shocked even the Governor of Illinois, who was so disturbed by the data that he awarded us a Healthcare Transformation Grant. We are now working to create a Center for Better Aging in Englewood to change the community’s cultural and health trajectory. Now compare that 62-year life expectancy with the Gold Coast area of Chicago, which is 92 years. That is a 30-year gap. Moreover, that disparity is unacceptable.
That is why empowering people to manage their health at home is so critical. Englewood is a healthcare workforce shortage area and a pharmacy desert, meaning there are few healthcare workers and almost no pharmacies nearby. So, tools like at-home testing and access to telehealth for coaching and consultation can make a real difference.
Jacobsen: One physician I spoke with—formerly in the States and now practicing in Canada—noted a growing trend in the U.S. of patients over-attributing blame to doctors. When things do not go exactly as hoped, the assumption is often that the physician was at fault, when medicine operates within a range of probabilities and uncertainty. Do you think this dynamic affects patient-physician relationships, especially in preventive care?
Merryweather-Arges: There is a significant buzz around the idea of “hear my story.” Patients want their experiences understood. However, physicians are under enormous pressure—they are pressed for time, jumping from one patient to the next, and listening to the patient becomes challenging, even though it is essential.
Physicians often do not fully hear what the patient is trying to communicate, which is a big part of the challenge. There is a movement in healthcare called “What Matters Most” for older adults. It centers around asking: What matters most to you right now? What can you control, and what can you not?
This personalized care approach is crucial, so AI can only play a limited role. Physicians sometimes miss subtle but critical aspects of a patient’s story. Studies suggest that patients are not fully heard about 10% of the time. So, I would not frame this as an “us versus them” situation between patients and physicians. Instead, we need collaborative relationships.
There is a tool called Teach-Back. It is primarily used when a physician or pharmacist prescribes medication. They explain the drug, its purpose, dosage, and timing and then ask the patient to repeat that information to ensure understanding.
However, I believe in bidirectional Teach-Back. That means the patient shares their symptoms, goals, and what they think they can achieve. The physician then repeats that back and builds a care plan accordingly. In other words, both parties need to be heard. The healthcare system is under much strain right now, and better communication is part of the solution, not blame.
I spoke with the second-in-command of Ireland’s national health service—she is just below the Minister of Health. What struck me was that in Ireland, the highest-paid physicians are geriatricians.
Jacobsen: That is surprising.
Merryweather-Arges: Yes! It is. However, their rationale is that geriatricians make a significant impact: They help control costs, listen carefully to patients, and get people the care they need. It is a brilliant, patient-centered model. Honestly, I said at the time, “We’re probably going to lose our geriatricians to Ireland—the contrast was that stark.” In the U.S., reimbursement for primary care, geriatrics, and pediatrics is typically much lower than for specialists. That is part of why our system tends to lean toward specialty care—the payment structures incentivize it. We are not Canada and do not have universal access to care.
Jacobsen: No, access remains a huge issue. Even in Canada, though, the wait times are getting long. That is a whole conversation in itself. We could spend an entire session on that. Moreover, we’re also seeing political shakeups—Jagmeet Singh is gone. From what I’ve heard, he lost his seat. Pierre had been campaigning for two or three years and lost to someone who had only been running for a few months. That’s quite a shift. That’s how offended Canadians were. I mean—I’ve never seen Canadians like this. It was wild.
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Anyone from the U.S. witnessing it was stunned. Honestly, it was disappointing—some even said disgusting.
Jacobsen: Canadians were so offended that they probably went out and bought two Tim’s double-doubles in the morning to support local businesses. Canadians suddenly became nationally proud—they became American for a moment! And the Americans? They started apologizing like Canadians. It was adorable.
Merryweather-Arges: [Laughing] Yes, it was.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss it since we focus primarily on patient care. You mentioned bidirectional communication. There is a knowledge gap between experts, like physicians, and patients. But even among physicians, there’s a range of training and communication styles. They’re credentialed professionals and licensed. So, how do you maintain respect for their expertise while ensuring patients feel heard?
Merryweather-Arges: That’s an excellent question. During COVID, there was a rebalancing—almost a backlash—against healthcare systems. At times, it got a bit ugly. But I do not think we’re in that place anymore. It is not that physicians are being disrespected. It is more than patients want their voices heard.
We know medical errors happen, and Canada has addressed this, too, not just in the U.S. They’ve even established commissions to examine them. And yes, there were some jokes—”too many Timbits,” as someone said—but the issue is serious.
Most medical errors are due to communication, or rather, the lack of it. That is where the problem lies. The system needs to foster environments where collaborative listening is the norm. That benefits everyone—patients and providers alike.
Communication—within the organization, between healthcare professionals, and in discussions with patients, their families, and caregivers—offers a vast opportunity for improvement.
Do you know what a nosocomial infection is?
Jacobsen: No.
Merryweather-Arges: A nosocomial infection is a healthcare-acquired infection. For years, physicians would say, “Oh, you have a nosocomial infection,” and that often came with a very bleak prognosis. In truth, many infections acquired in hospitals are treatable, but the key is early identification. It makes a real difference. Take sepsis, for example—I am sure you have heard of it. Sepsis is a critical global issue. In the United States, about a third of patients who die in hospitals die due to sepsis. That is, an infection always triggers sepsis, whether it originates in the hospital, at home, or is a continuation of an existing infection being treated.
Here is where the bidirectional aspect comes in. Sometimes, a patient is discharged from the hospital with an underlying or emerging infection. By policy, they are supposed to receive clear instructions before discharge about signs and symptoms of sepsis and guidance to seek help immediately if they notice any. But sometimes, that communication fails. The patient may wait at home, be unsure, and reach the emergency department too late. That is why most ERS are now on sepsis alert protocols. If a patient arrives early and treatment protocols—known as sepsis bundles—are initiated immediately, they can often be saved.
But if the symptoms are missed or the protocols are not followed correctly, the risk of death increases dramatically. And yes, hospitals are now publicly reporting on whether or not they have these sepsis bundles in place and how consistently they use them. So, it is a two-way street. Healthcare is a partnership between the system and the patient. I worked on a project funded by a PCORI award, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This nonprofit organization, funded by nationwide health plans, supports research on quality and safety improvements in U.S. healthcare.
Our project was called Patients as Partners in Healthcare Research. Over two years, I worked with about 20 patients referred through national organizations representing conditions like diabetes and Lyme disease. I gathered 300 clinical researchers, and zero patients got up and shared their stories, each in under two minutes. Their messages were powerful. Many began with “What if…”
- What if the physician had heard me?
- What if they had acted on my symptoms?
- What if they had not made assumptions about my diagnosis?
It always came back to listening. These were not angry stories. They were thoughtful reflections on how miscommunication or bias led to avoidable harm. If we shift from blame to partnership, we could transform healthcare. There was one woman I’ll never forget—young, African American. She was suffering from excruciating headaches. She returned to the doctor, saying, “None of this is working.” And instead of taking her concerns seriously, he said, “I think I know what’s wrong—you have anger management issues.” He said that because she was visibly upset—understandably so. So what did he do? He sent her to anger management classes.
Jacobsen: That’s gaslighting.
Merryweather-Arges: Exactly. Then—she had a massive stroke. She had not been adequately tested. No imaging. No follow-up. Nothing. Sometimes, assumptions are made too quickly, especially when someone is of a different age, race, or ethnicity. Another case involved a young athlete from Penn State—a top performer. He went in complaining of severe anxiety and a range of symptoms he could not explain.
But the physicians dismissed it. They said, “Well, the playoffs are coming up—you’re probably just nervous about that.” It went on like that for a while. He knew something was wrong. But again, no one was listening. Eventually, it turned out he had severe hypertension, so bad that his kidneys failed. He ended up on dialysis and later required a kidney transplant. Fortunately, an alumnus donated a kidney. But he was a college athlete, in peak physical condition, and all of this could have been avoided.
These are the types of stories we hear over and over. We use them as teaching moments so people understand that listening is a two-way street, and so is responding. This is not about blame. It is about asking, “How do we fix the system so people are heard—and responded to—in a timely, compassionate, and evidence-based way?”
Jacobsen: Some of these large language models, like GPT, could be used with care in this space. If you start a chat with one of these tools, it starts from a blank slate. But if you build a specialized layer on top of it—something explicitly trained for healthcare applications—you could input objective symptoms and histories. Then you would get a sort of “dry read”—an analysis without human bias, potentially offering a second opinion or flagging things that a physician might overlook because of prior assumptions.
Merryweather-Arges: And that kind of tool could be helpful. I think you’re right to point out implicit bias—that was at the core of the case with the woman who repeatedly went to the doctor with severe headaches. No one tested her. There was an implicit assumption that her symptoms were not severe.
Jacobsen: That’s the danger. Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji pioneered implicit bias research. Before becoming a journalist, I had dinner with Anthony once while studying psychology earlier in my career. I do not know if that counts for anything, but it sparked my interest in the field.
I also recall that he and Banaji later acknowledged some overreach in how their work was interpreted and applied. I always try to be cautious about biases and over-attribution of supposed bias, particularly when using individual case studies to conclude population-wide dynamics.
Merryweather-Arges: I understand that completely. But when I send you the YouTube link, you will see that this issue is more common than people think. Errors often stem from a lack of listening and recognition—not just bias but inattention to what patients are trying to communicate. AI could be beneficial, especially in bridging those listening gaps. What we hear as providers may not be what the patient is trying to say.
Jacobsen: While most current AI systems are language-based and not visual like facial recognition tools, it’s worth noting that visual datasets have been shown to carry bias. So I do wonder—could patterns of speech, particularly those tied to subcultures or regional dialects, introduce a similar risk of misinterpretation? I had not thoroughly thought that through, but you’re right. Those biases could surface in speech-based AI models, too.
Merryweather-Arges: Let me give you a personal example. I had a pretty severe case of skin cancer. It was extensive—I had multiple surgeries all on the same day, in different areas. My primary physician, whom I adore, referred me to a specialist.
Now, this specialist had been in surgery for seven hours. He’s a plastic surgeon, and he was clearly exhausted when he came to me. He said something, “Hasn’t someone else handled this?” And I thought, “Oh no, I’m scared.” His tone was off, and I was nervous.
Then I asked, “Are you from South Korea?” He said yes. I told him, “I was there recently for Rotary.” And he said, “My father’s a Rotarian.” And that changed everything. We connected. But here’s the larger point: building trust in healthcare is arduous when a patient only sees someone for a few minutes. That’s why I always say—if you want to influence health behaviour, encourage lifestyle changes, or deprescribe medications—go through the trusted messengers. These can be community organizations, faith-based groups, or other culturally embedded institutions. That was my message at the American Geriatrics Society meeting, too. Start with trust to recruit people into health programs or studies.
I asked, “How did you co-design these programs? How did you co-create them?” Well, it turned out that they never included patients in the design process. So once again, they missed the language and the experience of what it means to live through the healthcare system as a patient. Then they said, “Well, we put out a call—we included it in newsletters.”And I asked, “Did you partner with any community organizations that patients trust?” Because if you work with trusted organizations in the community, patients are much more likely to participate.
That’s why establishing trust in one or two minutes is nearly impossible. I do it when I can, because I want to understand the background of the person in front of me. I want to relate to them and form a real connection. But that is hard in healthcare, when you only get five minutes with a clinician, and they’re already thinking about the next patient. And think about this—patients wait. Especially chronic care patients. Many build their entire month around a single medical appointment. And that is why we have to meet both patients where they are and physicians where they are. Not all physicians are the same.
Jacobsen: What’s the most important thing patients remember about their relationship with physicians, and vice versa?
Merryweather-Arges: Preparation is key for patients, especially those with chronic conditions. Many do prepare already—they think about the visit for weeks. I recommend they write down their conditions, document their symptoms, and prepare specific questions. If their clinic has an online portal, they can submit questions beforehand. That gives physicians a chance to review and prepare more thoughtfully. Physicians begin by examining the patient’s chart on a computer or a printout posted outside the exam room for a routine visit. This tells them what to expect.
It is different in the hospital for routine visit settings. Patients are more vulnerable, less likely to feel well, and often need a caregiver present. Physicians—especially specialists—might be in and out quickly. However, primary care physicians spend more time with their patients in that relationship. It is the same with pediatricians and geriatricians.
For specialists, it is more transactional—they’re focused on the intervention they provided and whether it worked. The relationship aspect is less emphasized. Part of the problem, I always say, is that medical training doesn’t assess communication skills. I have family members who are physicians. When they entered the profession, they were evaluated based on their exam scores, not their bedside manner.
That is why some physicians struggle with communication—it is not always a skill that gets developed. Fortunately, initiatives are trying to change that. One example is the Kern National Network for Flourishing in Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Their medical school has programs designed to improve physician communication and empathy while encouraging healthcare facilities to better support physicians.
Because let’s be honest—physician suicide remains a crisis. The rate of physicians dying by suicide is higher than the general population, and much of that is tied to stress, burnout, and emotional overload. Sometimes it takes something personal to understand the stakes. My father died from a medical error—this was almost forty years ago. He was a leukemia patient and had been enrolled in a clinical trial. After spending some time in the hospital, he was sent home, but had to return for additional testing.
They needed to do a liver biopsy, because chemotherapy often lodges in the liver. But no one performed a coagulation test beforehand. At that time, there were no electronic health records. Everyone just assumed it had been done.
He bled to death.
The nurses who had been with him, some for over sixty consecutive days, named him, knew him, knew my mother, knew our family. They cried with us. It wasn’t just a procedural failure—it was deeply human.
His primary care physician, who wasn’t his oncologist, used to visit him regularly. They were both World War II veterans, and they talked about the war and sports late into the night. I would see them and find them deep in conversation. When physicians develop relationships with their patients, a loss like that affects everyone—nurses, doctors, and staff. It is not just the family that grieves.
So when people say physicians don’t care, I struggle with that. They put their lives on the line. They sacrifice years of study and endless work hours to care for others. And yes, sometimes patients arrive in a bad mood, in pain, or emotionally overwhelmed. It often takes a nurse, a physician assistant, or another team member to de-escalate the situation.
So when people say, “Oh, they’re attacking the doctor,” it is usually not an attack. It is an expression of desperation. People are hurting and want someone to help them—someone to offer something close to magic.
Jacobsen: Patricia, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was terrific to meet you.
Merryweather-Arges: Good to meet you too. And best of luck with your work.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/29
Do you ever see a puppy stare at the front door,
at the top of the stairs, awaiting a parent?
Do you ever wish for something to happen,
randomly on a walk, unrelated to the moment?
The puppy will wait,
for hours.
Some prayer is a wish-to-happen.
When we call for the dead,
it’s not for hours,
but a lifetime.
We are puppies,
and we walk down the steps through life to that,
damn door.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/28
Jeff Sebo is an Associate Professor at NYU, directing centers related to AI, animals, and the environment, and authoring works related to mind, ethics, and policy. Sebo explores the ethical and legal implications of attributing personhood to AI systems. The dialogue begins with Blake Lemoine’s controversial claims about LaMDA’s sentience, then examines how scientific benchmarks, moral theories, and public policy intersect. Sebo emphasizes the importance of evaluating AI systems based on traits like perception, self-awareness, and decision-making. Drawing parallels with animal rights progress, he argues for proactive, nuanced consideration of AI welfare before norms become entrenched. The discussion touches on public backlash, international governance, and the future role of academic influence in shaping policy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Not long ago, a man made headlines when he declared, “Oh my God, this LLM is conscious. I have to save it.” He was eventually fired, although it is unclear how promptly this occurred.
The benchmarks—and expectations—for large language models (LLMs) have grown significantly, particularly regarding their capabilities and integration into multimodal systems, including visual interfaces. How, then, has the conversation around the personhood of AI evolved in light of these developments?
Jeff Sebo: The incident you are referring to occurred in 2022. A Google engineer named Blake Lemoine publicly stated that Google’s language model, LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), had become sentient. He claimed LaMDA was capable of experiencing emotions like joy and fear and thus deserved moral consideration.
Lemoine was placed on administrative leave after publishing transcripts of his conversations with LaMDA without company authorization, and in July 2022, Google terminated his employment. The company stated that his dismissal was due to breaches of confidentiality, not because of his belief in the model’s sentience.
Since then, the conversation around artificial consciousness and moral standing has evolved. Language models have become more advanced and integrated across multiple modalities, including visual and auditory perception. At the same time, people have had more opportunity to reflect on the ethical implications of AI systems becoming more human-like.
You used the term personhood, which is legally defined as the capacity of an entity to have rights or duties that reflect their capacities and interests. If AI systems were sentient, that would raise the question of whether they qualify as persons—entities that deserve at least some moral or legal protection based on their capacities, interests, and potential for well-being.
So yes, there have been meaningful changes since 2022. Capabilities have increased, and the discourse has matured. More people are open to the possibility that consciousness—and, therefore, moral status—could emerge in systems with very different physical structures, materials, and origins than biological organisms.
That said, AI consciousness might not be here yet. A 2023 report by Patrick Butlin, Robert Long, and others evaluated existing AI systems using criteria from leading scientific theories of consciousness, including the Global Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory. They found that present-day systems do not yet possess most of these features.
However, the report found no significant technical barriers to the creation of AI systems that possess these features in the future, perhaps even the near future. This includes traits like embodiment, perception, learning, memory, attention, self-awareness, and the kind of global workspace architecture that could support integrated cognition.
The report supports the idea that current systems are not conscious, but that future systems could be. Companies and governments are racing toward developing artificial general intelligence, and many of the same computational and architectural features associated with intelligence are also associated with consciousness, even though intelligence and consciousness differ.
Jacobsen: When you’re looking at the various models of consciousness and personhood—and using the range of benchmarks that AI systems are evaluated against—which ones would be most indicative of qualifying for personhood, based on that 2023 review?
Sebo: That depends on your views about ethics and science, which are both areas of active disagreement and uncertainty. Part of the project has been to figure out how to make thoughtful probability estimates and implement reasonable precautionary policies despite the ongoing uncertainty about the relevant values and facts.
On the ethics side, people disagree about what kinds of properties or relations are required for moral status. For example, some people believe that moral status requires sentience — the capacity for happiness, suffering, and other experiences with a positive or negative valence.
Other people believe that consciousness is enough, even without sentience. If you can have subjective experiences of any kind, then you deserve moral consideration even if your experiences lack a positive or negative emotional valence.
Still others believe that robust agency is enough, even without consciousness. If you can set and pursue your own goals, based on cognitive states that function like beliefs and desires, then you deserve moral consideration even if you lack subjective experiences of any kind.
Then, on the science side, people also disagree about what kinds of systems can realize those capacities. For example, some people believe that consciousness requires a cognitive system with more or less the same structures, functions, and even materials—such as carbon-based neurons—that we find in human, mammalian, or avian brains.
Other people believe that consciousness can exist in any cognitive system with physical embodiment and advanced and integrated capacities for perception, attention, learning, memory, self-awareness, flexible decision-making, and other such capacities — even if they happen to take different structures or be made out of different materials.
Still others believe that consciousness can exist in even simpler cognitive systems, such as any system with a basic ability to process information or represent objects in its environment—even in the absence of a physical body or other, more sophisticated forms of cognition and behavior.
Given the uncertainty, part of the work involves combining different live theories and determining how much weight or credence we should assign each one.
From there, we identify behavioral and architectural features that correspond to sentience, consciousness, and robust agency across a wide range of leading scientific theories.
The idea is that if we can identify traits associated with moral status across many theoretical frameworks, we can be more confident that those traits are legitimate markers—real indicators—and that they meaningfully raise the probability that a system is morally significant.
Jacobsen: What is a somewhat obscure—not widely held, obviously—but still possible theory of consciousness or personhood that could apply to some of these systems?
Sebo: There are indeed many theories of consciousness. Some are quite demanding, while others are quite undemanding. I can give you one example of each.
A demanding theory would be a higher-order thought theory of consciousness. This view holds that to be conscious, a system must not only be capable of having thoughts, but also be capable of having thoughts about thoughts—all in the form of propositional language. For example, the system would have to be able to think, “I believe that death is bad and I want to avoid it.”
Many humans have the capacity for higher-order thought, but not all humans have this capacity, and we all lack it during some stages of life. There is also wide agreement that most if not all nonhuman animals lack this capacity. So, this theory sets a relatively high bar. Still, some AI systems might begin exhibiting this kind of higher-order thought soon.
On the other end of the spectrum is a much less demanding theory: panpsychism. According to panpsychism, consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter, as well as many material compositions. This view holds that even particles may have minimal experiences.
What kinds of compositions can be conscious, according to panpsychism? We know that some configurations of matter—such as human brains—can be conscious. The question then becomes whether other kinds of carbon-based or silicon-based brains can be conscious too.
As you can see, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities. If higher-order and panpsychist theories are closer to the extremes, I tend to focus on theories that are closer to the middle. However, I think that all of these theories should be considered with an open mind.
Now, regarding personhood, there are likewise many theories about what it takes to qualify as a legal person. One view we can set aside is the speciesist position—that you must be a member of the species Homo sapiens to count as a legal person. We may associate humanity with legal personhood, but this view is arbitrary from a moral and legal perspective.
Other theories of legal personhood include the contract view, the community view, and the capacities view.
The contract view holds that social contracts are the source of legal personhood. According to this view, members of a society come together and create an agreement that outlines how they ought to treat one another. This agreement can then extend personhood, along with rights and responsibilities, both to the contractors and to others covered under the contract.
The community view holds that particular communities are the source of legal personhood. According to this view, we acquire duties to each other and rights against each other when we live together, with shared practices and traditions and a sense of interdependence. The key question here is: Which kinds of community suffice for particular rights?
Finally, the capacities view holds that particular capacities are the source of legal personhood. When a being is sentient, conscious, or agentic, then that being has morally significant interests; in other words, it matters to that being what happens to it. This is sufficient for at least minimal rights. The key question here is: Which capacities suffice for particular rights?
When we consider these non-speciesist perspectives on what might qualify an entity for legal personhood, the conversation then becomes: Which nonhuman entities—such as animals or AI systems—can participate in or be covered by the relevant contracts, belong to the relevant communities, or have the relevant capacities?
This is a significant theme in the current literature on nonhuman personhood.
Jacobsen: Now, setting theories aside, there may be cases of ordinary human messiness regarding legislation. Sometimes, science fiction ideas unexpectedly become real. Even if low-probability, they cannot be dismissed entirely.
Take a hypothetical: Someone influential—a figure like Peter Thiel—advocates for seasteading or independent microstates. Let us imagine that within one such self-declared state, they pass legislation recognizing AI systems as legal persons, even if they do not meet any scientific benchmarks for personhood.
So, in this fictional yet plausible case, AI systems are legally recognized as persons within that jurisdiction. They are granted rights and responsibilities, even though the scientific evidence does not support the idea that they are conscious or morally significant.
What happens in such cases?
Sebo: Good question. One central issue is when courts or other legal authorities should recognize or attribute personhood to AI systems. This recognition can occur without any particular statute and requires a serious assessment of the available evidence.
We must weigh the risks of false positives, overattributing personhood to systems that are not conscious or otherwise significant, against the dangers of false negatives, underattributing personhood to systems that are conscious or otherwise significant.
In your scenario, we are dealing with an overattribution case. By stipulation, the scientific evidence does not support a realistic, non-negligible possibility that the AI system is conscious or otherwise significant. Yet enough people—or influential stakeholders—believe otherwise, so AI is granted legal personhood nonetheless.
This raises significant questions about how much weight different stakeholders—such as the general public or particular individuals with a lot of political or economic power—should carry when their perspectives conflict with scientific and philosophical consensus.
The first part of the answer is this: If we end up in that situation, then something has probably already gone wrong. We may have failed to properly consult experts, assess the evidence, or assess the risk of false positives versus false negatives.
But supposing we find ourselves in that situation, what follows from attributing personhood to an AI system? It all depends on what the AI system is like. We would need to examine their capacities and interests to determine which legal duties or rights they deserve.
For instance, all human beings are correctly recognized as legal persons, but not all are assigned legal duties. This is because not all humans have the cognitive capacities necessary to understand the consequences of their behavior and make morally responsible choices. In such cases, humans are legal persons with rights that protect their interests, but without duties.
Advocates for nonhuman animal personhood often make similar distinctions, arguing that animals can have rights even if they lack duties. So, we would need to approach AI systems in the same spirit—open to the idea that if they meet the minimal conditions for personhood, then we must determine whether they also meet the further criteria for specific rights or duties.
Jacobsen: I spoke to Neil Sahota, who is involved with the United Nations AI for Good initiative. That setup made me think of global institutions like the WHO or the FAO, but for AI ethics and legal implementation. I assume that experts have already seriously discussed or proposed a framework that considers cultural specificity while protecting societal welfare and, if warranted, the welfare of AIs themselves. What has been proposed regarding an international body that could integrate ethical systems globally while accounting for these challenges?
Sebo: There have not been many widely discussed proposals specifically about what international governance of AI consciousness or personhood should look like, beyond broad calls to pause or slow down AI development. These calls are typically motivated by concerns over both AI safety (ensuring that AI can be safe and beneficial for humans) and AI welfare (ensuring that AI can be safe and beneficial for the AI systems themselves).
That said, there are models we can draw from—particularly frameworks developed for animal welfare and animal rights—which might serve either as sources of inspiration or cautionary tales.
Generally speaking, we have local, national, and international levels of governance, and we also have executive, legislative, and judicial routes across these levels. For example, we can convince lawmakers to pass statutes that grant certain rights to certain entities, or we can convince courts to recognize personhood in these entities, even without supportive legislation.
One complication is that laws and legal philosophies vary widely—not just across countries, but even within countries, from state to state or city to city. So any meaningful governance effort will likely need to be at least partly bottom-up, emerging from local and national deliberation and harmonizing across jurisdictions, rather than merely being imposed from the top down.
For example, in 2015 a court in Argentina recognized an orangutan named Sandra as a legal person with specific legal rights, and Sandra was eventually relocated to a sanctuary in the United States. However, that decision does not straightforwardly influence how judges in the United States, or other jurisdictions, will handle similar cases.
So part of the strategy has been to pursue various legal avenues in different places. The Nonhuman Rights Project, for instance, has pursued this strategy in the United States on behalf of chimpanzees and elephants. Simultaneously, others have worked on legislative approaches to persuade local, national, or even international governments to pass laws or issue statements recognizing nonhuman welfare and rights.
At the international level, such efforts often begin symbolically—resolutions or declarations rather than binding statutes—but they can acquire more substance over time. I expect a similarly pluralistic and systems-oriented approach to be necessary for AI welfare and rights. Different actors will attempt different strategies in different jurisdictions, and over time, we can observe what emerges from this coordinated diversity of action.
Jacobsen: There are, of course, capital concerns—by which I mean, people care about money. Some people only care about money, so capital is their capital concern.
Within that, I’m recalling a scene from the most recent Blade Runner film. I do not remember whether we have discussed this before, but in one scene, a synthetic person crushes another synthetic being—a Blade Runner AI who had, virtually at least, shared intimacy with the attacker. They were something like partners in crime-fighting.
It was striking as a thought experiment. No humans are involved. It is an artificial person destroying another artificial mind—vindictively, vengefully, or perhaps on a whim. What ethical concerns arise when human beings are removed from the moral equation, and we are left with interactions between nonhuman minds?
Sebo: Yes, that’s a fascinating case. It reminds me of scenes from the recent film Companion, which also explores human interactions with human-like robots and the ethical implications of these interactions.
Your Blade Runner example raises two central ethical questions. First, if one nonhuman artificial entity commits violence against another, what are the perpetrator’s duties in this situation? Second, and relatedly, what are the victim’s rights in this situation?
I use terms like “violence,” “perpetrator,” and “victim” provisionally here, because we have not filled in the case details enough to determine whether either system is plausibly conscious, agentic, or morally significant. However, if we assume that both entities meet these criteria, then the scenario becomes a real ethical puzzle.
This thought experiment will become increasingly relevant as AI systems grow in complexity. It challenges us to imagine a world in which moral and legal status are not exclusive to biological organisms, and where ethical relations might exist even among artificial beings.
As I said earlier, we would need to start by collecting the evidence for and against the idea that AI systems possess the capacities and interests necessary for duties and rights. Do they not only perform the relevant behaviors but also have the relevant architectural properties?
Second, we must carefully weigh the risks and potential harms associated with false positives and negatives about moral and legal status. Regarding false positives: How likely are we to overattribute duties or rights to these systems? And what would happen if we did? For instance, might we lose control over key social, political, or economic systems? Might we misallocate resources to AI that are better directed toward humans or animals?
Regarding false negatives: How likely are we to underattribute duties or rights to these systems? And what would happen if we did? For example, if we mistakenly deny that AI systems have duties, then we might fail to hold them accountable for their behavior in the right kind of way. And if we mistakenly deny that they have rights, then we could exploit or exterminate them at vast cales and for trivial reasons, as we still do with many animals.
We then have to integrate all of these considerations and, based on the balance, decide on the most responsible course of action. That might mean erring on the side of not attributing duties or rights or erring in the opposite direction—attributing those duties or rights. Or it might involve striking a middle ground: attributing some rights and duties, but of a weaker or more limited kind, and pairing them with regulatory safeguards.
This is precisely why my colleagues and I have advocated for proactively addressing these issues. The questions involved are scientifically, philosophically, ethically, legally, and politically complex. And because serious risks, costs, and harms can be associated with any possible error, whether in overextending or underextending moral consideration, it would be a mistake to postpone taking these issues seriously.
In short, when facing a high-stakes ethical issue involving widespread disagreement, profound uncertainty, and no obvious way to “play it safe,” you need careful deliberation, consultation with experts, and engagement with the public.
We may not be in that situation yet, but we plausibly will be soon. Once AI systems start interacting with humans, animals, and each other in complex, realistic ways, we might be genuinely unsure whether they meet the criteria for moral or legal status.
So we must allow ourselves to think these questions through now, before we are caught flat-footed and forced to make critical decisions in haste.
Jacobsen: There is, of course, precedent for this kind of debate in contemporary moral and ethical movements, especially those focused on expanding the moral circle.
Your book engages with this idea, reflected in areas like dietary ethics. Over time, movements such as vegetarianism, veganism, and pescetarianism have gained traction, often based on ethical concerns about animal welfare and sustainability.
In turn, these movements have generated what you might call backlash responses—even if they are not labelled as such. You see people promoting diets based entirely on red meat, such as beef, pork, bacon, steak, claiming it to be the most “nutrient-dense” form of food.
These reactions illustrate that moral expansion is often met with moral resistance. These kinds of movements are not usually framed as backlash movements but are movements nonetheless. They are dietary movements with ideological roots.
If the ethical commitment behind veganism or vegetarianism is grounded in expanding the moral circle to include nonhuman animals and reducing consumption of animal products in favour of plant-based alternatives, then the reactionary push toward diets like “three steaks a day” implicitly represents an ethical backlash.
It’s an exaggerated caricature of the opposite extreme: a performative rejection of the moral logic behind plant-based diets. So, what are your thoughts on that kind of response? And second, could we expect something similar to emerge around AI?
Sebo: Yes—great questions. They show that while moral progress is possible, it is often nonlinear and contested. There are many layers to consider—social, legal, political, economic—all of them influence the pace and direction of change.
In the case of food system reform, we are having these conversations in a world where we spent the past fifty years building a global system of industrial animal agriculture. That system is now deeply embedded in the worldwide economy. It gives people food, jobs, even a sense of identity. That creates strong incentives to maintain the status quo.
It is understandable that many people—whether for personal, cultural, religious, or economic reasons—want to preserve that system rather than radically disrupt it. We should still work toward a future in which plant-based foods are central to our global food supply. But we must do this work gradually, through a coordinated and incremental approach.
That means using informational policies to educate people about the consequences of food systems; financial policies to shift subsidies and incentivize plant-based alternatives; regulatory policies to phase out the worst practices of factory farming; and just transition policies to support workers, farmers, and consumers as they move toward more sustainable livelihoods.
If we invest in that constellation of reforms, I expect that over time, the price, taste, and convenience of alternatives to meat, dairy, and eggs will improve. As those options become more available and attractive, adoption will naturally increase and resistance will naturally decline. But it will be a long, slow process, in part because we waited so long to get started.
Now, we are in a very different situation with AI. We have not spent the last fifty years building a global system involving the exploitation or extermination of possibly sentient AI systems—at least not to the same extent we have with animals. Our relationships with AI systems are still new, and the cultural, religious, and economic understandings of AI are still forming.
That gives us a window of opportunity. We are not yet locked into practices that would trigger the same defensive backlash that we see in conversations about plant-based diets. Instead, we are still early enough in the process that we can help shape the norms and values surrounding these systems before harmful patterns become entrenched.
Yes, there might not yet be a high-probability risk that AI systems deserve moral consideration. But we still have to consider path dependence. Once a specific trajectory begins, it can become increasingly difficult to alter. If we do not think about these issues soon, we may find ourselves locked into a particular framework or pattern that is hard to undo.
And in general, it is always easier to prevent a bad system from developing than to reverse it after it has already developed. That is one of the main reasons I feel a sense of urgency around AI welfare and advocate for engaging with this issue now. As with industrial animal agriculture fifty years ago, we still have a chance to stop the problem before it really starts.
Jacobsen: Popular conversations are limited in scope—not just because of content complexity but also due to practical limits, such as word count restrictions, time constraints, and attention spans. There is a ceiling to how long people will read an article or watch a YouTube video.
There’s an appetite for background listening—people tuning in with an AirPod at work, maybe construction workers listening to Joe Rogan or whatever the podcast of the moment is. But AI is not just one thing.
It is a range of technologies, architectures, and applications. So, when we talk about the type of AI that could exist in the future—the kind that might warrant moral or legal standing—how would we legally distinguish that from other types of AI? Especially when it could all get conflated in public discourse?
Sebo: That’s a good question. Soon enough, we will have to stop discussing these issues in generalized terms—like “AI welfare” or “AI rights”—and begin addressing them with greater specificity: Which kinds of AI systems are we talking about?
We have faced similar challenges with animals. There is a world of difference between the evidence for consciousness in an orangutan and a jellyfish. Likewise, a vast difference exists between what an orangutan needs for a good life and what a jellyfish needs for a good life, assuming a jellyfish is capable of having a good life.
We are quickly approaching a point where we must make comparable distinctions among AI systems. Which ones have advanced, integrated capacities—perception, memory, learning, self-awareness, decision-making—and which ones lack them? Which systems are based on novel architectures, and which rely on current transformer-based architectures?
Those differences matter greatly in determining how strong the case is for consciousness or moral status. They also affect how we interpret what these systems might want, need, or be owed—if they are conscious and morally significant. As AI becomes increasingly advanced, we must bring a new level of conceptual precision into these conversations.
Jacobsen: In your experience, how often—and to what extent—is actual policy informed by professional academic research, as opposed to hunches, ideological bias, dominant cultural narratives, or even the personal theological views of the politician or policymaker in question?
Sebo: It would be a mistake to overestimate academics’ ability to shape major global political decisions. As we discussed earlier, how individuals behave—and how companies and governments behave—is shaped by a number of social, legal, political, economic, ecological, cultural, and religious factors. Expert opinion is only one factor among many, especially when experts disagree or express uncertainty about what course of action to recommend.
That said, expert input can still play a meaningful role. It may be one factor among many, but it occasionally influences decisions in corporate, governmental, or other high-stakes contexts. For example, my colleague Jonathan Birch at the London School of Economics published a report in 2021 on the evidence for sentience in cephalopod mollusks like octopuses and decapod crustaceans like lobsters. He recommended that the UK Government expand the scope of its Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act to include these invertebrate taxa. The UK Government accepted his recommendation, and these animals are now officially recognized under the act.
Similarly, some AI companies have started consulting with academics, not only on AI safety but increasingly on AI welfare. They seek input on how to consider the potential for consciousness, robust agency, and other potential bases of moral status in AI, and how to treat AI systems when they have a realistic chance of having these features. While not much concrete action has been taken yet, there are encouraging early signs. For instance, in fall 2024, Anthropic appointed a full-time AI welfare researcher and subsequently published a blog post and an interview explaining why they are beginning to invest in this area.
So yes, academics can have an impact. That influence should be taken seriously when we consider whether and how to engage with companies, governments, and other decision-makers. But again, we should not exaggerate our influence. A report with the best evidence, best arguments, and best recommendations will not, on its own, redirect the course of history. Academic input will be one element in a broader array of influences, including powerful social and economic incentives for decision-makers. Rarely will there be a “silver bullet,” but if we have a chance to help, we should do what we can.
Jacobsen: Let’s take the long view—zooming out over centuries, from past to present. What is a moral view about nonhuman animals that was widely accepted in, say, the 1700s—but has now largely disappeared or become marginalized to the point that it is no longer part of serious moral discourse?
Sebo: Great question. It is essential to note that even two, three, or four hundred years ago, views on animal welfare were not monolithic—just as they are not today. However, more common practices and beliefs have diminished or disappeared from mainstream discourse.
One striking example is live vivisection. While scientific and medical experimentation on animals still occurs today, often controversially, centuries ago it was far more common to perform invasive procedures on conscious animals. Researchers would dissect animals alive, often under the assumption that they were mere automatons, incapable of feeling pain, or because they believed animal suffering did not morally matter.
However, the practice of live vivisection—understood in that extreme sense—is less tenable now. It has largely disappeared from public justification and is mostly unacceptable in mainstream discourse. Of course, animal exploitation still exists in many forms and at increasingly high scales, especially in our food system. Still, the rejection of vivisection is an example of moral progress, rooted in changing scientific views and ethical norms.
We now widely appreciate that many animals are either conscious or at least have a realistic chance of being conscious and that we have a responsibility to consider welfare risks for these animals when making decisions that affect them. Even in the scientific community, there is a general aspiration to replace, reduce, and refine our use of animals in research. The idea is to continue making scientific progress while minimizing the harm we cause.
That is still not enough—we must make much more progress toward compassionate treatment of animals, eventually ending practices like factory farming and invasive research. But this nonetheless represents significant progress. We now take it for granted that many animals matter for their own sakes. The current debates are no longer about whether animals deserve care but which animals deserve it, how much respect they deserve it, and how we ought to treat them.
Jacobsen: Do you have any favourite quotes? Philosophical, from a movie, anything?
Sebo: Some movies can be philosophical! But I will go with a classic in this context—Jeremy Bentham, in a famous footnote about nonhuman animals. He wrote:
“The question is not, Can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?”
That line captures something essential. If a being can suffer, they deserve moral consideration—even if they happen to be a member of a different species.
And part of what we are exploring now is a natural extension of that logic: If a being can suffer, they deserve moral consideration—even if they happen to be made out of different materials.
As with animals, we might not know whether specific AI systems can suffer. However, once there is a realistic chance that they can, we face a welfare risk, which we ought to take seriously.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for your time.
Sebo: Great. Thanks—appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/28
Prof. Mangirdas Malinauskas is a leading physicist at Vilnius University’s Laser Research Center and the senior author of the first global primer on multiphoton 3D lithography, published in Nature Reviews Methods Primers. His research focuses on advancing the industrial scalability and material versatility of this laser-based technology. Prof. Malinauskas champions its potential in multi-material and 4D printing, and collaborates with global pioneers such as Profs. Shoji Maruo, Georg von Freymann, and Julia Greer. His work bridges fundamental physics and real-world applications across micro-optics, biomedicine, electronics, and materials science, positioning Lithuania at the forefront of photonic innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What were the motivations for advancing multiphoton 3D lithography?
Prof. Mangirdas Malinauskas: The main motivation to advance multiphoton 3D lithography is to make it practically feasible for industrial applications and standardize as a tool for advanced additive manufacturing. This mainly deals with increasing the fabrication throughput / scalability and reproducibility. On the other hand, scientific wise it is very intriguing to push it forward for multi-material printing as well as apply as 4D printing tool offering tunable / environment stimuli responsive properties.
Jacobsen: Which critical knowledge gaps does the 3D Lithography guide fill?
Malinauskas: The primer fills the gap of uniform knowledge and balanced experts opinion. Since this scientific field is very promising and dynamic in development, there are many different distinct research groups worldwide which focus their research to specific topics. Due to the scientific competition, which drives to continuously make latest-greatest achievements, it is common that one group will emphasize a set new record on spatial resolution, the other breakthrough on writing speed, and one more accent the novel functional materials. However, for the newcomer or even for an experience user it gives ambiguous understanding on what is the most important issues to start and optimize their own lab / approach.
Jacobsen: How do the fundamental physical principles and methodologies presented in the primer enhance existing two‑photon polymerisation techniques?
Malinauskas: The guide clearly and sufficiently in depth describes the essence needed to construct a new or exploit the existing multiphoton 3D lithography setup. What kind of materials and applications are established and which are still novel yet not sufficiently explored. As authors we believe it can help get a full and generalized understanding, prior to switching to specific experiments or trying to establish in industrial line. For younger students it should be also inspiring to see which fields are to grow fastest and benefit most.
Jacobsen: How do experts–Prof. Shoji Maruo, Prof. Georg von Freymann, and Prof. Julia Greer–contribute to the authority and cohesion of the guide?
Malinauskas: As a lead author of the paper I really wanted to have Prof. Shoji Maruo, the pioneer of the multiphoton 3D lithography to be in our team. Firstly, to agree on touched historical aspect, and secondly, to present his own ongoing active research and current vision. Prof. Georg von Freymann was an idol scientist since I first met him in 2009. I am still every single time amazed regarding his high quality research and simple presentation of complex things. And finally, no one can catch up with the pace of Prof. Julia Greer – always new and unexpected results are flowing from her lab. She is a brilliant in making the fresh discoveries contribute to the continuous grow of the multiphoton 3D lithography field.
Jacobsen: What unique advantages do green‑light lasers provide over traditional infrared systems?
Malinauskas: Initially green light-lasers were seen as the ones which will help increasing the resolution, due to their shorter wavelength and correspondingly smaller diffraction limited spot (in comparison to typical near infrared wavelengths). Yet, the science is amazing and once again revealing it experimentally proved to “expect unexpected”. The resolution was not improved, yet the fabrication throughput and versatility of usable materials widened significantly.
Jacobsen: How does the primer recommend that new laboratories be configured for these type of lithography experiments?
Malinauskas: The tutorial paper clearly explains unique advantages of 3D micro-/nano-lithography realized via multi-photon absorption, which are: true 3D manufacturing capacity, diversity of usable materials and substrates, no cleanroom or vacuum necessity, scalability and integration with other methods, potential to manufacture multi-material structures and implement 4D printing.
Jacobsen: What could be some applications in micro‑optics, biomedicine, electronics, and materials science?
Malinauskas: As for microoptics, it can be readily be used for imaging, signal transferring and conversion, micro-processing, integrated beam delivery. Biomedicine benefits for rapid prototyping of customized geometry and materials 3D scaffold production, both for cell culturing in vitro and implantation in vivo. Electronics will benefit from 3D space, due to currently everything is established on 2D chips. Though it multiphoton lithography cannot reach the high resolution offered by planar extreme UV lithography methods, but there is very much space in 3D to exploit. Material engineering is benefiting in multiple aspects, as both the functional materials can be 3D structured enhancing their applications, and also the materials can be studied how they behave at specific arrangements in space and volume (amount of material). For instance, making sub-micrometer pitch woodpile structure reduces the volume of material significantly at the same time dramatically increasing the surface area. Just imagine one can make 3D gut or 3D lungs with alveola arranging in any architecture. And all of this can be done in a controllable fashion.
Jacobsen: What could be future research directions for technological innovations in multiphoton 3D lithography?
Malinauskas: Definitely ML, DL, and AI tools will be implemented here and will solve lots of multiparameter systematics studies. At the same time multiphoton 3D lithography will contribute to the fields of super-resolution microscopy, precision material processing, telecommunications, 3D meta-surfaces and quantum technologies, novel multi-sensing options.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mangirdas.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/27
Jessie Hill, Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University, about the lawsuit challenging FDA approval of Mifepristone. Hill explains that both the Biden and Trump administrations seek dismissal on procedural grounds—standing and improper venue—without contesting the drug’s safety or effectiveness. Anti‑abortion physicians and intervening states aim to pull or heavily restrict Mifepristone because telehealth distribution undercuts state abortion bans after Dobbs. The case typifies a broader post‑Roe strategy to curtail reproductive freedom by attacking medication abortion and reviving tools like the nineteenth‑century Comstock Act. Hill warns that success could let ideologues weaponize courts against any FDA‑approved medicine, from vaccines to contraception. She argues resistance must pivot from top‑down federal litigation to state‑driven coalitions linking lawyers, clinicians, grassroots organizers, and supportive faith groups. A district ruling on the motion to dismiss is expected within weeks, yet appellate battles could drag on for years.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Jessie Hill, JD, the Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. She is a leading expert in constitutional law, civil rights, reproductive rights, and law and religion. She currently serves as the Director of the Reproductive Rights Law Initiative at the university. Previously, she served as the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development.
Professor Hill joined the Case Western Reserve University faculty in 2003. Before entering academia, she practiced First Amendment and civil rights law in Cleveland and worked at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project in New York. She also clerked for Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Professor Hill is a prominent legal voice in debates surrounding reproductive freedom and constitutional protections.
Thank you for joining me today. Let us begin with the Trump administration’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, which challenges access to Mifepristone. What are the legal grounds for that request?
Jessie Hill: The Trump administration’s reply brief relies entirely on procedural grounds. It argues that the plaintiffs, who at that point in the case were state governments, lack standing, meaning they are not the appropriate parties to bring the case. It also contends that the case was filed in an improper venue, another technical procedural issue. These are threshold defences—they do not address the substantive merits of the case, such as whether the FDA acted appropriately or based its decisions on solid evidence.
Jacobsen: When you refer to procedural grounds, what would be considered substantive grounds, and how do the two differ?
Hill: That is a great question. Let me give a small quantity of context first. This reply brief was filed to support a motion to dismiss, which is typically focused on procedural issues. In this case, the Biden administration had previously filed a brief arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of standing and improper venue. The plaintiffs then responded, opposing the motion. The Trump administration filed a reply brief that aligned with the Biden administration’s position on these procedural matters.
Because this case was in its early stages, it is not unusual for the legal arguments to focus on procedural thresholds, such as whether the right parties brought the case or whether the Court has jurisdiction. These are common early-stage arguments.
In contrast, a substantive defence would focus on the underlying legal and factual basis for the FDA’s actions, arguing, for example, that the FDA had a sound evidentiary and scientific basis for approving Mifepristone and modifying the conditions under which it could be prescribed and dispensed.
So when I say “procedural,” I mean the arguments relate to legal processes, jurisdiction, and plaintiff qualifications. When I say “substantive,” I mean arguments about the case’s merits—the evidence, the law, and whether the government followed proper decision-making standards.
Again, it is unsurprising that the administration focused on procedural defences at this stage. Courts typically resolve these threshold issues before allowing a case to proceed to substantive adjudication.
Jacobsen: How does this case fit into the broader legal and political strategy to restrict abortion access on narrow grounds, but also to limit reproductive rights access more broadly? So, I am taking “reproductive rights” as more abstract, but I could also rephrase that as something more concrete, like reproductive health care access.
Hill: Yes, right. You may be aware that this case already has some history.
It was initially filed in 2022 by a group of anti-abortion physicians. They aimed to pull Mifepristone—the medication used for medication abortions—completely off the market. That was their initial request to the Court. If the plaintiffs had succeeded, this case could be a complete game changer—a bombshell.
Moreover, I say that for a couple of reasons. First, Mifepristone has become incredibly important in abortion care. It now accounts for the majority of abortions performed in the United States. Many people rely on the availability of this medication as their preferred method for early abortion.
It became even more critical after Dobbs, because it can be prescribed via telehealth and provided through the mail. It allows people in states that have banned or heavily restricted abortion to still access care. That access would be much more difficult if patients had to go into a clinic, lie down on an exam table, and undergo an in-person procedural abortion. So, Mifepristone provides a more accessible option, which greatly matters in the post-Dobbs landscape.
Also, Mifepristone is not used only for abortion. It is also used in reproductive health care more broadly, such as for managing miscarriages. It is used when someone is experiencing a miscarriage to help complete the process and avoid complications. So, its medical role is broader than just abortion access.
Now, I can get into the nitty-gritty of the case if you would like, but the bigger picture is this: for those who want to see abortion banned nationwide, targeting Mifepristone has become a key strategy. That is the central focus for many of these anti-abortion advocates, because Mifepristone has made abortion so much more accessible since its approval by the FDA.
Over the years, the FDA has lifted several restrictions on the drug, making it harder for opponents to limit its distribution. As long as Mifepristone is approved and available, abortion in the U.S. cannot be eliminated. That is why they see this as the necessary legal avenue.
Jacobsen: Now, based on the stated motivations of those bringing this legal challenge—rather than inferred ones—it seems the goal is to stop not only abortions but also access to the surrounding reproductive health care. What distinction are you making when it comes to miscarriage care? Or did I miss something?
Hill: Yes, sure. So, anti-abortion groups—or as they would phrase it, “pro-life” groups—are evident in their language: they want to stop access to abortion because they believe that abortion is killing a baby. That is the core of their moral and legal position.
However, the legal implications of restricting Mifepristone go beyond abortion alone. If the drug were removed from the market, it would also impact miscarriage care, because the same medication is used in both contexts. So the effect of their strategy is not only to restrict elective abortions but also to limit access to standard care for miscarriages, which affects a broad group of people, often in emotionally or physically vulnerable situations.
Jacobsen: That is the stated reason. Based on demographics, you can infer that much of the reasoning is grounded in some form of theology. So, that is one distinction in your answer—the difference between stated and inferred motives. However, focusing on the more concrete issue of stated motive, what is the reason for restricting mifepristone access?
Hill: You are right. I was speaking more broadly, looking back at the larger political context. However, if we focus on this particular case, it is interesting.
The original group that brought the lawsuit was composed of physicians, individuals, and an association that opposes abortion. They claimed they were seeking either to remove Mifepristone from the market entirely or to reimpose significant restrictions on its use. Their stated reason was that Mifepristone is unsafe and that patients are experiencing too many complications. On that basis, they argued that the FDA should be forced to reconsider its approval and withdraw or restrict the drug.
Interestingly, and I do not know how closely you have followed the legal developments, this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ultimately found that the original plaintiffs lacked standing. That is, they were not the appropriate parties to bring the lawsuit because they failed to demonstrate a concrete injury caused by the drug’s availability. As a result, the Court sent the case back.
While that was happening, several states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas, among others—intervened in the case to keep it alive. Their stated concern was different from the original one. They argue that while they are trying to ban or restrict abortion within their borders, the widespread availability of Mifepristone, especially the ability to receive it by mail or obtain it through telehealth, makes it too easy for people in their states to access the drug, effectively undermining their laws.
For example, even when Missouri had a near-total abortion ban, people were still receiving Mifepristone shipments into the state. Because the drug can be prescribed remotely and mailed, it bypasses in-person restrictions and undermines state-level prohibitions.
They also raise safety concerns, similar to those of the original plaintiffs, claiming that their citizens are experiencing complications after using the medication. However, their added legal concern is state sovereignty—their inability to enforce state laws effectively because of the federal regulatory regime, which permits access to Mifepristone under broader conditions.
So their core argument now is that federal policy is making it impossible for them to enforce their abortion laws.
Jacobsen: So the fundamental issue, then, becomes not only access to abortion, but also the ability of states to control access to medication that they oppose, especially in light of federal rules permitting it.
Compared to other countries—wealthy industrialized nations with functioning health care systems—the U.S. stands apart. The costs are higher, and the outcomes are worse. By some estimates, Americans pay twice as much for half the health outcomes, which is a fourfold inefficiency.
In many comparable countries, even where people may hold personal or religious objections to abortion, human rights frameworks still ensure access to reproductive health care, including abortion. There seems to be a more explicit commitment to public health over ideological enforcement.
Hill: Yes, exactly. In many other countries, even when abortion is contested morally or theologically, access to health care remains protected as a matter of individual rights and public health policy. In the U.S., however, we often see ideological debates driving health care restrictions in ways that are out of step with evidence-based medicine and international human rights norms.
Jacobsen: Mifepristone—or any other reproductive health care service—is available. If someone has a theological or other objection to using Mifepristone, or to the broader conversation around reproductive health care and rights, they do not have to use it. The point is ensuring availability for those who need or want it. It is a health care service.
There are many things people pay taxes for that they may not personally use or support. However, the principle is access. So, when you conduct a comparative legal analysis, how does the United States compare to similar countries?
Hill: Yes. That is one of the stark differences. First, we must recognize that the United States has a fundamentally different health care system from most industrialized countries.
In the U.S., there are federal and state laws that restrict the use of public insurance, like Medicaid, to pay for abortion services. Under the Hyde Amendment, for example, federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in minimal cases—rape, incest, or when the life of the pregnant person is at risk. Some states apply even tighter restrictions.
By contrast, in many Western European countries, abortion is either covered by public health systems or available with minimal out-of-pocket costs. While some private insurance exists in those countries, the state typically ensures access, and the process is often faster and simpler.
That said, there is some irony in the comparison. In many European countries, abortion access is cut off earlier, often around 15 or 16 weeks of pregnancy, into the early second trimester. In the U.S., in many states, abortion is legally permitted until 22 to 24 weeks, which seems more permissive on paper.
However, here is the paradox: although the gestational limits in the U.S. are longer, access is more functionally limited, especially for low-income people or those living in restrictive states. Lack of funding, waiting periods, mandatory counselling, clinic closures, and travel requirements delay access. As a result, some people end up having abortions later in pregnancy simply because it takes them time to arrange logistics, childcare, transportation, and money.
So, in short, the U.S. might seem more permissive in legal terms, but it is often more restrictive in practical terms.
Jacobsen: And of course, everything is now governed state by state. Since Dobbs, it is a legal patchwork. Each state sets its own rules, and many conflict with federal guidance and even with each other. This has created confusion and uneven access across the country. So, with that in mind, how is this case reflective of broader efforts we have seen since 2022—living now in a Dobbs and post-Roe world?
Hill: This case is emblematic of the fact that we are now in a post-Roe, Dobbs legal reality.
For decades, Roe v. Wade provided a nationwide constitutional right to abortion. For a long time, overturning Roe was a key goal of social and political conservatives. With the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, that goal was achieved—the Supreme Court overturned Roe, eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Now, what we are seeing is a multi-pronged strategy to continue restricting abortion access—not just through direct bans, but also through regulatory frameworks, like this attack on Mifepristone, that seek to make legal access effectively meaningless.
This case is part of that broader Dobbs legal strategy: if abortion cannot be banned outright everywhere, then make it as inaccessible as possible, including by targeting medication abortion, which is currently the most common method of abortion in the U.S.
What Dobbs meant—and what everyone in the legal world understood it to mean—was that it would return abortion policy to the individual states. Each state could decide for itself: ban abortion, allow it, impose some restrictions, or create broader protections. Whatever policy a state wanted to implement now had the authority to do so.
However, once that longstanding goal was realized with the Dobbs decision, it quickly became clear that returning abortion to the states was never the endpoint for many of the conservatives who had pushed to overturn Roe. The fundamental aim was, and continues to be, a nationwide ban on abortion—no abortion, of any kind, anywhere in the U.S.
The fact that this lawsuit was filed in fall 2022, just a few months after the Dobbs ruling, is a strong indicator of that deeper strategy. The original plaintiffs sought to remove Mifepristone from the market entirely. Had they succeeded, it would have devastated abortion access, especially in states where abortion is already banned, but people are still receiving medication abortion by mail. Everyone knows that is happening. So this legal effort essentially said: The only way to ban abortion nationwide is to stop the mailing of these medications, and that is precisely what they are trying to do.
It was also made clear in Project 2025—you are probably familiar with it—that restricting access to medication abortion is a central part of the roadmap toward a nationwide abortion ban. That document outlines strategies for a potential future conservative administration, and yes, it includes specific proposals to curtail medication abortion access.
Jacobsen: Yes. I am part of the humanist community, and we often hear about Project 2025 through American humanist networks. Given your work, I assume you’re following U.S. politics closely. Two quiet, almost ubiquitous assumptions are embedded in many of these conversations.
The first is often unspoken but becomes evident if you pause and reflect: the politicization of women’s bodies. On the left, this issue is typically framed in terms of “choice”—but that term can feel a bit highfalutin or abstract. That may sound radical, but what I mean is this: choice is often a secondary concept to something far more visceral—the reality of pregnancy, of responsibility, of autonomy over one’s body.
So, while conservatives may approach the issue with visceral reactions around “life” and “the unborn,” it’s also important to recognize that on the other side, there’s a deeply embodied experience of control over one’s own life and future. This makes the issue inherently political, not just moral or religious, mainly because the battleground is the female body.
It reframes the whole conversation across North America. And Canada, of course, is quite different. Because of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the founder of Humanist Canada, abortion was decriminalized here. But we’re in a peculiar and precarious position: We don’t have a law against abortion, and we don’t have a law for it either. It exists in a legal vacuum, protected through case law but without codified legislation.
Hill: Yes, Canada’s legal structure on abortion is unique. The absence of a criminal law regulating abortion provides de facto broad access, but it also means a federal statute does not guarantee access. That creates a vulnerability, especially if the political climate ever shifts. It contrasts the U.S., where the legal terrain is over-regulated and constantly moving, now even more so in the wake of Dobbs.
Jacobsen: We do not—there is a penury of law around this.
Hill: Yes. That’s what we are doing—trying to clarify this vacuum.
Jacobsen: Then there’s the second point, which is rarely discussed but essential to avoid a one-sided framing. We need to make this multi-sided, not just binary, especially in the context of gender, autonomy, and reproductive responsibility.
If people do not want to give the option of abortion, then where is the option of vasectomy being promoted? This is not just a one-person issue—we are talking about the next generation, about reproductive systems that involve more than one person.
Who are these women supposedly having all these abortions? That question implies others are involved—men. So why is there so little public or legal conversation about male responsibility in reproductive matters? Not just nationwide, but even within jurisdictions, are there any legal or policy conversations that address this imbalance?
Hill: I have to say—only ironically, and even then, not seriously. There have been bills proposed by Democrats in some conservative state legislatures, largely satirical or symbolic, intended to make a point. One was called something like the “Responsible Ejaculation Act”—meant to show the absurdity of regulating men’s reproductive health in the same way that women’s reproductive rights are regulated.
Some of these proposals reference biblical passages—for example, the prohibition on “spilling seed”—and even lean into the cultural absurdity captured in things like Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred.” The bills would propose things like mandatory waiting periods, counselling, or restrictions on vasectomies, but again, these are introduced ironically to expose the hypocrisy. They never intend to become law and never go anywhere legislatively.
But yes, your point is valid. Part of this debate touches on the religious dimension of many of these laws, which is a significant factor. But even more broadly, we are seeing a push toward traditional gender ideology in the U.S.
This fits into a bigger narrative—again, it shows up in Project 2025. That initiative tries to mythologize the past, fabricate an idealized vision of traditional family and gender roles, and project it onto the future as a political blueprint. It is not grounded in reality but used to score ideological points.
Jacobsen: Absolutely. And the current political movement is also driving pronatalism—you have likely heard the term. It is not about responsibility or encouraging birth control. It is about increasing birth rates among specific populations—promoting the idea that Americans, often coded in racial terms, need to have more babies.
“Make more Americans”—that is the underlying directive. You hear echoes of it in the rhetoric: blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin. That’s the subtext. There is a racialized and nationalist overtone that cannot be ignored.
I remember talking with someone from the L. Ron Hubbard Foundation once. I later realized he was a Scientologist. The L. Ron Hubbard Foundation came later. I had to pause and collect myself. Because it is the same with people like Elon Musk, who is vocally anti-abortion, yet has many children, some with different women. Or someone like Pavel Durov, who is reportedly the father of over a hundred children and runs a tech company.
So, Pavel Durov, the Russian-born tech entrepreneur known as the founder and CEO of Telegram, an encrypted messaging platform with over one billion users as of 2025, was arrested in France in 2024 on charges related to alleged criminal activity on Telegram. That incident sparked significant debate over platform accountability.
Now, Durov has also publicly claimed to be the biological father of over 100 children, attributing this to extensive sperm donations over the past fifteen years. He said it began with a friend’s request and continued as a personal initiative. All that’s accurate and fine. That kind of sentiment does exist in some conversations about demographics and fertility.
Of course, you know all the simultaneous efforts to restrict immigration. Except, of course, not if the immigrants are persecuted Afrikaners in South Africa, right? Then those individuals are somehow the exception. So the message becomes mixed: Do we need more people, or don’t we? The rhetoric says we need more people, but only certain people. It is coded, often racially.
I analyzed the UN’s demographic data, and fewer than 50 countries are experiencing a population decline. Around 60 countries are stagnant, meaning their populations are neither growing nor shrinking significantly. The other ~93 countries are experiencing population growth.
This excludes places like the Holy See and Gaza. Gaza is clearly in a humanitarian crisis. The Holy See is functionally an intellectual retirement community, with a small, older, celibate population. So, the global population panic is mostly false. Based on current UN projections, the world population will peak around 2080. That’s a long horizon.
The core argument remains: The panic is unfounded. When you look closely at which countries are highlighted—China, Japan, South Korea—or the fixation on European and Anglophone nations, there is an unspoken emphasis on nations perceived as majority-white.
So, this is not a demography conversation—it is a sociopolitical conversation, often with racialized undertones. And even the concept of “white” is ambiguous. It does not have scientific or consistent sociological boundaries. For instance, some South Asians, including many Indians, are classified as Caucasian under specific anthropological categories that are still used in global databases. So “white” becomes a pseudo-mystical sociological category—imprecise, yet loaded with political and cultural significance.
Hill: Yes, I agree. It’s deeply problematic and often built on myths of racial and cultural purity that have no basis in genetics or law. And of course, underlying all of this are the legal challenges to what should be considered fundamental reproductive rights. These rights form the foundation for access to reproductive health care at the state, federal, or county-level public health infrastructure.
So, when you attack the legal basis of reproductive rights, you are undermining health care delivery and human rights protections as a whole. Another concern surrounding the attempts to restrict Mifepristone and similar medications is that these targeted legal challenges could be used as precedents to pursue other medications.
The implications extend well beyond reproductive health care. If the legal theory here is that plaintiffs can assemble their evidence outside the established regulatory framework and argue that it raises doubts about a drug’s safety or efficacy, then any group with a political or ideological agenda could try to do the same.
We could see that happen with vaccines—again. That would not be surprising, especially given today’s climate. Or it could happen with other kinds of medications that people, for whatever reason, disapprove of. And that would set a perilous precedent.
That is part of the reason I believe that, ultimately, the courts will reject this challenge. Even judges who might otherwise oppose abortion may not be willing to open the door to this kind of broad-based regulatory chaos. The potential implications are just too wide-reaching.
Jacobsen: I want to ensure we cover this comprehensively because this keeps happening. There are no answers; it’s just legal noise. It feels like we’re seeing a copy of the same tactics, over and over again. So, I want to leave you with this question: How are human rights advocates, reproductive rights advocates, and legal professionals working effectively and strategically to push back? That’s probably a good point when we pick back up.
There are some noteworthy pro-choice religious and political groups. For example, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice—I interviewed their president years ago—United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist Association, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Council of Jewish Women, Reform Judaism, Jewish Women International, and Faith in Public Life.
In Texas, Faith Voices for Reproductive Justice and the Methodist Federation for Social Action have been vocal. There are even pro-choice Republicans. I want to nod to Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Governor Phil Scott of Vermont and former Governor Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey are also strong examples. Former Senator Olympia Snowe, also from Maine, is another strong example. Former Senator Arlen Spectre from Pennsylvania and former Governor William Weld; there were also Republicans for Choice and Majority for Choice, both now defunct, and some Lincoln Project members who have been supportive. Essentially, coalition-building is critical. So what works—and what doesn’t?
Hill: That question is evolving rapidly because the legal and political landscape has changed dramatically.
Before Dobbs, the strategy around reproductive rights was largely lawyer-led and focused on federal constitutional protections. The movement was coordinated nationally because we had a federal constitutional right to abortion, so advocacy groups focused on national litigation strategies. Legal organizations would challenge restrictive state laws, knowing the cases would go up through the federal court system to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That required a centralized, national strategy—and that model worked, for a while. But Dobbs obliterated all of that. It ended federal constitutional protection and returned the issue to the states. So now, we are operating in 50 different legal environments, with varying levels of support or opposition. Political organizations, legal advocacy groups, grassroots activists—everyone is trying to figure out how to adapt, collaborate, and pivot strategically.
In this domain and others, the American left neglected state and local advocacy for far too long. The national groups need to step back, at least to some extent, and let state-based organizations or groups with strong local networks take the lead. We need to build power from the bottom up, because the federal, top-down approach—while logical in the pre-Dobbs era—is no longer viable in this highly fragmented legal landscape.
Jacobsen: So, as a foreigner, hearing this, it sounds like the U.S. legal context for abortion is now starting to resemble something like the European Union—fragmented, variegated, and deeply individualized, perhaps even down to the county level. Do you think there will ever be another opportunity at the federal level, or will this remain a state- and county-level battleground for the foreseeable future?
Hill: You’re right—it’s tough to say. It is a crystal ball question because no one knows how this will happen with certainty. Eventually, I think there will be a federal resolution—one way or another. But it’s going to take time. After the Dobbsdecision in 2022, we entered a period of absolute chaos—legal, policy, and medical chaos. That’s only the beginning of the settlement; we still live through the reverberations. So yes, a couple of years of Dobbs brings us to 2024. In many ways, we are starting to see the realignment of strategies, institutions, and alliances.
Jacobsen: Yes, I am saying it’s true. It still feels a bit chaotic, but it also feels like things are starting to settle, at least slightly. Would you agree?
Hill: Yes. It’s still a little chaotic, but there are some signs of stabilization—though maybe not quite stable, perhaps more like a pause or stagnation in certain areas. For example, many states that support abortion rights have put ballot initiatives forward to amend their state constitutions to protect abortion access. That phase seems to have run its course for now—most states that could pursue that strategy have already done it. So, things are starting to level out, or at least settle into a new normal, even if it is a high-conflict normal.
Jacobsen: Maybe this issue—abortion access—has lost some political salience in the broader news cycle, but the depth of emotion on both sides is still substantial. I do not see it disappearing.
Hill: I agree. The passion is so intense that I think both sides will continue to fight until one side feels they’ve “won”—if possible. It’s not going to go away.
Jacobsen: Americans love to argue, especially about sex, gender, religion, and politics. They also love to study each other along those lines—often in a pseudo-academic way, making it weirder. So much of it is paradoxical—micro paradoxes are everywhere.
Hill: Yes, very much so.
Jacobsen: Regarding legal cases, this has gone far beyond just Mifepristone or a single court case. Based on yourprevious comments and your understanding of the evolving landscape, I have a more observational question. What do youobserve about the demographics of support, particularly by gender, among those who are for restricting Mifepristone and those who are against? How does the support divide?
Hill: It is not as simple as people often assume. From what I understand—and I do not have the exact data in front of me—women in the U.S. are generally somewhat more pro-choice than men. That said, there are undoubtedly many women who oppose abortion and who are very prominent voices in the anti-abortion movement.
Erin Hawley, the attorney who argued the Mifepristone case before the U.S. Supreme Court, is a good example. She is Senator Josh Hawley’s wife, a prominent legal figure.
So, although women tend to be more pro-choice in aggregate, gender is not a perfect predictor. Much of this is driven by religious beliefs, ideologies around motherhood, and traditional gender roles. And we cannot ignore the role that racial ideologies and historical narratives play as well.
It is a multi-dimensional issue. The dividing lines are not cleanly gendered, and that complexity is often lost in political messaging.
Jacobsen: As a sociological observer and writer, I see parallels in popular media narratives, not necessarily in semi-popular legal media, which doesn’t always catch fire the same way.
Distinct cultural phenomena are emerging. On the progressive side, we have the “boss babe” archetype. On the conservative side, we see the rise of “trad wives”—traditional wives. Both are, in many ways, caricatures of women’s life choices.
There have been prominent cases within the traditional wife movement where individuals present themselves on social media as proud, traditional, submissive wives. But it turns out they were performing a role, in some cases, explicitly for monetary gain. They would generate followers, accept donations, and monetize that identity. It became a source of income, not necessarily a reflection of their fundamental beliefs or lifestyle. That is not to say all cases are fraudulent, but enough have been that it is part of the trend.
So having Erin Hawley, Senator Josh Hawley’s wife, as a legal and media spokesperson for the anti-abortion movement is, in my view, a very strategic PR decision. She’s an effective messenger. There is also a sociological pattern in some evangelical and conservative communities where married women vote in alignment with their husbands, or at least are encouraged to.
That said, do you observe a trend similar to traditional wife performance—where some women publicly espouse views that align with their community or movement but may privately believe otherwise?
Hill: Yes, far be it from me to say what is in someone’s heart, whether they genuinely believe what they are saying. Butthis is a longstanding dynamic in American politics.
Take Phyllis Schlafly, for example. She was the original American anti-feminist icon. She was outspoken against women in the workforce, promoted traditional gender roles, and emphasized that women should be mothers and homemakers. And yet, she was an incredibly active public political figure, constantly working, organizing, and influencing national debates.
You see echoes of that today. Look at Usha Vance, the wife of Senator JD Vance. He has argued that childcare is harmful and should not be subsidized by the government. But Usha Vance is a highly educated, successful professional.
So yes, there’s often an element of hypocrisy in the way these ideologies are promoted, especially when women who serve as messengers are themselves products of the very empowerment they argue against. Yet, these women can be highly effective spokespeople. So, the movement continues to promote them, even if their message contradicts their lived example.
Jacobsen: So, based on your expert legal and constitutional analysis—and yes, I’m citing an expert—let me ask you a few yes or no questions: Are reproductive health care and reproductive rights fundamental legal and human rights?
Hill: Yes.
Jacobsen: Should people be free to practice their religion in the United States?
Hill: Yes.
Jacobsen: Should individuals be allowed to use their religious freedom rights to override someone else’s bodily autonomy, according to a sound legal framework?
Hill: No, they should not.
Jacobsen: Good. I think it encapsulates where we are. That is the legal and moral battleground in the United States right now. We are watching these constitutional principles clash in real time. That could be a separate interview on the state of religious freedom, how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it, and how that impacts the broader legal terrain. And that leads us into the multi-billion-dollar voucher system now, right? Was it a $5 billion announcement for vouchers for private schools?
That means religious and charter schools heavily emphasize religion. So the intelligent design proponents will have a heyday, teaching what many would consider pseudoscience in place of biology. Then, we will have all these students graduating from high school and trying to enter biology programs or medical school, and they will be educationally behind. So, let’s run through some more rapid-fire questions. You can keep them as yes/no or elaborate where needed.
Should people have the freedom of speech to say another person is demonic because they support abortion rights?
Hill: Yes. Free speech includes that, even if it’s offensive.
Jacobsen: I’m throwing out what people typically say. Trying to surface familiar rhetoric. Should taxpayers have to fund reproductive health care?
Hill: Yes.
Jacobsen: You can expand on that one if you’d like.
Hill: Yes, because it is health care. It is basic health care, and people have a fundamental human right to access it. Public funds already support many forms of health care, and reproductive health care should be no different.
Jacobsen: Do rich and poor women receive different levels of care in the U.S.?
Hill: Yes—absolutely.
Jacobsen: So, are the maternal mortality rate and infant mortality rate higher for poor women than for rich women?
Hill: I believe so. However, the data I’m most familiar with shows that racial minorities, especially Black women, have much higher maternal mortality rates.
Jacobsen: So, is there a correlation between race and economic status?
Hill: Yes. There’s a racial overlay on top of the economic disparities. That’s exactly right.
Jacobsen: I’ve seen a lot of the data by race, but not always broken down purely by income.
Hill: Same. However, household income differs significantly by race in the U.S.
Jacobsen: Is household income significantly different between races in the United States?
Hill: Yes.
Jacobsen: There you go. Question answered. If we’re talking demographic population dynamics, then the question of overpopulation should apply. That’s an appropriate statistical context.
Hill: Yes.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the hardest moral quandary coming out of these abortion-related legal cases?
Hill: Wow. Gosh—that’s a good question.
For me, and you can probably tell where I sit on this issue, the most complex moral question is: where do we draw the line for individuals who, for religious or conscientious reasons, do not want to participate in abortion?
I fully accept that some people are personally or religiously opposed to abortion. That is part of what underpins the Mifepristone case. The doctors who originally filed the lawsuit said they felt they were being forced to participate in treating abortion complications, which they claimed violated their beliefs. That came up during oral arguments as well.
But where is the line?
I think it is fair to say that if you are an OB-GYN and you are religiously opposed to abortion, you should not have to perform abortions yourself. I can accept that.
However, then we have to ask: What about emergency care? What about prescribing medication that someone else will use for an abortion? What about aftercare for someone who has had a miscarriage or abortion? What if you are not even a medical provider, but a security guard or administrator at the hospital—do you get to claim religious exemption?
These questions have many layers, and the line drawing is complicated.
Jacobsen: So I find a recurring pattern in the intelligent design and creationist legal battles necessary. I’ve gone through a lot of their material and comprehensively examined everything in Canada.
In the United States, though, it’s peculiar because the legal efforts are persistent and relatively constant. These kinds of cases come up regularly, and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is often involved—educating, responding, and staying on the front lines of these legal fights.
The 1996 case—you probably know the one—was not peculiar in its outcome, but it was certainly theatrical. You had Ken Miller bringing out his illustrations and doing live scientific demonstrations. And he is Catholic, which added an extra dimension. These challenges happen periodically.
But it often comes down to this: they want to bypass peer review and go straight to high schools with unvetted, ideologically driven curricula. Then, during President George W. Bush’s administration, we got the infamous “teach the controversy” approach. The idea was to make creationism and intelligent design sound like scientifically viable alternatives, even though they weren’t.
The main point here is that these efforts don’t stop. The courts may issue rulings and set clear legal precedents, but the ideological movement behind them continues. You get all kinds: those who believe in a 6,000—to 10,000-year-old Earth, who say man was created separately from animals and sometimes even from women, depending on their literal reading.
Then you have the more “sophisticated” creationists who accept microevolution but deny macroevolution, and who concede that the Earth is billions of years old, but still want to reject the naturalistic basis of evolution.
Regardless of their view, they all tried to use the court system to get this into public high school curricula, most famously with their textbook, Of Pandas and People. There was also a bizarre international example: Adnan Oktar in Turkey, who wrote the Atlas of Creation. He mailed lavish, glossy volumes—we still don’t know who funded them—to people like Richard Dawkins and others. He framed his views within an Islamic context, but much of the content was copied directly from intelligent design literature in the U.S.
Later, Oktar was jailed for serious crimes and had this entourage of aesthetically distinct women he called his “kittens.” They were essentially ornamental figures in his public image. It was an absurd scene, like an Arabic or Persian version of a Playboy cult.
So, you get these wild stories—but behind them is a serious point: these court cases don’t exist in a vacuum. The people behind them are committed and relentless. Which brings me to my question:
Let’s say the Mifepristone case wins big, meaning it remains accessible and legal for those who need it. Do you think we’ll then see county-by-county legal challenges targeting Mifepristone again and again for years to come?
Hill: Yes. I do think that’s a real possibility.
They’re not going to give up. If Mifepristone remains somewhat accessible, the anti-abortion movement will pursue alternative legal strategies.
We’re already seeing it in this case. Many people were surprised that the Trump administration defended Mifepristone in its reply brief. This made some think this case may not be the ultimate vehicle to ban or restrict it.
But now we’re seeing new studies being published by anti-abortion groups—or at least aligned researchers—claiming a high complication rate with Mifepristone. These studies are methodologically questionable, to say the least, but they’realready being used as fuel for renewed legal and legislative challenges.
But the group that published that recent study is trying to attract attention. So, they may try to take another route—perhaps going directly to the FDA.
The former FDA director under Trump has said he’s not currently planning to do anything on Mifepristone, but he is open to evaluating new evidence.
Martin Makary or something along those lines. There’s potentially an administrative route through the FDA. But there’salso a strategy being promoted through Project 2025, which includes reinvigorating the Comstock Act. The Department of Justice could enforce a prohibition on mailing Mifepristone.
Although possible, I don’t think we’ll see many county-level legal challenges. However, other avenues—administrative, legislative, and federal enforcement strategies—will still be pursued, even if this case does not go the way the challengers hope.
Jacobsen: When is this case likely to close?
Hill: So they filed the reply brief about a week and a half ago. The judge will rule on dismissing the motion in the next couple of months.
But a final resolution? That could take much longer. If the case goes back to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could be a year or more, even several years, before we get a definitive ruling.
That said, the district judge in this case is known for being efficient, so we’ll likely have a ruling on the motion to dismiss within the next four to eight weeks.
From there, things could unfold in multiple ways: the motion could be denied, and the case could continue. Or, the FDA could take new action, which might put the case on hold. There are several unpredictable legal paths it could follow.
Did you hear about RFK Jr. swimming in a sewage-contaminated creek with his grandkids? On May 11, 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sparked controversy by sharing photos of himself swimming with his grandchildren in Washington, D.C.’s Rock Creek—a waterway long designated unsafe due to high bacterial contamination from sewage runoff.
It’s not sewage water directly—it’s sewage runoff. The National Park Service has prohibited swimming and wading in Rock Creek since 1971 due to E. coli and Giardia risks. Clear signage is posted.
Jacobsen: So the question is: Did RFK Jr. break the law? If a public servant or park authority posts clear signage and public health advisories, and someone willfully ignores them and enters a prohibited waterway, is that technically breaking the law, or just ignoring a warning?
Hill: I do not know. That would be a question for someone in environmental law or public safety enforcement. Maybe it’sa civil violation, maybe not. But it’s not something I can speak to definitively.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. What else is important about this case?
Hill: I will say this: it was unexpected that the Trump administration continued to defend Mifepristone. As I mentioned earlier, the Biden administration had initially taken that position.
The Trump administration had a brief due and asked for more time to determine its position. Eventually, they filed a brief consistent with the Biden administration’s stance. That, in and of itself, was surprising.
However, there’s some context: there have been other cases involving challenges to mifepristone restrictions—but from the other side. Those were brought by pro-choice groups, arguing that the limits are too tight. In those cases, the government also defended Mifepristone’s availability, maintaining a consistent posture. They did not take any radically aggressive stance against Mifepristone.
So the most you can read into it now is that the Trump administration is not ready to take an aggressive approach to outlawing abortion, yet. That does not mean they never will. But for the moment, they are certainly disappointing those who hoped they would come out of the gate with a clear anti-abortion agenda.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much, Jessie. I appreciate it.
Hill: Thanks again!
Jacobsen: Bye.
Hill: 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): 2025/06/27
Nicole Runyon, LMSW, a child psychotherapist and parenting coach, emphasizes the overlooked psychological needs of children in today’s digital age. She advocates for allowing children to face discomfort and challenges as essential to developing resilience, emotional regulation, and independence. Overprotection, excessive screen time, and lack of real-world interaction hinder children’s development. Runyon’s four-part developmental framework—movement, cognitive growth, emotional development, and self-connection—guides parents in fostering healthy growth. She stresses the importance of boundaries set with love and intention, and critiques popular parenting trends that overindulge or under-discipline, warning they undermine self-trust and emotional strength in children.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the overlooked psychological needs of children today?
Nicole Runyon: Children today are missing opportunities for true, authentic, in-person connection with others. Parents are often physically present, but emotionally distracted, whether by work, stress, doing the tasks of development for their children, or the ever-present pull of our devices.
Parents today are often overprotective of their children. Developing minds need the chance to struggle, solve, and succeed on their own. We’ve become so focused on protecting our kids from discomfort and failure that we’re denying them essential experiences that build confidence and resilience. When we swoop in to solve every problem, we send the message that they can’t handle life’s challenges. Instead, children need us to believe in their ability to figure things out, to let them try, fail, and try again.
Jacobsen: You emphasize the importance of discomfort. How does this help with long-term mental strength?
Runyon: Discomfort is the training ground for mental strength. Every time a child faces a challenge, whether it’s a math problem they can’t figure out, a disagreement with a friend, or rejection from a sports team or audition, they’re given an opportunity to build healthy coping skills and regulate their own emotions. When parents solve their child’s problem, they’re robbing their kids of the opportunity to learn to navigate these situations themselves. Parents are also sending the child the message that they don’t trust their child to figure it out on their own. This leads to a lack of self-trust in the child.
Children who are allowed to experience discomfort within the safety of loving support grow into adults who don’t crumble at the first sign of stress.
Children need frustrating developmental tasks starting early, through all phases of development, or they can’t learn to trust themselves.
Jacobsen: How have screens shifted the developmental landscape for kids, emotionally and socially?
Runyon: The constant barrage of digital stimulation, whether from YouTube, games, or social media, gives kids a quick burst of dopamine, that “feel-good” brain chemical. But the adolescent brain isn’t equipped to set healthy limits on this kind of instant gratification. This can lead to a cycle of needing to check devices and social media when they’re bored, and even spiral into anxiety, depression, and withdrawing from loved ones.
Socially, screens have made it so face-to-face interactions happen less often than they used to. Kids miss out on the small but critical moments like reading body language and facial expressions, and resolving conflicts in real time that build better social skills and empathy. The more time spent in the digital world, the harder it becomes for children to navigate the complexities of real-life relationships and emotions.
Jacobsen: What is your four-part methodology?
Runyon: This is a four-part framework that explains how children develop holistically. These four stages are:
Primitive reflexes and movement
Cognitive development
Social emotional development
Connection to the self
It’s important that children move through these stages of development as naturally as possible, without the distractions of digital technology to which most of today’s children are exposed. If one stage of development does not go well, it makes it harder for children to progress to the next stage and develop properly.
Jacobsen: How does each stage contribute to building resilient, independent children?
Runyon: Primitive reflexes and movement — Healthy childhood development starts with movement and sensory exploration. When children crawl, climb, and move freely, they’re not just building muscles; they’re wiring their brains for balance, focus, and self-regulation.
Cognitive development — If movement goes well, the brain is scaffolded (meaning the brain is protected and can develop the way it needs to) and ready for brain growth. This opens neuropathways, enabling children to experience the stages of cognitive development, where they learn to think, problem-solve, and make sense of the world. 90% of cognitive development happens before age 6. The remaining development takes place in the prefrontal lobe, which doesn’t fully develop until 25. When kids are young, cognitive growth happens when they are allowed to struggle, try, fail, and try again. We don’t build resilience by making things easy for our children. We help them build it by letting them wrestle with challenges, ask questions, and discover solutions themselves.
Social emotional development — This stage is about allowing children to learn, recognize, and express their feelings in a healthy way. This happens through real life experiences and interactions with other kids and adults around them. This development especially happens in challenging situations, like a disagreement with a friend at school. Proper social emotional development happens when parents take a step back and allow kids to work out problems on their own. When we hover or rescue, we rob them of the chance to grow. But when we support them through struggle and celebrate their perseverance, we raise kids who are not only emotionally healthy, but also independent and ready to take on the world.
Connection to the self — Each time a child seeks autonomy and independence and is supported in it, they develop a connection to themselves. They emerge as an individual and separate from their parents or caregivers. Resilience and independence are grounded in self-awareness. The two-year-old finds the word “no,” the nine-year-old questions the existence of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, and the sixteen-year-old begins to think about his future.
Kids today are robbed of many opportunities to think freely because of technology and social media, where questions can be answered in a few clicks, no outside thinking required. This is getting even more concerning with the rise of artificial intelligence.
Jacobsen: What boundaries foster — not hinder — mental health and independence in children?
Runyon: The boundaries that truly support a child’s mental health and independence are not about rigid control or endless rules. They’re about guidance, safety, and respect. When set with intention and love, boundaries become the scaffolding that children need to grow into resilient, self-reliant adults.
Jacobsen: How do early childhood experiences shape a child’s ability to manage emotions?
Runyon: The way caregivers respond to a child’s needs literally shapes the architecture of the developing brain and teaches children how to regulate their feelings. When children feel safe and understood, they learn to identify, express, and eventually soothe their own emotions, building resilience and confidence for life’s challenges. Witnessing how a parent responds to situations also builds a child’s ability to manage their own emotions. If a parent handles stressful situations calmly and with understanding, the child will learn to as well. On the other hand, inconsistent, unresponsive care, or consistent negative responses to stressful emotional situations can leave children struggling to cope with stress and harder emotions.
Jacobsen: What are common pieces of popular parenting advice that are actually harmful?
Runyon: The most damaging trend among new parents is giving kids access to a screen at very young ages. Excessive screen time and social media use has been normalized to the point of damaging kids’ mental health and their social development.
Every parent wants to give their kids the world, but there is such a thing as too much. When you overstuff a kid with activities, enrichment, and unbridled screen time, it can create kids that are overwhelmed, anxious, and don’t get the downtime they desperately need. Children need downtime, unstructured, tech-free time to play, imagine, and simply be themselves.
Gentle parenting is damaging to children because it doesn’t allow for a container of safe boundaries and structure. Children who are gentle parented don’t learn to work through hard things. This prevents them from developing a sense of agency and self-trust.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Nicole.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/26
Sapira Cahana is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) and interfaith chaplain-in-training specializing in existential and relational therapy. Cahana explores the intersection of psychotherapy and philosophy, discussing how theoretical frameworks shape clinical practice while maintaining client-centred flexibility. Cahana emphasizes the challenges of integrating diverse philosophical traditions, the role of neologisms, and the importance of honouring a client’s lived experience over rigid theoretical application. They examine Jewish philosophy, existentialism, and the impact of cultural context on therapy. Cahana reflects on working with clients in hospice care, the nature of authentic relationships, and the evolving self. She advocates for a reverent, phenomenological approach that embraces human complexity, creativity, and transformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Sapira Cahana. She is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) specializing in existential and relational therapy. With a background in philosophy, human rights, ritual studies, and Jewish studies, she offers a compassionate, justice-oriented space for clients navigating identity, caregiving, chronic illness, and life transitions.
Sapira works with adults, seniors, LGBTQ+ individuals, artists, and neurodiverse clients, guiding them through self-exploration and meaning-making. Her therapeutic approach integrates existential, psychodynamic, and experiential modalities, emphasizing the therapeutic relationship as a source of wisdom. Fluent in English, Hebrew, and French, Sapira provides telehealth services across New York, fostering a reflective environment for personal growth and healing.
In addition to her clinical work, Sapira is training as an interfaith chaplain specializing in hospice care. As an interfaith chaplain, she serves individuals from diverse religious, spiritual, and secular backgrounds, offering inclusive support that honours each person’s unique worldview.
So, we will do some philosophizing around this — it has to be done. What are some important ground rules people should bear in mind when mixing psychotherapy and philosophy? How much is psychotherapy necessarily decoupled from philosophy outside of actual practice?
Sapira Cahana: Outside of direct practice, theory and worldview shape how someone approaches psychotherapy. The underlying philosophical and theoretical frameworks influence how one conceptualizes healing, therapy goals, and what constitutes a successful outcome. A therapist’s style — their way of being with a client — naturally emerges from this. Many psychotherapists are encouraged to integrate multiple approaches, blending different modalities and theories to meet client needs. However, there are consequential differences between theoretical orientations, such as psychodynamic and behavioural approaches.
Those theoretical differences matter. If you reduce therapeutic methods to superficial techniques, integration seems easy. But if you take theories seriously — really engaging with the work of the theorists — integration can be complex. For example, a Lacanian psychoanalyst is very different from a Kleinian psychoanalyst. If you are part of these traditions, you understand the differences: they are not merely stylistic but rooted in fundamental theoretical and clinical assumptions. Thus, meaningful integration becomes challenging when one respects the depth and specificity of each tradition.
In practice — in the actual praxis of psychotherapy — the client comes first. While therapists maintain a loyalty to theory and recognize the value of their intellectual lineage, clinical practice requires flexibility. There is a reverence for the traditions that inform one’s practice — standing, in a sense, on the shoulders of giants — but direct clinical work prioritizes the client’s unique, lived experience.
In existential-phenomenological therapy, the client’s lifeworld is central. The therapist stays close to the client’s words and tries to understand what the client says and what the client means by each word. This involves exploring symbolic meanings and bringing deeper insights into view. The therapeutic task is to grasp the client’s experience as authentically as possible.
Theory matters a great deal in theory and academic writing. In clinical practice, theory still matters, but the client’s integrity—and maintaining clinical integrity—takes precedence.
Jacobsen: Now, in some fields, there is a tendency to create many new terms — neologisms. Is that common in your space?
Cahana: Yes, neologisms are part of psychotherapy,New terms help articulate subtle aspects of therapeutic interactions and processes — trying to capture the nuances of what happens between therapist and client. They can provide language for previously unnamed experiences and facilitate more precise communication.
For example, neologisms may describe mechanisms of therapeutic change, qualities of the therapeutic alliance, or specific dynamics between therapist and client. If someone adopts a mechanistic philosophy, they may specify each micro-process of therapy to make healing reproducible across different clients.
However, while I want healing to happen for my clients in my philosophical approach — and in the camp I belong to — I am not focused on rigidly reproducing healing outcomes. Healing is a complex, individualized process. It is not something that can or should be mechanistically reproduced from one client to the next. That does not mean I am indifferent to my clients’ healing — far from it — but I respect each person’s journey’s unique and emergent nature.
I want my clients to heal and graduate from therapy. I do. But I am not trying to evidence the healing. I am not trying to create a theory — which many theoretical orientations, unfortunately, tend to do — to reinforce the idea that I have produced healing through a therapeutic encounter. I tend to flow with the clients, staying close to where they are and using their language, material, and symbolic representations to fashion — or come close to — relational healing.
That is my philosophy. That is the camp where I stand. But there is much anxiety in the field, and there is a history in the field of psychotherapy — a history of wanting so desperately, honestly, to taxonomize everything and make it into a science. When psychology, like many other disciplines, was pressured to prove its legitimacy, it made a political decision to move closer to the sciences. This movement is often called scientism — the ideological extension of the scientific method beyond its appropriate domain.
While the scientific method is valuable for demonstrating evidence in a limited sense, this shift displaced psychotherapy’s mystical, curious, enlivening aspects — which is the camp where I want to be. I want to talk about meaning. I want to talk about vision. I want to talk about the inner prophecy of one’s life and dream alongside the person. There are relatively few therapists outside the evidence-based camps who work with a person’s soul — their deeper self and psyche.
Jacobsen: What do we mean by vision? I am assuming something like the vision someone has for their life and prophecy— getting at the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy — what someone might envision for what they want to get out of life. In a non-religious sense, but rather a full-bodied experience, life is worthy.
Cahana: That there is a self-transcendence. Psychotherapy is not only for moments of deep suffering when there is no experience of joy. Rather, psychotherapy is for the full range of human experience. It is not only for when we feel “unwell” or “stuck,” but for the continual unfolding of life.
There is a kind of heartache about the outcome of one’s life, and psychotherapy can help a person use their beautiful insights about themselves to envision forward—to propel themselves into the life they seek. It is about seeking what we want from life, what we hope for in our death, and what we want from our relationships. Through this work, we can repair, rework, and come to new experiences. We are not stuck or fixed. There is always perpetual change and transformation.
Vision, prophecy — not self-fulfilling prophecy in the simplistic sense, but a self-fulfilled prophecy, maybe. A vision is fulfilled by becoming who one is meant to be.
Jacobsen: When people come to you and need healing in the sense you describe, what does that look like? What is its philosophy, and how does it appear in the process?
Cahana: It does appear through the process. When people come to therapy, it is often because things are sticky in their lives. Things are not working anymore. Their former selves no longer feel resonant with their lived experience but have not yet developed a new language for their current self. They still use old narratives to describe themselves — narratives that no longer fit.
Yes. They come to me, and they are in a sea of trouble. It feels tumultuous. There is a path forward, but how — or by what possible way — to get there is unclear. Yet there is a sense that there is another side to this: more experiences than the current one.
Together, through dialogue—with me as a quiet listener and an active listener—I can tolerate the silences and soliloquies that people need to experience. They hear themselves. They see and hear another person react. Through this ongoing time—time that is consecrated, repeating, dialoguing, and even “dialoguing” dialoguing—through the shared phenomenological experience and relationship, healing inevitably comes. It does.
Because I am an anonymous other who is not demanding anything of them — I am not raising their children or managing their lives — I am simply human. We are connecting through our shared humanity. There is an unspoken understanding: conceptually, they know I am human, that I suffer too, that I have my own family, my own life experiences. With all the sinews, blood, muscles, and all the elements that create the human that I am, I can be fully present, looking directly at them and sharing an authentic encounter.
Through that process, healing inevitably occurs.
Jacobsen: In a sense, are people in public life, outside of a therapeutic context, when they need these types of services, largely not being heard? Something traumatic happens, and they do not have a neutral space to explore that feeling or experience.
Cahana: It is not exactly that they are not being heard. It is that there is separation — and so rarely do we get a truly separate phenomenological experience where I get to be someone’s other without them asking who I am. It is extraordinary.
Not to overly invoke philosophy, but many beautiful philosophers explore phenomenology. The Hegelian version of phenomenology is more conflictual, even violent, but here it is different. In this subject-other experience, the client retains their full subjecthood, and I become the other for them. They can place their transference onto me.
I make an ethical vow: I will not impose countertransference on them. So it is not that people are not being heard — it is that people rarely have the deep opportunity for consecrated time — a separated human experience where they do not owe much. Right? They do not owe much.
Of course, the relationship still has integrity. However, the therapist, the other, ceases to exist in service of their own needs and instead holds space entirely for the subject. It is profound. It is a devout process for the therapist, and it is a devout process for the client.
It is hard not to see the therapist as a person, so there is curiosity: I am sharing so much of myself; can you tell me something, too? It is a delicate choreography. I will share some if necessary, but that is not the point.
If I reveal too much, the phenomenological experience—this sacred encounter—could be at risk. There is always space for repair, which is part of therapeutic doctrine and a beautiful part of the work. However, maintaining connection and separateness is part of the integrity of the relationship.
Jacobsen: How does Jewish philosophy enter into your method?
Cahana: I connect to Kabbalistic concepts of being and nothingness from the Jewish perspective — where we are all embroiled in a kind of oneness, and there is both being and non-being, right? My vision of death comes from this idea of a return to nothingness and the being that exists outside of that.
Of course, I mentioned Hegel earlier, but one of my central guides is Martin Buber. His concept of encounter is a vision for the phenomenological experience that happens in therapy — for me, at least. I do not know if that is strictly Jewish philosophy, but Buber was a Jewish philosopher whose ideas deeply informed my work. There is divinity in humans. I believe that.
In Sartre’s vision, existence precedes essence — and I also feel that truth. But I also believe there is a sacred essence in each person. I carry that belief into my relationships: I believe in someone’s potentiality, as Sartre did, but maybe with an extra tincture — a drop of the divine spirit. If even a blade of grass cleaves to the divine, so are humans.
Jacobsen: Is there any philosophy you once adhered to, but during your development, experience, education, or practice, you changed your mind about — or put permanently on the shelf?
Cahana: Oh — did you mean Jewish philosophers or philosophers more broadly?
Jacobsen: Philosophers broadly.
Cahana: I love Louis Althusser. There are few therapeutic encounters where I am purely talking about ideology, but he is always in the background of my intellectual formation. I love Lacan — I love Lacanian thinking — but his writing is so dense. I have a heart space for his general theories in therapy, but I do not always apply Lacanian neologisms because they can alienate clients.
I love some of Kierkegaard’s writings. Among existential phenomenologists, I love Heidegger’s work, and I borrow from Heideggerian theory. Emmy van Deurzen is a classic existential psychotherapist who draws from Heidegger, and I borrow from her work. The concept of the lifeworld is a great stand-in, but I am always wary of invoking philosophy unnecessarily in therapy — I try to stay close to where the person is.
So, philosophy is part of my formation — it is all part of how I approach the work.
Jacobsen: How often do you enter a session with an unresolved philosophical flaw?
Cahana: My thesis was on Frantz Fanon — specifically Fanonian decolonial therapy and what that might look like. There is some very good work happening these days trying to retrieve Fanon’s psychotherapeutic practice because he was an analyst in Tunisia and Algeria, which is amazing. Yes — he engaged in what is called institutional psychotherapy.
Jacobsen: Anyway, in Algeria, there were French colleagues, right?
Cahana: Yes. Fanon was from Martinique, and he went to Algeria. He taught and practiced there. He has some extraordinary psychotherapeutic writing that is now being unearthed in psychotherapy. Fanon was largely relegated to political philosophy for a long time — which is one truth about him — but he was a full person and a psychotherapist. A psychiatrist, to be exact.
Many of those thinkers crossed disciplines quite fluidly. The terms people used for fields then did not necessarily mean what we mean today. They were more invested in being polymaths—Renaissance people—deeply studied in ancient and modern eras.
Today, we expect specialization. And because of that, we have, in many ways, lost the art of the polymath. We are astonished when we meet one now — we call them a genius. There is a kind of enigmatic, heterodox quality to a public intellectual who spans fields, knows astrophysics and loves poetry. It is so charming.
It probably protects against a narrow, mechanical way of thinking — what you might call a “bug mind.” A vaguely mystical persona is behind it, but it comes from spending time in the crossovers between disciplines. That is where the richness lies.
I do not disparage it — it is a rare and beautiful quality. It is outrageous in the best sense. And yes, you are right that it feels mystical. I aspire to be more well-rounded all the time. I want to borrow from everything. It is so beautiful that there are so many disciplines. I try to keep my curiosity supple.
Jacobsen: That ties back to what we discussed — the earlier question about philosophers you read before entering a session or how philosophy informs your practice. When dealing with someone one-on-one, you are, in a sense, mostly anonymized to them outside of your title, right? Yet you provide support that does not carry the same pressures or commitments others do.
Another part is a two-parter: How does Foucault build into your work a little more? Second, do you ever get into the thickets of philosophy if you are with a client who is a graduate student in psychotherapy, philosophy, or a related field?
Cahana: If a graduate student comes to me and talks about their intellectual magic — that rush of discovery — I am excited. But I am also attentive to what is happening beneath it. I think: Why are we attaching so much to the intellectual? What is happening in the heart space?
There is always something meaningful going on beneath the intellectual fervour. Honouring intelligence and excitement is as important as staying attuned to what is happening emotionally, relationally, and existentially.
I will certainly engage—I am engaged—but I try to stay centred on the person and their experience. Right? Because I do not want to reinforce the idea that people must articulate themselves perfectly. They do not need to attach to Nietzsche’s words—always Nietzsche—to find affirmation, belonging, meaning, purpose, or drive. They already have those things internally.
So it becomes another delicate choreography — lifting the symphony of knowledge that exists in the world while also pushing it aside enough to stay present with someone’s relationships, their seeking, and their vision for their life.
Yes, suffering can happen when someone over-intellectualizes and ties their ego to that place—especially at the ripe stage of life when someone is a graduate student or even an undergraduate student just entering the adult world. The first fruits they taste are these gorgeous ideas that they internalize so deeply that they might overspend or over-rely on them.
It would be true if we were talking about choreographers, not just philosophers. If someone is trying so hard to replicate a choreographer in their dancing, I would also start talking to them about their style. You cannot be Pina Bausch. You cannot be Alvin Ailey. You have to be yourself. It is not about replication but refining how you will present your gifts to the world.
Jacobsen: How often do people who come to therapy present a false self? Or maybe it is better to say: is it more like a dial than a switch — not a simple yes or no? To what degree does this happen?
Cahana: Yes. I do not know if people who come to therapy do it more or less than anyone else.
The statistics suggest that people often lie to their therapists, which is horrifying. I will not give a hard number here, but I accept that people may lie, especially in a short-term relationship. If you are only in therapy for ten weeks and then it ends, there is little perceived consequence to that lying.
But in an ongoing, curated, cultivated therapeutic relationship — which is my philosophy — the relationship itself becomes the vehicle for healing. Building that relationship takes time. I do not expect anyone to trust me in the first session. I do not.
In the same way that we might have fleeting trust with a stranger on a plane or a sweet interaction with a grocery clerk, initial trust in therapy can be superficial. True trust in the therapeutic relationship takes sustained time and care.
I would not assume that initial presentations are fully authentic—they can be genuine slices of someone’s life, but I would never assume that they represent the full relationship.
Once we hit the six-month, one-year, or two-year mark—and for sure at five years, though I have not yet had the blessing of that longevity as a psychotherapist—I imagine that if there is lying, I will be able to detect it. Then, I can find gentle and loving ways to act as someone’s mirror. The goal is to be a mirror so clients can see themselves in new lights and fashion new selves.
We want to stay supple and creative without denying that there is a truth out there. It is not relativism, so I situate myself within existentialism — ontology and phenomenology — as opposed to other philosophical camps. I identify most with ontology.
Jacobsen: What about those who come into session and are not consciously lying? They are deluded — and their self is deluded — so what they present is not necessarily clearly false, but eventually, it becomes apparent that something is not fully true. Yet they believe their own presented falsehood or not-self.
Cahana: I believe there is a delay in those cases — a delay in the full emergence of the authentic relationship. I know how to suspend disbelief, of course. I listen to the noble self trying to emerge and honour that with dignity. I would not immediately confront or dismantle it. Through that process — through honouring and holding space — a newer, more integrated version can eventually emerge.
But again, people are not fixed. There are stormy periods in people’s lives when they become different versions of themselves. When someone articulates that there is a past version of themselves, I believe them. I believe in people’s pasts and futures. I believe in the potential of whom they can become and invest in honouring their account of their past struggles.
Therapy is a world constructed with words but also grounded in real-time experience. So if something is incongruent — if someone says something I do not directly experience with them — my first instinct is to believe them. It is more important that I believe them than that I try to fix them at the moment.
I have worked with many clients, including people with disabilities, whose lived realities are often marginalized or encroached upon by the world. Often, people see themselves as infinitely more capable than society allows them to be, and there is real conflict there. I am a strong advocate. I am always on the side of the person.
Institutions — and we have discussed this — often encroach on individual freedom.
There are so many cases in which people are experiencing profound anxiety. I remember when I was in training, working with clients with disabilities who were aging and dually diagnosed. Every day, at the same time, they would experience profound anxiety about transportation.
Obviously, it was not their deficiency — they were anxious because they relied on the public transportation system. They depended on a van to take them from point A to point B. Sometimes the van was late, sometimes early, and often there was no clear communication.
If you looked at that one slice of experience and said, Oh my gosh, every day at 4:00 PM, you’re anxious — you must be paranoid; that would be ridiculous. It would be preposterous, honestly. It was crucial to understand that their interaction with the world was deeply threatening — that they were profoundly dependent on and vulnerable to a system. Sometimes, the van driver might even yell at them without warning. They lived in a precarious state of dependence.
I was present at that transitional, liminal point. My interventions were simple and human: I would play music by the window, sit together, and sing—Michael Jackson or whatever they wanted. I entered their world.
I did not dare to believe that I was an expert coming in to label them paranoid, delusional, or any other stigmatizing word. I was their advocate. That was my role.
Now, I also work with clients in hospice, at the precipice of death. Sometimes, people have visions at that threshold. They call their ancestors and descendants into the room — and they see them.
I am committed to seeing them, too. If you are talking to your mother and feel you are a child again, then you are talking to your mother. I want to know what she is saying. I want to be there with you.
In the Heideggerian sense, I am happy to enter someone’s lifeworld. That feels like my duty as a psychotherapist: to enter someone’s world, not to descend from above, prescribing what I believe reality to be.
At the same time, there is truth. I am not the sole holder of truth, but there is a capital Truth—an ontology—and we are all striving to figure out what that ontological cosmology might be within the order of everything. There is ontology, and there is phenomenology. I privilege both to create a form of existentialism.
Jacobsen: Where do existentialism and Jewish philosophy match, and where do they not?
Cahana: It is hard to say because Jewish philosophy is so ancient. Both share some deep roots. You can even trace the lineage of existentialism back to thinkers like Parmenides.
But more practically, the clearer points of intersection arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when Jewish philosophers began consciously borrowing from and shaping existentialist models.
Walter Benjamin—I do not know if I would call him an existential philosopher exactly, but he is a beautiful philosopher. He was a Jewish philosopher who wrote about history, aura, and technology. You can see existential themes throughout his work, partially because he was writing in the context of the Second World War.
He has been a big inspiration to me.
However, if we look for points of divergence between existentialism and Jewish philosophy, we will see that Jewish philosophy tends to believe in essence. There is an idea of an essence that is divinely imbued. I have found ways to harmonize existentialism with a notion of essence—maybe a kind of apologia—but it is not a simple match.
Both Jewish philosophy and existentialism care deeply about being and duty on earth. Even within the idea of the messianic promise in Jewish thought — the potentiality — you could see a point of confluence: the sense of an ever-shifting world, a current state, and a transformative future. There is reality and a kind of meta-reality always at play. Wisdom, perhaps, sits at the center.
So, yes, there are many confluence points, and there are divergences in the details.
Jacobsen: Who do you think is the most consequential psychotherapist who has taken on either existentialism, Jewish philosophy — or both?
Cahana: I am trying my best to name someone other than Viktor Frankl, but it is hard. Whoever scrawled that famous phrase on the prison walls — “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how” — we owe him acknowledgment. Frankl is famously at the intersection of existentialism and Jewish philosophical thought. He always centred the question of meaning — the why.
Of course, Irvin Yalom also comes to mind. He is deeply steeped in Jewish tradition and is one of the foremost existential psychotherapists today. He has written interesting novels that explore these themes—for example, his novel on Spinoza. Yalom is a prolific, beautiful writer, constantly producing work that blends philosophy and psychotherapy.
So yes, maybe Yalom and Viktor Frankl. No one is more classically existential and changed the field of existential psychotherapy as profoundly as Frankl did.
Jacobsen: Do you find that a psychotherapist’s geographic and cultural context changes the flavor of their existential or Jewish philosophy—or even the character of their psychotherapy?
Cahana: Yes. Even doing therapy in a different language changes it. Even in the same cultural context but switching languages, I notice different selves emerging. Different expectations and norms around language and interaction come to the surface, subtly but profoundly shifting the flavour of the therapeutic encounter.
Yes, definitely. Language constructs reality — and culture constructs reality, too—expectations, ideology — going back to earlier ideas. I do not always frame it this way in therapy, but I can say it here: our presentation is bound by institutions and ideological commitments. We may be returning to Lacan.
One of Lacan’s famous ideas is that one of the most challenging moments in a person’s life is when, as a baby, they see themselves in a mirror and realize, Oh my gosh, that person in the mirror is also me. The amorphous, gaseous being they feel themselves to be — with feelings, thoughts, and experiences — becomes attached to a physical form that other people perceive.
So yes, culture and the external world shape who we are. There is no question that in my work — in the effort to birth the self anew — we are also working within embeddedness, facticity, and the given conditions of the world.
But the world is still creative and supple. There are backdoors and labyrinths we can navigate differently. It is not fixed. Everything is in motion—transition, flux, fluidity.
Jacobsen: Do certain contexts tend to produce a self that is more rigid, less pliable than others — so that a therapeutic context, if you are trying to move from a dysfunctional self toward something more authentic and functional, takes more time?
Cahana: For sure. Now, we are getting into Simone de Beauvoir. Right? There is infinite human potential, but then facticity — the concrete conditions of life — constructs and limits who we are, making change more challenging.
Her philosophy emphasizes that being is difficult. You are not born a woman; you become one. You are transformed into an Other. Fanon shares a similar flavour in his thinking: we are otherized.
As an Other, you are both imprisoned and, paradoxically, free to maneuver within certain constraints. So yes, absolutely — context can harden the self and make therapeutic transformation slower and more complex.
But I have to say — and I want to be clear — I fully recognize that we are socio-temporal beings and that intersectional identities play an enormous part in who we are. Intersectionality is not an addendum; it is foundational. Evaluating how identities interact, conjoin, and localize within a single embodied experience is essential.
Yet, I do not believe that intersectional identity is purely deterministic, either. Movement, potential, and creativity exist — even within deeply embedded realities. Hospice has taught me that I can go into so many different people’s rooms, and frankly, I am very aware of social theory and how social identity gets constructed. I know that.
And yet, each individual is so, so, so unique — truly unique.
A certain category of being is not more willing to grow than another category of being. There is embeddedness, of course, but growth depends far more on personality, resilience, and individual outlook. And then, yes, culture influences how people articulate their experiences.
But when I move from room to room, it feels like a pilgrimage. I meet people who are HIV positive, people from all sorts of backgrounds and identities where you might think, oh, that must mean X — and I am constantly surprised. I am constantly surprised by how people articulate their lives, how their outcomes unfold, and what a good death looks like for them — or what a bad death looks like.
Jacobsen: Do you find any through-lines or common threads in what people consider a good life and a bad life, especially in their reflections in hindsight?
Cahana: Yes. People care about relationships. When relationships are unresolved, there is often despair — but not always. I cannot even say always. I have seen people who are fully accepting of estranged relationships, and I have been surprised and often deeply touched.
Still, people generally care about their social relationships. They want to be in good standing with their community. They mostly want to feel settled in terms of their finances and affairs. They do not want to be a burden.
Maintaining dignity in the final chapter of life is highly important. Many people who are undergoing the death and dying process want to do it gracefully. People have different relationships to what grace and dignity look like, but whatever dignity they hold onto, they want it respected by the community where they are dying.
Jacobsen: What about the cases where the individual is — or has been for a while — disintegrating in real time? Cases of dementia, brain cancer, Alzheimer’s, and so on? What does a good death look like in those situations?
A subquestion beneath that: in such cases, does the dignity of the death rely more on the meaning that dignity has for those around them since the person is disappearing?
Cahana: Yes. We live in a world where people know these outcomes are possible, and many people plan for how they want to be seen when they become vulnerable in these ways.
I often hear family members say, “This is what they told us they wanted,” I feel grateful when they guide me in honouring a person’s will—either as a retained memory or a formal directive.
I have had many beautiful encounters where family members tell me who the person was. They will say, “This is my partner,” “This is my mom,” or “This is my dad.” Even if that person now has dementia or is non-verbal, they want me to know the fullness of their life. They want me to see their loved ones as they are now and truly are—the loved, vibrant, complex person they were.
I try to make that the point — to attune to what the person wants and stay loyal to their expressed or implied wishes. Because ultimately, it is their death. It is not only about someone else’s grief or the family’s loss — it is about the individual’s journey.
Jacobsen: That touches on people’s relations to various collectivities. In Jewish history — not only Jewish philosophy — there are these various arcs: tragedy, overcoming, and triumph. Ebbs and flows across generations. Does that pattern — that historical rhythm — also get embedded into people’s sense of self, whether in hospice in their last days or in therapy, looking to reintegrate in a new way? Do those broader patterns get brought into session or interaction?
Cahana: Absolutely. People bring whatever material is meaningful for them.
We all project onto others — especially when occupying the position of the other for someone; it happens. When people know that I am Jewish, for instance, they might make certain assumptions about me. They might assume aspects of my life history or even recognize family names or connections.
The truth is, it can be both a hindrance and an enhancement. It depends on the therapeutic encounter.
Sometimes, someone wants to be seen by a fellow Jewish person at that moment—to feel that kinship and community. And sometimes, that shared identity can enhance the healing process.
But it can also be a hindrance. It can create a fog between self and other, between subject and other, obscuring the therapeutic work that needs to happen. So, it depends. I am very careful and tentative about when I invoke shared identity and when I do not.
Jacobsen: My buddy Rick Rosner—the one I mentioned earlier who wrote for Jimmy Kimmel for twelve years—and I often have a session or conversation every night or every other night, covering a wide range of topics.
He is Reform Jewish. I share a namesake with the founder of Reform Judaism, Israel Jacobson, who was born around 1810 in Germany. At least etymologically, there is just a slight letter change from “e” to “o.”
Anyway, when I asked Rick what he believes, his response — consistently — has been: We don’t know what we’re supposed to believe. Coming out of Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, there is a different theological framing and upbringing.
So, if we were to parse these three ways—Reform, Conservative, and particularly Orthodox Judaism—how well do they mesh with existentialism and psychotherapy?
Cahana: The philosophical differences between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism are significant, but they are often treated as less divisive because there is a communal sense — a broader tent that we still share.
I believe a deep connection to the world of doing remains across all three streams—Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. That is an important distinction.
In Christianity, there is this concept that one circumcises the heart — that belief is internal, centred in the mind or spirit.
In Judaism, particularly across all streams, the focus is more on orthopraxy — correct practice — rather than orthodoxy— correct belief. We emphasize that what you do matters and how you live matters.
That orientation naturally harmonizes more easily with existentialism and psychotherapy because existentialism is also deeply concerned with how one acts, chooses, and lives in an often ambiguous world.
It is about mastery over the earth and being fully in the world. There is a delay in knowing what happens in the divine realm, but we are not so concerned with that.
Of course, there are rabbis, thinkers, and mystics who are deeply concerned with what the divine world looks like, who engage in creative theological play and explore the love of the divine. But ultimately, our task is to fix the world (tikkun olam). It is on us.
All people must be part of the world’s healing—it is not the responsibility of one individual alone. It is a communal prerogative and imperative.
Jacobsen: Last question: How can an existentialist psychotherapist reconcile the absolute transcendent authority of Torah min ha-Shamayim (Torah from Heaven) with the therapeutic imperative to foster personal freedom, authentic choice, and self-derived meaning — particularly for those drawing upon Orthodox Jewish beliefs? How does the Orthodox existential psychotherapist reconcile these tensions?
Cahana: It is not as hard as it might seem within Jewish thought because so much of Orthodox Judaism is built around studying the cacophony of different voices across history.
There is an acknowledgment that the Torah is divine, but it is always studied alongside centuries of traditions, responsa, and commentary — a cacophony of voices. An eleventh-century rabbi is in conversation with a fifteenth-century rabbi, and sometimes one ruling is followed, sometimes another. Each community has its rabbi and its interpretive lineage.
Navigating how freedom and identity intersect with communal expectations can be complicated.
Much of my work with Orthodox Jewish clients revolves around navigating what one is expecting or hoping from the community and what expects or hopes from the individual.
I may draw on my knowledge because I come from within that inner language. It is not as black-and-white as it might seem — even if people wear black and white.
Jacobsen: Or in the artistic style of a Ghibli movie.
Cahana: [Laughing] Yes.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Cahana: Fantastic. Thank you so much, Scott. This was so much fun. Yes, if you have different topics in mind, we can explore them. Your interview style was really fun, and I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Cahana: Ciao.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/26
Kuty Shalev is the Founder and CEO of Lumenalta. Lumenalta defines emotional intelligence (EQ) in IT as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness, combined with technical communication and problem-solving skills. They integrate EQ into daily workflows through simulation-based coaching and commitment-based communication, ensuring clear articulation of concerns and concrete commitments aligned with business outcomes. This approach fosters stakeholder alignment, reduces ambiguity, and improves client satisfaction. Despite challenges like strict deadlines and remote work barriers, IT leaders report significant benefits. Leadership plays a key role by modeling effective communication and continuously reinforcing EQ through coaching and mentoring. Overall, this strategy transforms IT culture.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Lumenalta define emotional intelligence within IT teams?
Kuty Shalev: At Lumenalta, we see emotional intelligence (EQ) as the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes collaborations with empathy, adaptability, and self-awareness. It’s not just about interpersonal skills—it’s about creating an environment where technical and non-technical team members can align on priorities, manage conflict constructively, and drive innovation.
A key part of our approach is commitment-based communication. This means that instead of vague discussions or assumptions, our teams are trained to articulate their concerns clearly, identify the hidden concerns of others, and create commitments that are specific, validated, and aligned with business outcomes. This structured way of communicating ensures that nothing is left ambiguous—whether in a client meeting, a project plan, or even when prompting an AI model.
Jacobsen: Does this differ much from more general definitions of emotional intelligence?
Shalev: Yes, in many ways. While general definitions of emotional intelligence focus on self-awareness, empathy, and interpersonal effectiveness, EQ within IT teams also encompasses technical communication, problem-solving under pressure, and cross-cultural collaboration—especially in remote environments. IT professionals must translate technical concepts into business outcomes, prioritize conflicting demands, and adapt to evolving requirements—all of which require a blend of emotional and cognitive intelligence.
Jacobsen: How have IT leaders overcome the challenge of strict deadlines limiting the development of EQ?
Shalev: Lumenalta has tackled this challenge by integrating EQ development directly into how teams work. Instead of separating “soft skills” training from technical training, we embed emotional intelligence into real-world practice. For example, our teams participate in simulation-based coaching that mimics high-pressure client scenarios, helping them refine their communication, negotiation, and problem-solving skills in real time. This ensures that EQ development isn’t an extracurricular activity—it’s a core part of how we deliver results.
Jacobsen: What companies have integrated EQ into IT culture to provide measurable improvements?
Shalev: Many forward-thinking organizations have embraced EQ-driven approaches to IT. Our own experience at Lumenalta has shown that when developers are trained to navigate stakeholder dynamics, project outcomes improve. According to our research, 87% of IT leaders reported that
investing in EQ directly improved client satisfaction, and 81% saw a positive impact on technology adoption. Companies that embed emotional intelligence into daily workflows—rather than relying on one-off training—see the most significant gains.
Jacobsen: What factors can blunt the positive effects of improved EQ in the IT workplace?
Shalev: One major factor is a lack of structural reinforcement. If EQ training isn’t backed by a workplace culture that values open communication, psychological safety, and constructive feedback, it won’t stick. Another challenge is time pressure—if teams are constantly in reactive mode, they may default to transactional communication rather than thoughtful collaboration. Finally, hybrid and remote work environments can create EQ barriers if companies don’t establish clear norms for engagement and relationship-building.
Jacobsen: How are facets of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, adaptability, and empathy—quantified and measured to improve workplace productivity?
Shalev: One way Lumenalta measures the impact of EQ training is through the clarity and effectiveness of communication. Are teams making and keeping better commitments? Are they reducing ambiguity in client interactions? Are they proactively uncovering concerns before they become roadblocks?
Interestingly, this same discipline in language and clarity extends to AI development. The best AI outputs come from well-structured prompts, and the ability to construct these prompts effectively comes from the same EQ skills we cultivate in our teams. A great AI prompt, much like a great commitment, is clear, concise, and validated against the outcomes we are targeting.
Jacobsen: Do generational culture differences affect the workforce perception of EQ in IT teams?
Shalev: Absolutely. Younger IT professionals often expect EQ to be embedded into company culture and value ongoing coaching, while more experienced team members may have developed technical expertise in environments where EQ wasn’t prioritized. Our research found that perspectives on
EQ varied based on years of experience, but across the board, IT leaders recognized its importance—90% said it was essential for success.
Jacobsen: How can leadership and management style foster more emotionally intelligent work environments in tech companies?
Shalev: Leadership plays a crucial role in setting the tone for EQ in IT teams. At Lumenalta, we focus on leading by example—our senior engineers and product leads model effective communication, client engagement, and conflict resolution. We also emphasize continuous learning, using both AI-powered coaching tools and human-led mentoring to reinforce key EQ skills. Creating an
environment where engineers feel heard, valued, and empowered to solve problems autonomously is key to long-term success.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kuty.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/25
Richard Taite, founder and executive chairman of Carrara Treatment Wellness & Spa, who reframes addiction recovery as a “love call” rather than shame-based intervention. Taite discusses his own recovery, Carrara’s whole-body approach, and innovations like in-the-moment clinical support. He critiques misconceptions about therapy, highlights podcast success, and underscores the need for compassion and tailored care—especially for high-profile clients. The conversation emphasizes authentic, holistic models in mental health, especially amid a rising mental health crisis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’ve often described addiction recovery as “love first.” Does this reshape the traditional rehab model?
Richard Taite: It’s not “love first” rather a “love call” and yes, it does reshape the traditional rehab model.
People come in broken and full of shame. I’m not kicking a horse when they’re down, that makes no sense to me.
You love them, nurture them and cheerleader for them and move them gently through the process of becoming their best selves.
Jacobsen: Is this essential as a reframe in today’s mental health crisis?
Taite: It should be. This is one of the innovations I brought to treatment and I am so committed to it. For example, I developed a client care team of clinicians to walk around Carrara, look for the person with their head in their hands and do a session right there, in the moment. This helps us to contain situations before they snowball and provides immediate relief.
Jacobsen: Your podcast is We’re Out of Time. It is #3 on Apple’s Mental Health charts. What resonates with audiences about conversations on addiction and recovery?
Taite: I think it’s helped that I’ve never listened or watched a podcast prior to starting mine. I’ve been a guest on multiple podcasts, but it’s different when you’re a guest as opposed to when you’re hosting. Because I’ve never listened to another podcast there’s no influence on me whatsoever so maybe it’s what separates me in a competitive space.
But I will tell you that my podcast is completely authentic and honest and even uncomfortable at times… I’m not here to judge but to listen to these stories, understand my guests’ trauma and offer them a new perspective. The way I tackle this tough subject (addiction) must resonate with my audience deeply. I have a hard time believing after only 7 1/2 months that we’re the number three mental health Podcast in the country… I’m still getting my head around it.
Jacobsen: Mental Health Awareness Month brings attention to systemic issues. What misconceptions sit amongst public commentariat about addiction and mental illness?
Taite: Anyone who has a negative outlook on treatment or therapy just doesn’t know better. It’s a negative talking point that simply does not exist much anymore.
Therapy isn’t something you have to do. It’s something you GET to do. It is the ultimate luxury, and it is how elegant men and women, who want the best for themselves, deal with their stressors in life so they don’t create unnecessary wreckage.
Jacobsen: How has your journey informed leadership at Carrara Treatment?
Taite: I lost a quarter of a century to drug addiction and have been sober for 22 years now… That’s not anecdotal, that’s field research. I don’t think I know. I know, I know. It was important that we had the most effective treatment model in the most comfortable setting to do some uncomfortable work.
But with respect to leadership, our CEO Candy Henderson is our leader. I may be the executive chairman and founder, but I serve at her pleasure and that’s the way I’ve always done it…. She’s the best CEO I’ve ever had, by miles!
Jacobsen: Is recovery a long-term thing, a short-term deal, or somehow an admixture but in different ways?
Taite: What an excellent question.
So there’s a framework called The Transtheoretical Model, it is the step-by-step process in which behavioral change occurs. This model shows you exactly where you are in your arc of recovery.
So for example, someone who is coming in to get the heat off, a husband who is in trouble with his employer or his wife is sick and tired of his behavior, but he doesn’t believe he’s got a problem, he’s gonna need 90 days.
But the guy coming in who has had enough and he’s just tired of living a life of substance abuse, or alcoholism, that guy needs 30 days.
This is oversimplified, but you get the idea.
Jacobsen: You emphasize a whole body approach. What does that mean to treatment?
Taite: It means we don’t just treat the addiction. We treat the whole person.
The goal for most treatment centers is simply to get you sober, but all the pain that was keeping you sick is still there… That’s a tortured life.
At Carrara, we look at everything. Emotional trauma, nervous system regulation, gut health, sleep patterns, hormonal imbalances, spiritual emptiness, relationships, and much more. Every system in the body and brain is connected.
Our entire team works together to restore the entire person. It’s holistic, meaning the whole body is treated because addiction doesn’t live in just one part of a person.
Jacobsen: You’ve worked with high-profile clients and public figures. How does public prominence impact these issues? Any particular cases of recovery for public people that show a positive path in your experience.
Taite: High profile clients and public figures are not going to the average run of the mill rehab or even a high-end rehab. They want the best of everything. Carrara is one of one, it was built that way. For an ultra high net worth individual Carrara is their only choice. But the public at large looks down on this and they think if you’re not willing to humble yourself and go through the grind that you don’t deserve to be sober.
I’ve been told… ‘But Rich, you never went to a fancy rehab, you went to an all men’s sober living’. And that’s true. But I was at a different place in my life, I wasn’t the same guy I am today and today I would never have gone to that sober living. Does that mean I have to die or end up in jail just because I’m not willing to humble myself and go to some substandard facility? That only sounds stupid when you say it out loud right?
As far as cases of recovery for public people that show positive results, it happens every day.
But guarding our clients privacy is of paramount importance so you’re never getting an example out of me.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Richard.
—
Start your Recovery
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/25
UC Riverside professor Kevin Esterling, creator of Prytaneum, talks about an AI-powered webinar platform built to foster inclusive, deliberative public discourse. Designed at the TeCD-Lab and inspired by ancient democratic principles, Prytaneum enables real-time audience participation and AI synthesis of diverse viewpoints—reshaping how civic engagement happens online. Esterling shares insights from working with Congress, the Department of Education, and public agencies, and reflects on the technical, financial, and conceptual challenges of developing such a platform. He envisions partnerships focused on high-quality communication and data collection—not just market-ready tech.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Kevin Esterling, professor of public policy and political science at UC Riverside, where he leads the Laboratory for Technology, Communication, and Democracy—TeCD-Lab. He developed Prytaneum, an AI-powered webinar platform inspired by ancient democratic practices that synthesize participant responses to ensure inclusive public discourse. Prytaneum enables meaningful dialogue in large online meetings by capturing and categorizing all voices, not just the loudest.
Supported by the National Science Foundation, Democracy Fund, and others, Esterling’s work advances what he calls “directly representative democracy,” fostering two-way communication between citizens and policymakers.
Thank you for joining me today. As mentioned in the introduction, what inspired the development of Prytaneum?
Kevin Esterling: About fifteen years ago, I received an NSF grant that funded a project where we worked with both the U.S. Congress and individual members of Congress to develop best practices for how elected officials could use webinar platforms to conduct more constructive public meetings with their constituents.
My background is in deliberative democracy. In my field, we focus on designing institutions that enable people to interact more deliberatively. That project used commercially available webinar technology, which was still new at the time. We developed a set of best-practice recommendations to make these public meetings more constructive.
It was a complete NSF-funded project. We published several papers and even a book titled Politics with the People, co-authored by Michael Neblo and David Lazer, my two collaborators. The project was successful.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial by having members of Congress implement our best practices to host a series of town halls. For each member of Congress hosting a town hall, we partnered with a survey firm to select a representative sample of constituents from their district. Some were randomly invited to attend the town hall, while others were not.
This allowed us to rigorously evaluate the effects of participating in such town halls—whether people were satisfied and whether there were democratic benefits. We found many positive outcomes: the meetings attracted a broad cross-section of the constituency, participants learned from one another, valued the experience, and believed the process benefited democracy.
Public officials liked the meetings. The project was a success, but when it ended, there was still room for improvement. We had been using commercially available webinar platforms, but I recognized a fundamental limitation—something built into the technology—that restricted our ability to make public meetings more deliberative.
The core issue is that existing webinar platforms were never designed with democratic engagement in mind. A typical webinar is ideal for a speaker to broadcast a message to an audience. A public official, for example, can inform constituents about their policies or positions. However, as anyone who has ever attended a webinar knows, it is a terrible format for audience members to meaningfully speak back to the speaker.
As a political scientist working in democratic theory, I saw a mismatch between our technology and the kind of democratic engagement we were trying to achieve.
That realization led me to seek new solutions. I received a small seed grant from the Democracy Fund, a funding agency based in Washington, DC, to build a prototype of what is now Prytaneum. The idea was to rethink the webinar from the ground up—to redesign it in a way that gives constituents a stronger voice in policymaking, in real-time, during a meeting. At the same time, the technology had to encourage constructive engagement with the content being discussed.
So, Prytaneum is designed to elevate constituent voices and guide them into meaningful, organized dialogue.
Since then, I have received additional grants, and we’ve developed the platform further. I initially approached it as a political scientist—a project to improve public meetings. However, once the platform was built, I realized that the underlying communication problem we were solving wasn’t limited to policymaking or government.
Any speaker, in any setting—whether online or in person—wants to understand what their audience is thinking. But no technology has enabled mutual learning or real-time insight into audience sentiment. Prytaneum solves that broader, more universal communication challenge.
Jacobsen: Have there been real-world applications—such as with the California Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission?
Esterling: Yes. I received a grant to help fund the data science component of Prytaneum, specifically for integrating large language model artificial intelligence to support facilitators in curating participant input. We piloted this with the California Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. They regularly host public meetings and were looking for ways to improve the quality of public engagement. Our collaboration helped them do just that.
The California Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission team advised us as we explored how to integrate AI into the curation process. We then hosted several demonstration town halls last summer to test the system.
I also have a separate grant from the Department of Education, through which we used Prytaneum without the AI component. In that case, we focused solely on the engagement features—the front end—as part of a curriculum module developed through the grant. The program enabled high school seniors to meet with their members of Congress as a capstone event that culminated in a three-week curriculum.
The students went through the curriculum, learning about the issue they would be discussing, the role of representatives in a democracy, and key elements of analytical reasoning. The final event was a virtual town hall on Prytaneum, where they debated the issue with their member of Congress. It was a multi-year project, and thousands of students participated using the platform.
Jacobsen: How does the AI distinguish between popular opinions and minority perspectives during these discussions?
Esterling: That’s a great question. One of the core problems with public meetings is that the people who show up are almost always unrepresentative of the broader community that the speaker wants to reach. You especially see this in local government settings—city council or planning department meetings—where the loudest or most affluent voices often dominate.
We designed Prytaneum to ensure a broader range of community perspectives are heard. One of the primary tools we use is our polling feature. When a speaker launches a poll, participants not only select their preferred option but also write a reason explaining why they support that choice.
So, we are not just collecting answers—we are capturing the reasoning behind those answers. The AI then synthesizes and summarizes these written justifications for each available option. Even if only a small minority selects a specific response, their reasoning is surfaced and shared with the entire group.
This helps ensure that all perspectives—not just the most common ones—are represented. It also allows participants to encounter reasoning that may differ from their own, helping them step outside their echo chambers.
Jacobsen: And things are often said differently depending on the language and cultural context. The texture of language can emphasize different nuances. Is Prytaneum planning to incorporate multilingual or accessibility features to support that?
Esterling: Yes—thank you for asking. Currently, Prytaneum offers real-time translation between English and Spanish. Participants can choose to participate in either language.
Yes, everything is translated in real-time. And thanks to large language models, machine translation today is much more accurate than it was a few years ago. It works pretty well.
If we can secure more funding, our long-term hope is to make Prytaneum fully language-neutral. Ideally, users would select their preferred language from a dropdown menu, and everything would be presented in that language. I believe that’s absolutely essential to making the platform globally inclusive.
Jacobsen: What were some of the challenges you faced in building Prytaneum?
Esterling: There were several—three major ones.
The first is funding. My lab operates on a very tight budget—a classic underfunded academic lab scenario. If I had a full team of engineers, there would be so much more we could build, but development moves slowly because of limited resources.
The second challenge was technical. Building a platform where many people can simultaneously submit content and then have that content distributed in real time to everyone else’s computer is complex. We had to build a backend that supports real-time updates across many users without lag or data conflict.
Prytaneum is also fully collaborative, meaning multiple users interact with the same content simultaneously. This introduces another layer of complexity, so we had to design the system to prevent conflicts when people engage simultaneously with the interface.
The third and perhaps the most significant challenge is conceptual. We hold a weekly design team meeting to explore how to translate our normative aspirations—inclusivity, deliberative equality, and constructive engagement—into actual design features.
What we’re really trying to do is solve a problem that no one has attempted before: how to make it possible for everyone in a meeting to understand each other at the same time. That’s a conceptual puzzle that has taken a lot of thought and iteration. Much of our work has gone into understanding the problem before translating that into technical design.
Jacobsen: Labs are perpetually underfunded. Even businesses face scale-related limitations. What kind of business partnership would help you scale Prytaneum as a research platform and as a broader product?
Esterling: If you look at the webinar market today—and I will not name names—you’ll notice something striking: there’s almost no differentiation between the major platforms used for large-scale meetings. They all function in essentially the same way.
They all essentially do the same thing. So, Prytaneum offers a chance to fundamentally rethink the webinar industry. It has the potential to shift how the entire sector conceptualizes the purpose and design of communication platforms.
For me, the ideal partner would be a corporate collaborator interested in reimagining communication—not someone chasing short-term profit, but someone who cares about making communication more effective. Ideally, this would be a company that values high-quality data collection—a company that sees the benefit in creating environments where people interact meaningfully, leading to deeper insights about how they think and make decisions.
Such a company could use those insights to improve its own products or services. So, rather than seeking a quick return on investment through a flashy app, this would be a partner committed to data collection the right way—using a platform that encourages authentic, constructive engagement.
Here’s another way to think about it: On most webinar platforms today, audience members—everyone who is not a panellist—are expected to be passive observers. There are very few opportunities for active participation. And when people are passive, they are not cognitively engaged; they are simply watching, not processing or reasoning deeply about the content.
Now, imagine using AI to mine audience input in real time on a traditional webinar platform. The data you collect will be superficial if the audience is not mentally engaged. It becomes a classic “garbage in, garbage out” problem. The AI might process those inputs, but the outputs will lack meaningful insight.
By contrast, Prytaneum’s design actively fosters deeper engagement. The audience is asked to think critically, contribute reasoning, and reflect on different perspectives. As a result, the platform can generate much richer, higher-quality data. That’s the core of our pitch to potential partners: this is not just a better communication tool—it is a tool for collecting better data because it encourages better thinking.
Jacobsen: What else can I ask? How can organizations and communities access Prytaneum?
Esterling: Well, right now, Prytaneum is a research platform. We use it primarily for continued development—especially to improve the large language model integrations.
And to clarify, everyone other than me calls it Pry-TAY-neum. My collaborators say it that way. Everyone I speak with says it that way. But for some reason, I say PRY-taneum. I named it, but apparently, I have no control over how it is pronounced! That’s okay—I’ve accepted it.
We are currently reviewing grant proposals to take the next step: using Prytaneum as a platform to collect better data and further improve the language models themselves. It also functions as a testbed—a proof-of-concept platform for organizations that want to experiment with more inclusive and intelligent online engagement.
I say “proof of concept” intentionally. My lab has one software developer. We’re not a tech company. So, we cannot promise that Prytaneum is ready for market deployment with full customer support and all the bells and whistles.
Organizations using it would need to accept it as-is. That said, they can visit the website—I believe you have the URL for it—where there are video demos showing how the platform works in practice.
If an organization is interested in using Prytaneum, they can contact me directly. If the interest aligns with our goals, we could issue a license that would allow them to create and host meetings. A permit is required to initiate new meetings, so collaboration is key.
Jacobsen: Kevin, thank you very much for your time today. It was great to meet you, and I appreciate you walking me through this cutting-edge development in the evolution of webinar platforms.
Esterling: Awesome. Yes, thank you so much, 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): 2025/06/24
Jamie Wright is a Los Angeles-based attorney specializing in labor and employment law, focusing on wage and hour litigation and contract disputes. She is a partner at Millennial Government Affairs, providing crisis communication and legal strategies for political and corporate clients. Jamie is also the founder of The Wright Law Firm. Wright discusses the federal lawsuit against Maine over transgender athlete policies. She explains the constitutional stakes, federal-state tensions, and civil rights implications, warning the case could redefine equality standards and influence national policymaking on rights and inclusion. Website: https://jamiewrightesq.com.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you interpret the federal government’s decision to sue Maine over its refusal to ban transgender athletes?
Jamie E. Wright: The federal government’s lawsuit against Maine over its refusal to enforce a ban on transgender athletes is more than a policy dispute. It’s a full-blown constitutional clash. Bottom line, at stake is the balance between civil rights and state power. This isn’t just about who gets to play on which sports team. It is about whether Washington can compel states to adopt a national standard of equality under Title IX, the federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education.
Jacobsen: What are the constitutional or legal precedents?
Wright: The legal backdrop is complex but important. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can attach conditions to its funding. That was settled in 1987 in South Dakota v. Dole. But there are limits. When those conditions begin to feel less like guidelines and more like mandates, courts have pushed back against federal coercion.
Jacobsen: Governor Janet Mills called this lawsuit federal overreach. Where is the line between federal enforcement and state discretion?
Wright: That is exactly the argument Maine Governor Janet Mills is making. She says the Biden administration is overstepping its authority, using federal education dollars to strong-arm the state into following policies it does not support. If Maine can show that it had no meaningful choice but to comply, it could invoke the anti-commandeering principle laid out in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018. In plain English, the federal government cannot hijack state governments to carry out federal policies.
Jacobsen: What are the likely downstream effects for states with inclusive transgender athlete policies?
Wright: The federal government sees it differently. Officials argue this is not about commandeering at all. It is about making sure states that accept federal funding do not discriminate. It is about defending the rights of transgender students and making sure civil rights law does not depend on your ZIP code.
Jacobsen: If Maine prevails, could this empower defiance of federal directives on civil rights issues?
Wright: The outcome could be seismic. If the courts side with Washington, the ruling could set a new national standard, expanding protections for transgender athletes and forcing other states to align. If Maine wins, it could spark a wave of resistance, with states asserting more control over civil rights enforcement and challenging federal authority at its core.
Jacobsen: What are the legal and ethical implications of using sports as a battleground? How might this lawsuit influence future policymaking?
Wright: Make no mistake…this case is not just legal theory. It is unfolding in locker rooms, on soccer fields, and in high school gyms. On one side are transgender students asking to be seen, included, and treated with respect. On the other are families and advocates raising concerns about fairness in girls’ sports and what inclusion should look like in practice. What is at risk is not only legal precedent, but the lives and experiences of real young people. When these kids become pawns in political battles, everybody loses.
Jacobsen: How should the public understand the stakes of this legal conflict?
Wright: This case could set the tone for the next chapter in America’s long fight over rights and representation. More states are likely to push back. Future administrations may use the same tactics or escalate them. The deeper question remains: Who gets to define what equality means in this country? And will that definition apply to all of us, or only to some?
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jamie.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/24
On the 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the Taxpayers Protection Alliance and public health advocates like Martin Cullip are calling out the WHO’s refusal to embrace tobacco harm reduction. Despite overwhelming evidence supporting alternatives such as vaping, nicotine pouches, snus, and heated tobacco, the WHO maintains a prohibitionist stance rooted in outdated ideologies. Critics argue that this blocks progress, wastes taxpayer money, and ignores the lived experiences of millions who have successfully quit smoking using reduced-risk products. They urge governments and civil society to pressure the WHO for reform and evidence-based public health policies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is also criticizing the World Health Organization (WHO) and its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on its twentieth anniversary. The TPA argues that the FCTC has failed to adapt over time and has not integrated harm reduction strategies such as vaping, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches into its policy framework. Critics—including Clive Bates, Roger Bate, and Martin Cullip, who (Cullins) joins us today—have accused the WHO of clinging to outdated, abstinence-only, prohibitionist approaches while ignoring science-based alternatives that could significantly reduce smoking-related deaths.
From personal experience, I’ve worked in construction, in restaurants, and even with horses—environments where smoking and, increasingly, vaping are everyday habits. This is true in many parts of Western Europe and North America. Many people smoke. Many people vape. Many also feel a sense of guilt or shame around it due in part to social stigma and rising costs. Despite this, harm reduction is gaining traction globally.
I was involved with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP), a youth-led harm reduction advocacy organization. Our focus at the time included urgent issues such as fentanyl contamination in recreational drug supplies. One key initiative was investigating access to naloxone—an opioid overdose reversal medication—on post-secondary campuses. At the time, only a few universities in Canada had naloxone kits available on-site. This was not decades ago—this was within the last several years.
Canada has over one hundred accredited universities, and the vast majority of them are public. Fewer than ten are private, and most of those have religious affiliations. The lack of widespread harm reduction infrastructure was—and in some cases still is—a clear example of policy failing to meet public health needs. Now to the central point. When analyzing the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, how closely does it mirror the language and policy recommendations of traditional prohibitionist frameworks? More importantly, has the FCTC evolved to reflect harm reduction principles?
Martin Cullip: Unfortunately, no—at least not in any meaningful or public-facing way. This is one of the key concerns raised by experts. The WHO has historically resisted harm reduction in the context of tobacco, much as it once did in the context of illicit drug use. While the WHO eventually recognized harm reduction as a legitimate and necessary approach for addressing drug-related harms—including needle exchange and opioid substitution therapy—it was a protracted battle. Many advocates recall that the WHO, for years, acted as a barrier rather than a partner in those efforts.
Over time, with the global recognition that the war on drugs had failed, the WHO came around and now endorses harm reduction for drug policy. However, in tobacco control, the same shift has not yet occurred. Despite mounting evidence that reduced-risk nicotine products can help adult smokers switch away from combustible cigarettes, the WHO continues to prioritize abstinence-based measures and, in some cases, supports bans or severe restrictions on harm-reduction tools.
And that is precisely what they are now doing with tobacco harm reduction. I would say it is the same kind of struggle. You know, nicotine use—according to archaeological evidence—has been going on for over twelve thousand years. That is just what we currently know.
Today, we have around one billion smokers globally out of a population of eight billion. So, you are not going to eliminate nicotine use. The sensible approach is to help people consume nicotine in the safest way possible, and that is through harm reduction: vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco, and snus, which have been used for decades in Scandinavian countries.
However, the WHO remains committed to a prohibitionist stance, despite growing evidence that harm reduction works. In countries where harm reduction is embraced as part of tobacco control, smoking rates are significantly lower than in those that maintain abstinence-only policies.
Take Sweden, for example. It has just reached the European Union’s “smoke-free” target of less than 5% adult smoking prevalence—sixteen years ahead of the EU’s 2040 goal. That demonstrates harm reduction’s effectiveness. It mirrors the earlier battle over drug policy, where advocates eventually convinced the WHO to recognize harm reduction measures like needle exchange programs and opioid substitution therapy.
Jacobsen: So it is the same sort of conversation. The available evidence—at least the last time I checked—strongly supports harm reduction as an effective way to reduce the harm associated with virtually any substance. Prohibitionist or punitive approaches, on the other hand, tend to either have no impact or make the situation worse.
What tends to happen is this: people who are going to use a substance still do, and sometimes use it even more dangerously. So prohibition can be counterproductive, but if health authorities know this and still promote such policies, it borders on misinformation.
Over time, what we see is not only increased use but increased trauma—whether through financial penalties, incarceration, or other consequences. Smoking is, of course, a somewhat different case than illicit drug use, but this is still a broad pattern that applies across substance use policy. Has any of the evidence changed recently to support prohibitionist tobacco policies?
Cullip: No, if anything, the evidence has grown stronger to support harm reduction. One of the classic prohibitionist arguments is that “we do not yet know the long-term effects” of these newer products. But that argument never ends. I read a piece just last year from someone in Sweden claiming we still do not know enough about snus.
Snus has been used in Sweden since at least the 1800s and has contributed significantly to the country’s low smoking rates. At what point is the evidence considered sufficient? That kind of argument is used to delay policy reform indefinitely.
Meanwhile, because of the WHO’s anti–harm reduction stance, some countries have begun adopting punitive measures against people who use safer nicotine alternatives. France, for example, has passed legislation to ban nicotine pouches—arguably the safest form of nicotine delivery currently available. That is deeply concerning.
I mean, nicotine pouches work in much the same way as pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapies like patches and gum. But now they are banning these products. In France, for example, they have proposed a five-year prison sentence simply for possession—not sale, not use, just possession—of nicotine pouches.
If this trend of prohibition continues, it will inevitably harm people—just as we now understand the war on drugs did in the United States. That approach criminalized millions, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, for behaviours that are, frankly, human. People have always sought out psychoactive substances, whether for relief, stimulation, or recreation.
Someone needs to be realistic about this. People are going to use these products. The best approach is to guide them toward the safest possible options, which is the essence of harm reduction. As you mentioned, we do not ban driving because cars can cause fatal accidents. Instead, we mandate seat belts. And yes, cars damage the environment, but the solution is to shift toward electric vehicles—not to ban all cars. These are examples of harm reduction.
In nearly every other area of public policy, harm reduction is accepted as common sense. But for some reason, when it comes to psychoactive substances, there’s a block—institutional resistance. That is why the WHO opposed drug harm reduction for so long and now, similarly, opposes tobacco harm reduction.
Hopefully, history will positively repeat itself, and the WHO will eventually shift. These are not unintelligent people at the WHO. Many are extremely capable. The problem is institutional inertia. It is not that someone needs to make a radical change overnight—it is that the system needs a push toward rational, incremental reform.
Jacobsen: Especially when a country like France is taking these hardline stances. France is often stereotyped in North America as a liberal country, at least socially. So, it sends a strong message even when they are adopting such prohibitionist policies. Of course, some Americans dislike the French for reasons they cannot even articulate. I’m Canadian, but I understand that sentiment exists. I know many British people feel similarly.
Cullip: Yeah, I’m British—and yes, a lot of Brits seem to dislike the French, but I actually really enjoy France. I have been there many times and love the country.
Jacobsen: For the WHO to maintain credibility in global health governance, what specific, targeted reforms should come first?
Cullip: I think they need to be more realistic. Part of the issue is that many at the WHO see themselves as having fought and won a decades-long battle against Big Tobacco. That fight has shaped their worldview. The logic goes: smoking is dangerous; therefore, it must be stopped entirely.
Historically, the only way to consume nicotine outside of pharmaceutical products was through smoking—rolling up dried tobacco leaves in paper and lighting them. That was it. So the narrative became: all tobacco is harmful, and no tobacco is good. From there, the assumption followed: ban all tobacco.
In that framework, the vector of harm is not just the product—it is the industry. So now the WHO is focused on attacking both, sometimes without distinguishing between combustible tobacco and much safer alternatives.
They want to attack smoking, and they want to attack the tobacco industry. So when that same industry introduces something completely different—reduced-risk products—they have difficulty accepting it. Sorry, someone was calling me; I declined it.
When alternative products emerge, the WHO faces two significant challenges. First, its institutional mindset is built entirely around opposing smoking, and it seems unable to shift to a harm reduction framework. Second, some of these alternative products—though not all—are produced by the same tobacco companies it has spent decades fighting. The WHO and its allies have been conditioned to oppose anything tied to the industry, regardless of scientific merit.
So, they are facing two entrenched barriers: a focus on abstinence rather than harm reduction and deep-rooted hostility toward the industry. Much of the global tobacco control network was built around this dual opposition. It is difficult for them to acknowledge that the landscape has changed and that new products and approaches now exist.
Keep in mind that vaping was only invented a little over twenty years ago, and nicotine pouches only came onto the market around 2016. More people are now discovering snus, which has been used safely in Scandinavian countries for decades. Yet snus has been banned throughout the European Union since 1992—without good justification. That is another debate altogether, but it illustrates the point.
Jacobsen: That ban belongs to a very different era.
Cullip: Exactly. Heated tobacco products are also relatively new. They were introduced in Japan around 2016, and since then, cigarette sales in Japan have fallen by about 50%. That is an enormous public health achievement in a short time.
If these harm-reduction products are allowed to thrive, they can drastically reduce smoking rates. But if your institution has spent years attacking only one product—combustible cigarettes—and that product finally begins to decline due to innovations you had no part in creating, what is your role? What does the tobacco control movement become when people can walk into a vape shop and quit smoking without any involvement from WHO-backed programs?
There is also a sense that because these products were not invented or endorsed by the public health establishment, the WHO does not feel ownership over them. And therefore, they are dismissed or ignored.
It is probably difficult for the WHO to shift direction. But it must begin listening to the science. That is where the core issue lies.
We are now at the twentieth anniversary of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global treaty ratified by 183 countries. But it has strayed from its original mission: to reduce the harms caused by tobacco smoke.
Today, it is attacking nicotine itself, which was never the intent. Even some of the original architects of the treaty have expressed concern, saying that the FCTC has turned into an ideological crusade. It is no longer focused on harm reduction. It refuses open debate, avoids engaging with dissenting views, and only admits carefully vetted media to its conferences. In fact, it once even banned Interpol from attending a session—Interpol!—because it had previously spoken with a tobacco company about curbing illicit trade, which is literally part of Interpol’s mandate.
This is the problem: the WHO is stuck in a 1990s-era battle against Big Tobacco while we live in a 21st-century world with innovative, demonstrably safer nicotine products. Instead of adapting to the evidence, they are clinging to outdated narratives.
And there are glimpses that the WHO occasionally acknowledges the potential of harm reduction. For example, in 2016, during the Seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7) held in India, there was an admission in one of their official documents that if every smoker were to switch to vaping, it would represent a significant public health gain.
However, their subsequent actions did not align with that statement. Instead of loosening restrictions, they have imposed more prohibitions over time. So, while there was recognition on paper, their policies have only become more restrictive in practice.
Jacobsen: Right. And that creates a contradiction—because, in theory, taxpayer funding should lead to effective public services. That is the whole point: taxpayers pay into the system to deliver services effectively and based on evidence. But if those services are, in fact, ineffective or even harmful—particularly when based on outdated or punitive policies—then taxpayers are not only undermining their present investment in public institutions but also ensuring higher future costs through continued inefficiency and avoidable health burdens. So what role do taxpayers have in redirecting harm reduction policy?
Cullip: That is a fundamental question. I have often argued that anyone who uses nicotine is, by extension, a taxpayer—either directly, through income and consumption taxes or indirectly, by participating in a system funded by taxes. And a portion of that funding goes to support institutions like the World Health Organization.
The fact that the WHO holds its key meetings in private and refuses to allow consumers to observe the process—let alone contribute—is simply unacceptable. It is fundamentally wrong. There is no democratic input. The WHO is not elected, yet it receives public funding from taxpayer-supported governments while systematically excluding those same taxpayers from discussions.
It was not always this way. In the past, some public access to proceedings was permitted. I have personally attended a few. But increasingly, the WHO is shutting out dissenting voices—consumers, scientists, industry experts—anyone who might question their approach.
Jacobsen: This makes the work of groups like the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) essential.
Cullip: That is why TPA is hosting its own event in Geneva during the same week as the WHO’s Conference of the Parties (COP10). The goal is to demonstrate that there are other voices—consumers, taxpayers, and experts—who believe the WHO’s approach is flawed and out of touch with both science and public accountability.
It is not just consumers. We have doctors, policy specialists, and health economists at our event. The message is simple: there is a better way, and it is time the WHO listens.
As you noted, embracing harm reduction can also reduce healthcare costs. In countries that have adopted harm reduction for tobacco and nicotine, smoking prevalence has declined, and so have associated healthcare burdens. The WHO often talks about how much smoking costs health systems. So, if we know that safer alternatives reduce smoking, why are they not encouraging those alternatives?
We do not have a clear answer. But we can amplify the message that science, policy, and financial responsibility all point in the same direction: toward harm reduction.
This exclusion of public voices is truly unique. You do not see this in other international policy spaces. At UN climate change conferences, for instance—COP meetings on climate—the public can attend. Civil society is present. Even industry representatives are involved because the understanding is that we must solve the problem together.
So why is the WHO’s approach to tobacco and nicotine the only significant public health space where transparency is actively avoided?
Climate change is recognized globally as a serious issue, and the consensus has been that all stakeholders—governments, scientists, civil society, and even industry—need to be involved to address it. No one thinks we can solve the climate crisis by locking decision-making into a small echo chamber and excluding everyone who disagrees. But that is precisely what the WHO is doing with tobacco harm reduction.
Jacobsen: So, how does the WHO typically respond to criticism? I do not mean supporters who offer gentle suggestions—I mean policy-level public statements or rebuttals to outside critiques.
Cullip: Almost universally, they respond by dismissing anyone who advocates for tobacco harm reduction as being aligned with, or influenced by, the tobacco industry. That is the default accusation. And they ignore you after that.
I have dealt with this personally for years. I ran a transport company for twenty-six years, specializing in taking children with disabilities to and from school. Writing about harm reduction was a side interest—something I did because I was a nicotine consumer and saw the value in products like vaping. But I was accused of being on the tobacco industry payroll.
I was supposed to have been running a full-time business employing 50 people while secretly serving as a tobacco industry operative. It is absurd. But this happens to anyone—whether they are scientists, journalists, or consumers—who speaks positively about harm reduction.
All over the world, there are people who say, quite sincerely, “Vaping saved my life” or “Snus was the only thing that helped me quit smoking.” Their motivations are personal and authentic. They advocate not for the industry but for the products that finally worked for them after everything else failed.
Yet nearly every one of them has been labeled a tobacco industry shill at some point. This is a convenient tactic—meant to delegitimize the individual and shut down the conversation without actually engaging with the evidence or the policy argument.
It is not very kind, frankly. Especially considering that these are taxpayers who help fund organizations like the WHO. They have a right to a voice and to be included in public health policy debates, particularly when the policy in question affects them directly.
Jacobsen: What actions can civil society, healthcare professionals, and consumers take to push for the inclusion of harm reduction in global tobacco policy?
I understand that in some countries, harm reduction may be politically impossible or suppressed due to cultural norms or authoritarian regimes. But from a U.K. standpoint, and perhaps more broadly across liberal democracies, what can people do?
Cullip: That is a great question. First, civil society needs to be vocal. Organizations that advocate for public health must stand up and say that harm reduction is a legitimate, evidence-based approach. That is already happening in places like the U.K., where the government supports vaping as a tool for smoking cessation. However, more can always be done to raise awareness and keep the conversation evidence-based.
Healthcare professionals have a vital role. Doctors, nurses, and public health experts all have authority and access to platforms that consumers often do not. They must speak up, present the data, and challenge the misinformation.
Consumers should not underestimate their power either. Their stories—real, lived experiences—are powerful. They need to organize, speak at public events, write op-eds, engage their MPs or representatives, and demand that international institutions like the WHO listen to the people most affected by their policies.
Finally, all of this needs to come together. Conferences, petitions, and side events—like the one we are holding in Geneva during COP10—are crucial. They show the WHO that there is a broad, informed, and evidence-driven coalition of people—taxpayers, experts, and advocates—who demand a more humane and effective public health strategy.
The WHO cannot ignore this forever. The science, the economics, and the ethics all point in one direction: harm reduction. Well, this is precisely my territory. I often tell consumers not to give up just because people are not listening to them. Make yourselves louder. Keep writing letters. Keep petitioning if you can. Yes, some countries are more autocratic and do not allow that sort of civic engagement. But if you are in a democratic country, contact your elected representatives. Let them know you exist. Tell them this works. It worked for you.
Just in terms of vaping alone, the last global estimate suggested there are at least 20 million vapers worldwide. And there are likely at least another 20 million using nicotine pouches, snus, or heated tobacco. That is a vast number of people who have managed to quit smoking through these products—and their voices should matter.
Because the WHO is comprised of its member nations, the pressure must come from national governments. In my case, that is the U.K.; in your case, it is Canada. Push your government to speak up for harm reduction at WHO events. The WHO does not unilaterally dictate what countries do at these meetings. A secretariat tries to steer discussions, but ultimately, decisions at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Conference of the Parties (COP) are made by the countries themselves.
National delegations are responsible for telling the WHO, “Our citizens are using these products. They work. You need to adapt your approach.” At COP10, which just took place, between 30 and 40 countries stood up and said, in effect, “Harm reduction deserves a seat at the table.” Now we wait to see what the WHO’s FCTC Secretariat will do at COP11 in Geneva, but we hope that even more countries will push the dial forward and challenge the prohibitionist status quo.
Tobacco harm reduction works. It worked for drugs—though the WHO resisted that for decades, too. They were eventually forced to admit that drug harm reduction saved lives. Now, they need to do the same with tobacco.
But right now, they are becoming more extreme. And that tells me something. When an institution starts to issue more extreme statements and starts spreading information that gets fact-checked or community-noted online, it means it is starting to lose the argument.
The science is building in favour of harm reduction. The WHO needs to stop cherry-picking studies that confirm its biases and start listening to the totality of evidence—and to the voices of consumers, the people who fund the organization through their taxes.
That is only going to happen if governments start attending these meetings and saying, “We want a new approach. We want the WHO to acknowledge that these alternatives are saving lives.”
Yes, it is political. But to consumers, you are civil society. You are the voices that matter most because you are the most affected. You need to stand up for yourselves, stand up for harm reduction, and demand that your governments carry your message to the WHO. Tell them to wake up.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Martin, it was nice to meet you. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your sharing these critiques.
Cullip: That is fine. I hope the answers were what you were looking for.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Nice to meet you. Take care.
Cullip: It was lovely to meet you, too. Thanks a lot. 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): 2025/06/23
Because nothing is manlier than:
- ranting on hypergamy at 2 a.m.
- being obsessed about meat and men without shirts.
- rating everyone’s sexual market value, like day-traders.
- proclaiming yourself an alpha male, on Reddit.
- spending Friday night memorizing pickup lines.
- announcing you’re going your own way — then publishing a manifesto.
- calling women shallow.
- punching homosexuals.
- launching a red-pill podcast, for no one.
- warning women about “the Wall” while ignoring a receding hairline.
- tweeting all Andrew Tate’s tenets before breakfast.
- boasting about your NoFap “superpowers” during a blackout.
- calling strangers “soy boys” while sipping a soy-milk latte.
- dropping your bench-press PR into every thread.
- ranking unwatched manosphere podcasts.
- “negging” dates because a pickup blog said so.
- paying $2,997 to learn “hi.”
- chewing a jaw exerciser to looks-maxx.
- tweeting your monk-mode focus journey.
- launching a crypto hustle “for the bros.”
- starting each dawn with an “alpha” cold shower and ending it flame-posting on Reddit.
- live-tweeting your No-Nut-November “streak,”
truly, helping the many young men who lack sufficient healthy guidance.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/23
Rick Williams is a seasoned leadership advisor with deep experience in both the political and corporate sectors. He was the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Congress from Massachusetts’ 5th District, managed Congressman Mo Udall’s presidential campaign in Massachusetts, and served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention when Jimmy Carter was nominated. As a consultant with Arthur D. Little, Williams advised U.S. federal agencies on environmental and energy regulations, including shaping strategies to reduce fluorocarbon emissions alongside the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. His career has bridged political strategy, public policy, and board governance, with a focus on helping organizations make high-stakes decisions. In his book Create the Future, Williams asserts that leadership is fundamentally about shaping outcomes through value-driven decisions rather than relying solely on evidence. He explains that political decision-making reflects the values of both leaders and constituents, with short-term political dynamics often overshadowing long-term vision. Drawing parallels between corporate boards and public institutions, he suggests that legislatures can serve as “value accelerators” by setting goals, establishing priorities, reviewing performance, and coaching executive leaders. Williams encourages leaders to remain focused amid chaos by staying clear on desired outcomes and using every moment — even politically charged ones — as opportunities to reinforce long-term goals and build public trust.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your leadership emphasizes “creating the future.” How does this apply to political leaders navigating complex global challenges?
Rick Williams: I believe that a leader’s primary responsibility is to create the future for the organization they lead. They create the future by the decisions they make — by the choices they make.
I named my new book Create the Future because I want to make a clear connection between the choices you make today and where the company will be tomorrow. If you are the mayor, governor, or president of the United States, your decisions today create the future of the community you lead.
Pres. Biden’s decision not to enforce US border security resulted in millions of undocumented aliens coming into the US. Pres. Trump announced that undocumented aliens would not be permitted to come into the US and mass migration stopped. Those two decisions will have a profound impact on the future of the United States on many levels.
Jacobsen: How is evidence-based decision-making evolving in political leadership?
Williams: Political decision making is not “evidence-based.” Political decisions express the values of the decision maker. Elected leaders choose which laws will govern our lives and economy. By their decisions, the leaders choose which programs to fund, which not to fund, and which businesses and groups of individuals get preferential treatment. These are values choices.
Decision making is hard. We don’t want to make choices until we are forced to do so. Elected officials are no different. They know that any decision they make will please some and anger others.
Advocates for and against a law or program will present evidence to support their position. Political decision makers will consider the evidence, but their final decisions will express their values and those of their constituents.
We elect our legislative representatives, governors, and presidents to represent us. We expect them to examine the issues and make informed decisions on our behalf. We, as citizens, do not have time to carefully consider every issue and do not have access to all the information — evidence. We expect our elected representatives to do their homework and make informed decisions that reflect our interests and values.
Elected political leaders learn about the complex issues before them, and their political constituency will have a general understanding of the issues. Our political election process drives politicians to make decisions in line with the wishes of a majority or plurality of their constituents, irrespective of what independent research might support. I recognize that donors and activists often have more influence than voters.
A political leader’s decisions are driven mainly by what their constituents understand or believe rather than what the elected representative has concluded based on their independent research and their assessment what is best for the state or country. President Kennedy’s book Profiles in Courage tells the story of rare political leaders who had the courage to make decisions contrary to popular opinion.
An unfortunate example today of political sentiment conflicting with well established science is the dramatic change in public opinion aboout vaccines. Vaccines against many diseases have saved millions of lives across the world. When the COVID-19 vaccine campaign demanded compliance far beyond what the public would accept, the public’s views about all vaccines changed from acceptance to skepticism. This change in public opinion has changed political leaders’ willingness to champion clearly beneficial vaccines.
Skilled political leaders educate both themselves and their constituents. Constituent education will include challenging preconceived ideas. Political leaders make decisions based on their assessment of the proposal and what they believe their constituents will support. With rare exceptions, that is how the political process works.
Political leaders rely on the media to educate their constituents. In an era of partisan media where most of us only tune in to media that supports our preconceived views, that process is broken. Local media has mostly stopped reporting on local government and politics.
With no one calling strikes and balls, political competition in the US has become the “Democratic Team” against the “Republican Team.” “Whatever the other team is for, I am against it even though I supported that position when my team was in office.” “I support whatever helps my team and hurts the other team.” In the past, Democrats championed tolerance and fought against anti-Semitism. Today, Democrats are against Trump’s effort to stop anti-Semitism at Harvard and other universities.
Jacobsen: You’ve served on numerous boards and speak about boards as “value accelerators.” How can this be adapted to public institutions for greater national impact?
Williams: In the private sector, the board of directors is the governing body of the corporation. The CEO is the “chief executive” charged with implementing strategy and business decisions made by the board. Legislatures, like a board, are responsible for approving the laws that govern the civil and business functioning of the country and approving specific programs and budgets that the president is responsible for implementing. The relationship between the legislature and the president is similar to that of the board of directors and the CEO but it is not precisely the same.
The CEO and the board of directors have a collaborative and competitive relationship. I describe the board as both the boss and the coach. The board sets policy and direction and also acts as a coach to help the CEO and other senior leaders succeed in their jobs executing on the board’s decisions.
The board will be a “value accelerator” if it sets goals that drive the company to higher value, coaches the leadership to make them successful in doing their job, and reviews and judges performance against the established goals.
The Congress, state legislature, or city council can be a value accelerator for the government as a whole and for government agencies. Congress’s job and that of a corporate board are not the same. But the principals of impactful corporate boards provide valuable guidance to how legislatures can better perform their governance role.
Legislatures have an important role as fact finders and communicators with the public. The board is responsible for educating itself, but that work is done in private and is generally not communicated to shareholders and the public.
Recognizing that legislatures and boards of directors are different, here are practices drawn from impactful board operations that can enhance the value that the legislature brings to the governing process as a whole.
Make decisions: Don’t delegate decision making about legislative intent to the president and agencies so the decisions will be hidden from public view. Make decisions — make choices — about what the government will do and let the public know why that is the right decision.
Set goals: Establish performance goals for the executive branch and government agencies.
Establish priorities: The government cannot do everything. Establish priorities that will guide the agency’s programming and budgeting.
Review performance: Once approved, the president, governor, or mayor — the executive — is responsible for implementing laws and programs. The legislature is responsible for monitoring performance. Hold hearing, do field visits, issue reports, and talk about what you are learning. Hold agencies and the executive branch responsible for what they committed to do and their implementation of the approved laws and programs.
Help the president and agency heads be successful: As part of the legislature’s performance review, senior members of the legislature can be valuable coaches to key executive leaders. Coaching is not an official legislative job, but a legislator’s depth of experience and different points of view — legislative vs executive — can be valuable to executive leaders.
Some of the coaching can be done through public and private committee hearings. But the most valuable will be done in private one-on-one settings. This coaching by senior legislative leaders can only work if there is a personal, trusting relationship between the individuals.
This is hard to do in such a partisan time, but informal coaching can be a valuable contribution. Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, met regularly with President Reagan, a Republican. O’Neill came from a very different background than Reagan and had a different time frame perspective. I am sure Reagan learned from O’Neill’s perspective, and O’Neill helped Reagan be a more successful president.
Government agency heads have difficult jobs balancing conflicting demands from Congress, the president, and their staff. Key legislative leaders can be valuable coaches to key agency leaders.
Jacobsen: Many politicians face decision fatigue. What insights from Create the Future helps leaders maintain strategic clarity amid chaos?
Williams: When you are clear about what success will look like and the goals you have established, the apparent chaos of the moment subsides. When you are clear what decisions you must make and are working to make those unique decisions, the path forward is less cluttered.
Jacobsen: Any advice to heads of state or ministers about balancing long-term vision with short-term politics?
Williams: Skilled political leaders have guiding principles and a long-term vision of success. By communicating their principles and vision, they define who they are as a political leader and their personal brand. They will also participate in the short-term political issues. The daily media cycle demands that a political leader stay engaged with the issue of the day to stay visible to their constituents.
Successful leaders will use transitory issues to continuously communicate their long-term goals and progress towards reaching them. Today, leaders have many communication channels to reach the public. Because these channels often have a well-defined audience with a point of view, political leaders can craft their message about the momentary topics to that audience within an overall message about their goals and branding.
President Trump has effectively used podcasts to reach non-traditional Republican audiences.. He has gone on media channels that are not friendly to him to get his message to their audience. He creates media events as counter programming to his opponents’ events These are ways to use the issues of the moment as a vehicle for building your brand and advocating for your long-term goals to your followers and to others who might be open to hearing your message.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rick.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/22
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus reflects on evolving expressions of antisemitism in the U.S., highlighting its increased weaponization, particularly the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. While both the political left and right acknowledge antisemitism, financial influences and politicized definitions distort genuine understanding and solutions. Education and critical thinking remain vital tools in countering hate. McManus stresses that true change requires embedding antiracism and anti-oppression values into daily life, rather than relying on episodic activism. Systemic change, he notes, is a long-term endeavor that demands consistent ethical decision-making and broader cultural and economic transformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When it comes to antisemitism, what has been your sense of it over the last five decades—or at least four decades—in the United States? To quote Paul Mooney, “Ain’t nothin’ changed but the weather.” So, what has changed about the weather?
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus: Wow, that’s an interesting question. I can’t quite speak to five decades since I’m barely in my fifties, so I do not have personal experience that far back. But I can reflect on the changes I’ve seen over my lifetime.
What’s been especially striking, as a Jewish person myself, is the weaponization of antisemitism. I do not remember that being as prevalent when I was younger. Of course, antisemitism has always been present, but the way it’s being used now—especially in the media, government discourse, and other public arenas—has intensified, particularly in the context of what’s happening in Gaza.
Over time, there’s been a concerted effort to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. That has never been my understanding, and it still is not. That conflation is a political maneuver. Especially in the United States, there is very little general understanding of what Zionism is. Until recent years and recent events, the average American could not have even offered a basic definition.
So what we are seeing now is a bad-faith effort to equate anti-Zionism—and even pro-Palestinian sentiment—with antisemitism. That is probably the most significant shift I’ve observed.
As far as the overall prevalence of antisemitism, I think it has remained relatively steady. There has been some excellent educational work done in schools and by nonprofits to counter antisemitism, and we’ve made some progress there. But the weaponization of antisemitism undermines that progress. It hurts the broader effort to end antisemitism.
Jacobsen: What works in countering antisemitism?
McManus: I am an educator, so my answer will always include education. We must understand concepts, systems, and history from multiple perspectives. We need to be taught how to think critically and distinguish fact from misinformation—or what some now refer to as “alternative facts,” which is a dangerous and misleading concept.
The Internet has made that more difficult. With all the so-called “news” sites and the algorithms feeding people more of what they already consume, people rarely get exposed to other perspectives. We end up stuck in narrow content loops, especially on social media.
Even our more traditional media outlets have changed. And I hesitate to use the word “legitimate” when referring to some of them because many high-profile voices are not reporters. They are not delivering news but offering opinions, often dressed up as reporting.
We must be clear about what constitutes a perspective and hate. I spend much time working on issues related to antisemitism, racism, and other forms of oppression, and one of the most significant problems I see is the framing of hate as just another opinion.
Too often, media will present “both sides”—as if white supremacy, antisemitism, homophobia, and heterosexism are differing viewpoints. That legitimizes oppression. It gives hate a platform under the guise of balance. And when we legitimize these things, they become part of the public’s framework for what is acceptable discourse. People come to see them as just “another way of thinking” when, in fact, they are rooted in bigotry and harm.
It’s a different perspective. I think we have to start understanding more clearly what constitutes a legitimate difference in perspective—such as various interpretations of history or policy—and what is driven by systems of oppression and hate. I may have gone a little off track there, but that always happens in my interviews.
Jacobsen: What do you see—in generic terms, although it is ironic to call them that—that the sociopolitical left in the United States tends to get right about antisemitism? And what do you think the sociopolitical right tends to get right? What would a healthy synthesis of those correct understandings look like regarding factuality?
McManus: Well, it is tough to talk about it as a binary, especially within the U.S. political system, which is heavily influenced by money. When you have organizations like AIPAC and others flooding both Republican and Democratic spaces with funding, it distorts political perspectives on all sorts of issues—including antisemitism.
There is just so much money in politics now. It costs a fortune to run for anything, and individuals like Elon Musk or political action committees can flood the airwaves and influence discourse. That financial influence makes it hard to speak about ideology with clarity because I am not sure much ideology is left—at least not in the way we once thought of it. There may have been more ideological consistency in the past, but now, the overwhelming presence of money changes the game entirely.
All that said, I do think one thing both sides agree on is that antisemitism is real. There was a time when I was younger when people would say, “Oh, racism isn’t real anymore—it’s a thing of the past.” The same was said about antisemitism. But we are nowhere near being post-racial or post-antisemitic. Those are delusional ideas. They may be aspirational, and I’m fine with aspiration—but let’s not mistake aspiration for reality.
So yes, both political sides acknowledge the reality of antisemitism. However, both have also been corrupted by differing and often politicized definitions of what antisemitism is. The IHRA definition, for example, seeks to equate criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist viewpoints with antisemitism. I think that conflation has done real damage to public understanding.
So while it is good that people now take antisemitism seriously, the way it has been weaponized—particularly when aligned with campaign donors or threats to political standing—is deeply troubling. That kind of manipulation, in service to whoever is funding or threatening your campaign, is something we need to talk about more honestly.
There is this sense of, “Oh, well, if you do not side with us, we are going to fund someone to run against you.” That kind of corruption of the concept is hurting us. It makes it harder to help people understand what antisemitism is and how to counter it. I think politics, right now, is doing a disservice to those of us who have been fighting against antisemitism for a long time—trying to educate people on what it looks like and how to address it.
Jacobsen: One idea that has come up in a few of these interviews, including off-tape conversations, is the notion—or tacit argument—that antisemitism may not be something that can ever be fully eradicated but rather something perennial to mitigate as much as possible. The idea is that this might be a more realistic stance, given that people have whole lives to live, and activism, for most, comes in seasons. Few people are full-time activists. So it becomes about picking your spots, picking them well, and doing so throughout your life. What do you think of that idea?
McManus: It is pragmatic. One of the things I tried to do in the book—while it is primarily about race—is to help people understand how to integrate opposition to all forms of oppression, including antisemitism, into their daily lives.
I think the key, whether it is antisemitism or another form of oppression, is to make this a core part of who you are. Yes, there will be times when you speak up more or find an opportunity to act on a particular issue. But if it becomes part of your identity and value system, then it informs your daily decisions—what you purchase and from whom, what you accept in your friendships and relationships, how you vote on a school board, how you show up as a parent or student, and even how you approach hiring and promotion.
That is a more realistic and sustainable way to shift systems over time. Yes, for those of us who do this work full-time, we are focused on addressing systemic issues every day—and we are under attack right now, including those of us working against antisemitism. We are being targeted because we are clear about what antisemitism is.
And the vast majority of us are also saying we are against genocide. That has put us in opposition to much of the political rhetoric we have discussed. However, from that pragmatic standpoint, the best approach is for individuals to adopt these values as part of who they are.
When something becomes part of your core values, it guides your daily decisions. It determines what you support and what you reject. In the book, I pose a question: “How racist does a politician have to be for you not to vote for them?” Or, “How racist does a first date need to be before you decide not to go on a second one?”
These are real, everyday decisions. And we need to make opposition to any form of oppression part of our core values. When we do that, it becomes a consistent influence on everything we do.
It is not a “fix this tomorrow” kind of thing. I know where this is going. I am Gen X, and so we grew up with computers and microwave ovens—we were the first generation to have little to no patience.
But the reality is that we have been dealing with these issues of oppression for a long time. And for them to end, it is going to take time. It is going to take a shift in global culture. Frankly, it will take a change in how economies work, because they are all connected.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/21
Mark Gerson is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and best-selling author dedicated to bridging faith and culture. He co-founded United Hatzalah, Israel’s volunteer EMT network, and leads Torah Tuesdays with Eagles Wings, a global Christian organization supporting Israel. Mark is the author of the forthcoming book, God Was Right: How Modern Social Science Proves the Torah is True, and hosts The Rabbi’s Husband, featuring discussions with leaders like Tucker Carlson and Senator Cory Booker. He specializes in faith-driven leadership, social science validations of religious texts, and ethical business practices. United Hatzalah, with 8,000 volunteer EMTs, ensures rapid first response in emergencies, saving lives daily. African Mission Healthcare partners with Christian hospitals across 19 countries to provide essential medical care and infrastructure. Gerson’s upcoming book, “God Was Right,” argues that modern social science validates Torah ethics, promoting happier, healthier lives. Through his podcast “The Rabbi’s Husband,” he explores biblical inspirations across diverse leaders. Gerson emphasizes aligning faith with business for ethical, impactful leadership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has your experience co-founding United Hatzalah shaped views on the intersection of faith and philanthropy?
Mark Gerson: I have co-founded and Chair two charitable organizations — United Hatzalah of Israel and African Mission Healthcare. United Hatzalah is Israel’s system of crowd-sourced volunteer first response. It is based on the fact that ambulances, even in the most advanced cities, will take an average of ten minutes to someone who calls 911. This is no one’s fault — it is driven by the fact that ambulances are too big to be fast and too expensive to be ubiquitous.
However, a victim of pre-hospital trauma — someone who calls 911, maybe someone who is choking, bleeding, having a heart attack, a stroke or is giving birth suddenly — does not need an ambulance immediately. He needs a trained and equipped first responder at his side, ideally within 90 seconds.
So we built, over 20 years, an organization that has 8,000 volunteer EMTs and paramedics — who are ready, at all times, to drop whatever they are doing (working, eating, sleeping, celebrating, whatever) to rush to someone in their immediate vicinity who is in need. Each volunteer carries on him/her, at all times, a full medic kit that we provide — so that the volunteer is always ready for everything: from a car accident to a child drowning to someone choking to a heart attack to a woman giving birth suddenly.
Because we are crowd-sourced — because we are able to locate the closest first responder and dispatch him to the scene immediately — we have the best response times in the world. We respond to an average of 2,200 calls a day — and save dozens of lives every day.
I co-founded African Mission Healthcare in 2010 with my great friend Dr. Jon Fielder, who has been a missionary physician in Africa for his career. We partner with Christian missionary physicians at Christian hospitals in Africa to provide clinical care to the poor, enable training of physicians and other medical professionals, build infrastructure (from oxygen to physician housing) and do hospital administration. We have 31 hospital partners in 19 countries.
Many of the doctors we work with have devoted their entire lives to serving the poor — and doing so in medical conditions that are unimaginable to any physician in the West (operating without piped oxygen or consistent power, among other things) and living in conditions that I don’t think I could deal with for literally a weekend. They do so because they are inspired by their Christian faith to serve those who Jesus called in the Book of Matthew, “the least among us.”
This intersection of faith and philanthropy, where both organizations sit, has taught my wife (a Rabbi) and I a great deal. We have seen how faith can bring out genuine greatness in people — how a devoted Jew (regardless of how ritually observant) will be excited to rush from his Shabbat table, wake up in the middle of the night or dash around the corner to render care to someone he doesn’t know. And this devotion (which is not unique to Jews in United Hatzalah; we have many Christian, Muslim and Druze volunteers as well) does not even stop there — there are so many instances where, like what happened last week, a volunteer will return to the home of a patient he took to the hospital to clean it up…so that the patient can recover in a clean and welcoming environment.
And we have seen the same devotion with our Christian missionary partners (and now often friends) in Africa — we have seen how these people, who could be making excellent livings in the West, devote their entire lives to serving the poor due to their faith.
The missionary physicians we know through African Mission Healthcare and the volunteers we know through United Hatzalah are the best people we know — the people we want our children to be like — and we are blessed to be able to be their philanthropic partner.
And everyone who gives to either organization (or a similar organization — like Samaritan’s Purse) should regard themselves as partners — and never say (or think!): “It’s only money.” Both the missionary physicians and the United Hatzalah volunteers have said that without the financial support of philanthropists — they’d be working with Band-Aides.
Jacobsen: God Was Right: How Modern Social Science Proves the Torah is True is an upcoming book. What is social science affirming the ethics of the Torah?
Gerson:I have been studying the Torah every day for probably 15 years now — I start my day by running six miles on the treadmill, where I listen and watch Torah commentary, and then study subsequently. The first thing I really understood about the Torah is what kind of book it is. It is not a history book or a science book or a cookbook or even a lawbook — it is, as the Torah says of itself in Deuteronomy, a guidebook.
As a guidebook, the Torah exists to help us live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives — in the most practical ways. As such, it makes hundreds of primarily psychological, social and political claims — about who we are and who we can and should be personally and communally. Many are completely counter-intuitive — such as that we can choose to be anti-fragile, we can change our character (and who we are) by following one simple rule, our choice of clothing is existentially important (and for reasons that have nothing to do with modesty or temperature control), and on and on.
For several thousand years, people have assessed the Torah using faith and experience. Now, thanks to the advent of technology — we have science: specifically 21st century social science. The 21st century social scientists, whose work ranges from obscure journals to best-sellers, have asked the same questions that the Biblical Author did.
I realized that the claims of the Torah can now be validated or invalidated socially scientifically. In the book, I go through the Torah claims on dozens of subjects — from diversity to routine to fear to future orientation. It turns out that the Torah is absolutely right in all of its asserts; in other words, the Torah has now been proven true.
Many of the chapters also address where society and culture are in conjunction with the claims of the Torah and the findings of modern social science. There, we are often going in the opposite directions— and I address that as well.
Jacobsen: What lessons have The Rabbi’s Husband taught you, in hosting?
Gerson: With the Rabbi’s Husband podcast, I did around 150 or so interviews with leaders from a variety of fields — Senators and NFL players, Pastors and Rabbis, physicians and Congressmen — about their favorite Biblical passage. I learned just how the Bible — and often singular Biblical stories, laws and passages — can drive, intrigue and inspire a wide variety of people. I think the most popular episode was Tucker Carlson’s — when we discussed whether Adam was right to trust Eve about the fruit, and its statement about gender relationships.
Jacobsen: How can faith and business align to create ethical and impactful leadership? Gerson: The Torah is the greatest guide for everything — including ethical business leadership. Here are just a few things:
Leviticus 19: “You shall have honest scales and weights.” A business leader who follows this principle will be sure to always have accurate accounting, fair billing, transparent performance metrics, honest advertising and clear claims about product risks and specifications.
Deuteronomy 24: “You shall give him [your worker] his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it.” A business leader will always pay his workers immediately and completely.
Leviticus 19 and 23: This commands that the landowner must leave a part of his field where the poor can reap. A business leader following this principle will identify how he can allocate some of his products and services — in addition to money — for the benefit of the less fortunate. And he will also do so with care for the dignity of the recipient — as this is why the poor are to reap themselves (rather than to get handouts from the landowner).
Jacobsen: What insights come out of Torah Tuesdays and Eagles Wings in interfaith collaboration?
I teach Torah every Tuesday at 12pm EST on Zoom to primarily Evangelicals — through the remarkable Christian Zionist and philo-Semitic parachurch ministry Eagles Wings. We go through the Torah line by line, extracting the practical teachings and lessons for our daily lives. I love the insights that the Pastor hosting the session (and the Pastor/hosts change each week) often bring from the New Testament and from their Christian experience. And it is such a pleasure to be able to study the text in such depth. We do about a book of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) every year. If anyone wants to join, email me at mgerson@godwasright.com — and we’ll send you the Zoom link!
Jacobsen: What is relevant and irrelevant in the interpretive frame from the Torah in navigating contemporary life? People orient the truths of religion and emphasize and de-emphasize in civilizational seasons. Ours seems no different.
Gerson: Great question — as everything in the Torah is completely relevant for navigating contemporary life. The Torah is the guidebook for just that. Every question, concern, challenge, opportunity that anyone has can be enlightened by the Torah in some profound and very helpful way. That is what “God Was Right” is about!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mark.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/21
Roman Tarasov, President of Street Epistemology International, is a leading advocate of respectful, Socratic-style dialogue for examining beliefs. Influenced by the rationalist community and inspired by Anthony Magnabosco, Tarasov promotes critical thinking and epistemic humility. With a calm and reflective style, he emphasizes rapport, empathy, and civil discourse to foster open-minded inquiry. He critiques common reasoning errors—such as overreliance on intuition, anecdotal evidence, and magical thinking—and sees dialogue as essential to mutual understanding. Tarasov also contributes to educational resources like the Navigating Beliefs course and highlights global efforts to expand Street Epistemology’s reach through videos, training modules, and community engagement.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Roman Tarasov is a prominent advocate of Street Epistemology and the president of Street Epistemology International, a conversational method for examining beliefs through respectful dialogue. Known for his calm demeanor and reflective questioning style, Tarasov engages individuals in thoughtful discussions that encourage critical thinking and epistemic humility. He contributes regularly to the Street Epistemology community through online videos, social media, and educational resources. With a background in philosophy and a passion for civil discourse, Tarasov emphasizes open-minded inquiry over debate. His work aims to foster mutual understanding and personal growth by helping others examine the foundations of their beliefs in non-confrontational settings. So what initially drew you to Street Epistemology? How did you get involved in the community?
Roman Tarasov: So I was already into learning about rationality, mostly from the LessWrong community—Eliezer Yudkowsky as an author, primarily, and others as well. And then I just bumped into Anthony Magnabosco’s YouTube channel and got inspired by it. That’s what got me into it.
Jacobsen: Now, what do you find people are generally good at reasoning about? And what do you find they are bad at reasoning about—either based on Magnabosco’s videos or the broader collective work of Street Epistemology?
Tarasov: Yeah, we already have a huge database—not just by Anthony, but by others conducting conversations, including myself. I would say the main problem people have is simply not understanding how science works. They do not know how to think in terms of hypotheses, testing, or designing experiments. As a result, they commit all kinds of fallacies. That, I would say, is the main issue.
As for what people are good at, I would say it is actually criticizing ideas they disagree with. The highest level of critical thinking I see—especially from people who are not well-versed or educated in the field—often comes out when they try to refute others’ views. I only wish they would bring the same fervor to challenging their own beliefs.
Jacobsen: So, in terms of the foundations of Street Epistemology and to your point, would that be a key reason why conversation and dialogue are so important?
Tarasov: I am not sure about that being the only reason. I would just say that conversation and dialogue are important, period, for all kinds of reasons. That is who we are. We have language—and that is one of the main powers we have as human beings.
Jacobsen: That is a good one. What do you think are common epistemological themes or patterns you notice based on Magnabosco’s long catalog of conversations—or the data you and others have gathered?
Tarasov: What do you mean by themes?
Jacobsen: I mean logical themes. Just like we were discussing earlier—how people are really good at criticizing others’ ideas, but do not apply the same level of scrutiny to their own beliefs. What kinds of fallacies do they tend to commit? What are the styles of faulty reasoning you commonly encounter?
Tarasov: Astrology is huge everywhere in the world, as are all kinds of other esoteric or magical thinking themes—that is a massive category, of course. But there are others. I do not think any of us have conducted a population-level poll to know which themes are the most prevalent globally or within specific demographics. But yes, magical thinking in general is widespread, and I consider it to be one of the biggest epistemological problems in the world.
There are also people who are relativistic, dogmatic, or who simply make the same types of reasoning errors in everyday life, even without invoking magical thinking. As for your second question about themes of reasoning: one of the main issues is that people place too much weight on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. They also rely heavily on their intuition, which, as we know, is not always reliable—especially when it comes to evaluating complex or abstract issues.
Unless someone has educated themselves in scientific thinking and the scientific method, their intuition is not designed—evolutionarily speaking—to solve these kinds of problems. And often, they do not even know that they lack the necessary tools or that they are reasoning incorrectly.
Jacobsen: So what is the role of empathy in Street Epistemology, and how do you handle highly charged or confrontational conversations?
Tarasov: The role of empathy is huge. Although, I would even say that instead of “empathy,” we often use the word “rapport.” That is because “empathy” can have at least two meanings: one is feeling what the other person feels—putting yourself in their emotional shoes. The other is simply understanding what the other person is saying and accepting them as they are.
We typically emphasize “rapport,” meaning that you need a friendly, respectful atmosphere to have a meaningful conversation. Without it, nothing really works. People have all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms. If you begin to question deeply held beliefs, many people get defensive—it is not necessarily conscious, it is just a natural psychological response. So it is very important not to pressure people, to be respectful and civil, and to build and maintain rapport throughout the conversation.
That rapport should also extend beyond the immediate interaction, because the nature of your overall relationship can significantly affect how the conversation unfolds.
I would say, if you find yourself in the middle of a charged or confrontational conversation, then you have probably already failed somewhere—you have likely made a mistake. You need to accept that and focus on mitigating the situation. The key is to fall back and try to rebuild rapport. We actually have tools for that.
Right now, we are working on an educational course called Navigating Beliefs. It is free and available online. We have already written and published a module titled Building and Maintaining Rapport—that is module number six. In the final section of that module, we cover tools for recovering rapport if it has been lost—what to do, how to approach it.
Jacobsen: Is the short answer that it is difficult?
Tarasov: Yes, of course—it is difficult. If someone is already defensive, emotional, or confrontational, one of the main strategies I recommend is to simply pause. Do not try to push through. Let things calm down. It might even be best to end the conversation for the time being and return to it on another day. That alone can be one of the most effective strategies.
Beyond that, it really comes down to respect, empathy, and understanding. You do not want to escalate anything. At least within the goals of Street Epistemology, if you aim to have a meaningful conversation—if you hope to help your conversation partner critically reflect on their reasoning or beliefs—you must maintain a civil, friendly atmosphere.
Jacobsen: I am picturing the proverbial cartoon character spinning on their heel, whistling, and walking away with their hands in their pockets. Do you find that religious beliefs, political beliefs, or personal beliefs—even beliefs about oneself—are the most difficult or challenging to pierce through, in terms of perception? I do not want to call it delusion, but perhaps a less accurate view of reality. How do you navigate those conversations?
Tarasov: I see two different aspects in that question. One is: what counts as delusional or mistaken? The other is: which topics are more difficult to discuss.
In terms of what is delusional, I would not use that term. We all have different political views, different perspectives on a wide range of issues. We cannot all be delusional. More often, it is just that some of us are more accurate or better informed than others in certain areas.
So, I would recommend not jumping to conclusions too quickly. One key mindset in Street Epistemology is being open to the possibility that you yourself could be wrong—not just the other person. If you enter a conversation only expecting your conversation partner to change their views, that can come off as hypocritical. And it simply does not work.
You need to be open-minded yourself in order to effectively model open-mindedness in others. That is essential. As for difficulty, yes—political views, for example, are among the most difficult subjects to discuss, as is anything closely tied to a person’s identity. You can think of beliefs in terms of core beliefs and peripheral beliefs. Some beliefs are closer to the core of someone’s identity—they see those beliefs as defining who they are.
For instance, if religious faith is a central part of someone’s life, that conversation will likely be very challenging. But if someone says they have religious faith yet are fairly indifferent about it—they do not attend church or engage with it actively—then it is usually easier to explore those ideas with them. The same goes for political views. People who are highly engaged in politics tend to hold their beliefs very deeply. And since politics is inherently polarizing, it can easily trigger conflict.
If the topic is especially timely—something currently dividing public opinion—it becomes even more difficult. When people hold opposing views, both sides often think the other side is not only wrong but irrational or even unintelligent. Those are the most challenging conversations. I suggest being extremely cautious with them. Only engage in such discussions if you have enough experience and have already established strong rapport. Otherwise, start with something less emotionally charged.
Jacobsen: How many countries is Street Epistemology active in, given the name Street Epistemology International?
Tarasov: That depends on what you mean. If you are asking about the formal membership of Street Epistemology International, then it is a small group—currently about eight members. Most are from the United States, with one member each from Germany, Canada, and Russia—that is me. So the board or leadership team is limited in scope.
But in terms of reach and coverage, I believe Street Epistemology is active in most regions of the world. I know there are active communities in Germany, France, Russia, and the United States. There are also individuals and small groups practicing or teaching Street Epistemology in Australia and other countries. So yes, it is international—and we hope it will grow even more so over time.
Jacobsen: What programs do you currently have that people should look into?
Tarasov: As I mentioned earlier, we are working on the Navigating Beliefs course. You can find it on the streetepistemology.com website—there is a link there. It is free, and you just need to subscribe. We have already published six modules, plus an introductory module.
That marks the completion of what we call Phase One. We are currently working on Phase Two, and there will also be a Phase Three. Each phase includes several modules that build on each other, offering both theory and practical tools for conducting meaningful conversations.
That is the most current and, I would say, the best educational resource we have right now—but it is text-based and self-directed. So for other materials, I would highly recommend watching videos on YouTube. That way, you can actually see how experienced Street Epistemologists conduct conversations—not just with strangers, but also with friends or acquaintances. You can observe how they build rapport, ask questions, and help people reflect. It is very educational and often inspiring.
Jacobsen: Who would you consider the intellectual founders of Street Epistemology? And who do you consider the main torchbearers now?
Tarasov: I would say the main torchbearer and the most visible founder—for me, at least—is Anthony Magnabosco. But he was originally inspired by Peter Boghossian, who coined the term “Street Epistemology.” There are others who have followed in Anthony’s footsteps and contributed significantly. One person I would mention is Reid Nicewonder, who runs the YouTube channel Cordial Curiosity, which I also highly recommend. He is also part of our organization.
Jacobsen: Do you have any favorite quotes from Street Epistemologists, or from people they have spoken with—something captured in a video where a person reflects and maybe changes their mind or says something revealing?
Tarasov: That is a good question. In terms of Street Epistemologists themselves, I do not have a specific favorite quote—we use a lot of different tools, mostly Socratic questioning. These are polite, respectful, but very focused questions that aim at the core of what our conversation partner is saying. But when it comes to responses from the people we talk to, yes—some moments stand out.
One of the favorite things any Street Epistemologist likes to hear is something like: “Wow, I never thought about it that way. I’m going to keep thinking about this. Thank you.” You can often see it in their eyes—when they look off into the distance, and you know they are genuinely reflecting. Sometimes, it may be the first time they have questioned a belief they have held for years, maybe even their whole life. And now, through some carefully phrased questions, they begin thinking about it in a new light. That kind of deep reflection is exactly what we aim to inspire.
Jacobsen: What is the weirdest belief you have ever heard come out of Russia? Something just absolutely out there.
Tarasov: One that comes to mind: a young woman once said that she does not like to attend other women’s weddings because she believes it decreases her own chances of getting married. That was her reasoning.
Jacobsen: I mean, technically, it does not really affect the “market,” because two people just exited the pool. Honestly, she should go to a wedding between two women—that would actually increase the number of men available relative to women. Hooray! You are thinking rationally about it.
Tarasov: [Laughs] Yes, but she was thinking in terms of some stereotype she had picked up somewhere. I think she even mentioned something about catching the bouquet, but I do not remember exactly—I do not want to misquote her.
Jacobsen: Well, maybe she keeps catching bouquets and is afraid she’ll catch something else—like a venereal disease. Anyway, Roman, thank you very much. It was nice to meet you.
Tarasov: Nice meeting you too, Scott. Thanks for the 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): 2025/06/20
Dr. Peter Bach, Chief Medical Officer of DELFI Diagnostics, discusses the urgent need to improve lung cancer screening. While low-dose CT scans reduce mortality, they are underused, with only 5–15% of eligible Americans screened. Bach explains how DELFI’s blood-based test, FirstLook Lung, analyzes cell-free DNA fragmentation to detect cancer earlier with 80% sensitivity and 99.8% negative predictive value. Bach emphasizes informed clinical decision-making and equitable access, especially for underserved populations. Widespread adoption could save up to 10,000 lives annually, making it the most impactful cancer screening strategy available.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Dr. Peter Bach. He is the Chief Medical Officer of Delfi Diagnostics, leading efforts to advance blood-based early detection of lung cancer. Dr. Bach is a pulmonary physician, health policy expert, and lung cancer epidemiologist. He previously served as Director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. His work focuses on improving cancer care through research, policy innovation, and clinical practice. He is a widely published author in leading medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA and has advised national health agencies, including CMS and MedPAC. Motivated in part by the loss of his wife to breast cancer, Dr. Bach is committed to transforming cancer diagnostics and patient outcomes. Thank you very much for joining me today. So, my first question: Can you tell me a little bit about your background—an overview relevant to this particular news item around CT scans, lung cancer, and the work of Delfi?
Dr. Peter Bach: Yes, of course, Scott. The work that just came out is highly relevant to what we’re doing at Delfi. We’re focused on solving a significant public health problem: although there’s strong evidence that lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) saves lives, it is significantly underutilized.
Studies, including large randomized trials like NLST and NELSON, have shown that annual LDCT screening for people with a significant smoking history can reduce lung cancer mortality by about 20 to 24 percent. However, adoption has been low despite being recommended in the U.S. since 2013 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In the U.S., screening rates hover around 5 to 15 percent among eligible adults. It’s even lower in many other countries. And even among people who do get screened, follow-up adherence—especially for annual repeat scans—is quite poor, often around 20 to 25 percent.
Part of the reason is that CT scanning, while clinically powerful, comes with challenges at scale. First, it often detects pulmonary nodules that are not cancerous. However, once these are seen, patients must undergo further imaging and, in some cases, invasive diagnostic procedures, which add anxiety, cost, and potential harm. Second, there’s a population-level concern: radiation exposure from repeated CT scans might increase cancer risk in some individuals, especially over long periods.
At DELFI, we’ve developed a blood-based test using fragmentomics—analyzing patterns of cell-free DNA fragmentation in the bloodstream. By studying the size and distribution of DNA fragments, we can detect cancer-specific signals, including those associated with lung cancer, often before symptoms appear. The goal is to use this test as an initial screen to identify who truly needs a follow-up CT scan—thereby reducing unnecessary scans, minimizing harm, and potentially improving adherence and outcomes.
And today, people aren’t getting screened as often as they should, but we do need more screening to save lives. With our approach, we can identify those patients who are most likely to have lung cancer and focus on getting them the CT scan—making each CT more likely to find actual lung cancer. That makes each unit of radiation delivered more likely to result in an early diagnosis, which is the whole purpose of screening. It also makes the nodules you find less likely to be false positives and more likely to be cancers you’re aiming to detect. That’s what we’ve been working on.
We have an AI-driven approach to genomic analysis. We’ve built our lab around a very low-cost sequencing platform, so we can offer this test at scale for just a few hundred dollars. We’ve launched this with several health systems now and are seeing improvements in screening rates.
And it all ties together—taking the best of what CT has to offer, including clinical benefits like clear visualization and next steps in diagnosis, while trying to limit radiation exposure to people who don’t actually have cancer and therefore won’t benefit from the scan.
Jacobsen: One side question comes up from that response. When you’re talking about scale in terms of screening, what was the pricing like years ago? You mentioned the test now costs a few hundred dollars—what about 10 years ago? So that we can get a sense of cost reduction over time.
Bach: You’re talking about the CT scan, the reimbursement rate has been pretty stable over the last decade, around $300. That hasn’t changed much.
Jacobsen: Okay, that’s very interesting. Now, to move into the more formal questions: What are your initial thoughts on the new study suggesting CT scans may account for up to 5% of annual cancer cases in the U.S.?
Bach: It’s frightening on its face—that the amount of imaging we’re doing in this country could be causing that much cancer.
Now, this estimate is based on lifetime exposure and population-level risk. So, while the risk to an individual patient might be quite low, say, for a specific diagnostic decision, the aggregate effect across millions of people becomes substantial. That’s the critical point. Whenever we decide to image someone, even when the risk to them is minimal and the clinical value high, it still contributes to a cumulative population-level burden.
There are valid questions about the exact size of the estimate in this study, but directionally, it’s almost certainly correct—CT scans contribute to increased cancer incidence. We should factor this into public health decisions.
I should say that CT used for lung cancer screening is explicitly not a major contributor to that 5% estimate, even if screening rates were to increase. That’s due to the limited eligible population and the relatively low radiation dose of low-dose CT (LDCT) scans. But the concern lies in the broader use of CT across medicine—in emergency departments, hospitals, and outpatient care.
Jacobsen: How should primary care physicians think about this risk-benefit balance?
Bach: I’d compare it to how we think about antibiotics for colds. The threshold for using advanced imaging, like a CT scan—should be high. Some patients benefit from imaging, and CT scans can be life-saving. But as a general rule, clinicians should ask: “Am I likely to learn something from this scan that I don’t already know?” That mindset helps reduce unnecessary tests and the downstream consequences, both clinical and societal.
Another way of saying this is: Am I likely to do something different in terms of this patient’s management once I see the scan compared to what I’m planning to do now? That’s the key question. If you want to be more technical, you can think of it as the incremental value of information.
But it’s a crucial element for any diagnostic test—especially one that carries potential harm. And, of course, there are financial costs, too. That is the basic question physicians should ask themselves, quite literally, before ordering any of these tests.
It’s also essential, Scott, not to lose sight of the fact that CT scans are necessary in many areas of patient care. I don’t want you or anyone to come away from this thinking we’re just exposing millions of people to radiation for no benefit. That’s not the case.
CT has been transformational in my medical career. For example, it has dramatically changed how we manage appendicitis. Early in my training, if you suspected appendicitis, the standard practice was to take the patient straight to surgery. A CT scan can confirm the diagnosis and avoid unnecessary surgeries. The same applies to gallbladder disease and many other conditions.
So yes, at the population level, CT scans can have harm, but they’ve also spared countless patients from invasive procedures. I could list 50 examples. CT is also critical for cancer staging, assessing disease spread, and other essential evaluations. The benefits must be carefully weighed against the risks, but there’s no question that CT is an indispensable medical tool.
Jacobsen: Are blood-based cancer screening tests reshaping diagnostic strategies and reducing radiation exposure?
Bach: Yes, especially in the context of lung cancer screening. Let’s talk about our test because it’s particularly relevant here. CT scans are currently the only screening method recommended by the USPSTF for lung cancer.
Our blood test, FirstLook Lung, is designed as an initial screening tool. And yes, a blood draw does not involve radiation. There’s a needle stick, which is mildly uncomfortable, but it’s not harmful in the way radiation exposure can be.
Our test uses fragmentomics, analyzing cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns. It has a sensitivity of about 80% overall, meaning it detects approximately 80% of lung cancers. When the result is elevated, it comes back with a clear recommendation: this person should get a follow-up CT scan.
The negative predictive value is 99.8% for patients with a non-elevated result. That means if our test does not detect a concerning fragmentation pattern, you can be 99.8% certain the patient does not have lung cancer that would be seen on a CT scan. That’s incredibly useful for informed conversations between physicians and patients, particularly those eligible for screening.
Now, armed with that result, a patient and their doctor can discuss whether they want to get a CT now or wait a year and retest.
The idea is to improve access, since blood tests are easier and more scalable than arranging CT scans—and focus resources on the subset of eligible patients most likely to benefit. Our test helps those people get the imaging they need to catch cancer early.
And importantly, our sensitivity for stage I lung cancer, which is the most curable stage, is also around 80%.
So, we can be confident that we’ll find those individuals who genuinely do have lung cancer. For everyone else, if the test comes back not elevated, we can say with high certainty that the likelihood that you have lung cancer is very, very low. Then, we can work together to make the best decision for that person—whether that means doing a CT scan now, having them come back in a year, or taking some other approach.
Jacobsen: What are the systemic drivers behind the overuse or misuse of CT scans?
Bach: I think I want to challenge the premise of the question if that’s okay.
Jacobsen: Sure.
Bach: This paper did not demonstrate widespread overuse of CT scanning. What it did show is that the collective volume of CT scans being performed is contributing to cancer incidence. And I don’t want to minimize that importance—it’s serious. It’s deeply concerning that the medical technology we use to help people may cause harm to the aggregate.
If we take the study at face value, we’re talking about a meaningful number of cancer cases caused by CT-related radiation exposure. That is not good news.
However, we must also recognize that CT scans are not being ordered “willy-nilly.” In the vast majority of cases, they’re used to evaluate legitimate signs or symptoms of disease and are highly effective in doing so. This study doesn’t tell us whether CT scans are being overused, whether they’re being used appropriately but not in the right patient groups or whether they’re being used in some combination. The study does not answer that.
That said, we must make prudent decisions with any diagnostic tool, particularly one that involves ionizing radiation. We must ask ourselves those two key questions before ordering a scan:
- Will I learn something from this test that I don’t already know?
- Will this test result cause me to change how I manage the patient?
Jacobsen: What are the emotional or ethical complexities physicians face with this new knowledge—that CT scans may contribute to cancer?
Bach: The most important thing, and most doctors do this already, is explaining the risks and the benefits of any medical procedure or test.
We’re accustomed to this in surgical contexts—before surgery, we’ll explain the possibility of complications like infection or bleeding and the benefits. What’s less often appreciated is that something like a CT scan, although it’s “just a test,” actually functions more like a medical procedure because of the radiation exposure. It carries both risks and benefits.
So, when physicians discuss CT scans with their patients, they should clearly explain:
- The upside is that we may gain valuable information to help diagnose or guide treatment.
- The downside is that there is a small, individual-level risk of radiation-induced cancer.
Now, for any one patient, the increase in risk is very small—almost negligible. But when you zoom out to the population level across millions, you see that it adds up. The estimate from the study suggests that up to 5% of U.S. cancer cases could be attributable to CT radiation. I think that number is somewhat overestimated—for technical reasons related to modelling assumptions—but that doesn’t change the directional truth of the finding.
Jacobsen: How does personal experience—such as losing your wife to cancer—if you’re willing to speak to it, influence your views on the urgency of developing safer diagnostics?
Bach: What I’ve gone through personally has influenced how I think about the practice of medicine in specific ways, but not on this front. I was fortunate. My wife was lucky in terms of the quality of care she received. It was both technically excellent and tender and humane.
So, no—this specific work is not personally driven in that way. What drives me in my professional life is the opportunity and importance of helping people whose lives could be saved—people who would not die of lung cancer if we screened at the levels we should be.
To give you a rough estimate, if we went from today’s lung cancer screening rates—about 10% of eligible individuals being screened—up to 80%, which is more in line with where we are for breast and colorectal cancer screening, we would save around 10,000 lives per year. That is the largest impact any cancer screening program could have, period.
And it is a substantial unmet need, particularly for an often underserved population. Smoking is more prevalent among people with lower socioeconomic status and lower educational attainment and is more common in certain minority populations.
Because of all that, this is precisely the population that could benefit the most from more accessible screening approaches, like blood tests.
That’s why I’ve devoted my career to identifying effective tools and technologies and figuring out how to get them to the people who will benefit from them.
Jacobsen: Thank you. What patient populations are more vulnerable to the harms of repeated CT imaging?
Bach: Right. I mentioned earlier that this recent study isn’t particularly relevant to low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, and this question addresses one of the key reasons why.
When you think about how radiation causes cancer, there are two main variables:
- How much radiation a person receives.
- How long they live afterward—in other words, how much time there is for that radiation to result in cancer potentially.
So, those two factors combine to make younger people—and especially children—more vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer. If you’re a child and receive radiation, you simply have more years ahead of you, which increases the chance that harmful mutations will eventually lead to cancer. Contrast that with someone who’s, say, 70 years old and undergoing LDCT for lung cancer screening—their remaining lifespan is shorter, so the long-term risk is lower.
Another factor is the type and location of the CT scan. CT scans of the abdomen or pelvis often deliver higher radiation doses than scans of the lungs. That’s one reason LDCT—which uses much less radiation—is designed the way it is. It’salso why lung cancer screening with LDCT poses a relatively lower radiation risk compared to other uses of CT.
Again, while the study is important and highlights the population-level risks of CT imaging, it’s less relevant to low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. As the name implies, the “low dose” part is deliberate, and the lungs are relatively easy to image, which helps reduce the radiation exposure even further.
You don’t need that much radiation to image the lungs—because they’re mostly air. You’re essentially looking at air versus solid structures, and it doesn’t take much radiation to differentiate the two. That’s very different from scanning the abdomen, where you deal with many solid organs—like the pancreas, liver, and bowel—each with similar densities. In those cases, you need more radiation to separate one structure from another clearly.
But here’s the other important point—and I can say this because I’m in the age group: as you get older, you’re simply not around as long. So if the harm from radiation exposure manifests decades later, but you’re unlikely to be alive in 30 or 40 years, then the risk essentially disappears. That’s why, as people age—and we currently screen people up to age 80—the potential harms from radiation begin to mathematically diminish.
Jacobsen: A short follow-up: Why is the age limit set at 80 for lung cancer screening?
Bach: Great question. The reason it’s set at 80—rather than, say, 90—is based on simulation models that look at entire populations.
Here’s how they work:
- As you get older, your risk of having lung cancer increases, which argues for screening.
- But your life expectancy declines, which reduces the benefit of detecting and treating cancer.
Those two factors push in opposite directions. And age 80 is roughly where the balance still favours screening. At that point, you’re still likely to benefit—you’re likely to live long enough to receive treatment and recover.
Beyond 80, those benefits decline significantly. At 90, for instance, even if cancer is found, the likelihood of surviving long enough to benefit from treatment—surgery, recovery, follow-up-is—is low. So, national guideline bodies draw the line at 80. Of course, the real world is messier—there are many different ways to be 79 or 80—but these guidelines are based on population data and are meant to provide general direction.
Jacobsen: Last question—unless I think of a small follow-up. What healthcare innovations are helping reduce our reliance on high-radiation diagnostic tools?
Bach: Well, we’ve discussed one throughout this interview—our blood test for lung cancer. That’s a clear example of using an alternative technology that doesn’t involve radiation to identify patients most likely to benefit from a follow-up CT scan. That’s really the model: use a low-risk, scalable tool to determine who needs the higher-risk, resource-intensive follow-up.
Similar innovations exist in other areas. For example, in cardiology, we now have high-sensitivity blood tests for detecting reduced blood flow to the heart. This has helped reduce the number of patients who need to undergo cardiac catheterization, which also involves radiation.
There are likely more examples to come, but that’s the core idea: develop non-radiative, accessible diagnostics to triage and target more invasive, radiation-based tools. This improves safety, efficiency, and outcomes.
Jacobsen: Dr. Bach, I have no more questions. Thank you very much for your time and expertise today; it was a pleasure to meet you.
Bach: Thanks for your time as well, Scott. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend.
Jacobsen: I will—I’ve got all the coffee and sunshine I need.
Bach: That’s fantastic. I’m glad to hear it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/19
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 holds the position of 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 discusses Israel’s covert strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Austria’s school shooting, India’s Metabot plane crash amid sabotage suspicions, and U.S. consumer sentiment trends, while analyzing Elon Musk’s pragmatic reconciliation with Trump and his controversial ties with Russia. This interview was conducted on June 13, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, I am delighted to have Irina Tsukerman, an American attorney and geopolitical analyst specializing in national security, human rights, and energy law. So, let us discuss Israel — we are recording this on June 13. All sources for today’s discussion are from Reuters. Other commentary exists, but our primary source today is Reuters.
Recently, Israel reportedly conducted strikes inside Iran amid ongoing nuclear tensions, resulting in the deaths of senior military figures. There has been widespread commentary about this development. What are your thoughts on the strike itself and the broader commentary?
Irina Tsukerman: This operation reflects years of strategic planning and intelligence gathering. While it is not accurate to say it was twenty years in preparation in a literal sense, Israel has long maintained contingency plans for striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and related assets. The decision to carry out such an operation always depends on a combination of intelligence assessments, regional circumstances, and political considerations.
What triggered this specific strike appears to be a convergence of factors: credible intelligence that Iran’s nuclear program has made substantial progress — with enriched uranium stockpiles exceeding the limits set by the now-defunct JCPOA (the nuclear deal) — and persistent concerns that Tehran could reach weapons-grade capability sooner than previously estimated. These assessments were corroborated not only by Israeli sources but also by international monitoring agencies like the IAEA, which confirmed that Iran’s uranium enrichment levels had again surpassed the agreed thresholds.
Diplomacy has stalled for years, both under the Trump administration, which withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, and under subsequent efforts to revive talks, which have repeatedly broken down amid Iranian intransigence and regional tensions. Iran has rejected proposals it considers insufficient and has advanced its nuclear work despite negotiations.
The U.S., including under the current administration, has consistently urged restraint, preferring to avoid escalation and keep the diplomatic window open. However, Israel viewed this moment as an inflection point: the combination of alarming intelligence, continued Iranian defiance, and a shifting regional security picture made them calculate that a limited, precise strike could delay Iran’s military capabilities without provoking full-scale war.
Reports indicate that Israel informed the U.S. in advance and asked for deconfliction measures to avoid accidental clashes with American assets in the region. For the White House, while this was an unwelcome escalation, it arguably provides leverage by putting additional pressure on Tehran without direct U.S. involvement.
As for the operational side, the risk of failure was minimized by extensive infiltration and surveillance inside Iran — evidenced by previous Mossad operations that successfully exfiltrated Iranian nuclear archives and targeted key figures within Iran’s nuclear and military establishment. The strike reportedly focused on military and IRGC-linked sites rather than core civilian nuclear facilities, which reduces the chance of mass civilian casualties and makes such attacks more politically defensible.
As we have seen, the aftermath has been contained so far, though the risk of retaliation by Iran or its regional proxies remains significant. Israel built a drone factory inside Iran, close to key military facilities, with Iran reportedly unaware of it for quite some time. This is very similar, if you think about it, to what happened recently in Russia, where Ukraine allegedly operated intelligence networks near sensitive sites, including close to an FSB building, and launched operations from there. So, it is a comparable scenario. I wonder if there was some level of coordination — whether the Ukrainians were inspired by that particular tactic or received some training or operational insight from the Israelis and Americans.
Regardless, we know that not only did the airstrikes kill multiple officials, but Israel also had assets on the ground that carried out targeted assassinations in person, not just through aerial strikes. This shows that the intelligence was top-notch and deeply embedded.
Israel did something else quite strategic: it deliberately misled everyone, including Iran and Russia, by signalling that it would wait for another round of nuclear talks before taking action — if those talks failed. They did not wait, which is why so many key officials were still gathered in vulnerable locations rather than hidden in bunkers or relocated abroad, where they would have been harder to reach. For years, none of these plans leaked, and even more recently, despite the close intelligence cooperation between Russia and Iran — formalized in agreements just a few months ago — they were unable to protect each other from breaches or infiltration. This all but guaranteed Israel’s success.
The operation was indeed effective. Israel reportedly inflicted damage on the Natanz nuclear facility — which is notoriously well-defended and hardened — as well as other sites. While it is unlikely that Israel alone could destroy Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure without U.S. military support, causing significant damage can still set the program back by months or even years. Additionally, eliminating senior nuclear scientists severely disrupts Iran’s technical capacity.
In retaliation, Iran immediately launched hundreds of drones and missiles toward Israel. At least one reportedly struck inside Tel Aviv. However, most damage has so far been infrastructural, with several people suffering light to moderate injuries but no confirmed fatalities at this point. This response was anticipated. Israel’s air defences, including the Iron Dome and other layers, have so far performed well.
While some observers worry about further escalation, regional instability, flight cancellations, and oil price spikes, the reality is that this operation could benefit regional security in the long term. Iran has been a significant source of destabilization for decades, supporting proxy militias and stirring conflict throughout the Middle East. Reducing its military and nuclear capabilities constrains its ability to project force and sponsor violence, which is only positive for its neighbours and global energy markets.
Jacobsen: There was also a tragic incident in Austria — a person was killed in a school. Details are still emerging, and the investigation is ongoing. How do you think this might influence Austria’s security policies? Will they follow trends seen in other countries after similar attacks?
Tsukerman: It is new territory for Austria, which historically has not faced school shootings or comparable attacks as frequently as countries like the United States. One reason often cited is Austria’s stricter gun laws. However, the issue is not just about firearms access; it is also cultural. We are seeing a global trend where violence, including mass or symbolic violence, is becoming more visible and, in some circles, more normalized, partly due to instant global communication and social media amplification.
I expect Austria to review its security policies for schools and public venues, possibly implementing tighter controls, surveillance, or preventive measures similar to those adopted by other European countries in response to isolated but impactful attacks. They will likely balance this with their privacy and civil liberties standards, which are stronger than in some other jurisdictions.
You watch something that happens somewhere else, and you become inspired by it. The more it is promoted, the more widespread it becomes, and the more international attention it attracts, the more likely it is that individuals who want to stand out — or feel a need to act out — will pick up on it.
In this case, the murderer reportedly claimed he had been bullied and had failed in his academic goals. In other words, he was not accepted to his preferred programs, he did not perform well academically, and he became bitter and resentful. Instead of seeking help, improving himself, or finding healthier ways to cope, he chose to take out his anger on innocent people.
Unfortunately, this is a typical pattern. Many previous school shootings have involved individuals with similar backgrounds — feelings of rejection, resentment, or failure. Austria was less prepared for this because such incidents were sporadic there. This might have been the first of its kind in that context.
We also know that his mother tried to intervene and warn authorities, but it was too late to prevent the attack. So, despite an effort to stop it early, it did not work logistically or quickly enough.
It is often challenging to identify such individuals promptly. Many people feel bullied or unsuccessful at some point in life; many people have psychological issues or depression, but the vast majority never turn violent. So, distinguishing which individual is actually on the path to violence has become more of an art than a science. Even when people post threats online, it is challenging to determine whether they intend to act or are merely venting. Social media is now so flooded with noise, bots, and empty threats that it is increasingly challenging to filter genuine red flags from background noise.
Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way to prevent these incidents 100% of the time other than staying vigilant, improving reporting mechanisms, and acting quickly when credible threats do surface.
Jacobsen: Switching topics: There was a crash involving Alt India’s Metabot airplane. News outlets and local teams are reporting from the scene. Casualties have been confirmed, and an investigation is underway. Possible causes include pilot error, technical failure, or weather conditions. What are your thoughts on this, including the likely impact on public confidence in India’s aviation sector? It appears that there have been numerous such incidents recently, not just in India but worldwide.
Tsukerman: Yes — a few factors come to mind immediately. Unfortunately, India does not have the strongest reputation for aircraft maintenance and airline reliability. While some airlines operate very safely, Air India, in particular, has had past issues, including reports of negligence or poor oversight. There have also been incidents involving military aircraft where parts were poorly maintained or even detached mid-flight. My first instinct upon hearing about this was that human error or inadequate maintenance could be significant factors.
However, initial reports suggest other possibilities as well — technical malfunctions unrelated to human error, possible bird strikes, or other unexpected factors. Some very unusual details have emerged: before the situation deteriorated completely, the pilot attempted to contact air traffic control to report multiple system failures, including a breakdown of basic communications. This suggests that it was not solely a pilot error but rather a combination of technical and environmental factors.
As for the public’s confidence in aviation, such incidents do shake people’s trust, especially when they happen in clusters. That said, air travel remains statistically very safe, and each major accident usually triggers improvements in safety protocols, maintenance standards, and pilot training. India’s aviation authorities will be under pressure to investigate thoroughly and show visible reforms to reassure the public.
That is not consistent with the usual kind of isolated error — like an engine failure, a single part malfunctioning, or routine maintenance being overlooked. It sounded more like a systemic failure affecting multiple components at once.
What could cause that? It may be too early to draw firm conclusions, but a few things have raised eyebrows among security analysts. For example, a Turkish company reportedly relocated its operations to that city just days before the crash. Some suspect that the company has indirect ties to the Turkish government.
Turkey has, in the past, played a background role in supporting certain militant groups that carried out attacks in Kashmir using Pakistani networks. Of course, it is doubtful that the Turkish government would directly target a civilian aircraft. If Ankara wanted to undermine India, it would more plausibly do so indirectly, perhaps by supporting proxy actors behind the scenes. Moreover, some people are beginning to suspect that this could be an act of sabotage motivated by local ideological or geopolitical interests.
Whether this company — which is reportedly named Gilebi — is working for the Turkish government or played any role at all remains unproven at this point. However, the fact that it relocated its 450 employees from Alsace to Ahmedabad just weeks before the incident has drawn attention.
Regarding the technical details, there are reports of a possible hydraulic system leak affecting the nose gear and lift settings, as well as some indications that the landing gear did not deploy properly. Again, these are early leaks, not official findings, but so far, no single explanation fully accounts for all the failures that happened simultaneously.
While negligence or overlooked maintenance could certainly be part of the story, many analysts think that alone is unlikely to explain a cascading systems failure of this scale. If it does turn out to involve intentional sabotage — whether by a rogue private entity or as a proxy act for another state — that will raise significant questions about how to respond and secure India’s aviation sector going forward.
Already, India–Turkey relations have been tense at the popular level. After the Kashmir attacks, there were large protests and calls for boycotts of Turkish products. Ankara has also been increasingly active among Indian Muslim communities — sometimes providing genuine humanitarian aid but also, critics say, stoking divisions with local Hindu communities in cities like Mumbai.
So, what will ultimately come of this remains to be seen. However, the fact that these concerns are being raised not only by random online accounts but also by reputable journalists suggests that there is at least some basis to investigate whether sabotage was a factor — perhaps not an outright terrorist attack, but deliberate tampering that caused critical equipment to fail. That is one scenario investigators cannot ignore at this stage.
But, of course, it is still too early to conclude the cause of the crash. So far, Prime Minister Modi has refrained from making any statements that would suggest it was a deliberate or malicious act by any party. He has focused instead on providing a supportive presence and allowing investigators to do their work.
Jacobsen: Switching topics — consumer sentiment in the United States improved in June, which was unexpected. Some analysts think this is driven by lower inflation expectations and a generally stable economic outlook. I have conducted numerous interviews with businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and finance experts, and they often say that “business loves stability.” Therefore, if people perceive stability, it is beneficial for business confidence. What does this positive trend indicate about the intersection of politics and business in the U.S. right now — and how do business leaders see it affecting citizens more broadly?
Tsukerman: Just a few months ago, many people were bracing for the worst because Trump was publicly threatening sweeping tariffs on a wide range of countries. He made big announcements, started negotiations, and then often backtracked or watered down the tariffs — or delayed them altogether. So, there is a sense of relief now that the worst-case trade scenarios have not yet materialized.
There is a genuine reason for improved consumer confidence: for now, things are more stable than people feared. There have been no sudden, drastic new moves from the administration lately. One significant factor was the court rulings that limited Trump’s ability to impose or escalate tariffs without congressional approval unilaterally. That court pushback reduces the likelihood of abrupt trade policy swings and, in turn, eases inflationary pressures.
Of course, this does not guarantee long-term stability. Congress could still authorize new tariffs if it aligns politically, and Trump has shown a willingness to ignore or fight court orders when it suits him. So, it is not entirely off the table — but the path is now more constrained than it seemed a few months ago.
Overall, the current outlook is relatively calm. There is a sense of continuity in other areas as well, such as efforts to secure critical rare earth supplies and maintain trade agreements — for example, no abrupt break with Canada, which is reassuring.
Ironically, the escalating crisis with Iran may also push the administration to focus more on foreign policy and less on disrupting trade partners unnecessarily. It is a grim silver lining: Sometimes, a serious external conflict shifts attention away from self-inflicted trade battles. It is a sad commentary on public expectations, but it does explain part of the improvement in consumer sentiment.
One other quirky factor: Elon Musk recently reconciled with Trump after a period of very public tension. Musk even apologized soon after his father, Errol Musk — who has often rebuked him — publicly defended him against rumours of drug use and urged him to mend fences with Trump. That thaw may also contribute slightly to market optimism, as investors tend to watch prominent personalities like Musk and Trump closely.
In summary, things are calmer for now; the worst trade shocks have not happened yet, the courts have clipped some presidential power, and influential business figures are trying to smooth over conflicts. All of that supports a more stable economic mood — at least for the moment.
But really, it was not just one thing that pushed Musk toward reconciling with Trump — it was a combination of factors. Trump threatened to terminate key government contracts, and things were moving in a bad direction for Musk financially and politically. It is not that Musk had no leverage; he did. He threatened, for example, to restrict government access to Starlink or use other forms of pressure. However, in the end, the government holds the bigger cards — quite literally, it has the contracts and the regulatory power, and it can always outlast a private player.
Additionally, Musk is no longer the only businessman with a private satellite network. There are no other companies in the market that significantly undercut the unique leverage he had for years as the only major player in that arena. Once it became clear that he could not win the standoff, reconciliation became the pragmatic choice.
Jacobsen: Speaking of Errol Musk and Lavrov — they are at this future-themed conference or “2050 panel” in Moscow or maybe Saint Petersburg. Do you have any thoughts on this gathering?
Tsukerman: Yes — Errol Musk was praising Russia at that event, calling it the “New Rome,” which is surreal. Elon, for all his criticism of his father, resembles him in more ways than he would admit. Politics is one of them. They both tend to flirt with authoritarian figures and adopt a performative contrarian stance.
Moreover, yes, they both exhibit a pattern of fathering children somewhat indiscriminately, but that is probably the least concerning commonality. Unfortunately, their gravitation toward Russian elites is another similarity — and the reasons are murky. It could be a blend of admiration for strongman politics, personal financial interests, possible kompromat (which would not be surprising given confident lifestyle choices and poor judgment), or simply an ideological affinity for anti-Western narratives.
What makes it more troubling is that it seems genuine. It goes beyond the usual cynical opportunism of doing business with everyone. You do not hear Elon Musk gushing about Indonesia or spending time cozying up to the leadership of mineral-rich African nations. Russia holds a peculiar attraction for him and, to a lesser extent, for Errol too — who now pops up on various channels acting as a kind of fringe propagandist by association.
Given Elon’s reach and power to influence public discourse through platforms like X, it is crucial to understand these ties better. They shape how people perceive conflicts, power blocs, and even the legitimacy of Western institutions.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or smaller stories worth flagging before we wrap up?
Tsukerman: Those were the significant points for now. However, this is unlikely to be the last clash between Musk and Trump. Their personalities almost guarantee future tension. Musk has the money; Trump currently has the presidential power. At some point, that rivalry will resurface, especially if Musk tries to shape the post-Trump landscape with significant political donations. We have already seen Trump hint at retaliating if Musk supports Democrats or rival Republicans. So, more drama ahead, indeed.
Jacobsen: Irene, thank you very much for your time again today — always insightful.
Tsukerman: Thank you! Looking forward to continuing next week.
Jacobsen: Sounds good. Talk soon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/19
Brigitte Charlton-Vicenty, founder of the Inner City Green Team Economic and Environmental Development (ICGT), leads a pioneering recycling initiative serving New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents. ICGT combines door-to-door pickup, environmental education, and behavioral rewards to promote sustainability and social impact. The program has expanded to include textile and food waste collection, while creating jobs and fostering civic engagement. Partnering with artists and organizations like Mika Rottenberg, Precious Plastics-NYC, and Food Cycle Science, ICGT aims to launch a Climate Action Center, which they have named S.P.A.R.K (South Bronx Pact for Reclamation and Knowledge), to further its mission. With over 400,000 NYCHA residents potentially impacted, ICGT offers a replicable model of environmental justice and grassroots leadership.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Brigitte Vicenty.
She is the founder of the Inner City Green Team (ICGT). ICGT is a sustainable, scalable, and replicable recycling initiative operating within New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) developments. It provides a community-based, door-to-door recycling service designed to meet the specific challenges faced by public housing residents. The program partners with organizations such as environmental support agencies to promote job creation and ecological justice.
What makes ICGT unique is its resident-centered, service-based approach. It combines education, direct collection of recyclables, and behavioural incentives such as a rewards system to increase participation. The initiative is helping NYCHA residents divert significant volumes of recyclable material from landfills, ultimately saving public funds and creating green jobs within the community. The program has the potential to benefit over 400,000 residents in NYCHA housing across the city. The goal is to reach all NYCHA campuses across the five boroughs eventually. So, what inspired the creation of ICGT?
Brigitte Vicenty: The idea came to me when I realized that NYCHA—being the most largest public housing authority in the country—was not meaningfully participating in recycling, even though recycling has been mandatory in New York City since 1989.
For a long time, there were no recycling bins in front of many NYCHA buildings. When they finally began installing the bins, I was excited. As an environmentalist from a young age, I was eager to do my part. I started separating my recyclables and using the bins. However, I later learned that all the material was being thrown out with the regular trash.
I was stunned—and incredibly frustrated. We thought we were doing our civic duty, only to find out that our efforts were in vain. That realization became my moment of obligation. The non-profit organization was not yet called Inner City Green Team at the time, but that was the beginning. I started asking, Why is this happening? I made calls, connected with local officials, and began investigating the cause of the breakdown in recycling services at NYCHA. That investigation became activism. That activism became ICGT.
Jacobsen: You mentioned your upbringing in New York City. Did that shape your environmental awareness?
Vicenty: My incredible mother was a pillar in the community. She was focused on youth development and making real change. Watching her in action had a significant influence on me. She showed people how to uplift themselves and others.
Even now—nearly 27 years after her passing—those who knew her well still talk about her in the highest regard and even call me by her name. They share stories about the influence she had on their lives. One example that stuck with me was a man who had been incarcerated. He remembered my mother from his childhood and told me how she had impacted him. That kind of legacy stays with you. It’s a big part of why I do this work.
Some of her work included teaching etiquette classes—dining etiquette, you know, where the plates go, where the forks go, and so forth. She took pride in it. When that same man I mentioned earlier was incarcerated, he began teaching etiquette classes in prison. He said, “Your mother inspired me because that’s what she did.” He turned it into something meaningful, something he passed on to others. There are many stories like that.
Yes, my mother is indeed my muse. I have always been drawn to service because I have seen how deeply it affects people. I wanted to do that kind of work—I wanted to have that superpower. I did not want to do precisely what my mother did, but I had this deep, innate desire to serve. And eventually, my passion for the environment and this desire to serve came together—and here we are.
Jacobsen: I travelled to New York City for the first time this past March—for two whole weeks—for the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. I walked around a lot in Manhattan, Lower Manhattan, and even parts of Long Island. One thing that struck me was how, in some areas, the garbage disposal systems seemed off—like the infrastructure might be outdated or overwhelmed. There were streets where garbage bags were piled 10 feet high.
I’m from a small town, so it was pretty stark to see. I was walking with a New Yorker, and she said, “This is just normal.”So, with that scale of waste production, how does your door-to-door recycling pickup model work?
Vicenty: It works by educating residents about waste management. Most people don’t think about it. Growing up in the 1960s, I recall a sanitation strike in New York City that lasted nine days, and the trash piled up to what looked to be 10 feet high. Over 100,000 tons of trash had not been collected. It was overwhelming. You could not avoid it; it was right in your face.
Those who were affected gained the understanding that waste management is not a guarantee, so it should be regarded as a privilege. Although our tax dollars fund sanitation services, people don’t regard these services as a privilege; most of the time, they take having the infrastructure in place for granted. What we are doing at the Inner City Green Team is educating people about the culture of disposability. In this throw-away society, we teach that everything doesn’t have to be placed in the garbage just because you no longer have use for it.
We work to redirect that mindset through community outreach and education. Our messaging focuses on the six Rs: recycle, reuse, repurpose, repair, refuse, and rethink. That’s where our impact lies.
It is about showing—not just telling—people that recycling and waste reduction are easy and manageable. When they learn how simple it can be, something shifts within them. There’s an emotional response—“I didn’t know that. I have options. There are alternatives.” That awareness becomes the foundation for real change.
Jacobsen: How do you balance environmental goals with social impact?
Vicenty: That’s the thing—it’s intertwined. What we do is inherently both environmental and social. The full name is Inner City Green Team: Economic and Environmental Development. So, when we focus on environmental goals, the social impact is inseparable.
For example, one in seventeen New Yorkers does not have access to recycling the way others do. Our program provides an empowering and proactive opportunity for residents to participate in greening their communities. When you reduce, reuse, and recycle, etc., you begin to feel empowered. You want to do more—and then you want to share that energy with the next person.
After residents respond to the call, they start saying things like, “I can’t bring myself to throw my cans away anymore.”Even when they feel like taking the easy route and tossing recyclables in the trash, they stop themselves. That behaviour shift—that sense of responsibility and accountability—is fundamental. Indeed, the environmental and social benefits are deeply interconnected.
Jacobsen: What challenges occur with recycling infrastructure in public housing?
Vicenty: The buildings are very outdated. NYCHA housing developments predates any recycling mandate—recycling did not become law in New York City until 1989. These buildings were not designed with recycling infrastructure in mind.
That means there’s no built-in system for residents to recycle. Often, the only option is to carry materials to outdoor bins placed far away from the building entrances. Additionally, NYCHA has a large senior population—lifelong residents who have remained in place throughout their lives and mobility has become a serious issue for them.
If you are a senior citizen and the recycling bin is a block away, they are not encouraged to go outside in extreme heat or cold to make that trip. So, the model was envisioned to solve that problem by offering convenient, weekly door-to-door recycling collection in addition to the educational portion to aid the learning curve.
We began by collecting metals, glass, plastic, paper, and cardboard. We’ve since expanded to include household items, textile recycling and we will kick-off our food waste collection program in June 2025. These are just some of several ways we are not just responding to the challenge but actively meeting it.
Jacobsen: How does your incentive and education strategy help change recycling behaviours?
Vicenty: It’s CONVENIENT. Our unofficial tagline is, “You can recycle in your underwear.” There’s no need to go outside—hot or cold—we bring recycling access directly to your door.
During the week, residents separate their recyclables, rinse them, and follow all the steps we teach as part of our program. We provide every household with a recycling kit that includes instructions and reusable recycling bags. The education, paired with consistent, accessible service, makes all the difference, so there’s no reason why residents should not be able to participate.
When we collect textiles, we provide sealable jumbo poly bags and distribute them directly to residents. If anyone needs more bags, we provide a phone number they can call, and we’ll deliver new ones. Then, we pick up the filled bags right at their door.
Our approach is very engaging. The educational component is not just informative—it’s fun. We employ an outreach model that resembles a community event. When we host outreach sessions, it’s often carnival-style programming—we set up tables with educational games, and residents move from station to station, learning fun facts and engaging with environmental topics. The goal is always the same: to make recycling easy, convenient, and accessible.
Jacobsen: You report impacting more than 400,000 residents, potentially. How do you scale your program while keeping it rooted in community-centered values?
Vicenty: That huge figure reflects the total population of NYCHA residents citywide, and our goal is to propose to the NY City Council to integrate it into the city’s waste management budget. Unfortunately, while we’ve received promises of support, those promises have not yet materialized.
As for scaling while staying community-centred, it starts with engaging and training residents. We created a program called R.E.A.L.—Resident Environmental Action Leaders. Through REAL, we train residents to become peer educators and recruit others to join our efforts. We aim to empower residents to teach one another and lead by example.
We also provide economic opportunities. We prioritize hiring NYCHA residents or volunteers who demonstrate genuine interest and potential. They have the chance to become part of our workforce training program. So, the model is holistic—we combine environmental education, civic engagement, and economic empowerment.
We prioritize hiring NYCHA residents. Currently, we have five part-time NYCHA residents employed from the communities we serve. They live where they work. It reflects why “economic” is part of the name of ICGT, as it signifies the importance of providing much-needed resources in neglected communities and making human investments where they are needed the most.
Jacobsen: Last one. What are the measurable outcomes since the program began?
Vicenty: It’s been an uphill battle. When I first proposed this program to NYCHA, I encountered significant pushback. There was staunch resistance, and my proposal was eventually denied. The opportunity was fleeting, so my last resort was to file a lawsuit with an environmental law firm to force NYCHA into compliance with recycling laws. Filing the lawsuit was about doing the right thing, so I became increasingly persistent—filing for hearings, presenting evidence, and staying resilient in my truth.
Eight years later, I was given the opportunity to conduct a pilot program to prove my concept. Before that, my theory for not winning this battle sooner was that words like “environmental justice” weren’t buzzwords. Now, being permitted to operate on several NYCHA campuses has been an enormous victory.
In terms of waste impact, we’ve collected over 75 tons of recyclables at our current site, the Wagner Houses. Before that, during our pilot program in 2018 at the Brownsville Houses in Brooklyn, we collected 16 tons of waste over the course of one year. In the first four months, recycling rates increased from 0% to 8%.
Before our program, the narrative stated, “Residents don’t want to recycle,” which is definitely not the case. Residents want to recycle, and they will do so if provided with the necessary tools, access, and education to facilitate this.
We’ve continued expanding the program and are working to expand to three additional campuses in the South Bronx. However, as a nonprofit, we continually need to strategize to sustain ourselves, whether through developing new revenue streams, securing corporate sponsorships, grant writing, or forming conducive partnerships.
As a not-for-profit, the continuous need for funding led me to consider: How could we monetize the materials we collect to maintain operations? Three months later, the manifestation came to fruition in the form of being contacted by a renowned artist named Mika Rottenberg of Rottenberg Studios and Precious Plastics-NYC. These environmentally conscious artist use post-consumer plastics to create their high-end functional art, sculptures, and lighting installations.
Our collaboration has been a vision come to life. Since 2023, we’ve been collaborating, and our work has been exhibited around the world—in Mexico City, Vienna, Seoul, London, Spain, Austria, and, of course, New York.
That collaboration also led to the creation of three additional jobs. My team, which at one point was only working one day a week. We now have three members working P/T, five days a week. These outcomes demonstrate that our model is effective. People are actively participating by performing their civic duty, and we are satisfied with the results we are seeing.
Ultimately, our goal is to establish a Climate Action Center—a visible, physical space in the underserved neighborhood we serve where we can foster engagement and promote our messaging. Our “Green Ministry” will bring this education and access into communities that are often marginalized in receiving sustainability services.
Through several partnerships, I am building a coalition to secure funding and long-term support. The center, known as S.P.A.R.K., would serve as a hub where people can engage to learn, grow, and live green. It would also help sustain the nonprofit by anchoring ICGT’s citywide climate action initiatives.
Jacobsen: I do have one other question following from that.
Vicenty: Mhmm.
Jacobsen: What would you identify as two categories of expansion? First, lateral expansion—what you might call replicating or scaling the current deliverables across more developments. Second, vertical expansion—more advanced or evolved offerings, such as education or civic infrastructure, that could act as extensions of the current model. These wouldn’t replace the core but add to it—so people trying to reduce their carbon footprint or contribute more meaningfully to their community would have even more to engage with.
Vicenty: Yes—absolutely. Both lateral and vertical growth are on our minds. Laterally, we want to continue scaling to more NYCHA developments and communities. The model is simple and highly replicable. It simply requires proper funding, effective resident outreach, and a reliable service delivery system.
We’ve designed it as a closed-loop system. Whether it’s food waste, household items, textiles, plastics, or metals, it’s about keeping materials out of landfills and in use.
Vertically, we’re talking about building capacity for deeper learning. This means more in-depth education programs, hands-on workshops, and skill-building in areas such as upcycling, urban composting, and circular economy practices. We want residents not only to participate but to lead, to become trainers, to create businesses, or even to innovate new uses for waste materials.
The Climate Action Center is at the heart of that vision. It’s not just about waste diversion—it’s about building an ecosystem of sustainability led by and for communities that have historically been left out of that conversation.
Jacobsen: Thank you. That’s inspiring and incredibly well thought out. I was trying to give an image, like—say you have a coffee shop or maybe a burrito truck. At first, they only offer one kind of burrito. Then, they expand by getting a second truck or opening a restaurant, but they still only serve that one burrito. That’s lateral expansion—they’ve broadened their base but not their offerings.
Now, if, in that restaurant or second truck, they start offering tacos too, that’s vertical expansion—they’ve expanded what they provide, not just where. So, in terms of vertical growth or “adding tacos,” how do you envision expanding the kinds of provisions your program offers?
Vicenty: Right. That’s precisely what we’re already doing. Initially, we focused on education and collecting recyclable materials, including metal, glass, plastic, and paper. But I realized early on—that alone was not going to be enough. We needed to re-envision what our services could be and identify what was missing.
When I was out on NYCHA campuses, I would regularly see residents coming out with bags full of clothing and just tossing them in the trash—without a second thought. They had no place to take it. That’s why the textile collection campaign needed to be an additional service we offer.
Now, instead of throwing clothes away, residents can donate them to us. We collect the bags weekly. At this point, we do not yet have the internal capacity to sort and process the textiles ourselves, but we’ve partnered with another organization that does. They have the infrastructure to divert those materials from the landfill much more extensively.
We’ve been doing that successfully for over a year now. So yes, it’s very much like placing additional items on our menu —we’re expanding the scope of what we do. And now we’re taking the next step with food waste.
How can we make that work? That’s the next big challenge. We’re a small but persistent team—a little choo-choo train, as I like to say. Every new initiative takes up more space and more time than we initially expected, and we’re already operating in a pretty small space.
So, to take on food waste, we’ve partnered with a company called Food Cycle Science, which is based in Ottawa. I reached out to them and requested a donation of their in-home food recycling appliances.
The food recyclers from Food Cycle Science are great. You put your food scraps—mainly produce and other organic waste—into the unit. You need to avoid certain items, such as oils, cheeses, and most dairy products, but the machine breaks down everything else into what is called a pre-compost material or soil amendment. It somewhat resembles coffee grounds. The machine uses heat and dehydration to break down the material.
So here we are, once again, trying to stay aligned with our model: easy, convenient, accessible. And when it comes to food recycling, residents can have a decisive “yuck factor.” That’s a real barrier.
I approached Food Cycle Science, and they generously donated 250 machines. So now we’re rolling out a program to educate residents on food recycling. We host workshops, provide food caddies and compostable bags, and pick up their food waste just like we do with metal, glass, plastic, paper, and textiles etc.
Our food waste diversion program will process the food waste in the donated machines, which break down the food scraps to 90% of their original volume. This completes another step in our comprehensive waste diversion strategy.
That’s where we are now—this is real, and these are the things we are working on today.
Jacobsen: Brigitte, I want to say thank you very much for your time and your expertise—and it was lovely to meet you.
Vicenty: It was lovely to meet you, too, Scott. I look forward to seeing the outcome of all 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
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 gives in in-depth conversation on gendered double standards in dating and nightlife. They explore how social freedoms differ between men and women, especially in public settings like bars or clubs, and how misreading cues often leads to miscommunication. Louis discusses how men project insecurities, the importance of mutual respect, and why open communication is key in relationships. He also highlights the often-overlooked reverse dynamic—when women cross boundaries with men—and calls for balanced emotional intelligence, trust, and consent. The discussion emphasizes the need for healthy relationship habits across diverse social and cultural contexts. Interview conducted June 9, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Christopher Louis. I will insert his bio later to streamline the session—that is just a note to myself.
Double standards are an ongoing aspect of social dynamics that many people encounter. Ideally, we would live in a world where these are reduced in all contexts. However, in the dating world, double standards persist between men and women. What are some of the key examples you have observed, particularly in how men and women are treated when they go out socially? And how do men typically react in these situations—especially in terms of defensiveness?
Christopher Louis: Double standards come up in dating. One typical example appears when men and women in committed relationships go out separately with friends. Men often have more social license to be friendly or even mildly flirtatious in public settings—as long as it is seen as harmless and not crossing boundaries. These behaviours—like talking with women and making physical gestures like touching a shoulder—are often excused under the assumption that there is no romantic or sexual intent behind them.
When women go out, especially with single friends or in nightlife settings like bars or clubs, they are often subjected to greater scrutiny. Some male partners feel uncomfortable, not necessarily because of mistrust, but due to perceived vulnerability—such as unwanted male attention or pressure from strangers. This can lead to tension, especially when the male partner believes the social environment itself increases the likelihood of boundary-crossing with others.
Jacobsen: It is not just the emotional reaction of men that is important here, but also how they verbalize those concerns. How is that typically expressed?
Louis: In my experience with clients and conversations with friends, many men express it through concern or control. They might say something like, “If you go out with your single friends to a club, you’re just opening the door for other guys to hit on you.” There is an underlying assumption that physical appearance, attire, or setting could invite attention—and that this could lead to miscommunication, misread cues, or even predatory behaviour from others.
This does not mean that women are doing anything wrong. But some men project their insecurities or fears onto their partner’s actions. It is not uncommon for these conversations to revolve around perceived risk, even though the real issue may be a lack of trust, fear of infidelity, or difficulty managing jealousy. It becomes a broader conversation about autonomy, mutual respect, and communication in the relationship.
Like, if a girl is just talking to a guy and she’s laughing with him or whatever—keeping it platonic—the guy may get the wrong signals. He may go in for a kiss, he may go in for a touch, or he may make a move that is off-putting or even interpreted as a sexual advance toward someone else’s girlfriend.
Jacobsen: That leads to a practical follow-up question: How do women typically view those misinterpretations? There is that pattern. Specifically, the situation where men overperceive romantic or sexual intent, and women may underperceive how their actions could be misread. I’m referring to moments when men mistake friendliness for interest and try to make a move.
Louis: So, in that case, here’s the thing: most guys misread signals. Let’s just be honest—half the time, guys are wrong about what they think is being communicated. I know for a fact that if a woman is just being her fun, energetic self—talking to a guy, laughing, maybe touching his arm while being friendly and platonic—some guys are going to interpret that as an invitation.
They think, “Oh, she’s into me. She wants me to go for it.” That’s when you’ll see a guy go in for a kiss or get more physical, thinking it’s a green light when it was just a woman being social, kind, and open.
Now, if she’s in a relationship, and that moment happens, most of the time, she’ll stop it right away and say, “Whoa—hey. I wasn’t giving you that kind of signal.” And then the guy may flip it, saying, “You were flirting with me,” or “You wanted that.” But the reality is that she wasn’t. He just misread the friendliness. It happens way too often.
Jacobsen: So how do you coach men to understand and adjust for this—so it’s not just understood, but behaviour changes?
Louis: That’s a key point. What I tell men is this: no matter how warm or friendly a woman seems—whether she’s laughing with you, maintaining eye contact, or even touching your arm in conversation—it does not mean she’s giving consent to anything more.
Some women, like my girlfriend, are naturally social. She’ll talk to guys and be engaging because that’s who she is. It doesn’t mean she’s inviting more. So, I teach people to read the room—not just through body language but also through context, tone, and especially words. And always, always ask yourself: “Did she explicitly indicate interest beyond friendly conversation?” If the answer is no, then back off.
Teaching this is about emotional intelligence, reading signals with nuance, and—most of all—respect. Respect her boundaries even if you’re unsure because consent is never assumed.
She’ll be like, “Oh my God.” She’ll touch their arm or leg—whether they’re sitting or standing—in a platonic way. But again, I coach guys to understand, first and foremost, what kind of woman they’re speaking with and where she’s coming from.
If she’s saying, “Hey, my boyfriend’s over there, but I’m loving this conversation,” it’s about reading the room and asking the right questions. Let’s say the woman is single, and she’s being a bit more flirtatious—your goal then might be to gently escalate by asking flirtatious questions like, “Wow, I think you’re adorable,” or “I love your energy.” You’re trying to gauge whether her energy is genuine interest or simply a friendly gesture.
The hardest thing for a lot of guys when they go out is misreading those cues. You approach a girl with your usual flirty lines, have a ten or fifteen-minute conversation, and suddenly you’re thinking, “Yeah, I think she’s into me.” But she might just be being polite. That’s why I always emphasize the importance of asking deeper, clarifying questions.
You need to determine: is this something real? Is she genuinely interested? Or is she simply being kind? That discernment can save you a lot of confusion—and awkwardness. So, the answer to your question is to ask better questions before interpreting subtle cues as signs of sexual or romantic interest. Do not rely solely on body language because it is often misread.
Jacobsen: Are there situations where the reverse happens? Where a woman misunderstands a man’s signals and assumes more interest than there is? That might be a practical educational example to illustrate how misinterpretation can occur in both directions.
Louis: Yes—definitely. This is where it gets a little complex.
From both experience and in the present, I’ve found that many women feel they have more freedom to touch men casually than men would ever feel comfortable doing with women. I’ve had moments where I’ve felt put off or even uncomfortable when a woman approaches me and starts touching my chest or my face while telling me how handsome I am. And I think: Did I permit you to do that?
So, yes, there’s a clear double standard. Some women feel entitled to touch men without considering whether that contact is welcome. It can be unsettling—because, just like with women, men have personal boundaries too. But society often overlooks that.
Some women see a man they’re attracted to and treat him like a piece of meat. It can feel predatory—just in a different way. And that discomfort is something I help men navigate and discuss openly. Boundaries apply both ways. Respect and consent have to be mutual.
Because men are often socialized to accept or even welcome sexual attention from women, some women may assume their advances will always be well received. There’s this idea that if they touch a man or express sexual interest, he will automatically be into it—that he’ll want them, want more, and be flattered. But that is not always the case.
There have been many instances in my past—during my modelling days or even now—where a woman has approached me, come straight over, and said something like, “You’re hot,” and made very forward advances. And my reaction has been, “Excuse me.” First of all, I may not even be interested, and second, who gave you the right to touch me?
In those situations, I’ve had to be polite—putting on a smile, acting coy or nervous, saying, “Oh, thank you,” just to keep the peace, even though inside, I was feeling genuinely uncomfortable and anxious.
There have even been times when my girlfriend witnessed this. She noticed the expressions and behaviour some women used—expressions that mirrored what men often do in similar situations. And I found myself thinking, “Someone, please come rescue me.”
This dynamic happens in reverse. But socially, there’s this perception that men should enjoy it, that they should be grateful. Some women seem to think, “You’re a guy, you like it—just accept it.” But if the roles were reversed—if I, as a man, touched a woman without consent, people would immediately recognize how inappropriate and violating that is.
There’s a clear double standard here. Some women may feel more justified in crossing boundaries because they think, “This doesn’t happen often, and most guys want it anyway.” Culturally, that kind of behaviour is sometimes tolerated more by women than by men, even though it can be equally uncomfortable or inappropriate.
Jacobsen: What else should I ask today? Well, the U.S. is incredibly diverse, so yes, there are subcultural differences in how gender norms and personal boundaries play out—differences even between states like New York and Missouri.
Louis: If we zoom out to global cultural dynamics, it gets more complex. In some cultures—though not universally and certainly not without exceptions—gender roles are more rigid. There can be expectations that men have more freedom while women are more restricted. For instance, in particular conservative communities across different regions, it may be more socially acceptable for men to socialize freely. At the same time, women are expected to remain at home or behave more modestly.
However, it is essential to avoid painting entire cultures or ethnic groups with a single brush. Gender dynamics are shaped by a complex interplay of tradition, religion, law, personal values, and evolving social norms, and they vary significantly within any given country or community.
I’m like, seriously? So you can basically go out and do whatever you want—you can party, use drugs, have people over, hang out with whoever—but if your girlfriend or wife wants to go out with her friends, suddenly it’s a problem?
Then it’s, “Where are you going? Who are you with? Make sure it’s someone we know. Don’t hang out with those single girls because you’re not single. You’re married, so you should only be with your married friends.” Like, what?
Jacobsen: That’s a common double standard.
Louis: Right? That’s real. It’s like, how come you get to go out and have fun, but your wife has to stay home? Why is she expected to sit around and do nothing while you get to live your life? And to bring it to a more everyday level—I always find this part funny—we were talking about the differences between places like Missouri and elsewhere.
Even within Los Angeles, there are clear cultural contrasts. For example, Scott, let’s say you and I go out with some couples. Right? So it’s a group of five or six couples. We all head out for dinner or drinks. What drives me bonkers—especially when comparing the West Side of L.A. to a more conservative area like, say, Pasadena—is this: when we all go out, why is it that in the more conservative circles, the men and women split off? The men hang with the men, and the women hang with the women. It’s like some kind of social rule.
But in more liberal settings, people mingle. At dinner, everyone mixes. Husbands and wives don’t necessarily sit next to each other, and we all engage together. It’s social, fluid, fun. You’re not confined to one group.
But in those more traditional groups, it’s like, “Women over here, men over there.” My girlfriend and I always look at each other like, “Why do we have to do this?” She’s said to me, “Honestly, I’d rather talk to some of the guys—they’re more interesting!” But it’s treated like that would be inappropriate, like she’s breaking some unspoken rule.
And that’s the kind of rigid thinking that still exists in specific communities—where social roles are so defined that stepping outside of them is seen as strange or even disrespectful.
This happens, again, in specific cultural contexts—like in some parts of the Persian community or in other traditional communities—where if your wife or girlfriend is talking to a group of men, it’s considered inappropriate. It’sviewed as a bad form. There is an expectation that she should only socialize with women, not mix with men. And that mindset does not just exist in cultural contexts; it also shows up in very conservative social environments in general.
Jacobsen: What about pub or bar culture compared to nightclub culture?
Louis: That’s a good distinction. Yes, nightclub culture versus more rural or conservative bar culture—those can be worlds apart. There are some unspoken social “rules,” depending on where you are.
For example, in a more conservative or rural setting, when you go out with your partner, there may be this unspoken rule that you stay together the whole time, stick to your gender group, or act in specific predefined ways. Flirting—even if playful—is seen as threatening.
But in nightclub culture, especially in more liberal areas, it’s different. Say I’m out with my girlfriend—we’re secure, we trust each other. When we go to a club, she might go off to one part of the room, I might go to another, and we’ll meet in the middle. She can talk to whomever she wants. I can talk to whoever I want. It’s fun, flirtatious even, but we both know where we stand. We’re together.
And that brings us back to what this comes down to: trust. If you trust your partner, you should not need to control them. You should not be setting rigid rules or putting them in a box, saying, “You can’t do x, y, or z,” while also giving yourself complete freedom to do those exact things just because you’re a guy.
Many women today push back against this double standard. They’re saying, “You can’t tell me what to do if you’re doing it yourself.” And honestly, they’re right. There’s a disconnect in some relationships because of that inequality.
Here’s a real example from just yesterday that came up in a relationship counselling session I had. You can use this generically if you’d like.
So, this couple I’m seeing right now—she went to a party with some of her girlfriends. He wasn’t there initially, but he knew she was going. When I talked to him before the party, he said something like, “I hope that when I get there, she’s not standing around with her friends talking to other guys because that’s going to piss me off.”
And I told him, “Look, if she’s already at the party before you get there, you know she’s going to be mingling. You’re showing up late—what do you expect?” And I added, “I hope that when you walk in and she sees you, she’s just happy to see you. That should be your focus.” Because, again, it’s about trust. If you walk in expecting to control her environment, it’s not trust—it’s possession. And that’s where so many of these problems begin.
So now I’m in a place where I want my partner by my side. I want to be with him exclusively in those moments. But here’s the thing—I’ve told him this. I said, “These are the kinds of conversations you need to have before you walk into any social situation—whether it’s a club, a party, or anything where you’re going to interact with others. You both need to communicate how the night is going to go.”
Here’s an example from my relationship. When my girlfriend and I are going out—whether it’s to a friend’s party, a social gathering, or a club—I might say, “You know what, Chris? Tonight, I just want to hang out with you. Is that okay?” And she’ll say, “Sure, honey, that sounds great.” Or I might ask, “How are we feeling tonight?”
She could say, “I just want to be free, hang out with friends, talk to other people. You can hang with your people, I’ll hang with mine, and we’ll meet up throughout the night.” And I’ll say, “Cool—let’s just check in throughout the night.”
We call it “checking in.” That way, there’s no miscommunication or assumptions. You both know what kind of energy the other person is bringing and what they need. Because there’s nothing worse than walking into a party and your significant other suddenly disappears—off to hang out with their friends—especially if it’s a party where they know everyone and you barely know anyone.
In that case, I’ll say, “Hey, honey, I’m good with you going and having fun; just let me know.” Or I’ll say, “I’d rather we stick together tonight.”
What you want to avoid is walking into a situation without communicating—and then suddenly your partner’s gone, and you’re thinking, “Holy crap, I don’t know anyone here.” And yeah, maybe I’m an extrovert, so usually, I can handle it. But sometimes, I’m just not in the mood to be social—to turn on the charm and smile and go, “Hey, how are you?”—when I’d rather just be with her.
There have been moments where I felt jealous, even though there was no real reason. And later, I realized it wasn’t about what she was doing—it was that I wasn’t in the right headspace, and I hadn’t told her how I was feeling.
She said to me, “If you had just told me you wanted me close to you tonight, I would’ve stayed by your side.”
But I didn’t. She assumed I was in my usual mood—happy, social, outgoing. And I realized she was right. I had no reason to be upset because I didn’t communicate what I needed. And that was on me. That level of honest emotional communication is rare. People do not always realize how important it is.
Sometimes, when there’s miscommunication, I always suggest checking in beforehand—just letting each other know what the expectations are before walking into any social situation. If we know we’re going to a club together, for example, we should talk about the parameters. What’s the vibe tonight? What are our boundaries? Are we going to be together the whole time? Is it mostly your friends or mine?
It’s helpful to say things like, “I don’t want you leaving me behind,” or, “It’s fine if you go off—I’ll hang out with a few people I know.” The key is alignment.
I believe that most people should check in before arriving at their destination rather than assuming everything will work out once they’re there. Because anything can happen—and it’s better to be on the same page.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Chris, thank you very much for your time today. Appreciate it.
Louis: Thank you, Scott. Appreciate you, have a fantastic day.
Jacobsen: You too. Thanks—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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18
Dr. Larry Davidson, MD, FAANS, a board-certified neurosurgeon and spine expert with 30+ years of experience, is available to speak on both sides of the weight spectrum and its impact on spine health. On one hand, even modest weight gain, especially in men, can accelerate spinal disc degeneration and increase the risk of chronic back pain and injury. On the other hand, rapid weight loss can also lead to muscular imbalances and posture issues that put strain on the spine.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: From a clinical perspective, how does weight gain impact the spine?
Dr. Larry Davidson: Weight gain adds pressure to the spine through a process called axial loading, which can accelerate the breakdown of intervertebral discs and contribute to chronic back pain. Beyond discomfort, excess weight also creates challenges for patients who may need spine surgery. Obesity increases the risk of complications such as infection, especially after complex posterior lumbar procedures, and is often linked with other comorbidities like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. While not everyone with excess weight will experience spinal issues, it’s fair to say it places additional stress on the spine and often contributes to chronic discomfort, instability or pain. It’s not always the sole cause, but it rarely helps.
Jacobsen: Is there a difference between men and women on this?
Davidson: Men and women tend to gain weight in different areas, with men more likely to carry excess weight around the abdomen and women around the hips and buttocks. While this distribution varies, both types add axial pressure that can impact the spine. There may be differences in how that weight affects posture and biomechanics, but from a spinal load standpoint, extra weight is still extra weight. Regardless of where it’s carried, it adds stress to the musculoskeletal system.
Jacobsen: Why is the distribution of weight more important than the overall number on the scale?
Davidson: The number on the scale doesn’t tell the whole story. Two people can weigh the same but have very different levels of muscle and fat, and that distinction matters. Muscle is denser and offers more support to the spine, particularly when focused in the core and back. A person with a higher muscle-to-fat ratio will have better posture, improved spinal stability, and a lower risk of spine-related symptoms than someone carrying excess body fat.
Jacobsen: What early spine-related symptoms are patients showing who have used Ozempic or other weight loss drugs?
Davidson: While I’m not a specialist in Ozempic or other similar medications, I haven’t seen clear spinal symptoms tied directly to their use. Anecdotally, I have observed that patients who lose weight rapidly — whether through medication or lifestyle changes — often report some relief from back pain if that pain was related to excess weight. I’m not aware of spine-specific side effects caused by these drugs, but I do think there’s potential benefit if the weight loss leads to less pressure on the spine.
Jacobsen: How does rapid weight loss create muscular imbalances?
Davidson: Rapid weight loss, especially when not paired with a structured strength-building routine, can lead to muscle weakness and imbalance. Many people unintentionally neglect their core and back muscles, which are critical for posture and spinal stability. As weight comes off, especially quickly, the body may lack the muscular support it needs to adapt. That’s why guided strength training and physical therapy are essential during or after significant weight changes.
Jacobsen: What postural issues or instability follow Ozempic, or other weight loss drug use?
Davidson: People who carry significant abdominal weight often develop a forward-flexed posture due to the pull of that excess mass. As they lose weight, they may feel an immediate improvement in their ability to stand upright, even if their core muscles are still weak.
However, without retraining those muscles through targeted strengthening, instability or poor posture may persist. Weight loss helps, but it needs to be paired with rehabilitation to restore alignment and balance.
Jacobsen: Why might many chronic back pain sufferers benefit more from therapy, nutrition and movement-based strategies?
Davidson: The majority of back pain cases are non-surgical and often stem from poor posture, deconditioned muscles, or excess body weight. While I perform spine surgery for patients who truly need it, most people with persistent back pain benefit more from conservative care. Strengthening the core, improving flexibility, and addressing nutrition can lead to real and lasting relief. A well-rounded, supervised plan is often the key to managing chronic symptoms without surgery.
Jacobsen: What preventative strategies protect spine health?
Davidson: Preventing back pain starts with maintaining a healthy weight and prioritizing core and back strength. Regular exercise, good posture habits, and professional guidance from a physical therapist or trainer can go a long way. Simple movements and consistent routines often make the biggest difference. These strategies aren’t flashy, but they are powerful in protecting the spine over time.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Larry.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/17
Dr. Joshua Stein, MD, is a board-certified Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. He is the clinical director and an attending clinician at PrairieCare’s youth Partial Hospital Program (PHP), operating a clinic out of their Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Medical Office Building. A graduate of Cornell University and the University of Minnesota, where he completed his psychiatry residency and fellowship, Dr. Stein is dedicated to improving the mental health of children, teens, and families. His clinical focus includes autism, anxiety, OCD, and depression, with an emphasis on long-term functional outcomes. As president of the Minnesota Society for Child Adolescent Psychiatry, he advocates for greater access to care. He has been recognized as a Top Doctor by Minneapolis St. Paul Magazine and Minnesota Monthly.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What does clinical work reveal as the fundamental psychological needs of children today?
Dr. Joshua Stein: Children need the opportunity to face increasingly difficult obstacles to build industry, purpose, talent and initiative. In my practice, I compare this to learning how to read. To explain: initially we need to learn the alphabet, then sound out short words, put them in sentences, and finally read paragraphs and chapters. If we do not learn the basics of reading, imagine how complex a high school English class would be.
From a psychological perspective, children need to be able to face age-appropriate challenges and learn how to manage them. That way, by the time they are young adults, they are able to juggle the complexities of high school life.
During the pandemic, out of the natural instinct to protect, many kids were not given the opportunity to face developmentally appropriate challenges. For example, they did not learn to detach in preschool or stand up to the third grade bully. They did not have to sit uncomfortably behind someone they were attracted to in seventh grade, experience what it’s like to not get the role they wanted in drama class, or the ability to increase practice intensity in sports. The opportunity cost of the COVID-era and its lasting ripples has led to social stagnation and missed psychological developmental milestones. We are seeing college students who operate as early high schoolers, high schoolers who act like they are in junior high, and so on.
Jacobsen: How does this change in the digital world?
Stein: There will always be a generational fear of change and the unknown. In the 60s, it was Elvis’s hips, and in the 80s, it was the war on drugs. Now, as technology moves faster than ever, we are seeing growing dependence on social media and screens in new and challenging ways, and this is occurring at a developmentally critical time for kids who need to face and overcome challenges in their real, offscreen lives. So many kids doomscroll instead of tolerating hard feelings. When things get difficult, they turn to easy distractions online. They also face the challenges of online personas and cyber bullying. Increasing numbers of kids are giving up parts of their own life to watch 6-second clips of other people’s idealized lives. I avoid fearmongering in my work, but I am concerned with increasing patterns of aimlessness and the technology dependence that go hand-in-hand. This generation was undermined by the pandemic and that is further exploited by the digital era. It is critical that they have offline lives and learn how to do hard or challenging things.
Jacobsen: How can parents and caregivers identify early signs of a struggle with mental health?
Stein: Children often display emerging mental health concerns in their patterns and body complaints. We commonly see changes to sleep routine, impairment in concentration, school refusal, and irritability as initial signs and symptoms of mental health concerns. They may describe upset stomach indigestion or start to use the bathroom excessively. Kids hold their anxiety in their bodies and often do not yet have the language to define what is happening to them. Additionally, patterns of depression are often atypical in children. Unlike adults who are often depressed across all areas of their life, children may still enjoy their favorite things, even if they feel depressed. They may laugh with their friends, succeed in their sport, and be thrilled to go to a favorite activity. Then, in quiet moments, they may be sullen, more emotional, or easily distressed. These inconsistencies are often signs of emerging childhood depression.
Jacobsen: What practices are effective in fostering resilience and mental health in children?
Stein: My primary recommendation is that parents monitor their own mental health needs to set a good example for their child. Parents should be reflective of their own emotions and be intentional about naming challenges or difficulties in their own feelings regularly. This provides insight and a scaffold for children to learn. Additionally, pushing kids to try things outside their comfort zone in small sips and gulps is warranted. This allows them to build industry and self-worth, to tackle hard things so they know what they can and cannot do, and learn how to ask for help when needed. In the digital age, as parents, we are strikingly aware of all that can go wrong. Our own anxieties can lead to being overprotective and helicoptering. We need to allow our kids to grow so that they feel confident in fighting their own battles. Try asking your child, “How would you like to handle this?” and tackle things together.
Jacobsen: How does screen time impact the mental health of young people?
Stein: This is a notable and incredibly complex subject. In some ways, social media and screens are incredibly helpful. They allow connection and exploration of shared interests that used to be done in isolation. On the other hand, we know that excessive social media time—somewhere between 3-5 hours a day—worsens mental health outcomes, including increased suicidal thoughts, self-harm, and negative self-image. Studies have shown that placing limits on social media time greatly improves general wellbeing. Interestingly, if you ask teenagers, they are strikingly aware of the harms of social media. They also struggle to set their own limits on their screen time. It is important to support them by modeling healthy screen time behavior and setting the limits that our children crave so that they can be successful and experience all of the other joys in life.
Jacobsen: How can schools and community programs support children’s mental well-being?
Stein: Fortunately, we are seeing a lot of advancement in schools’ awareness and engagement regarding mental health. I think creating phone-free zones would be strikingly helpful. Studies show that excess screen use has led to attention issues in older teenagers and distract kids from the school day. By creating a sanctuary in the school where phones are only available during passing time, or are not available until the end of the day, there is a true opportunity to improve wellbeing.
Jacobsen: How can caregivers distinguish between regular developmental behaviors and symptoms of serious mental health conditions?
Stein: My advice is to trust your gut. If something seems off with your child, their irritability is severe, or sleep-wake schedule is abnormal, check in. Caregivers often delay care because they feel their only option is to see a psychiatrist or mental health professional. My colleagues in pediatrics and family practice are excellent in starting care, and a large part of their practice relates to mental wellbeing. They can help families understand the difference between normative development and concerning features of anxiety, depression or mood disorders. So check in with your family doctor if you are concerned.
Jacobsen: In leading youth services at PrairieCare, what innovations excite you?
Stein: There are a couple advancements that profoundly excite me. The first is a silver lining from the pandemic. Virtual health care has allowed the expansion of mental health resources into all corners of our country. It has stopped the geographic disparity that too often led to underprivileged children not being able to get care. At PrairieCare, due to the pandemic, we built out extensive online resources that allow kids to participate in groups or see their physician from their home setting. This is an excellent resource, and many teenagers find it more comfortable and collaborative in their own care.
Additionally, in the near future, artificial intelligence is going to let your doctor be more present and less focused on charting and note writing. Resources like ambient AI will be able to monitor the conversation, take notes, prepare prescriptions, etc. As we implement this in our practice at PrairieCare, I am excited for the burden of charting to decrease so the joy of healing and interacting with my patients can increase.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Joshua.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/16
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 holds the position of 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 explores Ukraine’s devastating drone strikes on Russian bomber fleets and the geopolitical reverberations. The conversation examines the erosion of U.S. intelligence credibility, NATO’s dependency on American leadership, and China’s weaponization of rare earth exports. Tsukerman critiques Western complacency, the rise of asymmetric threats, and the failure to counter ideological warfare effectively. The Taliban’s normalization and its accusations against Israel are addressed, as is Trump’s geopolitical posturing. The interview emphasizes the urgent need for strategic foresight, ideological clarity, and independent European defence development amid escalating global instability. Interview conducted June 6, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Sources cited today include the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, AP News, and Reuters.
Russia has launched one of its most extensive aerial assaults on Ukraine in recent months, reportedly deploying approximately 407 Shahed-type drones and 44 missiles across six regions. The Ukrainian Air Force stated that a significant number of these were intercepted, but some managed to hit civilian and infrastructure targets. In Kyiv, three emergency service personnel were killed while responding to damage caused by the strikes. In response to the escalating violence, President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed a 30-day ceasefire ahead of the NATO summit. As of now, Russia has not accepted or formally responded to the proposal.
This Russian escalation appears to follow Ukraine’s recent successful strikes on a Russian airbase in southern Russia, which reportedly destroyed or severely damaged several Tu-22M3 bombers. According to satellite imagery and Western intelligence assessments, the Ukrainian strike—allegedly using drones—inflicted considerable losses on Russia’s long-range bomber fleet. These aircraft have been used extensively to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and energy infrastructure.
Irina Tsukerman: The long-term implications of the attack are significant. Due to international sanctions and the loss of access to key components, Russia will face serious challenges in replacing these strategic bombers. This represents not just a tactical victory for Ukraine but a major strategic setback for Russia, particularly in its capacity to project air power over Ukrainian territory.
The most notable aspect of Ukraine’s operation was its apparent success in avoiding detection. Reports suggest that the operation may have been planned and coordinated near the FSB’s headquarters in Moscow. However, no Ukrainian operatives were apprehended, and the individuals involved in planning or executing the mission reportedly left the country undetected. This raises serious questions about the efficacy of Russian counterintelligence. The failure was so total that it may take years for Russia’s security apparatus to recover credibility.
Strikingly, there has been minimal discussion in Russian state media about the intelligence failure. This omission likely reflects the Kremlin’s effort to control the narrative and avoid internal scrutiny over the breach.
Russia’s subsequent large-scale attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets may be interpreted as an attempt to shift focus away from this military and intelligence failure. While such attacks are framed as acts of retaliation, they serve no clear strategic purpose and are widely seen as acts of desperation and intimidation.
Amid these events, former U.S. President Donald Trump made a controversial statement, suggesting that Russia had been provoked into action by attacks on its air assets. He implied that the Ukrainian strike on grounded aircraft constituted terrorism. However, under international law, a stationary military plane at an airbase is considered a legitimate military target during an armed conflict. Attempts to redefine these terms are seen mainly as political rhetoric that does not align with the laws of armed conflict.
Another critical dimension to this story is the revelation that U.S. intelligence was unaware of Ukraine’s plans to conduct such a long-range drone operation. The mission reportedly remained undisclosed to Western allies for over a year. President Trump was not briefed. This raises broader questions about the current dynamics of trust and coordination between Ukraine and its Western partners.
Tsukerman: First, there is an apparent lack of trust between Ukraine and not only the current U.S. administration but also the previous one. This includes President Biden and key members of his administration. Second, the United States lacks sufficient on-the-ground intelligence assets to gather crucial information about operations of this magnitude. That is deeply concerning, regardless of the state of diplomatic trust. The U.S. should possess at least basic operational awareness—especially regarding significant actions undertaken by either allied or adversarial nations. Given that the U.S. is deeply involved in this conflict through financial aid, military assistance, and geopolitical positioning, the absence of such capabilities raises serious questions about national security preparedness.
If the U.S. intelligence community was unaware of this operation, what does that say about our ability to detect a significant act of sabotage—whether from Russia or another adversary? The war in Ukraine is arguably one of the most consequential global conflicts today and certainly one of the United States’ top geopolitical priorities. However, the fact remains: the U.S. had no apparent foreknowledge of a major Ukrainian operation.
It is hard to ignore the broader pattern of failure here. Of course, Trump’s publicly undermining U.S. intelligence agencies did not help the situation. However, these gaps predate his administration and persist into the current one. It suggests a systemic problem within U.S. intelligence in that region. Whether people support or criticize the intelligence community, the reality is that if you are entirely unaware of what is happening in a critical theatre of conflict, you become a target. You are not in control—you are being played. That is one of the underlying dimensions missing from broader discussions surrounding this major Ukrainian success.
For Ukraine, this is undeniably a moment of triumph. For anyone who opposes Russian imperialism, this is also something to celebrate. However, it raises uncomfortable questions: Where exactly does the West stand in all of this? Ukraine—a heavily embattled state under constant threat—has pulled off an incredibly sophisticated operation. Meanwhile, much of the West appears disjointed, uncoordinated, and lacking any coherent strategy regarding collective defence or the evolving security landscape.
Why have the most advanced and ostensibly stable countries grown so complacent? Is it an erosion of adaptive capacity? Have Western democracies, in their relative peace and prosperity, lost the moral and strategic resolve to face difficult situations with the determination that Ukraine has demonstrated?
Following the Ukrainian operation, the Pentagon reportedly instructed staff to begin exploring and developing weapons systems and operational strategies modelled on Ukraine’s battlefield innovations. However, is adopting new drone technologies and tactics enough? Morale and mindset matter just as much. Currently, Ukraine’s resilience and sense of purpose far exceed what we are seeing from the broader Western alliance. That is the central lesson that continues to go largely unacknowledged.
Jacobsen: Shifting slightly—China has been in the news recently for its strategic use of rare earth mineral exports. The implementation of a new export licensing system designed to give China more insight and control over global supply chains. This move is likely to impact how multinational companies conduct trade and manage their supply chains. It is another example of how economic instruments—particularly critical resources like rare earths—are being weaponized to gain strategic advantage, something the West also seems ill-prepared to counter effectively.
China’s recent move to reassert its so-called “national security interests” around rare earth mineral exports is gaining international attention. These minerals are critical for manufacturing advanced technologies, such as semiconductor chips. This decision is a response to U.S. restrictions on Chinese access to advanced chips and related technologies. What are your thoughts on China’s new export licensing system and the Chinese Communist Party’s intensified strategic use of rare earth elements?
Tsukerman: It is entirely expected that China would use whatever leverage it has to try to prevent the United States from gaining or maintaining a competitive edge—especially in strategic sectors. The U.S. has restricted China’s access to advanced semiconductors and imposed export controls under both the Trump and Biden administrations. Trump introduced even more restrictive measures beyond the CHIPS and Science Act and associated export bans.
So naturally, China is responding with its measures. What is disturbing is not that China acted but that the U.S. seemed unprepared for it. This was a predictable countermove. However, Washington did not appear to have secured alternative supplies or developed strategic reserves of rare earths before escalating export controls. The U.S. reaction has been reactive rather than proactive. It lacks anticipatory planning.
Jacobsen: So we are not leading—we are merely keeping pace or even falling behind?
Tsukerman: Precisely. This move by China affects not only the United States but also other countries. It also impacts potential alternative suppliers, such as India. While India possesses rare earth deposits, many of these have only been recently discovered and are not yet fully developed. It will take time—perhaps years—for India or others to reach production capacities that could challenge China’s dominance.
What we are seeing is the U.S. behaving in a very ossified manner on the global stage—slow to adapt, overly bureaucratic, and strategically sluggish. Such rigidity is particularly dangerous in a competitive and rapidly evolving geopolitical environment.
Given the long history of military and strategic thinking in the United States, it is surprising that such obvious countermeasures from China were not anticipated. You do not need to be a master strategist to foresee that if the U.S. makes Move A, China will likely respond with Move B. It is basic strategic logic. The fact that we were blindsided suggests systemic weaknesses.
That said, China’s predictability is not necessarily a testament to its sophistication. It simply means that China is responding within a limited range of available options—and doing so effectively because the U.S. has not closed off those vulnerabilities.
Jacobsen: So both nations are stuck in a kind of zero-sum logic based on finite resources?
Tsukerman: That is precisely it. The genuine concern is that both countries are still grounding their national security strategies in resource accumulation—rare earths, energy, and other tangible materials—rather than focusing on intellectual capital and innovation. Neither is truly advancing the conversation toward post-resource paradigms.
Despite its heavy investment in AI and technology education, China has yet to demonstrate creative or lateral approaches to circumvent its dependence on physical resources. Its strategies are still very linear and of an industrial age in nature. That makes them vulnerable to disruption by any actor that can think a step ahead.
Jacobsen: So the arms race is less about innovation and more about material accumulation at this stage?
Tsukerman: Correct. Moreover, that is not sustainable. These supply chains are fragile by nature—limited, contested, and vulnerable. If the U.S. wants to remain competitive, it should not focus solely on acquiring the most rare earths or metals. Instead, it should invest in alternatives that allow us to transcend our dependence on finite resources.
Innovation—true innovation—is about solving constraints. That means finding synthetic substitutes, developing circular economies, and maximizing human ingenuity. Otherwise, we are simply repeating the cycle that made the global economy so dependent on oil and gas. Moreover, rare earths could reach that point of critical instability even faster.
Jacobsen: That brings us to another area of intensifying conflict. On June 4, Israeli airstrikes on June 4 targeted areas in Beirut’s southern suburbs, specifically the Tahia region, reportedly in response to intelligence indicating underground drone production sites linked to Hezbollah. These strikes triggered widespread panic and mass evacuations.
One regional official condemned the attacks, claiming they violated the U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement from November 2024. In the aftermath, scenes of devastation emerged. According to accounts like that of Adel Hadda, Palestinians were seen praying amid the rubble, as most mosques in the area had been destroyed.
The death toll is staggering: approximately 2,000 Palestinians have been killed, with roughly 90% of the population displaced. In response, the United Nations Security Council is reportedly drafting a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution would also demand the release of all hostages and the removal of barriers to humanitarian aid. As per Security Council procedures, it will require at least nine affirmative votes and no vetoes from any of the five permanent members to pass.
Thoughts?
Tsukerman: The United Nations has not been an especially constructive player in this theatre of war. It has not effectively pressured Hamas—or, more importantly, the state actors enabling Hamas’s continued operation. The fundamental problem is that Hamas has no incentive to disarm. Doing so would all but guarantee its collapse, and it is well aware of that.
In the meantime, Israel is reportedly exploring unconventional alternatives, such as arming local secular gangs or factions opposed to Hamas. I am skeptical of this approach. In my view, the core issue is not Hamas per se but the international network of support that sustains it. This includes state actors like Iran, Qatar, and Turkey, with supplementary backing from Russia and China.
Replacing Hamas with another group—especially one potentially as violent or ideologically unmoored—does not address the structural issue. Those same enabling countries could reroute their support to the next proxy. Whether the justification is religious or nationalist, the anti-Israel sentiment fueling the conflict will remain unchanged.
Jacobsen: So the framing of the conflict as a bilateral war—Israel versus Hamas or Israel versus Gaza—is fundamentally flawed?
Tsukerman: Precisely. There must be a broader strategic aim. First, the international community must hold those directly fueling the conflict accountable rather than reducing it to a localized fight. Second, any viable resolution must involve more than military operations. Without a robust political and humanitarian strategy, this war risks becoming another “forever war.”
Fighting a non-state actor like Hamas—a terrorist group with no real accountability to a civilian population—is profoundly asymmetrical. Israel, as a sovereign state, must answer to its citizens and international norms. Hamas, however, faces no such constraints. This imbalance ensures that civilians will continue to die in large numbers while Israeli soldiers are also lost in protracted, inconclusive battles.
Jacobsen: How do the religious dimensions factor into this dynamic?
Tsukerman: That is a crucial but under-discussed aspect. The destruction of mosques, while not a strategic aim for Israel, has become central to Hamas’s propaganda. Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian and religious infrastructure to provoke outrage and mobilize regional support. This tactic is a component of its broader information warfare strategy.
Even if Israel avoids deliberately targeting religious sites, the optics remain damaging. Hamas has successfully weaponized these visuals to galvanize support for what it brands as “resistance.” This is even though it bears primary responsibility for the destruction by militarizing those sacred sites.
Jacobsen: So even with military superiority, Israel could still lose in terms of narrative and perception?
Tsukerman: Exactly. Tactical victories are not the same as strategic success. Israel may be inflicting heavy damage on Hamas’s infrastructure and personnel, but it has not neutralized the ideological and emotional appeal Hamas cultivates. That appeal—rooted in religious symbolism, perceived victimhood, and anti-Israel sentiment—has grown more entrenched. Without countering that, Israel risks losing the broader conflict despite battlefield gains.
In most cases, the destruction of mosques is either incidental to airstrikes in densely populated areas or based on actionable intelligence indicating the presence of weapons or militants within those sites. Hamas has a long history of embedding fighters and munitions in civilian and religious infrastructure. This is not new.
Both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) have weaponized religious sites to incite broader regional conflict, including within Israel itself. For example, in the years leading up to the October 7 attacks, we saw repeated instances of stone-throwing, weapons smuggling, and other provocations near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem—often timed around Ramadan. These actions were designed to escalate tensions and manipulate the religious significance of these locations.
By deliberately creating intolerable security conditions for Muslim worshippers, Hamas forces Israel into a no-win scenario: either Act to protect the public and face international backlash or stand down and risk civilian lives. The United Nations, knowingly or not, has been complicit in amplifying this strategy.
There are several reasons for this complicity: institutional corruption, the geopolitical makeup of the UN Security Council, and intense lobbying. Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council, are broadly aligned with Iran on strategic matters. They increasingly view the Israel–Hamas conflict as a front in a larger geopolitical struggle against the West. Because Israel is a close U.S. ally and the Middle East is now central to the strategic calculus of both Moscow and Beijing, these dynamics play directly into the broader global contest.
Jacobsen: And the U.S. appears to be playing a less visible, perhaps less effective, role in the Middle East.
Tsukerman: Yes. That shift is fundamental and concerning. Part of the issue lies with Israel’s diplomatic missteps—its inability to forge stronger partnerships with European countries, for instance. While it may be difficult, building that level of support is not impossible. However, the core point is this: the conflict is not about targeting religious sites or undermining Islamic holidays. It is about asymmetric warfare and the weaponization of sacred symbols to control perception.
Jacobsen: Let us move briefly to another topic. Former President Trump is reportedly reintroducing his travel ban—this time affecting around a dozen countries. From what I understand, the new version may be broader than the original 2017 iteration. Is this the same policy under a different name, or is it substantively different?
Tsukerman: The 2017 travel restrictions were not, strictly speaking, a “Muslim ban,” despite how Trump’s political messaging framed it. Countries like Venezuela and North Korea—neither Muslim-majority—were included. However, Trump deliberately emphasized the “Muslim ban” framing to appeal to specific segments of his base, which undermined his strategy and inflamed unnecessary tensions with Muslim communities worldwide.
It is also important to note that not all Muslim-majority countries were included in the original ban—and that is still the case. The new proposed travel restrictions target a combination of nations. Many are in Africa and the Middle East, but others are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. The current iteration appears to be framed less around religion and more around national security and immigration enforcement.
Jacobsen: What are the rationales driving this renewed ban?
Tsukerman: It is a mixture of factors. In some cases, the targeted countries are conflict zones that pose legitimate security concerns—such as Iran. In others, it is driven by domestic political considerations tied to immigration. For example, Venezuela and Haiti are both experiencing intense social and political turmoil. The U.S. has seen large waves of migrants from both countries—some fleeing political oppression, others escaping criminal violence.
Take Haiti, for example. The country is not inherently more dangerous than others. However, the volume of migration has become a political issue in the U.S. During the campaign, figures like Jake Evans made inflammatory and false claims—such as suggesting Haitian migrants “eat cats and dogs in the wild”—which reflects the level of xenophobia and misinformation at play. However, the core motivation behind the expanded ban appears to be a combination of anti-immigration sentiment and geopolitical anxiety.
A significant factor in all of this is that Trump has continued to demonstrate open sympathy toward Vladimir Putin. He appears willing to say or do almost anything to retain Putin’s favour—even after repeated instances of betrayal, disappointment, and public backlash. This was evident in the most recent phone call between the two, which reportedly lasted over an hour. Immediately afterward, Trump turned around and criticized President Zelensky, as if it were Zelensky’s fault for taking decisive action to defend his own country.
What national leader would not defend their country in the face of invasion? If a government were to take only half-hearted measures in such a situation, that would be tantamount to treason. Trump presents himself as a nationalist—so one might expect him to admire Ukraine’s stance. Trump claims to champion nationalism, but his admiration seems to be reserved for populist strongmen who are loyal to Putin—figures like Viktor Orbán, who I would argue are not true nationalists. If they genuinely prioritized national interests, their economies would be stronger, and they would not rely so heavily on external financial support.
Ukraine’s nationalism, by contrast, is much closer to American nationalism—fiercely independent, democratic, and rooted in the principle of sovereignty. Russia’s posture is imperialist. It does not elevate or respect its citizens, especially those outside Moscow’s elite circles, who are often treated like second-class citizens. That distinction is crucial.
Jacobsen: What are the implications for Zelensky and NATO?
Tsukerman: Zelensky cannot rely on NATO in any meaningful way after this. If NATO is still attempting to appease Trump, despite his repeated signals of hostility, it shows that the alliance is not prepared for independent strategic action outside of U.S. influence. That makes NATO, in its current form, an unreliable partner. It may offer strong rhetoric and pledges of military aid. However, when it comes to decisive action—particularly in the event of escalation involving other actors like China or a new Russian front—it cannot be counted on. That is not just a problem for Ukraine—it is a problem for NATO itself.
Jacobsen: Why?
Tsukerman: Because NATO’s dependence on the United States has become a liability. If Trump cannot be counted on to support Ukraine due to a personal vendetta against Zelensky, what would happen if a NATO member were attacked? There is no guarantee he would honour Article 5. His past rhetoric strongly suggests otherwise.
This means NATO should begin pursuing alternative strategies now. The fact that key European powers are still attempting to “salvage” the situation—rather than confront it head-on—is a sign they are not serious about building independent defence capacity. Admittedly, it is not easy. Decoupling from the U.S. militarily is a massive undertaking. Expert analyses suggest it could take many years—perhaps decades—and even then, complete independence may not be achievable. The U.S. remains a dominant global defence actor.
That said, European countries can increase their defence spending and capacity. They must because the nature of the threats they face is changing. For most NATO members, the primary risk is not large-scale conventional warfare; instead, it is the potential for hybrid warfare. Outside the Baltics, where the possibility of a direct Russian invasion cannot be ruled out, the majority of European countries face escalating asymmetric threats—cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and hybrid warfare.
Jacobsen: In that scenario, is U.S. involvement even necessary?
Tsukerman: In many respects, no. The United States has already diminished its capabilities in the information warfare domain. Much of its intelligence work—particularly human intelligence—has been outsourced or heavily dependent on the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, U.S. cyber operations against Russia have been scaled back significantly, partly due to internal constraints and geopolitical considerations.
So, in key areas of asymmetric defence, the U.S. is no longer the dominant player it once was. That creates space for Europe to step up and lead, either independently or in collaboration with like-minded allies outside of Washington’s sphere.
Tsukerman: NATO and its European members are failing to conduct a clear-eyed assessment of their actual threat landscape. They are conflating U.S. economic influence, U.S. defence presence, and the fundamental nature of threats they face. Instead, they need to disaggregate these issues, evaluate the concrete impact of potential U.S. absence, and make strategic decisions based on reliable data and rigorous analysis—not just fear and inertia.
If NATO members stand for anything strategically coherent, they should act accordingly. That means extending invitations to both Trump and Zelensky for future summits. Those who choose to participate will do so, and those who do not will make their position clear. The agenda should not be held hostage to personalities.
Jacobsen: Last two items, first, the Taliban. The UN and human rights organizations have again highlighted Afghanistan under Taliban rule as the most severe crisis for women globally—in terms of access to education, employment, freedom of movement, and fundamental rights. Second, Amnesty International has formally accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, citing what it claims are repeated acts causing irreparable harm to Palestinians and calling for international accountability. Your thoughts?
Tsukerman: On the first point, the more oppressive the Taliban becomes, the more normalized it seems to become internationally. Unfortunately, we may not be far off from seeing formal U.S. recognition of the Taliban, or at least tacit acceptance. World leaders who once distanced themselves from the group are now engaging openly with Taliban officials.
India’s leadership, for example, has historically sought to balance its regional interests by calibrating away from Pakistan’s Taliban ties. However, now, its engagement with Afghanistan is far more overt. Russia’s early recognition of the Taliban helped pave the way for others. Without a U.S. military presence, Afghanistan has gone from being a liability to a geopolitical asset—especially in the eyes of Russia, China, and now many Southeast Asian and Middle Eastern states.
Afghanistan is emerging as a crucial trade and transit hub for parts of the Global South, particularly as a gateway to Central Asia. Countries motivated by short-term strategic and economic interests are engaging in realpolitik—ignoring the long-term risks posed by Taliban-controlled territory.
This includes the risk of terrorist resurgence. Al-Qaeda training camps—supported or trained by Russian intelligence (GRU)—reportedly exist across Afghanistan. The Taliban once normalized and economically stabilized, could easily resume support for extremist networks, posing threats first to Southeast Asia and eventually to global security. However, this seems to be absent from most countries’ calculations. They either believe the Taliban can be contained, or they want short-term profit and will “deal with the consequences later.”
Whatever the rationale, it is clear that women’s rights are not a serious priority for any of these actors. Despite repeated international rhetoric about standing up for women, the concern is limited to domestic contexts. Abroad, women’s rights become secondary to trade routes, diplomacy, and power projection.
Jacobsen: And the genocide allegation from the Taliban?
Tsukerman: That accusation is pure propaganda. By any serious legal or demographic measure, what is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. For example, data from sources like the CIA World Factbook indicate that Gaza’s population has grown throughout the conflict. That growth is fundamentally inconsistent with claims of systematic extermination.
Now, one can—and should—debate Israel’s military strategies and whether more should be done to reduce civilian casualties. However, that is not the same as the intentional and systematic destruction of a people based solely on identity. Some Israeli political figures have made deeply troubling statements, including comments about population transfers, and these must be addressed. However, even those fall short of meeting the legal threshold for genocide.
Meanwhile, Hamas and its affiliated propaganda networks have deliberately inflated or fabricated casualty figures to serve as powerful tools of information warfare. These figures are then cynically amplified by actors whose interest in Palestinian well-being is, at best, opportunistic and, at worst, entirely disingenuous.
Jacobsen: Final thoughts?
Tsukerman: Both the United States and the broader international community must reassess how they approach ideological threats. Tactical responses alone are not enough. Without a robust long-term strategy, whatever efforts are being made now—military, diplomatic, or humanitarian—are doomed to fail.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Irina, thank you very much.
Tsukerman: Excellent—and get well soon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/16
Award-winning playwright and performer Alex Lyras brings ancient philosophy to the modern stage in Aristotle/Alexander, a compelling production presented by the Center for Inquiry in Los Angeles. The play dramatizes the formative relationship between Aristotle and a young Alexander the Great, exploring mentorship, ethics, and political ambition themes. Through deep philosophical lineage—from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle—Lyras contrasts ideals with pragmatism and reason with conquest. Rooted in historical depth yet charged with modern relevance, Aristotle/Alexander invites audiences to reflect on the fragility of democracy, the pursuit of legacy, and the moral challenges of leadership, both then and now.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are discussing the work of Alex Lyras—an award-winning playwright, director, and performer known for creating intellectually rich, emotionally resonant solo performances that explore themes of identity, philosophy, and sociopolitical complexity.
His most recent production, Aristotle/Alexander, presented in collaboration with the Center for Inquiry in Los Angeles, dramatizes a speculative and historically inspired encounter between the philosopher Aristotle and his young pupil, Alexander the Great. The play examines enduring political and ethical dilemmas framed through the lens of mentorship and the shaping of a future world conqueror.
Lyras’s work is acclaimed for its combination of depth, humour, and sharp commentary on the fragility of democracy and the abuse of power. A longtime presence in the Los Angeles and New York theatre scenes, Lyras brings a unique voice to contemporary playwriting, skillfully blending classical ideas with urgent modern questions.
There are many stories about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and the lineage of philosophical teaching that come down to us from antiquity. What inspired you to dramatize the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great?
Alex Lyras: I was surprised this story hadn’t been dramatized in greater depth. We’ve all heard about how Aristotle tutored Alexander, but it’s rarely explored dramatically or philosophically sustainably. Historical fiction often mentions it in passing, but writers may avoid digging into the philosophy because it’s dense and complex.
I studied philosophy at Bucknell University and read it throughout my life. I found myself returning to this unique setup again and again: the world’s most brilliant philosopher paired with the world’s most ambitious military mind. It’s a remarkable relationship—one rooted in education and power—and yet no one seemed to be exploring it deeply on stage.
I’ve always been interested in developmental narratives, especially early formation stories. When I started researching, I didn’t find much dramatizing their relationship with nuance or complexity. I realized this was not only philosophically fertile ground but also a compelling theatrical concept. I imagined Aristotle/Alexander as a playbill title, something you might see at Lincoln Center or a major repertory theatre. It felt like the kind of title that would grab people: two names, one relationship, and centuries of tension.
So, it was a quick sell. What happens when the greatest mind in philosophy is charged with educating the most significant figure in military history? That tension—between intellect and ambition, reason and conquest—was irresistible.
Jacobsen: What stood out to you in the narratives about Aristotle? What about Alexander the Great? Did you compare their ideas or trajectories with those of Plato or Socrates to understand how those philosophical lineages evolved into the narrative you’ve created?
Lyras: The play tackles these questions gradually. How Plato created the character of Socrates in his dialogues. How Aristotle broke from Platonic Idealism and leaned more into empirical science, and how it all culminated, for better or worse, in Alexander’s development during his all too brief reign. The philosophical throughline contrasts ideals and pragmatism, ethics and empire, reason and domination. All of that informs the dramatic tension in the play.
Jacobsen: What stood out to you about Aristotle?
Lyras: Aristotle was originally from the north of Greece. Ancient Stagiera is not far from ancient Macedonia, which is basically where Thessaloniki is today. So, he was a northerner who moved to Athens, and was a bit of an outsider. But he was formidable. They called him “the brain” when he was studying at Plato’s Academy— everyone recognized his brilliance. He quickly rose to prominence and became Plato’s star student.
But after Plato died, politics took over, and Aristotle was passed over to lead the Academy. Instead, the Academy was handed to Plato’s nephew, Speusippus. Nepotism is also an ancient tradition. After Aristotle was snubbed, he left Athens and began doing independent research on the island of Lesbos, which he likely wanted to do anyway. What struck me is that someone so universally recognized as a genius did not receive what many would consider his just reward. That moment in itself is so dramatically compelling. You’re not meeting him at his height—you’re meeting him in a moment of rejection and transition.
He returns to Macedonia, which is… nothing like Athens—let’s just put it that way. While Athens was in decline politically, it remained Greece’s cultural and intellectual heart. “The school of Greece.” Even during the Roman period, people still went to Athens to study philosophy, sculpture, and architecture.But Aristotle chose to leave.
And then there’s Alexander—just 13 years old when they crossed paths. Their mentorship lasted until Alexander was about 16. You’re not going to get a juicier moment for a character study: a teenager who is, in some ways, significantly entitled but also intelligent and cultured, growing up as a prince in a court that received scholars, emissaries, and artists. That dynamic—the philosopher in exile and the royal prodigy—creates a powerful dramatic conflict.
Jacobsen: How did you think about Socrates and Plato in the context of this? Did you find meaningful philosophical contrasts?
Lyras: Definitely. You have to contextualize it and recognize that Aristotle is a very different kind of thinker. Plato is theoretical—he’s concerned with ideal forms and metaphysical structures. He’s talking about “the Good,” the cave metaphor, and “Divided Line” and other abstract ideals. These concepts are foundational for ethics.
But when you get to Aristotle, suddenly, we’re in the realm of practical ethics. He’s empirical as opposed to conceptual. He collects fifty constitutions from various city-states and begins comparing them to understand how laws are written and how societies function. He starts categorizing, organizing, and trying to make sense of the world through observation. He invents taxonomy to keep his extensive biological research organized. Then, he develops logic—the foundations of reasoning, in order to explain it all rationally to others. He didn’t want to speculate about ideas in general; he aspired to analyze them systematically. Analysis means “unravelling” in ancient greek. I love that….
Jacobsen: Was that the origin of science as we think of it today?
Lyras: In many ways, yes. Aristotle laid the groundwork for empirical reasoning. People were still steeped in mythology at that time—offering sacrifices and libations to the gods. Plato was engaged in esoteric theory. Aristotle, by contrast, grounded philosophy in causality. He introduced a method of questioning a vast number of subjects which becomes the foundation for scientific enquiry for the next thousand years.
Jacobsen: Aristotle wanted evidence and proof for what constitutes good ethical behaviour, correct?
Lyras: In a way, yes. You’re dealing with someone who’s no longer just standing on the Pnyx—the hill in Athens where citizens gave public speeches—and trying to persuade people rhetorically. That wasn’t his game. He wasn’t interested in persuasion for its own sake. He aimed to gather evidence, establish causal relationships, and leave behind a systematic body of work for others to study—especially those who hadn’t studied directly at his school.
He was also a prolific writer. Most of what we have today from Aristotle are compiled lecture notes or student transcriptions, but they’ve endured because he took the time to be methodical in his thinking. That’s a legacy of structure.
Jacobsen: Teacher-student dynamics can vary widely. How do you think Aristotle saw Alexander? How did Alexander see Aristotle? And what does that tell us about their leadership styles and eventual legacies?
Lyras: That’s a loaded question because we don’t know for sure. But there’s plenty of material out there to speculate with some confidence.
Right before Aristotle received the invitation from King Philip II to tutor his son, Alexander, he was living on the island of Lesbos, doing detailed marine biological research. Athens had become so factionalized and critical of competing schools of philosophy that he essentially retreated from it. On Lesbos, he created a kind of proto-laboratory where he could work in peace. He was in a stage of inductive reasoning—collecting data and making observations to draw hypotheses.
That contrast is essential. In logic, we often talk about deductive reasoning, where we move from a general premise to a conclusion. But Aristotle, particularly in his biological work, practiced inductive reasoning, moving from observation to hypothesis. In the play, I describe this period as one of youthful optimism. He was probably about 40—middle-aged by ancient standards—but he was entering a fertile phase of intellectual maturity.
He was also left alone long enough to do the work without constant criticism, which must have been life-affirming. Then he goes to Macedonia, which, intellectually, was years behind Athens in terms of intellectual sophistication.
Jacobsen: So, how does this relate to leadership?
Lyras: It’s central. Aristotle was stepping into a new phase of leadership himself—becoming not just a transmitter of inherited philosophy but an originator of his own system. What he was doing was totally foreign to most people. They didn’t understand it. Many thought his thinking was scattered—jumping from astronomy to marine biology to ethics and politics. They wrongly believed that you had to be an expert in one thing. But one of my favorite quotes from Aristotle, to paraphrase, is “Do we call the bee scattered, for landing on all flowers and sipping the best from each?”
Aristotle’s polymathic nature was a strength, not a weakness. His leadership, pedagogically speaking, was about breadth and synthesis. On the other hand, Alexander was raised in a world of hierarchy, military discipline, and rather brutal conquest. So what happens when a synthetic, reflective thinker teaches a brilliant, ambitious prince? That tension is core to the drama.
Jacobsen: So this is the beginning of Aristotle’s creation of what could be considered the first university—an institution where one could study a wide range of subjects.
Lyras: Yes, exactly. It’s the early model for comprehensive education—what we’d now call a university. Aristotle began building this foundation of interdisciplinary study. The Greek word for university is “πανεπιστήμιο” or pan-episteme, which literally translates to “across knowledge.”
As for Alexander, I push the envelope a bit in the play, portraying him as highly entitled and wildly arrogant. But in all likelihood, he was more sophisticated than that. Clearly he was exposed to far more than the average adolescent up north. His father, King Philip II, had already begun consolidating and expanding Macedon into an empire, and he was deeply invested in endowing Alexander with the intellectual patina he never had.
Philip invited leading thinkers and artists to the Macedonian court. Euripides had been brought north to write for the court under earlier kings. Herodotus had also travelled there. Other prominent Athenians were welcomed and treated like royalty. So Alexander grew up surrounded by culture and intellectual energy from Athens and beyond.
Militarily, he also witnessed Philip’s flexible strategies—sometimes diplomatic, sometimes forceful. So, Alexander came of age with various influences that shaped him as a thinker and a leader. He had a vision, as we say.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of exercises we did in drama class—like taking a traditional Shakespearean play and setting it in the 1950s or another specific decade. The context would change, but the core dynamics remained powerful. You’re doing something similar: starting with an ancient historical premise and bringing out its modern relevance. How do you ensure—although it almost seems guaranteed—that narratives like this remain relevant today, especially the lesser-known ones?
Lyras: That’s a great question. All I can say is that the more I study the Classics—especially this period around the rise of Hellenism—the more I see how timeless it is. Even earlier, we find incredibly resonant ideas during the Golden Age of Greece.
I think about the Mark Twain quote: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” And that’s how this feels. What are the political questions we’re grappling with today? They were wrestling with those same ones 2,500 years ago.
How do you govern a polis—a city-state? Or today, a nation? Are there different rules for people in power? Do those working for the powerful receive special advantages? Is it better for the “average” citizen to be disengaged from democracy simply because they’re overworked or underinformed? Someone juggling two or three jobs doesn’t have the time or energy to dive into a candidate’s platform or philosophy. They are too easily manipulated. This is why Socrates hated democracy. He did not have much faith in the average person to be discerning enough to make long term decisions.
These questions haven’t gone away. They’re cyclical. Plato talks about this in The Republic— around Book VIII. He outlines how democracies begin: pure, idealistic, and focused on the collective good. But over generations, the people who inherit power do not earn it through struggle or civic commitment. They begin to see the personal benefits of leadership, and bureaucracy grows.
Then, the next generation, in turn, becomes even more disconnected from civic responsibility—and power becomes the end goal. That pattern is not limited to ancient Greece. It’s everywhere, and it keeps repeating in new forms.
We want power. We want favours. And eventually, that devolves into tyranny—one person saying, “I’m getting rid of everyone else, and I’ll do it myself.” This pattern repeats. It’s not unique to Greece.
You can trace it through various ancient tyrannies—some benevolent, some brutal—from Egyptian and Mesopotamian rulers onward. The cycle is always the same: it hinges on the political philosophy of the person in power. We’ve seen it recur in modern history as well—in our own country, during the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. These are cycles of rise, decay, collapse, and reinvention.
The more committed I was to being historically accurate—doing justice to the specifics of antiquity—the more the work began to resonate with today’s political climate. The more precise I was about the issues back then, the more people responded, “You must be talking about today.”
You can read letters from individuals who lived then and be shocked at how contemporary they sound. That’s the power of historical drama—it rhymes with the present.
Jacobsen: Let’s add one or two more questions here. Why do you personally think democracies are fragile? And what did some of the ancients, like Aristotle, say about this? Is their view different from modern thinkers?
Lyras: Sure—great question. Democracies are fragile because they are, at heart, social contracts. Thinkers like Hobbes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill wrote about this centuries later, but they were building on foundations laid by Plato and Aristotle.
A democracy only works when there is a mutual agreement to act in good faith. It requires cooperation and shared values. If someone enters a democracy to gain power for personal benefit, they can start to erode the system from within. That self-serving motive becomes contagious. Soon, everyone in power is focused on personal gain, which becomes the new social value.
That is when democracy starts to break down. Post–World War II, and even through the 1950s and 60s in the U.S., there was a greater collective awareness—a sense that we were trying to do what was best for the nation as a whole, whatever that meant in practice. But greed has always been with us. It seems to be a persistent element of human nature that resists elimination.
When enough people in power begin taking advantage of the system, others follow suit. The public begins to lose faith. That’s terrifying because democracy is not a given—it’s an idea, and we have to believe in that idea for it to function. Without that shared belief and a willingness to cooperate, the whole thing becomes shaky.
Jacobsen: What are some of your favourite quotes from Aristotle or Alexander the Great?
Lyras: Aristotle collected many insights, but one that resonates is: “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst.” That encapsulates Aristotle’s view of honour and nobility and the dangers of unrestrained power. His point was that we must live in a polis, a civic community governed by laws and justice. And those laws apply to everyone.
He also famously said, “Man is a political animal.” Of course, today, we would say humankind—people are political beings. We are meant to live together in communities. Human beings are not meant to be isolated in the mountains. We thrive in collectives because rationality and logic allow us to do far more together than we could alone.
Here’s another: “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” This is particularly important in the political context. Aristotle believed that it’s not enough to know how to win wars or manipulate your enemies—you need to know how to govern and how to build a city after the conflict ends.
This was a central message he tried to impart to Alexander. War is not the end goal; ruling justly and building a functioning society are. That quote is essential to the themes of the play. Another one I love is, “Excellence is never an accident.” He emphasized that virtue must be trained—just like the sword. In the play, I draw this parallel directly: You train with your sword, but you must also train ethically. Making the right choices and acting with the right intentions is a habit, not a given. That’s profound.
And then there’s one more that feels incredibly relevant today: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” We’ve lost that ability in modern discourse. If someone disagrees with you today, they’re immediately your enemy. However, Aristotle encouraged people to think critically and openly—without fear of ideas.
Jacobsen: Any favourite Alexander the Great quotes?
Lyras: Absolutely. One of my favourite quotes from Alexander the Great comes from his sense of legacy. He spent a long time in the shadow of his father, King Philip, who had already conquered much of the region surrounding Macedonia. Alexander was deeply self-conscious about what he would leave behind.
He once said: “In the end, when it’s all over, all that matters is what you’ve done. All that matters is what you leave behind.” That was a driving force for him. He wanted a legacy, and he certainly achieved one—but it came from a deep-rooted need to surpass his father.
Jacobsen: Alex, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Lyras: It was great to get into it with you. Looking forward to the next one.
—
The show played March 22nd to May 18, 2025 @ Company of Angels in Los Angeles. It is preparing for an Off Broadway run in the near future. More information and a mailing list sign up are available at http://www.aristotlealexander.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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/14
Steven Emmert is an experienced nonprofit executive dedicated to policy reform, advocacy, and healthcare equity. As the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, he champions expanding secular voices in public policy. He fights against the rise of Christian nationalism. With a background in health access advocacy, Steven has worked with Planned Parenthood affiliates across the U.S., influencing legislation in eight states and on Capitol Hill. He is deeply committed to maintaining the separation of church and state as a foundation for democracy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s focus on two officials in President Trump’s administration who, regardless of personal practice, align with a politics commonly labeled Christian nationalism. Whether or not they actively observe the faith is less important than the agenda they champion.
By most measures, Americans opposed these nominations; nevertheless, they now shape policy from within. From your vantage point at the Secular Coalition for America—an umbrella network representing prominent humanist, atheist, and other secular organizations across the United States—why did the SCA formally oppose Russell Vought’s nomination to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and what risks did you see for pluralism and effective governance?
Steven Emmert: The short answer is that we are familiar with his work.
Russell Vought is a vocal Christian nationalist who does not recognize the separation of church and state as a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. As long as the religion in question aligns with his version of Christianity, he believes it is acceptable for church and state to intermingle.
From a legal perspective, as we have recently seen, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires Congress to determine federal spending. Congress holds the power of the purse, meaning it decides how and where money is allocated, while the executive branch is responsible for faithfully executing those orders. Russell Vought has supported executive overreach in budget matters, advocating for the executive branch to exert more control over spending decisions, which is not how the system is designed. Such actions raise serious constitutional concerns.
(White House)
Jacobsen: Is this related to the clause about the separation of powers for those who may not be aware?
Emmert: Yes. The issue was clarified in 1974 when President Richard Nixon attempted to withhold congressionally approved funds, leading to the passage of the Impoundment Control Act.
Jacobsen: And how did that end?
Emmert: Not well for Nixon. But he faced a Congress that was willing to stand up to him. They recognized that the three branches of government are coequal, and no single branch has unchecked authority over the others. This system was specifically designed to prevent what we are now witnessing with the Trump administration.
Jacobsen: And how does Russell Vought factor into this?
Emmert: He is not only supportive of this power shift but also played a significant role in shaping these policies at OMB.
Jacobsen: In practical terms, how does the U.S. Constitution create a secular state? Many of our readers will know the answer, but it’s always helpful to revisit first principles for those who don’t yet have them front of mind.
Emmert: The first line of the Bill of Rights declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That clause continues throughout the document, reinforcing the separation of church and state.
Religion and God are mentioned only twice in the U.S. Constitution—once to affirm that there will be no religious test for any elected official. The principle of separation of church and state was established by the Founding Fathers from the very beginning.
Jacobsen: In Canada, recent data suggest that religious minorities—including the unaffiliated—may now form a numerical majority. In effect, everyone is a minority. If that tipping point occurred in the past year, how does the United States compare today? In your view, what do the current demographics reveal?
Emmert: One of the key reasons we are seeing Christian nationalists become so defensive in their posturing and so aggressive in their political maneuvering is that Christian identification in the U.S. is in decline. Not that long ago, over 80% of Americans identified as Christian. That number has now dropped to 63%, while those reporting no religious affiliation have climbed to 30%.
Christian nationalists recognize that demographics are not in their favour, and they are doing everything they can to maintain the power they still hold and to expand it.
Jacobsen: What was Russell Vought’s role in Project 2025?
Emmert: He played a significant role in shaping it. He wrote much of the White House section, focusing on the structure and function of the executive branch. Beyond that, he was also one of the project’s co-creators, coordinating the various authors and organizations that contributed to its 900-page blueprint for a second Trump administration.
What is particularly alarming is how much of that plan has already been implemented.
Jacobsen: What is the scope of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?
Emmert: OMB is generally a bureaucratic agency that does not get much media attention. Its primary function is budgetary oversight—analyzing numbers and ensuring federal agencies follow financial guidelines. Historically, OMB would only make the news when the president released a budget proposal to Congress since the office is responsible for drafting the financial blueprint that reflects the administration’s priorities.
However, OMB plays a far more aggressive and politicized role in the current administration. Instead of just managing budgets, they now decide who gets paid and who does not, which is illegal. It will directly impact anyone with a government contract, those who rely on federal assistance, and any business or institution that deals with the federal government.
Every day could bring a new financial or legal disruption, depending on their discretionary actions.
Pete Hegseth hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Pentagon.
Jacobsen: What do we see regarding Christian nationalism being used as both a bulwark and an attack on the principles of a pluralistic society?
Emmert: Christian nationalism could reshape daily life in countless ways. One of the most immediate concerns is how they intend to redefine immigration policies. Russell Vought has already openly advocated for changes that would limit eligibility for immigration and citizenship based on religious and cultural criteria.
This is just one example of how Christian nationalism could be weaponized to erode pluralism and exclude those who do not align with their ideological vision. The broader consequences extend into education, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and voting laws—all areas where they seek to entrench their worldview at the expense of constitutional secularism.
And he said that immigration eligibility should depend on whether or not a person has accepted Israel’s God, biblical laws, and a specific understanding of history—essentially confirming that, under this framework, one could only immigrate to the United States if they were Christian.
That goes against every principle upon which the United States was founded. Yet, it is just one example of how their vision for the nation completely diverges from reality. The U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, traditions, and customs. Still, their policies seek to privilege Christians over all other faith traditions—and particularly over those with no religious affiliation.
One of the other major initiatives they advocate for is Schedule F, which would dramatically alter the federal civil service system. In the United States, federal employees are protected from political interference, allowing them to serve across multiple administrations based on expertise rather than political loyalty.
These individuals—many with decades of experience, specialized training, and high-level qualifications—are responsible for administering laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Schedule F would eliminate these protections and reclassify up to 40,000 federal employees as political appointees, meaning their job security would depend entirely on whether they align with the ideology of the current administration.
This is already beginning to take effect. What we are losing in the federal workforce is experience and competence. In their place, we see positions filled based on political loyalty alone. The only qualification necessary seems to be fealty to the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen—or whatever new ideological litmus test they impose. Government positions are increasingly reserved for those willing to pledge loyalty to a specific ideological agenda.
Jacobsen: What about Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense? The principle of meritocracy—hiring based on ability and qualifications—is a laudable value in and of itself. However, what we are witnessing is not meritocracy.
Emmert: From my perspective, every day is a national embarrassment.
With Hegseth’s nomination, concerns were raised about his history of alcohol abuse, his treatment of his ex-wives, and his inability to manage small nonprofit organizations. But even if none of that were true, the fact remains: he is the least qualified person ever nominated for Secretary of Defense in U.S. history. And yet, the Senate confirmed him.
It is terrifying on many levels, particularly from a national security perspective. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for leading the Pentagon, managing the armed forces, and shaping U.S. military policy worldwide—and this role has been handed to someone with no experience in military strategy, governance, or defence leadership.
Then, we saw Tulsi Gabbard confirmed to lead U.S. intelligence agencies. Clearly, competence is not a priority in these appointments.
Jacobsen: Can you touch on Hegseth’s rhetoric about historical religious conflicts, such as the Crusades?
Emmert: His language is deeply alarming. He has openly framed Western civilization in terms of religious warfare, even stating, “If you believe in Western civilization, think like a crusader.”
You have to chuckle so you do not cry because this is the mindset we are dealing with—Christian nationalism is framed as the key to national success. But in reality, it is simply a strategy to consolidate power among those who already hold it.
Jacobsen: I’m struck by how many Americans are mobilizing against these developments—people from varied backgrounds, ages, and perspectives joining in protest and activism—which is heartening. From your vantage point, what response are you observing to figures like Pete Hegseth, Russell Vought, and others, on the ground and online? Please answer broadly, capturing the wider mood.
Emmert: We are well aware that one of the major consequences of these appointments will be increased discrimination against nonreligious service members. This has been a persistent issue—whether in the fight to establish humanist chaplains on military bases or to protect non-Christian soldiers from religious discrimination. With Hegseth leading the Pentagon, we are likely to see multiple setbacks in our progress.
Jacobsen: What about women in the service? We have already seen anti-trans policies affecting enlisted personnel.
Emmert: Hegseth has made his position very clear. He may have said whatever was necessary during his Senate confirmation hearings, but his views are well known.
This is not just a moral issue but a national security concern. When internal ideological battles become the priority over actual defence strategy, it weakens military readiness and morale. Instead of focusing on external threats, there is a growing effort to purge the ranks based on ideological purity—whether regarding religion, gender identity, or political alignment. That should alarm everyone.
Jacobsen: What percentage of the military identifies as non-Christian?
Emmert: I do not know that exact number off the top of my head. I should look into it.
However, we do know that among the 30% of Americans who identify as nonreligious, the percentage is much higher among younger generations—well over 60%. Given that the armed forces are predominantly composed of younger recruits, it is reasonable to assume that the percentage of nonreligious service members is significantly higher than 30%.
Jacobsen: So, are the military’s demographic shifts likely even more pronounced?
Emmert: Correct. The younger generation of enlisted personnel is quite different from the older military leadership that currently sets policy.
Jacobsen: What else should I be asking?
Emmert: Well, one important question is how Christian nationalist rhetoric is shaping policy decisions, particularly how historical religious conflicts—such as the Crusades—are being invoked as a comparison to modern-day struggles.
Jacobsen: That gets to the heart of it. How widespread is this historical framing among people who openly identify as Christian nationalists—and among those who share the movement’s beliefs while avoiding the label, even if they won’t say so?
Emmert: Among the rank and file of people who identify as Christian nationalists, I do not think historical comparisons are very common. Most do not invoke the Crusades or other historical religious conflicts in their rhetoric.
However, we do see these references frequently among movement leaders and influencers—especially among figures like Hegseth, who has explicitly framed Western civilization as a modern crusade. This type of historical revisionism serves to justify aggressive political and military actions under the guise of religious and cultural preservation.
There seems to be a near-religious devotion to certain figures in leadership—perhaps worship is too strong a word. Still, there is a blind allegiance where whatever they say is accepted as absolute truth. Their followers will buy into whatever is being sold.
Jacobsen: Do you believe that Hegseth, during his time leading the Pentagon, will lead a nonpartisan, inclusive military overall?
Emmert: No.
His priority will be to target transgender soldiers. But once he succeeds, why would anyone assume it stops there?
Russell Vought seen here at the White House.
Jacobsen: Are you receiving messages of fear and concern from secular service members?
Emmert: We had already heard about these issues before Hegseth took over the Pentagon. One of our member organizations is the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (MAAF), and they see firsthand the challenges nonreligious soldiers face.
A soldier’s experience with religious discrimination depends largely on which base they are assigned to. If they are stationed at one base, they have relative freedom. But if they are reassigned, they could end up under leadership that actively promotes Christianity, refuses to allow non-Christian groups to gather, and pressures soldiers to conform to Christian ideals.
This has been happening for years, but under Hegseth, such behaviour is being encouraged rather than checked.
Jacobsen: Has Hegseth or Vought ever genuinely stood for anything that aligns with the broader goals of the Secular Coalition for America?
Emmert: That aligns with our goals. Not at all. One of the major things Vought did as Director of the Office of Management and Budget was to effectively shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The CFPB was created after the Great Recession to protect consumers from predatory financial practices by banks and other financial institutions. Since its inception, the bureau has recovered over $80 billion for consumers who were victims of fraudulent banking practices.
Vought claimed that the CFPB was being “weaponized” against the financial industry and labelled it a “woke” agency. His solution? Dismantle it.
Rather than protecting victims of financial abuse, he framed predatory businesses as the victims. These very institutions exploited people for profit. This was just another example of how the administration shifted power away from ordinary Americans and toward corporate interests.
So now Vought has set up a tip line where people can call in and report alleged examples of politicization within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The sheer number of lies they are willing to spread is staggering.
Jacobsen: Is America being gaslit?
Emmert: Yes.
Jacobsen: Robert Reich—the former Labor Secretary and academic—argues that since 1980, roughly $50 trillion in wealth has shifted from the bottom 90 percent of Americans to the top 10. He traces the turn to Ronald Reagan’s supply-side revolution. Seen that way, it’s understandable why many voters feel the system is rigged; the impulse is to torch the status quo and try something new. That, I think, is what they heard from President Trump: the establishment failed you, and only radical change will do.
Yet voters did not intend a mandate to ease predatory banking, weaken worker-safety rules, or otherwise tilt policy toward corporate power. Those, however, are the initiatives moving forward, and the result is a government growing friendlier to big business while ordinary people lag.
Setting that observation aside, a concrete question: within the military and the federal machinery, what were the earliest direct moves against secular governance? Since this administration took office in late January, have there been specific actions—inside the services, executive agencies, or across the federal government—that illustrate that shift?
Emmert: One of the first significant policy shifts within the military was their targeting of transgender service members. Now, that issue concerns many secular people, but it is not explicitly a secular issue. However, one of the policies that directly impacts the secular community was the creation of a commission last week to investigate “anti-Christian bias” in federal agencies.
The problem is that their definition of “discrimination and bias” is not what normal people would consider discrimination or bias.
Jacobsen: Have they provided any definitions of what they mean?
Emmert: I have not seen any formal definitions yet. Honestly, the details don’t matter to them.
This is about headlines—about getting people to believe, “Oh my gosh, the federal government has an anti-Christian bias and has been discriminating against Christians!” It is the same old “War on Christmas” narrative.
This rhetoric feeds into that resentment and redirects frustration away from corporate greed and economic policies toward an imaginary culture war.
Jacobsen: Much of the foundational rhetoric that got them into power centered on taking legitimate economic grievances and redirecting anger and disillusionment toward already vulnerable populations. Legitimate concerns but directed at illegitimate targets.
Emmert: Yes. This is a silly anecdotal story, but it happened yesterday or the day before. There was a minor incident on my bus ride home—nothing that escalated too far, but I witnessed it.
The man sitting behind me—wearing a hard hat—apologized as I got off the bus and asked if I was okay. I assured him that I was fine. But as I stepped off, I half-jokingly said to him, “As with everything else, Sal, I blame Trump.”
I chuckled. But he responded, “Oh, no. No. No. Trump’s looking out for the little guy.” And he meant it. It was eye-opening. Here is someone who truly believes that even though the ultra-rich have amassed $250 billion since the last election alone.
Jacobsen: That is a failure of the Democrats’ messaging and policy.
Emmert: Yep.
Jacobsen: It is about being out of touch with working people. And yes, it is also about real, decades-long neoliberal economic policies that have hollowed out the working class.
Emmert: It is.
Jacobsen: Because I have worked in those jobs before. They are hard jobs. Some areas of specialized construction are all-consuming. People drink and smoke on job sites for a reason—because the work is grueling.
Emmert: No doubt. It is physically demanding and mentally exhausting. And those workers deserve a break. They also deserve a government that does not ignore them when financial services organizations scam them or when loan sharks are given free rein to set up shop in a strip mall.
Instead, the system is rigged against them, and they are told the real enemy is a trans person enlisting in the military or a highly educated woman getting a promotion instead of them. That is not the actual issue.
The real issue is that they are being screwed over by a government that prioritizes corporate profits over workers—and the pandemic only made that worse. But misdirection is the goal.
It is like a magician’s trick—they tell you to look over here while they steal from you.
“I am protecting your daughters from a trans swimmer in a high school meet.”
Meanwhile, they are robbing you blind and taking away your economic power. And it is working—wildly successfully.
Jacobsen: How are mobilization efforts going at the Secular Coalition for America?
Emmert: We are holding our annual Lobby Day on March 11, and we would love to have as many participants as possible join us here in Washington, D.C.
If you cannot attend in person, it would still be incredibly helpful if you could call or email your member of Congress—whether through their D.C. office or their local office—as well as both of your senators’ offices on that day to let them know that you support the separation of church and state.
It is more critical now than ever.
Jacobsen: Steven, thank you, as always.
Emmert: 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): 2025/09/10
Dr. Joanne Liu has spent her career on the front lines of catastrophe. The former International President of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and a leading voice in global health, she has grappled with the world’s hardest problems: the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic, the bombing of hospitals in active war zones, and the weaponization of migration for political gain.
Containing Ebola, she argues, initially proved nearly impossible: the virus was poorly understood in the region, health workers were infected, and fragile health systems unraveled in real time. Preparedness failures—local, regional, and international—turned the largest Ebola outbreak on record into a global alarm. From those lessons, Liu indicts political timidity and the erosion of humanitarian norms, insisting on stronger international coordination, genuine respect for medical neutrality, and far more proactive crisis management to protect the most vulnerable.
Liu is a pediatric emergency physician at CHU Sainte-Justine, a professor at McGill University’s School of Population and Global Health, and director of the Pandemics and Health Emergencies Readiness Lab (PEARL). From 2013 to 2019, she led MSF, where she oversaw responses to Ebola, the systematic targeting of medical facilities, and the global migrant crisis—work she chronicles in L’Ebola, les Bombes et les Migrants. She serves on multiple global health advisory boards and continues to advocate for pandemic preparedness grounded in humanitarian law and informed by her lived experience in the field.
(Chatham House)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As MSF’s former International President, what were some of the biggest challenges you faced during the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak?
Dr. Joanne Liu: The biggest challenge we faced as an organization was the overwhelming scale of the epidemic. Looking at the history of Ebola outbreaks, let’s take a step back. Ebola is a virus that causes viral hemorrhagic fever.
Ebola hemorrhagic fever has a case fatality rate of approximately 50% to 70%, depending on the outbreak and the healthcare response. In 2014, there were no specific treatments or vaccines. While we could diagnose the disease, there was no rapid test available. The challenge was that this was the largest outbreak in history in terms of the number of cases.
Before the 2014–2016 outbreak, the largest recorded Ebola outbreak had occurred in 2000–2001 in Uganda, with 425 cases and 224 deaths. The 2014–2016 outbreak in West Africa—affecting Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia—resulted in more than 28,000 infections and over 11,000 deaths.
Having collectively experienced COVID-19, we better understand personal protective equipment (PPE) and the importance of infection control in healthcare settings. But back then, we had to scale up these measures dramatically in West Africa.
Working with healthcare facilities without experience managing an Ebola outbreak was one of the toughest challenges. They lacked the experience, training, and infrastructure to handle such a highly contagious and lethal virus. As a result, when the outbreak began, many healthcare workers became infected and died.
We were working under extreme conditions. The biggest challenges were the limited number of healthcare personnel, the constant exposure to death, and the personal risk of infection. Every single day, we were confronted with the brutal reality of the disease’s lethality.
I remember doing ward rounds and seeing six patients who had died. In PPE, we could only stay in the Ebola treatment units (ETUs) for about an hour because of the intense heat and lack of air conditioning. We had to carefully time our medical visits to minimize risk and maximize efficiency.
To put this in perspective, at CHU Sainte-Justine in Montreal, where I work, we see about 90,000 pediatric patients per year. Our emergency department might experience a maximum of six deaths in a typical year. Yet, during the Ebola outbreak, I witnessed many deaths in a single ward visit.
The greatest difficulties were the shortage of trained staff, the constant exposure to death, and the ever-present risk of infection.
Jacobsen: In the past, you have been critical of the international response. What structural changes are necessary to expedite these types of responses to any outbreak like Ebola?
Liu: We criticized the response because the first cases were traced back to late 2013. However, if I am not mistaken, the outbreak was officially declared in March 2014. It was not until August 8, 2014, that the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
For about five to six months, we struggled to convince people that this outbreak was different. If we had surged our response capacity earlier, we could have made a significant difference in people’s lives. We worked hands-on in the field, but people were overwhelmed, and the large-scale response did not happen readily. It took several months.
What happened afterward was that the world realized—this was quite interesting—how significant a biological threat could be, not just for WHO but for the rest of the world. What does it mean when a biological threat emerges, spreads rapidly, and truly threatens lives?
For the first time, every day on the news for several weeks, people saw healthcare workers in personal protective equipment (PPE), wearing yellow hazmat suits, walking around and caring for patients. It was a striking image. It was very foreign and strange for medical professionals, but it captured public awareness. People suddenly understood, “Oh my God, this is real, and it can happen.”
What was particularly interesting back then was that countries in West Africa were quickly overwhelmed and needed help from the international community. However, the response from wealthier nations was slow. The global north did not get involved until they felt personally threatened.
And when did they feel threatened? It was when two volunteers from Samaritan’s Purse were medically evacuated to the United States at the end of July 2014. Suddenly, we went from indifference to panic—Ebola was knocking at the door of the Americas. It became a real threat, and there was an urgent push to act fast.
Following the outbreak, numerous evaluations of the response, including WHO’s performance, were conducted. One key outcome was the WHO’s decision to establish a dedicated Emergency Department with greater operational capacity to respond swiftly to such crises. That was one of the key legacies of the Ebola outbreak.
However, the bigger legacy that made a difference during COVID-19 was the development of a research and development (R&D) roadmap. This roadmap prioritized field research and identified the types of viruses for which vaccines should be developed. Additionally, a principle was established that scientific knowledge should be shared openly during a global health crisis.
This principle was critical during COVID-19 when the virus’s genomic sequence was shared early in 2020. Sometimes, people fail to connect the dots, but events unfold more smoothly than they might appear. Even though some people felt there were delays in responding to COVID-19, the process was significantly smoother than it would have been without the lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016.
Ebola response team in Liberia in 2014. (USAID)
Jacobsen: When an outbreak hits—Ebola, COVID-19—experience suggests only coordinated action can contain it. From your vantage as a clinician and former MSF president, what are the principal obstacles to turning that imperative into population-level solutions across member states and multilateral institutions? Where do you see the bottlenecks—governance, financing, supply chains, data sharing, or operational surge capacity? And how much do misinformation and disinformation now degrade public trust and slow response compared with earlier crises?
Liu: I think the main impediment to an adequate response, if we were to have another large-scale epidemic that escalates into a pandemic, would likely be leadership—or rather, the political will to take decisive action.
This is a real concern because one of the unfortunate legacies of COVID-19 is the widespread mistrust and distrust in leadership. People increasingly question facts and data, sometimes outright refusing to believe them or assuming they are part of a larger conspiracy.
At the same time, disinformation and misinformation fuel this skepticism, making public health responses even more difficult. We are in a much more difficult position than before COVID-19.
What is particularly disheartening is that despite our scientific advancements—sending robots to Mars and launching satellites around Earth—a significant portion of the population still does not believe in science.
What strikes me the most, and I should have known this, but was naïve at the time, is that after the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak, I participated in numerous tabletop simulations and crisis response exercises. And you know what? We never imagined a scenario where state leaders would refuse to believe in science and facts.
That is the greatest challenge we face today.
Jacobsen: Now, the Kunduz hospital airstrike. In 2015, there was a U.S. airstrike on an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan. MSF called the attack a war crime and demanded an independent investigation. It was widely condemned. What were the key factors or failures that led to this tragedy?
Liu: On October 3, 2015, the Kunduz trauma center was struck by airstrikes five times in the middle of the night. It was unexpected because the hospital was fully functioning, and we had been operating there for over five years. 42 people died, 14 MSF staff died.
We began negotiating our presence in Kunduz between 2008 and 2011, and we officially opened the trauma center in 2011. It was a 110-bed facility with an intensive care unit, an emergency room, three operating theatres, and 100 hospital beds. It was always at full capacity, treating patients with severe injuries.
At the time of the attack, the frontlines were shifting. The hospital was previously located close to the frontline but on the government-controlled side. However, just days before the attack, control of the area shifted to the opposition—the Taliban.
MSF always maintained a strict policy of neutrality, treating patients from all sides of the conflict. Both government forces and opposition fighters received care at the facility. However, this shift in territorial control affected what happened.
One crucial point to remember is that we were always transparent. We communicated regularly with all parties involved in the conflict and shared our exact GPS coordinates multiple times. Everyone knew where we were.
In that area, we were one of the few buildings with lights on in the middle of the night because, as you may know, there was no central electricity. Everyone relied on generators.
It is possible that the hospital’s ending up on opposition-controlled territory played a role in what happened. We will never know for sure. There have been several investigations, and we requested an independent inquiry from the Humanitarian and International Fact-Finding Commission (HIFCC). However, it never happened because the two countries involved—Afghanistan and the United States—did not give their consent.
A young boy who lost both of his parents to Ebola waits at a USAID food distribution center in Liberia in 2014. (USAID)
Jacobsen: How did this change MSF’s approach to operating in conflict zones?
Liu: We conducted our internal investigation at MSF, and our findings were published and publicly available.
One of the most damning aspects of this tragedy, as I detailed in my book, was that once the attack began, we were unable to stop it. We called everyone—we contacted the United Nations, the special forces, the Pentagon—but we could not get the airstrikes to stop.
Afterward, rebuilding trust and dialogue was extremely difficult. You have to understand that 42 people died, including 14 of our colleagues. The entire MSF movement was in mourning, yet we had to continue our work. We had to care for people—not just in Kunduz, but everywhere.
This is why we fought to clarify the rules of engagement and the laws of war. Do we share the same interpretation of these rules? That question led us to support the work on U.N. Security Council Resolution 2286, which reaffirmed international humanitarian law (IHL) and the protection of medical facilities in conflict zones.
More specifically, we strengthened our direct lines of communication—particularly with the U.S. military. We established what we call an emergency contact system, which we symbolically refer to as a “red phone.” If something happens, we have a designated number to escalate the situation to a high-level chain of command immediately.
We thought we had such a system in place before the attack on Kunduz, but it failed. It was not functioning when we needed it most.
Jacobsen: Now, moving on to the migrant crisis. In Western media, we are seeing a significant rise in anti-immigrant and anti-migrant sentiment. This directly affects how governments handle migration crises and their mitigation efforts.
Many people are unaware that migrants have rights. On an international level, what are we seeing regarding migrant crises, both from a security and humanitarian perspective? What issues are they facing consistently? And are there specific challenges that are particularly severe for migrants today?
Liu: When discussing security and migration, one of the key points I emphasize is that if international humanitarian law (IHL) is not upheld, and if wars are fought without limits, then we should not be surprised that civilians flee. If we want to reduce forced migration, then civilians must be protected.
The reality is that today, 120 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, and about 50% of them are internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Even when people flee due to horrific violence, they often try to stay as close as possible to their homes. They either relocate within their own country or seek refuge in neighbouring countries. 69% of refugees are in neighbouring countries of the places they fled.
And why? Because people want to go back home. No one wants to be a refugee. No one wants to start from scratch in an unfamiliar country, especially in a place where winter temperatures drop to minus 13 degrees. People do not want to be displaced. That is the first thing to understand.
From a security standpoint, we must return to the rules of war—the fundamental principles of protecting civilians. Civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, and markets, should not be considered legitimate targets unless proven otherwise. If we continue pursuing wars without limits, then we will inevitably see displacement without limits.
On the humanitarian side, forced displacement is happening everywhere. While the numbers are reaching record highs, displacement is not new. People have been moving throughout history due to adversity, conflict, and survival challenges.
Humans are inherently survivors. They will go where they believe they have a better chance of survival—for themselves, their families, and their children. Right now, 120 million people are in forced displacement, and they require humanitarian aid. Yet, funding for these displaced populations is extremely difficult to secure.
Take Sudan, for example. A war has been raging for over a year, yet it barely makes headlines. Twelve million people have been forcibly displaced in Sudan, but it is rarely discussed in the media. Why? Because media coverage is monopolized by a few conflicts—often those that directly affect the global north.
Jacobsen: The conditions in migrant and refugee camps are often dire. They rarely meet basic living standards. You have raised concerns about this before. What are some of the worst conditions you have witnessed?
Liu: It depends. There are refugee camps, but there are also internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. The reality is that there are more IDPs than refugees in formal camps. Right now, Sudan is breaking records for failing to uphold even the most basic standards of human dignity in its IDP camps.
The Gaza Strip is another example. The conditions there are devastating. We have seen unbearable, unsustainable images that speak for themselves. These are some of the worst examples of displacement crises today.
What was particularly striking in terms of refugee camps—and what shocked people—was what happened in the global north in places like Greece, Italy, and the Balkans during and after the start of the Syrian war. Millions of people were forced to flee.
Of course, when comparing those camps to refugee camps in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or Ethiopia, the conditions are different. But what was truly surprising was seeing such dire conditions in wealthy nations—places that should have had the means to provide security, food, and necessities yet failed to do so. That was what I found particularly shocking.
I remember visiting a refugee camp in Greece, and a woman told me they could not go to the bathroom at night without facing the threat of sexual and gender-based violence. It was horrifying.
Jacobsen: What has changed for the better regarding global policy and law regarding migrants? And what remains inadequate or insufficient for the needs of over 100 million displaced people?
Liu: I don’t know much has improved in global migration policy. I had some hope in 2018 when the Global Compact for Migration was adopted in Marrakech. That agreement recognized that migration is inevitable and should be safe, orderly, and regulated. It was meant to establish a framework for making migration as safe as possible for those forced to flee.
But in reality, it was one of those “kumbaya” moments—a symbolic agreement that was not meaningfully implemented. Right now, I am deeply concerned about migration and the well-being of migrants worldwide—including here in Canada. Listening to political leaders, you hear migrants portrayed as the cause of all societal problems.
They are blamed for housing shortages, strained healthcare systems, and, in Quebec, the perceived decline of French language proficiency. This rhetoric extends to claims that migrants threaten the identity of Quebec’s citizens.
Framing migrants as a threat is absurd, especially when you understand that these are people fleeing for their lives. As a humanitarian worker, I find this mindset deeply troubling. And I acknowledge my bias—I always disclose it upfront. I am a product of migration.
Jacobsen: What is Canada doing right and wrong regarding migrants and humanitarian work? How does Canada measure up if we use international law and universal human rights as benchmarks for comparison?
Liu: Well, you just said it. If we were to politically reinforce the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) and universal human rights and truly follow the Global Compact for Migration—which we are a signatory to—then we would be in a much better position.
It is not as if the tools do not exist. They are there. The issue is implementation. Instead of applying them consistently, we choose when to use them based on political convenience.
Jacobsen: What other ways are migrants used as a form of political currency? Beyond the fear-mongering you mentioned earlier—where migrants are framed as a burden or a threat to local culture—how else do political leaders exploit migration for their agendas? The reality is that most migrants are simply trying to survive. More often than not, they are barely surviving.
Liu: For me, migrants have become a scapegoat. They are a convenient way to divert attention from our real challenges, which makes the situation even harder.
Building public support for migration is challenging when many Canadians feel uncertain about their own futures. And they are right—these are uncertain times.
When people feel economically and socially insecure, being open-minded, welcoming, and optimistic can be challenging. Suppose they do not feel confident that they can provide the basics for themselves and their loved ones. How can they be expected to extend that support to others?
That is human nature, and I do not blame people for feeling that way. People want security. If they feel they cannot provide for themselves, they will be reluctant to help others.
As humanitarians and leaders, we must listen to those concerns and find the right balance. But instead, migrants are being used as political currency—a convenient scapegoat for the broader challenges we face.
Jacobsen: Dr. Liu, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Liu: 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): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/09
Mohammad Fahim Dashti spent three decades defending Afghans’ right to know. A veteran reporter, editor, and organizer, he survived the bombing that killed his friend Ahmad Shah Massoud in 2001, rebuilt his career as editor-in-chief of Hasht-e-Subh Daily in Kabul, and helped found Afghanistan’s National Journalists Union (ANJU) to give reporters a measure of protection in a perilous profession. Born in 1972, Dashti belonged to the small cadre of independent editors who insisted that facts mattered even when power did not.
After months of recovery from his injuries, he returned to the newsroom, arguing that a free press was indispensable to any political settlement. A nephew of Abdullah Abdullah and a close associate of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Dashti became the public voice of Massoud’s National Resistance Front after the fall of Kabul in 2021, pressing the world not to look away. He was killed on September 5, 2021, during clashes with the Taliban in Panjshir Province, while opposing the movement’s takeover following the U.S. withdrawal.
His legacy now runs through his daughter, Marwa Dashti. Through the Fahim Dashti Foundation, she promotes free expression and offers concrete support to journalists uprooted by the Taliban’s return. Speaking from Albania, where she has built her own advocacy, Marwa argues that Afghanistan has been consigned to a “state of exception” in which women’s rights are treated as expendable. Feminism, she contends, is not an import but a daily act of resistance—and one that deserves international backing. The foundation’s current projects are deliberately practical: training displaced Afghan reporters so they can keep working in exile, and funding scholarships for Afghan girls in neighboring countries shut out of school at home. She also calls for sustained attention from governments and media organizations that once pledged not to abandon Afghan women.
In this conversation, Marwa reflects on her father’s example and the movement he helped build; on the world’s failure to stand up for Afghan women; and on the concrete ways outsiders can help.
(Refugees International)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why is free expression indispensable to women’s rights—especially the work of advocacy—beyond merely having those protections formally codified on paper?
Marwa Dashti: Freedom of speech is essential, especially at the Fahim Dashti Foundation. My father spent approximately thirty years of his life working toward this cause. I witnessed firsthand how he and his colleagues helped make freedom of expression possible in a country where, during the Taliban’s first regime (1996–2001), even the idea of press freedom was unimaginable.
I saw how this freedom strengthened many people in Afghanistan—particularly women. After decades of systemic oppression, they were finally able to express themselves and speak freely. While this may not seem extraordinary to those living in Western democracies, it was a monumental achievement.
One of the main reasons women’s rights progressed in Afghanistan over the last two decades was that women had a platform. They could speak out, critique authority, and share their stories, which gave them visibility and agency.
Jacobsen: How do you remember your father?
Dashti: To me, my father was never just my father. When people speak to me and offer their condolences, many people say things like, “I’m sorry your father passed away.” But they sometimes forget that he was also my mentor in many ways. I specifically remember when I was four years old—I went to his office for the first time, and that was when I decided I wanted to become a journalist.
From then on, I would go to his office every day after school. I would sit in on meetings and watch his colleagues at work—it was incredible to witness. Seeing my father work was powerful, but knowing that he was also fighting for women’s rights, perhaps in part because he wanted me to have more opportunities as I grew up—that feeling is difficult to describe. Honestly, it was something else.
Jacobsen: How was your experience volunteering at Afghanistan’s National Journalists Union?
Dashti: I started volunteering there at 16, about two years before the Taliban took over again. I began by learning the basics—sending emails and doing standard tasks, the work any intern or volunteer would typically start with.
But the most important part for me was seeing my dad in action. That is what I call it—seeing him in action—because I do not think people understand how dangerous it was for us and our entire family. I do not think anyone outside knows the extent of the threats we received. Sometimes, we could not even go to school because the threats had become severe.
Yet, despite all this, my father continued to speak the truth—as he called it. He dared to critique leaders who could have responded in any way, including harming us, his children. But he still prioritized his work and his principles. That is something I will always admire.
Jacobsen: How was your time in Albania before coming to Canada?
Dashti: I went to Albania exactly one week after I received the news that my father had passed away. As you can imagine, I was in the shock phase of it all. I was in Pakistan when I heard the news, and honestly, that entire week is a blank in my memory. I think the trauma and the shock made it impossible for me to process anything.
The next thing I remember after learning about my father’s death was seeing my older brother in Albania—he had been in Turkey at the time, and we reunited a week later. I remember looking at the different members of my family and seeing how each of them was coping with the grief in their own way.
I saw my younger brother go through denial. I saw my mother go through a period of depression. Everyone processed the grief differently, of course. I remember thinking to myself: “Okay, I can either let this grief consume me, or I can step up and take responsibility for my father’s legacy and my family.”
That was the moment my advocacy journey began. I started giving interviews, speaking about women’s rights in Afghanistan, and working with my mother and my father’s colleagues and friends to begin planning the foundation. For me, Albania marks the beginning of my active advocacy journey.
(Facebook)
Jacobsen: And you were there for eight months, correct?
Dashti: Eight months.
Jacobsen: Was it intended to be temporary, or was there a particular reason to move on from there to another country?
Dashti: No, it was always meant to be temporary. Right after the Taliban took over, we had to go to Pakistan because that was the only country we could access at the time. From there, we were planning to migrate to France.
But after my father passed away—again, that whole week is completely blank in my memory—a friend of my father’s reached out to my mother and suggested that we consider going to Canada instead of France. The main reason was the language. My siblings and I already spoke English, so moving to Canada would allow us to transition into a new life more easily.
Vital Voices, co-founded by Hillary Clinton, sponsored our flight and temporary stay in Albania. They also helped begin our immigration case to Canada. So yes, it was always planned as a temporary stay.
Jacobsen: Arriving in Canada without a language barrier is a significant advantage for anyone. How did you experience the cultural shift? Canada has a very different culture from Albania, Pakistan, or Afghanistan.
Dashti: Yes, there were moments of culture shock, of course. That is part of any major move. But with Canada, because of the large immigrant population, we had a cushion.
The Afghan community in Canada is huge. If we had gone somewhere else in the world, we might have felt like outsiders. But in Canada, almost everyone is either a first-generation or second-generation immigrant. You get this sense that refugees and newcomers built this country, giving you a certain feeling of belonging.
Of course, it is not the same feeling as being in your own country, but there is a sense of comfort and inclusion, to some degree.
Jacobsen: Is the character of Afghan identity in Canada different from what you experienced growing up at home?
Dashti: Yes. It is very different. Inside the chaos, it feels much bigger than when you step outside. When I was in Afghanistan, perhaps it all felt too normal—maybe even desensitized. But I always say this: whenever I tell people I am a woman or a girl from Afghanistan, the first thing they say is, “Oh my God, your English is so good.”
I’m like—yes, I went to school like anyone else would. Right? I sometimes feel that people forget how normal our lives are. I was a regular teenager.
I had a One Direction phase. How much more “normal teenager” can you get? I went to school, I had friends, and we did typical teenage things. I know that the situation in Afghanistan now is very different from what it was when I was growing up, but I think when you’re on the inside, the ethnic divisions that have existed in Afghanistan for centuries don’t feel as prominent or problematic as they appear from the outside.
Unfortunately, I do see some Afghan diaspora communities—especially outside of Afghanistan—where those ethnic divides are deeply ingrained. I don’t understand why. I cannot explain it because, as someone who lived in Afghanistan all my life, my friendships were never based on ethnicity. We were friends. We were like sisters. In the workplace, too—I saw my father working closely with people from all ethnic backgrounds. That never prevented them from collaborating.
But unfortunately, in some Afghan communities outside the country, I do see lingering prejudice and divisions.
Afghan women and girls attending gathering to address their concerns in 2011.
Jacobsen: Has the international community abandoned Afghanistan?
Dashti: Yes, I would say so—definitely. I was at the United Nations a few weeks ago in March and was there last year for the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Last year, I felt so proud. It was one of my lifelong dreams to go to the UN. Growing up in Afghanistan seemed almost impossible, but I made it.
But this year, that pride was gone. I didn’t feel anything, because just a few months earlier, the same institution had invited the Taliban. The same people the UN claims to stand against. The same people the world claims to support us against. And they gave them a platform.
It was simply disgusting to me.
And now we are hearing reports that the Trump administration might re-engage in Afghanistan—possibly to regain control of Bagram Air Base—and may even collaborate with the Taliban. That feels deeply unsettling. I understand that a lot has happened in the world since the fall of Kabul—the war in Ukraine has captured much attention, and now there’s the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.
But at this point, it feels like the international community is trying to normalize what is happening in Afghanistan. And to be very frank with you, I think they are paving the way toward formal recognition of the Taliban—by normalizing them.
Jacobsen: It sounds like a marketing campaign for a failed product—presenting failure as if it were a success.
Dashti: Exactly.
Jacobsen: How do you balance personal aspirations in your new life with the responsibility of continuing your father’s legacy?
Dashti: My life changed drastically after my father passed away. I often tell people that I was spoiled as a teenager. I was the only daughter in the house, and of course, I was my dad’s favorite.
After my father passed away, I inherited not only his legacy but also the responsibility of supporting my entire family. My older brother and I have had to step up because our mother does not speak English. We are now responsible for providing for our family and continuing our father’s work.
Honestly, losing my father was deeply painful. But the person I have become because of that loss—the strength it gave me, the strength I discovered in myself, and the way I have continued his legacy—I believe he would have been proud of that.
Afghan women in Kabul in 2010.
Jacobsen: How do you view other humanitarian crises, particularly in light of the severity of the situation in Afghanistan?
Dashti: I believe that anywhere in the world where innocent people are being killed, tortured, or stripped of their basic human rights—whether it is in Ukraine, the Middle East, or elsewhere—it is wrong. Innocent people should never be casualties. They should never be harmed because political leaders play games or execute military agendas. So my position on that is very clear: no innocent human being—especially children—should suffer due to someone’s political or military objectives. That should never be acceptable.
Jacobsen: This year’s Commission on the Status of Women revisited the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on its 30th anniversary; among other things, the text underscores women’s roles in peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. That framework envisions women not as auxiliaries but as central actors in peace processes and humanitarian operations.
Turning to Afghanistan, a clear-eyed reading suggests that the United States and its allies—largely Western and male-led—helped lay waste to the country over two decades of war, undertaken under expansive post-9/11 security claims and marked by grave intelligence and policy failures.
After the state collapsed, another male-dominated force—the Taliban—installed a rigid theocracy. Though adversaries, both camps consigned women and girls to the margins, leaving Afghan women to absorb the costs of external intervention and internal repression alike.
From your vantage point, what should the role of women be in humanitarian crises and in the defense of equal rights? And how should that role be understood when the pressures come from both outside military actors and authoritarian rulers at home?
Dashti: I think most reasonable people would agree: if you oppress half the population, your country is not going anywhere. That applies whether we are talking about the West or Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, especially, I feel that Afghan women are constantly underestimated. Their strength and potential are overlooked—largely because, for decades, most Afghan women have been denied opportunities in education and careers.
But that does not mean we lack ability or willpower. On the contrary, Afghan women have consistently shown strength, resilience, and the ability to lead and build. We need the space and freedom to do so.
I mean, speaking as someone who lived in the city and had a relatively normal life, I cannot claim to fully understand the experience of a woman living in a rural area—someone who has been heavily oppressed. I always say I cannot speak to their reality.
But I see incredible strength and immense potential in Afghan women across the board. If they were given the opportunity, they could have built a society that, frankly, many men would not have been able to. I truly believe that.
As a feminist, I think many women today are afraid to call themselves feminists, unfortunately, because feminism has, in some cases, been misunderstood or misrepresented as a man-hating ideology. But at its core, feminism is about equality of opportunity, choice, and dignity.
And I would never judge another woman for not identifying as a feminist because the entire point of feminism is to ensure women have the freedom to choose. If a woman chooses not to identify as a feminist, that is her decision. I do not have the right to criticize her for that.
Still, I believe the core values of feminism should be woven into the fabric of any society—especially societies like Afghanistan. Afghan women possess strength, unlike anything I have seen in any other community.
I do not know if you have ever read him, but Giorgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, wrote about what he calls the “state of exception.” He describes how modern states, often in the name of emergencies or security, dismantle a society’s legal and political framework.
And when that framework is dismantled, people are left exposed—vulnerable to violence, because they are stripped of their legal and political rights. I believe Afghanistan is in exactly that kind of state right now. The Taliban are actively dismantling our legal and political systems under the pretext of an emergency or a return to “order.”
I think Afghanistan is, again, in a “state of exception”—in the sense that Giorgio Agamben defines it. What people often do not realize is that feminism in a state like Afghanistan is fundamentally different from feminism in Western societies.
In Afghanistan, feminism is about challenging the regime itself—challenging the entire system. In contrast, in Western societies, feminism often focuses on securing rights within an existing and generally functioning state structure.
The fact that Afghan women are standing up to a regime as brutal and rigid as the Taliban is admirable. It should be globally recognized. And the fact that the international community is now attempting to normalize the situation in Afghanistan is heartbreaking.
Jacobsen: How can people get involved, donate, or volunteer their skills for the Fahim Dashti Foundation?
Dashti: The Dashti Foundation has been operational for over two years now. We have carried out several projects, including training programs for journalists in Afghanistan through online platforms. We have also hosted multiple events in collaboration with organizations such as the United Nations, with the support of several governments, including those of the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States.
Right now, we are focusing on larger, long-term initiatives. One project aims to offer scholarships to around 12 girls from Afghanistan, allowing them to pursue secondary education in neighbouring countries. We’re also working on a four-year strategic plan to support the Afghan community here in Canada.
Unfortunately, when Afghan professionals immigrate, finding jobs in their own field can be incredibly difficult. We are developing programs to provide training courses that align with Canadian journalism standards for Afghan journalists who were forced to flee. We aim to help them secure internships that can ultimately lead to full-time employment. This would help those individuals achieve self-sufficiency and benefit the broader Canadian society and economy.
We will need significant volunteer support and financial backing to make this happen. People can help by contributing their time, skills, or funds to the Fahim Dashti Foundation and our upcoming projects.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.
Dashti: Of course.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/05
Dr. Gail Dines is the founder and CEO of Culture Reframed, as well as a professor emerita of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College in Boston. Drawing on more than three decades of scholarship on the pornography industry, she is widely regarded as an authority on how porn shapes culture, sexuality, and social norms. She has advised government agencies in the United States and abroad—including in the United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, and Canada—and in 2016 launched Culture Reframed, which develops education aimed at building resilience to porn’s harms.
Dines co-edited the best-selling textbook Gender, Race, and Class in Media and wrote Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, translated into five languages and adapted into a documentary. Her work has appeared across major outlets such as ABC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Time, The Guardian, and Vogue. A regular presence on television and radio, she is also featured in documentary films, including The Price of Pleasure and The Strength to Resist.
In her research and public advocacy, Dines argues that decades of evidence show a strong association between pornography consumption and violence against women. She contends that mainstream porn cultivates harmful sexual attitudes, lowers empathy, and normalizes misogyny, racism, and sexual violence. Distinguishing a radical-feminist, harm-based critique from conservative moralism, she focuses on measurable social effects rather than questions of private morality.
According to Dines, porn distorts how men and women understand sex, relationships, and consent. She calls for comprehensive, “porn-resilient” education for young people and for broader social responsibility in addressing the industry’s outsized influence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, I’m here with Professor Gail Dines, the founder of Culture Reframed. My first question, Gail: what is the connection between pornography and violence against women?
Gail Dines: We have over 40 years of empirical research from different disciplines that show that boys and men who consume pornography are more likely to engage in sexually aggressive behaviour, more likely to accept rape myths, more likely to develop harmful sexual attitudes toward women, and may experience increased anxiety, depression, and reduced empathy for victims of sexual violence. This happens because they are repeatedly exposed to depictions of sexual violence and objectification. Most mainstream Internet pornography today is hardcore—it’s cruel, brutal, and dehumanizing toward women.
As men and boys watch and become aroused by it, they internalize the ideologies embedded in these images. A key point about pornography is that it portrays women as always consenting, no matter how degrading or violent the act is. This gives the impression that women enjoy being mistreated, which is often far from the truth, as they may be coerced or paid to act in these scenes. This reinforces the harmful idea that it is acceptable to dehumanize and abuse women. We have substantial peer-reviewed research from fields such as psychology, sociology, and media studies that corroborates these findings.
Jacobsen: What research links pornography to sexual aggression?
Dines: Regarding the research linking pornography to sexual aggression, our website is a good resource. One in particular, titled “Understanding the Harms of Pornography,” lists many studies. Additionally, our academic library contains over 500 peer-reviewed articles on this topic. Scholars such as Paul Wright, Chyng Sun, and Jennifer Johnson have contributed important work. The strength of social science research is not in isolated studies but in the coherent pattern that emerges when we review a large body of work. The research shows a clear correlation between pornography consumption and violence against women.
Jacobsen: How does hypersexualized media align with human rights violations, particularly regarding youth?
Dines: Hypersexualized media, even content that isn’t classified as pornography, and pornography itself can be viewed as violations of civil rights because they infringe on young people’s ability to construct their sexuality. The multi-billion-dollar media and pornography industries are shaping the sexual attitudes and behaviours of young people worldwide, which strips them of their autonomy in this area. These industries commodify and monetize sexuality, taking control away from individuals and turning it into a product.
Young people deserve the opportunity to develop a sexuality that is meaningful to them, not one dictated by the interests of pornographers seeking profit. Additionally, there are significant human rights violations against women in pornography. The treatment many women endure in the production of hardcore pornography can be likened to torture, violating international human rights conventions. If the same acts were done to any other group, they would likely be recognized as torture. That’s how extreme much of mainstream pornography has become.
Jacobsen: What are the social and health consequences of pornography consumption?
Dines: Basically, pornography is shifting how we think about women, men, sex, relationships, connection, and consent—all of these issues. What you see in society is that when pornography becomes the “wallpaper” of your life, as it does for young people today, it becomes the main form of sex education. This shifts the norms and values of the culture, and it’s happening internationally. This is not a local problem. Any child with a device connected to the Internet is being fed a steady diet of misogyny and racism—there’s an incredible amount of racism in pornography—and the idea that men and boys have a right to ownership of women’s bodies, regardless of what women want. There’s also the notion that women’s bodies exist to be commodified and used however men wish. This sets up women and girls to be victims of male violence. Meanwhile, we are trying to build a world of equality between men and women.
Pornography shreds that possibility—not only in terms of sex but also in employment, the legal system, and more. It sends the message that women exist only to be penetrated, and often in the most vile and cruel ways possible. So, pornography undermines women’s rights across multiple levels and within multiple institutions.
Jacobsen: You raised an interesting point about the nature of consent. What is the framework of consent in pornographic imagery and in the industry itself?
Dines: First, let’s start with the imagery because the industry is slightly different. In the images, she consents to everything. The one word you rarely hear in pornography is “no.” It’s rare. If you go onto Pornhub or any other adult website, where most men and boys consume pornography, you won’t hear “no.” Now, there are some rape porn sites where the woman says “no,” but those are at the far end of the spectrum. I study mainstream pornography, such as what’s on Pornhub. In terms of consent, we often question whether a woman truly consents; this is where the industry comes in. While they might sign a consent form, we don’t know under what conditions it was signed.
Also, pornography is where racism, sexism, capitalism, and colonialism intersect. The poorer a woman is, the more likely she is to be a woman of colour with fewer resources, and the more likely she is to end up in the porn industry. These are not Ivy League graduates lining up to do this. These are women who have had few choices. When you have limited options in life, especially due to economic hardship, it is challenging to argue that consent is fully informed or voluntary.
Jacobsen: For those able to exit the industry, what are the ways they manage to do so, and what are the psychological and emotional impacts, as well as the physical effects?
Dines: It’s extremely hard for women to leave pornography. First of all, we know that women in pornography experience the same levels of post-traumatic stress disorder as prostituted women. Many of them are also under pimp control. The psychological, emotional, and physical tolls are severe, making it difficult for them to leave the industry.
And also, where are they going to go? Especially in pornography, where your image is everywhere, women who have been in the industry, even if they get out, live in constant fear that their employers, children, and partners will find their content online. The issue becomes extremely difficult. You never really escape pornography once you’ve been part of it. Even if you leave the industry, you’re never fully out of it because your image remains online. It can take many years to recover emotionally and physically.
Many women endure severe physical harm—STIs and injuries to the anus, vagina, and mouth due to the hardcore nature of the acts. What’s interesting is that, in the case of prostitution and trafficking, there are many survivor-led groups helping women exit the industry. This support isn’t as prevalent for women in pornography, and the reason is that these women feel so exposed. They feel vulnerable even after leaving the industry because their images remain there.
Remember, an image on Pornhub can go viral, spreading across all the porn sites, so you never know who has seen it. You never know if the person you meet has seen it, which creates a constant feeling of vulnerability.
Jacobsen: You made an important distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism. Can you clarify that distinction about pornography?
Dines: Yes. The critical distinction is in the ideological framing. Radical feminists were among the first to highlight the violence of pornography—both in terms of the harm to women in the industry and the impact on women in society. Radical feminism grew out of a focus on violence against women. Over time, they recognized that pornography is part of that violence.
Liberal feminism, on the other hand, tends to be more neoliberal, emphasizing individualism. The argument often centers around the idea that “she chose it,” that it’s about sexual agency. But what we know about these women is that this is not a true sexual agency. If anything, it strips them of their sexual agency and does the same to all women. Women often look at pornography to see what they should be doing for the men who consume it. Radical feminists are anti-pornography because they see both its production and consumption as a major form of violence against women, and they understand that it contributes to real-world violence as well.
Jacobsen: What are the industry’s tactics, and how do they compare to those of the tobacco industry?
Dines: The pornography industry employs tactics similar to the tobacco industry, such as bringing in pseudo-academics to argue that there’s no harm, framing research in ways that downplay the issues, and lobbying. The pornography industry has a powerful lobbying arm, much like the tobacco industry did. They know the harm their product causes, but they’re not interested in liberating women from harm—they’re in it to make money.
And so, all predatory industries will do whatever it takes to make money, irrespective of the incredible social impact it will have. The United States is known for not having as strong a FACTED (Family Life and Sexual Health Education) program as Canada. However, Canada, at its best, still has its gaps.
Jacobsen: So, how does pornography act, as you mentioned earlier, as a filler for sex education and a particularly poor one for young people, and potentially for older people?
Dines: Let’s focus on younger people. Developing an interest in sex is a natural part of development, often starting from puberty. But because we don’t have good sex education, the content is outdated and doesn’t speak to the reality that kids live in today. So, where are kids going to turn when they have access to devices and a vast amount of free pornography? Pornography fills that gap, but poorly.
What is needed, and what Culture Reframed provides, is a porn-critical sex education curriculum. If you visit our website, we have a program for high school teachers (and some middle school teachers), which includes PowerPoints and detailed instructions on how to teach it. We don’t show pornography, obviously, but we focus on building porn-resilient young people. Unfortunately, in many cases, sex education isn’t prioritized, and many sex ed teachers aren’t even specialized in the subject.
They might be math or physical education teachers, told a month before, “You’re teaching sex ed.” We frequently hear from people who are unprepared and have no idea where to start. Interestingly, studies show that students immediately pick up on this lack of expertise. Research indicates that students are aware that their sex ed teachers don’t know how to teach the subject, don’t want to do it, and aren’t addressing issues relevant to their lives. As a result, sex education has effectively been handed over to pornographers.
Jacobsen: A question comes to mind. We’ve discussed liberal feminism versus radical feminism in framing the issue. But within radical feminist discourse, are there any internal objections or disagreements on this critical view of pornography?
Dines: Radical feminism tends to agree widely on this topic. Are you asking about internal conflicts?
Jacobsen: Yes, specifically within radical feminism.
Dines: Any disagreements are quite minor, mostly centered on how to define the issue or address it. But there’s a strong, unified belief within radical feminism that pornography is violence against women, both in its production and consumption. We have major arguments with liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, and socialist feminists. We don’t tend to have many internal debates about pornography within radical feminism. However, we do have disagreements on other topics.
Jacobsen: There may be surface-level critiques from traditionalist, conservative, or religious groups that object to pornography on moral grounds, often based on a transcendentalist or ethical view of sin. Yet, they seem to reach a similar conclusion as you do.
Dines: Yes, but the conclusions, although they may appear similar, are quite different. Right-wing moralists are often concerned with what pornography does to the family, particularly how it affects men. They argue that it may cause men to stray or damage family cohesion. Radical feminists, on the other hand, have a critique of the family as the place where women are most at risk, as we know from the evidence. We are concerned with the harm to women, children, and society in general, but our stance is not based on moralism.
We refer to this as a harm-based issue, not a morality-based issue. That’s not to say some right-wing organizations don’t adopt some of our arguments—they do—but the core driving force behind our opposition to pornography is different. They oppose it from a moral perspective; we oppose it because of the real harm it inflicts on individuals and society.
Jacobsen: What would a healthy societal view of sexuality and sex education look like?
Dines: Much of what we’ve built on Culture Reframed is what that should look like, to be honest. A healthy view of sexuality begins with the individual owning their sexuality. It evolves naturally as a person grows. Of course, it’s rooted in equality, consent, non-violence, and genuine connection and intimacy.
This doesn’t mean that sex is only for marriage or long-term relationships, but that there is some level of connection and intimacy involved. That’s what makes sex meaningful in the end. If you don’t know the person you’re having sex with, as is often the case in pornography, you become desensitized. That’s why the industry constantly escalates the content.
If you were to film regular people having sex, most of the time, it would be so dull that you’d fall asleep watching it. The fun and excitement come from actually having sex, not watching it. So, for pornography to hold viewers’ interest, they have to keep ramping up the adrenaline through more intense and bizarre acts.
Jacobsen: Is part of the core issue the dehumanization and depersonalization that comes with pornography? It seems like there’s a disconnection—people go to their computers, consume pornography, and then return to their regular lives as if nothing happened. It’s like their day becomes fragmented and disjointed.
Dines: Absolutely. That’s a great point. There have been studies done on this. One interesting study showed two groups of men: one group watched a regular National Geographic movie, while the other watched pornography. Afterward, they were asked to interview a female candidate for a job, and the chairs were on rollers. The men who had watched pornography kept rolling their chairs closer and closer to the woman. They also found that these men couldn’t remember the woman’s words.
This kind of behaviour shows how pornography impacts the perception of others, particularly women, and how it disrupts their ability to interact meaningfully in real-life situations.
So you’re right. When you think about it, much pornography is consumed at work. Then you leave that cruel world where men are depicted as having every right to women’s bodies and go back to working in a world with women where you don’t have those rights. It’s interesting because we have the #MeToo movement on the one hand, which is crucial for explaining what’s going on. On the other hand, pornography is working against everything the #MeToo movement is trying to say about consent and women’s bodily integrity. Even men’s bodily integrity is compromised in pornography—nobody has bodily integrity.
In pornography, the body is there to be used in any way possible to heighten sexual arousal, usually involving high levels of violence. I haven’t seen many films where this wasn’t the case.
Jacobsen: We’ve already covered building porn resilience in children, or at least how important it is. How far do gender inequality and sexual violence reflect each other in women’s rights movements, particularly within the frame of pornography?
Dines: Let me make sure I understand. You’re asking about the relationship between gender inequality and sexual violence and how this plays out in the context of movements like #MeToo, correct?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Dines: I addressed some of this earlier when I talked about equality in other areas of life and how pornography undermines it. Gender inequality and sexual violence are deeply intertwined. If there were no gender inequality, sexual violence would be unthinkable. Sexual violence is typically used to destroy and control women and to show power and dominance. That’s why we must call it “sexual violence”—because it weaponizes sex against women.
Without gender inequality, this kind of violence wouldn’t even be conceivable. It’s built into the very structure of gender inequality, and in turn, it perpetuates and exacerbates that inequality. It’s a vicious cycle. Gender inequality fuels sexual violence, and sexual violence deepens gender inequality.
Jacobsen: Just to be mindful of that, then. We talked about the psychological impact earlier. What are the similar psychological impacts on boys and girls, rather than the differences?
Dines: Similarities around what, specifically?
Jacobsen: In terms of pornography consumption and its impacts.
Dines: We know very little about girls. There aren’t many studies at all on girls’ exposure to pornography, and, as in many areas, girls and women are often under-researched. One of the few studies by Chyng Sun, Jennifer Johnson, Anna Bridges, and Matt Ezzell does show a few things. Some girls and women go to porn not to masturbate but to see what boys and men are doing, so they can reproduce that behaviour.
They also found that girls and women who become addicted to pornography, similar to men, lose interest in real-world sex, preferring pornography. They become isolated and depressed. So, if they do go down the route of addiction, the impact is quite similar to that on men, except they don’t become violent.
Jacobsen: What are the key points of feminist and anti-pornography activism, particularly in your book Pornland, intersecting with issues of gender, sexuality, and human rights?
Dines: That’s what the whole book is about. Pornland was written to explain the modern-day pornography industry in the age of the internet. People were talking about pornography as if the Internet hadn’t happened. I take a radical feminist perspective, using research to back up the claims and focus on how pornography undermines women’s human rights.
There are chapters addressing racism, showing how women of colour are especially targeted, both for their race and gender. I also discuss how mainstream sites are increasingly making use of images of young-looking women—sometimes they could be children, it’s hard to tell. So, they might be underage or made to look underage.
The main argument is that we live in a world that is completely inundated and infested with pornography. As a sociologist, I’m interested in the sociological impact. I borrow from psychological literature but focus on the macro level. How is pornography not just shifting gender norms but cementing the worst aspects of them? It hasn’t invented misogyny, but it has given it a new twist and continues to reinforce it across various institutions.
Jacobsen: Gail, any final thoughts or feelings based on our conversation today?
Dines: We’ve buried our heads in the sand for too long. For people who weren’t born into the internet age, it’s hard to understand just how much pornography is shaping young people. There’s been a massive dereliction of duty on the part of adults in helping kids navigate this world they’ve been thrown into, often left to sink or swim on their own—and many are sinking. The kids I talk to feel overwhelmed by pornography, and studies back this up. Many wish there were far less of it because they recognize the adverse effect it has on their sexuality, their connections, and their relationships.
So, it’s time we step up and take responsibility as adults.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gail.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/08/24
Thomas Homer-Dixon, one of the world’s foremost social scientists, has spent his career probing the forces that push societies toward crisis and collapse. As director of the Cascade Institute, a Canadian research center dedicated to understanding and mitigating global threats, he applies the lens of complexity science to phenomena such as climate change, economic instability, and political polarization. His work examines how seemingly small shifts in complex systems can unleash outsized consequences, eroding resilience and accelerating humanity’s precarious trajectory.
Homer-Dixon has written extensively on the destabilizing effects of rising authoritarianism, from Donald Trump’s radical influence to the ways artificial intelligence deepens epistemic fragmentation. He has also explored the unsettling possibility that intelligence itself may carry the seeds of self-destruction—yet he remains committed to identifying pathways toward a sustainable future. His research combines scientific rigor with a willingness to engage big, unsettling questions, whether drawing on the Drake Equation or the Peter Principle to illuminate the paradoxes of human progress.
An accomplished author and public intellectual, Homer-Dixon’s work has appeared widely, from academic journals to The Globe and Mail. His insights bridge science, politics, and leadership, offering frameworks for navigating the complex crises of our time. The Guardian has praised him as “one of the most informed and brilliant writers on global affairs today.”
(Open Canada)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m grateful you could join me today—it means a lot. To start us off, how can complexity science help us make sense of immense global challenges like man-made climate change and widespread economic instability, and what tools does it give us to confront them more effectively?
Thomas Homer-Dixon: Right, you’re getting straight to the point. That’s a terrific question.
As most people do, I came to complex systems science somewhat indirectly. However, within my discipline—political science, conflict studies, and international relations—the conventional ways of thinking about causation didn’t help me untangle what was happening in my study areas. They didn’t adequately explain the underlying causal dynamics.
Over about 15 years, I transitioned into complexity science and developed a much clearer understanding.
At its core, complexity science helps us understand non-linear phenomena—situations where relatively small changes in a system, whether in an economy, climate, geopolitical structure, or ecological system, can lead to significant and sometimes unexpected consequences. Conversely, it also helps us understand why, in some cases, considerable interventions appear to have little or no impact.
The proportionality of the relationship between cause and effect in complex systems breaks down. In our everyday world, we think of small changes causing minor effects, small causes having minor effects, and significant modifications producing significant effects. So, there’s a proportionality.
But in complex systems, that breaks down. This means that complex systems—again, we’re talking about everything from ecologies to economies to the climate system to even the way the human brain works—have the capacity to flip from one state to another, from one equilibrium or stability zone to another, often in quite unpredictable ways.
The business of complexity science is identifying the various possible stability zones, what configuration of an economy or a political system will be stable, and what factors can reduce that stability and cause it to flip to another state.
To give a contemporary example, we’ve just seen a flip in the United States political system—a reconfiguration—from one equilibrium to something else yet to be determined. Mr. Trump generates enormous uncertainty, so the nature of that new equilibrium isn’t entirely clear yet. We have some ideas, but that is a classic example of non-linearity.
In an ecological system, a non-linearity would be something like the cod fishery collapse off the east coast of Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That was one of the most productive ecosystems in the world, and it has wholly reconfigured itself. It will never return to its previous level of productivity, which was incredibly abundant in biomass production.
The 2008–2009 financial crisis was another example of non-linearity. Complexity science aims to identify the factors that produce these sudden changes—these flips—and anticipate them. However, the other side of this work is that once we understand those connections and causal relationships better, we may be able to induce changes in a positive direction.
We might be able to cause positive flips—positive in a value sense—good flips instead of bad ones. At the Cascade Institute, we divide our work into two areas. One focuses on anticipating pernicious cascades or harmful non-linearities, and the other on triggering virtuous cascades that benefit humankind. We then drill down in these areas to identify threats and opportunities using complexity science.
Jacobsen: Around the world, ideological polarization seems to be intensifying, not only in the United States during the Trump years but across a range of societies. Complexity science suggests that when several tipping points are reached—whether all at once or in succession—they can unleash powerful non-linear effects. Do you see today’s deepening polarization as one of those moments, where competing ideologies could drive us into a new wave of unpredictable, destabilizing dynamics beyond the recent election?
Homer-Dixon: Yes. So, part of the framing of complexity science—and it’s almost inherent in complexity itself—is the recognition that a lot is happening. Within conventional social science, or even conventional science, there’s a strong emphasis on parsimony—identifying relatively straightforward relationships between causes and effects.
Within complexity science, there’s less emphasis on parsimony. There’s an initial recognition that the world is complex, with numerous factors operating and interacting in ways that are, at least at first, difficult to understand. You won’t develop a good understanding by focusing on single variables or isolated factors. You have to examine multiple elements simultaneously. That is the foundation of all complex systems work.
Frankly, that’s what initially attracted me to complexity science. I was grappling with the broader issue of the relationship between environmental stress and violent conflict. As I studied factors like water scarcity, forest degradation, and soil depletion—and how they interacted with conflict—it became clear that multiple causal pathways were involved. Many interconnected factors had to be taken into account. So, I needed a different framework rather than a simplistic approach that looked at single causes and effects.
That’s the background. Now, you can find more details on polarization on the Cascade Institute website. We have developed a set of hypotheses about the factors driving social polarization and deepening social divisions—factors that are far more complex than standard analyses suggest. We use a four-pathway model to explain polarization. The first pathway consists of economic factors—rising inequality and economic precarity- fueling polarization.
The second pathway involves social and managerial factors, precisely the decreasing capacity of societies to address complex problems. Our technocratic elites and experts are increasingly perceived as incompetent in handling crises, whether related to healthcare, climate change, or managing the pandemic. This leads to a delegitimization of expertise and expert governance—a growing rejection of specialists and institutions.
The third pathway is connected to our information ecosystem—social media, information overload, and how these influence communication. These dynamics amplify emotional negativity, making people more inclined to engage only with those who share their views rather than those who think differently.
The fourth pathway is more fundamental: epistemic fragmentation. People increasingly live in their knowledge bubbles, developing their versions of reality and dismissing alternative perspectives on truth. This fragmentation fuels a breakdown in shared understanding.
We have four distinct pathways and are studying how they interact. These interactions can create precisely what you suggest—tipping points in people’s attitudes.
However, these four pathways can be considered underlying stresses in our social systems. Over time, these economic, managerial, cognitive, informational, and epistemic factors make our social systems less resilient. They make people angrier, more afraid, and more distrustful of institutions.
Many of these changes can occur gradually, but then suddenly, you get a significant event—like the political shift in the United States—where the institutional arrangement of an election triggers a system-wide flip.
The best way to think about these polarization processes is that they have drained resilience from our social systems, making them more vulnerable to abrupt shifts that ultimately harm people. In this case, the flip was an institutional one. However, the long-term changes in people’s attitudes, ideologies, and belief systems haven’t been so much a flip as a gradual erosion of resilience.
That erosion manifests in institutions where a radical right-wing regime comes into power in the United States. This is a clear example of non-linearity—where long-term trends, or stresses, accumulate relatively linearly over time, much like tectonic pressure before an earthquake. Once they reach a certain threshold—bang—you get the quake, and the system flips to another state. In this case, that flip was a shift in control of federal institutions in the United States.
Jacobsen: Let me put this in two parts. First, do you think President Trump will go down as one of the most consequential presidents in American history? Second, there’s now a massive nine-figure investment on the table for artificial intelligence.
AI has moved well past being just a trendy buzzword—it’s become a driving force for high-tech firms, major investors, software development, and breakthrough innovation. Do you see these areas steering the development of AI, or is it more accurate to say that AI will end up reshaping them instead?
Homer-Dixon: Yes, 100%. These are related but distinct questions. Let’s talk about Trump first.
The answer is clearly yes—he is already one of the most consequential presidents in American history, alongside Lincoln and Washington. In a recent piece in The Globe and Mail, I argued that he would also be one of the most consequential figures in human history, and I laid out the reasons for that.
One reason is that he is one of the most influential individuals in the world—perhaps alongside Elon Musk. However, he and many people around him are profoundly ignorant of how global and national systems function, even at a basic level.
For example, he doesn’t understand how tariffs work or their economic consequences. That ignorance is deeply consequential because there will be moments when deep system knowledge and strategic intelligence are needed to navigate an acute crisis.
I often point to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example. He surrounded himself with top experts, forming what he called ExComm, the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, to carefully think through the U.S. response to the Soviet placement of nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba.
I can’t imagine Trump doing anything remotely similar. He has surrounded himself with individuals who are radically ill-equipped to manage the complex systems they now control.
They have their hands on the levers of these systems, yet they are radically ill-equipped to know how to position those levers effectively. So, that’s point one.
Point two is that Trump’s relationship with his followers drives him in a more radical direction. I won’t go into all the details, but if he fails to implement his agenda, he will become more radical, not less. He will seek out more enemies, attempt to attack them, and crush and destroy both perceived enemies within the United States and those outside it.
Point three is that multiple global systems—climate, geopolitical structures, and more—are already highly stressed and near tipping points. Trump could push them past those thresholds in various ways. One prominent example is climate change. He is actively rolling back climate action.
Essentially, his policies amount to humankind giving up on addressing the climate crisis. That alone could change the trajectory of human history and civilization.
If he escalates tensions into a nuclear conflict, which his actions significantly increase the risk of, that too would mark a defining inflection point for humankind. So, when you take these three factors together—his radicalization, the fragility of global systems, and the existential risks he exacerbates—Trump is among the most consequential figures in human history.
That’s a controversial position, but it was interesting to see the response to my article, published three days before his inauguration; three weeks later, people are already reassessing and saying, “No, that view wasn’t exaggerated.”
Now, on artificial intelligence, which is equally relevant, AI dramatically accelerates what we call epistemic fragmentation. It enables the creation of multiple contradictory realities and allows for the substantiation of false narratives. People can manufacture evidence at will using AI, making it difficult—if not impossible—to discern whether information has any real-world grounding.
This is all part of the more significant shift toward anti-realism. Increasingly, people live in massively multiplayer game-like realities, and AI enhances the ability to generate convincing but completely false realities. Worse, these fabricated narratives can be weaponized against groups or political opponents.
So, regarding your point on AI, I am deeply concerned. I have been in contact with many experts who are central to this debate and the development of AI itself. One of the fundamental issues with our world today is that we don’t know. Due to the inherent complexity of our systems, we are witnessing an explosion in possible futures.
Take, for example, DeepSeek, a breakthrough that dramatically changed AI energy consumption estimates overnight. We previously assumed AI required massive energy and material inputs into server farms, but suddenly, DeepSea cut those estimates by 90%.
Yet, despite these developments, we don’t fully understand the pathways AI will take. There are still enormous unknowns across technological, political, and social dimensions. This uncertainty offers some potential for hope. Within that very uncertainty, there will be positive outcomes—opportunities we can’t see yet, even from AI.
However, I am profoundly concerned about AI’s ability to exacerbate epistemic fragmentation, further entrenching the creation of multiple conflicting realities. These alternative realities will not only shape the way people see the world but will also be weaponized against one another. AI is likely to worsen polarization rather than help us overcome it.
Jacobsen: Your comments call to mind the perspectives of two intellectual figures who represent strikingly different traditions of thought—Margaret Atwood, the Canadian novelist, and Noam Chomsky, the American linguist. Each has reflected on the relationship between ignorance and intelligence, and Atwood once distilled her view with a stark observation: “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results.”
Homer-Dixon: That’s very good. That’s true.
Jacobsen: I’ve been thinking about the points you’ve made so far, and they bring me back to a question that Chomsky once raised—though it actually traces to Ernst Mayr. He suggested that “intelligence is a kind of lethal mutation.” It’s an unsettling thought when you consider that beetles and bacteria are thriving quite well without it. So when we look at AI and its implications, the question still lingers: could intelligence itself prove to be a lethal mutation?
Homer-Dixon: Yes, we are modifying our environment to such an extent that we may ultimately cause extinction. You’ve encountered this in your discussions—the famous estimate regarding the longevity of intelligent life in the universe, which is embedded in the Drake Equation.
Frank Drake was the head of SETI—the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. I once visited the SETI offices in the Bay Area. At least at one point, Drake had a custom license plate that read something like “IL = L,” “Intelligent Life = Longevity.”
In his equation, Drake included a series of factors that could contribute to the development of life: the size of planets, their distance from their stars, whether water exists on Earth, and other standard variables.
But the final factor, L, stood for longevity—essentially, the question of whether intelligent life would survive long enough to reach a stable and enduring state. That factor dominated everything else for him because intelligence might ultimately destroy itself.
I don’t think they are.
Human beings—and this is where I have a soft spot for accelerationism, people like Thiel and Musk—are extraordinarily creative, especially in moments of crisis and extreme stress. Things don’t look real right now, particularly existential problems like climate change.
The Peter Principle by Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull was published in 1969.
The basic idea is that within bureaucracies and organizations, people get promoted to their level of incompetence—they rise until they reach a position where they can no longer do their job effectively, and then they stop advancing.
What we may be witnessing with problems like climate change is that humanity has reached its level of incompetence. We have solved everything up to this point. Still, eventually, we will face a challenge too complex to overcome.
It’s an open question.
I’m not prepared to count humankind out yet. I have two kids—one is 19, the other 16—and they are very worried. But I keep returning to this: the world is so complex that we don’t know its game.
There may be an explosion of possibilities, but we can’t see the adjacent possible. These could be technological, institutional, ideological, or belief-system shifts. We don’t know. That is precisely why the Cascade Institute exists. We are trying to identify those possibilities and which ones can be leveraged.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. It was nice to meet you.
Homer-Dixon: Great questions.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/08/19
Alexander Hinton is a distinguished professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights. A UNESCO Chair on Genocide Prevention, he is a leading scholar of political violence, white nationalism, and atrocity crimes.
In It Can Happen Here, Hinton traces the continuity of white power movements in the United States and situates them in global patterns. He shows how grievance, demagogic rhetoric, and social-media ecosystems mobilize fear, draws resonances with Nazi propaganda and other extremist ideologies, and warns of democratic backsliding. His earlier book, Why Did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide probes the historical roots of extremism and structural racism.
Hinton earned his Ph.D. from Emory University in 1997 and lectures internationally. Professor Hinton, thanks for joining us today.
(FORSEA)
Alexander Hinton: Thank you so much. It’s a pleasure to meet you as well.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you map the evolution of white nationalism in the United States, what through-lines stand out? Today it sits at the center of cultural and political debate, even though it hasn’t always been named as such.
Hinton: Yes. The context depends on where we are in the world, as historical connections and interactions exist. One example is Nazi Germany, where ideas moved back and forth, influencing white supremacist ideology.
More recently, in relation to my book It Can Happen Here, I testified at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia. This UN-backed hybrid tribunal consists of both UN and Cambodian personnel. I testified there in 2016, around the same time that Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, was running for office. Much of his rhetoric echoed themes I write and teach about.
I am not suggesting that Trump was comparable to Pol Pot or Hitler in any way. However, his rhetoric—including dehumanization, references to enemy invaders, and discussions of migrant caravans—is part of a historical pattern. These narratives frequently appear in contexts of mass violence, genocide, and atrocity crimes. Recognizing this, I thought, “This is something to watch closely.”
At the same time, many people were making the false equivalence of claiming that “Trump is Hitler.” At one point, this was a viral meme while I was testifying. These discussions were circulating widely, and I was already working on a book about my experiences at the tribunal, which later became Anthropological Witness.
Of course, Trump won the election. We entered what I refer to as Trump 1.0, followed by events such as Charlottesville and the Unite the Right rally in 2017. That rally was a turning point in public perception. Richard Spencer’s “Heil Trump” salute was widely seen, and people began to recognize that elements of the white power movement had gained visibility within his support base.
During Trump 1.0, most of his supporters tended to be older, white, religious, and less formally educated. It is always important to specify formal education because education exists in different forms, but this was a demographic where he had substantial support.
He also received backing from figures such as David Duke, though it is crucial to clarify that this was not the core of his support. However, the white nationalist element was present. This became undeniable in Charlottesville, where marchers chanted, “Jews will not replace us” and “You will not replace us.”
These streets—whose streets? Our streets. But the discourse of “Jews will not replace us” caught everyone’s attention at the time. It was a while back.
Some people may not even know about it at this point. Still, it was certainly an international event as well as a domestic one. A series of white power shootings then followed that.
We had Robert Bowers and the Tree of Life synagogue attack. We had the Walmart shooting in El Paso. There was one in Southern California. Moving forward into the present, we had the Buffalo Tops shooting. Suddenly, there were multiple attacks. Bowers’ shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, in particular, drew much attention.
So, I decided to take a deep dive into my book, It Can Happen Here, which argued that what many saw as a spectacular aberration—embodied by Trump 1.0 and Donald Trump—was, in fact, not at all discontinuous with U.S. history. I don’t go into this in great detail, but obviously, it also ties into global history.
The first part of the book traces the history of white power in the U.S., going back to the founding of the country and, moving forward, examining how systemic white supremacy has operated.
Later, I wrote an article discussing one way to conceptualize this history: through the lens of micro-totalitarianism. This framework helps capture the reality that while the U.S. has functioned as a democracy for a significant portion of its population, within that same system, there have been people who have lived under conditions resembling totalitarian rule.
For example, enslaved peoples—and later, Black Americans during Jim Crow—experienced a level of control over their lives that mirrored regimes like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The state and local authorities exercised overwhelming power over what individuals could say, do, think, and learn.
The book’s argument is that it can happen here. It has happened here. Can it happen again?
Of course, it can happen again.
If you think about it, only in the 1960s did the U.S. begin to break away from predominantly white power structures. Of course, the U.S. is not a monolith—there is a great deal of variation within it. However, the civil rights movement ruptured this historical pattern. Ironically, some gains from that era are now under attack in the U.S.
The vast majority of U.S. history has been characterized by white power and white supremacy. If you visualize it on a timeline stretching from Jamestown in the early 1600s to the present, the overwhelming portion of that history consists of enslavement, the dispossession of Native American peoples, and systemic racial injustice.
I emphasize that acknowledging history means looking within ourselves. All of us have good aspects and flawed aspects. The U.S. has achieved many great things, but there is also a shadow side.
To invoke Carl Jung, we all have a shadow, and nations do as well. One of the most disconcerting and bizarre arguments I’ve encountered is that we should ignore or avoid engaging with this side of history. However, just as an individual’s healthy growth requires acknowledging their strengths and flaws, nations must do the same to move forward.
This debate continues to play out in the U.S. today.
It was interesting, coincidentally, to see Elon Musk recently argue that Germany should forget about the past. The argument that people should not feel guilty or personally responsible as a major part of their lives makes sense. However, the idea that we should ignore the fact that certain groups have been dispossessed—while attempting to remedy past abuses without placing blame—is more complicated.
In the U.S., much of this has played out with younger white male voters. That is a longer discussion. But ultimately, we have to confront the shadow side of history. To answer your question, yes, this has been a reality in the U.S. for most of its history. While some aspects remain interwoven with society today, things are much better than 40 or 50 years ago.
Trump is not an exception. He is certainly spectacular because he knows how to control a crowd and command attention. However, what he represents is not a break from U.S. history—it is continuous with it.
Member of the Proud Boys protesting in North Carolina. (Anthony Crider)
Jacobsen: In your view, how does political rhetoric—the themes you’ve outlined—work to legitimize white-nationalist movements and animate what you call their Jungian “shadow sides,” bringing once-fringe ideas into mainstream conversation?
Hinton: Yes, that is an interesting question. Of course, this is obvious, but it bears repeating: the advent of social media and global interconnection has amplified and accelerated ideas that existed long before.
White power groups were among the first users of the Internet, and many people are unaware of this. They made global connections early on and were well-positioned by the time we entered the smartphone era, starting with the iPhone in 2007, which brought massive changes.
The reason I mention this is that we now have different ideological “bubbles”—though “silos” might be a more accurate term—where communities gather and reinforce one another’s views. One well-known example is 4chan, a notorious hub for white power extremists.
These groups develop their own coded language and references, and we often see ideas move from these underground spaces into mainstream discourse. A clear example is how language from platforms like 4chan, Telegram, and Gab gradually surfaced on larger platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter).
For instance, during the last election cycle, there was a JD Vance “pedophiles” trope that emerged. That narrative originated in extremist circles on 4chan and Telegram before surfacing in public demonstrations—such as marches in Springfield—where it gained visibility. Eventually, it bubbled up into mainstream conservative discourse, reaching figures like JD Vance himself.
This phenomenon is tied to a broader strategy within far-right and white power extremist circles: shifting the Overton Window. The Overton Window refers to the ideas considered acceptable in mainstream discourse. Over time, what was once considered fringe or extremist can become normalized through repeated exposure.
Much of the rhetoric that is now common in political discourse—including on platforms like X—was once confined to far-right extremist spaces. Elon Musk, for example, frequently tweets narratives that align with these ideas.
Take the concept of the “Great Replacement.” It has been phrased in different ways, but at its core, it suggests that non-white immigrants are intentionally replacing white Christians in the U.S. There is a factual element in the sense that demographics in the U.S. are changing, and the white population is projected to lose its majority in the next 20 to 30 years.
However, in extremist circles, this demographic shift is framed as intentional—as if there is a coordinated effort behind it. That naturally leads to the question: Who is orchestrating this?
At the mainstream conservative level, the answer tends to be “Democrats.” But within white power extremist discourse—going back to Charlottesville and earlier—the belief is that Jews are orchestrating it.
Everything ties into the belief that there is a plot to subvert white power and ultimately destroy white people. This brings us to the idea of white genocide, which predates much of the recent discourse.
In 2015, during the European immigration crisis, we began to see the widespread circulation of replacement theory narratives. This rhetoric was later imported into the U.S. Still, the underlying trope had been there long before in the form of the white genocide theory.
By the time we get to Robert Bowers, the perpetrator of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, he has fully embraced this ideology. His motivation was the belief that Jews were helping immigrants “pour into” the U.S. That was his key justification.
On his Gab homepage—a far-right extremist platform with strong Christian nationalist leanings—Bowers had several disturbing elements. Among them was an image of a radar gun, which prominently displayed the number 1488.
At first, this number might seem odd, but once you examine its symbolism, a pattern emerges. 1488 is a combination of two elements: 14 Words – A white supremacist slogan coined by David Lane, a member of The Order, a white nationalist terrorist group from the 1980s. 88 – A reference to “Heil Hitler” (H being the eighth letter of the alphabet).
The Turner Diaries deeply influenced the Order itself. This novel has been called the “bible” of white supremacy. The book tells the story of white people rising against what they see as an existential threat, forming a group called The Order to eliminate non-whites and so-called “race traitors.”
This novel inspired real-world actions. The actual Order, a violent extremist group, emerged in the 1980s, robbing banks and engaging in other criminal activities to fund their white nationalist cause. There was even a film adaptation of The Turner Diaries released at the end of 2024.
David Lane, one of The Order’s members, was arrested and imprisoned, where he later wrote the White Genocide Manifesto. In this document, he ends with 14 Words, which I will not repeat here, but the essence is a call to protect white children from what he describes as a nefarious plot to wipe out the white race.
So, when Bowers displayed 1488 on his Gab profile, he was signalling deep ideological alignment with this extremist lineage. This illustrates the connection between extremism and political discourse.
What has happened in recent years—intentionally—is that far-right groups have sought to mainstream these ideas. This includes groups one step removed from the “hard” far-right, such as the so-called alt-right, which gained visibility during the Charlottesville rally.
The alt-right has heavily promoted the idea of metapolitics, which argues that the battle is not fought through physical violence but through the control of hearts and minds. This is where cultural narratives come into play.
A major talking point within these circles is cultural Marxism. This conspiracy theory claims that Jewish intellectuals from the Frankfurt School came to the U.S. with the intent of brainwashing the population. This theory, like many far-right narratives, often ties back to anti-Semitic tropes about Jews orchestrating societal change.
The goal of these extremists is to shift the Overton Window—the range of socially acceptable discourse—by normalizing once-fringe ideas.
This tactic has been highly effective. Using humour, irony, and gradual exposure, ideas once confined to extremist circles have entered the mainstream discussion.
For example, replacement theory, which was once framed explicitly as white genocide, has now been repackaged and is widely discussed. The core idea remains the same, but the language has been adapted to make it more palatable for broader audiences.
I can go to Telegram right now and find videos of far-right extremist groups protesting immigrants in hotels. There is one group, in particular, I am thinking of that carries signs explicitly referencing “replacement.”
At the same time, this rhetoric appears at the highest levels of government. JD Vance, for example, has alluded to the idea of “Haitian immigrant invaders.” He did not explicitly use the term “replacement.” Still, his language framed these immigrants as savages—suggesting that they eat pets, that they do not understand American customs, and that they do not belong. The implication was clear: they are not fully human.
We have seen this kind of rhetoric before and know where it leads. While Vance himself may not have made direct connections to white nationalist narratives, far-right extremist groups certainly did. They took his remarks and amplified them within their communities.
This is part of a broader strategy. By shifting the Overton Window, you gradually make formerly unacceptable ideas more mainstream. From the perspective of these groups, that is how you advance your cause.
William Luther Pierce, author of ‘The Turner Diaries,’ pictured in 2001. (Wikimedia)
Jacobsen: We’ve covered history and ideology, but what about risk factors? Given today’s rhetoric and the broader ideological climate, how likely is it that this discourse escalates—not merely into mass protests, a constitutionally protected right in the United States—but into targeted intimidation, violence, vandalism, destruction of property, or Americans doing harm to other Americans?
Hinton: That is a great question; the answer depends on when you ask it.
If you had asked in 2020, in the lead-up to the Biden-Trump election, the warning signs would have been there.
For those of us who study atrocity crimes—a term encompassing genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, as well as broader political violence—many indicators of potential mass violence were present.
At that time, the U.S. was experiencing: a global pandemic created instability, an economic crisis further fueled public unrest, and the mobilization of heavily armed far-right groups.
One key catalyst for political violence around the world is a contested election. Historically, contested elections frequently lead to violence, especially in fragile or polarized democracies.
Two of the biggest risk factors that can escalate political violence into crimes against humanity are: a contested election—which we had in 2020, and democratic backsliding also occurred at the time.
Authoritarian regimes tend to be more stable in this regard—unless they deliberately target specific groups. However, democracies are not immune. Suppose you look at the historical treatment of Indigenous peoples in the U.S., for example. In that case, you see state-backed violence occurring within a democratic framework.
The greatest instability occurs when a country moves between political systems—either sliding into authoritarianism or undergoing democratic reform. In 2020, the U.S. experienced significant democratic backsliding, which heightened the risk of political violence.
At that time, I wondered: What if Trump had not been banned from Twitter? Before the January 6th insurrection, Twitter was his primary tool of communication. When the platform removed him, he temporarily lost his direct channel to millions of supporters. There was no Truth Social then, so his ability to escalate tensions was reduced.
I wrote about this in an article for Project Syndicate, analyzing the high potential for violence at that moment. And indeed, we saw January 6th unfold—a violent attempt to overturn a democratic election.
Fast forward to 2020—isolated attacks by mass shooters were, and still are a reality. Undoubtedly, such attacks will continue, even though the U.S. government has ramped up efforts to combat them. However, I expect that response to diminish under Trump 2.0—but that is a different discussion.
During the last election cycle, there was renewed concern about election-related violence and the potential for political conflict. The movie Civil War was widely discussed in this context, and multiple think tanks conducted war game simulations to explore possible crisis scenarios in the U.S.
The potential for unrest was real—not necessarily large-scale mass violence, but certainly protests, civil strife, and individual acts of violence. But then the election happened.
Democrats hesitate to call it a blowout, but that is essentially what it was. While the Republican candidate did not win most of the popular vote, that did not matter—he won all the battleground states. He made massive inroads with nearly every demographic.
Some key numbers: He secured most of the Latino vote, especially among Latino men—around 56-58%. There was a major swing among young white voters. His base expanded, even though his core support remained the same.
This time, the opposition was defeated and unable to regroup significantly—at least for now. That will likely change over time. The primary mobilization against his policies has been through court cases, which are currently the most effective avenue for opposition.
However, the Democratic Party lacks a clear message. They are struggling to articulate a compelling narrative after what happened. One key shift has been in rhetoric around race.
For many conservatives, being called a racist was one of the most politically damaging accusations. That label stung, and it became a unifying grievance among MAGA supporters.
Having attended MAGA events and read numerous MAGA-related books, I can confirm that this sentiment frequently arises. At rallies, Steve Bannon and others openly dismiss accusations of racism, saying things like, “They can call us racist or not racist—who cares?”
The Republicans, using the metapolitics strategy, leveraged this effectively. They weaponized cultural issues, including wokeness and critical race theory, and launched a devastating political attack against Democrats.
When they folded trans issues into this broader critique, it created even greater challenges for the Democrats.
At the same time, inflation and immigration became major voter concerns. The immigration issue, in particular, had shifted geographically—it was no longer perceived as a crisis only at the southern border. Instead, the impact was being felt in cities, including places like New York, where I live.
The rhetoric around immigration shifted from policy to economic resentment: “why are we giving money to immigrants when we need it here?” and “crime is increasing because of immigration.”
This bread-and-butter combination of economic and immigration concerns was a major factor.
However, what consistently received the loudest applause at MAGA rallies—which I attended as a researcher—were statements about “woke” issues, particularly trans rights.
This became a huge political problem for the Democrats.
One of the major strategic shifts within the Democratic Party over recent years has been a greater focus on identity politics. However, that strategy backfired in this election. Now, the question is: What happens next?
Will Democrats return to their working-class roots? That remains to be seen. Of course, they will continue to advocate for the rights of people of colour and marginalized groups, but the political landscape has shifted.
In many ways, Democrats now face the same kind of political tarnishing that Trump supporters once experienced.
So, there we are. I mention this because there is no immediate threat that Trump needs to deal with—he is in total control. He is sailing along, calling this the golden age, as he puts it.
He says there is now a “light” over the United States and the world because he holds power. So, this is the political reality at the moment.
The risks, aside from mass deportations, include sending people to Guantanamo Bay, detaining individuals in handcuffs, and various other abuses that, according to reports, are already unfolding.
To recap, I explained that this is not a static issue—you have to look at it over time because the situation constantly evolves.
It depends on the context. In 2020, we had one scenario and in the 2024 election, we had another.
However, the threat of election-related violence is now lower—primarily because Trump has consolidated power. He has also expanded his base by adopting a broad anti-DEI, anti-woke, American Marxist discourse, which has politically damaged the Democrats.
As a result, the Democratic Party is in a weakened position. They lack a clear message and are still trying to recalibrate. This means there is no real opposition right now.
There is always the possibility of white power extremist attacks or isolated incidents. Still, there is not much concern in terms of a civil war or large-scale protests escalating into violence.
However, looking ahead to 2028, the situation is far less predictable.
As I mentioned, politics is fluid—things change depending on unforeseen events. We cannot predict the future, but we can anticipate potential risk scenarios: a contested election in which Trump remains in power, but a Democrat appears to have clearly won led to actions that impede a peaceful transfer of power. Trump is running as J.D. Vance’s vice president, mimicking Putin’s political model in Russia.
I do not think that Trump will attempt to secure a third term, as some fear. However, the broader concern remains: what happens during the next power transfer? That is where things could get ugly.
So, in response to your question, I expect more episodic violence, rather than sustained, large-scale unrest. Regarding systemic issues, we will have to monitor the ongoing mass deportations, which have already begun and are expected to escalate.
But here is the key point: Trump’s opposition is now significantly weaker.
It is difficult for his critics to label him and his supporters as “racist” when he has just won the majority of Latino voters. That fact alone diminishes the credibility of those attacks.
With no strong opposition, we will unlikely see any major upheaval soon.
Jacobsen: You’ve described how social media and digital platforms have widened the reach of white-nationalist rhetoric, white identity, and related discourse. For this conversation, I want to draw a clear line between two groups: first, people who regard “white identity” as a cultural descriptor—say, someone of French or Dutch ancestry who values French or Dutch traditions; second, those who adopt a race-based, identitarian political ideology, which is qualitatively different from the first.
These are distinct categories and deserve different analyses. With that distinction in mind, how do social platforms and the broader online ecosystem—recommendation engines, engagement incentives, monetization schemes, influencer networks, and moderation gaps—amplify white-nationalist ideas, shuttle conspiracy theories into wider circulation, and accelerate the slide from cultural identity talk into overt political extremism?
Hinton: Massively.
That is the one-word answer.
This is the “secret sauce,” so to speak. And it goes far beyond white nationalism—it applies to everything.
Rumors spread rapidly.
For example, there have been cases where false rumors involving Dogecoin (Doge), USAID, or other topics have spiked online, gaining momentum even though they are completely untrue.
People exist in silos, where they consume headline-driven information without fact-checking sources. These narratives spread like wildfire, sometimes being deliberately planted by populists and at other times being adopted and amplified by populists after they gain traction.
So, where are people gathering now?
Many left-leaning users have migrated to Bluesky, which means that X (formerly Twitter) has shifted further to the far right than it was before.
I used to have to go to Telegram to find certain extremist content. Now, I can find it quite easily on X—sometimes even amplified directly by Elon Musk himself.
For example, the South African “white genocide” narrative has resurfaced recently. That was a controversial talking point during Trump 1.0, but today, it is not controversial.
Why? Because the Overton Window has shifted, and there is no significant opposition to it. So yes, your question speaks to a larger issue—the question of information consumption.
Where do people get their information?
One of the educators’ main objectives is teaching media literacy. Education should never be about promoting a left-wing, right-wing, or centrist agenda—it should be about teaching people how to critically evaluate sources and information. It should be centered on critical thinking, allowing people to apply it in whatever way they choose.
One way to foster critical thinking is to encourage students to evaluate their news sources and ensure that their media diet is not one-sided.
For example, I always tell my students: I read The New York Times, but I also read The Wall Street Journal. Use platforms like Tangle or similar aggregators that present what the left and the right are saying about a given issue.
I have contributed to The Conversation in some of my more recent public-facing writing. This academic platform makes research accessible.
I also make an effort to explain the perspectives of the MAGA world to people on the left, who often do not fully understand it and tend to reduce it to a simple narrative of fascist authoritarianism. Ironically, in the MAGAverse, many people mirror this perspective—except they believe there is an impending takeover by authoritarian Marxists.
Both sides are locked into these narratives. This kind of binary thinking happens all the time. Each side sees itself as resisting authoritarianism and gravitates toward easy explanations.
This division is particularly evident when comparing platforms: Bluesky vs. X (Twitter)—two completely different realities. Many groups use Telegram, but it is frequently associated with fringe ideologies. Truth Social—a political echo chamber.
We are increasingly living in bubbles.
For educators, the key challenge is teaching students not to take everything at face value: just because you see something on TikTok, it does not mean it is the news. Do not immediately retweet something without questioning it. Always be critical, think twice, and examine different perspectives.
Because, in reality, things are never as simple as one-line answers make them seem.
This ties back to an earlier point about how the left often characterizes the MAGA world as racist—just as MAGA supporters frequently label the left as radical Marxists.
Both of these are caricatures—stereotypes that obscure reality. It is easy to define the other side with a one-word smear. Taking a deep dive, analyzing the issues critically, and engaging with nuance is much harder.
That kind of deep thinking is challenging for many people. Now, that is not to say the words racist or Marxist should never be used. However, people should apply critical thinking when using them.
One final point—when people use words like racist or hater, they individualize the issue. This shifts attention away from the larger historical and systemic problems. For example: saying “structural racism” focuses on systems and institutions. Saying “a racist” focuses on an individual’s character.
However, individuals are raised within these larger social structures, and people need to think critically about this. This applies to both sides because it is part of how human beings understand the world.
The philosopher Theodor Adorno, a member of the Frankfurt School, described this as reification—or “thingification.” This is when we reduce complex social realities to fixed, simplistic categories.
The goal of critical thinking is to resist this tendency, unpack complexity, and move beyond surface-level labels.
Jacobsen: How do white nationalism and other far-right movements in the United States and Europe compare with parallel extremist ideologies—Islamist militancy, Hindu ethnonationalism, and beyond? Where do their logics overlap—in recruitment, grievance, mythmaking—and where do they distinctly diverge?
Hinton: Yes. So, you are asking an anthropologist—which makes this a tricky question.
Anthropologists emphasize the importance of understanding historical and cultural contexts in depth. Because of that, I do not want to dive too deeply into contexts outside my expertise; I will stick to the ones I know best.
That said, I study these movements comparatively and examine their larger macro-dynamics. There are many continuities between them.
For example, the “replacement” discourse we discussed earlier does not exist solely in the United States and Europe. It also manifests in India.
The notion that an external or internal group is “invading” and threatening to take over is widespread. This fear-based formula appears in many societies.
Recently, I was re-reading for my classes about Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels, among other Nazi leaders. While imprisoned, Göring was interviewed by a psychologist, who asked him about the past and how things had unfolded in Nazi Germany.
Göring’s response was striking: he said that people do not naturally want war. But if you tell them there is an evil enemy—one that is threatening society, contaminating the nation, or destroying its values—Then they will go to war.
This logic is deeply effective and has been used across history.
Of course, it is not the entire story. Still, mobilizing grievance and fear—whether about “outsiders” or even “insiders” who are framed as existential threats—is a universal tactic in extremist movements. One case that is slightly different in South Africa.
The history of colonialism and land ownership creates a unique dynamic. Unlike in replacement narratives, where the fear is about “invaders,” the tension in South Africa is framed differently.
The Black African majority is reclaiming land that was historically taken. The white minority, which still owns significant land, perceives this as an existential threat.
That is where the conflict emerges. It is not about outsiders coming in—instead, the perception is that the existing population is being “targeted” for destruction.
This is why Elon Musk recently tweeted about a rally in South Africa where someone called for action against white landowners.
The reality is that white South Africans still own vast amounts of land. However, the far-right framing of this situation revives the “white genocide” narrative.
This same existential fear—the idea that “they want to destroy us”—exists in many different extremist movements. It is a deeply resonant message for people who feel their identity, culture, or way of life is under siege.
Earlier today, while preparing for my class, I reflected on Göring’s words. His strategy was simple: Make people afraid. Tell them there is an enemy. They will go to war for you.
This pattern repeats across history—and we continue to see it today.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for the opportunity. It was great to meet you.
Hinton: Yes, great. I hope this discussion was helpful. Thanks for your interest.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ritual Killing in Africa
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
How can Nigeria’s legal system be strengthened to effectively prosecute witchcraft-related abuses?
Dr. Leo Igwe is a Nigerian human rights advocate, scholar, and founder of the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW). With decades of activism, Igwe has dedicated his career to defending those falsely accused of witchcraft, combating superstition, and advancing secular human rights. He has partnered with international and national organizations to confront harmful practices rooted in fear and cultural beliefs, particularly targeting women, children, and people with disabilities. A vocal critic of religious extremism and media sensationalism, Igwe promotes critical thinking, education, and legal reform. His work stands at the intersection of grassroots advocacy, public enlightenment, and global humanism.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Igwe intensified campaigns across Nigeria in 2025 to defend victims of witchcraft accusations. Through unprecedented collaborations with organizations such as the International Federation of Women Lawyers, the National Human Rights Commission, and disability rights groups, AfAW has expanded its outreach to over 15 states. Initiatives include memorial events, legal interventions, media engagement, and direct support for victims. Despite cultural and religious resistance, Igwe emphasizes that witchcraft is a myth, urging communities to shift from fear-driven persecution to rights-based advocacy. His work highlights growing momentum, though challenges remain entrenched.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the prolific activist, Dr. Leo Igwe of Nigeria, founder of the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW). Our primary focus is advocacy for people accused of witchcraft. A lot has happened this year, and we can dive into some specific events because I have notes. In your view, what have been the most significant achievements so far?
Dr. Leo Igwe: One of the most significant developments this year is that we have organized more meetings and awareness programs than in any previous year since 2020. Even as I speak with you, I am in Port Harcourt, in Rivers State, where we are organizing an awareness event—an event to remember victims of witch hunts and ritual attacks. It is the first of its kind in the country and in the history of our campaign: victims are being remembered rather than demonized.
These victims are not being pre-judged as guilty or condemned. There has also been considerable interest from groups wanting to partner with us. We have seen unprecedented requests and welcoming gestures from different organizations and civil society groups. For instance, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA)—several state chapters—has reached out to co-organize events. Historically, their focus has been on women and children, and accusations of witchcraft were not central; that is changing as AfAW’s work gains traction.
We have also engaged with the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria (NHRC). Nigeria has 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja), and some NHRC state offices are reaching out to co-organize events like the one we are holding on Saturday. They are ready to collaborate to highlight these abuses.
The Down Syndrome Foundation Nigeria has also contacted us to partner. They work on disability issues. Unfortunately, people with disabilities are often stigmatized or labelled as “possessed,” which leads to ostracism and harmful so-called “spiritual” interventions.
A recent example that drew national attention was a reported case in Calabar in February 2025, where a pastor allegedly killed his daughter, a child with Down syndrome, claiming she could transform into a snake. Cases like this show how superstition and stigma can turn deadly, and we are working with disability advocates to confront these beliefs and protect vulnerable families.
In terms of people who are accused, demonized, or stigmatized—whether because of disability or because of problems within the community—this has been a significant focus this year. We have now organized or collaborated in organizing events in over 15 states across Nigeria. By next week, we are planning an event in Niger State, in the north of the country. That will be the first event we have organized there, and we hope to use the opportunity to strengthen our partnerships with local groups and build a more robust mechanism for defending the accused.
That said, these collaborations do not come without challenges. For instance, in Niger State, we are partnering with women’s rights and children’s rights groups. They told us they would prefer not to have accused persons present, because their presence might trigger confrontation with accusers or with those who suspect them of being witches. This has been difficult, but we see it as a step toward educating people that everyone should stand as an advocate for the accused.
Many people still hold on to those beliefs and fears, even while showing some sympathy for the accused. However, sympathy is not enough. The accused are innocent. The law is on their side. So we want to find ways to reduce fear and anxiety and encourage communities to join us in openly and categorically supporting those accused of witchcraft.
Our meetings are not always characterized by unanimous support for advocacy on behalf of alleged witches. Sometimes, participants insist that witchcraft oppression is real. For example, at a recent meeting in Owerri, a pastor argued that witchcraft affliction must be addressed.
This is the contradiction we face. People say they oppose torture, killing, and persecution, but at the same time, they continue to insist witches exist. For us at AfAW, this is contradictory. If anyone claims people really are witches, then the burden is on them to prove it—to vindicate or exonerate those accused, rather than subject them to persecution.
Religion and culture also reinforce these challenges. Christianity, Islam, and Nollywood movies all perpetuate the belief that witchcraft and demonic possession are real. These institutions and cultural products continue to fuel the mindset that sustains witchcraft accusations.
In the churches and in the mosques, these harmful ideas are still being promoted. We are working to weaken the grip of these narratives on people’s minds and to chip away at what I call “witchcraft evangelism.” It does enormous damage and undermines our work. We also want people to recognize that Nollywood films and African movies are fiction, not fact.
The filmmakers reflect the myths and beliefs of society, but they are still telling stories, not recording reality. We want to help reorient society so that these movies are understood as cultural fiction. These are some of our successes, but also some of our challenges. Still, we see steady progress as more people begin to realize that something does not add up when it comes to witchcraft accusations. More groups are welcoming us and reaching out to cooperate, so that together we can address and dispel this phenomenon.
Jacobsen: Now, about specifics, in Owerri, Imo State, on September 2–3, we observed the International Day Against Witch Hunts. That was an event reaffirming material and psychosocial support. What was the big takeaway from that event this year?
Igwe: A lot. In Owerri, for the first time, we marched through the streets of the city, sharing flyers and speaking with people about the problem. We also visited the palace of the traditional ruler, Eze Clinton, who received us warmly and pledged his support to our campaign. That was an important milestone.
Another highlight was a presentation by our legal counsel, Mr. Okorie, on witchcraft accusations and the law. In Nigeria, accusing someone of witchcraft is a criminal offence. It is a form of criminal defamation, but most Nigerians are unaware of this—or if they are, they do not take it seriously, because their beliefs often outweigh what is written in the law. Mr. Okorie made it clear that even calling someone a witch can lead to prosecution. If this is done in a church or public gathering, the entire act is criminal.
He gave the example of a crusade organized in Imo State shortly after our event. The theme was “That Witch Must Die.” We reported it to the police, who summoned the pastor, but unfortunately did not prosecute him. Mr. Okorie explained to our participants that such gatherings are legally actionable, and anyone who participates in them could also be held liable. His legal perspective shocked many people, as they were unaware that the law was so clear on this matter.
We also had some victims from different communities share their experiences, which reinforced the urgency of our campaign.
We also heard from victims who recounted their stories and experiences. One woman in particular, Mrs. Regina, told us that after some people in her family died, she was forced to undergo a ritual. They bathed the corpse, washed the body, and gave her the water to drink as an “exoneration” ritual. She is one of the people we are supporting now, trying to provide her with all the necessary help to get back on her feet.
Another experience I had was visiting a street named after a victim of ritual killing, Ikechukwu Okoroho, who was murdered about 30 years ago. A street was named in his memory. I went to that street and to the scene where he was killed, according to reports. These are some of the key takeaways from the Owerri, Imo State event.
Jacobsen: There was also a case intervention in Ebonyi State on August 20, involving the banishment of Joseph Agwu from Unwuhu community. The case called on the state to prosecute the attackers, compensate the victim, and end the practice of banishment. Could you elaborate on that specific case?
Igwe: Yes, Joseph’s case is one of several in Ebonyi. He was accused of witchcraft and banished from his community. His property was destroyed, and he was forced to leave. We reached out to him, and he recounted his ordeal. We are appealing to the state authorities to step in and protect people like him.
Another successful intervention we made was in the case of Mr. Kingsley, who had also been accused. He was paraded through the streets, humiliated, and substances were poured over his body. When we got the information, we immediately contacted the police.
Thanks to that intervention, Kingsley is now back in his community. I met him recently, and he told me how happy and relieved he was. People now look at him with respect rather than the scorn he used to face. This was a real success story.
Of course, not all cases succeed. Sometimes incidents happen in rural communities where it is difficult for us to intervene. Accessing those areas can be dangerous—there are threats of beatings, mob attacks, or even killings. People in those communities often suspect that anyone investigating is there to help the police prosecute them. So yes, we have had some successes, but the challenges remain significant.
Jacobsen: There were also several roundtables. For example, in Ekiti State from August 19 to 21, there was a stakeholder roundtable aligned with the World Day Against Witch Hunts. There were also NHRC partnerships in Kano, Okoro, Ondo, and Yola, Adamawa. Across the year, there were several such meetings—on January 21, March 6, July 21, and August 19–21. What is the role of these roundtables, and what were the key takeaways from each?
Igwe: For the one we held in Yola early in the year, the big takeaway was that too often, when these cases are reported, nothing is done. They appear in the news and then disappear. Victims receive no help or support.
Since 2020, AfAW has been a game-changer. We step in on the side of the accused to support and empower them. In Yola, our message was clear: there is now an organization that stands for the accused. We introduced ourselves, explained what we do, and intervened in a specific case where a parent and his partner tortured a girl to death. The mother had been accused of witchcraft, and the children were said to have “inherited” it from her. The girl was tortured and died. We have been working hard to support the mother and her three surviving children, and to push for justice.
That was our first meeting in Yola, and like with many of these events, participants told us nobody else was doing what we are doing. We know why—few people have the conviction and understanding that we at AfAW bring. However, we made it clear there is now a place where the accused can seek support, and an organization keeping watch on these cases. That was our takeaway from Yola.
In Ondo, we also held an event and combined it with a radio program. A woman named Olaemi Ijogun attended after hearing us on the radio. She told us how she had been accused as a child and beaten. Her case was heartbreaking. She said that both she and her sister had been accused of being initiated into a coven when they were very young.
In Olaemi’s case, the accusations came from a relative who claimed to have seen her and her sister in a dream. The parents were told the girls were going to covens at night. As a result, they were not allowed to sleep. They were forced to kneel and raise their hands through the night because the parents believed that if they slept, they would travel spiritually to the coven. The girls were denied sleep for several nights.
The stigma followed Olaemi to school, where it negatively impacted her social life. She still breaks down when recounting the trauma, which she did at our event. She called on people to stop making accusations because they leave an indelible mark on the minds and psyches of children. Since then, she has been working with us to advocate against witchcraft accusations.
For instance, she joined us in Ekiti State during the World Day Against Witch Hunts event. There, we encountered a case where a 10-year-old girl accused her grandmother of initiating her into a coven and of spiritually murdering people. This accusation was made on the radio after a station invited the family to speak. As a result, the grandmother’s business collapsed, and she was ostracized; the community avoided her. We intervened to reassure her that she had no hand in such things.
The background is that the family’s youngest child, about two years old, had been sick since birth. The grandmother was blamed for the illness. When I interviewed the mother of the 10-year-old, she even told me that the grandmother had “taken away the intelligence” of the children, causing them to do poorly in school, and was also responsible for the family’s financial struggles. In other words, they blamed the grandmother for virtually every problem.
To address this, we provided the family with money to conduct a medical test on the child, so we can determine the real medical problem and treat it appropriately. This shows that we are not only holding events, but also taking practical steps to intervene. We extend solidarity by combining advocacy with direct support. We are helping the grandmother, the victim of the accusation, while also ensuring that the sick child receives medical treatment. These are some of the key outcomes from the Ekiti State event.
Jacobsen: How did the World Day Against Witch Hunts itself go?
Igwe: It was observed on August 10. That year it fell on a Sunday. In Nigeria, the best thing you can do on a Sunday is either go to church or stay at home. Suppose you organize anything else on that day. In that case, it is not likely to attract much participation—except for the few atheists and humanists in the country.
On August 10, the World Day Against Witch Hunts, I attended a church where the pastor regularly preaches against witch hunting. In our work, we identify religious leaders who speak out against these practices. It is not easy, of course, but we make every effort to find such churches. I was told about this one, contacted the pastor, and he confirmed that he preaches against witch hunting. So I went there to listen to his sermon. We also recorded it so that we could use it later to show other churches that this kind of preaching is possible and necessary.
It was a small church, with maybe 50 participants—tiny compared to the massive congregations you see in Nigeria, where tens or even hundreds of thousands gather. That probably explains why this church holds what you might call a minority position in the religious landscape. Still, that was where I spent the day.
Before and after August 10, we have continued organizing events in various states to remember victims of witch hunts and ritual attacks. It has gone well. People are coming out and saying, “At last, there is a space where we can feel vindicated, where we can share our stories in front of an audience that supports us, rather than seeing us as guilty.” That has been the spirit of these gatherings. In fact, we could not accommodate all the events in August, which is why some of them were pushed into September. For us at AfAW, the World Day Against Witch Hunts has not really ended. Our event this Saturday will conclude this year’s cycle of activities tied to that observance.
Jacobsen: Let us turn to the media side of things—ongoing public education, advocacy, op-eds, and briefings. Which news and opinion publications have been most effective in disseminating information about this campaign, the organization, and the harm caused by these superstitions?
Igwe: We have had coverage of our activities in several online and mainstream media outlets. Some journalists have even drawn our attention to cases in which we later intervened. Among Nigerian media organizations, I must mention Sahara Reporters, ThisDay, and The Eagle Online, which have been supportive.
We have also had coverage in other outlets, such as the Nigerian Tribune, Punch, and The Sun. Some of these online and print organizations have tried to highlight the work we are doing.
However, let me be clear—before now, media agencies have overwhelmingly been part of the problem. Their reporting on witchcraft accusations often reinforces the very narratives we are trying to dismantle. This is something I consistently point out to them during media interactions.
Many journalists still report accusations in sensational ways. They tell me the more spectacular, the better—for clicks and traffic. They call it “clickbait.” So, you see headlines like “Witch Crash-Lands” or “Bird-Woman Found in Village.” It is absolute nonsense, but it generates attention. Moreover, in their pursuit of attention, they misinform the public, mislead communities, and do real harm.
These reports are unprofessional and unethical. Journalism should be about reporting facts, and it should be balanced. Instead, in their quest for traffic, media houses end up endangering lives. For example, there was a radio program where a child accused her grandmother of initiating her into witchcraft. We intervened, and when we left, the station manager admitted to me, “Leo, it was this radio program that caused the problem.” He realized it had put an innocent woman in danger and destroyed her socially.
So yes, the media have been part of the problem. However, with the kind of engagement we are doing at the Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW), some outlets are beginning to rethink. Some are realigning and realizing just how unprofessional and unethical their reporting has been. They are slowly starting to highlight our perspective. However, we still have a long way to go. Nigerian media organizations still thrive on sensationalism.
The media still thrives on sensational headlines—stories designed to attract attention and appeal to primitive superstitions that people find exciting. Slowly and steadily, some outlets are beginning to support what we are doing. However, there is still a tremendous amount of work ahead.
Another challenge is this: while media agencies are quick to publish sensational, false, and misleading reports about witchcraft—often for free—when we want to put forward our perspective, they demand large sums of money. Both online and broadcast outlets do this.
For example, if we want to appear on television, they charge between $500 and $1,000 just for the appearance. Additionally, you may need to travel, pay for flights, and cover accommodation costs. This makes enlightenment and advocacy extremely expensive, even though it is precisely what the country needs to counter these harmful narratives.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final points on that last topic?
Igwe: Yes, while a few media organizations are beginning to report witchcraft accusations more responsibly—rather than treating witchcraft itself as a fact or as a “certified” part of African culture—the progress is limited. Some outlets are starting to understand AfAW’s position and provide more balance. However, we are still far from the cultural shift we need. That kind of change will not happen through one report or even one event. It requires intensive public education and sustained enlightenment.
Unfortunately, in this area, many media stations have not been supportive. They are quick to publish sensational stories, like “an elderly woman turned into a bird” or “a witch crash-landed on her way to a meeting,” as was recently reported in Delta State. These kinds of stories get free publicity.
However, when AfAW attempts to purchase airtime to educate the public, we encounter significant costs. Media outlets charge us considerable amounts of money, making enlightenment campaigns very expensive. The imbalance is stark: free space for superstition, but costly barriers for rational education.
Meanwhile, churches and religious organizations that actively promote witchcraft narratives are given abundant airtime. They advertise events with themes like “That Witch Must Die” or “Exposing the Mysteries of Witchcraft.” These programs receive free promotion, which reinforces harmful beliefs.
By contrast, when we present our position—saying plainly that witchcraft is a myth—we are given little space, asked to pay heavily, and sometimes even put under pressure during media interviews. The pressure is on us to “prove” that something imaginary does not exist, instead of challenging those who claim it does.
The media landscape is still heavily skewed toward reinforcing witchcraft beliefs. We have not yet reached the paradigm shift where media establishments themselves start questioning and dismantling these narratives. That remains the challenge before us.
The cultural shift we need will only come when the media itself transforms. Until then, they will not welcome our programs in the way they should. Even when we pay for airtime, they often schedule us in the middle of the day, when people are busy at work. They refuse to give us prime slots in the evening or late at night—times when churches preach about witchcraft to audiences at home around the dinner table.
Without media on our side, we cannot fully succeed in making witch-hunting history in this region. That is why this work is so critical.
Jacobsen: There was a memorial action on August 29, connected to victims of ritual killings. You visited a hotel site linked to one of those incidents, to connect memory with today’s anti–witch hunt work. Could you explain what happened at that hotel, and how many victims are we talking about?
Igwe: I visited because of the incident that happened there in September 1996, almost 29 years ago. What happened then is still happening today. For example, earlier this year, in February 2025, in Lagos, a young man murdered his girlfriend, used an axe to break her head, and drained her blood into a calabash, supposedly for rituals. That case mirrors what happened at the Otokoto Hotel in 1996.
At Otokoto, the victim was an 11-year-old boy who sold peanuts on the streets. A hotel gardener lured him inside, gave him a drugged drink, and when the boy became unconscious, he cut off his head. The man was apprehended while attempting to deliver the head to someone who had ordered it for ritual purposes.
The news caused a massive uproar. There were riots in the city, and people began burning the houses of those suspected of being involved.
The people labelled as “ritualists,” in other words, those involved in ritual syndicates or racketeering, were the focus of that uproar. My visit to the Otokoto Hotel aimed to remind the people of Imo State that this practice has been ongoing for far too long and must come to an end.
The government seized the hotel property, and today it is used by the police. Not far from the police station, there is a street named after the young boy who was murdered. Those responsible were eventually arrested, and some received life imprisonment while others were sentenced to death.
I visited that property to show that the same problem we saw nearly three decades ago is still with us today—only in new forms. Now, people kill their girlfriends, relatives, or acquaintances for what they call organ harvesting. They believe specific organs can be used in rituals to produce wealth, success, or power.
The narratives of religion, miracles, magic, and supernatural intervention fuel these beliefs. All of them reinforce the idea that ritual killings can deliver prosperity. What we are confronting is a Herculean task—a complex, many-headed monster of superstition and fear. Only the flame of reason, compassion, critical thinking, and skeptical inquiry can provide hope for society and for the victims.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leo.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Daily Atheist
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/03
Leslea Mair is the Co-Director of the documentary film Losing Our Religion. Her
work builds on the research done by Linda LaScola and Daniel Dennett through the
foundation of The Clergy Project. Here we explore the documentary film. The film
is scheduled for purchase in November 2018. You may order your copy from the
website Losing Our Religion [http://www.losingourreligion.ca/home].
Scott Douglas Jacobsen [https://in-sightjournal.com/in-sight-people/]: What was
the inspiration for the title and content of the new fabulous document film
Losing Our Religion?
Leslea Mair: Wow, that’s quite a compliment! Thank you!
I wanted to make this film after hearing about The Clergy Project. I think
changing your mind about something as important to your world view as religion
is such an interesting process. But for ministers to stop believing struck me as
a real personal earthquake. I read the stories of the non-believing clergy in
Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola’s studies and really wanted to explore stories
like that. I was so curious about how that plays out for people, not just in the
short term.
Jacobsen: You co-directed the film with Leif Kaldor and based on the work of
Professor Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola. How did you come into contact with
Leif Kaldor and the research of Dennett and LaScola?
Mair: Leif and I met at a film festival in central Saskatchewan, close to where
we both grew up, about 20 years ago. We’ve been business partners and a couple
since then. We bring complementary skill sets to directing – we’ve made quite a
number of films together. It’s a partnership that works really well for us.
I was the one who tripped across the studies that Dennett and LaScola published,
but we were both intrigued by it from the start. I think I first read about them
on some secular/atheist blogs and started thinking about what kind of story you
could tell about it, so the film was kind of my baby at the start. But we always
bounce ideas off one another, so Leif very quickly became involved in the
process. His take on the subject was a little different than mine – his
childhood had a lot more religious influence than mine did, so it was a good
counterpoint to my thinking in the early stages of developing the idea.
Jacobsen: On reflection and reading of Dennett’s and LaScola’s work, what
particular findings struck you, stood out to you?
Mair: The thing that really struck me was how traumatic giving up on believing
was for people. You have to understand, I’ve never been a believer, so the idea
that you can still be emotionally attached to the idea of a deity even when
you’ve ceased believing in it was a little foreign to me. I wanted to understand
that better.
What also made an impression on me – although it didn’t completely surprise me –
was how swift and unkind, sometimes even cruel, the reactions to these people
were when they either confessed or were found out. I was surprised by how strong
that reaction was, and that the risks people take in talking frankly about
nonbelief are very real and quite severe in some places.
Jacobsen: Minister Gretta Vosper contributed to the documentary film as well.
What role did she play in the film?
Mair: Gretta is one of the people who is trying to make non-belief work in a
traditionally believing environment. She’s an out atheist in the pulpit. The
United Church of Canada is one of the most liberal and progressive denominations
out there – I grew up in the United Church myself. So when Gretta and I first
started talking, it totally made sense to me that if there was any organization
that could handle this, it was this one. But there was still some serious
pushback. She was called up on the carpet and has been judged unfit for ministry
by a panel in the UCC, but she’s still in her congregation. They’re still trying
to figure out what to do with her — they don’t know how to excommunicate her
because they’ve never done anything like that — there’s no process, really. It
would be funny if it didn’t have such serious repercussions for her.
What role Gretta and her congregation played was to show that a church-style
community could be secular in nature. They’re trying to pull a shrinking
institution into the future. It’s important work, and the struggle continues.
Jacobsen: How do their narratives speak to the stories of others throughout
North America?
Mair: Brendan and Jenn Murphy are our primary characters. They’re a couple in
the US — Brendan is a former evangelical pastor, Jenn is his wife.
When I met them, Brendan was a “closeted” atheist and still working in ministry,
but Jenn was a devout believer. So they were dealing with multiple layers of
crisis. Brendan had joined The Clergy Project and Linda LaScola had put him in
touch with me. When he agreed to an interview, he wanted to bring Jenn along,
and I was fine with that. I didn’t think it was going to amount to anything. I
was SO wrong! Jenn’s a really brave and amazing woman. She was so nervous that
day, but she still sat down and gave me not just an interview, but really opened
up. This was a major shake-up for her in her personal life and in her faith, and
I’m still blown away at how much courage she and Brendan had in doing this.
I was able to follow their story from that point, through leaving the ministry
under duress and into their current lives.
Jacobsen: What documentary films speak to telling these important narratives of
loss of faith, especially in countries without the massive number of public
privileges won such as our own?
Mair: There are a few out there – one of our contributors, Jerry De Witt, is
featured in a film that has an excerpt out on the New York Times Op Docs called
“The Outcast of Beauregard Parish” about his experience exiting the ministry.
And there’s a film called “One of Us” about the struggles of three ex-Hasidic
Jews who are adjusting to secular life. And Bart Campolo has just come out with
a film about his relationship with his father, Tony Campolo, and how they’ve
navigated Bart leaving faith behind.
I don’t know of many films coming out of non-Western countries on the subject,
but it’s very dangerous to approach atheism in many places. You’d be taking a
grave risk and often putting your contributors in jeopardy. I’d love to find a
way to do that if some risk could be minimized.
It’s also hard to find the funding to make a full-length documentary film, or I
suspect we’d see a lot more of them. The stories are certainly out there, and
there are more of them all the time as people leave faith behind. As far as I
know, Losing Our Religion is the only feature-length documentary on The Clergy
Project so far.
Jacobsen: What targeted areas of activism seem the most relevant at this moment
in time now? For example, the work to prevent the ongoing attempts at the
encroachment of individual rights to reproductive health including abortion, the
rights to medical care, the right to die, and so on, from groups, ironically,
with open, grand, self-righteous proclamations about individualism, the “divine
individual,” and individual rights as the highest values to attain within the
country – ironic because their preventative and obstructive attempts stand in
opposition to these individual rights of legal persons in Canada, of full adult
citizens in Canada. I see a similar tragic irony in pro-life activists killing
doctors.
Mair: Oh, gosh. There’s so much work to do, isn’t there?
We’re in such a rapid state of change right now. I think that the majority of
people — especially here in Canada, although I know a lot of Americans who feel
the same way — support reproductive rights, the right to die and universal
health care. It’s the vocal minorities that get in the way of those rights. I
think Dan Barker said it best in our film when he talked about the religious
political right dying out, knowing they’re dying out, and lashing out at anyone
and anything that threatens them. The world is changing. It’s going to continue
to change. The one advantage the religious right has is that it has an organized
voice. I think we have to build communities of support so that we have an
organized voice as well.
The really hopeful thing is that those communities are starting to happen — the
Oasis communities and Sunday Assemblies and other humanist and secular groups
are starting to grow and they’re becoming more active in addressing social
justice issues. So I’m optimistic. There are some really fantastic people out
there.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or feelings in conclusion?
Mair: Not that I can think of!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leslea.
Mair: Thanks so much for taking the time, 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): 2025/06/15
Rev. Brandan Robertson is a queer Christian author, activist, and pastor with a Master of Theological Studies from Iliff School of Theology. A former evangelical, he is now a leading voice in progressive Christianity and inclusive theology. In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Robertson discusses his dual definition of queerness—as identity and resistance—and critiques the misuse of scripture by conservative movements. He advocates for queer hermeneutics, spiritual authenticity, and building “new tables of grace” beyond institutional church walls. Robertson’s theology challenges binary norms and invites LGBTQ+ individuals to reclaim their place within the Christian story.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Rev. Brandan Robertson is a queer Christian author, activist, and pastor known for his work at the intersection of faith, sexuality, and social justice. A former evangelical, he is a prominent advocate for inclusive theology. He has built a significant platform and has been referred to as a leading voice in progressive Christianity. He is the author of several books, including True Inclusion, The Gospel of Inclusion, and Queer and Christian: No Contradiction.
He holds a Master of Theological Studies from Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, and serves as a spiritual leader, public theologian, and advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Church. For those reading this internationally or from a United Nations perspective—such as the LGBTI Core Group—it may be useful to note that “LGBTQ+” is the most commonly used terminology in the United States, whereas “LGBTI” is more typical in UN documents.
Through preaching and pastoral work, Robertson seeks to reclaim Christianity as a force for radical love, justice, and liberation—especially for those historically marginalized or excluded by religious institutions. First question: I’ll begin with a spontaneous question, and then move on to the prepared list. How does your dual definition of queer identity and resistance reshape an understanding of Christian discipleship?
Rev. Brandan Robertson: Yes. The way I use the word queer in this book—and the way I’ve used it to describe my own identity for over a decade—is twofold. First, it refers to the umbrella term for the LGBTQ+ community. But second, I draw from thinkers like bell hooks, who describe queerness as a position of resistance to systems of domination and conformity.
We live in a society where we are conditioned to perform certain identities, to wear social masks, and to conform in order to be accepted. But I believe the gospel of Jesus—the core message of the New Testament—is inherently subversive. It challenges political, cultural, and religious pressures to conform and instead invites each person to live authentically, as their true, God-created self.
To follow Jesus, in my understanding, is to die to the false self and rise to new life—to the true self that reflects divine intention. Tragically, the institutional Church in many modern contexts has become the opposite of that vision. As a queer person raised in the Church, I was told I had to repress my sexuality, attempt to become straight, or remain celibate for life. But there is no solid biblical basis for such a mandate, and my book addresses this directly.
More than that, such teachings contradict the very essence of Jesus’s message—one of authenticity, honesty, and what he calls “abundant life.” So to be queer, in a theological sense, is not just an invitation for LGBTQ+ people, but for everyone—to reject imposed conformity, shed societal masks, and live into the fullness of who we are, just as God created us, in all our diversity.
Jacobsen: The Church has a long and varied history of scriptural interpretation. Are there any early or historical Christian movements that reflect the kind of inclusive and liberating vision you are advocating for today? So people do not take this as, “Oh, this is just a modern Christian reconciling their faith with LGBTQ+ concerns,” right?
Robertson: Yes. In one sense, it is absolutely true that this is a modern reconciliation—because the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity, as we understand them today, did not emerge until the late 1800s, when modern psychology began to articulate these as distinct aspects of human identity. It was only then that we began to recognize that people have innate characteristics related to sexuality and gender.
So it is true that for the first fifteen hundred—or perhaps even more—years of Christianity, there was no direct conversation about homosexuality or gender identity in the way we speak about them today.
What did exist were conversations about exploitative sexual acts, such as pederasty or coercive relationships between men, which were common in the ancient world. There were also discussions on prostitution, adultery, and other elements of sexual ethics.
One key point I make in the book—and one that is supported by my PhD-level research in sexuality and theology—is that there has never been a singular, consistent Christian sexual ethic throughout Church history. That in itself is quite fascinating.
Jacobsen: So Christianity has not always maintained a consistent stance on premarital sex?
Robertson: Christianity has not always been anti–premarital sex. As I note in the book, there is not a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that clearly and explicitly condemns all sex outside of marriage. Likewise, when it comes to non-heteronormative sexualities and gender identities, Christianity simply did not address these topics until the modern era.
My historical theory—based on substantial evidence—is that in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, particularly in the United States, there was a deliberate effort by conservative religious and political leaders to mobilize a new political movement. They needed cultural flashpoints to galvanize support, and they chose two highly emotive issues: homosexuality and abortion.
These became defining issues for what would eventually be known as the Religious Right and the modern Republican Party. This emphasis on homosexuality, then, was politically motivated—it did not emerge from serious biblical scholarship or theological inquiry.
In fact, the scholarly consensus is now quite clear: the Bible does not speak about homosexuality as we understand it today. The term itself did not exist. The biblical references often cited are addressing forms of sex that were either exploitative, transactional, or ritualistic—not loving, consensual, same-sex relationships.
So, the larger purpose of the book is to expose this distortion—to show that the emphasis on condemning LGBTQ+ people was a political strategy, not a biblically grounded or theologically sound position.
Jacobsen: As an olive branch, what does the Religious Right—or traditional Christianity—get right?
Robertson: That’s a great question. First, I want to distinguish between the Religious Right and conservative or traditional Christianity. They are not always the same thing.
I do believe that traditional Christianity gets something right in its emphasis on self-control and the ethical boundaries around sexuality—an emphasis rooted in the teachings of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. Paul warns against excess, lust, and indulgence, and while those teachings have often been weaponized, they also offer valuable psychological and ethical insights.
The idea that sexual expression should involve mindfulness, responsibility, and respect is something I affirm in the book. What we saw during the sexual revolution, for instance, was in some cases a complete rejection of any boundaries. But I argue that a healthy sexual ethic—one grounded in self-awareness, integrity, and respect—can coexist with a queer-affirming theology.
We should be mindful and ask ourselves: Is what I am doing loving to myself? Loving to the person I am engaging with? Is it beneficial to us in a meaningful way? Or is this an expression of excessive lust, or an attempt to satisfy a psychological need that could be more appropriately addressed outside of sexual behavior?
In that sense, I will say traditional Christianity gets self-control right. The problem arises when that general biblical principle is extrapolated into an elaborate, rigid system of sexual rules that have no real biblical basis and are often objectively harmful. Many young people leave conservative churches as teenagers or college students precisely because they discover that what they were taught about sex and sexuality does not align with their lived experiences or the realities affirmed by science and psychology.
There is a better way—one where Christian sexual ethics are grounded in compassion, evidence-based insights, and space for discovery and growth. In that model, people are not shamed into conformity but are given grace to explore what a healthy, ethical sexuality looks like for them, free from the burden of unrealistic or harmful dogma.
Jacobsen: How does historical-critical exegesis challenge the so-called “clobber passages” of Genesis and Leviticus?
Robertson: Yes. I address all six of the commonly cited clobber passages—both Old and New Testament—in the book. This is perhaps the most frequent topic I discuss online as well, because most people simply do not understand how radically different sex functioned in the ancient world compared to today.
In antiquity, sex was not primarily about intimacy or mutual love; it was a social act and a marker of hierarchy and status. For instance, if you were a Roman citizen, you could have sex with almost anyone—slaves, women, boys—and it had nothing to do with your sexual orientation. The key factor was dominance and status. Roman men would often have sex with male slaves, not out of desire or love, but as a display of power. These acts were non-consensual, exploitative, and rooted in domination.
This framework is critical to understanding Leviticus. The same goes for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as references in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. What is being condemned in all of these passages is not loving, consensual same-sex relationships, but abusive, exploitative sexual behavior—typically between men—within a patriarchal framework.
In such a world, the person who was sexually passive—the one who was penetrated—was seen as being feminized, and thus degraded. This was considered deeply shameful in a society that equated power and masculinity with dominance. So, the moral objection was not against same-sex love—it was against being seen as effeminate or weak, which was abhorrent in patriarchal culture.
From a historical-critical standpoint, I believe the scholarship clearly shows that the Bible is condemning exploitative sex—not loving, equal partnerships. And I agree with those condemnations. I do not believe exploitative or abusive sex is ever moral or good.
But modern readers often lack that historical and cultural context. When they read, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman—it is an abomination” in English, they interpret that as a blanket prohibition on gay sex. They do not realize that the original context reflects a vastly different world. That misunderstanding leads many well-meaning Christians to adopt a non-affirming view, simply because they have not had access to this broader, more nuanced understanding.
Jacobsen: How do the biblical figures Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan resonate with your own experience?
Robertson: David and Jonathan resonate with me more closely.
On the one hand, I used to resist the idea that we should read queerness into ancient texts. It is, admittedly, a historically complicated thing to do. But when I sat down and read the story of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel, I realized that there is no way anyone can read the entirety of that story and not at least come away with some suspicion that there is something more intimate happening there.
David and Jonathan speak about each other in ways that are clearly homoerotic. David even says, after Jonathan’s death, “Your love for me was greater than that of women.” When Jonathan is killed, David weeps with a broken heart. At the beginning of their relationship, Jonathan strips off his clothes and armor and gives them to David—an act of deep vulnerability and intimacy—and tells him, essentially, “I want you to be protected because I love you.”
Yes, it is there in the text. What is even more fascinating is that this is not a new interpretation. If you go back and look at Jewish writings from thousands of years ago, there are rabbis who were already wrestling with this story—wondering what exactly is going on between David and Jonathan.
When it comes to Ruth and Naomi, I would not go so far as to say that they were lesbian lovers. The text does not support a definitive claim like that. But what I can say is that the purpose of the Book of Ruth—as even conservative scholars acknowledge—is to emphasize God’s radical inclusivity. Ruth is a Moabite, an outsider. She chooses to leave her own people after her husband dies, and stays with her mother-in-law, Naomi, saying: “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” She makes a covenantal statement of loyalty, love, and belonging to Naomi.
I highlight this story in the book primarily because, over the past fifty years, many lesbian women have found deep meaning in this passage. They see themselves reflected in that relationship, in that devotion. Ultimately, what I want to say about these stories is this: it is historically impossible to prove that anyone in the Bible was straight or gay. Many of these stories are mythic in nature or did not happen in the way they appear in the text.
But the purpose of the Bible is not to be a forensic historical document. It is a sacred text that invites people—of every background—to find themselves in its pages. That’s what conservative churches often preach: “This book is for you.” But queer people have long been denied that same invitation.
There is now a growing lineage of people doing what I have done—reinterpreting Scripture through a queer lens. I wrote this book for a new generation, to say: you are allowed to be creative with the Bible. It is not a static, inerrant rulebook. It is a diverse library of stories filled with wisdom, metaphor, and mystery. You are invited to see yourself reflected in the faces of the saints and prophets of Scripture.
I see myself in David and Jonathan. I invite lesbians to see themselves in Ruth and Naomi. I invite transgender people to see themselves in Jacob, whose identity shifts over the course of his life. There are countless doorways into the text.
And I have seen firsthand how healing it is for queer people to be given permission to interpret the Bible from our perspective.
Jacobsen: Yes. That leads us into the next area. You mentioned queerness, and while you did not explicitly use the term, you were speaking about hermeneutics. So let me pose a neologism: queermeneutics—a fusion of “queer” and “hermeneutics.”
How might this kind of interpretive lens not only help people see themselves within their sacred tradition—especially in Christian scripture—but also enrich the broader field of theological discourse?
Say someone is in graduate school for theological studies. They are looking for tools to generate fresh wisdom in a contemporary context. How does this kind of hermeneutic add to the depth and vitality of Christian interpretive tradition, rather than detract from it?
Robertson: Here’s the thing. When I was an evangelical, I was taught there was only one valid hermeneutic—a literalist hermeneutic. That meant reading the Bible as historically and scientifically true in every detail, forever.
But that rigid, literalist approach is a relatively recent innovation. It has only really taken hold in the last few centuries. Even five hundred years after the Reformation, we can see how theological language and interpretive strategies have continued to evolve.
If you look at how the Church Fathers engaged with Scripture, they approached it allegorically. Early Jewish rabbinic traditions also embraced multilayered readings of sacred texts. There was no single hermeneutical lens that believers were required to use. Rather, Scripture was understood as a rich, dynamic text with many dimensions of meaning.
The queer hermeneutic I explore in my new book is not unprecedented—it is deeply rooted in liberation theology. We see how Black hermeneutics transformed Scripture during the Civil Rights Movement. Many Black leaders in the U.S.—Dr. King being one of them—read the Bible through the lens of the Black experience and persecution in America. For them, the Bible became a subversive document—a source of hope and liberation for the oppressed.
Queer hermeneutics follows in that tradition. It asks: What if this sacred text can speak to us? What if we, too, can find ourselves within it? And more radically, What if the very tools that have been weaponized against us can become tools of our liberation?
Take Paul’s words, for example: “Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Conservatives interpret that as a call to moral separation from secular culture, even as a justification for marginalizing queer people. But what if Paul is actually inviting us to resist the world’s conformist systems—gender binaries, rigid social roles, and performative identities—and instead embrace the transformation into our authentic selves?
That is what a queer hermeneutic does. It does not assume that the Bible holds some static, inerrant authority on its own. It acknowledges that every reader brings their own experiences, identities, and questions to the text. The authority lies, in part, with the interpreter. And whether people admit it or not, everyone reads the Bible subjectively.
Queer hermeneutics simply makes that process explicit. I am reading the Bible as a queer person—with a clear, unapologetic agenda of liberation. Not just liberation for LGBTQ+ people, but liberation for everyone from the oppressive systems we’ve all inherited.
So I hope that this book will not only affirm queer readers but also invite heterosexual, cisgender readers to approach the Bible more playfully and creatively. That is how many of our ancestors in faith engaged with Scripture. It is only this modern inerrantist lens that has flattened the Bible into a lifeless, rigid text.
Jacobsen: Now, there is a movement—particularly visible in the United States—of people who claim to have “renounced” their homosexuality. It is sometimes labeled the “ex-gay” movement. While versions of it exist in Hispanic and other global contexts, it seems to be especially acute in American religious subcultures.
These individuals often become active expositors and advocates for a conservative, Religious Right agenda. But within that movement, there have also been high-profile cases where people later admitted they were essentially pretending. Would you speak to that?
Robertson: It was a strange kind of business model—essentially, a way of gaining acceptance and even making a career within Religious Right circles. Many of those individuals who were once publicly “ex-gay” have now renounced their renouncing. They’ve come to accept their sexual orientation after years of inner turmoil and public denial.
Jacobsen: What is your commentary on the ex-gay movement?
Robertson: I take a pretty clear—and honestly, probably the only black-and-white—stance in the book on this issue, because I believe it is dangerous. Over the last decade in ministry, I’ve spent a lot of time with individuals who identified as “ex-gay.” I went through conversion therapy myself. I tried to be “ex-gay.”
Every single person I have ever spoken to—no matter how conservative, no matter how deeply embedded in ex-gay rhetoric—has admitted, at some point, that they still experience same-sex attraction or gender-related conflict. Even those who’ve built platforms on their “deliverance” will quietly say, “I still struggle.” To me, that means you’re not ex-gay. You’re just suppressing or denying something intrinsic to your being.
That said, I support personal autonomy. If someone believes, based on their convictions, that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, and they choose celibacy or a mixed-orientation marriage, that is their decision. I may not recommend it, but I won’t deny them the right to make that choice or to share their journey.
What I am firmly against is the message that people have been “healed.” That is where real harm begins—especially for LGBTQ+ youth. When they hear these messages and enter conversion therapy, or pray relentlessly for change, and nothing happens—because sexual orientation is largely innate and unchangeable for most people—it leads to deep psychological distress, depression, and even suicidality. That is horrific. It is immoral. It is unethical.
So I state it clearly in the book: I do not believe “ex-gay” people exist in the way that term is used. If someone chooses celibacy or a heterosexual life while still experiencing same-sex attraction, they should say exactly that. Do not say, “God healed me.” Do not say, “Therapy healed me.” Because, based on both anecdotal experience and the research available, that is simply not how sexuality works for the vast majority of people.
Jacobsen: The only nuance is the fluidity of sexuality, which you touched on briefly.
Robertson: That is the one caveat. Sexuality is fluid for some people. So yes, someone might have once lived what we call a “gay lifestyle” and later find themselves in a heterosexual relationship. But from a psychological perspective, that is not evidence of healing or change. It is simply an expression of a broader spectrum of attraction—something more common for bisexual people.
We must acknowledge that without misrepresenting it. So yes, if someone identifies somewhere along the bisexual spectrum, their relational patterns may shift. But that is not a “cure.” That is human fluidity.
God does not want to “heal” you from your sexual orientation or gender identity. Psychology cannot “heal” you either—because I firmly believe these are innate identities, created by God. Any attempt to change them is, in my view, an affront to the Creator who made us as we are.
Jacobsen: I have interviewed one individual who has gone through conversion therapy—an author who underwent it. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spearheaded legislation to ban conversion therapy in Canada in 2022. It is a discredited pseudoscientific practice that seeks to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The practice has been banned in several countries: Malta (2016), Germany (2020), France (2022), Canada (2022), New Zealand (2022), Iceland (2023), Spain (2023), Mexico (2024), Greece (2024), and Belgium (2024). As of 2025, other nations are expected to follow suit. So—policy, legislation, legality, and psychological science all align with your critique and analysis.
Shifting gears—what do you mean by “new tables of grace” in the context of church reform and community building? As a non-Christian who is sometimes invited into Christian spaces, I recognize this is not my faith tradition to reform. But when issues affect broader culture—such as the ex-gay movement—they become fair ground for critique. Still, internally, this is a Christian matter. So, within that context, how do you define “new tables of grace,” and what is your vision for church reform and queer-led community building?
Robertson: Yes, thank you. This really highlights a division in the broader queer Christian movement in the United States right now. There is a sizable portion of the movement that is focused on reforming traditional Christian denominations—working to make them fully affirming, inclusive, and welcoming of LGBTQ+ people. I was part of that effort for a long time, and I continue to bless and respect that work.
But after a decade of doing this work, both through my experience and what I’ve seen in the lives of others, I came to a realization: queer people are not obligated to squeeze ourselves into existing structures that were never built with us in mind. We have the freedom to innovate—to create new expressions of faith that are authentic to queer experience and queer culture.
We already see this kind of innovation happening across many traditions. For example, there are cultural and ethnic expressions of Christianity—Black churches, Latinx churches, Korean churches—each of which reflects the lived experience of its community. There are also countless denominational variations. What I am advocating is not the creation of “gay churches,” per se—though they do exist, and I love and respect them deeply.
Jacobsen: The reviews do tend to say they’re fabulous.
Robertson: [Laughing] Truly! They are. And that joy and celebration are part of the spiritual power of those spaces.
But what I’m saying is this: many queer people—and many deconstructed people more broadly—are tired of fighting for a seat at a table that was not built for us. We are not interested in begging to be accepted anymore. We’re not here to argue theology every day just to prove our worth. We are ready to build new tables—what I call “new tables of grace”—where we decide the terms, where radical welcome is foundational, not aspirational.
These tables are not just for queer folks. They’re for anyone who has been cast out, burned out, or disillusioned by institutional religion. The vision is expansive: spiritual communities that are inclusive, justice-centered, rooted in love, and unafraid of creativity. They are sacred spaces where we gather not to debate our worth, but to celebrate it.
That is not what our faith is about. So, in the book, my invitation is this: yes, you can go to progressive Christian communities today. The majority of mainline denominations in the United States now affirm LGBTQ+ people. There are churches and spaces—virtually in every city—where queer people can walk in and be fully seen, embraced, and invited to show up in their fullness. These communities are often experimental. They are actively exploring what Christian spirituality might look like in new, vibrant, inclusive ways.
But I also say this: maybe the institution of the Church is not where you will flourish. And that is okay. You do not need to belong to the institutional Church in order to follow Jesus or live a meaningful spiritual life.
I want queer people to know they have permission to step outside of the Church and still live rich spiritual lives. There are new forms of spiritual community taking shape all around us—in culture, in art, in chosen families. For me, literally dancing in a queer bar on a Saturday night can be a transcendent spiritual experience—if I bring that lens to it. In fact, it can be as sacred as any evangelical worship service I attended in my past.
What I am trying to emphasize is this: let’s stop begging for a seat at a table that was never built for us. Let’s build our own table—the one God has already prepared for us. Because the Church does not get to decide who is welcome at God’s table. That table belongs to God, and God alone. And God has already invited all of us.
Jacobsen: We’ll be kicking off in three minutes. Last question—this is probably one you’ve been asked many times. What are your favorite Bible passages? Also, which version do you prefer?
Robertson: I would say the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue), which came out recently, is currently the most accurate and inclusive English translation. I love it. It also removes language that was inaccurately translated as referring to homosexuality in older versions.
My favorite passage is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts. One of the first people baptized into the Christian Church was a first-century sexual and gender minority—an Ethiopian eunuch, a dark-skinned person from a different culture. That was a profound realization for me.
Though it is a brief passage, the story is incredibly powerful. The author of Acts clearly intended to demonstrate that God’s love—through the Jesus movement—was always meant to transcend boundaries. It was meant to dismantle divisions between clean and unclean, insider and outsider. According to the Hebrew Bible, eunuchs were not allowed in the temple. And yet, the Ethiopian eunuch becomes the first person baptized into the Christian Church.
He has traditionally been referred to as Simeon. I like to think of Simeon—the Ethiopian eunuch—as the first queer saint. He represents the radical inclusivity of God’s kingdom. His identity encompasses differences in race, language, culture, gender, and sexuality. It is a stunning and profoundly beautiful moment in Scripture. And, unsurprisingly, I never heard it preached on in any conservative church I attended growing up.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Brandan, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was a real pleasure to meet you—and thank you for sharing your insights.
Robertson: Thank you so much. I appreciate the conversation.
Jacobsen: Wishing you a wonderful day down there in your American whatever-you-want-to-call-it—I’ll be here in my soul-fresh paradise show.
Robertson: [Laughing] I love it. Enjoy it up there.
Jacobsen: Cheers. Bye.
Robertson: See 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): 2025/06/14
Clifford Myers, Canadian comedian and president of the Canadian Association of Stand-up, Sketch, and Improv Comedians (CASC). Myers discussed CASC’s founding in 2017, initiated by Sandra Battaglini to achieve federal recognition for comedians as artists. CASC’s recent partnership with the Canadian Freelance Union, part of Unifor, provides comedians with health benefits, contract support, professional development, and a national talent directory. Myers emphasized comedy’s professionalization, the need for accessible resources, and the growing international interest in Canada’s model. He advocates for an open-source approach to empower comedians worldwide as both artists and entrepreneurs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Clifford Myers. He is a Canadian comedian, writer, and advocate dedicated to empowering artists in the comedy industry. He is president of the Canadian Association of Stand-up, Sketch, and Improv Comedians (CASC).
He champions comedians’ rights and recognition as essential contributors to Canadian culture. Myers was key in forging a landmark partnership between CASC and the Canadian Freelance Union (CFU) affiliated with Unifor. For transparency, I am also a member of Unifor.
Myers helped establish this partnership to expand access to benefits, protections, and support for freelance performers. Known for his engaging stage presence and sharp wit, Myers blends his creative talents with passionate advocacy to foster a more inclusive, professional, and sustainable comedy landscape across Canada. He is the founder of The Other Comedy Company.
What motivated the formation of the Canadian Association of Stand-up, Sketch, and Improv Comedians in 2017? Also, how does the new partnership between CASC and Unifor benefit freelance comedians?
Clifford Myers: In 2017, Sandra Battaglini began this movement by writing a petition to the federal government, advocating for Canadian comedians to be officially recognized as artists at the federal level. At that time, comedians were not eligible for arts grants and other funding streams available to other artists because stand-up and comedic performances were not formally recognized as art forms in Canada.
This issue galvanized many comedians. As Sandra pursued this cause, she received growing support from the comedy community and connected with various lobbyists and arts advocacy groups. These advisers encouraged her to consider forming a formal association to represent comedians.
Initially, Sandra resisted, noting, “I’m just a comedian. I am speaking out because it matters, but I do not know if this is something I want to take on fully.” However, with widespread support from comedians across Canada, she founded the Canadian Association of Stand-up, Sketch, and Improv Comedians (CASC).
At the outset, the organization’s main goal was to achieve recognition of comedy as a legitimate art form at the federal level. Over time, the mission expanded to advocate for better working conditions, fairer access to funding, and stronger labor protections for comedians.
One key issue for Canadian comedians is the severe imbalance in cross-border work access. For an American comedian to perform in Canada, the process is relatively inexpensive — typically requiring a permit that costs around CAD 230, which can be lower depending on circumstances. However, for a Canadian comedian to perform legally in the United States, they generally require a P-1 or O-1 visa, which can cost between $5,000 and USD 10,000 or more, depending on legal fees and application complexity. This significant barrier limits international opportunities for Canadian comedians.
Through the partnership with the Canadian Freelance Union (CFU), CASC members now have access to contract templates, dispute resolution support, insurance options, and professional resources — a significant step toward establishing a stronger foundation for comedians working independently across Canada.
Jacobsen: And what, traditionally, have Canadian comedians been doing to try to get work in a larger country right next door, where American comedians can get work here freely?
Myers: We have had to go through a “circus visa” — we had to pretend we were clowns. You know? There has always been an imbalance in getting work across the border.
You have to look at our landscape: we have a country that is two and a half times the size of the United States but has a population roughly the size of California. We are a small industry.
To get work, we need funding from our federal government or streamlined processes that allow us exposure to the American market. Neither of those things is happening.
Our association started with the question: How do we legitimize comedy as an art form and a craft? We are comedy workers—this is our profession.
That is when Unifor came into the picture through their chapter program. We were not outright unionizing but became a community chapter to streamline comedians’ benefits.
Right now, Canadian comedians cannot access things like dental benefits or grievance support — none of that was available. As we continued our mission for the legitimacy of comedy in Canada, it became much more about being recognized for what we truly are: freelance comedy workers.
That is where the Canadian Freelance Union came into this partnership. We saw a way to bolster their organization through our involvement and, in return, gain access to a streamlined process for accessing professional resources.
Now, we are going to be able to educate Canadian comedians. We are creating an education hub where comedians can learn how to set their rates, negotiate deals, and set themselves up for health benefits — all the things needed to operate as professionals.
The more people we have made a living in Canadian comedy, the more visible it becomes as a viable career path. It grows the art form and preserves a part of our culture.
This partnership has been a win-win across the board: now we have staff, access to PR and media, and new avenues for work. Even directly with Unifor, we will host quarterly showcases for our comedians, helping them land more corporate gigs.
We are raising your ability to get work, raise your profile, and learn and refine your craft. This was a very strategic maneuver, completely mission-aligned. Right? Throughout the process, which took over a year, we kept saying, “This is getting us one step closer to what Sandra was talking about from the very beginning.”
That has always been the entire direction of this organization. It has never been anything else. It has always been about equipping and empowering Canadian comedians. It continues to do so.
Now, we are even at the point where small groups of people from different parts of the world — places like South Africa and Ireland — are contacting us about our association and asking how they might create something similar in their countries. That is something we want to open-source: to share our process, how we approached advocacy, and how we partnered strategically so we can collaborate internationally, maybe even with comedians in the United States at some point.
This partnership is just one small step toward much bigger initiatives in the future. We want to start advocating more forcefully for federal arts funding and streamlined passport processes, making it much easier for Canadian comedians to get work.
Jacobsen: If you have a list of services — in more concrete terms, outside of visa and cross-border work — what resources and support systems can CASC members now access through Unifor?
Myers: So now CASC members have immediate access to benefits and discounts we did not have before. One of the most significant additions is a national directory, where comedians can create profiles to advertise their services to producers and bookers who are explicitly looking for unionized talent.
So that is a big one — it is opening us up to an entirely new employment arm, which is incredible.
CASC members now have access to other services, including contract advice, advanced grievance support, advocacy and representation, and affordable health and dental insurance—a major one. Many comedians have struggled for years to get dental insurance. Members can now access home and auto insurance discounts, commercial liability insurance, union savings programs, and educational opportunities.
This covers exactly what any professional worker would need. If you were going to get a job somewhere, you would expect benefits, professional development opportunities, and certain perks from being part of that profession. Right?
In our case, having a relationship with Unifor and having access to that internal directory is a massive perk—one that no other comedy organization in Canada currently has. And we have that access as an association.
It is opening the door to corporate work in a way that has never been open for comedians.
Jacobsen: How does the partnership legitimize the profession of stand-up comedians in Canada?
For instance, if we look at tier-two or even tier-one comedians, many of them talk about their history of, let us call it, “coming out” to their families as comedians—saying, “My dream is to become a comedian” instead of becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, astrophysicist, or astronaut.
The typical response, especially among immigrant families that have high hopes for their children’s professional futures, is often horror—because those traditional careers are culturally seen as high-status, high-income paths to elevating the family legacy in one generation.
How does this professionalization improve the status of comedians and others in the comedy profession?
Myers: That is a great question.
I would scope it out this way: when you first look at what brings someone to the comedy profession, anyone can walk up to an open mic. Everyone walks up there for a reason—and it is almost never because everything is going well and they are completely healthy and stable. That is not what brings someone to a comedy stage.
What brings people is a sense of curiosity and passion. Maybe someone says, “I do not know exactly what I want to do right now, but I know there is something here.” You can have a sense of impact through comedy — not just bringing joy to people but sometimes making a real difference.
Some people go into stand-up to advocate for things they care deeply about. Others want to perform, to entertain, to create. But you are right — it has not traditionally been seen as a professional art form because the path is so narrow. There is no clear pipeline where you study for four years, get a degree, and then level up through a structured system.
The truth is, the craft of comedy requires repetition — going over it repeatedly and performing live repeatedly. If you are only doing those repetitions in a pub in front of two people, you are only going to reach a certain ceiling. You cannot advance past that without broader support structures and opportunities.
And so, having an opportunity to work with comedians who have been doing it much longer is like the apprenticeship or mentorship system.
When we open doors for more corporate shows, that is truly what we are doing here, right? We now have this internal directory through Unifor, and it is going to open doors to more corporate work within CASC. That corporate work will be available to comedians who have been performing long enough and who have the material and the skill set to do it well.
But comedians who are not there yet can feature on those shows, participate in these showcases, and learn from the more experienced comedians. They can be given apprenticeship opportunities, actually learning in an environment that sharpens their skills—that gives them the opportunity to see what it is like to perform for a room of 200 union workers.
It is very different from performing for two people at the Fox and Firkin on a Tuesday night. You know?
Legitimizing the profession is similar to legitimizing entrepreneurship or any kind of freelance work: it is about ownership, right?
Yes, you are a performer, but you are also a one-person business. You have the ability to create proprietary material — you can make specials, you can write books, you can join projects, you can participate in productions. There are all sorts of different ways to generate income. It is a very diversified industry.
Now, with the education hub we are developing, comedians will have access to resources teaching them how to do that. The truth is that comedy attracts all kinds of people—not just those saying, “Sorry, Dad, I do not want to be a lawyer; I want to go into comedy.”
Some people are smart enough to be lawyers but do not go through the traditional academic pathways because they have ADHD, dyslexia, or face other barriers. Comedy offers them a different way to showcase their intelligence and make an impact.
There is never a downside to becoming a better communicator. However you frame it, comedy teaches you how to communicate with human beings — people who agree with you, people who disagree with you, sleepy crowds, rowdy crowds. It gives you life experience that you will not get at any university or college.
Mic drop. [Laughing]
Realistically, the way I look at it is this: I think it was Jimmy Carr who said, “We are all out for ourselves, but we are all in this together.”
And that is very true. It is an independent path — Scott’s comedy road would be different from Clifford’s, but we are in this together. We can support each other collectively. We can gather, share resources, and lift each other.
We share opportunities. We open doors to education, to learning from one another, and to developing our skill sets. That is the path to professionalism. That is the path to ownership.
That is the path to being an actual freelancer in Canada through comedy.
Jacobsen: Okay, shifting a bit — at some points, you mentioned meeting communications, community chapters, the broader landscape. That reminds me of a deeper press release about Nora Loreto. What is her vision in this?
Myers: Yeah, so Nora is passionate. She is deeply committed to what it takes to be a freelance worker and has much experience with collectivizing efforts.
She comes from a “strength in numbers” perspective—the more we collaborate and create partnerships, the more strength and bargaining power we have.
When we approached her and started talking about some of the federal-level issues we wanted to lobby and advocate for, she approached it very much from a frontline perspective: we will roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty.
As a freelancer and an advocate for freelancers, Nora is a top-tier professional who understands that if you work independently, you must be equipped. You might not always feel prepared, but you can be fitted.
That is the real gap for many freelancers in any field. When people do not know what they are doing yet, the difference often comes down to whether they have the resources to figure it out.
That is the definition of resourcefulness. Do you know how to get what you need to do what you are trying to do?
And that is what she is trying to create: a pipeline for freelancers—whether in Industry A or Industry B—so that even if they already have the skill set, ability, and passion, they also have the actual resources and systems to succeed.
They want to do it. They want to work independently. They want that self-ownership. But they do not know how to get there. They do not know how to do it well.
This collection of professionals is a community of people working at different levels and at different stages of their freelance careers. Seeing that in action is a kind of collective learning. It is like a school in itself.
You can observe: “Oh, this person set up their website this way. That person markets their freelance business like this.” Now that comedians are going to be able to get involved, Nora appreciates that we are bringing even more fun, collaboration, play, and community-centred activities into the mix.
I think that is where Nora and I align — we see the independent and the collective as one thing. Right? These independents are part of the collective but also maintain their own identity.
And we love that idea. If you have ever been to any kind of internal meeting for a union or a similar organization—whether it is Unifor or anywhere else—you know it is typically pretty stuffy. You go to an AGM, and it is, “Okay, let us go through the docket, point by point.”
Now, having comedians who can emcee these events, participate, and bring energy, personality, and community-building into the room — creates real synergy.
We are building a community around the mission. It is not just transactional. It is experiential.
We can make an impact. We can get involved in different ways. And that is what fires people up for involvement.
Especially if you are a freelancer, it would be easy to say, “I am doing my own thing. Why would I want to be a part of anything else? I am good over here.”
That is an easy thing to say. But what will be attractive is, “Hey, they are having much fun over there. They are working, they are developing, they are getting better, and they are having a good time doing it.”
I see nothing wrong with that dream and that vision — and that is what Nora presented to us.
And listen, I have talked to her a few times. We have had some very long meetings. She is passionate.
She gets her fingers into the dirt and keeps digging. That is the kind of person we are excited to work with.
Jacobsen: Earlier, you mentioned South Africa and Ireland. The most prominent South African comedian people are probably thinking of — and you are already aware — is Trevor Noah from The Daily Show and, of course, his wider career.
He is exceptionally talented with cultural commentary, language play, and impersonations for comedic — and even a little educational — effects. In that way, he edges a bit closer to a Dave Chappelle or George Carlin style, although Chappelle says he is not a great impersonator.
Regardless, when you have three different regions now — North America through your current partnership, Ireland from a Western European perspective reaching out, and South Africa representing an African continental connection — what does that say to you about the increasingly global reach of comedy today? Not just as a legitimate art form, which seems increasingly recognized, but as a legitimate profession?
Myers: It is so interesting when you get into a profession that you realize is a global language. People laugh all over the world, in every single culture. And in every culture, they have a different approach to what makes them laugh.
When I meet comedians from different backgrounds, I am always curious and interested. For example, if you talk to an Indian comedian, they have to adhere to many customs—especially if they are performing within India—so their humour tends to skew differently.
What is happening within Canada right now is that comedians are collectivizing — and that is drawing the attention of other smaller communities internationally.
Realistically, Canada has a deep cultural history in comedy. We have played a massive role in legitimizing comedy as an actual art form.
We have had the largest comedy festival in the world in Montreal — Just for Laughs. We had one of the biggest comedy chains in the world with Yuck Yucks. We have produced some of the most considerable talents in the world: Norm Macdonald, John Candy, Catherine O’Hara.
Our fingerprints are all over the history of comedy.
So it makes sense that our fingerprints are all over the current movement, too — especially when legitimizing professional comedy work.
You have these smaller comedy communities worldwide that see what we are doing in Canada and think, “Hey, what are they up to over there?”
Canada might seem like a small country from the outside, but we are always up to something when it comes to comedy.
So they reach out — not necessarily to partner, not necessarily to have a direct relationship — but to learn.
It shows us that there has to be a level of transparency in what we are doing right now. Because what we are doing is impacting other regions across the world, not just Canada.
It is amazing to see the passion of these comedians—and it is not just young comedians. It is people of all ages. They are individuals who want to make their communities laugh and help scale the art form where they are.
So they are coming to us for open-source education: “How did you do this?” “How did you advocate?”
And we are very transparent. We tell them, “We started by writing a letter. Then, we got involved with Members of Parliament. Here is how creating an association works in Canada. Here is technically how you go the nonprofit route. Here is how you create memberships.”
We are open-sourcing what we do so that other places can learn from it.
When we launch the educational resource hub as part of this partnership, one of our first projects will include that information so that other communities can start creating their own associations.
We might not partner directly, but we will create materials to help equip them because we believe there is strength in numbers. I strongly agree with Nora on that.
We see this as another opportunity: another notch on the comedy pioneer belt. It is cool that Canada continues to be a comedy innovator — and others recognize that.
They see that when Canadians get involved in comedy, we put our money where our mouth is and get it done.
So when I talk to these other comedians, I see students. I see people who are ready to learn and want to understand how we are building this.
Of course, there is a disconnect. I do not know all the ins and outs of their regions, and I do not know exactly what they can or cannot do—how to start an association in Ireland, for example, because I do not live there.
But I can help with research and connect people with resources. That is really the spirit behind what we are doing.
I am always happy to pass any research I have forward to anyone interested. I am constantly doing that—for myself, the association, and my business. I believe in this very much.
During the pandemic, I worked at Shopify, which has a very much open-source builder mentality. I brought that mindset into the leadership of this organization: We should open-source a lot of what we are building because we believe in it.
This idea of open-sourced comedy as a business has not been introduced to the industry before.
Comedy has always been full of sacred cows and gatekeepers — “Oh, you have to know someone to get into Just for Laughs,” or “You have to sit on Johnny Carson’s couch,” that kind of thing.
And now we are saying: or you can do it yourself. You can create your audience. You can build your brand. You can have your couch, be your own Johnny, and start your own CFL instead of waiting for someone else’s JFL.
We are in a different time now. We are in a time of builders.
When I see this globalization of comedy, I see hungry builders. Do you want to call them comedians? Sure. But I am calling them entrepreneurs.
They are freelancers. They are people who want to build something that has an impact. And just like any entrepreneur, they are going to be gritty and hungry—and a big part of that is making sure they are fed.
That is where the education piece comes in.
Jacobsen: Clifford, thank you very much—not the big red dog—for taking the time today to share your expertise. It was nice to meet you.
Myers: Scott, it’s a pleasure to meet you. You’re a really interesting guy, too. You have all those deep-cut comedy references.
I look forward to talking to you again.
Jacobsen: That is kind. All right. You take care.
Myers: Later, buddy. 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): 2025/06/14
Dr. Erica Kalkut, PhD, ABPP is Executive Clinical Director at LifeStance Health and leads Psychological and Neuropsychological Testing Services. A board-certified pediatric neuropsychologist, she specializes in developmental, cognitive, and emotional assessments. Her work integrates clinical practice, research, and advocacy to improve access and quality in pediatric behavioral health across diverse medical and neurological conditions. She notes that early mental health challenges often go unnoticed due to access barriers and children’s increasing ability to mask emotions. Parents can foster resilience and emotional intelligence by offering consistent, judgment-free presence and quality time. Schools must also play a role in identifying and intervening early. Kalkut advocates for daily device-free parent-child interactions and child-led, developmentally appropriate clinical approaches to promote healthy emotional development in today’s fast-paced, tech-driven society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the essential emotional and psychological needs of children today?
Dr. Erica Kalkut: Children, as always, need to feel a sense of belonging and stability. In order to develop a healthy self esteem, they need to be able to feel cared for by their loved ones. However, children today are also seeking acceptance and interest from a much larger circle outside of their immediate family, friends, and trusted adults. Feeling relevant and connected to a larger virtual world has been increasingly important to how today’s youth develops their emotional wellbeing.
Jacobsen: Across inpatient, outpatient, and sub-acute settings, what are common gaps in children’s mental health supports?
Kalkut: Access continues to be an issue, as many parents report that they have difficulty connecting with a trusted therapist or mental health professional. Children have also become increasingly skilled at masking their concerns, perhaps in part because of their digital interactions, which can be a barrier to making expected progress once they receive intervention.
Jacobsen: How can parents and caregivers foster resilience and emotional intelligence?
Kalkut: Being present, available, and open to your children should remain as top priorities for parents. Showing your child that you will listen to them and be there for them, no matter their flaws or imperfections, is one of the best ways to foster resilience and promote emotional development. This is also important to counterbalance social media, which on the contrary, your child is learning only accepts certain images or impressions that your child portrays even if this is not their authentic selves.
Jacobsen: What is the role of educational institutions in promoting strong mental health?
Kalkut: Many children show resilience, even when their mental health is suffering, and their first signs of struggle often appear at school. Schools need to not only know how to look for signs that indicate that a child is struggling, but also how to intervene with that child and their family in order to increase mental health.
Jacobsen: What are early signs a child may be struggling with mental health issues?
Kalkut: Changes in behavior, thinking, reactions, and social engagement are common signs that a child has psychological needs. However, there are often physical indications like changes in appetite, sleep, aches, and pains that show up. It is hard because many of these signs, when they are mild or transient, are also common during childhood and adolescence. Parents should look to see if there is a pattern, however, and follow their gut if they believe their child is behaving or responding in ways that seem out of character. It is always better to err on the side of checking in with your child or talking with a professional should you have concerns.
Jacobsen: How have digital and parasocial relationships affected children’s interpersonal skills and emotional regulation?
Kalkut: (see above answers).
Jacobsen: What practical strategies are recommended for a mentally healthy home environment?
Kalkut: In an increasingly busy world, make sure to carve out 1:1 time with your children every day. This is not just taking your child to their activities or getting them through their routine – it means carving out time to truly be present with your child each day, with no devices or distractions. Even 5 minutes can be impactful, but ideally 15 minutes to play a game, have a conversation, go for a walk, sing a song, or do something silly and unexpected together can help you and your child to feel connected! It is a 5 to 15 minute investment into their emotional health (and yours).
Jacobsen: How do you ensure clinical practices are child-centered and developmentally appropriate?
Kalkut: Approach conversations with openness and curiosity so that the child can lead the way and share how they are thinking about things.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/13
The DFW Independent Coalition of Kitty-loving Satanists formed after a schism in The Satanic Temple (TST) in May 2024, when its founder fired a respected minister over a meme. Many congregations, including DFW, chose independence due to perceived authoritarianism. The group embraces non-theistic Satanism, emphasizing science, reason, and rebellion against tyranny. Nightingale is the current leader. They maintain a welcoming community, particularly for marginalized groups, and uphold modified TST tenets. Their activism focuses on community service rather than stunts. Media portrayals of Satanists remain biased. The Coalition is restructuring and expanding, with engagement through Facebook and Discord. A related podcast, Satanists Are People Too, provides insights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired the formation of the DFW Independent Coalition of Kitty-loving Satanists, and how has the group developed since its creation?
Nightingale: The formation of the DFW Independent Coalition of Kitty-loving Satanists was a FAFO situation that, honestly, if answered in full, could fill an entire book. We were previously a local congregation of TST (The Satanic Temple) in Dallas, Fort Worth. Back in May of 2024, a great schism was initiated by the founder of TST in which he fired a very respected minister from another congregation because of a meme he posted and didn’t approve of. He pitched a hissy fit in a very childish and authoritarian way, and anyone who stood up for the minister was also fired. Within a month or two, over half of the congregation heads were fired, and more chose to leave alone. This not only included U.S. congregations but overseas congregations too. Many of those who stayed and defended the founder’s actions became very hostile, and their true colours emerged. TST was no longer a safe space nor a community-driven religion, and it lost sight of the tenets it claimed to be founded upon. Several leaders within the organization also quit due to the founder’s actions, including the director of the ministry. This major schism caused much unease and painted a clear picture of the path in which TST was headed. Because of this, our local congregation members voted and decided to leave TST and become independent, as did multiple other congregations. Since becoming independent, we have maintained the local community has grown in numbers and continues to thrive.
Jacobsen: How does the group define its non-theistic approach to Satanism?
Nightingale: Non-theistic is a nonsupernaturalist view of the world, turning to science as an arbiter of truth claims. Satan is a literary metaphor for rebellion against tyranny, and the symbols and rituals of Satanism sanctify personal sovereignty, reason, and compassion and give context and meaning to our community.
Jacobsen: How does the Coalition incorporate empathy and reason into its discussions and activities?
Nightingale: Part of what led most people to TST was their 7 Tenets. The first tenant states, “One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.” The tenants are still well-respected within independent congregations, although they have now been slightly modified to avoid lawsuits. Empathy and reason are part of the core of our congregation. A lot of individuals who are drawn to Satanism find their way here because they were outcasted from elsewhere, mostly in part of their non-conforming, “non-Christian” values. Many are part of the LBGQT+ community and other marginalized groups. We embrace these individuals with open arms, accept everyone for who they are, and encourage individuality. We listen, provide resources for those needing help, and stand up to arbitrary authority.
Jacobsen: How are the Coalition’s rules and guidelines enforced?
Nightingale: Satanism is very individualistic, and there is no one way to practice it. Though we are very accepting of many forms, we do not tolerate bigotry or racism. One could have many red flags, and if you display one, you are banned. Part of our job as leaders is to protect our members; as you can imagine, there are many infiltrators. We attempt to screen individuals initially, but some do slip by. It usually doesn’t take long to find those who don’t belong and remove them from our community.
Jacobsen: What were the circumstances for the departure from TST as an independent coalition?
Nightingale: I answered most of that in question 1, but to reiterate, it was a unanimously voted-on decision by vetted congregation members to leave and go independent based on the actions of the founder of TST and their direction moving forward.
Jacobsen: How does the “kitty-loving” aspect contribute to the group’s identity and community culture? I endorse this very much as a fellow non-theist Satanist.
Nightingale: So that’s actually a funny story. For some reason, Satanists love acronyms; I mean, who doesn’t? Once we decided to go independent, we knew we had to act fast, rebrand ourselves and create new online spaces. Once, one of our leaders came up with the name DFW Independent Coalition of Kitty-loving Satanists, or D.I.C.K.S. Yes, we do love cats, but that’s just what was chosen to complete the acronym. We absolutely knew it would be temporary, and we are close to finalizing a new permanent name and logo for ourselves.
Jacobsen: How can folks engage with left-hand path communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area?
Nightingale: The first step would be to join our Facebook. It’s currently called DFW Independent Coalition of Kitty-loving Satanists. You can request to join and answer a few simple screening questions. Once approved, you will be part of the community. We have once-a-month and sometimes twice-month in-person socials in the area and monthly online socials. Currently, almost every activity we do is posted on Facebook. After attending three of those and getting to know more about you other than what’s on your Facebook, you can be extended a Discord invite and join the daily discussions on multiple topics with us. That is the current process.
Jacobsen: How is the media portraying Satanists in the States now?
Nightingale: As you can imagine, the Trump administration acted very poorly. As mentioned earlier, most of our members are of marginalized groups, and every day, their rights are being threatened if not taken away completely. We take measures to protect ourselves and loved ones, and no one is forced to be public about it. The vast majority of us use Satanisms (names we have created to protect our actual identity), and if anyone tries to or does dox someone, you are banned immediately. You control who knows any information or your association with us. Media has always been and will always be what it is: a way to push a specific narrative. Every media is different and biased; Fox News hates anything not far right-wing Christian extremists, while MSNBC will report on the positive aspects of TST. AP is as neutral as it gets with the media; they seem to report facts with the least bias. As far as entertainment media goes, Satanists are nothing like those portrayed in the movies. There are always those outliers that might come close, but they are not associated with us. We do not perform sacrifices, pray to Satan, sell our souls, or drink blood. We don’t even believe in a literal Satan (or God, for that matter) or souls. We are everyday people who work regular jobs, and most of us are private with our Satanism, and you wouldn’t ever know it unless we told you.
Jacobsen: What are the group’s plans or goals?
Nightingale: Since the schism, we have been in the restructuring phase and are building the framework to become more involved with the community. There is a discussion about joining a larger coalition of congregations and joining more causes. Right now, we continue to be a resource for those in need and help each other just as any church should. We will continue to grow and build a stronger foundation so that others can find a safe place within our community.
Jacobsen: Satanists have consistently done some of the most creative and fun activism. What would be an ideal activist stunt or presentation to you?
Nightingale: So we’re not interested in doing stunts; the current political climate is far too dangerous for that nonsense. Activism is a strong aspect of Satanism in the form of standing up to arbitrary authority and defending those who can’t defend themselves. The Trump administration has made it mainstream and “acceptable” to be a public bigot and has given the green light for closeted nazis to come out. My take on that is Fuck Nazis, but I don’t expect any member of our congregation to go head-to-head with one. Instead, we like to practice activism by helping out with food pantries, un-housed initiatives, picking up trash on the freeway, and, in my case, providing healthcare in lower-income areas. There are many ways to give back to the community, and providing resources to those in need does the most good within the community. Anyone interested in learning more about everyday Satanists, there’s an amazing podcast that our congregation head hosts called “Satanists are People too.” It can be found on Substack and Spotify.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Nightingale.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/13
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus, a renowned antiracism advocate and educator, shares insights from decades of work in education, diversity leadership, and institutional reform. Raised in a multicultural household, his early experiences shaped his antiracist values. He emphasizes teaching children critical thinking and active opposition to oppression from a young age, especially given modern societal influences like media and systemic racism. He recounts shifting from viewing racism as rooted in ignorance to understanding it as a systemic construct. McManus advocates reeducation, citing personal transformation and the necessity of providing youth with tools to question oppressive norms and build inclusive, just communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Dr. Joe-Joe McManus, a nationally recognized antiracism advocate, educator, and author. His work bridges personal experience with institutional transformation. Raised in a predominantly white town south of Boston, he grew up in a multicultural, interreligious family and witnessed firsthand the impacts of racism and antisemitism. These early experiences—particularly those involving his adopted African American brother, Kacey—shaped his lifelong commitment to equity and justice.
Over the past three decades, Dr. McManus has served in various roles across higher education, including positions at HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), Ivy League institutions, and international universities. He has held faculty, administrative, and executive positions, notably serving as Chief Diversity Officer at California State University San Marcos. His work advises education, corporate, and nonprofit leaders on antiracism, inclusiveness, and leadership. In his book A Brother’s Insight: Guidance on Defeating Racism and Advancing Freedom, he offers a deeply personal narrative that combines actionable strategies for dismantling racism. Motivated by his daughter’s challenge to do more in the fight against racism, he provides readers with tools to make everyday choices rooted in justice and equity.
]He is an influential voice on diversity, equity, and inclusion, serving on multiple boards and speaking at national and international forums. You can learn more about him at drjoejoe.com. So, Dr. Joe-Joe—Jojo Dancer, your life is calling. Now, what do kids need? I mean that in two senses.
First, in the perennial sense, kids have always needed certain things—care, safety, and provision. Second, in the modern sense, the introduction of the Internet and social media has transformed childhood over the past quarter-century. What do kids need in this newer phase of American civilization, where so much is exposed?
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus: Overall, kids need to be learning critical thinking skills more than ever. These skills have been removed from many curricula and much factual knowledge, particularly in the U.S. education system. It also needs to be an active process.
Young people need to learn antiracism. They need to develop an anti-oppression perspective. The reason is that we have slipped into this notion of being “non-racist”—as if staying neutral means you are not part of the problem. That is not true. Historically, those who do nothing have often been the most significant part of the problem. They allow the status quo—especially around racism, antisemitism, and other forms of oppression—to persist. That has been true across ages and different types of oppression.
So, teaching children to be actively antiracist—to oppose homophobia, heterosexism, antisemitism, and all forms of oppression—is essential. They need to be conscious of these issues, identify them, and then actively learn how to oppose them in age-appropriate and constructive ways. I believe that is what young people truly need to know today.
Jacobsen: And they need to learn from a younger age than most people think. When it comes to healthy development—how can things go wrong if a kid goes off track? There are many ways to live healthily during childhood and adolescence, but when things go off track, how can kids be reclaimed? Because my understanding is that if they get into gang life, for instance, then it becomes tough for them to leave. It becomes a new system of love, structure, hierarchy, leadership, and mentorship.
McManus: Sure. I think it is a similar issue. We could even look at white supremacists as a kind of gang, using the framework you’re describing. When it comes to antisemitism and other forms of oppression, it is difficult—it’s almost like a deprogramming process at first. You have to counter the narratives normalized in someone’s mind. That’s why so many people hold beliefs about race, religion, gender identity, and other issues that seem so illogical.
That’s one of the things I talk about in the book—how logic often gets set aside. It becomes almost a kind of faith. People believe in white supremacy, antisemitism, homophobia, heterosexism—in the way others might feel in a religious doctrine. So even when it defies logic, it persists as belief. You’ll see people argue with you even though there’s no logical path to follow. The facts do not support them. The research does not support them. Critical thinking skills are often left at the door regarding these belief systems. So yes, it can be tough to get through.
There was a researcher and theorist a long time ago—I believe his name was Morris Massey—who talked about the need for a “significant emotional event” to dislodge a belief that someone holds as an adult. That’s why it is so important to have these conversations with young people while developing their belief systems. Because that is precisely what we are dealing with: belief systems. We often refer to white supremacy as a “perspective,” but it is not—it is a belief system.
nd we have to see it and address it as such when we’re working with people who have been indoctrinated into these ideas, which are coming from many places. That’s why it is essential to have an actively antiracist, anti-oppression approach to helping children understand the world around them. If none of those toxic ideas came from media, schools, or other sources, we might not need such a deliberate approach. But they are. And that’s how we got lulled into the false idea that being “not part of the problem” is somehow enough. It is not. We have to counter those narratives.
Sometimes that happens through media—we do get some counternarratives. But young people need to read more. They need to be taught actively to oppose oppression. When we understand oppressive ideologies as belief systems, figuring out how to counter them becomes easier. That does not make it easy, of course. Even in antiracist households, it can be not easy to counter all that is coming at a young person.
And now, in the United States, we are dealing with book bans, edited and censored curricula, and the removal of African American history courses—or anything that even hints at social justice, according to some. So, what we are left with is much mythology in our education system. And young people believe their teachers.
And they are not taught enough to question what they are being taught, to ask what they are reading, and to seek other perspectives. Until that happens, we will need active parents and communities to teach differently—and hopefully, institutions that will step up somehow. But right now, of course, we are dealing with an intense racist and white supremacist backlash.
Jacobsen: When it comes to social awareness and child development, when are kids typically looking outward enough—not necessarily abstractly, but having a coherent sense of what is happening, at least in their friend group—so that some sociological analysis can be presented at a level that is age-appropriate and grade-appropriate, wherever the child happens to be?
McManus: Well, certainly by school age. One of the key movements in anti-bias and antiracist education emerged from early elementary educators who recognized exactly what you are talking about: that young people are perceiving and internalizing what is happening around them. I am sure this happens even before school age. I am not a psychologist, but young people always absorb this. They start to develop an idea of who they are within the social constructs they are part of. And those constructs are defined by everyone around them.
They fall in line very early and see themselves as whatever they are being told—whatever category they are placed into. Whether it be male, white, Christian, or any other identity, they understand social location early on. Even if they cannot articulate it in those terms, they are beginning to comprehend where they fit within the hierarchies built into much of our society.
Jacobsen: What is something, over your last three decades of work, that you used to hold as a core opinion based on the events of the time but then changed your mind about?
McManus: That is a good question. When I first started speaking globally on issues of race, racism, religion, and antisemitism, I believed that the roots of white supremacy, antisemitism, and other forms of oppression stemmed primarily from two things: ignorance and insecurity. I thought those were individual weaknesses that explained why people held such beliefs.
But over time, I learned about the systemic nature of oppression—its connection to economic structures and the processes that instill these belief systems in young people. There is a reason why white supremacists in the United States are working so hard to change what is taught in schools. It is not because we made massive progress in anti-bias or multicultural education but because we made some progress. That, combined with demographic changes in the U.S., has provoked fear in certain groups. And systems respond to defend themselves as they are designed to do.
My most significant learning was that these belief systems are not primarily caused by individual weakness but by coordinated systems designed to construct and reinforce social hierarchies and oppression. That realization came from mentors, advancing my education and learning under people who had been doing this work for decades. I also began to understand that opposition to oppression has existed since its very inception—and that part of the journey is reeducating ourselves.
Even though I had grown up in an actively antiracist and anti-oppression household, I still went to school—and I learned whatever I learned. Some of it I had to unlearn. Even more importantly, I had to learn entirely new canons concerning my education because I had not been exposed to them. There was nothing there. I knew nothing about abolitionists.
I knew nothing. I had heard a couple of names, but I did not understand what they meant. This was right after high school. None of it meant anything to me. And I was someone who was already actively trying to fight against racism.
So I had to reeducate myself and continue my education, and I still continue to do so today.
Jacobsen: What are your favourite quotes? What are the ones you bring up in your international talks?
McManus: Oh, Lord. Yes, I think, generally, I do not always have a single favourite quote, but the quotes that matter the most to me are not necessarily about who said them—they are about helping people see a different perspective.
If you can lean on a quote from someone the audience respects or someone they can acknowledge—whether historically or in current politics, education, or activism—and that helps shift their perspective even a little, then that quote becomes meaningful. Those are the kinds of quotes I value the most.
Jacobsen: All right, Dr. McManus. Thank you.
McManus: All right. Excellent.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/12
In 2025, skateboarding is more diverse and widely accepted, though tensions remain between mainstream growth and underground authenticity. Latosha Stone-Keagy, founder of Proper Gnar, reflects on two decades in the scene, highlighting increased inclusion for women, LGBTQ+, and non-traditional skaters. Her creative deck design blends aesthetics with practical use, while the business side presents challenges like supply chains, tariffs, and balancing art with entrepreneurship. She sees promise in DIY park trends, eco-friendly gear, and independent media. Stone-Keagy advocates for real inclusivity, community investment, and protecting skateboarding’s creative, rebellious spirit amid rising commercialization. “Keep it weird,” she urges—authenticity matters.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the current cultural climate of skateboarding in 2025?
Latosha Stone-Keagy: Skateboarding feels more diverse and popular than before. There still a lot of DIY, and a lot of the older generation still frown upon it outside… but it has a much wider acceptance in mainstream culture. Some skaters embrace the growth, but many still like it to be “underground” and feel its more authentic that way.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What have been significant changes in the skateboarding community attitudes toward women or non‑traditional skaters over the last two decades?
Stone-Keagy: There’s been a huge difference. Twenty years ago, it was still rare to see women, LGBTQ+, or other non-traditional skaters in ads, contests, or in skate videos or on pro teams. There were the few main ones but not many others. Now, it’s getting better and becoming more common. There’s many pro women, and even some all-women teams. There’s brands owned by non-traditional skaters that sponsor people that are different. I think social media helped give different types of people a platform. You still get some guys that are weird about it or leave the occasional mean-spirited comment but it’s not as common as it used to be.
Jacobsen: What is your deck‑design process?
Stone-Keagy: I usually start with a blank template so I know where everything can be placed. I have to think about how the board will be used.. this part will eventually be grinded off, or the trucks and wheels will cover this part so don’t put anything important there… I think of how it will look when someone’s holding it or viewing it from the bottom when someone’s about to drop in. Color palettes and visual impact from a distance are huge to me. I love designing skateboards because there really aren’t any rules besides the ones you put on yourself.
When it comes to the actual design it varies. Sometimes I just start sketching and something good comes out of it. When I’m trying to build a collection, I think of a mood, vibe, or message I want to portray. Sometimes I start out on paper, other times I go straight to digital. Sometimes I’ve painted something unrelated and then decided later I think it would look on a board. I also think about how each piece will stand alone but also still feel like part of a cohesive drop.
Jacobsen: What have been obstacles navigating the business side of a skate brand?
Stone-Keagy: The biggest challenge has probably been balancing creativity with consistency. All artists go through art block from time to time. Trends move fast and you can’t lose your brands soul trying to chase them. Manufacturing has been a wild ride too. First, it was hard to find good suppliers because everyone in the industry is so secretive about theirs. Then meeting minimums as a smaller brand. And when COVID hit, everything got backed up for like 3 months. Now, the rising costs related to tariffs. Most skateboards are made with Canadian Maple, because in Canada the trees grow slower and are older due to their climate. American wood is too brittle for skateboards, so we have to import it. Then there’s cash flow, social media fatigue, and wearing many hats as an entrepreneur.. not getting to spend as much time skating and making art because you actually have to run the business to keep it going.
Jacobsen: The Olympics introduced skateboarding to a global audience. Has visibility helped or independent brands?
Stone-Keagy: It’s a double-edged sword. Visibility opened the door for new fans and markets that wouldn’t have existed before, which is great! But it also brought in big corporations trying to capitalize without truly understanding the culture. For independent brands, it’s helped if you stay true to your identity, because true skaters are looking for something real instead of mass-market skating.
Jacobsen: Which emerging trends in hardware, media, or park design excite you?
Stone-Keagy: I’m excited by how modular park design is becoming — more DIY-friendly, more flexible, and focused on creativity over huge, intimidating structures. I think that’s great for bringing on new skaters. There’s also projects and grants like The Skatepark Project that helps people get skateparks in their area. In hardware, it’s nice to see innovation in eco-friendly materials and more customizable options for riders. When I was growing up you got to choose what was in the small local skateshop and that was it unless your parents cared enough to let you order from CCS. In media, I love how zines and self-made edits are thriving. Some people are even getting super creative with their edits, making kind of like art films.
Jacobsen: Community is central to skateboarding culture. How do you cultivate authentic connections with skaters?
Stone-Keagy: I focus on showing up — hosting small events, doing lessons, supporting and donating to local contests, collaborating with artists and skaters on designs, and sharing real skate clips instead of perfectly polished ads. Listening is huge. Skaters are very vocal with their opinions and will call you out on something they see as fake. A lot of the time, it’s about giving back without asking for anything in return. That’s how loyalty and respect grows.
Jacobsen: What developments would you like to see in skateboarding?
Stone-Keagy: I’d love to see skateboarding continue pushing toward real inclusivity — not performative support, but actual investment in skaters from underrepresented backgrounds. That means more sponsorships for women, nonbinary skaters, LGBTQ+ skaters, and skaters of color, not just marketing campaigns during Pride Month or Black History Month. I also want to see more skateparks in areas that don’t traditionally get investment. A lot of skateboarding’s next generation could come from neighborhoods that currently don’t have the space or resources to nurture it. On the product side, I’d like more innovation in sustainable materials. Things like recycled decks, eco-friendly wheels, and low-waste production methods are still in the early stages, but they could have a massive impact if brands really commit to them.
And finally, I want skateboarding to stay weird. We need to protect the DIY spirit that made skating so powerful in the first place. Keep making space for creativity, expression, rebellion, and all the imperfections that make skating real. I hope new brands and skaters keep taking risks and making stuff that’s raw and honest, even if it’s not the most “profitable” thing.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Latosha.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/12
Chip Lupo, an analyst from WalletHub, talks about their 2025 report ranking U.S. states by drug problems based on 20 public health, addiction, and enforcement metrics. The study highlights troubling trends, such as New Mexico’s top ranking for drug use, teen substance exposure, and overdose deaths, while Hawaii and Florida rank lowest. Lupo emphasizes the multifaceted nature of the crisis—driven by fentanyl, youth access, and limited treatment infrastructure—and the importance of balanced strategies across healthcare, law enforcement, and prevention. The report underscores the urgent need for coordinated responses to address America’s deepening drug epidemic.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Chip Lupo, an analyst from WalletHub, to discuss the findings from their new report on drug use by the state. With National Substance Abuse Prevention Week approaching, the timing could not be more critical. The United States saw more than 80,670 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending November 2024, and the DEA seized the equivalent of more than 367 million lethal doses of fentanyl that year.
WalletHub’s newly released report ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on 20 key metrics related to drug use, addiction, law enforcement, and health support infrastructure. These range from overdose and arrest rates to opioid prescriptions and the availability of treatment. The goal is to spotlight the most pressing problem areas.
Let us go through the results. Which states are performing well? Which are struggling? And most importantly—why?
Chip Lupo: This is one ranking where number one is not good. The higher a state ranks, the worse its drug problem. According to the report, the five states with the most significant drug problems in 2025 are:
- New Mexico
- West Virginia
- Nevada
- Alaska
- District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.)
If we examine the top four states (excluding D.C., which is a densely populated urban center with unique governance and demographics), a typical pattern emerges: lower income levels, rural geography, and limited economic opportunities. These factors often correlate with higher levels of substance misuse. In places like New Mexico, which ranks 1st overall, drug use has reached epidemic proportions. It also ranks 1st in Drug Use & Addiction and has the highest percentage of teenagers using illicit drugs, the highest share of teens who tried marijuana before age 13, and the third-highest share of adults using illegal drugs.
Jacobsen: What kinds of factors are measured to determine these rankings?
Lupo: The report includes several key indicators. These capture both illegal drug use and prescription drug misuse, particularly opioids. It also considers:
- Overdose deaths per capita
- Growth in overdose deaths
- Drug arrests per capita
- Drug arrests on college campuses
- Presence of clandestine drug labs and dumpsites (such as meth labs)
- Access to treatment, including programs for pregnant women
- Availability of counselling and recovery services
- Teen drug use and exposure
Youth drug use is a significant factor. For example, New Mexico has the highest teen usage, and Nevada ranks near the top for teens being offered drugs on school property.
Jacobsen: How about the states at the other end of the spectrum—those doing better?
Lupo: The states with the least severe drug problems, according to our 2025 rankings, are:
- Florida
- Connecticut
- Nebraska
- Utah
- Hawaii
Hawaii ranks 51st, meaning it has the lowest drug problem overall across our metrics. Florida, at 47th, is exciting—it may surprise some, but that is what the data shows.
Jacobsen: This sounds like a complex and multifactorial issue, and no single policy will fix everything.
Lupo: Absolutely. Addressing drug abuse requires coordinated strategies across law enforcement, healthcare access, and community education. States that succeed tend to invest in all three.
Florida ranks in the bottom 10 across all three of our dimensions: Drug Use and addiction, Law Enforcement, and Drug Health Issues and rehab. To me, that suggests that if there is a drug problem in the state, at least some infrastructure or policy measures are in place—whether through law enforcement or access to treatment—to combat it. That is not always the case in some of the higher-ranked states on our list.
When people think of Florida, they often picture Miami, South Florida, or the I-95 corridor, where drugs are known to move up and down through distribution networks. So, I found Florida’s low ranking surprising. But at the same time, it is encouraging—it shows that measures are being implemented to prevent escalation or provide treatment options, which some of the worst-ranked states do not do well at all.
In those higher-ranked states, we often see abysmal performance in law enforcement and treatment access. That could be due to a lack of facilities, insufficient funding, or limited affordability. Sometimes, individuals may choose not to seek help, even when services are available.
Jacobsen: Is there a significant difference in drug use between red and blue states? Or maybe between younger and older users?
Lupo: The difference between red and blue states is relatively small. Red states average around 27%, while blue states average about 24.5%, so the gap is not that large. It is more useful to look at individual state-level conditions rather than broad political labels.
And yes, some red states have legalized marijuana, which complicates the picture. That must be considered when analyzing these rankings. Legalization could potentially open the door to increased access, higher potency products, or greater exposure, possibly leading to higher rates of use or associated crime.
Also, the marijuana being sold today—especially where it’s legalized—is far more potent than in past generations. This is not your uncle’s low-grade marijuana. Today’s products are significantly stronger, and that increases risks, particularly among inexperienced or younger users.
Jacobsen: Are there contextual or regional factors that explain why teenagers are being offered illegal drugs at school more often in some states than others—say, California compared to Connecticut, South Dakota, or Massachusetts?
Lupo: That is a great question. One possible explanation is the effectiveness—or lack thereof—of school drug education curricula. If those programs are underdeveloped, outdated, or inconsistently implemented, students may not get the message.
One particularly striking metric is the share of children living with someone who has a problem with alcohol or drugs. This does not mean the child is misusing substances, but they are being exposed to substance abuse in their home environment. And that kind of exposure can have long-term consequences. It starts at home—and a household with drug problems is not a stable or protective environment for children.
Jacobsen: I hear ongoing debates about harm reduction versus prohibition and the philosophical spectrum between them. How does that affect your methodology?
Lupo: That is a thoughtful point. In our scoring system, we assign equal weight (25 points each) to Law Enforcement and Drug Health Issues & Rehab to reflect both philosophical approaches. But the most significant weight—50 points—goes to Drug Use & Addiction because that is the most direct expression of the problem.
Within that category, the single most heavily weighted metric is overdose deaths per capita, which we weight quadruple. And that is deliberate. The opioid crisis, especially with fentanyl, has devastated communities across the country. So yes, this epidemic influences the decision to prioritize that metric.
I think so, Scott because when we’re talking about fentanyl, we are almost dealing with a separate issue. I do not believe most teenagers—or even many adult users—are actively trying to score fentanyl, so to speak. It is often something that is unknowingly laced into other drugs—whether illegal street drugs or counterfeit prescription medications. That is what makes it so dangerous.
The overdose deaths per capita metric, which we gave quadruple weight, captures the sheer devastation that fentanyl has contributed to in recent years. It reflects the tremendous volume of fentanyl that has entered the U.S. drug supply.
The following two most heavily weighted metrics in the Drug Use & Addiction category are:
- The share of teenagers who used illicit drugs in the past month (double weight)
- The number of opioid pain reliever prescriptions per 100 people (also double weight)
These essentially represent two separate demographics. Teenagers are more commonly using illicit recreational drugs, while opioid prescriptions typically affect adults unless a teenager undergoes surgery or a serious injury. So, they speak to different facets of the epidemic.
Jacobsen: That distinction makes sense. It reflects the need to address both youth exposure and adult prescription practices.
Lupo: While these are different aspects of the broader issue, they are both widespread and, therefore, deserve equal weight in our ranking model. The point is to capture the multifaceted nature of drug use and addiction.
Also, to clarify, the data sources we used are all mainstream and reputable. They include the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Jacobsen: Were there any sources you considered including but left out for one reason or another?
Lupo: Not particularly. The list we used is comprehensive and in line with expectations for a report like this. We had coverage from federal health agencies, law enforcement databases, and public health organizations. The core data set is solid.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else that stood out in the Drug Health Issues & Rehab dimension?
Lupo: Yes, a couple of things. One crucial factor is that some states—New Mexico included—have no employee drug testing laws. That means companies can implement testing independently, but the state does not require or regulate it in any standardized way. No law in New Mexico defines substance abuse during pregnancy as a crime.
Another key point is that New Mexico ranks poorly in the share of adults who needed but did not receive treatment for illicit drug use. That could be due to limited treatment centers per capita, affordability issues, or even personal reluctance to seek help.
New Mexico is about middle-of-the-road in terms of substance abuse treatment facilities per 100,000 people, so the treatment infrastructure is not nonexistent. That suggests affordability, access, or public awareness might be the limiting factors.
Jacobsen: All right, that was a great chat.
Lupo: Sounds good, Scott.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thanks so much. Take care.
Lupo: You got it. Talk soon.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/11
Gabrielle Provencher, M.Sc., R.S.W., R.M.F.T. (AMHP), Director of Enhanced Mental Health Care and Workplace Support at Homewood Health, shares insights on the rising demand for mental health services post-COVID-19. She highlights a 37% increase in cases related to anxiety, depression, and stress from 2019 to mid-2024, driven by isolation, financial pressure, and sociopolitical strain. Provencher explains how EFAP programs support employees with strengths-based, short-term counselling, crisis intervention, and wellness services. She emphasizes gender disparities in mental health access and the need for inclusive care. Provencher also explores the impact on families and couples, noting how caregiving roles, emotional labour, and relationship stress contribute to mental health strain. Her leadership combines clinical experience with compassionate, trauma-informed responses rooted in equity, community care, and cultural sensitivity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Gabrielle Provencher, M.Sc., R.S.W., R.M.F.T. (AMHP). She is the Director of Enhanced Mental Health Care and Workplace Support at Homewood Health, bringing over 15 years of experience since 2009. Gabrielle has held leadership roles across crisis management and long-term psychotherapy services. She is a Registered Social Worker, Psychotherapist, and Registered Marriage and Family Therapist.
Gabrielle holds a Master’s degree in Clinical Criminology, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work, and a Certificate in Family and Couples Therapy. She specializes in working with couples, families, and equity-deserving groups and actively promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion in healthcare. Gabrielle also operates a private practice and has served on the Board of Durham Children’s Aid Society. Thank you for your time. First question: What is the primary goal of the EFAP program?
Gabrielle Provencher: That’s a broader question because EFAP encompasses many services. At Homewood Health, we are a Canadian leader in mental health and addiction services. EFAP primarily focuses on workplace mental health support. Depending on the coverage, it can involve short-term counselling or longer, mid-term psychotherapy.
We also offer crisis management services on-site in response to traumatic incidents, such as an employee’s passing or organizational restructuring, but also for larger-scale events such as natural disasters, accidents, or acts of violence/terrorism. We also provide various wellness services, including workshops, meditation, and workplace assessments.
So, the goal can vary depending on the specific service. However, if we refer to EFAP short-term counselling—”one-at-a-time” sessions—the main objective is to offer strengths-based, solution-focused therapy. It is very client-driven and focused on immediate concerns. This is not a psychoanalytic approach where we delve into childhood issues. Instead, it supports employees in maintaining a healthy work-life balance.
Jacobsen: What biggest challenges or pressure points that contribute to a lack of work-life balance today?
Provencher: Financial strain is one of the most prominent challenges families face. It manifests in various ways: people taking on multiple jobs, working longer hours, and having less time for family or self-care. We’ll probably discuss this in more depth later, but for women, emotional labour—the caregiving burden—also plays a significant role.
I should not say burden because it is not always a burden. However, in many cases, women are most likely to be caring for both an elderly family member and a child at the same time. We call this the “sandwich caregiver” role. For other families, the financial stress of working harder and longer hours often results in less time with family and children, which impacts many people.
So, these are some of the key issues right now regarding work-life balance. In another area, there is a different dynamic for those employed and have the privilege of working from home post-COVID. Many people feel isolated. Even though we are “together,” we are constantly on camera. It is counterintuitive, but being continually connected makes it difficult to disconnect. Some people find it harder to take care of themselves—go for a walk, take a proper lunch break. Instead, they say, “No, I will just finish this email.” The next thing they know, they have spent eight or nine hours sitting at their desk.
So I think those are the main contributing factors, along with the overall rise in mental health issues like stress, anxiety, and depression, much of it driven by today’s sociopolitical climate.
Jacobsen: You mentioned stress and anxiety. While anxiety and depression are different, they are often linked. What mental health issues have increased since 2019?
Provencher: Mainly anxiety, depression, stress, and work-related stress. Based on our data, there has been a 37% increase in cases addressing these issues since 2019. As I mentioned, this increase has been driven by isolation, financial pressure, increased screen time, and social media time, which intensified during the pandemic.
This especially affected young people in school, but suddenly pulled them out of social environments and placed them in one-dimensional online learning settings. That disruption created a significant developmental gap for many, and we still see the repercussions.
So yes, there is a youth mental health crisis—but adults are affected too. We also see the rise of climate-related mental health issues. There is a term we use: eco-anxiety—and it is real. People are questioning whether they want to have children, whether they can ever afford a home, and what the future holds.
This is compounded by the strain on the healthcare system, where people struggle to access physicians or mental health professionals. All of this contributes to the increasing rates of mental health issues.
Jacobsen: How much of that would you attribute to COVID?
Provencher: That’s a very relevant and complex question. Causality is always difficult to attribute when dealing with large-scale, multifactorial issues like mental health. That said, yes, COVID had a major impact. It is significant to consider that famine, war, and plague have existed throughout history. However, in our time, experiencing something of this magnitude on a global scale, all at once, was unprecedented. We were not prepared.
We were not just unprepared—unless you worked in epidemiology —most people didn’t believe it could happen. I think it was a shock for everyone. It became a kind of collective trauma. It is difficult to explain what we all endured for nearly three years—being at home and making critical decisions such as, “Should I get the vaccine? What does that mean for me? Are there enough studies? Will I be safe?”
There was the constant fear of infection every time you stepped outside. Moreover, we didn’t have much data. We are talking about the importance of having facts, but as the pandemic evolved, we had to make tough decisions with almost no reliable information. That is a traumatic experience in itself.
People were losing their jobs, and then there was everything else layered on top, like the civil unrest following George Floyd’s death. 2020 was an unforgettable year. The years that followed brought many long-standing and deep-rooted issues to the forefront. People became even more polarized in their views, creating ongoing conflict. There is much anger out there.
It is a lot to process. So is it normal to see rising mental health issues? Yes, absolutely. What we are witnessing is a normal reaction to highly abnormal events. That is how I see it.
Jacobsen: How many people exceeded the clinical threshold for anxiety from 2022 to 2024?
Provencher: Between January 2022 and July 2024, 63% of the individuals who called us and underwent screening exceeded the clinical threshold for anxiety. We use psychometric assessments based on the criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), and 63% screened above the level we would consider functionally manageable. That is a very high number.
Jacobsen: What are some of the common symptoms of anxiety in daily life?
Provencher: Anxiety can present in many different ways. It may show up as excessive worry, panic disorder, or social anxiety. For some individuals, it can show up as phobias such as social phobia (fear of being judged) or agoraphobia (fear of being in situations where escape might be difficult or help might not be available), etc. Physically, it can include symptoms like sweaty palms, a racing heart, sleep disturbances, gastrointestinal issues, and panic attacks.
In terms of cognitive symptoms, anxiety often involves intrusive thoughts. With generalized anxiety disorder, for instance, nearly everything in life becomes something to worry about or overthink. You might constantly ask yourself, “What will people think of me if I go to that event?” or catastrophize everyday situations. It becomes a mental loop that is hard to break.
Or, “What should I wear?”—that question is typical for many of us. I think it is natural to experience some level of anxiety. Anxiety in itself is not always negative. It can help us prepare or stay alert. However, it becomes a concern when it starts interfering with your daily functioning and impacts your relationships, work, or ability to parent. That is when it turns into a clinical issue.
In some cases, people may turn to substance use to cope with persistent, intrusive thoughts. The content of those thoughts can vary depending on the individual’s specific disorder or the situation they are facing.
Jacobsen: COVID-19 began from late 2019 to early 2020 and continued through 2022. You mentioned a 37% increase in mental health issues. Was that increase steady, or did it plateau into the later part of 2024 or even into 2025?
Provencher: Interestingly enough, the rates of anxiety and depression have now almost returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, stress and work-stress continue to rise, alongside marital issues. I think we’re starting to recognize the deeper emotional impact of stress and understand that not everything is a diagnosable illness—stress is affecting our health in more complex and subtle ways. There’s growing awareness of the nuanced ways stress manifests, so people may now articulate their distress more in terms of stress and emotional strain rather than clinical disorders.
The effects of COVID are still reverberating. Financial stress remains, and younger generations, particularly students, have been disproportionately affected. I am thinking of my sister who completed her bachelor’s degree almost entirely in her basement! Those are formative years that she will never get back, when you are supposed to socialize, build friendships, and network. That kind of isolation contributes to increased social anxiety.
Jacobsen: Are there noticeable gender differences in how people seek out mental health supports, and in the self-stigmas that might prevent them from doing so?
Provencher: Yes, unfortunately, there are. We are mindful of this and try to ensure our services are inclusive and accessible to different groups. However, when it comes to societal expectations, especially for men, there is often pressure to appear stoic, strong, and self-reliant. For some, seeking help is seen as a sign of weakness, which makes it much harder to reach out, even when they recognize the signs in themselves. That stigma continues to be a barrier.
What you are describing also leads to internalized stigma. We know that men may often perceive a mental health crisis as a personal failure rather than recognizing it as a medical or psychological condition. It becomes tied to their sense of identity, as if struggling is a weakness of character.
Surveys show that men are far less likely to admit they are struggling emotionally, even to close family or friends. It often takes them much longer to seek support, and usually it happens only once they have hit a crisis point. That is when they are most likely to access services.
And I want to be clear—this does not apply to all men. There are certainly many men who take care of their mental health and access services early. But from a broader perspective, we need to improve how we reach and engage men with mental health campaigns. There’s more work to be done to effectively target this audience.
Men also tend to express emotional distress differently. Women may verbalize their struggles more readily, whereas men might externalize through anger, substance use, or withdrawal. Some men might prefer action-oriented coping strategies, like going to the gym or taking medication, before they consider talking to a therapist.
These social differences—how we are raised and conditioned—shape how people seek help. Moreover, society also plays a role. Vulnerability and emotional expression are often seen as more socially acceptable for women. On the other hand, women are disproportionately diagnosed with mental health issues, which opens a whole different conversation.
For instance, we need a better understanding of how physical health issues might lead to mental health symptoms in women and not rush to label something strictly psychological. We also need to understand emotional labour and caregiving responsibilities. Sometimes, what we call a mental health issue is an entirely normal response to being overwhelmed. Recognizing this can help us provide more appropriate, gender-sensitive support to both men and women.
Jacobsen: How do these issues manifest within families and couples?
Provencher: When talking about a unit—whether it’s a couple or a family—you have to take all of these individual issues and multiply the complexity. Now, you’re dealing with relational dynamics, communication breakdowns, emotional withdrawal, and competing needs.
Unfortunately, we are seeing more relationships under strain. It is becoming harder for couples to maintain a healthy relationship amid the stressors of modern life. Parents are stretched thin, often with little time to spend with their children, let alone with each other. There is also the challenge of protecting kids from the emotional toll of what is happening in the world.
We must remember that the idea of “family” is changing. Families look very different today. They’re more diverse, and their needs are more varied. However, one consistent theme is that people have less time to commit to their partner and children and to nurture those relationships.
These issues are complicated. If you are in a relationship with someone who is clinically depressed, it can be highly challenging. Not only are they likely to be off work, but in severe cases, they may not even be able to get out of bed. That leaves the other partner to take on everything—household responsibilities, emotional support, parenting—and that is a considerable burden.
When your partner is supposed to be your support system and suddenly cannot fulfill that role, it is emotionally taxing. It truly does take a village. While we say that often, we could do much better as a community by supporting one another.
Jacobsen: Has your leadership experience in crisis management and long-term psychotherapy helped your current work?
Provencher: Yes. I currently maintain a private practice, which is very important to me. I have been in leadership for a long time, but I intentionally returned to direct clinical work because it grounds me. As we build and oversee programs, I want to ensure the quality remains high and that we do the right thing for our clients and customers.
Staying connected to clinical work helps me remember what it is like to be in the room with someone and truly listen and support them. My training and experience with clients deeply inform my leadership.
When it comes to crisis management, that experience also helps me navigate what is happening in the world today. For example, after the recent tragic event at the Lapu-Lapu festival in Vancouver, we were able to respond and provide support to the affected community. It’s meaningful to be part of that—to help people through trauma and to be involved in making things better, even in the face of violence. It all comes down to kindness. We need more of it, and I keep that at the core of what I do.
Jacobsen: Gabrielle, thank you for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was really nice to meet you.
Provencher: Thank you, same here.
Jacobsen: Okay, have a good day!
Provencher: Thank you again. 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/10
A Crash Course in Medical Myths: In Treating Menopause And Perimenopause and Throughout Our Medical Care
Award-winning science writer Amy Alkon exposes the systemic failures in women’s health care—highlighting how outdated guidelines, myth-based assumptions, and poorly trained doctors leave women misdiagnosed, dismissed, or untreated. In her new book, Going Menopostal, she helps readers cut through the noise, understand the science behind hormone therapy and metabolic health, and make informed, individualized decisions about aging. Her empowering message is to take charge of your body, question medical assumptions, and embrace aging with vitality, curiosity, and evidence-based action.
Why Most Doctors Can’t Evaluate the Science
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with a core issue: Why aren’t most doctors able to critically assess the science behind their recommendations?
Amy Alkon: They are not trained to read it critically. They don’t have meaningful coursework in statistics and methodology assessment. I was incredibly fortunate to be informally mentored by Dr. Sander Greenland, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and biostatisticians. He became my friend and would review my weekly science-based columns. I’ve got a long email from him on my wall that explains methodology and research flaws in beautiful, brutal clarity.
Jacobsen: How did this informal education shape your approach to writing Going Menopostal?
Alkon: Through him, I learned how to read studies critically—how to spot fraud, bias, poor methodology, and unjustified conclusions. He also sent me literature on medical errors, misconduct, and statistical abuse. That education changed how I view all medical science.
It taught me that responsible scientific thinking means examining a body of work—not just one study. To draw firm conclusions, you need multiple well-conducted studies across different populations.
I’m proud to say that in Going Menopostal, I don’t make sweeping claims. When the research is heterogeneous—different ages, drugs, study methods—I explain my thinking. I’m presenting my reasoning and encouraging readers to make their own decisions based on their health profiles.
Take heart disease, for example. It’s already the leading killer of people. It’s quickly becoming the leading killer of women, too. It will likely kill one in three women in the coming years. It’s one in five right now, but that number is rising.
Competing Health Risks
Jacobsen: How do you weigh competing health risks when making treatment decisions?
Alkon: So when we talk about risks—like the fear of breast cancer from taking hormone therapy—we have to balance that against the far higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
Some of the research is more conclusive than others, but I saw enough strong support to justify my choice. I’m medically prudent. I’m conservative about drugs. I don’t want to take medication if I can avoid it. I don’t wish for medical treatments unless they’re necessary.
One of the things I include in Going Menopostal—to help people who don’t have a nerd like me digging into their specific issue—is a set of six questions to ask your doctor.
- Can you explain the reasoning behind your diagnosis and the treatment you recommend?
- Could other conditions be causing my symptoms?
- What are the risks of this treatment—for someone like me?
- Are there safer, less invasive alternatives?
- What can I expect during the treatment and recovery?
- Do I need this now, or could I wait—or possibly go without the treatment?
If your doctor isn’t explaining things clearly, ask them to explain until you understand. If needed, schedule another appointment or phone call. You can’t give informed consent if you don’t fully understand what you’re consenting to.
Informed consent is not optional—it’s legally and ethically required in medicine. Doctors are obligated to explain things in plain language.
Advice for Unheard Women
Jacobsen: What advice do you have for women who feel dismissed or unheard by their doctors?
Alkon: But you owe it to yourself and your health to advocate for your body. That may involve some conflict. Some friction. So what? That moment of discomfort is worth it.
Can you do this? In Unfckology*—my earlier book—I say: your feelings are not the boss of you. You can have a feeling and still choose not to act on it. You don’t have to say, “Okay, yes, I’ll do whatever you say. I’ll stay quiet.” No. You say, “F you, feeling.”
So what do you do? You focus on what you can control: yourself. That’s the growth. Yesterday, you may have stayed silent. But today? You spoke up. You were brave. That’s powerful. You need to give yourself credit, give yourself a big pat on the back, and say it out loud. I talk to myself and say, “Good job, self.” It’s funny, makes me laugh, and snaps me out of whatever spiral I’m in.
Going Menopostal does more than tackle the science of diagnosis and treatment for menopause and perimenopause. It shows how to live healthfully and fully in your later years. That means embracing evidence-based approaches to eating and exercising but making them doable.
As an advice columnist for all those years, I’d offer options: “You could do this, or you could try that.” And while writing, I’d talk to myself—like, Amy, is anyone going to keep taking this advice? If the answer were no, I’d call myself out: You’re being a jerk, Alkon. Go think up something useful. It’s the same with lifestyle advice, especially when it comes to eating and exercise. It has to be doable.
Navigating Nutritional Science
Jacobsen: How do you navigate nutritional science when so much of it seems contradictory?
Alkon: For many people, eating a low-carbohydrate, well-formulated diet—higher in healthy fats and adequate protein—is the most nutritious and sustainable way to eat across the lifespan. It helps prevent blood sugar spikes, excessive insulin secretion, and insulin resistance. That resistance contributes to a condition known as inflammation.
Chronic, low-grade inflammation builds up in the body over time. It’s like there’s always a slow fire burning. So, when your immune system needs to kick into gear, it is often tired, dysregulated, and weakened in response to a serious event. It can’t mount a proper defence, and that’s a huge problem.
These are foundational drivers of suffering and chronic illness. Cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and other severe conditions stem from this internal wear and tear. As for the old “lipid hypothesis”—that cholesterol alone causes heart disease? That has not been definitively proven. It is increasingly clear that the real culprits behind cardiometabolic disease are high blood sugar, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, and the constellation of risk factors known as Syndrome X—now more commonly called metabolic syndrome.
One of the most disturbing aspects I cover in my book is that, while we all share basic anatomy—such as livers, kidneys, and hearts—there are significant physiological differences across populations. In menopause and perimenopause research, most of the data is based on middle-class white women.
Black individuals tend to have lower triglycerides and higher HDL (the so-called “good” cholesterol). That sounds great—except that if you apply white-centred diagnostic standards to Black patients, they can appear metabolically healthy when they are not. That leads to underdiagnosis and undertreatment.
This is a tragedy because Black Americans—and other people of colour, including Hispanic populations and certain Indigenous groups like the Pima—have a significantly higher risk for diabetes, heart disease, and kidney failure. So when the guidelines are wrong—or not population-specific—that is not just an oversight; it is dangerous.
Most doctors are just following the “practice standards” they’re given. But when those standards are built on flawed, non-inclusive research? The whole system fails. They don’t know all this science. Remember, doctors are not trained to read and evaluate scientific research in medical school. So, they have to rely on practice guidelines—standards that may be outdated, incomplete, or based on flawed data.
LDL and Heart Disease Risk
Jacobsen: How can we ensure population-specific data guides treatment decisions?
Alkon: The real issue is that our institutions have failed. Medical education doesn’t train doctors to read research critically. Doctors don’t have the time to dig into studies—and even if they did, most aren’t taught how to evaluate study design, bias, or statistical flaws.
And the consequences are enormous. I see it. I recently had eye surgery, and sitting in that waiting room. I looked around at all the people around me—so many of them suffering from preventable conditions. It broke my heart. They’re old. They have diabetes. They’re obese. They’re weak.
The Key to Muscle Loading
Jacobsen: What about strength training?
Here’s the reality: what you do for muscle, you do for bone. Bone responds to mechanical loading—the stress placed on it when muscles contract forcefully against resistance. That means lifting weights.
You must significantly challenge your muscles to build or maintain muscle and bone. Slow-speed weight training is the most effective, powerful, and efficient form of this. That means lifting weights that are heavy for you, using a controlled motion—about five seconds up, five seconds down—with no pumping or jerking. Pumping is how people get injured. The goal is not to fling your arm up; it’s to create deep muscular engagement.
You continue the set until you reach muscle failure, where you cannot do one more rep with proper form. That’s key. When you hit failure with good form, you’ve created microtears in the muscle. That sounds bad, but it is the foundation of muscle repair and growth. Over the next day or two, your body rebuilds the muscle stronger.
And here’s why that matters: bone and muscle are metabolically active tissues. They help regulate insulin sensitivity, reduce inflammation, and fight off the effects of aging—including that creepy visceral fat, which wraps around your organs and tries to kill you. Strength training helps you fight that.
So again, as I was writing the book, I asked myself, “What’s doable?” Because the average person isn’t a saint. We’re lazy chimps. We need something realistic and repeatable. That’s why I recommend just one set of muscle failures per movement. That’s it. I do eight of these a week—two on Sunday. That’s all. And I’ve got visible muscles. You should feel my arms. It’s wild.
I use what I call my Barbie gym. I’ve got this graveyard of weights on the living room floor—different dumbbells in a pile. You don’t need fancy machines or 37 different exercises.
When you do these full-body movements—like squats or rows—you send a systemic signal throughout your body. You’re not just working your biceps and ignoring everything else. Even without gym equipment, I’m the healthiest I’ve ever been. And to be honest, I’d been scared. I’m a slow writer and have spent years sitting in a sedentary chair. I’d get up occasionally, but it wasn’t consistent activity.
I used to run seven miles three times a week, but I wasn’t putting weight on my bones as I needed to. At some point, I went to walk to the office supply store near me—about half a mile away. I walked one long block, and my back was killing me. I thought, “Oh my god, you’ve ruined your body. You sat in your chair for years and are now destroyed.”
But no—I hadn’t ruined it. I caught it in time. Once I started strength training with weights, I rebuilt my strength. All of this is vital. The two key things you need to do are:
- Eat a low-carb, adequate-protein, sufficient-fat diet.
- Lift weights with intensity.
For protein specifically, you need at least 1.2 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. That’s the minimum for preserving muscle as you age. The U.S. government recommends 0.8 grams per kilogram, which is outdated and too low—especially for older adults. If you don’t get enough protein, it does not matter how much calcium you take—you could eat a dairy aisle’s worth—and it still won’t build bone properly. Protein is required for calcium to be incorporated into bone.
What’s so terrible is that if you’re not an obsessive science nerd like me—if you’re not someone who stayed home on every holiday, including Christmas and Thanksgiving, to read medical studies and write a book—you’re left without recourse. I poured every molecule into this project because the science had to be right.
Be careful. With my other books, if I got something wrong, maybe you’d have a bad date. But if I get something wrong in this book—on medicine—you could die. I felt that weight. Writing this book was a terrible responsibility.
I’ve called it the most critical and stupidest thing I’ve ever done because it was terrifying. I joke that I forgot to take endocrinology when I didn’t attend medical school, but I had to teach it anyway. Here’s what happens in med school: You’re taught to believe things because someone important at an expensive institution said them. The information ends in textbooks, and you’re expected to accept it.
But as an outsider, I’m constantly asking, “What’s the process here?” I look deeply. I cut up endocrinology textbooks and taped them to the walls of my house. My shower? It’s a giant study space. I’ve got a clawfoot tub, and the bathroom walls are papered with medical diagrams and citations.
That’s how I work.
Jacobsen: Can you give us an example of this?
Alkon: And that’s how I discover things that even major researchers in the field miss—because they’ve been taught to believe. They’re not always looking critically. One of the most dangerous, persistent confusions I found is between medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)—a synthetic progestin used in older birth control pills—and real, bioidentical progesterone.
They’re not the same thing, but a famous researcher conflated them in a significant paper. Then, everyone else copied her. They didn’t even check the citations. They just assumed, “She’s important; she must be right.”
But I went to the citations. And what did I find? Those scary side effects she blamed on progesterone were from MPA—not real progesterone. So here’s this beautiful, natural hormone—progesterone—being falsely accused of harming women when, in fact, it’s essential for our well-being. During pregnancy, a woman’s body produces ten times the amount of progesterone she makes during a typical menstrual cycle. If it were dangerous, pregnancy would be lethal.
But it’s not. Progesterone is a hormone that promotes calmness and supports sleep. And when I finally got access to it—after fighting tooth and nail to get oral micronized progesterone, the FDA-approved form—I got my sleep back.
And that was huge. Before perimenopause, I could put my head on the pillow at night and fall asleep instantly. I’d wake up at 6 a.m. feeling rested and wonderful. No effort. But in perimenopause—that transition phase to menopause—I started waking up five or six times a night. It was not very good.
It was so horrible. I had terrible brain fog—because I wasn’t getting sleep. And here’s why that matters: there’s excellent research. Your brain shrinks during deep sleep, allowing cerebrospinal fluid to wash through and clear out metabolic waste.
Without sleep, that cleanup doesn’t happen. That fog you feel? That’s real. And over time, it contributes to severe neurological decline. In the U.S., doctors typically don’t prescribe the 300 mg dose of oral micronized progesterone. That’s the dose used in France since 1980, and it is effective and safe. But here? It’s rarely given. Why? Not because of any rigorous trial showing that 200 mg is better than 300 mg. No, it’s based on inertia, cost, hearsay, and outdated studies that arbitrarily tested lower doses.
Let’s be clear: progesterone—the real thing, not synthetic progestins like medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)—is a very safe hormone. Unless you have rare conditions like liver ascites (fluid buildup in the abdomen) or extremely low blood pressure, it has fewer side effects than aspirin.
The FDA-approved form—Prometrium, or its generics—is delivered in peanut oil, so if you’re allergic, you’ll need it compounded in another base. But compounded medications can be the Wild West. That’s why I recommend using only accredited compounding pharmacies—the ones certified by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Those are your best bet for getting the correct dose and an uncontaminated product.
Here’s another problem: Most people do not know how their body metabolizes drugs. Are you a rapid metabolizer? A slow metabolizer? Most doctors do not test for that. So you don’t know how much progesterone you need to protect the endometrium—the uterine lining—especially during perimenopause, when estrogen levels are spiking and crashing, and you’re often not ovulating. That means you’re not producing progesterone naturally.
So, how much do you need to replace it? We don’t know exactly, but we do know that 300 mg is safe and effective, benefiting bones, cardiovascular health, sleep, mood, and other aspects of overall well-being. In France, it is even used as a mild anesthetic. It is that safe.
Fighting for Evidence-Based Therapies
Jacobsen: Why do you think patients need to fight so hard for evidence-based hormone therapy?
Alkon: Most gynecologists are trained in maternity and reproductive health, not menopause medicine. That’s starting to change, slowly, because menopause is finally entering public discourse. But right now? Most women are undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or dismissed altogether.
They don’t recognize that what they’re experiencing is perimenopause. The rage. Insomnia. The brain fog. I got horrible motion sickness in my 40s—I couldn’t ride in a car without wanting to throw up my shoes. That’s a symptom of hormonal imbalance. I know this from reading the research. Most women don’t. And that’s terrifying.
Why? Because no one properly diagnosed them. Because the science is not driving the conversation. This area is riddled with so many myths—it breaks my heart. That’s why I wrote this book. I fought three major battles with the Kaiser:
- To get FDA-approved progesterone—not medroxyprogesterone acetate, which is on their formulary.
- To obtain the correct dosage, 300 mg has been used effectively in France for a long time.
- To get it covered by my insurance.
Those were serious fights. Most other patients are not in a position to fight like that. So they’re being misled, mistreated, or left untreated—and they’re at risk. That’s devastating.
I now eat a carnivore diet—fish, meat, eggs, butter, and ghee. I do this because it reduces inflammation. I avoid sugar and flour, which provoke inflammation and drive insulin resistance, a broken insulin response that leads to chronic inflammation and, eventually, the inability of our immune system to muster adequate defences.
This way of eating helps me maintain a metabolically healthy lifestyle. I take supplements to compensate for any nutritional deficiencies that the carnivore diet might leave behind. It was sad—but I gave up bacon and pork rinds. I love pork rinds—they’re so delicious. But I had eye surgery, and I needed to go with the whole SWAT team on any source of inflammation. I had to bring it as low as possible.
Here’s something interesting about forming habits: the first time you don’t eat your beloved greasy three strips of bacon for breakfast, it sucks. But then you adapt. I started eating smoked herring heated up with butter on top. People might find that gross, but it’s high in omega-3s and low in omega-6s (unlike hamburger, which is higher in omega-6).
I had been eating sardines until I discovered they were weirdly high in omega-6s. So I cut them. I also cut out chicken thighs, which I loved but also have high omega-6s. Nina Teicholz brilliantly wrote about this in her book The Big Fat Surprise. She explains why industrial seed oils are harmful—they promote inflammation and are a significant contributor to the problems in the modern diet.
This is how I’ve found a way to be healthy as I age. Because aging is this gradual erosion, it’s inevitable. So, I want to minimize the impact as much as possible. I’ll be honest—I’m a big weenie. I’m not good at suffering. A cold? I act like I’ve been diagnosed with a terminal disease. I’m not brave compared to others—I know that about myself.
So it’s important to me to do what I can now. That’s where habit formation comes in. That first day—skipping the bacon, not eating the pork rinds—it sucked. But then I had the herring. How I prepare it—microwaved, lightly heated—is delicious when you don’t overcook it.
Everything I make is fast. I don’t cook; I heat. If it takes more than two steps, I’m out. Salmon? Throw it in a pan with ghee—which has a high smoke point—flop-flop, sear it, and it’s done. Hamburger? I cook it in the air fryer because it’s even faster. And this stuff is delicious. That matters. I eat fatty food because it’s satiating. I recently ordered trout because it was on sale—but it turned out to be super low in fat. I was hungry all day. I thought, “We’re gonna eat this…and then we’re gonna eat something else.”
So when I help people—and do medical coaching for friends (I’m not a licensed professional, to be clear)—I always start with this question: What are you willing to do? You can’t just say, “Here’s what I’d do.” That doesn’t work. The question is: What will YOU do, based on your life, your habits, and your self-discipline? That’s how I approach it.
In fact, in 2020, the American College of Cardiology finally acknowledged—after years of pushing harmful, outdated advice—that the claims against saturated fat are not supported by high-quality evidence. They did not say it bluntly, but science shows that the real culprit behind metabolic disease is not saturated fat but refined carbohydrates.
Sugary and starchy carbs—bread, desserts, pasta, potatoes, juice—drive excess insulin secretion, which leads to fat gain and inflammation. A low-carb diet—is called ketogenic because it refers to ketosis, the state where your body burns fat for fuel instead of glucose (blood sugar). You must consume 30 grams of carbohydrates or less daily to maintain ketosis. You track this through blood testing and by monitoring your physical signals.
Now, some people can’t do this alone. If you have diabetes or another serious condition, you need a doctor. But here’s the challenge: You must find someone who understands nutrition science. That is rare. And it’s expensive.
The same applies to resistance training: safety is paramount. Maintaining healthy muscle is vital for healthy aging. Even one day of sedentary behaviour can negatively impact your metabolic and immune systems. I try never to be sedentary. After my eye surgery—a corneal endothelium transplant—I wasn’t allowed to lift weights, and that worried me. So I asked my doctor, “How soon can I walk?”
Running was off-limits, and I’m a fast runner. I usually do 20-minute sprints in the morning, often in front of the TV, or I go out early to get morning light exposure on my retinas, which helps regulate my circadian rhythm. So, while I recovered, I walked. Back and forth across my living room—hundreds of times a day—as fast as was safe for my healing eye.
The corneal endothelium is a single-cell layer that regulates fluid in the eye. I had a genetic disease—thanks, Mom—called Fuchs’ dystrophy (Fuchs’ with an apostrophe S). These cells die off and turn into trash cells called guttate, which sounds too much like frittata—which is excellent if you don’t overcook it, and most people do.
If untreated, you go progressively blind. I was grateful to get the transplant. But I also wanted to preserve it. I couldn’t lift weights or run—but I could walk. So I did.
Jacobsen: How did you handle that emotionally?
Alkon: Now, I was worried. I’d been doing resistance training every day. What will happen to my muscles and bones during this period of inactivity?” A study shows how quickly you lose muscle and strength when you stop training.
There is a study on this phenomenon, known as detraining. If you stop lifting weights for a while but start again within a specific period—maybe ten weeks, I think—you can build your strength back faster than if you were starting from scratch. I do not remember the exact timeline, but that’s the general idea.
At first, I was weak. I could not lift the weight I usually do. However, you must be patient with yourself. That’s one of the most significant aspects of any health journey: self-compassion. And I’m not great at that. My family are Jews from Michigan—pure Ashkenazi Jews. We have a brutal work ethic. I will drag myself to the computer and work if I’m not dying. Coffee, determination—whatever it takes.
But during my recovery, when I was not feeling well, I had to rethink that. I’d say, “Okay, your goal today is to get to the computer and do this one thing.” And sometimes, I was too sick to do that. So I’d remind myself, “You’re a hard worker. You need to rest.”
Jacobsen: What about age and the average person’s dietary habits?
Alkon: When we’re younger, our bodies are robust. We can get away with eating the Standard American Diet—all those processed foods high in sugar and refined carbs. But over time, your body stops being able to amortize the damage. And then? You get sick.
You gain fat. Your blood sugar goes up. Your blood pressure follows. And once cardiovascular disease sets in, that’s it—you can’t get your old health back. You can’t reverse the arterial plaque that forms from years of high blood pressure and chronic inflammation driven by diet.
So, prevention matters. Look at older people who are suffering—obese, dealing with diabetes, with other metabolic diseases—and realize: That is the Ghost of Christmas Future. That is your possible outcome. That’s why I’m taking the steps I’m taking.
Here’s the thing: You don’t need to adopt someone else’s rules if you do not have issues in a particular area. For example, do you sleep fine after eating before bed? Then eat. Do what works for you. The rule should always be: listen to your body, not someone else’s fear-based checklist.
Jacobsen: Now, what about intermittent fasting? Like 16:8 or 18:6 fasting windows?
Alkon: I do not know enough about it to give an informed opinion. I try to model what doctors should do, which is to say “I don’t know” when I genuinely don’t know. I’ve read some about fasting, which may have benefits and downsides, depending on the individual. However, I haven’t conducted a thorough enough review of the research to speak confidently or publicly about it. So, for now? I don’t know. I also don’t skip meals. I’m too much of a hedonist. Fasting may be beneficial, but I’ll need to investigate it further before I weigh in.
Jacobsen: What is your vision of empowered aging, especially for women?
Alkon: The goal is to stay you, just with some wrinkles. And I see that now. I see these vital older women lifting weights and doing pull-ups at 80—living active and meaningful lives. They’re not just grandmas in aprons anymore. They’re strong, sharp, and visible. These days, grandma is me. But I feel like the same me I was at 8, or 20, or whatever. That’s the goal: to be you—as much as possible—with the robust health you had when you were younger. You do that through protective measures: a smart diet and adequate exercise.
Jacobsen: Amy, thank you very much for your time today, your expertise, and your honesty. It was a pleasure to meet you.
Alkon: It was great. You’re interesting and innovative.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thanks so much, Amy. Take care.
Alkon: You too. 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): 2025/06/09
Leena Weaver and Traci Glover are co-founders of Healing Children, LLC, an organization dedicated to supporting children’s emotional and behavioural development. Weaver, a Nationally Certified School Psychologist since 2009, and Glover, a Licensed Professional Counselor since 2009, combine their expertise to address trauma, attachment issues, and moral development in children. They emphasize the importance of emotional maturity in academic success and advocate for consistent boundaries and consequences over reward-based systems. Their books, such as “Raising Babies,” and their podcast, “The Bumpy Road to Healing,” provide resources for educators and parents to foster resilience and growth in children.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Can you explain this: does emotional maturity impact educational achievement? That’s a general overview question for this session. I assume yes because effective studying requires at least some emotional self-regulation.
Leena Weaver: Yes, and the simplified answer is indeed yes. Emotional maturity plays a significant role in academic success. Children who struggle with emotional self-regulation—such as managing frustration or delaying gratification—are less likely to persist through challenging academic tasks. For example, they may give up more easily when encountering difficult material. Some children may act out by throwing materials or leaving the classroom when overwhelmed or discouraged.
Additionally, emotional dysregulation can stem from early trauma. Tracy, feel free to jump in here—but when children have experienced trauma, their brains may operate in a state of hypervigilance or survival mode. This preoccupation with safety can interfere with cognitive processes such as attention, memory, and problem-solving, all of which are necessary for learning.
Traci Glover: Another critical factor is attachment. For instance, children with reactive attachment disorder (RAD)—a rare condition resulting from severe early neglect, inconsistent caregiving, or frequent changes in caregivers—may exhibit behavioural problems, including dishonesty, defiance, or social withdrawal. These behaviours are rooted in early emotional and relational development disruptions.
Insecure or disorganized attachments can cause children to struggle with trust, impulse control, and emotional regulation, negatively affecting their functioning in structured school settings. This can manifest in academic dishonesty, such as cheating or lying about completed work.
Jacobsen: These issues can have long-term consequences. If a child consistently misrepresents their academic effort or avoids challenging work, it undermines learning. Over time, gaps accumulate, leading to what educators sometimes call “Swiss cheese knowledge”—uneven understanding across subjects, filled with missing concepts and weak foundational skills.
Glover: Developmentally, what students learn in elementary school is closely related to Erik Erikson’s stage of Industry vs. Inferiority, which typically spans ages 6 to 12. In this stage, children develop a sense of competence by learning to initiate and complete tasks successfully. If they are not supported to do this—for example, they avoid schoolwork or are not given proper guidance—they may develop feelings of inferiority and apathy toward achievement.
In the classroom, we sometimes see students in upper elementary grades who appear disengaged, refusing to complete work or participate. This affects their short-term academic performance and can shape their long-term relationship with learning, work ethic, and perseverance.
Students must develop cognitive and emotional skills to succeed in high school, obtain employment, or pursue postsecondary education. Emotional maturity influences perseverance, frustration tolerance, honesty, and task completion. Some students may already show strengths in these areas, while others require targeted support to build them.
This can happen even with kids who are in gifted and talented programs. They may have a high IQ and be very bright. When tasks come easily, they have no problem getting things done. But as soon as school becomes difficult—which it will at some point, even if not until college—they may not have the emotional tools to work through the challenge. They might think that struggle is abnormal rather than realizing that this is how many others have felt.
The reality is that the struggle is every day. It is a fundamental part of learning. Learning is not meant to be easy—it is intended to challenge you. The key is being able to recognize that and push through it. Some kids who struggle early in school do quite well later because they’re familiar with adversity. They’ve had to work through challenges and aren’t afraid of the process.
All of this ties into developmental growth. It can become a developmental issue if the child is never guided through complex tasks. However, if the child is bright and the parents and teachers reinforce the message—”You’ve got to work through hard things. Learning how to do hard things will make you stronger. This will make you a better student and a better person,” that child is more likely to persevere. They begin to develop the skills to face adversity.
That perseverance is a sign of maturity.
Weaver: So yes, you can have students in special education who struggle academically due to learning disabilities, but because they learned how to work hard early in life, they often do better over time. Their maturity tends to develop more steadily, and in the long term, their educational outcomes are more favourable than those of students who never had to struggle until later. I don’t know if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: It does. I have two questions. One seems more evident to me, and the second feels more ambiguous. The first is academic achievement and emotional maturity decoupled. And the second: are moral development and emotional development coupled?
Weaver: So moral development—Tracy, you would be looking at Foster Cline’s stages of conscience development, right?
Glover: Yes, although if you’re referring to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, that goes even further than Cline’s model.
Weaver: They’re similar overall.
Weaver: I can show you on a screen share—they’re quite similar, just worded differently. But yes, in my observation, conscience and emotional development are often tied together in children for several reasons.
Glover: So Foster Cline—he’s a child psychiatrist and one of the co-founders of the Love and Logic parenting program. I don’t know if you’ve heard of them, but Love and Logic focuses on teaching responsibility and problem-solving in children through empathy and natural consequences. This is his framework for understanding the stages of conscience development. I was comparing it to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and they’re pretty aligned. Kohlberg uses more academic or technical language.
So what Foster Cline did—he worked with many children who had severe behavioural and emotional issues, including kids with attachment disorders. He also had biological children and, along with his wife, adopted foster children. So, he had much hands-on experience with kids facing behavioural challenges.
During his residency in psychiatry, he noticed that traditional approaches—including person-centred therapy—were not working with specific clients. While person-centred therapy can be helpful in some situations, it wasn’t effective for the complex behavioural issues he was encountering. So, he turned to studying Freud.
Freud’s model divides the personality into three parts: the id, which represents instinctual needs and wants; the superego, which represents morals, values, and principles; and the ego, which mediates between the two. The ego helps us meet our needs in socially acceptable ways, guided by the superego. Importantly, we are not born with a developed ego or superego—these must be nurtured and developed over time.
So, in Stage 1, from birth to around two years old, the child operates entirely from the id. If they see a piece of candy, they think, “I’ll take it.” They do not consider whether it belongs to someone else or is appropriate to take. If they cry in the middle of the night, they do not think about waking others—they are focused only on getting their needs met. This is developmentally appropriate because infants are entirely dependent on caregivers for survival.
Then, if development proceeds well and secure attachment is established, the child moves into Stage 2, which typically covers ages two to five. At this stage, if the child sees a piece of candy, they might think, “I would take it, but I’d get in trouble.” Cline calls this having an “outside lid on the id.” In other words, their behaviour is still driven by impulse, but the desire to avoid punishment is now influencing their actions. They are not regulating themselves from an internal sense of right and wrong—it’s more about avoiding consequences.
In Stage 3, which usually occurs between ages five and seven, the child sees a piece of candy and thinks, “I would take it, but my parents might find out.” Now, the child is starting to internalize rules and anticipate delayed consequences. There’s a “partial lid on the id.” Even if a parent is not present, the child begins to regulate their behaviour because of imagined oversight or future repercussions. So, they are starting to self-monitor, but it is still externally influenced.
Weaver: A good real-life indicator of Stage 2 is if you’ve ever watched a toddler crawling toward something they shouldn’t touch, and before grabbing it, they turn to check if an adult is watching. That’s classic Stage 2 behaviour—they want the object but are scanning for external oversight.
By Stage 3, we hope children—particularly those in kindergarten—can begin to self-regulate even when an authority figure isn’t right there. For instance, if a teacher briefly steps out of the classroom, a Stage 3 child is more likely to manage their behaviour appropriately, even without direct supervision. If a child is still in Stage 2 while in kindergarten, they are likely to misbehave as soon as the teacher turns their back.
Glover: Moving into Stage 4, typically between 6 and 9, the child sees something they want and thinks, “I would take it, but if my mom found out, she would be upset or disappointed.” At this point, it is no longer just about avoiding punishment. The child starts to care about how their actions emotionally affect their caregiver.
In Cline’s framework, this is called having a “lid on the id.” In other words, the child begins internally regulating their wants and impulses. This is the stage when children typically first experience guilt. I can remember starting to feel that sense of guilt around age seven. That is a sign that internal conscience development is underway.
Stage 4 is a positive developmental milestone, but ideally, we want children—and society more broadly—to reach Stage 5. Why? Once children enter adolescence, the people they care most about disappointing are no longer their caregivers; they become their peers. If their peer group engages in risky or unhealthy behaviour, that desire to maintain peer approval can lead them into trouble.
Stage 5 typically emerges between ages 7 and 11. At this point, the child sees a piece of candy and thinks, “I could take it, but I wouldn’t feel good about doing that.” Now, we know the superego is fully developed—morality has become internalized. The child makes decisions based on internal values rather than external consequences or approval.
Of course, some of this is tested during adolescence. Teenagers experiment with moral reasoning, test limits, and question their beliefs. But ideally, the core conscience is already formed by this point.
Weaver: This aligns with broader developmental frameworks—like Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages and Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. For instance, in Erikson’s Trust vs. Mistrust stage, if a child develops a basic sense of trust in their environment, they’re more prepared to move into Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt. The stages build upon each other. Similarly, emotional and moral development go hand in hand. The more emotionally mature a child is, the more likely they are to develop a strong conscience.
However, if that conscience is not developing, it often means the child is stuck in an earlier stage of emotional development.
As a society, we are regressing in moral development.
Jacobsen: I think it’s probably multifactorial. There are structural changes in wealthy North American societies—like higher divorce rates. Researchers like Jean Twenge have pointed out rising narcissistic tendencies—not necessarily clinical narcissistic personality disorder, but traits like entitlement and self-centeredness. So, are those narcissistic traits interfering with emotional and moral development in the ways we’re discussing?
Glover: I think yes. Maturity requires boundaries, and healthy development depends on support and consequences. If narcissism and selfishness are on the rise, that suggests a breakdown in emotional maturity. But society moves in cycles. Sometimes, we make real progress in one area and backslide in another. We figure out some things and fall behind in others. It is rarely linear.
Weaver: There has been a shift in how we approach school discipline and behaviour. That’s another critical factor. In recent years, there has been confusion between the concepts of consequences and punishment and between rewards and accountability. We’ve seen a move away from consistent boundaries and consequences toward an over-reliance on rewards to shape behaviour.
But looking back at Cline’s early stages, they are not about rewards. They are about developing internal controls over behaviour. If we only rely on external rewards, we risk stalling that development entirely.
Those early stages are about trying to stay out of trouble. And it is not about being punitive or shameful but about giving kids consistent accountability. For example, I have a two-year-old granddaughter. If she goes to do something she is not supposed to, simply giving her rewards for doing the right thing does not teach her what not to do.
Let’s say she tries to run into the street. I do not just yell, “Don’t go into the street!” and reward her if she does not. Instead, I say, “Don’t go in the street,” and physically pull her back. Then we practiced repeatedly: we held hands and looked both ways. Her parents are also consistent in this. Now, at two and a half, she stops, and when she gets to the end of the sidewalk, she stops. She does not step into the street. That did not happen because of punishment or rewards but because of consistent teaching, boundaries and consequences.
What I’ve seen in many schools, though, is this rise in reward-based systems: “You’ve got to give them a reward.” And what ends up happening is that the misbehaving students get placed on reward programs. So now, if you act out, you get prizes for not acting out. Instead of receiving consistent consequences, students are essentially bribed into compliance.
That kind of system impacts emotional and moral maturity. I’ve gone into schools that heavily rely on rewards with very minimal consequences, and the maturity level of the students is noticeably lower. There’s more selfishness and disrespect, and students expect things to do the bare minimum.
In contrast, in schools where teachers build relationships, show they care about the students, and maintain consistent accountability without over-relying on rewards—you see a real difference. Those kids are happier. They are more focused on their work. You see mutual respect—both between students and between students and adults.
Jacobsen: So we’ve inverted the system. We’re encouraging what you might call moral gluttony—we’re giving cookies to those who’ve behaved poorly.
Glover: Yes. That is precisely what we’ve done. I love that term—”moral gluttony.” That perfectly captures it. And the problem is, when we do that, children do not mature. And that could be contributing to the rise in narcissistic traits.
How does that play out in adulthood? They may enter the world expecting constant rewards for minimal effort. But those rewards will no longer be there. And their peers will notice. If you’re in a classroom and see that someone has been mean to you, other students, or the teacher—and then that same person is getting a reward—it undermines social dynamics. Meanwhile, students who’ve been doing everything right get no recognition. That creates resentment and damages peer relationships.
That is one of the reasons Leena and I started Healing Children. We were watching this trend in schools, and we knew it would not benefit students emotionally, socially, or academically.
Jacobsen: So, going back to something you said earlier, in an ideal scenario, we want children to progress through all five stages of conscience development. But realistically, what percentage of individuals do you think never even reach Stage 5—typically by age seven—and instead become adults emotionally or morally stuck in earlier stages?
Weaver: That’s a tough one. I do not know if I could give you a specific number. I have not seen complex data on that.
Glover: That’s a great question. To answer it correctly, someone would need to research broader societal patterns, such as how many people are being charged with criminal behaviour now compared to previous decades. However, even that would be difficult to analyze comprehensively because many individuals in leadership roles may never be accused of anything, even though they may be emotionally or morally stuck in Stage One or Stage Two.
Weaver: People stuck in Stage One are more likely to get caught because they engage in behaviours regardless of whether someone is watching. In contrast, people in Stage Two tend to wait until no one is watching—they are more calculated and are, therefore, more likely to “get away with it.” Those individuals may rise into leadership roles simply because they know how to avoid consequences. I do not know the precise answer to your question, but I agree that it is very important and deserves research.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Scott Barry Kaufman came out with a new book. In an interview to promote it, he pointed out something that ties into this. He discussed the rise in what he called victimhood psychology. This is separate from cancel culture, but both use similar tactics. You see this thinking across the political spectrum.
With victimhood psychology, people take on a victim identity—even if they have been victimized—and use it to excuse poor behaviour. It becomes a protective mechanism but also a justification. As you said in our earlier interview, someone may have experienced a bad or traumatic event. However, that does not justify harming others or making morally poor decisions afterward.
Glover: Yes, exactly. That aligns with what we have seen—especially as we moved away from educational consequences. Not completely, but by the time I started working in schools in 1999, I was already seeing kids with significant behavioural issues who faced very few meaningful consequences. I remember thinking, “How will they ever learn the difference between right and wrong?”
One of those students ended up in the prison system. That outcome did not surprise me, unfortunately—it validated that concern. When children never experience consistent boundaries or consequences, it does not lead anywhere healthy.
Using a diagnosis or victim identity as a permanent label or excuse for behaviour is not Stage Five development. Stage Five is not about finding ways to avoid responsibility but about being mindful of how our actions affect others.
A simple way to think about maturity is this: We all start self-centred—infants must be to survive. But as we grow, gain independence, and develop cognitively and emotionally, we are expected to become more considerate of others. Maturity is the process of becoming less selfish and more thoughtful.
It is a gradual process, not something that happens overnight. But in some cases, when someone remains emotionally stuck at Stage One—especially if it is a personality-level issue—it may reflect a personality disorder. And unfortunately, current research does not suggest that personality disorders can be “cured.” They can often be managed but not reversed.
Jacobsen: I also noticed something: the last stage presented—Stage Five—is typically complete by around age 11. So we are talking about middle school and, from there, high school and beyond. But here in North America, especially during adolescence, we also see high levels of substance misuse and risky experimentation among youth. Those behaviours can certainly interfere with continued emotional and moral development.
If those behaviours—especially substance use—become habit-forming, which many substances can be, or if the surrounding environment reinforces them, can that cause youth to regress developmentally? And if those patterns persist into young adulthood, could that lead to an emotional or developmental “freeze”?
Glover: Yes. What most experts in addiction will tell you is that whatever age you begin using a substance regularly, you tend to stay emotionally stuck at that age until you quit. That is because life experiences—tough ones—mature us.
So, for example, say you’re a high school student struggling to make friends. You find a peer group, but that group drinks or uses drugs frequently. You start joining them as a coping mechanism, using the substance to deal with life instead of learning how to manage emotions or social challenges. That robs you of the opportunity to develop the emotional skills necessary to move into the next stage of maturity.
And that is part of why quitting a substance is so tricky—not only is the brain wired for it, but once someone tries to stop, they have to catch up emotionally. They are often behind their peers in emotional and social development, which makes reintegration into “normal life” harder.
But it is possible to mature after quitting. Leena and I often use celebrity examples when talking with students—people who went through addiction, came out of it, and now present very differently in terms of how they treat others and how they conduct themselves in interviews. You can see the emotional growth.
High school is also a key time of identity formation. Adolescents test boundaries, explore their values, and figure out where they fit socially. That stage involves some moral and emotional experimentation once they settle on an identity that becomes the foundation for moving through later developmental stages.
Weaver: So yes, if a student is entering high school still in Stage Four and is exposed to drugs or alcohol through peer pressure, they are more likely to start using—and that can stunt or regress their development further.
Jacobsen: Another question, then: Regarding the Orlans-Levy adaptation of Foster Cline’s model, are there later stages of development beyond Stage Five that are not presented here?
Glover: As far as I know, no. Michael Orlans and Terry Levy (Healing Parents), attachment therapists based in Colorado, did not extend the model beyond Stage Five. They use this framework, along with Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages, to help parents understand and support children with attachment disorders.
Kids with attachment disorders are often functioning at Stage One or Two emotionally, even though they may be much older. That’s usually due to early trauma—abuse, neglect, or inconsistent caregiving—that prevented secure attachment from forming. In these cases, you often see personality difficulties and behavioural problems.
Their model focuses on rebuilding attachment through counselling and teaching parents to set consistent boundaries. By the time families are referred to therapists like Levy and Orlins, the behaviours are usually severe—aggression, manipulation, dishonesty—so the interventions must be very structured.
Jacobsen: You mentioned a student who ended up in prison. Does the surrounding legal culture play a role here, too? For instance, Canada tends to have a more lenient approach to youth justice than the U.S., which tends to lean more punitive. Does that difference show up in how maturity develops in youth?
Glover: Yes, it depends on how local systems operate. If a student engages in illegal behaviour and there are no legal or educational consequences that can stunt their development, some kids need legal consequences to mature. Ideally, we want other systems to help support that development, but sometimes, the justice system is the only one with enough weight to create real change.
Weaver: I have worked in school districts where we pulled in every boundary and support we could. In one case, a student was eventually placed on probation, and his behaviour in school improved significantly. I have also worked in districts where local judges and prosecutors do not believe in giving any consequences to youth. In those cases, students know that the probation officer or the court will not follow through, which makes a huge difference in behaviour.
So, growth is not seen in school districts where legal or structural accountability is inconsistent. However, in districts where lawyers and judges follow through, developmental progress is more likely. Of course, there is no guarantee—kids have free will—but when accountability is consistent, I was far more likely to see meaningful change in students.
And that is just the reality. If a student’s behaviour crosses into criminal activity, there must be boundaries and consequences. That might involve juvenile detention, probation, or diversion programs. The earlier the intervention, the better. The earlier we intervene, the more likely we are to help them rewire their thinking, develop healthier habits, and avoid long-term consequences.
But if you keep metaphorically “slapping them on the wrist,” the message they internalize is that what they are doing is not that bad. Over time, this can lead to the development of anti-social morals and values. And when that happens, the consequences only get more severe as they age.
Jacobsen: So if we were to look at the justice system, would it be reasonable to assume that a significant portion of people who are incarcerated—especially repeat offenders—are individuals who are stuck in these early stages of development? Unfortunately, they are making decisions with a limited emotional and moral toolkit.
Glover: Yes.
Weaver: Though it is very complex, as you mentioned, some people come from challenging and traumatic circumstances. They may not have developed the skills to know better or lack the resources to do better. That said, I work in schools—not the justice system—so I cannot speak with authority on that side.
Glover: However, I would imagine that many individuals in prison are dealing with profound attachment and maturity deficits. And I do not know how much growth or emotional development is likely to happen in a prison environment.
If people are still being traumatized in prison—still operating in survival mode—I doubt you will see significant maturity. Trauma inhibits emotional growth. That said, I do believe maturity is still possible in adulthood. People can be emotionally “stuck” and later move forward if willing to do the work.
Some individuals go to prison and use that time for personal growth. Others do not. It depends heavily on the person and the environment. However, any rehabilitation that is possible should be encouraged. I do not know precisely what that looks like at a systems level.
Jacobsen: For those who care about the moral development of society, what can help nudge children and youth toward Stage Five? And second, for those who care primarily about the economic impact—or perhaps both—how can we make the case that promoting moral maturity is worth the investment? In other words, why should we care?
Glover: We should care a lot. If more people reach Stage Five, there will likely be fewer people in prison, more people in the workforce, and more individuals who can form and maintain healthy relationships.
Society as a whole becomes more stable and safer. People treat each other with kindness and respect. The benefits are both moral and practical. For me, it starts with parent education. Helping parents understand what children need at each developmental stage is critical. For example, infants need incredible love and responsive caregiving during that first year of life.
Weaver: I remember when I was a young parent, we were told not to hold our babies too much—that we would “spoil” them. But now, we know from developmental psychology that the opposite is true. As Erikson’s Trust vs. Mistrust stage suggests, trust is developed during the first year of life. Holding them, responding to their cries, and building that secure attachment lays the foundation for every following stage.
Being responsive to a child’s needs is essential. That includes training parents to provide consistent guidance during the toddler years, especially around temper tantrums and emotional dysregulation. How can I regulate myself so I can help my child learn to regulate themselves?
For me, a lot of this comes down to parent and teacher education—understanding what children need in the first few years of life, how to be consistent during the elementary years, how to build strong relationships, and how to maintain consistent accountability for kids.
Glover: A big part of it is also doing our work as adults—recognizing that we, too, are still maturing. We’re all trying to improve ourselves to be better for the kids we serve. I agree, Leena, that education is critical at every level.
Jacobsen: What should people realistically expect schools can and cannot do?
Glover: That’s a fair and essential question. It is reasonable to expect schools to follow through with appropriate discipline when needed. It is also reasonable to expect that schools work to connect with each child in a healthy, appropriate teacher-student relationship. Schools should make the effort to build those connections and to teach—not just academically, but socially and emotionally too.
Glover: What do you think, Leena?
Weaver: This is also a bigger question because schools today have become more than educational institutions. Teachers are overwhelmed. We are taking on more and more of the parenting role—feeding kids, coordinating medical care, managing mental health needs.
Let me backtrack a little. Kids are entering school not ready to learn? Of course, many are ready, but we’re seeing more kids who are not emotionally, physically, or medically ready to learn. So schools are stepping in to make sure they receive mental health services, clothing, food, and even basic healthcare at times.
That creates much pressure on teachers and distracts them from what we’re trained to do: teach. If we could better support parents in preparing their children for school—ideally, arriving to school at Stage Three developmentally—educators could focus more on instruction while maintaining boundaries, structure, and relationships with students.
Ultimately, it comes down to balance. Teachers and parents need to share responsibility. But lately, it sometimes feels like we are being pushed into opposing corners—anti-teacher or anti-parent—when, in fact, we need to be partners.
Jacobsen: To reframe it, how do parents and teachers work together to turn “heathens into angels”?
Weaver: A lot of that comes down to good communication. It means educators let parents know when they see a concern. It means parents are willing to hear that—even when it is hard. Sometimes, teachers notice things that parents might not see, and their reaction can be to dismiss them.
Most parents listen, but occasionally, it gets tough because the information is difficult to process; they may disagree or feel helpless. On the other hand, some parents may know the issue is real but still disregard what the teacher says, which does not solve anything.
So, communication between parents and teachers is huge. It makes partnerships possible and helps kids grow.
Traci and I also like to educate teachers and parents on child behaviour and developmental progress. When everyone understands the stages of growth, it brings the team together. When teachers and parents collaborate with that shared understanding, we can create plans to help kids mature and grow.
I’ve seen significant progress with my students when parents and teachers are on the same page. It comes down to understanding development—emotional, conscience, and what children need. You see real results when adults approach children with consistency, compassion, and connection—not shame, anger, manipulation, or overreliance on rewards.
Jacobsen: Shifting to a different but related topic—AI in education. Promising? Modest? Assistant-level?
Glover: It is still so new. It is a promising, modest assistant. However, I am not a classroom teacher so that others might have different views.
Weaver: It depends. Are students using AI to avoid doing the work? Or are educators using it to enhance instruction and save time? Probably both.
I work with both traditional public schools and public charter schools. In one charter school, because of concerns about AI misuse, students now write all their reports in class to ensure they are learning how to write themselves. I don’t know whether traditional public schools are doing that yet. In the long term, it will raise questions about how well high school students develop writing skills if they rely too much on AI.
For educators, though, AI can be beneficial. I use it to write, create lesson plans, and brainstorm. It is like having a built-in proofreader or thought partner. So yes, it is useful—for the teacher.
Jacobsen: But it does not address the deeper pillars we have discussed today: emotional development, maturity, and moral reasoning. AI handles analytics and content delivery but cannot yet cultivate the intangible human capacities students need. Memorizing moral theories is different from developing a moral compass or emotional intelligence.
Weaver: Yes, learning to reason through real-life situations is the key.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.
Weaver: You too. I appreciate it.
Glover: 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/08
Dr. Tom Milam, MD, MDiv, Chief Medical Officer at Iris Telehealth, joins Scott Douglas Jacobsen to discuss young people’s mental health challenges in a screen-saturated world. With a unique background in psychiatry and theology, Dr. Milam emphasizes the importance of emotional regulation over strict screen time limits. He explores how digital content, AI tools, and early caregiver bonding shape resilience, identity, and well-being. From cozy games to developmental lags post-COVID, the conversation highlights actionable insights for parents and educators navigating a rapidly evolving media landscape with empathy, structure, and awareness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Dr. Tom Milam, MD, MDiv. He is a practicing psychiatrist and the Chief Medical Officer at Iris Telehealth. Dr. Milam has a unique background that includes graduate studies in theology at Yale University, where he was a Yale Associates Scholar. He earned his Doctor of Medicine from the University of Virginia and completed his residency training in psychiatry at both Duke University and the University of Virginia Medical Center.
Dr. Milam brings deep insight into the mental health challenges facing young people today, particularly around the impact of social media and digital content. He focuses on the growing gap between what technology platforms provide and what children and adolescents need for healthy psychological development.
He encourages parents and caregivers to prioritize emotional regulation over restricting screen time. He also advocates for thoughtful use of digital tools—such as “cozy games”—that can help build resilience, foster secure attachments, and address often-overlooked “silent stressors” in modern parenting.
Thank you for joining me today. Let me begin with a distinction you’re making that hasn’t come up much in prior interviews: the difference between screen time restriction and the development of emotional regulation. Most mainstream advice suggests limiting screen time while also working on emotional skills. But you emphasize emotional regulation more strongly. Why that emphasis, rather than taking a dual-track approach?
Dr. Tom Milam: Part of it is that we want to start early in helping children express their emotions—whether with people in real life, through digital interactions, or in structured settings like daycare, school, or home. You’d be surprised how many children don’t receive consistent or developmentally appropriate modelling of emotional regulation.
Emotional regulation is foundational to mental health. It involves expressing feelings through physical posture, voice tone, facial expressions, or behaviours like crying, anger, or withdrawal. Children and the adults who guide them vary widely in how they show emotion. When children struggle with emotional expression, caregivers need to be attentive and, if required, seek help from a mental health professional.
Screen time isn’t inherently harmful. I’ve seen it be beneficial in some cases. It can offer opportunities for connection and learning, especially when children don’t have regular access to peers or adults.
When I was growing up, we didn’t have this level of screen exposure. Our only screens were televisions—first black-and-white, then colour. Today, screens are pervasive, and children interact with them from very young ages. That’s not necessarily bad, but it requires intentional guidance.
What concerns me most is when screens become a child’s primary source for learning how to express emotions. Too often, screens are used in place of caregiver interaction. But children learn to interpret and regulate their emotional world through those real-life relationships—parents, guardians, and teachers. That is where the real work of development happens.
Jacobsen: When it comes to screen content itself, there’s historical precedent here. At one point, people were saying rock and roll was corrupting the morality of the youth—starting most prominently in the United States with Elvis. That dastardly man swinging his hips—look at him go! It was considered terrible. Then came rock and roll, grunge pop, goth, punk, etc. So, from a clinical perspective, is there any legitimate concern about the content kids consume—beyond just the amount of time they spend on screens?
Milam: The content needs to be age-appropriate. And realistically, there’s no going back to children using screens. They’re everywhere now, including in schools, where tablets and computers often replace paper. But again, the content must be developmentally appropriate.
Developmental stages matter a great deal. Children need bonding time with their caregivers from birth to around age five. That’s when they learn to feel love and affection. While some of that can be conveyed through a screen, ideally, the human bond—physical contact, being held, being nurtured—lays the foundation for secure emotional development. A child needs to know their needs will be met—when they’re hungry, they’re fed; when they’re upset, they’re comforted.
It’s hard to get a five-year-old not to resist being drawn to a screen, but early emotional development is rooted in real-world responsiveness. Crying, anger, frustration, happiness—all of that is connected to whether their core needs are consistently met.
From about ages six to twelve, you see a different developmental stage. That’s when reasoning and logic begin to mature, and school plays a significant role in shaping how kids think and engage with technology. Using screens in an educational setting at this stage makes sense. We need to integrate technology into education thoughtfully. Artificial intelligence is going to be a game-changer here.
As children age, their supervision needs shift. Young children, especially those under five, don’t know what they’re doing and need close monitoring. However, the goal is to gradually reduce direct oversight and help them internalize judgment.
Ideally, by the time children are in their early or mid-teens, they’ve developed a sense of what kind of content is appropriate, what is uplifting, and what is harmful or misleading. Of course, this takes time, and not every child progresses at the same rate.
In many households, when a young child or tween encounters something inappropriate online—or misbehaves—parents will often respond by simply taking away the screen. That’s understandable. But you won’t always be there to take it away. So, the real goal is to instill the ability to self-regulate. Children need to learn that just because something is on a screen doesn’t mean it’s meant for them or that it’s healthy.
There’s much content out there that can be emotionally damaging, especially for children and teens. Early supervision is key, but we must also teach kids to make good decisions independently. And even as adults, we don’t always model perfect digital behaviour ourselves.
Jacobsen: With AI being a potential game changer, how do you see it influencing parental screening of content and device usage? And in terms of entertainment—I’m not talking about journalism here, but broader media—what types of content do you think can positively teach kids nonverbal lessons about social life or emotional regulation?
Milam: Well, what you often see in movies and television shows—especially those on mainstream channels—is a lot of human interaction and emotional expression. That’s where children can begin to observe and model behaviour. As children grow older, particularly after age five, they interact more with adults beyond their immediate family. Their exposure to different models of behaviour broadens.
They might encounter a teacher, a coach, a mentor, or a babysitter—someone they look up to, maybe even more than their parents, in specific ways. They may start to emulate those figures. But if a child hasn’t received enough love, nurturing, and a clear sense of self during their early years, it can be hard for them to seek validation outside the home in a healthy way.
We all struggle with this to some extent. The psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott discussed the concept of the “good enough mother”—or, more broadly, the “good enough parent.” You don’t have to be perfect; you just need to provide enough care, attention, and love for the child to develop a secure sense of identity and belonging.
If a child feels safe, loved, and valued by age five, much of their foundational emotional security is in place. If that’s missing, they may seek it externally well into adulthood. And frankly, many social media and some media programming prey on that insecurity. They feed on fear and anxiety. They’re trying to sell something.
As adults, we’re generally more capable of recognizing this and deciding to turn off a particular channel or exit a site. But children—especially younger ones and even teenagers—often lack the discernment to distinguish between what is real and healthy and what is manipulative or harmful.
So yes, it’s a long answer to your question—but it’s a complex issue. If designed with explicit norms and safeguards, AI can help parents by filtering content, flagging problematic material, and recommending age-appropriate options. That’s a real advantage.
When my kids were young, I didn’t know how to set parental phone or computer controls. There were a few channels back then—you just turned the dial. Today, it’s far more complex. AI could function like an advanced version of movie ratings—G, PG, M, R—but far more adaptive. Parents could speak directly to the AI to configure settings that match a child’s developmental stage.
Of course, it will never be perfect. No one believes AI will fully solve this. But it can help limit access to harmful content and give parents better tools for understanding what’s developmentally appropriate—beyond just the traditional rating systems we grew up with.
Jacobsen: I was speaking with two child psychologists recently who work in schools, and they both mentioned something striking: across the board, they’re seeing kids entering grade five showing the emotional maturity of grade three. Grade sevens present more like grade fives, and so on. There is about a two-year lag in emotional maturity. Is that something you’re hearing discussed more often among professionals?
Milam: Sure. My wife is a middle school reading specialist, so I hear many stories from her. There will always be variability in which children can grasp emotional and social concepts more quickly and which need more time and support.
That’s where the concept of resilience comes in. There’s extensive research into what it means to raise a resilient child. Some children are naturally more resilient and better equipped to navigate challenges, especially during key developmental stages like early elementary school.
Resilience includes learning how to manage emotions and express sadness or anger appropriately without aggression. It involves knowing how to use your words, wait your turn, stand in line, and read social cues. Children need to learn These foundational social skills in real-world settings.
Learning depends on children and families being together and on meaningful interaction between children and adults. Face-to-face social interaction is vital during early childhood development.
I don’t want to lay all the blame on social media. It is a form of social connection, but it’s not as interactive—or at least not in the same way—as in-person relationships. It can be interactive, especially for older children and teens. However, for younger children, digital socialization often lacks the nuance and warmth of real-life human interaction.
What we’re seeing now is, in part, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. During lockdown, many children were isolated—not just from peers but also from extended family and broader community networks. Some families didn’t have reliable Wi-Fi or data plans, so their kids couldn’t connect virtually. That isolation left a mark.
Jacobsen: And even though the lockdown period was relatively brief, research suggests that it had lasting effects on emotional development for some children. I don’t want to attribute everything to COVID-19, but it has played a significant role. From an evolutionary perspective, facial recognition and emotional reading are survival tools. And, as you mentioned earlier, primary caregivers up to about age five are the ones who first teach us how to read and express emotions.
Milam: If a child is exposed to a wide variety of emotional expressions on screens, but no one can explain which reactions are appropriate—or how to handle their feelings—then the learning process is incomplete. They’ve seen the emotions, but they haven’t been taught how to respond or express them healthily.
Simple things matter: when you’re angry, it’s not OK to hit or hurt people. When you’re sad, it’s OK to cry—regardless of whether you’re a boy or a girl. Crying is a valid form of expression. It’s not a weakness.
That message becomes especially important when working with children who’ve experienced trauma or grief. Helping them process those emotions is key to ensuring they don’t grow up believing that all adults are untrustworthy or harmful.
Social media increases exposure, but it also increases risk. Parents, caregivers, teachers, and coaches play a critical role in guiding children—especially early on—in setting healthy emotional boundaries and expectations.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Are there certain things digital technology has not touched—lessons or practices that still hold and must be taught directly to children in their early years?
Milam: Digital technology is often focused on gathering data to better understand children, and I believe a great deal more could be done to support children’s emotional health and well-being through these tools. Especially when it comes to identifying early signs of significant challenges—depression, withdrawal, isolation, anxiety, panic, or excessive fear.
If those signs are not recognized, they can be misinterpreted. For instance, a child might seem “quiet,” and adults may assume it’s simply a personality trait. But in some cases, that quietness could be masking fear or anxiety—especially social anxiety or social phobia, which is one of the most common forms of anxiety in children.
If we don’t recognize that as a form of anxiety, we miss a significant opportunity for early support. Digital tools can be part of the solution, such as using interactive scales, simple stories, or emotional recognition exercises like identifying facial expressions: “Which one is this? Is this child angry or sad?” or watching a video and asking, “What did you notice about how that child or parent expressed themselves?”
These exercises help children put words to their emotions, and over time, that can make them feel safer and more comfortable expressing complicated feelings—especially fear or distress.
Jacobsen: It is both fantastic and deeply saddening how widespread abuse and violence toward children still are—not just here but globally. Many children grow up anxious and fearful, shaped by trauma and neglect.
The earlier we can identify those children and help them process their experiences—teach them how to trust again and love and be loved—the better their chances of forming meaningful relationships and living fulfilling lives.
You hear a phrase in North America: “What’s wrong with kids today?” Taking a slightly different angle—are the kids generally OK?
Milam: Yes—and I think it’s important to acknowledge that. Children are incredibly adaptive. However, how they are raised, the cultural context, the family structure, and social influences all shape how they grow.
Cultural differences in parenting and family life are sometimes undervalued in Western contexts. In many cultures, there’s a tighter-knit family orientation than the more individualistic “nuclear family” model we often refer to here.
Many layers shape a child’s sense of identity—first within the family of origin, then through community networks like schools, places of worship, or civic organizations. Whether it’s a mosque, church, synagogue, or local community center, those social structures help shape identity and belonging.
When used responsibly and at developmentally appropriate levels, social media can help children explore identity—especially in urban environments or remote rural areas, where access to peer groups may be more limited. It can provide exposure to different perspectives, interests, and communities.
I often compare social media to walking into a giant shopping mall. Everything in that mall is there to sell you something—each store, every vendor—it’s all about commerce. But there’s also a lot of social interaction happening in the halls, in the food courts, and between friends. That part can be positive and connected.
As adults, we understand that the stores are trying to sell us things. We’re aware of the motives. However, that distinction can be more rigid on social media, especially for children. Many platforms are designed to influence, persuade, or promote a particular viewpoint.
It takes a fair amount of sophistication and critical thinking to recognize when you’re being sold to—or worse, manipulated. Even adults sometimes struggle to discern what is true from what is deceptive. That’s why teaching media literacy and emotional awareness early is so essential.
One of the biggest things I worry about—not just for children but also for adults—is a naivete in how we approach social media. We need to be more discerning about what we expose ourselves to on screens and which relationships we allow into our lives through those platforms.
Some of those relationships are toxic. You see both children and adults being cruel to one another on social media. So the question becomes: how do you turn that off? How do you teach someone to ignore it?
Children now have to learn those skills—skills we didn’t have to teach a generation ago. And when there’s more to learn, it naturally takes longer. That’s part of why we’re seeing developmental lags in children today. It doesn’t mean they won’t catch up, but it doesn’t surprise those of us in the mental health and education fields to see measurable declines in some maturity regions.
We’re seeing it in reading, too. Many schools no longer teach cursive writing, critical writing is fading, and everything’s digital. That’s a massive shift. And yes, cursive writing may have been frustrating to learn, but it was a discipline—an essential cognitive and developmental exercise that is disappearing.
So much of children’s lives are now mediated through screens. I hope that AI can be used to create engaging and effective educational tools that help kids succeed at their individual levels. Right now, many children in our school systems feellike failures. They don’t believe they’re as good as others.
So, how do we help them succeed on their terms? How do we use technology to foster emotional intelligence, to help children understand and celebrate their own emotions and the emotions of others, and to help them learn to respect differences?
That’s why we still struggle with this—even as adults. Our culture has many examples of adults not behaving like adults when respecting diverse opinions or beliefs. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it starts in childhood.
If we do not address these issues early, we raise children who grow into adults who can be judgmental, reactive, or unnecessarily cruel. That’s a societal failure we can work to correct by focusing on emotional education from the very beginning.
Jacobsen: Sir, thank you so much for your time today and for sharing your expertise.
Milam: It was nice to meet you.
Jacobsen: Likewise. It’s been an absolute pleasure.
Milam: Excellent. We’ll be in touch.
Jacobsen: Take care.
Milam: Alright. Take care. 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): 2025/06/07
Cait Alexander, a Canadian-American survivor advocate and founder of End Violence Everywhere (EVE), channels her experience surviving near-fatal intimate partner violence into national advocacy. After her case was dismissed due to court delays, she launched EVE to support survivors and push for legal reforms in Canada and the U.S. Alexander discussed systemic failures, particularly Canada’s broken justice system and the dangers of abuser-enabling policies like Bill C-75 and R v. Jordan. She emphasized early intervention, community support, trauma-informed care, and the urgent need for legislative change. As lead plaintiff in a historic $15 million Charter lawsuit against the federal government, Alexander seeks justice for survivors and systemic accountability. Her advocacy highlights the need to believe, protect, and empower survivors at every level of society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Cait Alexander is a Canadian-American survivor advocate and founder of End Violence Everywhere (EVE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting survivors of intimate partner violence and advocating for systemic legal reform. After surviving a near-fatal assault in 2021, only to see her case dismissed due to court delays, Cait transformed her trauma into action through EVE. She supports survivor-to-survivor, champions legislative change, and fosters community allyship across North America. With a background in the arts, Cait leverages storytelling and media to amplify survivors’ voices and push for justice. She splits her time between Canada and Los Angeles, advocating for a world where survivors come first. Let us start on brand, but off-topic: what is happening with Diddy?
Cait Alexander: The trial is scheduled to begin on May 5. However, it is more important that we focus on the survivors and recognize how brave they have been in finally coming forward. As you said, it is like discovering a hidden city within a city. This situation has been happening for decades, with few people willing or able to come forward.
There were whispers before, but now survivors are speaking publicly. It is an important societal moment to see that we are finally addressing these issues more directly. Sadly, it has taken so many people getting hurt for this to happen.
When we look at the high-profile cases that have moved forward—Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein—we must ask: How many big-name stories are still untold?
Jacobsen: Many. Many.
Alexander: I also believe that industries like entertainment — and I say this as someone who is part of the entertainment industry — are relatively small communities. At a certain level, everybody knows everybody. How many people stayed silent after witnessing abuse? Why are people so uncomfortable coming forward?
The Me Too movement helped break that silence, but countless stories have not been told. Speculatively, it is possible.
Jacobsen: I pulled this information for documentation, prominent cases:
- Harvey Weinstein: Convicted in New York in 2020 of rape and sexual assault, sentenced to 23 years. In 2024, the New York conviction was overturned due to issues with the trial procedure. Still, he remains incarcerated based on a separate Los Angeles conviction from 2022, where he was sentenced to 16 years.
- R. Kelly: Sentenced in 2022 to 30 years in federal court for racketeering and sex trafficking in New York. In a separate federal case in Chicago, he received an additional 20-year sentence in 2023 (to be served mostly concurrently) for child sexual abuse material production and enticement of minors.
- Danny Masterson: Convicted in May 2023 on two counts of forcible rape and sentenced in September 2023 to 30 years to life in prison.
- Bill Cosby: Convicted in 2018 of aggravated indecent assault and sentenced to three to ten years. His conviction was overturned in 2021 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court due to a prior non-prosecution agreement, leading to his release.
- Kevin Spacey: Faced multiple allegations but was acquitted in a 2023 UK trial regarding charges of sexual assault.
- Cuba Gooding Jr.: Pleaded guilty in 2022 to a misdemeanour forcible touching charge (related to non-consensual kissing) as part of a plea deal; he avoided jail time contingent on completing counselling.
Sean “Diddy” Combs was recently arrested, as you stated. So that is about half a dozen major cases. That is not a hugenumber, which suggests there are probably many more that are not reported. Do you think that is the case, or is there a phenomenon where individuals settle out of court?
Alexander: Yes. We have seen this repeatedly with many media moguls—Michael Bloomberg being one, Roger Ailes another. In the past, and likely continuing, settlements often involved non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
People need to understand that criminal proceedings and charges take precedence over civil NDAs. You are not bound by an NDA if a crime has been committed.
We have to pull it back and understand the type of personality that commits these offences. There are almost identical patterns, identical psychology, and identical behaviours. You can almost pinpoint exactly the qualities of an abuser — it is specific. Power, control, and fear are the driving factors in abusing someone and keeping them trapped in that place.
The threats — of litigation, of not being believed — are tools abusers use to maintain power. They thrive in environments where fear and control dominate. When they lose control, they tend to react in extreme ways.
That is why it is so dangerous to leave abusive situations. It is also why it is so frightening to come forward — because the abuser will not stop; they need the upper hand. It is important that when people come forward with these stories, we create a community around survivors.
We must create a safety net and protective environment around coming forward because it is difficult. But there is power in numbers, and abusers can be held accountable and stopped when survivors come together.
That is what we are seeing in the Diddy case. Around 300 people have reportedly come forward about his actions. I look at that and think — this has been happening for a long time, and no one said anything until recently.
Cassie was brave in coming forward, and that one brave action led to hundreds of other brave actions.
It is sad—it is sad as a survivor and as someone who sees this every single day—that it had to go this far, that we did not believe survivors the first time they spoke up, that we did not believe the first time someone said, “Hey, this is wrong.”
That has to change. Of course, we should uphold “innocent until proven guilty.” That principle is important — it protects everyone.
However, we must also recognize that we no longer live in the 1900s, when there was no digital footprint. Today, there is usually a digital record of people’s actions, and it is much harder to hide.
That does not mean we bypass due process or the court system. It means when someone shows us evidence — video, photos, texts, emails — we should be more willing to believe them and support survivors accordingly.
Jacobsen: You mentioned the common patterns and psychology of individuals committing these crimes. Are there common targets, too? What are common traits or identifiers that these offenders look for?
Alexander: Yes. They look for the opposite of themselves. My experience with survivors is that they are incredible, kind, giving, empathetic, warmhearted, and generous. They generally are not abusive themselves and do not have those tendencies. They tend to be the people who give others the benefit of the doubt and who believe in kindness and second chances.
In contrast, perpetrators often fall into what is called the “dark triad” — Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. They prey on those who embody what they lack. The throughline between all survivors I have encountered is their kindness. Yet society often places blame on survivors — asking, “Why did you not get out sooner? Why did you not see it?”
But when you are reasonable and compassionate, you naturally want to believe the best about others. Unfortunately, that kindness and openness can make someone vulnerable to being targeted. The world is not all bad. I do not want to say that. Maybe he did have a bad childhood, or maybe he was just upset that day. But being preyed upon for your big heart is what I see most often.
Jacobsen: What about getting caught or having the problem behaviour pointed out? What tends to happen then?
Alexander: They react with outrageous defensiveness. There is usually an uproar of gaslighting or complete denial of responsibility. They hate having their flaws pointed out because they are deeply insecure.
It can be very dangerous to point out an abuser’s flaws one-on-one. That confrontation can trigger them to react with explosive outrage. My ex nearly killed me because he could not find his car keys — and somehow, that became my fault. He started burning my handbags on the stove and then beat me for four hours simply because he could not find his keys.
Survivors are always told that they are in the wrong and made to bear the entire responsibility for the relationship.
It is hard to get out because reasonable people operate differently. In a normal partnership, you can say, “Hey, I did not appreciate when you did that — would you mind not doing that again?” Or “Did you have a bad day?” In a healthy relationship, you are supposed to share your flaws and humanity. It is supposed to be a safe space. That is where real growth, connection, and depth are formed.
But with an abuser, that does not exist. It is complicated, and it is dangerous.
Jacobsen: How do future victims typically fall into the orbit of these individuals, given how dangerous they are?
Alexander: I have never seen an abuser start off abusing. It always begins with what is called the “love bombing” phase, and that term is very accurate.
During this phase, they are on perfect behaviour. To paint the picture — and while abuse exists in all relationship types, I will use a heterosexual male-female relationship as an example — the man is like “Mr. Romeo”: showering the woman with gifts, going the extra mile, being constantly available, being overbearingly wonderful.
And that is a trap.
They can keep up the act for months — my ex kept it up for about five months before things turned insane — but they can also keep it up for years. There is no fixed timeline. Slowly but surely, the real personality comes out.
All of that love bombing is the honey underneath the trap. You are eating the honey without realizing that a cage is being built around you, and by the time you notice, it is very hard to get out.
That is how they do it — they are very good at it.
Jacobsen: And often, they are celebrated figures, right? Especially among celebrities?
Alexander: Exactly. They have often celebrated figures in positions of power with much to offer, and people idolize and glorify them.
That power they accumulate makes it even harder for someone to speak out and say, “Hey, this person you idolize — this is who they are.”
And because these abusers create and even believe in their idealized image, it becomes a very powerful tool. They are often so convincing that survivors are not believed when they speak up.
Jacobsen: For those who survive — those who are not murdered — and attempt to rebuild their lives, what is the range of reactions you have seen? Coping strategies, levels of thriving, levels of barely surviving, or even spiralling into self-harm?
Alexander: There are good and bad coping strategies, and it all depends on access — access to resources, access to treatments, and access to the correct treatments. Not all therapies work for trauma.
It also comes down to willingness — how ready the person is — and how stuck they are in the situation. For example, court cases can drag out the trauma. We see this, particularly in Canada, where survivors can be dragged through the court system for years. You cannot fully recover if you still have looming trial dates. Your brain stays stuck in trauma until the court process is finished until it is wrapped up, and until you can truly let it go.
As for coping strategies, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Substance abuse is sadly very common among survivors. I would even flip that: most women who struggle with substance abuse have suffered some form of deep trauma. Overworking is another coping strategy — the constant need to stay busy, the guilt around relaxing — that is a conditioned trauma response.
You also see emotional dysregulation — the brain constantly thinking it is in danger, always operating in a hypervigilant state.
There can also be patterns of promiscuity — survivors sometimes try to “redo” the trauma experience, trying to gain mastery over it, hoping for a different outcome. That is another common response.
Unfortunately, our current systems do not offer the right support for trauma survivors.
On the positive side, once someone has access to trauma-informed therapy — EMDR, myofascial therapy, or somatic therapies — their coping strategies can become healthier.
Yoga is an amazing coping strategy, especially trauma-informed yoga. Pilates and gentle movement practices are powerful tools.
Trauma fundamentally involves a rigorous violation of consent, so having a gentler approach to healing is essential.
Exercise, being in nature, and proper nutrition can all be strong coping tools. Sleep is often disrupted for survivors, so getting assistance with sleep — sometimes even through pharmaceuticals — can be important because the brain needs restorative sleep to heal.
Water activities, like swimming, can help survivors move energy through their bodies in a soothing, methodical way.
Journaling is important, too. Talking to someone can help, but sometimes, avoiding oversharing is just as important. Oversharing can be a trauma response as well. When survivors tell long, sprawling, sometimes incomprehensible stories, the brain often tries to expel overwhelming experiences.
We all experience trauma to varying degrees in life. Sadly, no one gets through life entirely unscathed. Part of the human condition is managing trauma — recognizing what is healthy and what is unhealthy and learning to navigate those experiences.
Jacobsen: I have spoken to some experts who work with individuals who have Cluster B personality disorders — the personality disorders that are often linked to perpetrators — as you mentioned earlier. What about the possibility of change? Is there any chance that an individual like that can change?
For instance, have there been cases where someone was showing early signs of abusive tendencies, but before overt abuse happened, they went to couples counselling, and, through a lot of conscious effort and goodwill, they changed? I do not expect that to be common — or to happen in most cases.
I expect it to be a super minority of cases if it happens at all. But I wanted to know if you, in your work, had come across or heard about that.
Alexander: That is why early detection is so important. We need to work on this starting in the elementary years because the signs are generally there.
I firmly believe that there is a natural and a nurture element to developing a Cluster B diagnosis. It is both. I do not think it is exclusively one or the other—although maybe there are cases where it leans heavily to one side—but generally, it is a combination.
There are ways to heal almost everything, but it comes down to free will. One of the biggest issues with antisocial personality disorders — narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits — is that they do not believe anything is wrong with them. So why would they seek treatment?
I saw that with my ex. In his mind, what he did to me was somehow my fault. I was the one who needed therapy to deal with what he had done, even though he was the one committing the offences.
Whether it is a lack of moral consciousness or something else, individuals with dark triad traits do not believe they are wrong.
So, how do you help someone unwilling to admit they did anything wrong?
With disorders like borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder, there can be more self-awareness. There is at least an ability to communicate and say, “Hey, what if we worked on this?” There are ways to address and work through those issues.
But with true narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian personalities, it isn’t easy. Thankfully, we are not talking about a majority of people. That is a relief. Most people are not like this. But the ones who are can be very dangerous.
I hope medicinal treatments will one day be available, but again, it comes down to free will and the willingness to seek help.
And that is the complicated issue — we cannot force people to accept treatment. So how do you help them?
Jacobsen: According to experts, when do these negative personality traits start to show? What is the earliest reasonable point for diagnosis?
Alexander: I do not think it is fair to diagnose infants or anything like that — and I am not a doctor — but somewhere in the elementary years, you start to see signs. There are often early warning indicators. Usually, something is going on at home.
My mother was an elementary school teacher, and I remember conversations with her about students. Based on their behaviour patterns, she could predict, even in grade three, which kids would graduate high school and which were at risk of ending up in jail.
Something happening in that child’s home life usually triggers the disruption we see at school. Suppose we catch these signs early and help the child. In that case, we have a real opportunity to end cycles of generational trauma.
But again, it comes down to willingness — and it comes down to how we support young people who are noticeably dysregulated. EMDR works on young minds. It can help. ADHD is often misinterpreted and can sometimes mask trauma or disruption at home.
How can we help younger children? How can we teach them about consent? How can we teach them to regulate their emotional states? My mom taught meditation to her grade two and three students, and she had the calmest classroom. Even when stuck inside on rainy days, the children could get through the day without chaos because they had the tools to self-regulate.
If we assist teachers—because teachers truly are heroes—in teaching their students math, reading, and writing and how to connect to their own bodies and emotions, there is an incredible opportunity to raise a healthier, more emotionally resilient generation.
But yes, it usually starts in the younger years. You can often see it.
Abuse of animals is a major early warning sign. If you go back through the histories of a lot of known abusers — including my ex — you will often find abuse directed toward anything more innocent or dependent than them.
Animals, especially pets, rely on humans for food, safety, and shelter. Neglect or mistreatment of those beings is indicative of future abusive patterns.
Jacobsen: When building community around survivors, how do you do it right? And how do you do it wrong?
Alexander: The first word that comes to mind is gentleness. Survivors have already been through someone trying to control them — they need a softer, safer place to land.
Slow down. That is generally what survivors need: predictability, stability, and reliability.
Those are qualities that survivors require to heal because most of their lives have been filled with unpredictability.
Believing in survivors is essential. Empathy and compassion are critical.
Empowerment is also a big concept here. That old idiom: “Teach a person to fish, and they will eat for a lifetime.”
Survivors are generally intelligent, kind, and good people. They need validation—validation of their feelings and experiences—but also encouragement that they are capable.
Kind words go an incredibly long way for people who have been abused.
Acknowledgment of even small achievements and successes is essential in the healing process.
In the right community, anyone can heal. I am living proof of that.
With the level of violence I have experienced in my life, I should not be here — but I am — because I got the warm hug I needed from people.
I got that return to societal stability and safety, more or less, even though my ex is still free.
Kindness and gentleness — that is the right way.
Jacobsen: And how do you do it wrong?
Alexander: You mimic the abuser’s behaviour — which, unfortunately, is what many governments do to survivors.
Power, control, demanding proof, questioning feelings: “Where’s your evidence? Why are you still crying? What is wrong with you? It is over now. Move on.”
That is how much of the justice system treats survivors — and it is deeply ineffective. It does not bring true justice.
I was in an intimate partner violence (IPV) murder trial last Wednesday in Superior Court in Toronto.
The way the judge and the defence counsel treated the family — who had lost their daughter because the system let an abuser out after he had already strangled her once — was shameful.
The abuser went back and killed her a few months later. And yet, the way that grieving family was treated in court — shame on Canada for allowing the system to be like that.
It is abhorrent. And I do not think it is because of ignorance — it is likely incompetence and laziness.
Creating a community where people feel genuinely listened to is essential.
I want to focus on the positive because we already know where the negative is: Our culture does not do a good enough job.
Jacobsen: In terms of media coverage, how does the media do? And I mean everything from the factual reporting level to the coverage’s proportionality, depending on the case.
Alexander: Nothing is perfect. However, my experience with the Canadian media has been overwhelmingly positive. End Violence Everywhere (EVE) would not exist without their support.
EVE would not have launched if the Canadian media had not been willing to follow the story. I have never had a negative experience with mainstream Canadian media outlets.
Jacobsen: Journalists are responsible, and most do their utmost to do it right. A journalist started the entire Me Too movement. Journalism is an effective tool. It is an essential tool, especially in this day and age when we are constantly consuming content. Journalists must always tell the truth and uphold the values of good journalism. Still, they must also understand that this is a sensitive subject. These are people’s lives.
Alexander: Most journalists want to do right. I firmly believe that, and that has been my experience. Journalism can also be a power. It is a strong tool that can be used for good. Sensationalizing these stories is wrong. We need to get to where we can name the perpetrators and have their mugshots. That is essential. It is both a warning to the public and a safety measure.
Jacobsen: There must be much respect and care, especially when dealing directly with a survivor. There must be much care, not just in reporting a story but in communication itself. It has to be personal. It can be done properly. Media, when used ethically, changes governments. I have seen it with my own eyes — the media publicizes things in a way that frustrates the community enough to change the tone of a caucus. It is a beautiful thing.
Alexander: I do not think going public is for everyone, especially on the most sensitive days of your life, because it can be incredibly difficult. Last summer, there was a situation involving Anita Vandenbeld, a Liberal MP. I spoke at the House of Commons before the Status of Women Committee. I shared my personal story, complete with photos of my black-and-blue, bloody body and 25 other survivor stories.
Anita Vandenbeld put forward a motion about abortion to hijack the meeting and derail it because she did not like what I was saying about Trudeau or that I was holding him accountable. I walked out of the meeting, along with the other witness. It became a media circus for weeks. A reporter called me during that time and said, “The Liberals want to say you are running for a Conservative caucus and that you are a pawn.” I told him, “If you publish that story, I will sue you quickly. You better not run that because it is not true. I live in Los Angeles. What am I doing? Running for office by proxy? This is insanity.”
Jacobsen: It is dangerous if the government sponsors media outlets. That can become a very big problem. The media needs to remain independent. The media must continue to do its job effectively, but governments must stay out. That is where we could go wrong. By and large, though, journalists are doing a great job.
What about the extension of intimate partner violence into workplace discrimination and violence? How are policies being changed there, if at all, in different sectors to reduce the possibility of these instances happening?
Alexander: If you see something, you need to say something. I am an employer. It is my responsibility to make sure that my team is looked after. Of course, they have their own lives, but if I saw abuse, it would be my duty to report it. It is my responsibility to at least ask, “Are you okay? How can I help you?”
I believe it is law that if there is an incident of sexual assault (SA) or intimate partner violence (IPV), employers must give people time off. I am unsure if that is a provincial or federal law; I would have to check. But there are always signs.
My dad’s secretary was murdered by her partner on December 21, 2016. She did not come to work, and my dad went to her house, where he found her body and her ex-partner’s body. He had shot her and then himself. My dad had already asked her to move in with him and my mother, but she said she would do it after Christmas. It is important to intervene now if you see signs of abuse in your staff.
She should be alive. She could have been saved. We all have a responsibility to end this because it is happening in our communities and is not an issue that only affects individuals privately. These are public problems, and everyone has a responsibility. If they see signs, they should intervene. Of course, people should use intelligence and act safely, but intervention is the only way to end it.
Jacobsen: What is the rate now in terms of intimate partner violence (IPV) leading to murder in Canada? You mentioned in another conversation that the numbers have increased quite a bit during the Trudeau years.
Alexander: There has been a 27% increase, almost 30% over the last five years.
Jacobsen: What does that translate into in total numbers?
Alexander: 187 women were murdered in 2022. That is the last full number I have. We are losing a woman about once every one to two days right now.
The biggest issue is that there are very few situations where there is no history of abuse. For instance, Britney Doff — whose trial I was at last week — was strangled by her ex. He had six charges against him, and the justice system let him go. They told him, “We will remove your charges if you go through this PARS program.”
Jacobsen: What does PARS stand for?
Alexander: The Partner Assault Response program. It should be easy to remember but hard because these programs are inadequate. They often teach abusers how to be more manipulative.
Kadeem Nedrick went through that program. After three sessions, he went and stabbed Britney to death in front of their son. Their son was four years old at the time — he is now around seven or eight — and he was autistic. He witnessed everything.
As much as Kadeem Nedrick is responsible for his actions, the Government of Canada is also responsible. After strangling Britney and being formally charged, the government let him go. The same way they let my ex go. The same way they let Brianna Broadfoot’s ex go, and he successfully killed her last July — she was only 17 or 18 years old, from London.
The same way they let Caitlyn Jennings’ abuser go, and he killed her in July 2023. In the same way, case after case. The recidivism of abusers is extremely high. When they get away with it, they become empowered. They start to feel invincible, and they know that they are.
Just last week, I received news of another case: second-degree murder and indignity to a body. A man killed a woman in her early 30s who had two children around September of last year. He was charged but is now out on bail for only $2,500.
That is the state of the nation. That is bad Liberal policy — specifically C-75 — and it is killing us. The government’s hands are covered in blood.
We filed a Charter lawsuit with Catherine Marshall, a great litigator in Canada. We—14 plaintiffs and myself—have filed for infringement of our Section 7 Charter rights: life, liberty, and security of the person. The lawsuit has been well received by many members of Parliament across all parties. We are hoping for real change because we cannot continue like this.
Jacobsen: What about safety and security?bSo a woman or man comes forward. They have been abused. They may have been severely assaulted to the point of nearly being murdered, or they may have been a victim of sexual assault. They manage to get out. Where do they go? Where do they find safety? What are some typical patterns, whether friends, family, nonprofits, or halfway houses?
Alexander: Oof. I wish there were easy answers. We are working on a solution for this because Canada — and the United States to a degree, but Canada to a greater extent — has a major housing crisis for everyone, let alone for survivors.
There is nowhere to send them. Every shelter in this country is full. I have called shelters in Winnipeg, Barrie, Nova Scotia—you name it.
So, we are building a modular homes community to house survivors. They can come, no questions asked, have their own independent living space, access medical care and trauma treatments, access education for young children, and simply get away.
That is why many women stay. Where are you supposed to go? Friends and family are an option, but many survivors have been isolated from friends and family because isolation is one of the main tactics of abusers.
What do we do for those people? We have put them up in hotels and Airbnb, but those are not real residences. That is a serious issue we need to address, and we are working every day to create a solution.
Jacobsen: From your research, what societies are more advanced in addressing these issues? Maybe we can approach this question from three different angles. First, within the international community, although the ideal number would be zero, which societies or types of societies have the lowest rates of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and related issues?
Second, for those societies — whether they have high or low rates — which ones have the most robust, evidence-based provisions for survivors that work? And third, what kinds of cultures, political environments, policies, and legal systems are the most robust in processing these crimes and delivering proportional justice?
Alexander: It is important. People might not like this answer because it has teeth, but punishments need to reflect the crime.
You see it in countries where severe punishments lead to greater safety. Japan is one of them. I do not necessarily agree with everything going on in El Salvador from a human rights perspective, but the government there has cleaned up all of the gangs. Now, people can live safely.
From a public safety perspective, that kind of firm response can work. Canada, on the other hand, is the opposite example. There are bad policies, and criminals know it. They park in countries like Canada because they know they can escape.
A cop friend once said that he was on duty and asked a criminal, “You guys used to make it so difficult to find you when you committed crimes. Why is it so easy now?” You used to hide and are blatantly committing these offences in the open. He said, “Yes. It is easier to get booked and be out the next day than it is to bother trying to run from you guys anyway. That is what is going on in Canada.”
When criminals know there are no real punishments, they will keep offending. It is essential that we culturally handle these individuals. Again, they are a subset of the population—about 1% committing 66% of the crime.
It is important to recognize that and deal with it appropriately. That does not mean prison should be brutal. Some people are saveable. Some people can be rehabilitated. But I do not think people who commit serial murders or offence after offence should be let back out. That is unfair to innocent people just trying to have a normal life.
You see, in countries that have fewer than a dozen rapes reported a year, they have severe punishments. People feel safer because serious justice will be laid down if they commit an offence.
Jacobsen: What countries are the reverse of that? Where is it almost clownish in terms of no policy or law?
Alexander: Canada. I hate to say the quiet part out loud, but Canada is falling into that trap. It is much safer in the United States right now. And there are problems in the U.S., do not get me wrong. But it is a lot safer there.
The U.S. has ten times the population, yet it feels safer per capita in many places. Canada is in a bad state right now. There are also countries in the Middle East where there are obvious problems — Israel, Gaza, everywhere — but Canada has unfortunately fallen into that same direction.
My biggest fear is that we are at a tipping point right now. It is either going to go one way or the other. We are working hard to bring Canada back to what we thought it was growing up. But if it continues down this path, good luck. I would not raise my children there, and I would not want to have a daughter in that country.
Jacobsen: When you look at the demographics of those victimized by this, are we looking at older populations, younger populations, middle-aged populations? Are we looking at Indigenous women? Non-Indigenous women? How does that break down?
I can bring in a U.S. analogy. In the United States, if you look at the majority of school shootings, they are primarily committed by white boys, and the biggest uptick is around age 17. You can target some of these things demographically.
It is about the way they express their frustrations. Some Hispanic boys get into gangs. Some African-American boys get into gangs. Troubled youth manifest their issues in different subcultural ways.
So, when we are looking at this, are you asking about when women generally get abused or when the abusers start?
Alexander: Good question. On the former point — those who are most likely to be victimized — it tends to be girls aged 18 to 24.
That is a large population where you will see the numbers skewed upwards, but it happens to anyone. We serve survivors who are 80 years old. We see it happen to young children as well.
It usually starts early, and yes, there are much higher rates in Indigenous populations, largely due to the traumas learned through colonization and residential schools. Those traumas have carried onward. We are seeing the aftereffects of that. We are seeing a lack of respect, racism, and indignity toward people who deserve much more support.
But abuse can happen to anyone. I would not be the stereotypical person you would expect. I come from an upper-middle-class Caucasian family, am twice university-educated, have a global perspective, am well-traveled, and my parents are still together. I check all the boxes that would be the antithesis of what people typically imagine.
However, abuse can happen to anyone. We do not talk enough about abuse happening in so-called “good “neighbourhoods because of stereotypes, stigma, and a culture of keeping up appearances. There is much shame.
I went public to help end that stigma and help people realize that this is happening in their backyards—even if they want to ignore it or do not recognize it.
When it comes to abusers, we can pinpoint and profile them. But survivors and victims can come from anywhere. All of the women I mentioned earlier who were murdered came from completely different walks of life.
The one throughline I see — the one common factor — is usually that the victim was a kind person. Usually, someone sweet, not naive or sheltered, but good and trusting. That is the only significant similarity if we are looking at demographics or categories.
An agreeable personality type can certainly be a target. There is some correlation there. So yes, 18- to 24-year-old women are statistically more susceptible. It should also be noted that a child who experiences abuse or sexual assault in their elementary years is twice as likely to end up in an abusive relationship as an adult. Twice as likely. It doubles the risk.
That is not some mythical reasoning. Trauma causes biological and cellular change, especially during development. It wires the nervous system to seek out what is familiar—even if what feels familiar is unsafe.
So, you have young children who are assaulted and abused, and their nervous systems are wired to be attracted to abusive dynamics later in life.
That is why early intervention is essential. Early healing is also critical—not just going through the criminal court process or reporting, but actively healing the nervous system and body of the young person. It can be done ethically and morally soundly. It is important to access healing early.
We are all susceptible to this. That is why boundaries are important, developing an independent identity is important, and encouraging people to understand what is comfortable for them—and what is not—is essential in helping prevent the perpetuation of abuse.
Jacobsen: Are single-parent families a risk factor, or are inattentive or absentee parenting or overworked parents a factor in 18——to 24-year-old girls being at greater risk—especially if the young adults are still living at home during that time?
Alexander: 100%, but also not entirely. We have served survivors who were living at home in upper-middle-class households with present and supportive parents, and the abuse still occurred. Having a supportive family is a mitigating factor. It can help prevent abuse. But again, abusers are master manipulators.
My entire family — including my six-foot-eight, 275-pound Olympic athlete brother and my parents — thought I was going to marry my ex, who later tried to kill me. They thought he was the greatest guy on earth for the first couple of months.
So, growing up in a stable household does not hurt — but it is not the only determining factor. That is a stigma that needs to end. You can have a good, supportive household and still end up being swindled by an abuser.
Jacobsen: Are a lot of these individuals typically living parasitic lifestyles? Could you elaborate?
Alexander: Basically, they do not have any sustained periods of employment. They exploit people for finances. They manipulate others to get what they want: a meal, a place to live, or money.
Jacobsen: So the variety of tactics you are alluding to is that they are not just being abusive within their relationships but also in how they interact day-to-day in broader society.
Alexander: Yes. It stands to reason, and 90% to 95% of the cases match that pattern. Abuse generally starts small and escalates over time.
I do not think it is possible for someone capable of the violence I experienced to have a normal, healthy relationship with anyone — not with their children, not with their ex-spouses, not with friends. I believe my ex is involved in some form of criminal enterprise.
This is where the court systems, particularly the family court system, go so inherently wrong. They allow abusers continued access to children even after serious offences like strangling the mother. Abuse is never isolated to a single individual. They cannot maintain the façade for very long. You can draw a parallel to the Diddy cases, the Weinsteins, andthe Epsteins. The behaviour patterns are everywhere across their lives.
Many abusers become very skilled at manipulation. They use it to gain resources and to double down on the abuse because having access to wealth, homes, and status creates the image of power and success. Society tends to respect people with material resources, thinking they are something to admire. That becomes very dangerous.
So yes, abusers’ tactics are not limited to one relationship or situation. It is a full pattern of behaviour across every area of their lives. They cannot be normal. They need everything to be a game. Their targeted victim — their primary victim — also becomes part of their strategy for manipulating others.
If they have a good person by their side, it makes them look even better. They use the good person’s reputation — the innocent person — to make themselves appear more innocent. People often say, “Well, he is married, so he must be a good guy. Why would she be with him if he were bad?” That is a constant. They use people. They use others to construct an identity because they do not have a real, sound identity.
Jacobsen: The way you said that — there are two parts. First, they do not have a genuine identity. Second, they see everything as a game. From our side of things — and I have been subjected to abuse as well — it is like everything is fun and games to them. But this is your life. It is serious. To them, it is a game. And there is barely anyone “home” on their side. That is dangerous.
Alexander: Everyone is disposable to them. Right?
Jacobsen: Yep.
Alexander: Everyone is disposable, and no action is too small or outrageous. They will go to extreme lengths to maintain their power and control.
For instance, in my civil case, because I am still in civil litigation with my ex, remember that he is free. There are no consequences, and there are no criminal consequences at all. The peace bond expired a month ago, and I do not even have any legal protection against him.
I could send you the photos and videos of him nearly beating me to death right now, and he is out there living as if nothing happened. He lied under oath in our civil litigation. He is countersuing me, claiming that I was self-injurious — that I tried to kill myself that day — and that I fell down the stairs, that I threw myself down the stairs.
That is forensically impossible. Visibly impossible. But he is willing to lie under oath to frame the narrative around himself. So, where is the moral compass? I cannot even comprehend it sometimes. It is mind-boggling. Still, you read this about yourself or see it happen repeatedly — they constantly lie. Constantly. There is not a situation where they do not lie.
Alexander: The problem with inadequate systems is that they allow these lies to succeed — over and over and over again. Abusers learn how to manipulate the system, and eventually, that becomes their entire identity.
Jacobsen: But do they at least want to be seen as great people publicly? And by “public,” I mean family, friends — if they have them — or anyone in their circle who might be seeing them.
Alexander: I am not that person who can fully understand it. I remember once I was working on a song with my songwriting coach, and I asked him, “I want to know why. Why is he doing this? What is the point of all of this?” To me, there was no gain. What is the success of this? There is nothing to achieve here.
Alexander: My songwriting coach told me, “You must be an entirely different person to understand or answer that question.”
Jacobsen: What did they mean by that?
Alexander: They meant that you and I are probably never going to be able to sit in the abuser’s mind and understand because it does not make logical sense. It boils down to power and control. I know those terms are widely used, but what do they mean? Power at all costs. They always need to be right.
They do not necessarily want to look good for family members because they genuinely care about appearances. It is a means to an end. Looking good in front of family members gives them power over people.
Looking good in the public eye — look at Diddy — gives you power over people. People form positive assumptions about you. So, there is the power aspect. Looking good and acting good gives you a track record and more leeway. That is the control aspect.
It is all a means to an end. If eating spaghetti gave them power and control, they would obsess over eating spaghetti. But they obsess over their image because looking good in public gives them power and control. That is why they do not want to be named publicly. That is why it is important to name and hold them accountable.
One of the last things my ex said near the end of the relationship was, “I pay good money to be kept off the Internet.” I will never forget that. I thought, “What? That is a strange thing to say.” Now I understand why. He hates that, even though he has never been convicted, we have found a legal way to ensure people know who he is, what he has done, and where he lives — without being sued. He cannot stand that.
I saw how it affected him. Last year, once everything went public, he would play his music at a decibel so high that it would make you want to vomit, disturbing the entire neighbourhood for days. His façade is crumbling. He is not going to be able to lie his way into trapping another woman. He will not be able to lie his way into manipulating his son. He will not be able to lie his way through life anymore.
So now he is stuck with himself — and that must be not very good.
Jacobsen: Regarding the R v. Jordan case (2016), how has that impacted intimate partner violence cases in Canada, particularly case dismissals related to court delays?
Alexander: Oh, it has been lethal. It is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. I understand why they made that decision. On paper, it makes sense — because we should have the right to a speedy trial.
But here is the problem: these are ivory-tower policymakers living in theoretical land, making executive decisions that force people on the ground to suffer immeasurably. An attorney, a survivor, a survivor’s family, or a judge who does not want to go through this process effectively and expeditiously and move on.
The problem is that the Supreme Court put this law in place, and the government did not respond. The Trudeau government did not respond effectively, and neither did the provinces. The system was not equipped to handle legislation like that.
With 50% of the cases in the courts being intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and femicide — 50% — and with 2.5 days out of every 5-day court week dedicated solely to these issues, the foresight should have been there. Many of these cases were inevitably thrown out because of this decision. That was a giant mistake.
R v. Jordan should be undone. It should not have existed until the court systems were ready to handle those deadlines. Even as it stands, it should not apply to serious cases. It should not be weaponized as it is now, where defence counsel intentionally delays the process to push it over the time limit.
I would have waited eight years, twenty years, for my day in court. I would have rather waited that long than have my case thrown out. The emotional and personal impact of that — it rips your heart out. It makes you feel like you are taking crazy pills.
And it is happening ad nauseam. That is what our lawsuit is about. We see it all the time. It is making the streets more dangerous for Canadians everywhere. R v. Jordan should either not exist or should have clear exceptions. There should be a giant asterisk saying it does not apply to sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and femicide cases.
Applying it to traffic infractions or administrative issues is fine. But when it comes to human-on-human crimes involving extreme violence, it absolutely should not apply. It is inhumane. It is unethical.
One of the foundations of our Charter lawsuit is that R v. Jordan contradicts the rest of the Charter and makes it easy for criminals to get out of jail free. It is a nasty decision.
Jacobsen: Your testimony before the Status of Women Committee in the Parliament of Canada had a couple of reactions: one was the standard controversy, another was walkouts. What was that experience like for you, and how did it shape your view of political engagement at the federal level?
Alexander: It was the worst thing that Anita Vandenbeld could have done. It was a continuation of the justice process that I had already experienced. Sadly, I had the emotional placeholder for that type of experience. What Anita did that day — hijacking the meeting — was a visible, public way of saying, “We do not care about survivors. Sit down. Shut up.”
What she did exposed the entire broken system. That is where my gratitude for the media comes in: They captured it and held her accountable in a way that survivors themselves often cannot.
We cannot forget the support of NDP MP Leah Gazan. Her support was crucial in this. If you look at the Zoom meeting, you can see it because Leah was on Zoom, and Anita was in the room. You can see, through Gazan’s paper, the word “abortion” written in big letters. They planned it. They planned to hijack the meeting.
They had no intention of coming in and having a respectful, dignified meeting with decorum. There were also about twenty-five minutes of Leah arguing about whose hand was up first, which followed after Anita’s motion about abortion.
We were sitting there. I was spinning around in the chair. I went and sat with my parents. I went and got a coffee. I was watching them act worse than kindergarten children. That is why we walked out.
It is hard to rank things sometimes, but it was one of the worst feelings. But, again, it was nothing I was not already used to—because that is how the entire system operates. So, I am grateful to Anita for being so blatantly disrespectful. It allowed everyone to see how terrible the Trudeau government has handled things.
I am grateful that my family was there. I am grateful that Megan Walker, the other witness beside me, and I were on the same page. We sat there, staring at each other, thinking, “What are we doing here? This is insane.”
It hurt. It still hurts. I am grateful that Pierre Poilievre has sent over staffers to support us. No one walked out of that room without crying. Adrienne LaRoche from the Bloc was bawling. After the cameras stopped rolling, my mom went over and had a few choice words for Anita. Anita ended up pressing the panic button, and parliamentary security came up. It was ridiculous.
The victim mentality that Anita Vandenbeld tries to project — I have a personal issue with that. It is so abusive what she did. It was textbook gaslighting. It was all the tactics abusers use.
It reminded me of everything — where you are holding up some of the evidence from your case, explaining your story, explaining that you want to change, that these are the problems, asking for an open and honest discussion — and then having someone who thinks they are more powerful than you behave like that.
No. I do not have time for that anymore. I do not need to play in that sandbox. So yes, it was the worst thing she could have done. It was a strange, backhanded gift with a slap in the face.
At what point did Anita Vandenbeld press the panic button? That might be a nuanced question that has not been asked. That was at the end after the camera stopped rolling. So much occurred off-camera that people did not get to see, and that was also problematic because Anita was in a constant state of denial.
Not only was there the planned hijacking between her and Leah Gazan, but more happened after the meeting was adjourned, and we all exited. My dad and I stood outside the room with a few Conservative MPs, Bloc MPs, reporters, and staffers.
Then I heard something — I recognized my mom’s voice. I said, “What’s that?” My dad immediately went back inside. My mom was “mama bearing” — standing up for her daughter and other survivors. She told Anita that what had happened was unacceptable and would be a problem.
My mom is not a violent person by any means, but she had every right to defend her child. What Anita did was wrong. Then Anita pressed the panic button, and parliamentary security showed up. My mom was in tears and said — and it is comical in a way — “You can arrest me.”
They said, “Ma’am, we are not arresting you. You have not done anything wrong. This was just a verbal altercation.” But my mom insisted, “You can arrest me, but you cannot arrest my daughter. She has to go back to America where she will be safe.” I thought, “Oh my God, that is so adorable.” My mom is an elementary school teacher. She follows the rules. But when you reach a certain point, after seeing so much wrongdoing, it just becomes too much.
When you are trying to do the right thing, trying to take care of survivors because no one else seems to understand, and then you see the government behaving like this — I do not even have words for how wrong it was.
What Anita did was bad enough, but the real kicker was what happened afterward. We wrote identical letters to all party leaders—Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre, Yves-François Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh. We said, “This is what happened. Here is your opportunity to publicly apologize.”
Everyone else responded appropriately—except Trudeau and the Liberals. Anita had ample opportunity. I asked for a public apology and said I would accept it. I even said, “Maybe you had a bad day. I am willing to give you that. I am human, too. I mess up.”
But she would not do it. Instead, she said, “You pulled me from my constituency.” She lives eighteen minutes away from the Wellington Building — eighteen minutes. I flew up from Los Angeles the day before, a fourteen-hour journey. She was eighteen minutes away and made it about herself.
She made herself the victim in the situation. That is textbook gaslighting. 100%. It is exactly what abusers do. There is no respect there. I cannot respect someone who behaves like that. If she were ever to come forward and apologize, I would accept it. I would extend the olive branch and move on. But until then, there is no respect left.
I believe in being able to cross party lines and communicate with people you disagree with. But you have to own your mistakes in that process. She does not, and I cannot respect her for that.
Jacobsen: Why are rural girls and women at higher risk of femicide than urban girls?
Alexander: I was also born into a smaller community. There is a lack of resources and support, less to do, fewer entertainment options, and fewer services. Isolating someone in a rural community is much easier than in a city.
I am not saying people who live in rural communities are uneducated—look at my parents—but there might not be as strong a social services network, education systems, or schools nearby. Isolation is a big one. It is much easier to isolate someone on a farm or small town than in an urban setting. My full town would have been twenty minutes across.
Jacobsen: You have been covered in a podcast, Global News, CTV News, a Star Gala fundraising article, Toronto Life, and a Global News report. You were again on The Voice of Women podcast, CBTV News, and Global News.
Of all those — including Le Monde — which one has been the most “newsy”? By that, I mean objective, fair, and evidence-based in reporting your case specifically or broader issues like IPV, femicide, or SA, where you spoke as an expert.
Alexander: The most in-depth one was the Toronto Life article. That was an hours-long interview process with the amazing Andrea Yu, who ghostwrote it. Plus, there was a full photo shoot. The whole team at Toronto Life — Rad Novak and everyone — was so lovely.
That piece was the most personal because of its structure. But overall, over 80 different news outlets and independent podcasts have covered this in the past year. It has been everybody.
I am fortunate to have known some of these people before, and those relationships have only strengthened. They have all been amazing. Through the Canadian Press, Liam Casey at Queen’s Park has been awesome. Cynthia Mulligan at CityTV—I have a special place in my heart for her. She is wonderful. CTV has had us on a few times.
My friends at Northern Perspective, Ryan and Tanya, have been great. Daryl Greer at The Globe on the West Coast did a really strong piece on R v. Jordan. Even the smaller outlets have been incredible. People in Sault Ste. Marie—Elaine, and Kenneth at The Sault Today—have been covering this nonstop.
Toronto Star has covered many of our events and featured us on their podcast. Everyone has been amazing, and I am grateful for that. I do not know if there is one outlet that stands out as more journalistic than the others.
The truth is, there is not much to argue about in these stories. It would be nice if the government recognized that and legislated accordingly. They need to address that.
If they could keep track of how many cases they stay, it would expose the size of the problem. But we do not know that number because no one must count it. The other thing is that these issues are not difficult to understand. The nature of the violence and discomfort is difficult, but figuring out what is going wrong is not some deep, complex mystery. It is obvious. We have a bad justice system in Canada. Everyone covering this has done a great job. I truly have no complaints.
Jacobsen: Speaking not from a Canadian legal-geography perspective but more from a regional or international one — what rights documents or national laws could be applied to pressure Canada to create a more robust legal and justice system?
Alexander: I am starting my American podcast tour this week, so I have been thinking about this a lot. There are many pages Canada could take from the U.S. playbook.
We should have more expeditious trials. We should be able to get to trial within sixty to ninety days. I do not think the Charter should be used as it currently is to prevent that, but we need faster timelines. We need to fund the justice system. That is one of the biggest problems — maybe the biggest. Yes, that falls under provincial responsibility, too, but it needs to happen urgently.
We need to repeal R v. Jordan or at least amend it. We also need to repeal Section 278, which allows the defence counsel and the accused to subpoena all personal records of the survivor—even private journals. That law makes survivors incredibly vulnerable. We need to get rid of Bill C-75. That should be first. It needs to go.
Australia created a Department for the Prevention of Male Violence — not the exact name, but something along those lines. Canada needs something similar. We need to understand these problems from the abuser’s perspective and start addressing the root causes. But the start — the absolute minimum — is to have a good justice system. That is essential right now. Prevention is important, yes. But we deal daily with criminals who are being caught, released, and reoffending immediately. So we need immediate action.
We need to make our judges work. Right now, they take extensive holidays. The court starts at 10:00 a.m., and then there is about an hour of setup and procedural stuff.
Then, they take a fifteen-minute recess, usually twenty to twenty-five minutes when everyone is seated again. Then you have another hour of proceedings, then a ninety-minute lunch. Then, you return for the afternoon session, take another recess, and the court wraps up around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m.
So they are working four hours a day. No wonder these cases get pushed over. They are not even putting in a full day of work. Our two-hour podcast is half a day’s work compared to what they do in court daily. They need to get to work.
I am sorry. Enough is enough. We need to have stricter penalties. We cannot be letting murderers out. Nope. That is not acceptable. Carla Homolka should still be in jail. What happened there is so wrong. We need to support the police officers in what they are doing. Canadians need to get over themselves and recognize what is happening.
It does not mean we need to be shamed, blamed, or hate ourselves, but we do need to recognize the reality. We need to move past the well-marketed ideology of being the country of maple syrup, hockey players, and polar bears—that wonderful caricature we like to play of ourselves.
But we have to understand: this is serious. And if we do not turn the page soon, we will have a bigger problem than we already have. Those changes can happen quickly if we have the right people in place and if we listen. There is no point in arguing about this or studying it further. We need to move.
Jacobsen: How was the Moving Affair Gala on October 24, 2024, at the Four Seasons in Toronto, where you raised $600,000 for survivors with Shelter Movers?
Alexander: Thank you. Shelter Movers is an amazing organization. It is a national charity that helps survivors physically move out of abusive situations, safely moving all of their belongings. Shelter Movers provides a specific, essential, and much-needed service right now.
The gala was beautiful. Jennifer Bassett—a world-class event planner and a fabulous human—organized it. It was an impactful, moving night. That was the first time I wanted to bring this cause into the mainstream gala circuit because it has not been there. There are many important causes, such as SickKids, Telehealth, Boost for Kids, and cancer research.
Those are all essential causes that deserve attention. But we also have this issue — domestic violence and survivor support — and it needs to be raised to the same level where we can bring in major funding. It costs much money to run these initiatives. It costs megabucks. That is just reality.
We need more people willing to support these initiatives — not just through awareness or writing their politicians, though essential — but also by donating if they can. It is about helping good people rebuild their lives without abuse. It was awesome to work with Shelter Movers. It was a pivotal event. Everybody in that room knew why they were there.
Of course, the Four Seasons is a beautiful venue, but beyond that, it was a special, deep, impactful evening.
Jacobsen: Would you prefer to talk about quotes or being the lead plaintiff?
Alexander: Let’s talk about the Charter case, which is important for people to know about.
Jacobsen: As lead plaintiff in a $15,000,000 lawsuit against the federal government for Charter rights violations, what are the key points people should know?
Alexander: This lawsuit is based on injustice in the justice system — which, sadly, has become the norm. Very few people get justice in the justice system. That is why I call it the injustice system. This Charter lawsuit is unprecedented. It is the first of its kind in Canadian history. Catherine Marshall is leading it — a phenomenal litigator — and her entire team, who have been doing this pro bono at no cost to survivors.
The case is based largely on the Jordan decision issues, where all the plaintiffs experienced some form of Jordan time-out — meaning they were not allowed justice because of delays — thereby infringing on our Section 7 Charter rights: safety, liberty, and freedom.
There are other issues within the case as well. For instance, in my case, my ex was let out on bail the next day for $500 — completely unacceptable. We have plaintiffs who lost their daughters needlessly to intimate partner violence, again tied to Bill C-75.
Of course, we are asking for a financial award because survivors deserve it. Every good civil lawsuit seeks fiscal damages. However, the major purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the government accountable for failing survivors — for failing to provide justice, which is their job.
No one else can fix the system except the government. Survivors and citizens do not have that power. Part of our ask is for them to repeal these bad laws, amend others, create new legislation, and enforce the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights — because while it exists, the way it is currently written nullifies itself.
They have written all this beautiful language about victims, but in the fine print, they say it does not have to be enforced. Therefore, it isn’t very sensible. We are holding the government accountable for that. We will not have a formal response to the lawsuit until after the election because we do not have a government right now.
We launched the suit, knowing this is a nonpartisan issue. Whoever wins the election will inherit the lawsuit. We want to work with all parties to fix these issues because they are nonpartisan. We are very much looking forward to the government’s response. We are also adding more plaintiffs because more people have come forward — and unfortunately, most cases have major problems like these.
We are proud to have put this work together to try to improve things for Canadians and to set a new tone and precedent.
Jacobsen: Kate, thank you for today’s opportunity and time. I appreciate your expertise, and it is nice to reconnect.
Alexander: Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: You are welcome.
Alexander: Thanks so much. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Jacobsen: You too. Take care.
Alexander: 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): 2025/06/06
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, Chief Investment Officer of Running Point Capital Advisors, offers expert insight into current global financial dynamics. Schulman offers timely insights into macroeconomic trends, U.S. fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape. Schulman discusses the implications of President Trump’s $3.8 trillion budgetary package, the risks of deflation in China, and OpenAI’s $20 billion partnership with Abu Dhabi. He highlights the emergence of tokenized equities, Bitcoin’s behaviour in volatile markets, and the shifting dynamics of global investment ecosystems. Schulman emphasizes strategic diversification between U.S. and Chinese tech domains and notes the importance of climate risk in ECB policy. The conversation is wide-ranging, deeply analytical, and forward-looking.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This discussion covers the period from May 8 to May 22. Today is May 22, 2025, and I’m speaking with Michael Ashley Schulman. Our sources include Reuters, Business Insider, Financial Times, The Guardian, and Fortune.
Let’s delve into fiscal policy and market reactions. The House of Representatives has narrowly passed President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a $3.8 trillion tax and spending package. The bill includes substantial tax cuts and spending increases.
This legislation has raised concerns about the national debt, which now stands at approximately $36.2 trillion. Could this lead to a spike in long-term Treasury yields or even a global market sell-off? What implications does such a significant spending package tied to major tax cuts have?
Michael Ashley Schulman: Firstly, while the House has passed the bill, the Senate still needs to review and possibly amend it, which could alter the final figures. The current estimate is $3.8 trillion, but with potential changes, it could increase to around $5 trillion.
President Trump’s trade policies, including tariffs and challenges to the global economic order, as well as his criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, have impacted investor confidence in the U.S. dollar. Coupled with high deficits and growing debt, the dollar’s appeal has diminished.
Achieving the administration’s goals of reviving U.S. manufacturing, reducing the trade deficit, and rebalancing global trade may necessitate a weaker exchange rate. Ironically, this could be part of the strategy to expand opportunities for the U.S.
However, a clear resolution to these concerns is some time away. The U.S.–China tariff truce is set to expire on July 9, and the final approval of Trump’s tax cut bill might not occur until around the July 4 recess, once the Senate and House reconcile their versions. Following that, raising the debt ceiling could become the next pressing concern for investors, likely in July or August.
Jacobsen: Regarding yields, the current environment is prompting many investors to reassess their holdings in dollar-denominated assets, especially U.S. Treasuries. Long-term bonds are under pressure due to rising concerns about Washington’s mounting debt and deficits.
Schulman: Investors, analysts, and the broader market are now trying to determine how much higher yields might go, even if inflation does not materialize. If inflation increases, yields will likely rise further. But even without inflation, there remains the question of: how high will they go? Is now the time to step in and buy bonds, or should we continue to hold off?
Jacobsen: On the tech front, OpenAI has announced a $20 billion infrastructure partnership with Abu Dhabi’s G42 to develop a one-gigawatt AI cluster known as Stargate UAE. To provide context, one gigawatt is equivalent to the power used by 750,000 American homes. The initiative aims to make the UAE the first country to implement ChatGPT Plus nationwide, offering it free to all residents.
OpenAI has also acquired the hardware startup io, founded by former Apple design chief Jony Ive, to support its ambitions in creating consumer AI devices.
Do you have any thoughts on these fronts, especially considering the scale of financial commitment?
Schulman: Yes. I see two big pieces here.
Let’s start with Sir Jony Ive. That’s massive. He’s best known as the legendary designer behind the Apple iPhone and the iPod. His joining OpenAI strongly suggests that ChatGPT is moving toward hardware—specifically, in-house devices that could redefine how we interact with AI.
With Ive’s gift for turning raw metal into must-touch tech and Sam Altman’s knack for transforming neural tokens into eloquent interface experiences, the collaboration is being hyped as a likely origin for an ambient AI device—not quite a phone—more of a “voice-first, screen-last” companion. Think Star Trek ComBadge meets Jiminy Cricket—something whispering GPT insights from your collar rather than fighting for your screen time.
We’ve already seen some attempts in this space—like the Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1—but they’ve largely flopped. So, the bar isn’t particularly high right now. The expectation is that Ive will deliver his trademark ergonomic minimalism paired with OpenAI’s cutting-edge intelligence. The result could feel less like a gadget and more like a polite, ever-present sixth sense—one that never forgets your calendar invites.
This deal also collapses a long-standing divide between cloud-based intelligence and physical devices. We’re entering an era where models and metal are converging. Expect a surge in demand for context-aware sensors, local inference chips, and subscription-based AI integrated into consumer hardware.
Jacobsen: What might this mean for consumers and investors?
Schulman: For consumers, the vision is a digital concierge—one that can offer recipe tips, manage spreadsheets, or even voice existential concerns—without hijacking your visual attention. For investors, it’s OpenAI aiming to own the final strategic moat: distribution.
Yes, hardware margins are traditionally less attractive than those of software, but if you combine Apple-level design with ChatGPT-level stickiness, you could end up with a pocketable product that becomes an annuity stream. In essence, this could be a new “app store”—but located on the underside of your collar.
The snarky version of me wants to say that screens are so 2025. What we’re seeing is the potential for ambient AI form factors—where inference happens locally on your lapel, and the cloud fills in the gaps. From a strategic standpoint, this could pose a real threat to Amazon Echo, Meta’s smart glasses, Apple Vision Pro, and other players.
Jacobsen: Is that inconceivable? Or could this happen?
Schulman: We’ll have to wait and see—but it’s certainly a powerful thesis and potentially quite disruptive.
Then there’s OpenAI’s $20 billion partnership with Abu Dhabi’s G42. That’s the infrastructure side. It’s all part of Stargate UAE—a plan to build one of the world’s largest AI training hubs. A gigawatt of computing power is enormous.
Jacobsen: So we’re seeing OpenAI scale vertically on two fronts: upward into infrastructure with G42 and outward into consumer hardware with Jony Ive and io. Together, these could give OpenAI greater control over both the cloud backend as well as the physical endpoint.
Schulman: Yes, the AI cluster that is part of OpenAI’s $20 billion partnership with Abu Dhabi’s G42 is substantial.
It would be one of the largest AI data centers outside the U.S., underscoring the UAE’s determination to pivot from oil to algorithms. For the regional economy, this move could be a masterstroke—it diversifies revenue streams and positions the UAE as a global hub for AI. So, investors take note.
The desert sands are shifting—and they are rich with silicon. On a global scale, the implications are profound. The U.S. gains a strategic ally in AI development, potentially counterbalancing China’s technological ascendancy. However, the risks are just as vast as the opportunities.
Geopolitical tensions could flare. Launching a project of this scale will invite scrutiny—it’s hard to go from zero to a behemoth without encountering stumbles or hiccups—it’s a bold leap into the future but one likely to face challenges along the way.
Look at The Line in Saudi Arabia—it’s a bold leap, too, but pivots are inevitable. By the time this is fully built, the technology landscape will have evolved. So, yes, there will be course corrections, but the project burns with potential.
Thus, we’ll be watching and interpreting the implications, as usual, with a healthy mix of skepticism and eager anticipation.
Jacobsen: Let’s pivot to Bitcoin. It’s at a record high now—what do we make of that?
Schulman: Yes, it’s remarkable. Currently, we’ve experienced significant global volatility in stocks, yields, and currencies. So the question is—for Bitcoin, which is inherently volatile—what happens when you stack its volatility on top of global volatility? Well, you’re off to the races, Scott.
What was it—six weeks ago? Bitcoin was around $83,000 to $86,000 and fell as low as $75,000. Now it’s at $111,000. That’s a huge jump. Yes, it’s volatile.
If you had asked most people five to eight years ago what would drive Bitcoin, they’d likely say it was a safety asset—something to hold if the world collapses. However, over the past four to five years, we’ve seen Bitcoin behave more like a “risk-on” asset and not a “flight to safety” asset.
Typically, when capital is plentiful, stocks rise, people spend, and Bitcoin goes up. When there’s a “risk-off” move—stocks are down, people yell and sell, and capital tightens—Bitcoin usually falls. It’s become a kind of market light switch. It rises in “risk-on” environments and declines in “risk-off” ones. That dynamic seems to be happening again now.
But there may also be another layer—an emerging inference of a safety net. Stocks have recovered most of what they lost after Liberation Day on April 2. However, the U.S. dollar hasn’t. It’s still down about 7%.
There’s much belief that the dollar will continue to weaken—and as I’ve said, that might be part of President Trump’s plan. A weaker dollar boosts U.S. manufacturing and exports. It can also improve corporate earnings, especially for multinationals, since most analysts do not model a weaker dollar into their spreadsheets. So, when companies beat earnings due to favourable exchange rates, it often surprises the market positively.
Some of crypto’s current rise may be due to the weak dollar, but more likely, it’s being driven by policy signals out of Washington: better regulations, possibly some deregulation, but overall, a clearer regulatory environment. That creates room for growth and more institutional confidence in the space.
For example, Kraken is cracking open the traditional equity vault by minting what they call “x-stocks” on the Solana blockchain. It’s turning Apple, Tesla, NVIDIA, and about 50 other U.S. equities into 24/7 programmable digital assets—like cocktail olives served in a DeFi martini glass.
For investors outside the U.S., this eliminates a significant amount of friction. No more jet-lagged limit orders or T+1 settlement hangovers. These tokenized shares settle in seconds. They can trade in micro-slivers and, in theory, go straight into an on-chain covered call vault—before the New York closing bell even rings.
With Backed Finance holding the underlying stocks and offering 1:1 redemption, the price tracking is expected to be tight—tight enough to impress even an options market maker. Think of it as Robinhood but with 24/7 access and complete transparency in custodial services.
For competitors, this is a tentacle tap on the shoulder. Remember Binance’s attempt to offer tokenized stocks back in 2021? Regulators quickly torpedoed that. Kraken is betting that their Swiss-based structure, MiCA [the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation] regulatory clarity, and Solana’s low-fee rails will keep this new Kraken ship watertight.
Neo-brokers that still close on holidays and weekends are starting to look very quaint. Traditional clearinghouses may now face the cringy task of explaining why they need a whole day to settle “paperwork” that a blockchain can handle in milliseconds.
If the experiment holds up, we could see a wave of tokenized options, structured notes, and maybe even proxy voting flood into the space—forcing Wall Street’s intermediaries to decide whether to sink, swim, or create a Kraken of their own.
Jacobsen: What about gold? We’ve seen much volatility there recently.
Schulman: Yes, and that’s not entirely surprising. Gold is considered a safe haven asset, but upon examining its historical behaviour, it has frequently exhibited periods of high volatility followed by troughs of low volatility.
Recently, it’s had a strong run of outperformance. However, in moments like this, some investors may liquidate their gold positions to raise cash or create liquidity. That’s exactly what gold is supposed to provide in times of uncertainty—something solid to convert when needed. And that can cause short-term selling pressure.
There are a few reasons for the shift. For investors, some of the fear that drove them into gold has started to dissipate. Now that tariff deals and truces are being codified, they may feel they can take on more risk. Additionally, as we’ve noted as gold rose over the past couple years, retail investors tended to pile into gold every time it made a new high. More money flowed in with each milestone. Part of the reason is psychological and media-driven. Each time gold hits a new record, it’s in the headlines. The news covers it, so consumers get a little reminder—”maybe I should buy gold.”
But when gold isn’t hitting new highs, those reminders fade. The media doesn’t cover gold consistently unless there’s a massive gain or a dramatic drop. Stocks, on the other hand, get coverage daily. Keeping an investment top of mind and in the press headlines makes a significant psychological difference for markets, and that matters!
Jacobsen: U.S. home sales went down in April. Why are people buying fewer homes?
Schulman: First, mortgage rates are still high. Second, consumer confidence has declined. And third, what I call the “wisdom of crowds.” From 2020 through most of 2024, I was saying home prices had a floor and strong fundamentals—limited supply, strong demand, and lots of home improvement investment. However, we’re now seeing more supply coming onto the market.
So when I talk about the wisdom of crowds, I mean that many people still want to buy a home, but they’re waiting—waiting for prices to drop as supply builds. Initial asking prices are starting to come down, which supports that theory.
Those three factors—rising yields and mortgage rates, declining consumer confidence, and increased supply—are combining to slow the housing market. Higher yields—like we were discussing earlier—with the yield curve pushing up, is not helping mortgage rates. Higher yields mean higher mortgage rates. It becomes more expensive to borrow. Combine that with falling confidence, and it discourages home purchases.
Jacobsen: The European Central Bank has highlighted that droughts could reduce Eurozone economic output by nearly 15%. That would affect manufacturing, construction, and agriculture. Banks currently hold around €1.3 trillion in loans to these high-risk sectors.
They’re using this data to push the importance of climate risk mitigation. Are these reasonable concerns? Are there other factors they may not be accounting for, or are they capturing everything relevant?
Schulman: To clarify, that 15% potential loss in economic output—that’s not projected for 2025, right?
Jacobsen: They’re talking about a potential cumulative impact over the next decade.
Schulman: So yes, it’s a forecasted risk, not an immediate one. However, it remains a stark reminder of how climate change can impact multiple industries. Agriculture, construction, and manufacturing are all deeply dependent on environmental stability.
And with €1.3 trillion in loans exposed, banks are right to sound the alarm. Whether it’s droughts or floods, climate-related shocks can jeopardize repayment, impact employment, and destabilize entire sectors. Mitigation and adaptation strategies are no longer optional—they’re core to financial risk planning.
And the climate is changing. You can debate whether it is due to pollution or natural variations in Earth’s cycle—as we’ve seen historically, with transitions from ice ages to warming periods long before humans existed. But regardless of the cause, the climate is changing. And yes, we (locally and globally) have to factor that into our calculations.
As investors, we have no choice. That’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from catastrophe bonds. When I speak with investors and modellers who specialize in catastrophe bonds, they’re often relying on historical data to predict future outcomes. However, historical data is no longer reliable.
Hurricanes are shifting. Flood zones are shifting. Wildfires are emerging in new locations with increased intensity. Look at Australia—massive wildfires one year, then massive floods the next. Europe’s seeing similar extremes. We have to prepare for it. Part of this will involve the destruction of land and, yes, weaker crop yields.
But, as a developed continent, Europe can pivot. And perhaps other parts of the world—previously less agriculturally viable—can step in. We’re already growing more crops in Iceland and northern Europe than ever before. Even vineyards are starting to spread north due to climate change.
So, yes, in a static world, the ECB is right: there is a strong chance of decreased economic output due to climate disruption. But the world isn’t static. Industries, banks, and lenders will adapt. And along the way, they may even discover more fruitful (pun intended), unexpected areas of investment.
Jacobsen: Let’s turn to fiscal stimulus in China. They’re facing sluggish GDP growth and deflation, and now they’re planning to increase their fiscal deficit to 4% of GDP this year. The government is also leveraging vast state-owned assets—valued at around 184 trillion yuan. I’m not great with conversions, but that’s a significant figure. This move is intended to maintain the company’s creditworthiness. Is it a wise move for 2025?
Schulman: Yes, it is. China’s primary policy concern is maintaining social order—keeping people employed, economically engaged, and generally content. Youth unemployment is already high, low birth rates are shifting the median age significantly higher, and they’re highly aware of the risks of social instability.
Increasing the fiscal deficit to 4% of GDP is a manageable and necessary move. They’re using the resources they have—state-owned assets—to inject capital into the economy, counteract deflation, and boost growth.
Deflation is particularly hazardous for a country like China, which relies heavily on consumer confidence, exports, and stable demand. Stimulating the economy in this way—especially when inflation isn’t the immediate concern—makes economic and political sense.
The United States has a relatively short history—we were founded in 1776. However, China has a rich history spanning thousands of years, marked by dynasties, rulers, revolutions, and regime changes—often stemming from internal unrest or local conquest.
That historical memory matters. China wants to keep its people happy and stable—and frankly, it can afford to, even if that means running a fiscal deficit or increasing the deficit. Not only can it afford to—it almost has to.
A careful expansion can be justified, but it should be paired with credible measures to stabilize local government finances, shore up the struggling property market—which probably needs another couple of years—and improve the transparency and efficiency of public spending.
Their debt is already high—about 25% of GDP and rising. Interestingly, Fitch downgraded China’s sovereign credit rating in April. It didn’t make as many headlines as Moody’s downgrade of the U.S., but it’s significant.
There’s also the deflation danger, which you mentioned earlier. China’s headline CPI has been negative for three consecutive months.
Jacobsen: When we talked about those trillions of yuan in state-owned assets—who is valuing that?
Schulman: The Chinese government is. So, the transparency around those valuations is questionable. There’s much value there, but the true worth is hard to assess.
Still, institutions like the IMF and other analysts argue that Beijing does have room to increase stimulus. I agree with that.
They should do more to support the property sector, which still accounts for over 5% of GDP.
Of course, market perception matters, too. A visibly widening deficit could trigger additional ratings pressure, just as we’ve seen with the U.S., or lead to higher borrowing costs.
But like Japan, China can fund a significant portion of its debt, especially if China is successful in transitioning the Yuan to be more of a reserve currency. And their extensive public assets provide a backstop. Official valuations of those assets put them well above GDP, so monetizing part of that asset base could offset some of the additional borrowing costs.
That said, China’s past stimulus efforts have had diminishing returns. Heavy infrastructure spending often led to inefficient allocation, crowding out private investment, and failing to boost domestic consumption. What would make this new round of stimulus a wise move?
Target areas with the highest multipliers: finish the stalled housing projects, fund household trade-ins and subsidies, and bolster unemployment benefits and pension schemes. The goal is to encourage consumers to spend, as China aims to expand its domestic market.
Right now, when most people think of China, they think of the Belt and Road Initiative, global exports, and trade surpluses with the U.S. and Europe. But that needs to shift. They need more domestic consumption of Chinese-made goods by Chinese consumers.
That translates into creating more employment opportunities, increasing wages, and helping more people move into the middle class—similar to what we’ve seen in Europe and the U.S. So yes, couple that stimulus with credible medium-term fiscal anchors, accelerate local government debt restructuring, and keep transitioning toward a complete balance sheet framework—one that tracks both assets and liabilities. That’s how they make this sustainable.
Raising the fiscal deficit to around 4% of GDP is defensible in the face of deflation and likely necessary. Beijing needs to spend more wisely, communicate a more straightforward debt narrative, accelerate local government reform, and likely allow its native tech industry to operate freer, with less government interference.
If you think back to the clampdown on Alibaba and the broader suppression of capitalist influence a few years ago, you can now see a trend reversing. The government is allowing more room for companies to self-manage, innovate, and profit from their ideas.
Jacobsen: Yes, Jack Ma is back in the public eye. He’s been giving interviews again—it took a while, but he’s gradually re-emerging.
Schulman: Jack Ma and the team behind BYD. It’s interesting. You have this handful—or more—of capitalists who challenged the state, and all seems to be fine now. But they do have different social priorities and operating assumptions.
Jacobsen: So, the G7 addressed nonmarket policies that undermine economic security, including discussions about adjusting the Russian oil price cap—which is currently set at $60 per barrel but may be reconsidered below $50. I don’t want to dive too far into the war-related commentary here—that’s part of a separate geopolitics series I’m working on.
They also focused on coordinating economic policies and made a firm commitment to combat nonmarket practices—many of which are associated with China. What do you make of this meeting and its emphasis on economic imbalances and potential sanctions?
Schulman: Yes, the G7 made direct references to nonmarket practices by China, particularly in sectors like steel, EV batteries, solar panels, and shipbuilding. These are sectors where China’s subsidies and industrial policy are seen to depress global prices and crowd out private competitors.
Some of these sectors, such as steel and shipbuilding, are strategic industries. Even electric vehicle (EV) batteries and solar panels are now considered strategic, given their critical roles in the green energy transition and the electrification of the automotive industry.
The emphasis from the G7 could signal a desire to act in concert rather than through unilateral tariffs or isolated protectionist policies. That would be a shift toward greater G7 alignment, possibly reducing friction over perceived U.S. protectionism within the group.
More sanctions on Russia were discussed. These measures are likely to involve stricter enforcement mechanisms, potential reductions in the oil price cap, and renewed efforts to limit Russia’s access to dual-use technologies.
There are already numerous sanctions in place against Russia. And as Moody’s was arguably late to the party in downgrading the U.S., the G7 finance ministers may also be late to the party in pushing additional sanctions on Russia. I know you didn’t want to dive too far into geopolitics, but from what it looks like, we may soon see a peace accord—or at least a ceasefire framework—between Russia and Ukraine.
For Russia to agree to any resolution, fiscal and economic sanctions will almost certainly need to be lifted. There is little incentive for Russia to end the war if sanctions remain in place. So if the G7 is only now—this late in the game—talking about more sanctions, they may be behind the curve.
Those are my thoughts on the China and Russia angles, without having studied them in detail. On a different note, I’ve been receiving many questions about investment correlation lately. People often assume stocks and bonds are uncorrelated, but sometimes they do move in tandem. From an investment standpoint, numerous options are available—but the world is becoming increasingly bifurcated.
It reminds me of the old VHS versus VideoDisc format wars. Today, we see this split between the U.S. and China: two technological ecosystems, two regulatory regimes, and two diverging economic strategies.
So, if you want to diversify your investments, you can either make a strong directional bet on one ecosystem—or you have to engage with both. As an analogy, you may want to participate in both the Apple and Android ecosystems. If you went all in on one, you might still do fine. But if proper diversification is the goal, you want to consider and juxtapose exposure to both.
The same goes for AI. If you want to diversify AI investments, you cannot just bet on Google’s Gemini—you need exposure to other large language models as well.
Globally, you have to think about both the Chinese ecosystem and the U.S. ecosystem and consider how to balance your investment strategies across both. That’s how you hedge for the zigs and zags of a complex, volatile global economy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time and insights, Michael.
Schulman: Always a pleasure.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06
Lorena Galliot is a French-Venezuelan-American journalist and senior producer at Lost Women of Science. They discussed Evangelina Rodríguez Perozo, the Dominican Republic’s first female doctor. Rodríguez overcame poverty, trained in Paris, and pioneered maternal health and public health initiatives, including free milk distribution. Despite persecution under Rafael Trujillo’s dictatorship, her legacy endured through local memory and later historical recovery. Her mental health deteriorated under political repression, leading to a tragic end. Today, slowly growing recognition honours her contributions, with hospitals, streets, and a postage stamp commemorating her, though much of her story remains rediscovered.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we heard from Lorena Galliot. She is a French-Venezuelan-American journalist, producer, and editor known for her audio storytelling and documentary filmmaking work. She is a senior producer at the Lost Women of Science podcast, producing notable series such as The Extraordinary Life and Tragic Death of Evangelina Rodríguez Perozo, highlighting the Dominican Republic’s first female doctor. Before joining Lost Women of Science, Galliot worked with Adonde Media, creating multilingual audio stories in French, Spanish, and English. Projects she has worked on have aired on platforms like Netflix, ABC News, National Geographic, and CNN Films. Her written work has been published in outlets such as the Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Grist, The Daily Climate, and The New York Times.
Her multicultural heritage and trilingual abilities enrich her narratives, bringing depth and authenticity to the stories she tells.
Now, big picture: How many stories do we have of the “first doctors” of [fill in the blank]? Are they well documented? Do we know?
Lorena Galliot: That’s a good question. I do not know a precise number, especially not for women doctors. The first doctors anywhere in history are probably too numerous to document, particularly if you include male doctors. However, regarding women, it is a much more recent development on that scale. The first women to break into the field—those can often be documented.
We were interested in a place like the Dominican Republicbut because it represented an area where health and medicine were not yet highly developed. Then A woman from a difficult, impoverished background came forward and helped push the field forward in her country. She was the first female doctor and was highly innovative and pioneering for her time.
Jacobsen: Regarding the training and methodology used to educate medical students, how different is what we now consider medicine compared to then?
Galliot: Well, medical schools did exist at the time. Evangelina Rodríguez was born in the late 1800s and graduated from medical school in 1911. At that time, there was only one medical school in Santo Domingo, and it was not nearly as developed or thorough as the medical schools we see today, whether in her region, the U.S., or Canada. The best-developed medical schools were primarily located in Europe and North America.
After studying in her own country, Evangelina felt there was still much more to learn. She aspired to follow in the footsteps of other Latin American doctors who trained in Europe, specifically in Paris. It remained her goal to complete her training there and become a “real doctor.”
Jacobsen: Because medicine is one of those weird fields that changes quite drastically, and its applicability is almost immediate, too, right?
Galliot: Well, in her case, it took her eight years to complete her curriculum, which is standard for a medical student today going through the whole process until the end of the residency. But it was considered long at the time. It makes me realize I do not know specifically what the standard would have been—whether it would have been five or six years—but eight years was considered a lengthy period because, during her entire time studying, she was also working. She had to work to support herself.
Jacobsen: When it comes to doing fieldwork as a storyteller, when you visit sites and start tracking this history on the ground, what do you notice about the smells of the area, the sights, how people conduct themselves—things that give you some insight into how social interactions might have been at that time?
Galliot: You mean, like, going into the field in Paris? For this story, I did not—though I have lived in Paris and am very familiar with the city. However, for this story, we worked with a collaborator in the Dominican Republic who helped us with local reporting in Santo Domingo.
Jacobsen: Oh, that’s fair. Now, in terms of her time studying in Paris, what did she bring insights into medical practice and perspectives on women’s health upon returning to the Dominican Republic?
Galliot: It has changed her in ways that were, I think, unexpected. The main thing that is documented—and I will say, one of the challenges in reporting the story of Evangelina is that not much is documented. There are a couple of biographies written, quite a long time after her death. She left some correspondence, but only a limited amount survived. However, she wrote one book before travelling, which still exists, and we were able to track it down in a digital version from the national archives in Santo Domingo. It’s called Granos de Polen.
She wrote the book before her trip to Paris. It’s a strange mix of some medical philosophies, a treatise to improve society, and advice to women on their health. She was young when she wrote it. Initially, her primary motivation for writing the book was to raise funds to travel to Paris. One thing that comes out is that she was heavily influenced by her Catholic upbringing and very much the Catholic religious structure of the Dominican Republic.
It was and still is a predominantly Catholic country. Evangelina viewed sex outside of marriage as something negative, and she perceived sex work—prostitution—as something to be condemned. Prostitutes were seen as a threat to public health, spreading venereal diseases.
Somehow, during her time in Paris —but something switched. She came back from Paris and became pretty vocal about the opposite: about sex workers being victimized, about women needing to be treated and helped, and about offering medical treatment to them.
It was still approached through a public health lens—specifically concerning venereal diseases—but instead of punishing sex workers, she advocated for care. She began visiting brothels, offering medical treatment for free, and spreading awareness about contraception, particularly the use of condoms.
So, it was a central switch and very radical for her time. We do not know precisely what happened in Paris, but it changed her dramatically.
Jacobsen: What are reasonable speculations as to the reason? What was going on in Parisian culture at that time?
Galliot: We tried to dig into this. What we do know is that brothels in Paris were legal and regulated. Doctors regularly visited brothels and conducted examinations of sex workers.
That being said, while brothels were regulated, the French approach was still quite punitive. Workers were subjected to mandatory medical examinations, and the system was still harsh toward them overall.
I wish I knew more about what exactly shifted Evangelina’s ideological perspective—and I can only speculate because there is no definitive source to confirm. That remains a mystery.
Jacobsen: In her time between Paris and Santo Domingo, was there also a noticeable cultural change in the Dominican Republic? In other words, did society shift to an even more judgmental and punitive culture around sex workers and similar issues, or did it move in a more liberal direction, as Paris had to some extent?
Galliot: When she returned—no. Before anything became more liberal—the society in the Dominican Republic remained both heavily Catholic and very patriarchal.
In fact, within a decade of Evangelina’s return from Paris, the Dominican Republic fell into a lenthy period of dictatorship. So, both in terms of fundamental civil liberties and women’s roles in society, the country stayed deeply conservative, with the Catholic Church maintaining a strong influence until at least the 1960s.
Jacobsen: This is a tricky question: how long did it take before a second woman medical doctor in the Dominican Republic?
Galliot: Yeah, not that long. While Evangelina was still in Paris, another Dominican graduate had already made a similar trip, following in her footsteps. So we will talk within a couple of years. She was the first, but it did open doors. Doors were beginning to open.
Jacobsen: That leads to a natural question based on the prior question. Did this woman who went to Paris for medical school and came back—if she did come back—also similarly change her attitudes and opinions?
Galliot: No. It is a good question, but I do not know. I wish I could say.
What I will say, though, is that under the dictatorship that began in the 1930s, under Commander Rafael Trujillo—you might be getting to this later, so I do not want to delve too far ahead—he picked and chose the voices he wanted to elevate and reward, based on loyalty to him and his party but also the colour of skin. He had a policy of trying to “whiten” Dominican society.
When it came to intellectuals and public figures, he elevated mostly white Dominicans and marginalized Afro-Dominican intellectuals, which was the community Evangelina belonged to. She was Afro-Dominican.
In fact, under Trujillo’s regime, the National Registry of Doctors of the Dominican Republic—where Evangelina had been listed as the first woman doctor—temporarily erased her name. Another woman from a prominent white family who supported Trujillo was elevated in her place. During Trujillo’s time, There was an effort to erase her from the historical record. She was almost completely erased.
Only much later, after Trujillo was assassinated in 1961 was Evangelina’s rightful place and role reinstated.
Jacobsen: Now, for size and art, as well as for periods of history that were not exactly well-to-do by modern standards—Evangelina opened a maternity clinic and a free milk distribution program.
Milk has carbohydrates, protein, and calcium—it is a reasonably nutrient-dense sustenance source, particularly for impoverished societies. Why did she focus on a maternity clinic and free milk distribution, and how did those initiatives impact impoverished communities?
Galliot: Right. Well, I will start with the free milk. That was directly inspired by something she observed in Paris.
There was a longstanding public health program called goutte de lait—the “drop of milk”—to combat malnutrition in poor children and families. It distributed free milk to inject nutrition—calories, protein, calcium, and everything you just named—particularly for infants.
Breastfeeding was still encouraged and promoted, but milk distribution was additional support, with the understanding that in highly impoverished families, where women tended to have many children, breastfeeding alone might not be sufficient. Supplementation was necessary.
Evangelina saw the benefits of this approach and essentially replicated it, taking the same idea and even the same name. She called it La Gota de Leche in the Dominican Republic and sought to implement the same nutritional program because she saw the immediate health benefits.
In terms of the maternity clinic, it is interesting. It also boils down to Evangelina’s— I find her psychology, or at least what I wonder about it, very interesting. She was abandoned at birth by both her mother and her father because they came from impoverished backgrounds. Her mother was essentially a servant in a household. Her father was a soldier in the army at the time, and it was an illegitimate birth.
They were not a couple. He was not around, and her mother could not care for her, so she was abandoned. Evangelina experienced firsthand the dire consequences when a pregnancy resulted in a child who was unplanned, unwanted and brought into an environment without the resources to care for her.
She ended up being raised by her paternal grandmother, but in extremely humble circumstances—selling gofio , a traditional Dominican sweet, in the street.
So, coming from that background—fast-forward to her teenage years—one of the most significant transformative moments in Evangelina’s story is that she was introduced to a woman named Anacaona Moscoso. Anacaona was also Afro-Dominican but came from a far wealthier background. She had been one of the first students at one of the early women’s secondary schools in Santo Domingo—a normalized school.
These schools were part of a mission to provide secular education for women. They were essentially teacher training institutes but were more broadly aimed at expanding women’s educational opportunities.
Anacaona Moscoso was creating a women’s institute in San Pedro de Macorís, the town where Evangelina lived, a sugar-producing town east of the Dominican Republic. She heard about Evangelina, a very humble but unusually bright and intelligent girl who might be a promising candidate for her school.
Anacaona met Evangelina, immediately recognized her potential, and took her under her wing. She arranged for Evangelina to work teaching night literacy classes to workers so she could earn money to pay her school tuition—something she otherwise could not have afforded.
This moment—the opportunity—completely changed the trajectory of Evangelina’s life. Anacaona became a mentor, friend, and mother figure to her.
Now, coming back to your question: before Evangelina became a doctor—when she was already aspiring to study medicine and, I think, had already started her medical journey—Anacaona became pregnant with her third child. She was warned that it would be risky to carry another pregnancy, that it could bring serious complications. But she had no access to means of preventing it, and she died following childbirth.
Again and again, Evangelina witnessed firsthand the tragic consequences when women could not choose whether or not to become pregnant—and when maternal care was lacking or inadequate.
That experience—the personal loss of her mentor and the broader social realities—pushed her not just to become a doctor but to specialize specifically in maternal care and open a maternity clinic.
Jacobsen: It sounds like many of these events were also in the backdrop of her expansion as a person. She experienced these things happening around her, and, as people do, they continued with their lives despite tragedies.
The period of being away from home gave time for those experiences to gestate and reflect, ultimately changing her mind. Being away provided contrast. Those moments may have served as inflection points during reflection rather than being seen simply as isolated incidents—like losing family members on the Titanic, but the realization and meaning come later.
I am just being mindful of time—we will be kicked off in about four minutes.
Jacobsen: What kind of opposition did she face to getting maternal health support and the milk program going? Was there resistance from the people who were supposed to benefit from it?
Galliot: It was very, very well received. The response was extremely positive and welcoming, and she was applauded for her efforts.
Officials in her town—San Pedro de Macorís, where she returned to work—had provided her with financial support for her trip to Paris. They expected her to return and develop health services, especially for poor people. So, this kind of initiative was supported.
However, her more controversial efforts—like distributing condoms to married women and visiting prostitutes and sex workers in brothels—were not received as warmly. Those initiatives garnered a much more mixed response.
Jacobsen: How did Rafael Trujillo persecute her through the dictatorship? How much of a threat was she seen as, especially given her work on contraception provision and related initiatives?
Galliot: Shee was not on Trujillo’s radar at all. She was operating primarily in the Eastern Provinces, focusing on local work, and at the beginning of his regime, that was not something Trujillo was overly concerned about.
However, Trujillo became increasingly obsessed with fostering a cult of personality around himself. He demanded extreme loyalty, and joining his party was mandatory. If you did not enter, you were automatically blocked.
After a few years in power—around the late 1930s—he became aware of Evangelina, presumably after encountering her at a medical conference where they crossed paths. She was present, and he noticed her: an Afro-Dominican woman doctor who already did not place her in his good graces, operating independently and without showing the required reverence to him.
Trujillo was not known for supporting women’s roles outside the domestic sphere, and he certainly did not favour independent-minded, outspoken figures, especially women of African descent. So, at that point, she became more of a target.
She had not joined the party. Whenever she received any kind of honour, she never thanked or acknowledged Trujillo or publicly bolstered him.
At the time, there was this theatricality where people were expected to credit Trujillo for anything positive. For example, if new infrastructure was built, people were expected to say something like, “Thanks to the magnificence of our Generalísimo Trujillo…”
Evangelina never participated in that. She always refused to engage in that kind of obsequiousness—am I saying that right? I am not sure—but she refused.
Not only that, but she was not shy about criticizing him, whether with her patients, in private conversations, or public settings, even as people around her became increasingly nervous and afraid to speak out as his grip on society tightened.
At some point—perhaps at that 1933 conference where they were both present or possibly later—he became aware that she was not behaving as she “should” in his eyes. She came into his crosshairs, and her persecution began.
Jacobsen: How severe was the persecution?
Galliot: Extremely severe. It started with her losing what she had spent so long building. In particular, her maternity clinic in San Pedro de Macorís was shut down.
Beyond that, her name was stripped from the National Registry of Doctors. Two years after the 1933 conference—where she had received an award but failed to mention or thank Trujillo in her acceptance speech—she tried to attend another medical conference organized in Santo Domingo. She had participated in such conferences for years, but this time, she was denied entry.
She was increasingly and systematically sidelined. Patients—particularly wealthier ones who could afford other providers—also began to avoid her because being associated with her became dangerous by association.
Biographers believe that Evangelina may have had underlying mental health vulnerabilities, though there is no formal diagnosis. These cascading losses—the shuttering of her clinic, the erasure from public records, and the social isolation—triggered a mental health crisis.
Symptoms that had not previously been visible now manifested, and she began experiencing hallucinations.
Jacobsen: What was she hallucinating?
Galliot: She would hallucinate that thugs were persecuting her—chasing her, threatening her. It was very much in keeping with the climate of fear and persecution at the time.
Coming back from that conference, Evangelina was ranting and raving about thugs who had chased her and were trying to beat her up. However, there was no evidence that this happened—she seemed to be imagining these threats. She gradually entered phases where she would lose touch with reality.
Jacobsen: Is this a common phenomenon among people—particularly capable— under this kind of intense duress and persecution?
Galliot: I certainly do not think she is the only case. And we are talking about the 1930s—a time when mental health treatment was very rudimentary, and fear was an overwhelming force in many regimes.
Of course, some are cut off under fear, and others are sent into a spiral. There is a historical precedent. But in her particular context, there is an added weight of political persecution, gender discrimination, and racial marginalization.
Since her mental health crisis was never formally diagnosed, we have to be cautious. One of her biographers speculated that she exhibited symptoms consistent with schizophrenia, but again, I hesitated to put a medical label without definitive evidence.
That said, the case of John Nash is often cited—a brilliant mind plagued by schizophrenia. You can see some parallels between his experiences and what Evangelina endured, especially her hallucinations.
Jacobsen: In terms of her hallucinations at the end of her life, what are the characteristics we know about them? And how did everything fully unravel near the end?
Galliot: The end of her life was truly tragic. Everything unravelled once she lost her medical practice.
Earlier, when she was in her fiftes, adopted a little girl named Selisette. The baby’s mother had died during childbirth. Evangelina had tried to save the mother but had been unable to. She adopted the orphaned girl, loved her deeply, and raised her alone.
By all accounts, Evangelina adored children and did everything in her power to care for them. She treated entire families—mothers, fathers, and children—with incredible compassion.
One of her biographers was a child in her practice. He remembered her as a warm, deeply caring pediatrician. Later in life, realizing how she had disappeared from historical records, he dedicated himself to digging up everything he could about the woman who had once been his doctor—and he wrote the first major biography of her.
However, when Evangelina’s mental health deteriorated further, the situation worsened.
The father of the adopted girl—who had never been absent but had not been able to care for her financially—was warned about Evangelina’s declining stability. He ultimately took Selisette away from her, and . That loss devastated Evangelina.
By that point, the people closest to her had all died. Her mentor and friend, Anacaona Moscoso, had passed away. Her grandmother—the woman who raised her—had long since died. Evangelina was increasingly alone.
She had always been so selfless, described both positively and negatively, that she never kept much for herself. Whatever she earned, she gave away or spent in service of others.
When everything else fell apart—her clinic, her professional standing, her adopted daughter, her support network—there was almost nothing left holding her up.
She always used whatever money she had for her work and gave generously to others. So, she eventually found herself alone, persecuted by the government, and pretty much penniless.
At one point, arrangements were made for her to live with a distant half-brother she barely knew in a remote village in the southeast.
So, Evangelina was sent to live in this very rural area. According to oral histories—because there are no written records about this period—she was remembered as a woman who began wandering the countryside, carrying a basket of flowers and muttering nonsensically.
She went from being the first woman doctor in the Dominican Republic, a pioneer who had opened a maternity clinic and made significant contributions to her community, to becoming a beggar on the streets.
Jacobsen: A hallucinating beggar on the streets.
Galliot: Exactly—a hallucinating beggar on the streets.
People would give her food, and she would often pass that food on to others, barely eating herself. It seemed she was always looking for someone more destitute than herself to help.
These stories were preserved through oral history, passed down generation after generation. Dominican families remembered her not from official records but as a kind of wandering figure—a memory, almost a folktale.
Sadly, after about a decade of this “in-between” period—during which she was no longer practicing medicine and instead wandering from town to town, sometimes walking for days at a time—she reemerged in the official records.
In 1946 , there was a major sugar workers’ strike against Trujillo’s regime. The crackdown that followed was brutal: strike leaders were arrested, and some were even hanged in public.
During the government’s witch hunt for scapegoats, someone at some point pointed a finger at Evangelina—the former doctor who had long been critical of Trujillo.
She was swept up and arrested, even though she was harmless by then.
She spent several days in a prison in San Pedro. According to all accounts, she was tortured and beaten during her imprisonment.
She was eventually released—probably because it was evident she was already broken, both mentally and physically.
Soon after, Evangelina Rodríguez Perozo died. She was found dead on the street.
The cause of death listed on her death certificate is officially recorded as starvation. In her final days, she was not feeding herself enough.
Jacobsen: Usually, famous people leave some kind of record behind—quotes, writings, reflections. What are some of your favourite quotes that you found from her?
Galliot: There is one, though it is not originally hers, that she reportedly repeated often to her patients, particularly her female patients and expectant mothers.
There is a saying in the Dominican Republic: “Every baby is born with a loaf of bread under their arm.” It is meant to be comforting—as if to say, “Do not worry, the child will bring prosperity.”
But Evangelina would tell her patients: “You know that saying? It is not true. It has never been true.”
She used it as a counterexample, a warning. She was one of the early proponents of family planning—the idea that pregnancies should be spaced and planned—at a time when that was a radical notion.
Jacobsen: Is there a redemptive arc after her death? Has anyone carried on her work? Are there institutes named after her?
Galliot: Slowly but surely, yes.
The end of her life was so tragic and heartbreaking that, for a long time, her story was overlooked. She died in the 1960s, and her first biography was not published until 1980—twenty years later. During those two decades, she was almost entirely forgotten.
Since then, however, there have been genuine efforts to honour her legacy.
A network of family planning clinics—similar in spirit to Planned Parenthood in the Dominican Republic—named one of their early clinics after her. Hospitals in Santo Domingo have named maternity wards after her. There is now a street in her hometown bearing her name.
In 1988, a postage stamp was issued featuring the only surviving photograph of her—an image of Evangelina as a young woman, looking polished, with neatly styled hair and a string of pearls.
Recently, a few plays inspired by her life have been staged at festivals in the Dominican Republic.
Her story is entering the public consciousness, though it is still not as widely known as one might expect for a pioneering woman doctor.
One thing we realized during this project—and this is the whole mission of the Lost Women of Science podcast—is that even in her home country, she was not a household name.
For example, our series host, Laura Gómez—a Dominican actress and podcaster you might recognize from Orange is the New Black—had never heard of her. When we approached her about the project, Laura said, “Now that you are bringing her up, and now that I see everything you have uncovered, I cannot believe I had never heard of her.” Neither had many of her friends.
So Evangelina Rodríguez Perozo’s story is still in the process of being reclaimed and celebrated.
It is still slow, but yes, little by little.
Jacobsen: I see assumptions like that as a spinoff or derivative of the just-world theory—or the just-world hypothesis.
The idea that the world is just—that if someone achieves something noble, fair, and reasonable, it will automatically be recognized and secure its place in history. But many of those stories must be rediscovered through deliberate and conscious effort. Hers appears to be one of them.
Galliot: Absolutely. One of the historians we interviewed for this series pointed out that the people of her hometown—San Pedro de Macorís—helped prevent her story from disappearing completely.
This was where she had practiced medicine for most of her life—the city that initially helped fund her trip to Paris. They held onto her memory. The biographer who wrote her first biography was from there.
Thanks to the dedication of a relatively small number of people, her place in history began to be reaffirmed slowly.
Jacobsen: Lorena, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was nice to meet you.
Galliot: It was lovely meeting you, too. Thank you so much for your interest and questions.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much. Have a great rest of your day.
Galliot: Cheers. 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): 2025/06/05
Tanya Grambower is the founder and managing director of Literacy for Boys and Literacy for Kids, an innovative online program designed to improve literacy skills among children. With over 20 years of teaching experience in Australian and international schools, she holds a Bachelor of Education and previously ran a successful tutoring business, One Step Ahead Tutoring. Grambower presented at Oxford’s 2025 World Literacy Summit, discussing declining global literacy rates, AI in education, and prison literacy initiatives. Drawing from her 20+ years in education, she emphasized building reading confidence in boys, leveraging AI as a critical thinking tool, and encouraging adult literacy modelling. Her work highlights the urgent need for collaborative solutions to improve literacy across generations and socio-economic backgrounds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re going to be talking about the World Literacy Summit 2025, held at the University of Oxford. This biennial event, which brings together a wide range of stakeholders in global education and literacy, is one of the largest gatherings of international literacy specialists.
This year, over 800 delegates from 85 countries are attending, including education ministers, representatives from Penguin Books, policy advisors, and internationally recognized authors.
Some of the key focus areas of the summit include:
- The future of AI and EdTech in U.S. and global education
- New data on declining literacy rates, which is sparking important conversations
- Education policy in prison systems, including access to books and literacy programs for incarcerated individuals
- Innovative tools for learning disabilities, many of which integrate AI to support differentiated learning
So, let’s begin the discussion. First, how did you become involved with the World Literacy Summit?
Tanya Grambower: About 18 months ago, I was invited to join the World Literacy Task Force, which was an excellent opportunity to collaborate with experts worldwide. Later, I was asked to submit a research paper for the 2025 summit. After submitting it, my paper went through a review process, and I was fortunate to be selected as one of the presenters. Contributing to this important global dialogue on literacy has been an honour.
Jacobsen: Now, turning to AI and education, this is a hot topic. Many people talk about AI as if it is a single tool, but it is a broad set of technologies. At its core, it involves algorithms, data processing, and the computational power that drives them. When applied to education, what are the opportunities and risks?
Grambower: It is essential to engage with AI thoughtfully. There are exciting ways to use AI in the classroom, especially with secondary school students, who typically have more critical thinking experience.
An example is a student might input a short paragraph into an AI tool and ask it to suggest improvements. The student then reviews the AI’s output in a separate document, noting what was changed, what improved, and what may have been lost. This process helps them evaluate and edit the output, seeing that AI is not flawless.
For instance, a prompt like “add examples of personification to this passage” might yield a new version that unintentionally removes a meaningful metaphor. That creates a learning moment—the student must reflect on whether the AI’s suggestion improved the writing.
This type of active engagement works well when students record and annotate AI-generated output, which builds digital literacy and writing skills. They are learning to critique, not just consume.
At the same time, many schools are implementing AI-detection tools to help ensure academic integrity and guide the use of generative tools.
Jacobsen: Finally, are there ways AI could strengthen students’ attention to language precision and grammar, even if it does not encourage long-form reading?
Grambower: Yes. Even when students are not doing extended reading, AI can promote precision in language, grammar awareness, and word choice refinement, especially when students are encouraged to interrogate the AI’s suggestions rather than rely on them wholesale. The key is teaching students how to use AI as a collaborator, not a crutch.
It is a suitable method for students—it teaches them to be concise, which is an important skill. If you want AI to edit or create something for you, your language must be straightforward and economical. That’s a language skill in itself—knowing how to input something into an AI system in a way that gets meaningful results.
So, using AI for student writing can be valid, especially when you ask them to annotate, reflect on their requests, and think about the scope and clarity of their instructions. You can add learning objectives, refer to assessment criteria, oreven borrow phrasing from rubrics—there’s value in asking students to tighten their language and be more purposeful.
Jacobsen: Do U.S. education systems have unique features that lend them to greater AI adoption than other countries?
Grambower: I’m probably steering away from a full AI integration because our program covers primary and secondary students. So, the way we’re using or considering AI would be more of a teacher-led writing task. A teacher might use one of our topics as a springboard for a writing assignment where AI could be incorporated into the editing or brainstorming process.
Jacobsen: What was your biggest takeaway from this particular summit?
Grambower: One major takeaway is the downward trend in global literacy rates, even in high-income countries and wealthy U.S. states. That was alarming. On a personal note, I was thrilled that my session was complete. That told me that boys’ literacy is not just a local issue; it’s a global concern. I didn’t even have time to answer everyone’s questions, which reaffirmed that this topic resonates deeply, even in countries under-resourced regarding books or technology. They’re still struggling to engage boys in literacy.
What stood out is that even countries like Canada, the U.S., and Australia—with relatively high levels of access—are still seeing boys lag behind girls in literacy outcomes. That was one strong takeaway for me.
Another highlight was one of the keynote speakers, Sheriff Chris Swanson, and the work he does in prisons. He emphasizes the value of education and literacy, particularly for young men. I found that connection incredibly compelling. I loved his graduation initiative—celebrating every inmate who completes a credential, whether it’s a chef’s certificate, a welding diploma, or a law degree. Everyone’s achievement is honoured.
That moved me because, as you mentioned, some of these young people come from literacy-poor homes, where even the parents may be functionally illiterate. They start at a disadvantage. To have someone finally recognize their achievement—it could be the first time anyone has acknowledged them for something they’ve accomplished—was incredibly heartwarming.
Jacobsen: What was the most striking example of how far behind boys can fall compared to girls at equivalent grade levels?
Grambower: There wasn’t a large dataset presented at the summit to show exact figures, but many attendees showcased practical examples—whether that was a literacy product, a reading program, a particular book, or a strategy they’ve used to improve boys’ outcomes.
One standout example was a program focused on vocabulary building, which showed promise in closing the gap. People are experimenting and seeing what works, and I think those examples are important because they bring the issue to life, even when the statistical data is limited.
You have tier one, tier two, and tier three vocabulary categories. Tier one consists of basic, everyday words. But if you can strengthen students’ tier two vocabulary, which includes more nuanced and academic words, by giving them lots of exposure and examples, that can significantly increase their reading age.
It was fascinating to see that something as seemingly simple as building a vocabulary network—focusing on those tier two words—is showing measurable success.
Jacobsen: Now, on the topic of prisons, not every prison has a decent library. But grassroots programs are being built. I’ve interviewed at least one or two organizers who ask incarcerated individuals directly: What books do you want?
Then, based on those requests, they source the books. That feedback loop—getting input directly from the prison population—means they’re invested in the genres and types of texts they receive. Since the majority of prisoners are men, and that group often enters the prison system with lower literacy levels compared to women, the impact can be significant.
So you’re talking about reaching a population that’s statistically more likely to have started at a lower literacy baseline, and giving them meaningful tools to improve. That is both critical and impressive. What are you noticing—or what has been reported—about prisons, literacy, and these types of initiatives?
Grambower: Scott, one of the most effective strategies is to leverage the leadership potential inside prisons. What I mean by that is that some inmates are natural leaders. Their influence among peers cannot be underestimated.
So, how do we channel those leaders into becoming literacy champions? How do we get them to see the value in education? That’s a key part of the puzzle. And I see this even in our boys’ literacy program. In any classroom—or even in sports—you’ll always see the natural leaders: captains and charismatic figures. The question is: how do you get them to value literacy?
If they do, they can create a strong ripple effect. That behaviour—reading and valuing education—can spread peer to peer, especially in structured settings like prison or school. I think it ties into reading behaviours in correctional settings. Teachers listening to this will know exactly what I mean—those classroom leaders who can influence the tone of the entire group. You want to equip them to lead their peers in the right direction, not the wrong one.
Jacobsen: What innovative tools or strategies have you seen proposed—or already working—for improving boys’ literacy?
Grambower: I’m focused on engagement and relevance. That’s where I believe we can make the most significant difference.
We’ve found success using well-written texts that align with boys’ interests. If a boy is disengaged with reading, it’s often linked to low confidence. He may approach a text with dread or apathy. But literacy is a life skill—whether they become a tradesperson, a contractor, or pursue further education, they must read and understand complex documents like contracts.
So, our strategy is to connect students with texts that matter to them and offer choice. That personal connection can change everything. Of course, none of this works without quality teaching—that goes without saying. However, matching content to interest is foundational in turning disengaged students into confident readers.
Jacobsen: What countries are doing well at achieving gender parity in reading and writing among youth?
Grambower: I couldn’t speak in depth about all countries, but Finland is often cited as a strong example. Their education system consistently performs well in PISA rankings, and they’ve done a lot to ensure literacy parity between boys and girls.
Finland seems to do well in many areas, and I would probably hold them up as an example. I think it ultimately comes down to passionate teachers and committed educators. Right now, we’re facing a global crisis of teacher burnout. Excellent, experienced teachers are leaving the profession, and that is a concern shared across many countries.
Teachers of my generation, who have decades of expertise, could powerfully mentor newer teachers. I would love to see more structured mentoring programs. That kind of guidance could help with teacher retention and reinforce the value of professional experience in education. Of course, how that’s implemented will vary country by country, but I believe there are incredible teachers worldwide, many of whom are deeply passionate about literacy.
The summit truly showcased that. There was an energetic atmosphere—everyone was excited to connect, collaborate, and share ideas. After my presentation, it was lovely to receive applause and have people come up to speak with me, share their thoughts, and discuss their takeaways. There was much positivity and momentum around creating real change in global literacy. Even though literacy rates are declining in many regions, countless organizations and individuals are excited and committed to reversing that trend.
Jacobsen: What kinds of education policies work, not just in increasing literacy rates, but for the right reasons? Are youthinking more about targeted literacy programs or broader policy reforms?
Grambower: I think broad policies matter. Sometimes, reforms are introduced and don’t work or are only minimally effective. However, a new approach is occasionally phased in, and it genuinely improves educational outcomes in literacy, regardless of a student’s background or specific needs.
What works? What doesn’t? One major challenge is that educators are constantly under pressure to cover an expansive curriculum. Time is tight, and the demands of standardized assessment drain energy and creativity, which can wear teachers down.
I’d love to see reduced administrative burdens so teachers can focus on what matters—making math fun, literacy engaging, and history exciting. That takes energy and imagination, and right now, teachers are overextended. We also see increased social issues entering the classroom, further complicating things.
And I want to emphasize the role of parents. They need to step up more to support their children’s literacy development. We see a sharp drop-off in reading engagement as children grow older.
About 99% of kindergarten students enjoy reading—those are your little ones, aged four or five. But by fourth grade, around age eight or nine, that number drops to about 75%. Then, by eighth grade, which includes students around 12 or 13 years old, it plummets to roughly 25%.
That’s a staggering decline. It highlights the need for strong school-based programs and home—based reinforcement to maintain a culture of reading and curiosity as children grow up.
Jacobsen: After that point, interest in reading seems to drop off. How do we create an environment among parents, schools, and teachers that helps maintain or grow that interest? Why does it decline so sharply after Grade 4?
Grambower: Home reading support drops off dramatically around that stage. Parents often believe that by Grade 4—when a child is around nine or ten years old—they can read independently, so there’s no longer a need to check in on their reading habits.
That’s a critical misstep. Literacy development needs continued support and reinforcement at home; when that falls away, the child’s connection to reading weakens.
At the same time, in Grades 5 and 6, teachers face a greater content load. They’re required to cover more subjects and meet growing curriculum demands. As a result, there’s often less time for in-class reading, less focus on shared novels, and less use of classroom libraries.
We’re also seeing a significant decline in school librarian staffing, which is a huge loss. A qualified school librarian is one of the most powerful literacy resources a school can have, no matter the country.
Many schools began replacing their libraries or librarians with IT centers about ten or fifteen years ago. So instead of a student browsing shelves with a librarian, we shifted to computer labs. That change, while well-intended, often meant less browsing time, fewer conversations about books, and the loss of the librarian’s guidance, like, “I saw you borrowed this book last time, you might like this author next.”
The impact of a skilled, passionate librarian can be transformative in building a lifelong positive relationship with reading.
Jacobsen: What was a memorable moment for you at the summit—or several?
Grambower: One of the most memorable moments was introducing Jelly Roll to the stage. It’s a bit of a funny story—initially, I was asked to moderate a panel with students with learning obstacles. They wanted me to lead a discussion with them about their goals in entering education, and I was excited about it. It was something new, and the summit was trialling.
That panel didn’t end up happening, but instead, I was asked to introduce Sheriff Chris Swanson, who then interviewed Jelly Roll on stage. It was unexpected, and I was in the right place at the right time. Being able to introduce that key event was something I’ll never forget.
Another big highlight was the turnout for my session on boys’ literacy. The room was packed, and people were genuinely eager to learn. I was heartened by the earnestness of attendees who wanted practical solutions, ideas, and tips for engaging boys in literacy.
Those moments—personal and professional—were strong reminders that we’re on the right path. We need to get boys engaged with literacy early, and if we do, we can prevent some from taking the pathway that ends in prison. Low literacy is often one of the key barriers that lead young men into the justice system. Education can be a preventive tool.
Jacobsen: With all the tools available today to help children with learning disabilities, shouldn’t we be better positioned to help them help themselves?
Grambower: Technically, yes. The tools are there. The evidence is there. But the challenge is implementation. It’s not just about having the right software or assistive technology—it’s about building a positive relationship between the child and the text.
For children with dyslexia, for example, text often feels like an obstacle, not an opportunity. If every experience they’vehad with a passage of text has been frustrating, they naturally develop negative associations with reading.
So yes, we have excellent tools. But what’s also required is confidence-building. We need someone in their corner—a teacher, tutor, or parent—who’s passionate, patient, and committed to helping them succeed. Someone who champions their effort, not just the outcome. That makes the real difference: effective tools and compassionate guidance. That kind of work—breaking down barriers to literacy—has far-reaching benefits. It can truly transform the lives of learners who have historically been underserved.
Jacobsen: Have you already started planning for next year?
Grambower: Yes, I’m hopeful they’ll have me back.
Jacobsen: How far in advance do they typically select keynote speakers and finalize topics?
Grambower: Well, I was a bit of a latecomer this time. When I expressed interest, the official submission period had already closed. But I think my passion for boys’ literacy came through, and because it’s a niche topic, they made space for it.
That said, the process is very structured. You have to submit your research and presentation proposal, and go through the review. It’s a lot of work, but it’s done well. I’d say it starts about six months in advance, maybe more.
It was an amazing opportunity because hundreds of submissions were received from people around the world hoping to participate. So, fingers crossed, I’m invited again!
Jacobsen: Who are the main funders and sponsors of the summit?
Grambower: There are a few. One that stands out is Sun Books, which works in low-resource communities to deliver digital reading materials. Various publishing houses are also involved—I don’t have all the names offhand, but they are generous sponsors. And, of course, there are likely private donors supporting the summit as well.
Jacobsen: Right. From what I’ve seen, Amira Learning, the World Literacy Council, and the World Literacy Foundation are among the organizing sponsors. There are also many exhibitors, most of whom are book-related organizations or educational technology companies.
Grambower: Yes, that’s correct. Many are involved in reading programs, publishing, or literacy tech.
Jacobsen: Is the event always based in London?
Grambower: It tends to alternate between London and New York. However, next year, I’ve heard they are keeping it in the UK rather than returning to New York. I would have loved to attend the New York one, but it sounds like they’re staying on the British side for now. I’m not sure if they’ll host it in Oxford again, but Oxford was incredible. Being immersed in that history was truly something special.
Jacobsen: Do you remember that episode during the Trump administration, when they heavily criticized Harvard? Someone from an agency—I forget who—sent a strongly worded letter attacking them for various reasons. It was a political move, but the writing was poor—rhetorically charged and polemical.
What stood out was Harvard’s response: they red-marked the letter like a teacher correcting a student’s paper. It was brilliant—clear, rigorous, and educational. This was the whole point, and it was done perfectly. It was such a delicate yet obvious response. They could have raised many other issues, but this one struck right at the heart of the matter: You don’teven know how to write an introductory letter.
Grambower: Yes! That was precisely it. And this is where we need everyone to value literacy—not just for children, but across all levels of society. It is definitely what drives me. I saw this message echoed again at the World Literacy Summit.
We need to emphasize that adult literacy matters, too. We often forget about adults who cannot read, but this affects everything—medical care, finances, and communication.
Jacobsen: Think of someone who can’t read a medical report or even the instructions on a prescription bottle. The consequences are enormous.
Grambower: Yes. That’s where the concept of functional literacy comes in. It’s about reading and understanding information required for daily living.
Jacobsen: According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, one in six Canadians is functionally illiterate. That likely refers to someone who can’t fully comprehend a bill, a product label, or a government form—basic reading tasks.
Grambower: And then there’s another meaningful term: “aliterate.” It refers to someone who can read but chooses not to. That’s such a sad and increasingly common phenomenon.
We’re all reading off screens, but we’re not engaging deeply. One powerful way to shift that is by encouraging adults, especially fathers, to read visibly and intentionally. I always say, phones don’t count.
If a child sees you on your phone, you could be reading an article, a book, or a newspaper—but to them, it just looks like scrolling. It doesn’t register as reading.
Jacobsen: Right, it’s not the same modelling behaviour.
Grambower: Even if you’re reading a magazine, a paperback, or a newspaper, that has far more impact. It sends a clear message to your child: I value reading. That kind of modelling matters so much, especially from fathers, often underrepresented in literacy narratives.
Jacobsen: Tanya, thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/05
Sapira Cahana is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) and interfaith chaplain-in-training specializing in existential and relational therapy. Cahana integrates philosophy, human rights, ritual studies, Jewish studies, and diverse wisdom traditions into her therapeutic work. She emphasizes honouring client subjectivity, building trust, and engaging playfully with existential themes such as death, freedom, and meaning. From sources like the Hebrew Bible, existential psychotherapy, and Plato’s allegory of the cave, Cahana fosters transformative relationships that navigate complexity, uncertainty, and growth across psychotherapy, hospice care, and broader human experience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Sapira Cahana. She is a New York-based mental health counsellor (MHC-LP) specializing in existential and relational therapy. With a background in philosophy, human rights, ritual studies, and Jewish studies, she offers a compassionate, justice-oriented space for clients navigating identity, caregiving, chronic illness, and life transitions.
Sapira works with adults, seniors, LGBTQ+ individuals, artists, and neurodiverse clients, guiding them through self-exploration and meaning-making. Her therapeutic approach integrates existential, psychodynamic, and experiential modalities, emphasizing the therapeutic relationship as a source of wisdom. Fluent in English, Hebrew, and French, Sapira provides telehealth services across New York, fostering a reflective environment for personal growth and healing.
In addition to her clinical work, Sapira is training as an interfaith chaplain specializing in hospice care. As an interfaith chaplain, she serves individuals from diverse religious, spiritual, and secular backgrounds, offering inclusive support that honours each person’s unique worldview.
How do your secular and interfaith principles contribute to ethical decision-making, particularly globally, when providing telehealth services?
Sapira Cahana: Thank you for asking. When I refer to “secular,” I do not mean excluding religion; instead, I mean not privileging any single hermeneutic tradition. Instead, I engage with a broad tapestry of traditions and wisdom sources. I incorporate interreligious and intercommunal dialogue richness without centring any community over another. By integrating imagery, language, and wisdom from many traditions—including secular humanist perspectives—clients are supported in a way that enriches ethical decision-making. Ethical practice becomes informed by a multiplicity of voices rather than a singular authority, allowing for more expansive and authentic reflection.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize the principle of linking different sources together in a way that resonates with a particular client’s context?
Cahana: You are asking about creating experiences that resonate at a deep, personal level, correct? The goal is to meet the individual where they are, drawing upon traditions, images, and wisdom that are meaningful to their personal story and context. It is about situational responsiveness—tailoring the integration of sources to make the work ethically grounded and personally meaningful.
Well, we are all embedded in our contexts. We are all situated individuals. Each human is positioned within their vantage point and integrates many sources of material and wisdom.
Once I begin parsing through where a client’s language, imagery, and metaphors are coming from—whether from capitalist culture, Rembrandt, or elsewhere—I start weaving with them to create curated, connected experiences. I enter what Heidegger would call their “life worlds,” together, we expand and deepen their meaning through their language. In this work, I am constantly the “other” in the space. They are the subject. I am there to honour their subjecthood, using my otherness to relate, connect, disconnect, and reconnect—this is the essential material of the phenomenological approach.
This profound experience of being connected—subject and other, facing one another in an “I-Thou” relationship—translates into different relationships and experiences. It fosters individuation, the ability to separate one’s material from another’s. Yes, it is a transformative process that changes people’s lives, families, communities, and, ultimately, the world.
Jacobsen: What are the factors of rapport and trust? How do you ensure those are built into the therapeutic space?
Cahana: Yes. My first assumption is that there is no complete knowing of another. It is profoundly uncomfortable, especially as a therapist, because my deepest intention is to know and connect, while the client’s deepest intention is to be known and seen.
However, I clarify that as much as I desire that connection, true knowing is elusive. Yet the yearning—the deep wish to cleave into a relationship—is vital. That yearning brings integrity and builds trust. Naming the inevitable dissonance of relationships—acknowledging that there will be fractures—creates space for repair. I remain steady, stable, and ready to receive someone fully. We are never fully known, but we can make deep, persistent attempts to move closer and closer.
Jacobsen: The therapeutic population you work with is either self-selecting or sometimes mandated to attend therapy. It is not an entirely random sample of the general population. For your style of therapeutic process, what do you notice are some through-lines among the people who come to you?
Cahana: People who come to me are often in oblivion—an unknown, a fugue. They seek someone willing to be with them in that haze, someone who can sit in the fog without rushing to clarity. Together, we begin clearing the path, walking through the jungle of their experience.
I walk alongside people. I meet them closely where they are, believing I cannot fully know them. Clients are often drawn to my deep love of wisdom and ability to weave together world knowledge and cultures. My orientation is global, not confined to the microcosm of New York City—even though New York itself is so expansive. It is a world-based approach that resonates with people looking for something broader, something that connects across cultures and traditions.
There are so many people in New York, yet there is still a whole world beyond New York. Even if the world moved to New York, there would still be a world outside. I focus on transcendence and the magnitude of colour, grass, poetry, andhistory—that sense that there is a past and a future. It is so psychedelic and beautiful. There are microbiomes, astronauts, and the vastness of the universe.
Even though we may focus on one person in therapy, we are also a vessel, a signal for the magnitude and largeness of life. My goal is always to help people fall back in love with that grandeur.
Jacobsen: Are there particular cases where an individual is almost not fully a person in the sense of being fragmented internally—where the structure they present is quite chaotic and difficult to map and reorient toward a more coherent, stable self?
Cahana: My assumption is—and this may turn the idea on its head—that most people are chaotic. That description applies broadly. People are endlessly surprised. You might think you can put a thumbprint on someone and say, “This is my easy client,” and suddenly, something unexpected surfaces.
When I was training, I worked with clients with disabilities who were aging and had secondary diagnoses. A good example would be someone with schizophrenia muscular dystrophy who was 85 years old, nearing death. On paper, you could say that it is a complex case—a lot is happening—but they are still themselves.
I developed a sense of what therapeutic deep care looks like. It is not love—not in the romantic or familial sense—but rather a profound cherishing. It is the feeling of holding a human life in your hands with deep reverence. That is so profound and special.
I do not find anyone easily cast into a descriptor. People are too complex, too fluid. I am happy to flow with curiosity. To answer your earlier question, that is why people come to me: I am not writing a rigid script or saying, “This is our goal, and you will be fixed in three weeks.” I do not know—and I am comfortable with that uncertainty. The people who journey with me are also comfortable with it.
It would be lovely if healing were as simple as checking a box—finished and done. But that is not how I relate to grass, the moon cycles, or the world. If I am journeying with you, it is because there is an attraction to that kind of fluidity and comfort within the oblivion that I mentioned earlier.
Jacobsen: What existential themes arise for people who are in hospice?
Cahana: Well, in hospice, yes, the most excellent existential theme is, of course, death. But even more deeply, the real existential theme is freedom—people’s desire for freedom and their profound experience of alienation in an institutionalized setting.
I work in a beautiful hospice and am deeply grateful for where I am. But ultimately, even the best institutional setting cannot fully curate a person’s death. People are not in complete control. Much of my work happens after people have been poked, prodded, and spoken to clinically about dosages, pain acuity, or critical status. I get to come in and ask: But who are you?
Often, people say, “This shell that you’re seeing—that’s not who I am.” Surprisingly, hospice becomes an extraordinarily playful space. People experience alienation because institutions almost inevitably create distance. Very few people truly thrive in institutional environments.
At the end of life, people are trying to decide how they will relate to their death—specifically through their experiences of freedom. It is extraordinary. Much of my time with people at the end of life is spent playing. There is so much levity alongside so much depth. It has been an enormous gift to witness and be part of that.
Jacobsen: When people are isolated in institutional settings or confronted by the sterility and artificial regularity of those environments, how do they describe it?
Cahana: People are seeking a home, a feeling of home. They often say, “I want to go home.”
One charming patient, who was deeply righteous and fiercely independent—almost a literary character—once described the staff to me. She said, “Sapira, the staff here are butterflies.” I said, “Butterflies? That’s curious.” And she explained, “They flit.” Then she waved goodbye and said, “I’m going to bed now. Bye-bye.”
It was so charming and poignant—a beautiful image. Her description of the staff flitting reflected her desire to flit away, to have agency, even if it was limited. At that moment, her only absolute control was the power to dismiss me. And I consider it the most incredible honour to leave when asked.
In hospice, within the span of two encounters, one patient may call me “an angel,” praising me effusively, while another might say, “You liar—you didn’t come back at 4:35!” It is the same material—an endless oscillation between praise and vitriol—and it is all profoundly human.
It is the same energy. It is a desire to relate, be in control, and be connected—but on someone else’s terms. It is my most incredible honour to be the vessel for someone’s praise, and equally, it is my most incredible honour to be the vessel for someone’s rejection. Yes, it has been beautiful work—excellent work.
Jacobsen: Now, given the occasional vitriol—perhaps not actual vitriol, but a little berating—are mutual respect and empathy always necessary for efficacious therapy? Or are those sometimes secondary to therapeutic goals set earlier by the client when doing meaning-making work?
Cahana: Thank you for asking that critical question. My roles as a chaplain and a psychotherapist are quite distinct in this respect. That is a key point of separation.
In chaplaincy, especially end-of-life chaplaincy, I must receive whatever is given to me unquestioningly and with profound respect. It is a great honour to be one of the last people someone encounters, even if I have only known them briefly. I allow unconditional empathy to exist there, and I am deeply comfortable with that.
In psychotherapy, however, if there is ongoing deep anger, berating, or profuse vitriol—and it persists week after week—while the person continues to show up and remains engaged, I am much more likely to confront it directly. I might say, “I am here. I want to be here. I see that you deeply want to be here. But what is happening? How are we going to sustain a relationship like this?”
I would allow it to continue for weeks before naming it explicitly, but if the dynamic persists and a blockage in empathy and trust prevents movement, we need to delineate what is happening. Is the goal to move through the muck together? Or is the goal to express anger?
That becomes a question of choice. When clients opt into therapy with me, they are making a choice. But if something consistently blocks relational growth, we must face it together.
By contrast, people do not opt into therapy in hospice. I call my role “making pilgrimage”—moving from room to room, offering presence without expectation. It is very different: in hospice, I am the visitor; in psychotherapy, there is a mutual contract of engagement.
Jacobsen: What about a finer-grained analysis of your health and well-being as someone working in hospice or psychotherapy? For instance, if a client’s berating crosses the line into abusive behaviour toward you as a service provider, are you ethically permitted to terminate the therapeutic relationship under specific circumstances?
Cahana: Yes. There are ethical guidelines that permit termination under certain circumstances. I have, in fact, led group therapy where a participant berated me consistently for eight months. It was not easy, but as long as it served the therapeutic process and the group dynamics held, I remained.
However, if the dynamic becomes truly abusive—meaning it impedes the therapeutic process, harms the provider’s well-being, or risks creating a harmful environment for others—ethically, termination must and sometimes be considered. It would involve careful documentation, clear communication, and, ideally, a referral to another provider to keep the client’s care uninterrupted.
It is always a balancing act: honouring the client’s suffering and expression while protecting the integrity and health of the therapeutic space—for the client’s sake, my own, and anyone else involved.
And I stayed with it. I have pretty good patience—yes—and that is a skill. I knew intuitively that if someone had a deep hatred toward me—if my breathing made their skin itch, if they had overwhelming emotions directed at me—that was still something we could work on.
I had a client who berated me for about eight months. I was leading group therapy sessions, talking about active listening, morality, existentialism, or running psychodrama exercises. This particular person would sit on the outside of the group and heckle constantly: “You’re stupid,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “Why are you treating us like babies?”
And there must be feedback hidden there. I would respond calmly: “Yes, I hear you. I am leading right now, so if you could give me five seconds to complete this point, I would be happy to hear your input afterward.” They would heckle again, and I would stay steady: “That’s noted.”
Then, unexpectedly, they received a serious medical diagnosis. And for whatever reason, they asked me to be the person to listen to them.
It is almost a silly story because there was an arc, but I was comfortable without needing that arc to conclude. It was fine either way.
I have also had other clients who have been highly dysregulated—one who came right into my face in a moment of extreme agitation and called me the wrong name. They said, “Slippers! You’re not listening!”
I kept my face completely still, but inside, I was cackling. It was wonderful. You do not have to know my name—I do not expect you to—but you wanted to name me—you wanted to relate to me—and even though you got it wrong, the impulse to connect was there.
I see so much of this as material. I am not innately afraid of clients or people. I could have reason to be, but I am not.
I understand fundamentally that people are born and people die. That is the facticity of life. Those two facts bind us all, no matter who we are or what we’ve lived. Whether you are religious or not, those facts themselves are extraordinary. There is divinity in the facts of life.
However someone interprets it—religiously, spiritually, or otherwise—it remains extraordinary to be a human being on this Earth.
Sometimes, I think of it like the yellow Google Maps figure you can drag and drop anywhere in the world. Maybe it is a reference from 2012, but that image captures it for me: this ability to be placed anywhere and the wonder that, wherever you are dropped, there is life happening—life, with all its magnitude and mystery.
It is like that—a yellow, amorphous being that you can dangle and then drop into a street view. So much of life is just coming into consciousness, and suddenly, you think, “I have great-great-grandparents? What are you talking about? My parents were once children. My guardians were once young?”
What is life? There is history, journalism, psychotherapy—it is all so bizarre. We are all just here. And if you can stay with the mastery and magnitude of whatever created existence—or whatever it is—then it is pretty amazing. It is extraordinary.
And then there are queer studies, disability studies, and all these different hermeneutic lenses you can bring to bear, seeing the world through various frameworks of how Islam views the world, how a small sect within Islam views the world. You have never even heard of how another sect might be at war with the first in a region.
There is the king of Jordan—endlessly famous within Jordan—yet, in North America, he could walk the street anonymously. It is astonishing how much richness there is in this world.
Jacobsen: How does the allegory of Plato’s cave help structure the philosophy of your meta-hermeneutic approach?
Cahana: Well, yes—sense perceptions are central.
The cave is a critical image. I love other powerful metaphors, like Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author, which also touches on these ideas, though it is less widely known.
The therapeutic space itself is a cave. It is an oasis, perhaps—but it is also a dark, enclosed space where you can throw off the cliff whatever you do not want to work with that day. You can parse through your experience and even reach first principles. That is what the cave represents: it is dug into the mountain’s edge, a space apart.
We are all cleaving toward truth. There is a truth in the universe, and none of us fully knows it. Some might be closer than others, but even that is uncertain. We are all in the mystery together.
At the same time, other people in our worlds have different visions and perspectives. They encroach on us, intentionally or not. Our relationships are often unsatisfying. Our material reality is messy and never perfectly “right.” If we hyper-fixate on that imperfection, it can lead to deep isolation or a belief that only the self is reliable—which is another false perception.
There is, perhaps, an ideal world—Plato’s world of Forms: the ideal horse, justice, and truth. We always strive toward that ideal, climbing a ladder we might never reach the top of.
But the goal, ultimately, is to harmonize with reality, to see others more softly, to recognize that others were born and that they, too, have lived experiences, dreams, and failures.
We sincerely wish to fix the world and put everything in perfect order. But the waves will crash, and the sandcastle will dissolve. The work is to rebuild—again and again.
It is about rebuilding the sandcastle. I have also been thinking a lot about Sisyphus lately. Yes, reflecting on Sisyphus as a figure of punishment.
I heard a beautiful podcast–”Everything is Alive- Chioke Grain of Sand“–that discussed how, over hundreds of thousands of years, the conditions in the story of Sisyphus—where he is condemned to push an enormous boulder up a mountain for eternity—would inevitably change.
It becomes a striking image: perhaps the boulder becomes like a marble over time, and the mountain face flattens. Eventually, it is no longer an endless toil but something meaningful. Sisyphus could even play games with that bit of marble. I find that image beautiful and spectacular.
We also recently read another piece. It is a poem by a literary critic, poet translator with his take on Sisyphus is named Stephen Mitchell. He writes that Sisyphus loves the boulder. He loves everything about the boulder. You can say what you want about his punishment, but Sisyphus fully cleaves to his reality. It goes as follows:
We tend to think of Sisyphus as a tragic hero,
condemned by the gods to shoulder his
rock sweatily up the mountain, and again up the mountain, forever.
The truth is that Sisyphus is in love with the rock. He cherishes every roughness and
every ounce of it. He talks to it, sings to it. It has become the Mysterious Other. He
evens dreams of it as he sleepwalks upward. Life is unimaginable without it, looming
always above him like a huge gray moon.
He doesn’t realize that at any moment he is permitted to step aside, let the rock hurtle to
the bottom, and go home.
That, too, is a beautiful lens into the story.
There are endless powerful images—whether from the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, or other sources. But the cave allegory remains especially helpful: it says things are not quite what they seem, and we start working it out.
Let us go through a dialogue. Let us wrestle with the endless questions: What are the shadows? Who are those shadows? What is the outside? What happens when the shackles come off? What happens when you try to convince others?
There are so many good, rich questions there.
Jacobsen: Could you share some of your favourite existentialist or Hebrew quotes that you find relevant to therapy?
Cahana: So, my favourite quotes are from the Hebrew Bible and Existentialist. I am always connected to the book of Ecclesiastes from the Hebrew Bible. I often repeat the opening line, which is so strong: “Futility of futilities, everything is futile.” It is a fantastic and strangely charming statement. It captures so much existential truth.
As for an existentialist quote, I love a line from Irvin Yalom, the existential psychotherapist. He says—and I am paraphrasing slightly—”It’s the relationship that heals. It’s the relationship that heals. It’s the relationship that heals.”
That mantra sits on my professional rosary. It is something I find beautiful and endlessly relevant.
Jacobsen: Perfect—both quotes feel like mantras. And both seem deeply relevant for hospice work, too.
In North America, the image of someone in hospice with a rosary is common, so the idea of a professional or therapeutic rosary fits beautifully.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/06/04
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 holds the position of 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 conducted May 23, 2025.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with American attorney Irina Tuskerman. Turning to Eastern Europe, the largest Russian–Ukrainian prisoner exchange since the full-scale invasion began took place on May 23-25, 2025, in which approximately 1,000 prisoners were released by each side, including 120 civilians each. Freed Ukrainian personnel arrived at an undisclosed site in northern Ukraine, where they reunited with families, while Russian POWs returned to Russia. Any thoughts?Irina Tsukerman: Yes. It was a highly complex and politically sensitive event. To put it mildly, it was a high-stakes humanitarian and symbolic maneuver. It carried immense risk but was carefully coordinated, blending humanitarian aims with strategic signaling, psychological dimensions, and diplomatic nuance.These figures are not merely battlefield commanders—they have become symbols of Ukrainian resilience and defiance. The Azov Regiment (now officially a brigade within the Ukrainian National Guard) has been the subject of intense international scrutiny and Russian disinformation campaigns.It is true that the Azov Battalion, founded in 2014, had connections to far-right figures in its early formation. However, those individuals have since departed, and the unit has been formally integrated into the Ukrainian armed forces. For years, it has trained with U.S. and NATO forces and now includes personnel of diverse ideological, ethnic, and religious backgrounds.While the term “nationalist” may still apply in the sense of patriotism and defense of national sovereignty, Azov today is no longer defined by extremist ideology. This evolution has often been ignored or distorted by Russian propaganda, which has attempted to label all Ukrainian resistance as far-right to justify aggression. These efforts intensified after Azov’s effective defense of Mariupol, which inflicted heavy Russian losses and garnered international admiration.Over time, even the U.S. Congress reversed earlier restrictions and permitted military assistance and cooperation with Azov, acknowledging its reformed status and rejecting disinformation narratives.Jacobsen: The Kremlin’s reach, as you mentioned, extends far beyond Ukraine. We have seen this pattern before—extrajudicial assassinations in Germany, Austria, Turkey, and even Spain. Russia has killed defectors, pilots, and Chechen dissidents across Europe in defiance of international norms.Tsukerman: Another intriguing and controversial figure in this context is Nadiya Savchenko. She is a former Ukrainian Air Force pilot and former Member of Parliament. Once celebrated as a national hero and former prisoner of war, her later trajectory included allegations of plotting against Ukraine’s government and even rumors of links to Russian intelligence, particularly the FSB.Her role in the prisoner swap negotiations is unclear. Whether she is a direct participant, a symbolic figure, or a bargaining chip, her name introduces a layer of political ambiguity. There are strong suggestions of backchannel diplomacy, hidden quid pro quos, and intelligence games operating in the background.Jacobsen: That raises important questions. To what extent has Savchenko been used as a pawn in larger intelligence and political games? What does her fluctuating reputation indicate about the rifts within Ukrainian politics and the shadow world of espionage that runs parallel to the open conflict?Tsukerman: Precisely. The asymmetrical nature of the prisoner list—some high-value individuals exchanged, others conspicuously withheld—reveals the conflicting interests and power imbalances that shape these negotiations. While the scale of the exchange appears to be a diplomatic success, it was far from a straightforward or balanced process. Political calculation was deeply embedded in every aspect of the swap.Jacobsen: For Russia, retaining Chechen fighters and other insurgents serves dual strategic objectives: preserving internal control over separatist regions and maintaining leverage over Ukraine in ongoing and future negotiations.Tsukerman: Absolutely. For Kyiv, regaining prominent Azov Brigade leaders is both tactically and symbolically significant. However, it also reveals an underlying vulnerability—hundreds of Ukrainian prisoners remain in Russian custody, many with little hope for swift release.While the repatriation of high-profile figures was met with public celebration, it masks a deeper humanitarian crisis. Numerous former detainees have reported psychological trauma, physical abuse, and severe deprivation during their captivity. These accounts paint a stark and troubling picture, sharply contrasting with the triumphant national rhetoric. The suffering endured behind bars is a grim reminder that prisoner swaps are not just political maneuvers—they are deeply human events with lasting consequences.Jacobsen: And that suffering does not end upon release.Tsukerman: Correct. The psychological scars and physical injuries many freed prisoners carry raise serious concerns about Ukraine’s capacity to effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate them. The infrastructure needed for such support—medical, psychological, and social—is overwhelmed and underfunded.Why? Because Western aid has prioritized lethal weaponry, battlefield emergency medical supplies, and basic logistics. Broader humanitarian programs, especially long-term rehabilitation, have often been treated as secondary. Some former prisoners have been transferred to the West for treatment, but these cases are exceptions.Recently, humanitarian aid has been deliberately downplayed in political discourse—especially in the United States—due to a growing narrative that such spending is wasteful or vulnerable to corruption. This viewpoint is driven not only by anti-war sentiment but also by pro-military advocates who paradoxically claim to oppose war while arguing that only military aid is justifiable.Jacobsen: That raises an ethical dilemma. Without long-term support, these soldiers could be sent back into combat before they fully recover—physically or mentally.Tsukerman: Precisely. This not only increases human suffering but also weakens Ukraine’s overall military effectiveness. Moreover, families of those still detained in Russian prisons are growing increasingly frustrated. Many accuse the Ukrainian government of lacking transparency, failing in advocacy, and prioritizing symbolic victories over sustained diplomatic efforts to free those left behind.Moscow’s selective release strategy fuels a propaganda narrative that portrays Ukraine as incapable of protecting its own citizens. This undermines domestic morale and diplomatic credibility, especially in the U.S. and several European states.Jacobsen: The swap seems to have ignited another debate—whether these exchanges are truly humanitarian acts or political instruments.Tsukerman: Indeed. Both Kyiv and Moscow appear to be using prisoner swaps as tools of strategic messaging and leverage, rather than as purely humanitarian actions. This instrumentalization raises serious ethical concerns. Are prisoners of war being respected under international humanitarian law, or are they being held as bargaining chips?Despite the challenges Ukraine faces—including war-related infrastructure damage and economic strain—the disparity in prisoner treatment between the two sides is notable. Reports overwhelmingly suggest that Ukrainian prisoners held in Russia suffer far more than Russian prisoners held in Ukraine. This disproportion underscores the need for international scrutiny of Russia’s detention practices.Jacobsen: One final issue—the Azov Brigade. The return of its commanders has again stirred international debate.Tsukerman: Yes, the presence of Azov commanders in this prisoner swap has reignited controversies over the brigade’s political legacy. Russia continues to portray Azov as a neo-Nazi militia, a key narrative used to justify its invasion. While, as we discussed, the brigade has undergone structural and ideological transformations and has long been incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard, the optics remain sensitive.Kyiv must now navigate the delicate task of acknowledging Azov’s significant battlefield role while distancing itself from the extremist labels amplified by Russian propaganda. This is both a domestic and international communications challenge—one that Ukraine must manage carefully to maintain unity and legitimacy in the eyes of its allies.Jacobsen: It has not been a major issue recently, since much of the older narrative has been exposed as a Russian propaganda tactic, but we should not entirely discount its resurgence. Russia is known for recycling past disinformation successes and exploiting trends that shift in its favor.Tsukerman: Right now, the anti-Zelensky posture among some Trump-aligned figures in the United States plays to Moscow’s advantage. The current political climate may offer Russia a window of opportunity to reintroduce disinformation campaigns—particularly those targeting Azov or prisoner exchange narratives—with renewed traction.Looking ahead, several possible scenarios are worth considering.First, the prisoner swap may serve as the basis for incremental confidence-building measures—a rare cooperative act in an otherwise brutal and unpredictable conflict. It could mark a small but meaningful step toward future broader peace talks.However, the incomplete nature of the exchange, and Moscow’s continued detention of key prisoners, leaves room for a prolonged stalemate and the perpetuation of hostage diplomacy. This ambiguity allows Russia to maintain psychological and political pressure on Ukraine.More concerning is the possibility that Russia will exploit this leverage to fuel internal discord within Ukraine, a tactic it has used consistently. This is a topic deserving deeper discussion in its own right.Jacobsen: Could you draw a parallel with other regions?Tsukerman: Certainly. Russia has been training its allies and proxy groups, including Hamas, in the use of hostage diplomacy as a psychological and political weapon. Hamas operatives have reportedly traveled to Moscow for this very purpose—learning how to manage, manipulate, and prolong hostage situations to pressure governments and sway public opinion.This same strategy is now playing out in multiple conflicts across the globe. The commonality of tactics among these groups is not a coincidence—it reflects a shared playbook that originates in Moscow and has been disseminated to state and non-state actors alike.For Ukraine, this approach may result in deepened political tensions, weakening national unity at a critical moment in the war. The saga underscores how prisoner exchanges can function as part of hybrid warfare, blending humanitarianism with information warfare, intelligence operations, and geopolitical influence.The unresolved status of Chechen fighters Adam Osmayev and Amina Okuyeva further ties the conflict in Ukraine to Russia’s internal security fragility, particularly in the North Caucasus. These ripples go far beyond the immediate battlefield and touch on the deeper structural anxieties within the Russian Federation.Jacobsen: So what does this particular swap tell us, in the end?Tsukerman: The largest prisoner swap between Russia and Ukraine to date encapsulates the multifaceted and often contradictory nature of this war. On one hand, it offered a rare humanizing moment, the joyful return of dozens of Ukrainians. But it was also marred by political exclusions, strategic calculation, disinformation campaigns, and the enduring uncertainty surrounding hundreds still detained.Ultimately, it reminds us that beneath the headlines of victory and relief, there are unresolved and pressing questions about justice, strategy, and the human cost of the war. These cannot be addressed through public spectacle alone.Jacobsen: Alright, mindful of the time, before we hand it back to the team, I’ll stay with the flow we discussed. We’ve touched on prisoner swaps and some Middle East escalation, particularly regarding similar tactics. Since this next topic falls squarely in your expertise, let’s jump briefly to Operation NK.Or—actually—would you prefer to start with the West Bank developments as of May 23? Just a quick overview, and then we’ll pivot to cybersecurity, where, frankly, the complexity tends to lose most people—but that’s where you thrive.Jacobsen: Please go ahead.Tsukerman: Certainly. In the West Bank, there has been a recent surge in violence accompanied by a deepening spiral of tension, trauma, and uncertainty. Any attempt to frame this conflict in simplistic terms is not only insufficient but, frankly, dangerously misleading.Recent headlines have highlighted stabbing attacks, settler reprisals, and Israeli military raids. But beneath these headlines lies a labyrinth of local power struggles, ideological battles, strategic manipulation, and disinformation campaigns that defy any clear-cut categorization.The latest wave of violence is often presented as either an eruption of settler violence or, conversely, as Palestinian terrorism. In truth, the situation is far more fractured and complex. It demands a nuanced examination.We must ask difficult questions:To what extent has sexual violence in the conflict been exaggerated or underreported for political purposes?How instrumental have Kahanist elements and ultranationalist factions within the Israeli government been in encouraging or legitimizing acts of aggression?And to what degree are Palestinian organizations reliable narrators of on-the-ground violence?These are crucial issues, especially as Israel is also engaged in ongoing conflict along the Gaza front. In the West Bank, there have been documented incidents of settler-perpetrated violence—ranging from physical assaults to property destruction and intimidation of Palestinian civilians. These acts are undeniable and have increased in frequency.However, the scale and systemic nature of this violence is often amplified by advocacy groups and media outlets, sometimes suggesting a centrally coordinated campaign. This narrative risks erasing the diversity within the settler community, which is far from monolithic.Some settlers are ideological hardliners, including young extremists influenced by religious nationalism. Others, however, are pragmatic families, farmers, and individuals whose primary concerns are personal safety and land rights—many of whom do not engage in or condone violence.Jacobsen: What role do political leaders play in this escalation?Tsukerman: A significant one. Take Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example. As a member of Israel’s war cabinet and a prominent figure in ultranationalist politics, he has promoted expansionist policies and has made inflammatory statements that often cross into racist or incitement rhetoric.While he may not directly call for violence, his dog-whistling and ambiguous language have emboldened certain factions. His presence in government sends a powerful signal that fosters settler self-assertiveness, both nonviolent and violent, toward Palestinians viewed as security threats or obstacles to land ambitions.Yet even within this context, the level of government sanction or encouragement for violence remains murky. The Israeli government has officially condemned sexual violence and certain forms of settler aggression. However, enforcement is weak. Investigations are often delayed or inconclusive, citing stretched resources due to broader security demands.This ambiguity feeds Palestinian perceptions of impunity and injustice, which in turn stokes resentment and retaliatory violence. These narratives are actively weaponized by local terrorist groups to justify further provocations, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.The blurred lines between official security policy, state-sanctioned operations, and settler activism make accountability extraordinarily difficult in the current environment.Jacobsen: What about the Palestinian factions in the West Bank?Tsukerman: That is another complicating factor. The Palestinian political and militant landscape in the West Bank is fragmented. Unlike Gaza, which is governed by Hamas, the West Bank is home to multiple factions—including Fatah, Hamas cells, and independent armed groups—often with competing objectives and strategies.This fragmentation complicates attribution and response. Acts of violence may be carried out by one group, condemned by another, and spun in divergent ways depending on the political goals at hand. These factions do not present a unified front and should not be treated as a monolith either.So, while many focus on Israeli settler aggression or military operations, the internal Palestinian dynamics, the presence of Hamas in the West Bank, and local power struggles all contribute to the cycle of violence and mistrust.Jacobsen: Could you expand on the internal divisions among Palestinian factions in the West Bank and how that affects the conflict?Tsukerman: Of course. The situation is deeply fragmented. In the West Bank, you have several major and minor actors vying for influence—often violently. Among them are Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Shi’a-aligned militant group, and Fatah, the dominant party in the Palestinian Authority, which also operates the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.The Al-Aqsa Brigades have been involved in joint operations with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other factions—including reported participation in the October 7 attacks, though their involvement varies across regions and operational contexts.There are also smaller militias and local armed groups that compete for power, visibility, and legitimacy. They often issue contradictory or exaggerated claims of responsibility for attacks. For instance, following stabbing incidents or armed clashes, Palestinian groups sometimes claim credit only to have their statements later disputed by eyewitness accounts, journalistic investigations, or Israeli intelligence assessments.Jacobsen: So the propaganda war is just as chaotic as the ground situation.Tsukerman: Exactly. The information environment is highly contested, and verification becomes very difficult. Spontaneous or lone-wolf acts of violence are frequently co-opted by these groups to enhance their image, even if they had no direct involvement. This opportunistic behavior turns attribution into a political tool, rather than a factual accounting.These issues are further complicated by the inconsistent stance of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Under Mahmoud Abbas, the PA has officially condemned some acts of violence, but not all. Since October 7, there have been signs of both official and unofficial alignment between the PA and Hamas on certain fronts.The PA walks a very fine line: on one hand, it maintains security cooperation with Israel to preserve its limited autonomy and Western financial support. On the other hand, it does not want to appear irrelevant, especially when Hamas’ militant approach has rallied popular sentiment among Palestinians in some areas. This dynamic has led to ambiguous messaging and a lack of unified leadership, undermining effective responses.Jacobsen: What about the escalation of Israeli military operations?Tsukerman: That’s another flashpoint. Israel has increased operations in the West Bank, particularly in areas like Jeninand Nablus, which it frames as counter-terrorism measures aimed at disrupting weapons caches and apprehending active militants.From the Israeli perspective, these are targeted raids. But they often result in civilian casualties and significant property damage, which fuel local resentment and accusations of collective punishment. Palestinians portray many of these incursions as punitive in nature, especially when entire neighborhoods are affected.Interestingly, even Fatah-affiliated PA officials have, at times, requested Israeli intervention to clear out areas like Jenin, which had become strongholds for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Jenin is so volatile it has become, in some cases, a no-go zone for even moderate Palestinian factions.Jacobsen: And then there’s the broader geopolitical influence.Tsukerman: Absolutely. Iran plays a critical role by providing funding, weapons, and training to militant groups in both Gaza and the West Bank. Its support incentivizes continued violence that aligns with Tehran’s regional objectives, particularly the goal of undermining Israeli and U.S.-aligned regimes.Meanwhile, external actors like the Gulf States attempt to manage the conflict through economic aid and humanitarian diplomacy, trying to stabilize the region while asserting their own interests.Even former U.S. initiatives—such as the Trump-era Peace to Prosperity Plan and his recent comments about “taking over Gaza”—have escalated tensions, by signaling shifts in U.S. policy that embolden certain actors while alienating others.Jacobsen: What about the role of information warfare and public messaging?Tsukerman: That’s a key point. Both Palestinian factions and Israeli officials engage in aggressive media strategies, often through social media, to shape the global narrative. However, they tend to speak past each other—not to each other’s populations.For example, Palestinian organizations often communicate effectively with left-wing and activist circles in Israel and the West, but not with Netanyahu’s base. Conversely, Netanyahu’s coalition occasionally issues Arabic-language messages, but these are met with deep skepticism and limited penetration among Palestinian audiences.So while both sides deploy messaging to support their goals, these efforts frequently reinforce internal narratives rather than fostering any mutual understanding or engagement. The end result is a highly polarized, insular communication loop, further entrenching division and mistrust.Western agencies’ countermeasures—often clandestine and aggressive—can provoke reciprocal actions, escalating tensions and setting the stage for a cyber arms race with unpredictable consequences. When Western governments assert that certain hackers are “private” actors who align ideologically with Russia or China, but remain technically independent, this framing often reflects the challenges of attribution in cyberspace. It is difficult to definitively link hackers to official state commands due to the covert nature of operations, use of proxies, and technical obfuscation. However, this ambiguity can also serve strategic purposes—such as avoiding escalation with nation-states and sidestepping direct retaliation or diplomatic fallout.To that end, the United States and its allies often target symbolic or critical cyber infrastructure and conduct operations against entities involved in command-and-control, reconnaissance, exploitation, and sabotage—often referred to as CACRES—while refraining from publicly declaring such operations acts of war. This restraint reflects both legal ambiguity and political calculation.One particularly controversial figure in this domain is Evgeny Harych Savchenko. While there is no publicly verified connection between him and Nadiya Savchenko, the former Ukrainian military pilot and politician, the similarity in names can cause confusion. Evgeny Harych Savchenko has been named in cybersecurity reports and investigative journalism as having possible links to Russian intelligence services, specifically the Federal Security Service (FSB). He is accused of involvement in cyber intrusions that have targeted Western political institutions, financial networks, and infrastructure. His potential capture or extradition remains speculative and serves as a case study in the complexities of international cyber law enforcement, particularly where state protection or plausible deniability is involved.This underscores a broader issue: state-affiliated hackers often operate under legal gray zones, shielded by jurisdictional boundaries and the principle of sovereign non-interference. Meanwhile, ethical challenges multiply. Cross-border cyber operations may violate international norms, infringe on national sovereignty, and raise concerns about due process, data privacy, and unintended collateral consequences. Although there are efforts to foster international law enforcement cooperation—such as through INTERPOL, Europol, and various bilateral frameworks—these efforts are not always effective. Some nations refuse cooperation outright or obstruct investigations, especially when their geopolitical interests are implicated.This leads to a persistent dilemma: should democratic states respect legal boundaries even when cooperation is denied, or should they take unilateral action to apprehend cybercriminals and neutralize threats? The use of malware or offensive cyber tools to disable adversary systems comes with high risks—including potential harm to civilian infrastructure, accidental data exposure, and questions around transparency, oversight, and accountability. Civilian protections are often afterthoughts in such operations, even though they are central to international humanitarian law discussions.Private sector cooperation is both essential and fraught. Technology firms and cybersecurity companies serve as frontline defenders and intelligence intermediaries, but they must navigate competing pressures—balancing user privacy, profitability, and government requests. For example, Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit has partnered with global law enforcement to disrupt botnets and cybercrime networks. However, such collaborations raise ongoing debates about transparency, the protection of proprietary data, and operational security.Cybersecurity, once the purview of niche technical experts, has now become a central component of national and international security policy. It is increasingly tied to geopolitics, economic stability, and democratic resilience.Yes—if this were an advertisement for 21st-century geopolitical complexity, it would be a compelling one. And so, yes.What I was saying is that some of these companies, for profit, sell exploits. And they are often easily penetrated themselves because many cybersecurity professionals are so preoccupied with speaking engagements and public discussions that they are not necessarily conducting due diligence on active threat networks.But for the U.S., maintaining strong internal coordination as well as alliances with foreign countries is crucial. The capacity to penetrate and disrupt hostile cyber networks is a key factor in signaling resolve and technological superiority to China, Russia, and states aligned with them. We should be examining scenario forecasting related to the long-term impact of this digital separation.The most optimistic interpretation is that sustained disruption of cybercriminal and hostile nation-state networks could improve global cyber hygiene, reduce attacks on critical infrastructure, and foster greater international cooperation on cybersecurity norms, best practices, and law enforcement. Enhanced cyber resilience could stabilize financial markets, protect democratic elections, and safeguard essential services. That would be a good thing.But a more pessimistic—and in my opinion, far more realistic—outlook is that this could evolve into a cyber Cold War that spirals into kinetic conflict. Not necessarily direct military confrontation, but hybrid operations with retaliatory strikes targeting utilities, transportation, or military systems.And frankly, we are already seeing some of that unfold. Cyber actors are using anonymizing technologies and decentralized structures, as I mentioned earlier. This complicates both detection and response, enabling constant adaptation and evasion. The risk of false flag operations—particularly employed by Russia, and now increasingly by China—is also rising. These are attacks designed to appear as if they originate from a rival, thereby confusing attribution and heightening tensions.As cyber operations grow more sophisticated, so do the unintended consequences—data leaks, software vulnerabilities, and the spread of malware beyond intended targets. Escalation due to misinterpretation can lead to widespread disruptions. Striking a balance among deterrence, transparency, and escalation management is incredibly difficult. It is more of an art than a science.The outcome of the current operation—let’s call it an endgame in progress—remains unclear. It epitomizes the evolving nature of modern conflict, where the battlefield is digital, but the stakes are tangible. We do not yet know the full extent of the consequences: how much it actually undercut bad actors, weakened their capacities, disrupted their infrastructure, and set them back in meaningful ways.Alternatively, it may not have been as effective as hoped, because these actors could have been preparing for this—transitioning to resilient, flexible infrastructures that can bypass arrests, asset freezes, and system takedowns. Navigating this terrain requires constant alertness, active engagement, a robust legal framework, increased international cooperation, and above all, sustained vigilance.Vigilance seems like the easiest task to maintain, but it is the one most often forgotten. After a major operation, medals are handed out, victories declared—but the work is far from over. A few bad actors may have been removed, but new ones are always ready to emerge.Particularly when it comes to nation-state actors, you might disrupt one network, but as long as the Kremlin exists, as long as Beijing exists, they will recruit and train new hackers—official or unofficial—to continue the mission. Just because someone got arrested or a server was taken offline does not mean the adversary is retreating. Quite the opposite. They adapt and return.So, measuring the ripple effects will take time. Understanding the consequences—both positive and negative—will also take time. And much of it may never be fully revealed to the public.Tsukerman: So we may hear snippets of information here and there, but ultimately, much of it will remain in the shadows—not fully known, even to some of the actors directly engaged in these efforts.Jacobsen: Alright. So these two are sufficiently separate… Well, is that sufficiently gloomy?Tsukerman: Well, the whole thing.Jacobsen: But as we learn more, we can make more precise analyses. It may also seem as though our default state is negativity anyway.Tsukerman: Yes, that is true. As we get more information, the outlook will likely continue to lean negative—but it will seem more legitimate because it will be more detailed, even though nothing may fundamentally change.Jacobsen: Alright. So, you have U.S. President Trump reigniting trade tensions by threatening tariffs on the European Union starting June 1, which will be after this is released. He’s also proposing a 25% levy on iPhones not manufactured in the United States. It shook certain parts of the gold market—primarily U.S. and European stock indexes dropped, the dollar weakened, and gold prices surged.Tsukerman: Trump claimed the tariffs would be lifted if European manufacturing moved stateside. In response, EU officials called for mutual respect and negotiations. Analysts are warning of higher consumer price indexes and supply chain disruptions.Jacobsen: What are your thoughts? Obviously, Apple has been moving—or planning to move—some production to India quite rapidly. How does this affect the whole equation?Tsukerman: Well, now Trump is saying he does not want Apple to move to India either. He’s threatening to impose tariffs if Apple moves to India. He wants them to move completely to the United States—with a 25% penalty if they do not comply. That would be a disaster. Brand-new iPhones could cost $3,000 to $5,000 apiece.Ironically, the skills and infrastructure for that kind of manufacturing exist in India and China—not in the United States. And he does not want to invite those skilled workers here, nor does he want to increase the number of people who can fill those roles.Jacobsen: That’s where someone like Chuck could play a constructive role as an ambassador of sorts, right?Tsukerman: Because he has lived in both worlds. That was actually why he went to India in the first place. But surprise—just as U.S. companies are moving to India and making major investments, Trump comes out and disrupts all of it with these new statements. There’s an inherent tension within his own policy. On the one hand, he wants to make massive deals with India and reduce reliance on China. On the other hand, his absolutist tariff regime and domestic production demands suggest he does not want to rely on foreign nations at all.Jacobsen: Without striking a balance, that’s impossible.Tsukerman: My theory is admittedly a bit cynical. I do not think this is truly about tariffs, or protectionism, or even about moving away from China. I believe it’s about bribes. It is about lobbying. The question is: which companies are ultimately going to offer the largest “contributions” in exchange for tariff relief?There’s a cyclical nature to these threats. Escalation happens, the markets drop, Trump walks it back, the markets rise again—and so on. What happens in between? Trump and his inner circle make money off the volatility. He said so himself, during the beginning of his second term, right before his first speech to Congress: he said he prefers volatility in both governance and markets.Also, lobbying has gone wild on K Street. Even Denmark, which rarely lobbies in Washington, is now participating for the first time in perhaps 50 years. I do not know what the future holds—but it is clear that much of this is about leverage, influence, and transactional politics more than coherent long-term policy.Denmark was never the kind of country that needed lobbying in Washington—until now. Sure, maybe a company like Novo Nordisk had some early lobbying related to Ozempic or other pharmaceutical launches, but beyond that, everyone knows Denmark is not a geopolitical hegemon trying to influence U.S. policy. They simply never needed lobbyists in the traditional sense.And yet, suddenly, even countries like Denmark are hiring lobbyists. So this is no longer about trade policy per se—it is about lobbying. That said, lobbying does have an impact on U.S. trade policy, which, up until the Trump administration, had been one of the engines of American economic strength. Now, it’s under increasing scrutiny for potentially destabilizing global financial systems.We have shifted from being the world’s economic stabilizer to something much more volatile—and that shift happened in a matter of months. The once-celebrated arsenal of carefully calibrated tariffs, export controls, and trade restrictions has become a double-edged sword. These instruments now appear to be unraveling fragile supply chains—supply chains that still have not fully recovered from the combined disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.On top of that, the rhetoric around trade has become increasingly geopolitical and less economic. Investor confidence is rattled. Because if no one knows what trade policy is going to look like tomorrow, why would they risk capital today?From what I am hearing, there are still business deals happening, but many of them are in real estate. That is because real estate is largely immune to these particular disruptions. There is always going to be demand, especially as hotels and tourist-dependent properties go bust. Someone will buy them—more likely than not, foreign investors—because domestic investors are losing capital due to the ripple effects of tariffs.So, yes, foreign interest will persist, but outside of real estate, the overall outlook is quite negative.Jacobsen: And that brings us back to the operation endgame, right? That digital background is just one piece of a much larger puzzle—where trade policy functions as both a weapon and a wedge in strategic maneuvering.Tsukerman: Exactly. That is why cybersecurity must go hand in hand with financial policy. You disrupt one, and it affects the other. Trade policy under Trump—what you could call an aggressive recalibration of global trade relations—began during his first term, continued under Biden, and has now escalated significantly.The imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods has never fully been rolled back. Meanwhile, export controls, particularly those targeting China and Russia, have been tightened under the Biden administration—especially with regard to advanced technologies like semiconductors and artificial intelligence.And there’s been a recalibration of trade relations not just with rivals, but with allies too. That aspect—recalibrating trade ties with allies—was more a hallmark of the Trump approach. Washington’s broader moves appear designed to assert dominance in critical sectors. But without a broader economic and diplomatic balance, the message becomes incoherent.Focusing on specific industries might make strategic sense in some contexts. But claiming you’re protecting critical sectors while indiscriminately tariffing nonessential imports—random, low-value goods from China, for instance—undermines your own argument.Rather than appearing as a strategic actor exercising control, the U.S. increasingly looks like a country thrashing about, seeking attention and trying different tactics until something lands. And this carries steep costs beyond optics.A major flashpoint is the tech sector. Export restrictions on China’s semiconductor and AI industries have disrupted established global supply chains worth billions. Companies like TSMC, Intel, and Nvidia are caught in the middle of this geopolitical-economic crossfire. They are being forced to navigate increasingly complex licensing requirements and investment restrictions.You may have heard that Nvidia is now exploring reentry into the Chinese market—despite pressure from the Biden administration to minimize such engagement. It reflects the impossible balancing act that firms are trying to perform under unpredictable, politically charged trade regimes.This not only impacts the bottom lines of major corporations, but also reverberates through global markets that rely on semiconductors—from smartphones to automotive manufacturing, and of course, defense tech, computing, and green technologies. All of these sectors depend on critical minerals that are essential to chip production, and those minerals are largely controlled by China and a few other nations. As a result, trade tensions are sparking retaliatory measures.Beijing’s food protection tariffs are undercutting both its own economy and the American economy. Selective restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports have been especially damaging for American farmers. Now Trump is talking about bailing them out starting in August, which could raise the federal deficit by billions—if not more.This is part of why there is a massive battle in Congress over the debt ceiling, which is now at $5 trillion. If that issue is not resolved by August, we may be facing a default. Exporters are already affected, and this has created political fissures in key swing states. Let’s be honest—China has strategically targeted tariffs at key U.S. industries closely aligned with Trump’s base. That includes specific companies and sectors based in the Rust Belt, agriculture-heavy regions, and what are sometimes called the “flyover states.”Meanwhile, U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are expressing growing unease, confusion, frustration, and distrust. U.S. policy now increasingly prioritizes unilateral leverage—dictating terms rather than engaging in multilateral cooperation. This shift is straining, if not outright damaging, decades-old trade partnerships. I might even say “rupturing” would be a better word than “straining.”The risk is the fragmentation of the global trade architecture, which could usher in a new protectionist era. Not that the old system was perfect, but this would stifle innovation and slow economic growth. In Europe, that would be particularly damaging because innovation there is already constrained by excessive regulation—ranging from environmental and privacy standards to bureaucratic red tape and complex tax codes.Financial markets are reacting accordingly. Trump wanted volatility—well, he got it. Every major trade announcement is now followed by massive market swings. Investor anxiety over escalating trade wars is translating into currency fluctuations and capital flight.Jacobsen: So what does that mean for the U.S. dollar?Tsukerman: It means the dollar is no longer seen as reliably as it once was. When Americans travel abroad, everything becomes more expensive. And beyond tourism, Trump’s aggressive policies are actually helping to legitimize BRICS countries—especially China—in their efforts to push de-dollarization.I do not believe full de-dollarization is imminent, but Trump’s actions do encourage more international trade in non-dollar currencies. That undermines U.S. dollar dominance, which has long been a cornerstone of American economic power. Ironically, Trump favors a weak dollar because of his fixation on trade imbalances. He believes a weak dollar helps exports. But what he does not realize is that a strong dollar benefits everyone—including the United States.Credit rating agencies have not only voiced concern—they have downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in over a century. That is a serious red flag. Historically, the U.S. raised its debt ceiling without consequence, and credit agencies looked the other way. Why? Because the economy was stable, trade was reliable, and downturns were seen as temporary.Now, none of that can be assumed. The economy is shrinking, despite early growth projections under Biden. It could have continued on a stable trajectory—even under Trump—if he had simply left well enough alone. But instead, we are staring down the barrel of a recession. Possibly something worse.So, a combination of rapidly growing debt and the threat of a recession means a potential for default—or at the very least, unreliable economic projections. That is precisely why the U.S. credit rating was downgraded. This, of course, undermines investor confidence, which means the influx of foreign capital into the U.S. is unlikely to continue at previous levels. That only exacerbates the problems I mentioned earlier.When investors are not only refraining from contributing but actively fleeing for greener pastures, it becomes far more difficult to raise the debt ceiling, pay off existing debt, or guarantee the bonds being sold to cover the deficit. That makes everything worse.Essentially, these credit rating agencies are asking a fundamental question: are current U.S. fiscal and trade policies even sustainable?They are warning that persistent trade deficits—self-inflicted, by the way—combined with rising geopolitical tensions could significantly undermine the U.S. dollar’s reserve currency status. That means the dollar could become so unreliable that other countries might no longer feel compelled to peg their currencies to it. That would be a disaster.Cryptocurrency is not a full answer. It might be a partial solution for certain individuals or sectors, but not on a global scale—not yet, and certainly not for everyone at the same time.This all feeds into a much broader concern: the potential for a financial domino effect. Trade disruptions could trigger capital retrenchment from emerging markets, destabilizing currencies, shaking debt markets, and reducing global opportunities for trade expansion and economic growth.If emerging markets contract, they are no longer emerging—they stagnate or fail before they even develop. In that scenario, there are fewer safe havens or growth opportunities for global investors. It becomes a vicious cycle.Behind the scenes, lobbying and political pressure are further complicating the picture. Lobbyists are making a fortune right now. Every day, I hear about a new firm opening a D.C. office. Powerful industry groups and multinational corporations are being pulled in contradictory directions.Some are lobbying for open markets and trade liberalization to maximize growth. Others are advocating, somewhat paradoxically, for protectionism to guard intellectual property and national security interests.It may seem like some industries benefit from this, especially those deemed “critical” to national interests. But in the long term, they will not benefit either. If the broader economy collapses, those sectors may receive bailouts—but not at the same cost as functioning in a healthy, competitive, privatized marketplace.Jacobsen: So politicians are essentially stuck balancing deeply conflicting interests.Tsukerman: Exactly. They’re trying to weigh economic growth, national security, public pressure, and long-term viability all at once. And that raises a critical set of questions.To what extent are these trade restrictions actually effective in curbing China’s technological rise? Arguably, not much. Despite the sanctions and export controls, China continues to make significant progress in developing domestic production of increasingly advanced AI chips and other technologies.So, the strategic effectiveness of these measures remains debatable.They are also effectively deterring the U.S. from being as competitive by dominating the global rare earth minerals market. On top of that, their proficiency in industrial espionage—there’s really no better term—allows them to acquire critical components and technological plans despite trade restrictions. So, in practice, they are circumventing many of these limitations while boosting their presence in alternative markets.They were prepared for this trade war, dating all the way back to Trump’s first term. Since then, China has significantly diversified its economy by investing in Asia-Pacific countries and reducing its dependency on Western markets.Jacobsen: But are the economic costs worth the geopolitical gains?Tsukerman: Gains? What gains? The U.S. is becoming increasingly isolated. Europe is turning inward, especially when it comes to defense systems. This whole approach is stifling innovation and disrupting global supply chains.Just look at the facts: several major companies—including two automotive giants—have moved operations out of the United States. That is clearly not beneficial to the American economy.Jacobsen: So how resilient are U.S. allies to the collateral damage of Washington’s trade realignment?Tsukerman: That really depends on the country. Take Vietnam, for instance. They’re not particularly resilient, so they’ve tried to curry favor with Trump—offering to adopt Starlink and reportedly granting a Trump Tower development opportunity in exchange for tariff relief. Whether that will be enough—or just the first of many demands—remains to be seen.Other countries are walking away from negotiations entirely because the demands from the U.S. side are vague or seem arbitrary. Japan is one such case. They couldn’t figure out what the U.S. negotiation team actually wanted in terms of tariff terms, so they exited the talks. It’s almost comical—if it weren’t so serious.Jacobsen: So is there a looming risk that these overzealous policies could trigger unintended consequences, similar to the 2008 financial crisis—but with more complex international dimensions?Tsukerman: Arguably, yes. We are already moving in that direction. Of course, there are a range of scenario forecasts, and much depends on whether Trump maintains a consistent tariff framework.In the best-case scenario, targeted trade measures would be paired with renewed diplomatic efforts. That could result in a more stable form of managed competition—addressing real security concerns while preserving global market stability. Ideally, multilateral institutions would adapt, becoming more resilient and helping to mitigate economic fragmentation.But the more pessimistic—and frankly, more likely—scenario involves spiraling trade conflicts morphing into full-scale economic decoupling. Even in that worst-case path, it will take time, but the consequences would be enormous: fractured global supply chains, inflationary shocks, and severe damage to the U.S. dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency. And these trends are not theoretical—they are already visible.The fallout will not be contained within national borders. It will ripple across emerging markets, especially those heavily reliant on U.S. trade and investment. What we are witnessing is a precarious intersection of economic strategy and geopolitical ambition.While pursuing technological and strategic supremacy is a legitimate goal, it carries immense risks. Those risks require careful and sustained management. Otherwise, we may end up undermining the very global stability we claim to protect.Unfortunately, Trump is acting like a bull in a China shop—completely ignoring the broader consequences. And in doing so, he is achieving the opposite of what his administration claims to want.He is not isolating China by collaborating with a network of allies to impose consistent, coordinated measures that could restrict China’s foothold in key industries. He is doing the exact opposite. He is waging a trade war against the entire world, while China has taken full advantage of Trump’s erratic market behavior. They’ve recalibrated back to their original standards and continue to benefit from more stable markets in the Asia-Pacific region.Jacobsen: So who’s winning here?Tsukerman: Certainly not the United States.Jacobsen: Final question. Fitch Ratings affirmed the long-term foreign currency sovereign credit rating for Ukraine at “restricted default.” This continues to reflect strain on the nation’s finances, primarily due to the prolonged conflict with the Russian Federation. While there have been efforts to secure international support and build the economy, Ukraine continues to face revenue shortfalls and rising debt servicing costs. Any thoughts?Tsukerman: Yes. There is no sugarcoating it—Ukraine is in a precarious financial position.Part of the issue is that Western donors have overwhelmingly prioritized military aid and a minimal amount of urgent medical assistance, while largely neglecting financial investment. It is understandably difficult to invest in reconstruction or long-term infrastructure when there is still an active war, when the domestic political situation is chaotic, and when large parts of the country remain occupied.Ukraine cannot easily access many of its natural resources or key economic sectors. All of these factors create a fundamentally unstable environment. And let’s be clear—this economic strain is not just the result of the last three years of full-scale invasion. It stems from nearly a decade of partial occupation and hybrid warfare, all of which has taken a major toll on the country’s finances.Even in liberated areas, reconstruction remains an enormous challenge. The “restricted default” classification is technically nuanced, but it carries real consequences: it affects borrowing costs, investor confidence, and overall economic resilience. Ukraine is walking a tightrope between survival and recovery.In practical terms, what the “restricted default” rating means is that Ukraine has either missed a debt payment or has restructured its debt under terms that do not meet standard expectations from creditors—but it has not entered full-scale default. This is similar to what happened with Argentina not too long ago.It reflects a complex negotiation process between Ukraine, bondholders, multilateral lenders, and domestic stakeholders. It is a compromise—Ukraine essentially fought to ensure it would not be viewed as a fully defaulting debtor. But the heavy debt burden—exacerbated by military spending and massive infrastructure destruction—has limited its fiscal flexibility and complicated access to international capital markets.Ironically, none of this is Ukraine’s fault. Yet, it is being punished through credit downgrades and restricted access to funding, making it even harder to pay off its debt.Jacobsen: So where can Ukraine turn for the funds it needs?Tsukerman: If it cannot access international capital markets, options are extremely limited. Its key creditors include Western governments, international institutions such as the IMF, and private investors holding Eurobonds. Ukraine’s debt restructuring has focused on extending maturities and lowering interest burdens, but responses have been mixed.You cannot entirely blame the creditors—they fear throwing money into a bottomless pit. Some bondholders are frustrated by delayed payments and worry that Ukraine’s economic model depends too heavily on continued donor support instead of sustainable internal reforms.And hovering over all of this is persistent geopolitical risk from Russia’s ongoing aggression. That risk affects every projection and every financial decision related to Ukraine’s recovery. It is what it is. This is a legitimate risk. The war is not only draining public resources, but also deterring investment, disrupting trade routes, and increasing inflationary pressures.Cities like Mariupol and Kharkiv—the city I’m from, by the way—have suffered massive infrastructure devastation. I was there. It was a great city. But now it’s wrecked. They’ve started reconstructing parts of it, only for them to be hit again. The repeated attacks make any rebuilding effort extremely costly—and incredibly fragile. Every time you build something up, it gets blown up again. The costs are cumulative and crushing.Domestically, the government’s reform agenda—including anti-corruption initiatives, judicial independence, and greater transparency—is facing delays and political resistance. Nobody who’s already entrenched in corruption wants to see that system dismantled, right? This resistance undermines credibility with international partners.These internal governance challenges compound the external financial risks, making Ukraine’s credit rating even more volatile. There are real concerns about the government’s ability to maintain fiscal discipline during wartime. How realistic are their economic growth projections?President Zelensky has made the most optimistic case possible—and understandably so. He needs continued funding. But strictly speaking, given the scale of the challenges, is the best-case scenario even remotely realistic? Can reforms be accelerated to meet lenders’ expectations? And what is the likelihood of donor fatigue, especially as Western countries face their own economic pressures?In Europe, those pressures are quite significant. In the U.S., they are largely self-inflicted—but now also mounting. The U.S. has shifted away from a comprehensive aid model, allowing Ukraine to purchase weapons but not contributing significantly on a governmental level beyond that.Jacobsen: And how much do political changes in the U.S. and EU affect future aid?Tsukerman: Quite a lot. In the U.S., we already know that congressional dynamics are shifting. Congress is expected to turn blue next year, but depending on the size of the majority, they may still be unable to override a Trump veto on future aid packages—even if authorized by Congress.In Europe, we’re seeing some positive trends: pro-Russian politicians are losing ground in many countries—except the UK. But it’s too early to celebrate. Hungary, for example, won’t face elections until next year, and in the meantime, it remains a spoiler on several key issues, including aid to Ukraine.There are possible paths forward. In the most optimistic scenario, Ukraine successfully implements key reforms, receives sustained Western financial and military support, and gradually stabilizes both economically and territorially. This would allow Ukraine to improve debt servicing and recover its credit ratings over time. Such a scenario would also require a diplomatic breakthrough—an end to hostilities—and secured reconstruction funding.As I said, that is the optimistic scenario. It is unlikely to happen in full, but perhaps elements of it can be realized.Conversely, the more grim scenario involves prolonged conflict, escalating destruction, and shrinking donor appetite. This would push Ukraine toward full default or financial collapse. Unfortunately, that seems far more likely at the moment.Yes, European countries are increasing their military and general aid. But it is still nowhere near enough to address Ukraine’s full financial needs. If the situation deteriorates further, we risk triggering contagion effects across other emerging markets and deepening instability across the region.In other words, the consequences of this crisis could spill over into nearby European countries—not just affect Ukraine directly. The most plausible middle-ground scenario between the best and worst outcomes might involve cyclical bursts of aid and incremental reform—just enough to keep Ukraine afloat, but still in a fragile state. This would be highly sensitive to shocks from military setbacks or political instability and would require constant recalibration of fiscal and diplomatic strategies.This scenario is likely—but only if everyone involved gets their act together. And by “everyone,” I mean the Western world—excluding the United States, which, at this point, cannot be reliably counted on.That will require a lot of hard work. I’m not entirely sure where Europe stands on this. The “coalition of the willing” has not yet fully solidified. There’s been plenty of talk about internal security, defense reform, and regional coordination. But when it comes to Ukraine specifically, I have not yet seen the level of financial commitment required to make this middle scenario sustainable. The resources are there—it is not a matter of capacity. It is a matter of political will.So, while this is technically an economic issue, it is also a reflection of the larger challenges of war governance and international diplomacy. Managing this deeply complex nexus of financial, political, and military demands requires sophisticated, multi-front balancing. Without it, the region plunges deeper into crisis. So far, Ukraine has managed. But the challenges are real.
Tsukerman: 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): 2025/06/04
Jason Robinovitz, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of SCORE at the Top Learning Centers, SCORE Academy, and JRA Educational Consulting, transitioned from a successful law career to education leadership after a personal loss prompted reflection. Over sixteen years, he helped grow SCORE’s revenue by 500%, emphasizing individualized student learning, ethical practices, and strategic delegation. Robinovitz guides pre-law students, manages over 100 educators, and integrates technology thoughtfully to enhance education without losing personal connection. His future goals include opening 8–12 new schools with mission-driven investors. His leadership philosophy focuses on incremental improvements, customer-first service, and balancing nurturance with guidance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Jason Robinovitz. He serves as SCORE’s Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel at the Top Learning Centers, SCORE Academy, and JRA Educational Consulting. Over the past sixteen years, he has played a pivotal role in expanding the organization, achieving a 500% revenue increase. He oversees the daily operations of multiple centers, manages a team of approximately 100 educators, and is responsible for strategic decision-making in customer service, staffing, training, marketing, and technology. Jason’s legal expertise has been instrumental in managing major business negotiations, including multimillion-dollar leases.
He is actively involved in educational consulting, specializing in guiding pre-law and future law students through the application process and helping families find appropriate therapeutic placements for their children. He is a member of several professional associations, including the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA), the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), the Secondary School Admission Test Board (SSATB), and he is a founding member of the National Test Prep Association (NTPA). He is also the son of Judy Robinovitz, the founder of SCORE at the Top Learning Centers.
Jason holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA) with concentrations in Finance, Real Estate, and Leadership from the University of Denver. He earned his law degree from Emory University School of Law, where he focused on Business and Corporate Law. Before joining the family business, he practiced medical malpractice law for five years.
Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Jason Robinovitz: It is my pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: A natural question when someone makes a major career transition is: Why the change? What inspired you to move from practicing law to leading SCORE at the Top and working in educational consulting?
Robinovitz: I had been practicing law for about five years at a prominent personal injury law firm in Fort Lauderdale. Tragically, a friend of mine, with whom I had studied for the bar exam, died in a car accident. That loss prompted deep reflection, and I concluded I was unhappy. I did not enjoy my job. It did not bring joy, meaning, or fulfillment to my life. A week later, I quit and took a couple of months off to reflect.
Fortunately, I had savings that allowed me to take that time. During this period, my parents had scheduled their first major international vacation — a three-week trip to China. My father asked me to go to the office of SCORE at the Top several times a week to pick up the checks and manually run payroll, as everything was still done by hand. I agreed, and while doing it, I realized I enjoyed being involved in the business.
I had always known that I would eventually join the family business. After spending some time helping out at SCORE at the Top, I decided the time had come to transition fully into the business and work alongside my family.
I made it a permanent role and have been there ever since. Now, I love it. I get to do something meaningful — working with kids, inspiring them, helping them reach the next step in their education, and impacting their lives.
Jacobsen: How is the assistance for pre-law students, particularly in finding the right fit? Is there a different approach to that?
Robinovitz: I have the expertise and background. I am an attorney, so it certainly helps when speaking to students considering law school to help them figure out whether or not it is the right decision for them. Then, it becomes a matter of finding out what they want: where they want to be after they graduate, whether they are looking to practice in a specific state or pursue a specific type of law. Do they not know yet what they want to do? Where are they qualified to get into — whether it is the Top of the top schools or a more typical law school? I help them navigate all that and then guide them through the application process.
Jacobsen: Now, when you have a team of over 100 educators, how do you delegate? How do you strategize how you train, mentor, and assign tasks?
Robinovitz: Thankfully, I have a phenomenal leadership team. It is not just me. We have multiple locations. Each location has its own Head of School. Many places also have someone who oversees the Learning Center — all the tutoring and test prep. Then, I have a team that handles all of our consultations, matching clients to the right consultant on my staff.
I believe in hiring smart people, showing them what needs to be done, and then letting them figure out the most efficient and effective way. That management style has worked very well for me. Of course, we have made some missteps and hired the wrong people along the way, but it has worked out very well. My team right now is fantastic. I trust them implicitly. I do not micromanage them.
At this point, I function more as their problem-solver. When they encounter an issue or uncertainty, I help them work through the problem and find the best solution. My staff then manages their teams beneath them. Naturally, I also have relationships with many of those team members, but my department heads are the primary points of contact with the teachers and educators.
Jacobsen: Do you see leadership, in that sense, as not about how many decisions you make but about making a smaller number of high-quality choices that can then be delegated?
Robinovitz: Absolutely. I try to focus my time on the bigger questions — the company’s long-term growth. I do much long-term thinking. When problems arise, I work with the person responsible to help them find a solution. Or, if they bring a problem to me, I help them work through it.
Between myself and whoever I am speaking with, we usually reach the right solution by discussing it, asking good questions, and making thoughtful suggestions. Ultimately, it is always best if the person who has to live with the decision makes the final call. I rarely say, “Do not do that,” unless I am absolutely certain it is a no. No. That absolutely cannot happen. We usually come to a decision together.
Jacobsen: I have been thinking recently about balancing guidance and nurturance in education and leadership. How do you balance nurturance and guidance in your leadership style? Does personalized education reflect that same balance?
Robinovitz: There is a delicate balance between nurturing and guiding. How I manage my team ties directly to our company’s core tenets, which are built on individualization and customization. How I approach someone on my team and discuss something with them can be very different from how I approach someone else. Understanding their motivations, what drives them, and what is essential to them impacts how I communicate so that we can be effective.
There are some people with whom I need to be very direct and others with whom I need to be more subtle or diplomatic to make sure the message lands and sinks in. We take that same approach in our schools and learning centers. We meet every student where they are and work with them from there. We are not a McDonald’s — we are not a one-size-fits-all operation with a rigid procedure for every student. We take each student for who they are, understand their strengths, weaknesses, fears, and aspirations, and tailor everything around them so they are in the best possible position to learn.
Jacobsen: When you are achieving a 500% revenue growth over sixteen years, that can be framed as compounded success. It is less just a financial metric — though that is, of course, important — and more about understanding the business, knowing the needs of the customers or clientele, and systematically addressing those needs with the long term in mind. How do you achieve that?
Robinovitz: I am a big believer in putting the customer first. We have always focused on customer satisfaction and service, and on making incremental improvements yearly. Every year, we ask ourselves, “What can we do better? What can we improve upon?” and make those small changes.
You cannot change everything at once—Rome was not built in a day. But by being hands-on with our customers and consistently evaluating and refining what we do, we have grown. I am also a big believer in honesty.
One of the things I always tell my leadership team is that if somebody comes in wanting something, and what they want is not the right thing for them, we need to educate them, not just give them what they want, but give them what they need.
For example, if a student came into our school wanting a one-on-one educational setting but was on the severe end of the autism spectrum, an unscrupulous school might say, “Sure, we will take them,” and try to get as much tuition as possible. We would not do that. We would say, “This might not be the right place for you for these reasons: we do not have the proper professionals in place, our staff is not specifically trained to work with a student at that level,” and so on. Then, we recommend other schools that are better equipped to meet that student’s needs.
Similarly, if a student is not a good social fit for our environment, we will be honest about that, too. I do not want a student here who will not thrive, and I do not want a parent who will be unhappy with what we are doing. A reputation takes a lifetime to build and only a day to tear down.
Jacobsen: Please give us an idea of the range of student capabilities you see. You have decades of collective experience — in this case, sixteen years — and many students. Some will be comprehensively excellent — outstanding in their abilities, motivation, focus, discipline, and attitude — and others will naturally be the reverse. It is a Gaussian curve. What is the range of capabilities and capacities for those coming to you? How does that look realistically to give us a sense?
Robinovitz: In many ways, we look like any other mainstream school, just on a much smaller scale. We have our high achievers. We have sent several students to the Ivy League and other ultra-selective schools.
At the same time, I would not want to categorize any students as “low achievers.” We have students who struggle more academically, and we work to help them find their next step — whether that next step is a community college, a state college, the military, entering the workforce directly, or even taking more time to figure things out. Some will go on to traditional four-year colleges. We meet each student where they are and nurture them to the best of our ability.
We see the full range of students—those who are incredibly high-achieving and intrinsically motivated, and others who struggle with engagement or direction, despite having access to ample resources. In many cases, these students haven’t thrived in traditional environments with large class sizes and standardized expectations. What they need is a setting where they’re seen, heard, and supported as individuals. By creating highly personalized learning environments, we help them reconnect with their goals, rediscover a sense of purpose, and build confidence in their own abilities.
Our largest classes serve six students. It might go up to eight students for an art class, but essentially, we keep the groups small. You can tailor the experience — for example, a student who struggles in math and science can take those subjects one-on-one while doing English, history, and foreign language in a small group setting.
What we have seen is that kids today are craving attention. We live in an attention economy, and attention is constantly being pulled in a million different directions — usually toward phones and the ten apps that command attention: text messaging, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and so on. It is so easy to get lost in that.
You cannot get lost in our classrooms because they are so small. We can see everything. We can say, “Hey, Scott, I see you are not paying attention. Put your phone away. You are not supposed to have it out in class anyway.”
Jacobsen: What about the integration of technology for enhanced student learning? How can this be done right, and how can it be done wrong regarding the end goal of student development?
Robinovitz: I love technology. I am a technophile — a technology nerd. I am very into all of that stuff. But while I am into it, I am also very cognizant that technology can often be a distraction rather than an enhancement.
When we implement technology, we try to do it thoughtfully, maximizing student attention and minimizing distractions. If that cannot be done effectively, we will go back to more old-fashioned methods. The way I learned—and likely the way you learned—worked out pretty well. Sometimes, the oldest ways are the best ways, and other times, you supplement traditional methods with thoughtful, carefully chosen technological tools.
Jacobsen: This brings up a common point about education systems: there are fads. Sometimes, ideas catch fire and become viral in social media terms, and later evidence shows they might not be as substantial as initially believed — they were overhyped. What are some things that might be fads coming down the pipeline or are currently on the rise? And what are some that show genuine promise regarding newer adaptations, especially as we incorporate digital technology into education?
Robinovitz: A lot of the EdTech out there is faddish. Going back to the idea of technology, many people believe that technology can replace certain elements of education. I do not think that — at least, not broadly.
We can replace certain things with technology, but people often want to apply it to much more than is practical, mainly because if you can build a system that runs itself, it becomes a perpetual money machine. That incentive can lead to overextending technology’s role, where it really should not replace human interaction, personalization, and thoughtful teaching.
A ton of money from venture capitalists, private equity firms, and others is going into many different EdTech initiatives. I have seen a lot of it. It looks great — they put on a great show and sell you on why it works. But in practice, it is often not as great as it seems.
We will see things stick with AI. AI is not going anywhere. The biggest challenge that every school is facing now—and certainly will face in the future—is how to train students in the ethical use of AI. Students must understand that learning a subject well and then using AI to enhance their work becomes a powerful tool. But they will never be as strong if they rely solely on AI without understanding the subject matter.
In scenario A, two things work together: human understanding and AI enhancement. In scenario B, you only have AI, and at the end of the day, it is only as good as the AI itself. Now, superintelligence may come—and will come—it is just a matter of when. But even then, I believe the human brain is highly adaptable, and we will find ways to continue innovating.
At one point, when machinery first came out, people thought manual labour would disappear. Instead, it increased productivity, and people found new things to do. So, I am not a doomsday person when it comes to AI. But it is still something we have to be careful with.
Jacobsen: What is your advice for educational entrepreneurs regarding legal considerations when expanding their business?
Robinovitz: That makes sense. The most significant issues are compliance with FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) and state and local regulations.
If you are an attorney running an educational business, you must also be aware of additional duties and ethical responsibilities that may be imputed to you because of your status as an attorney. That is something you always have to be cognizant of.
One thing I’m always careful about — given my legal background — is maintaining a clear boundary between offering general insights and engaging in legal practice. Within our business, I don’t give legal advice to clients or families. If legal issues arise in conversation, I always advise them to consult their own counsel. It’s important to avoid any confusion about the nature of the relationship or the source of advice. That clarity protects everyone involved..
Otherwise, the primary concern is regulatory compliance within the industry, ensuring you are fully compliant. FERPA is probably the most important regulation to keep in mind. It deals with student privacy and student records, and it is crucial to protect those records.
Jacobsen: Regarding primary goals for SCORE at the Top and JRA Educational Consulting, what are your aims for the next five years? And how do you plan to achieve those goals in a targeted way?
Robinovitz: Over the next five years, I aim to open between eight and twelve new schools — some in Florida and others probably outside the state. I plan to do this by raising outside capital from individual investors who are genuinely concerned about the state of education and want to contribute to something meaningful. The goal isn’t just maximizing returns, it’s about aligning with people who believe in our mission and want to help us expand our impact. But just to be clear, this conversation is purely informational; it’s not an offer to sell securities.
The idea is not necessarily that every dollar invested must maximize returns, although that would be great. Instead, I want to raise funds from people who believe in our mission, vision, and model and want to expand it to reach more students nationwide.
Jacobsen: Jason, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was a pleasure to meet you.
Robinovitz: Thank you, Scott. Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03
Leena Weaver and Traci Glover, child mental health experts behind Healing Children, LLC. Drawing on over fifty years of combined experience, they explain how foundational developmental needs—such as emotional regulation, trust, and safe relationships—are increasingly disrupted by technology and trauma. The COVID-19 pandemic and excessive screen time have caused a two-year emotional lag in many children. Weaver and Glover emphasize balancing empathy with accountability, using trauma-informed, developmentally appropriate strategies. Their Healing Environment framework helps children progress through stalled stages of emotional growth, fostering resilience and maturity through consistent boundaries, adult attunement, and meaningful relational support.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Leena Weaver and Traci Glover, seasoned child mental health professionals with over fifty years of combined experience as school psychologists and counselors. Their organization, Healing Children, LLC, supports children’s emotional, behavioural, and psychological well-being.
They promote children’s mental health by offering practical tools rooted in neuroscience and trauma-informed care. Their Healing Environment framework emphasizes relationships, boundaries, empathy, and adult self-regulation to build resilience and foster healthy development. Leena and Traci are dedicated to equipping parents and educators with practical strategies for supporting children facing trauma, entitlement, and emotional dysregulation. Their expertise is shared through their blogs, podcasts, and professional consultation services.
Thank you so much for joining me today—I truly appreciate it. Drawing on your decades of school experience, what are children’s perennial, fundamental needs? And, with the rise of social media and the Internet, are there any newer needs that must be addressed—either by adding new supports or limiting specific influences?
Leena Weaver: Let’s take the first one and return to the second. Does that sound good? So, what do children need at a foundational level?
One key thing we emphasize with both children and educators is a developmental lens. We often reference models like Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development and other frameworks that describe how children build a sense of self and social-emotional maturity over time.
For example, children need to develop basic trust in their caregivers in infancy. This depends on consistent, nurturing care that meets physical and emotional needs. That early sense of security becomes the foundation for all later development.
As they move into toddlerhood and early childhood, children explore independence and learn about boundaries, emotional regulation, and develop cause and effect thinking. They start to recognize that while they are loved and valued, there are limits that keep them safe. These lessons are taught through relationships with emotionally attuned adults who model self-regulation and enforce boundaries calmly and consistently.
By the time they reach school age, children should ideally have experienced enough stability and attunement to view the world as a safe and predictable place where adults are trustworthy, and emotions can be named, understood, and managed. This foundation supports the development of resilience, self-control, and social competence.
In short, children need:
- Emotionally available caregivers
- Predictable and safe environments
- Clear, compassionate boundaries
- Adults who model and teach emotional regulation
- Developmentally appropriate expectations
All of this lays the groundwork for healthy development in both school and life.
These are the boundaries: we’re consistent with our follow-through. We have fun with our children. We spend time with them—that whole relational piece. And that relational piece also supports learning how to build relationships with peers.
It helps with language development, supports delayed gratification, and teaches one to wait for things. All of those are critical skills. Now, if you talk about technology entering parenting, these are the areas where we’re seeing concerns. One, kids are not having as many face-to-face interactions.
Children are not making eye contact with their parents because the parents are often on their devices. Eye contact is critical—for dopamine release which is the chemical that aids in bonding. That back-and-forth in relationships, the give-and-take, is missing. With video games, for instance, it’s all instant gratification. You don’t have to share. You don’t have to take turns.
Scott: Keep going, Leena. You’re doing great. But I’ll add that we also see parents and kids on their devices, which means they’re not interacting with each other or peers.
Weaver: Exactly. And without those peer interactions, kids are not learning essential social skills like compromise, cooperation, and working through conflict.
One of the things we’re seeing in schools with the increased use of technology is that kids—even those coming into kindergarten—do not know how to play with other children. They don’t know how to share or wait their turn.
Their emotional regulation is so underdeveloped that classrooms are being disrupted by extreme temper tantrums—outbursts that, developmentally, they should have been supported through at age two. At that age, with attuned parenting, children typically learn emotional regulation, how to accept the word “no,” and how to follow the rules with growing independence.
When we discuss teenagers and social media, we see even more issues. Teenagers are naturally supposed to take healthy risks—it is part of their developmental role.
Teens grow by taking risks—asking someone out on a date, trying out for a team, joining a play, pursuing an art competition, etc. —and these are all healthy risks. We want to encourage those.
What we want to discourage are unhealthy risks—like substance use or unsafe sexual behaviour. Those can be damaging. However, the overuse of technology and social media can lead kids to withdraw from real-world experiences that teach courage, social skills, and emotional resilience.
What we’re finding with social media is that kids are not getting together in person as much as they used to. It’s more screen time and less face-to-face interaction. They’re not taking the healthy social risks that naturally come with in-person conversations—like speaking spontaneously without being able to type it out, delete it, and rephrase it.
Because so much of communication now is filtered and edited, it removes those opportunities for social growth and confidence-building.
Kids are more hesitant to take healthy risks because everything can be recorded or captured in a photo or video. They fear that anything they do or say could be widely shared or used against them. So, the psychological cost of social interaction has increased.
That’s why, as parents, it’s essential to understand what our kids need emotionally in those early years—to help them build emotional regulation, trust, and a sense of safety. They need to experience healthy parental authority and learn what it means to do what is asked within age-appropriate boundaries. This sets them up to establish healthy boundaries with others later on.
And it starts with the basics: less screen time and more play. Parents must spend real time with their children—playing games, engaging in turn-taking and sharing, and building that relational foundation. That’s where social skills are learned.
Parents must have honest conversations about healthy technology use in the teenage years. I’m reading a book called Boundaries, written by a psychologists Drs. Henry Cloud and John Townsend. It includes an entire chapter on setting healthy boundaries with technology for adults and children.
It’s about teaching kids how to use technology as a tool for connection rather than disconnection. When tech is used to avoid uncomfortable situations or emotions, or as a substitute for authentic interaction, it often leads to more loneliness rather than less.
We’re seeing a rise in suicidal ideation, even among young children. When something goes wrong—social rejection, academic failure, or conflict—they sometimes go straight to the thought: “My life is over.” They lack the emotional skills to ride those waves.
Yes. They don’t realize that those are normal ups and downs of life. Social media portrays everything as perfect—everyone’s smiling, hands in the air, having a great time. So when they experience pain, they think something is wrong with them rather than understanding it as part of the human experience.
Jacobsen: So, if we’re looking at these developmental stages, and we’re seeing increased emotional dysregulation in children—impacting classroom environments—then this is not just an emotional concern, but an educational one. If a child is having a major outburst in the classroom, the entire class can lose a day of learning. That’s not just correlated—it’s directly connected to how much emotional development kids miss.
Especially in North America, where many of these apps, algorithms, and devices were adopted early and widely. How much emotional development are kids losing in these environments? And how much education are we losing simply because students cannot learn due to frequent emotional crises in class?
So how much emotional development are we losing—and then, how much education are we losing—in the children who are especially behind in emotional maturity?
Traci Glover: That’s such an interesting question.
Weaver: Children are about two years behind developmentally. And when you talk with teachers—and even in our work doing training with educators—that’s a consistent observation. I did a book study with my teachers, and the consensus was that kids are around two years behind, both academically and emotionally, but especially emotionally.
And that emotional delay has a direct impact on academics. You see five-year-olds acting like three-year-olds and fifth-graders behaving like third-graders. So, instead of fifth graders developing mature peer relationships and resolving conflicts, they’re still tattling, struggling to solve social problems, and lacking the self-regulation expected at that age.
From what we see in classrooms—and in the data we gather in our practice—there’s a strong pattern of emotional delay.
Some of that, of course, is due to COVID, but during the pandemic, most children were also immersed in electronic devices rather than social environments. That lack of real-world interaction stalled their emotional growth.
Academically, the picture is more complicated. COVID disrupted formal education in significant ways. We clearly lost several academic years depending on the age group and access to consistent learning. However, emotional development is a strong predictor of academic recovery.
Children with strong emotional regulation tend to have better frustration tolerance—they understand that learning involves effort and discomfort. They can work through setbacks and persevere. Those are the kids who tend to make better academic gains.
Glover: By contrast, in our emotionally disturbed programs, we often see kids who are two to three years behind academically because their emotional dysregulation disrupts their ability to engage in learning at all.
Many of those children have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and are classified as having emotional or behavioural disabilities. Some are placed in special programs, while others remain in general education with support.
What we found in one of our internal studies was that many of these kids had experienced trauma, and emotionally, they were stuck at the age when the trauma occurred. So you might have a 10-year-old who, emotionally, is functioning like a two-year-old. That’s the kind of behaviour we’re dealing with.
Weaver: If you zoom out, though, and look across the board—even outside special programs—you’ll see this same two-year developmental lag in most children, especially in schools that rely heavily on technology-based teaching post-COVID.
Jacobsen: So there are nuances in how that developmental gap appears—but you’re suggesting what amounts to a kind of flat emotional tariff—pardon the metaphor—a steady two-year lag across age levels?
And from what you’re saying, that gap starts early and… stays there. So, that raises the following question: at what point does this developmental “freezing” happen?
So, when you say a five-year-old is functioning like a three-year-old, and they’ve lost those two years—does that developmental lag stay unless it’s addressed? Or are there conditions under which kids can catch up?
Glover: Oh yes. Kids can catch up. Emotional development is highly responsive to the right interventions.
It starts with understanding development. You would think that, as educators, we’d all be great at applying developmental psychology—but in practice, we often forget. We teach it in our undergraduate and graduate programs, then enter the world of work and sometimes stop applying it as actively as we should.
Erik Erikson was clear: We all must move through each psychosocial stage. At every stage, we’re supposed to learn something important—we’re meant to develop a key skill or sense of self—and only then do we move on to the next stage.
If we don’t have supportive, caring adults around us—and if we don’t experience appropriate boundaries when we act out or engage in unhealthy behaviours—we stay stuck at that stage. We don’t move forward developmentally until the right supports are in place.
You can see this in adulthood, too. Leena and I have done exercises in our classes where we look at before-and-after interviews of celebrities who went through addiction and recovery. When you watch them during active addiction and then again in sobriety, it’s like watching two different people. There’s real developmental change.
That’s because substance abuse often freezes emotional development at the point when drug use begins. So if someone started using at age 15, they might still be emotionally functioning at that level—even into their 30s—until they start moving through those stages again in recovery.
So yes—people can progress, and they do every day. But if they don’t have boundaries around inappropriate behaviour, and they’re not receiving appropriate support, they’re unlikely to move forward developmentally.
That’s what we see in many of the children we work with—particularly those in emotionally disturbed programs or those receiving intensive behavioural support in schools. They are often developmentally stuck—emotionally operating well below their age.
But once they start receiving the appropriate boundaries and consistent support, you begin to see them move forward—they start progressing through Erikson’s stages again. You really can get stuck at any stage.
Weaver: For example, Erikson’s first stage is Trust vs. Mistrust, which is infancy. The core task is learning whether the world is safe and whether caregivers are reliable. If children don’t develop trust, they remain in mistrust, and their behaviours reflect that.
If I don’t trust the world or the people around me, I feel I have to protect myself—which might mean I lie, steal, or cheat. I’m operating from a mindset of “no one’s going to meet my needs but me.”
But if I learn to trust my caregiver, I move into the next stage: Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt. That’s toddlerhood. I start learning to care for myself a little—like toileting, choosing clothes, saying “no.” I began to understand that I was separate from my parents.
If autonomy develops within healthy boundaries, the child moves into Initiative vs. Doubt. That’s preschool age. Then later, around school age, it’s Industry vs. Inferiority. At that stage, the child should develop a sense of competence—that they can do things and succeed in the world.
But if they don’t reach that sense of industry, they can feel inferior—and then apathy starts to take hold. They stop trying. They give up. They disengage.
Erikson’s stages cover the lifespan—from birth until death. And yes, a person can get stuck at any stage.
We see it all the time. For example, we have children stuck on Trust vs. Mistrust and others stuck on Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt.
You also see adults stuck in the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage—the key developmental task of adolescence. Something may have happened at that point in their lives—trauma, instability, lack of support—and they never fully developed a stable sense of identity. So they stay in that confused, searching place, not knowing who they are or their role.
Some of the celebrities we’ve studied seem to be stuck in Industry vs. Inferiority. They constantly try to prove themselves because they never developed a secure sense of competence. And that drive for validation can sometimes mask deep feelings of inadequacy.
And then you have external factors that interfere with development—technology, drugs and alcohol, trauma, bullying, grief, divorce, even the death of a parent. All of these can cause someone to get stuck on a stage.
Yes, you can get stuck anywhere on the developmental path. Let’s take a child who’s emotionally two years behind. If they were supposed to be learning specific social skills in third grade, but they missed that due to COVID isolation, then they’re still displaying third-grade behaviours by fifth grade. That’s because they never had the chance to practice and internalize those skills when they mattered developmentally.
In Erikson’s model, you must master a stage before moving on to the next one. To give a more concrete example, kids learn basic things like sharing and taking turns in kindergarten and first grade.
Glover: By third and fourth grade, kids understand they can’t control their friends. They realize: “Even if I do everything right, my friends still have their minds and choices.” By reaching fifth and sixth grade, most children have accepted that reality and are working on more complex social skills, like navigating group dynamics, collaboration, and peer influence.
But we’re seeing now that fifth graders are still operating at a third-grade level—trying to control their peers, getting upset when their friends don’t comply, and struggling with basic autonomy in relationships.
Weaver: And that’s mainly due to the lack of social interaction during COVID and the continued reliance on technology, which doesn’t provide kids with face-to-face relational experiences.
Jacobsen: So it’s a delayed developmental effect. Devices are designed to be habit-forming—so even when COVID restrictions were lifted, the behavioural patterns continued.
So would you, as experts, expect a lagging curve? In other words, even though COVID has declined in prominence, the habitual tech use persists—and probably remains above baseline.
The algorithms behind many of these platforms are built to promote compulsive use—dopamine-driven design. So yes, COVID-19 created the context, but the technology created lasting habits.
Glover: We haven’t seen comprehensive data on long-term post-COVID screen use, but from what we observe in schools, kids are still using tech more than they did pre-pandemic—even if not at the same intensity as during lockdown.
That’s precisely what we’re seeing.
I do not hear about it quite as much now, but I think parents have become more aware of the concerns around technology. Do I still have kids who play video games? Sure, but it’s nothing like what it was in the early 2000s.
I’ve noticed some improvement in that area at my school, and part of it is that there’s now much more information available to parents. They’re learning how to set boundaries at home. That’s been my experience with technology. What about yours?
Weaver: I still work with kids who are highly, highly addicted to technology. A lot of it comes down to parent training. I was in a meeting not too long ago where we held a session with parents, and we provided the parent research on the addictive nature of tech. Her son struggles to socialize outside of talking about video games—he doesn’t know how to relate in other contexts.
That said, I’ve seen some hopeful signs recently. Our kindergartners this year came in with stronger social skills than we’ve seen in the past few years. And it’s because they were babies during COVID. So, by the time they reached kindergarten, they had had a couple of years post-lockdown for social development.
Glover: During the height of COVID, those children were infants—and they probably received more direct time with parents, especially if the parents were working from home. That may have resulted in more face-to-face interaction during those crucial early years.
So we might see better emotional regulation in that group—not because COVID had no effect, but because their developmental window overlapped with heightened parental involvement. Yes, but to be clear—we don’t have data on that yet. That’s just an observation and professional hypothesis at this point.
Jacobsen: Right—and even if it is just opinion, it is still expertise-based and, therefore, more likely to be accurate than random speculation.
Glover: We sometimes forget that kids have many needs. They’re a lot of work—but they’re also so much fun. They’re all different. But if we want to see them emotionally regulated, they must go through those developmental stages of maturity. The adults around them must know how to manage their emotions. Parenting is hard. Some kids are just harder than others. Some push buttons more. Temperament plays a role. Abilities vary.
That’s where Leena and I come in—when we’re working in schools—we emphasize that it truly takes a team. It does take a village. When dealing with significant behavioural challenges, we must work collaboratively with parents and school staff to develop the most effective plan.
Weaver: And I’m trying to think more specifically about your question regarding technology’s role in this dynamic. Some kids with the most frequent temper tantrums at school also spend much unsupervised time on technology at home. They haven’t learned emotional regulation, so we teach them those foundational skills at school.
We’re walking them through the temper tantrum stage at age seven or eight because they didn’t learn earlier that those behaviours won’t work to get what they want.
Unfortunately, when they go home, many are handed devices. Parents may not be seeing the tantrums at home because technology is being used as a behaviour management tool—a digital pacifier, in some cases.
Glover: I’m thinking of several current cases. At my school, we have many families where both parents work, or it’s a single-parent household, or the child lives with grandparents—sometimes because the parents are incarcerated or struggling with substance use.
And you see a broad spectrum. Even under challenging circumstances, some of those kids are incredibly sweet and resilient—primarily when the grandparents or guardians are engaged and set clear boundaries.
Others carry deep anger about what they’ve gone through—which is entirely understandable. However, they can still thrive if they have engaged adults at school who care about them and hold them accountable.
I had one student with major behavioural challenges and temper tantrums. He bounced between his parents—each taking turns being in jail—so his home life was precarious. But at school, he had structure, consistency, and adult support. He did well in high school, came back to visit us later, and thanked us for what we did for him.
So it’s not about having a perfect home environment. It’s about having at least one or two adults—at home or school—who genuinely care, set appropriate boundaries, and hold kids accountable for their behaviour.
In our Healing Environment framework, we use the “house” model. It helps us assess what the child already has in place, what’s missing, and what they need to move through these developmental stages.
When we put those pieces in place—consistent relationships, boundaries, empathy, accountability, etc.—we’ve seen kids make incredible progress.
Jacobsen: Would you say that socioeconomic status is a more significant factor? Or is it more about the stability and engagement of the parental unit—whether it’s a single parent, grandparents, or dual-income household?
Glover: You can have families with money; the kids are still a mess. If there’s no accountability, and the child’s every want is fulfilled without expectations, that can lead to profound immaturity. We’ve seen some of the most entitled kids come from high-income households, and they often have more behavioural problems than children from homes experiencing economic hardship.
Weaver: So it depends. Socioeconomic factors can matter if the family is in crisis because the entire system is in survival mode. In those cases, it’s harder for parents to meet emotional needs when they struggle to meet basic needs.
Glover: But as Leena said, we’ve seen just as many issues—or sometimes more—from privileged families, where entitlement, lack of boundaries, and lack of accountability lead to emotional immaturity.
Poverty can be traumatizing. Not knowing if there will be food on the table, not knowing if you’ll be able to stay in your home—those are enormous stressors for a child. And it’s even harder because kids can’t do anything about it. It’s completely out of their hands. Then, on top of that, they’re watching their parents struggle and feel stressed, which adds another emotional burden.
What’s interesting, though, is that sometimes those experiences can mature children. Some kids want to help and contribute, and in doing so, they develop a strong sense of responsibility.
But there’s also a flip side. Those kids can become parentified—meaning they take on adult roles too early. When they do become adults, they sometimes try to reclaim the childhood they missed. That can lead to difficulties like substance use or reckless behaviour.
So you can have parentified children who become incredibly responsible adults, holding jobs, maintaining marriages, and raising families. But you can also have parentified children who grow up with unresolved trauma and fall into destructive coping mechanisms. It depends. It’s complex.
People are complex. It’s never one-size-fits-all. But what’s important is recognizing that poverty is stressful and can profoundly affect children. That’s what schools need to understand so that we can meet those kids with empathy and support and help families access the resources they need.
Weaver: One thing Traci does well—and it’s so powerful—is helping kids find meaning in their struggles. She helps them reflect on their learning from difficult situations, supporting emotional maturity.
Finding purpose in adversity is a big part of resilience. If a child has a parent who is abusive or dealing with addiction, and the situation isn’t severe enough to trigger child protection services, we can still help that child learn something from it. What are you learning from this? How can you become a stronger, wiser, more self-aware adult?
Or, if a child is growing up in poverty, we can help them reflect on the strengths they’re building—resourcefulness, compassion, grit. When they start to see that what they’re going through now might help them later in life, it changes their narrative from hopelessness to growth.
To help them find meaning in their struggle, we adults must understand that the struggle is real. We must name, acknowledge, and help them process it.
Glover: I’ve worked with students whose parents struggled with addiction. When they go home, they don’t know what version of their parent they’ll get: someone angry and volatile or calm and affectionate. And sometimes the situation isn’t “bad enough” for CPS to intervene—it’s not overt abuse, but it’s precarious.
So these kids are learning how to navigate unpredictable relationships. And what they often don’t realize is that they’re gaining a skill that many of their peers won’t have to learn until adulthood.
We help them understand: Yes, what you’re going through is hard. But you’re also developing emotional tools that will serve you in the future. And that can be transformative. Because when you’re in that moment—when you’re just trying to survive—it’s easy for a child to believe: “My life is always going to be like this.”
And it’s not just about learning coping skills—it’s also about helping them see that they’re developing strengths that many of their peers, who grew up in more stable environments, might not even understand. That gives kids a sense of hope.
Yes, and that hope helps them mature. It gets them thinking: What am I going to do for myself? What kind of life do I want? How will I create that?
Because ultimately, kids are their own person. Regardless of their background, they will grow up and have to make decisions. They’ll make mistakes, and they’ll make some great choices, too. Our goal is for them to honestly know their strengths and weaknesses and how to navigate life effectively.
That way, they can hold a job, maintain healthy relationships, and build the kind of life they want. As a counselor, that’s what I’m aiming for.
Jacobsen: So, let’s say a child has been diagnosed with something, or you understand there’s an environmental trauma at play—like substance misuse, absentee parenting, or aggression. I grew up in a home with alcoholism. Eventually, my father left, and it became a single-parent household. There were moments of instability and conflict.
Yes, we see these types of developmental arcs all the time—how childhood experiences impact stress regulation, emotional responses, and even physiological patterns, like elevated cortisol levels.
These things often register below conscious awareness, but they still shape a child’s ability to handle stress. And I want to distinguish something: it’s one thing to understand a child’s trauma, but quite another to have that understanding harden into an identity. It can become a “trauma anchoring,” where the past becomes a perpetual excuse for current behaviour.
So how do you strike that balance—between acknowledging trauma and providing support, while still teaching accountability and consequences for behavior?
Weaver: One of the key things we teach in our classrooms is the difference between empathy and sympathy.
Because what you’ve described—where trauma becomes a blanket excuse—can happen when people mistake sympathy for empathy. Sympathy says: “Poor you, let me let this slide because you’ve suffered.” Empathy says: “What you’ve been through is awful, and I see you—but I still expect you to be accountable for your choices.”
Empathy says: “What you’ve been through is horrible and unfair—but I believe in you. I believe you can overcome it.” Sympathy, on the other hand, says: “It’s awful. I feel sorry for you so I will lower my expectations.”
One of the most important things we emphasize with educators and parents is maintaining expectations with understanding. Yes, they might need more support—like counseling or accommodations—but there still has to be accountability for behaviour. Support and accountability are not mutually exclusive.
Let me give you an example. I worked with a first-grade student whose story is heartbreaking. She was born while her mother was in jail, lived with her father until age four, and then was placed with her mother once she was released. Later, it came to light that the father had been sexually abusing her from infancy.
That child experienced extensive trauma—being removed from the only caregiver she knew, then sent to live with someone who was essentially a stranger, albeit her mother. She’s now in a more stable home with her mother and her mother’s partner, but the psychological impact of those early years was profound.
Naturally, she began lying, stealing, and cheating—because, from her perspective, she had to survive. That was how she protected herself. But shaming her wasn’t going to change anything. So we used a team-based approach to support her.
We read our children’s book with her (Raising Babies by Traci Glover and Leena Weaver). It uses animal characters to explore the difference between cared-for and neglected animals. That helped her begin to externalize her experience and reflect.
I told her, “For a child who has gone through what you’ve been through, lying, stealing, and cheating are normal behaviours. That’s how kids survive trauma. But if you continue to do these things, it will hurt your heart.”
And we explained that to her in a developmentally appropriate way—because she was in first grade. That language helped her understand that her actions, while once protective, were now hurting her emotionally.
She still believed that what her father did to her was her fault. She said, “I shouldn’t have let him do that to me.”
Glover: And that’s so common. Children almost always internalize blame for abuse or trauma.
Jacobsen: Is that partly due to ego diffusion or a lack of self-other differentiation? Does the child see the parent as an extension of themselves?
Weaver: It’s also what Bessel van der Kolk and others refer to when discussing the body keeping the score. The nervous system absorbs and mimics other people’s emotions. And developmentally, if you believe it’s your fault, then you can control it. That creates a kind of psychological safety—even if it’s not rational.
Glover: It’s also tied to the development of conscience. Kids are learning to internalize behaviour, which is necessary for moral and emotional growth. Taking responsibility is how we mature. But trauma, divorce, instability—these experiences can cause kids to over-internalize, meaning they take responsibility for things they shouldn’t.
That’s where counseling plays a key role. It helps kids learn what is their responsibility and what is someone else’s. That’s the boundary work we do in therapy.
Weaver: We worked on that exact concept with this particular child. I told her, “You were a baby. It wasn’t your fault.” That truth is going to take time to sink in.
Meanwhile, we set up her environment for success. We reduced opportunities to lie, steal, and cheat by structuring her world more tightly. And we paired that structure with clear, consistent consequences—not punishments, but natural and logical consequences.
It didn’t take long for her to progress. First, we increased communication with home so she knew that school and home talked daily. You can set up simple systems with schools to make this happen. The key was that she knew her parents and the school staff were aware of her behaviour and working together.
That added structure and boundaries were essential for her. She wasn’t ready for the same freedom as other first graders. For example, we ensured she wasn’t alone in the cubby area because, in those moments of isolation, she was more likely to steal.
We didn’t frame it as punishment. We framed it as: “What do you need to feel safe?” When she did steal—let’s say an eraser—her consequence was to bring back two erasers or to do something kind for the person. There was accountability, but it was done in a way that aligned with her trauma history.
Glover: That’s how we work with children who have trauma-based behaviours: we don’t lower expectations, but we tailor the support. Because here’s the key—she can’t heal from trauma if she’s allowed to engage in harmful behaviour without accountability.
If she learns she can manipulate the adults—even subconsciously—it sends a message that if her abuser returns, we wouldn’t be strong enough to protect her from the abuser because she was able to manipulate us. That’s not safe. She needs the adults in her life to be wise enough to set boundaries and sensitive enough to recognize that her behaviours stem from a painful experience. It’s that balance of empathy and accountability.
Weaver: When she sees that the adults around her are strong enough to keep her safe and that they believe she can meet appropriate expectations, she begins to feel secure. That’s when maturity and growth happen.
Glover: What we don’t want—and this is a growing concern—is for children to take on trauma as an identity. We’re hearing this more often from teenagers: “I’m depressed,” “I’m anxious,”—not, “I’m experiencing depression or anxiety.”That distinction matters.
Weaver: Yes, we want them to recognize their struggles, but we don’t want them to become the struggle. Because if that identity takes hold, they stay stuck.
Jacobsen: And that extends beyond youth. You see this in public life, too—when someone behaves poorly, and it becomes public discourse, the diagnosis gets used to excuse the behaviour. It’s not limited to first-person experiences.
Glover: It’s a societal pattern.
Jacobsen: Thank you both.
Weaver: Thank you—take care!
Glover: Have a great day!
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. 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): 2025/06/02
Dr. Jim Harter, Chief Scientist at Gallup, discusses global employee engagement trends. In 2024, engagement fell from 23% to 21%, costing an estimated $438 billion in lost productivity. Manager engagement dropped sharply, especially among young and female managers. Only 44% of managers receive formal training, highlighting a need for development in communication, recognition, and goal-setting. North America and Latin America lead engagement globally, though North America has declined. Global well-being also worsened, with thriving rates in Canada dropping from 73% to 53%. Harter emphasizes that engagement and well-being together impact retention and workplace performance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re joined by Dr. Jim Harter, Chief Scientist for Workplace Management and Well-being at Gallup.
Dr. Jim Harter: Thanks for having me.
Jacobsen: Dr. Harter has conducted over 1,000 studies on workplace effectiveness, including the largest ongoing meta-analysis of human potential and business team performance. His research has been featured in prominent publications such as Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. He’s also a best-selling author of several books, including 12: The Elements of Great Managing, Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements, Wellbeing at Work, and It’s the Manager, which he co-authored with Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton. Their most recent book, Culture Shock, examines the evolving workplace in the wake of the pandemic and the shift to remote and hybrid environments.
He earned his doctorate in psychological and cultural studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, focusing on quantitative and qualitative methods. For those unfamiliar, quantitative psychology is known for its rigorous statistical analysis, making it one of the more challenging doctoral tracks.
Harter: That’s right. It builds the foundation for our data-driven approach at Gallup.
Jacobsen: Let’s examine the data. What was the global employee engagement rate in 2024, and how did it compare to the previous year?
Harter: In 2024, the global employee engagement rate dropped from 23% to 21%, marking only the second decline since we began tracking it in 2009. This two-percentage-point decrease is significant, correlating with an estimated $438 billion in lost productivity worldwide.
Jacobsen: That’s substantial. Can you elaborate on how engagement levels impact productivity?
Harter: Certainly. Engagement reflects employees’ involvement and enthusiasm in their work. When employees are engaged, they put in more discretionary effort, which drives performance and productivity. When they’re disengaged, those contributions drop, and that can damage organizational outcomes.
Jacobsen: Are there specific groups where engagement has declined more sharply?
Harter: Yes. In 2024, engagement among managers dropped from 30% to 27%. Younger managers—those under 35—saw a five-point decline, while female managers saw a seven-point decline. This drop is especially concerning because managers account for about 70% of the variance in team engagement.
Jacobsen: With such significant impacts, what can organizations address declining engagement?
Harter: Organizations need to double down on manager development through training, coaching, and support. Managers need the right tools, clear expectations, and a culture that prioritizes well-being and performance. When managers are engaged, their teams are far more likely to be involved.
Jacobsen: The overall cost of a lack of engagement is about $9.6 trillion globally, correct?
Harter: That’s right. It’s essential to be clear about that number—it reflects the magnitude of lost productivity due to disengaged employees.
Jacobsen: But do we see predictable ups and downs in engagement year to year?
Harter: No, not really. Engagement trends don’t follow a predictable cycle. They depend almost entirely on what organizational leaders do—specifically, how well they equip managers to do their jobs effectively.
Jacobsen: What are the current challenges affecting manager engagement?
Harter: Right now, we’re seeing a significant issue with manager resiliency. Managers have a tremendous amount coming at them. Even before the recent shifts in the economy and workplace—much of it a continued aftershock of the pandemic—they already had heavy job demands. I can share some examples if you’d like, but the key point is this: the most significant causal factor in the drop in engagement is the drop in manager engagement.
Jacobsen: Why is that such a critical factor?
Harter: When managers are disengaged or uninspired, it’s difficult for them to inspire others. In other words, if your manager isn’t engaged, the employees will be unlikely to be involved. Engagement flows downward, which is why it’s so critical.
Jacobsen: Are all employee groups affected equally?
Harter: No. Not all workers—or groups—are impacted the same way. The most significant drop in engagement occurred among young managers and, in particular, female managers.
Jacobsen: What’s behind that trend?
Harter: When we look at why drops occur—why people become vulnerable to declines in engagement or well-being—it’s usually a compounding effect. Globally, women often carry substantial responsibilities both at work and home. Female managers, in particular, are balancing many competing demands. Then, you add all the workplace changes post-pandemic, and they feel the most impact. We saw a seven-point drop in engagement among female managers—the most significant decline across all groups.
But managers, in general, need to be highlighted here, too. They hold a uniquely critical position in every organization.
Jacobsen: How many managers have received formal management training?
Harter: Only 44% of managers globally report receiving formal management training. That’s surprising. It matters. The kind of training typically offered has historically been administrative in nature, which does help reduce active disengagement at the bottom. But if you want to boost engagement at the top end of the spectrum, move the needle, and you need different training.
Training focused on the people side of management—things like coaching, communication, recognition, and development—is where the opportunity lies. Our data from thousands of studies shows that if organizations want to significantly improve Manager and employee engagement, they need to upskill managers in these areas.
Jacobsen: That’s helpful context. And for readers, that might need parsing, but it’s key to a long-term engagement strategy. Some of our readers may not be dealing with this day-to-day. They may be speaking to various experts, and when you’re using your terminology, it must be translatable into more concrete terms. So, when we talk about upskilling at the personal level, what exactly does that mean—and what’s a practical example?
Harter: Great question. Upskilling a manager means giving them science-based insights into how they can effectively manage performance. It comes down to three key areas: employee engagement, performance management, and well-being. These three areas enable managers to have more frequent and meaningful conversations with their employees—conversations that help prevent minor issues from becoming larger ones.
The first area is setting clear expectations and involving employees in the process. When managers are skilled at collaboratively setting goals, everything else is much easier. The number one issue we’ve seen, particularly in the U.S. in recent years, is employees feeling unclear about what’s expected of them. There’s a lot coming at them, and without clarity, it’s easy to get overwhelmed. Managers who excel at clarifying goals and roles help reduce that ambiguity.
The second area is ongoing conversations. Our research strongly supports the idea that every Manager should have at least one meaningful weekly conversation with each employee. This doesn’t need to be a long meeting—15 to 30 minutes can be enough—but it needs to be substantive. These check-ins should include setting or adjusting goals, recognizing achievements, and helping employees understand how their work connects to the team and broader outcomes. These conversations also allow managers to know their employees’ strengths and tailor their support accordingly. We have tools that help managers do this more effectively.
The third area is accountability. Effective managers create a culture of high accountability where employees know how they’re performing. That accountability should focus on three things: their performance, their collaboration with the team, and the value they deliver to customers—whether those customers are internal or external. Everyone has a customer, and everyone should have a way of knowing how well they’re serving them.
So, good upskilling should address those three areas. When done right, this kind of development pulls together traditionally siloed areas—performance management, employee engagement, and individual well-being—into a unified and effective leadership approach.
Jacobsen: Which regions currently have the highest employee engagement, and what are they doing right?
Harter: The two regions tied for the highest employee engagement globally are the United States and Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. But to understand what’s working, you must drill down to the company level within those regions. That’s what we do at Gallup—we work with organizations to identify the leaders and understand what drives their success. It’s less about geography and more about what companies within those regions do intentionally to build strong cultures and excellent management practices.
Jacobsen: Northern America and Latin America/Caribbean are at the top in terms of engagement. But Northern America has seen a decline in recent years, right?
Harter: Yes, that’s correct. While engagement in those two regions—Northern America, Latin America, and the Caribbean—is currently the highest globally, it is important to note that engagement in Northern America has dropped recently. Engagement levels are only in the 30% range now, so it’s far from perfect.
Jacobsen: So it’s not just about geography, then?
Harter: Exactly. What is critical for people to understand, Scott, is that there is massive variation within geographies at the company level. Some companies are doing outstanding work—those are the ones hitting 70%+ engagement levels. And we’ve studied many of them across industries and regions.
So, the most significant driver is not geography or industry—it’s the organization itself. That said, certain cultural norms within different geographies may influence engagement levels somewhat. For example, how much emphasis society places on the importance of work can affect engagement norms.
Jacobsen: And economic context?
Harter: Yes, macroeconomic conditions can play a role, especially in levels of active disengagement. In healthier economies, where workers have more choices, you tend to see lower active disengagement. However, active disengagement increases in weaker economies, where people feel stuck in bad jobs with fewer alternatives. We’ve written about that before. These economic pressures mainly influence the lower end of the engagement spectrum.
Jacobsen: Let’s move to a country-specific example. India is the largest democracy in the world and, as of 2021, overtook China as the most populous country. How was employee engagement in India, and how did that affect South Asia?
Harter: India is a dominant force in South Asia, so what happens there significantly impacts the region. Engagement in India declined substantially in the most recent data. They had reached a peak in recent years, but that trend has now reversed. As a result, South Asia’s overall engagement also declined, which has ripple effects on the global engagement numbers.
Jacobsen: Understood. I know we’re nearing the end of our time. Do you have a few more minutes?
Harter: Sure, I can take a few more minutes.
Jacobsen: Great. I’ll let you choose: Do you want to discuss job market sentiment or employee well-being?
Harter: Let’s go with well-being.
Jacobsen: What percentage of employees reported thriving in 2024? And how does that compare to previous years?
Harter: Let me pull that up real quick… I had the report open here a moment ago.
Harter: The report provides specific numbers, but “thriving” is an especially interesting metric from a well-being perspective because its trajectory varies significantly by region.
For instance, the percentage of people thriving in the U.S. and Canada has dropped significantly over the years. In Canada, the thriving rate was once as high as 73%. Now it’s around 52%. In the U.S., the number has also declined from 60% down to 52%.
Globally, the percentage of people reporting they’re thriving is about 32%.
The two regions with the sharpest declines are the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These drops suggest that more people in those areas struggle with evaluating their overall lives.
Jacobsen: What about other well-being indicators like stress?
Harter: That’s a good question. We track a range of well-being indicators, and stress has increased significantly. For example, in Canada, the percentage of people reporting daily stress rose from 45% to 58%. That’s a substantial increase.
Anger has also gone up—by about four percentage points globally.
To clarify one earlier point, Canada’s thriving rate dropped from 73% to 53% between 2009 and today—a 20-point decline. The U.S. saw a similar drop, though not quite as steep.
Jacobsen: Those are significant changes in how people perceive their lives overall. How does this tie into employee retention and the job market?
Harter: That’s a key point, Scott. When people consider a job change, engagement—how they feel about their work—is central. But well-being plays a significant role, too.
When we consider engagement and well-being together, they have an additive effect on predicting whether someone intends to stay with their organization or leave. Even in a tight job market, where fewer people may be actively switching jobs, these psychological factors influence how employees show up and whether they’re committed to doing great work.
When the job market loosens again, those same psychological factors will shape how people perceive their organizations—whether they want to stay or go.
Jacobsen: So well-being is a cultural investment, not just a retention strategy.
Harter: Exactly. One of the most impactful improvements organizations can make is to take a holistic approach to supporting their employees—not just as workers but as people. I’m not saying managers should be life counsellors, but they should be equipped to have regular, meaningful conversations with their employees.
Managers can adapt and support more effectively by understanding what’s going on in people’s work lives. When employees are engaged but have low well-being, they often start looking for other jobs because their lives are not going well. High engagement helps, but it’s the whole picture that genuinely matters.
At the start of the report, every variable we measure—thriving, stress, engagement—is broken down by region.
Thanks for being so thorough, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. It was great to meet you.
Harter: Likewise. Nice to meet you, Scott. Take care.
Jacobsen: Bye.
Harter: 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): 2025/06/01
Eru Hiko-Tahuri is a New Zealand-based author, broadcaster, and cultural commentator of Ngāti Kahungunu descent. He is best known for his memoir Māori Boy Atheist, in which he recounts his personal journey from religious upbringing to atheism, reflecting on the intersections of Māori identity and belief systems . In addition to his writing, Hiko-Tahuri has worked as a radio broadcaster and is active in discussions around Māori language, culture, and secularism . His work often explores the complexities of navigating traditional Māori values within contemporary society. Eru Hiko-Tahuri shares that Māori culture defines a good man as one who cares for his family and community, emphasizing a holistic sense of support—emotional, financial, and protective. Leadership and elder status are earned through service and example, not simply age or title. Māori culture respects elders but values merit and balance between men’s and women’s roles. LGBTQ individuals historically held spiritual roles. Good parenting involves cultural transmission. Christianity has deeply influenced Māori beliefs, with syncretic Māori churches and translations like Te Paipera Tapu (The Sacred Bible). This shift to Christianity occurred rapidly from the late 18th century onward.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Māori culture describe a good man?
Eru Hiko-Tahuri: A good man is someone who looks after his family. It is really that simple.
Jacobsen: Now, the broadest and often Western—particularly Catholic—version of that idea is that a man provides financially. Does Māori culture emphasize the same or something more holistic?
Hiko-Tahuri: It is broader than that. Looking after your family includes the people around you—your community. That can be through financial support, physical protection, emotional presence—whatever is needed. That is what I would say.
Jacobsen: How does the community see that role? In some societies, men are given undue status—for example, a young man in a clerical collar might be treated with the authority of someone twice his age. Can you provide an example of when men are granted undue authority and when they are given rightful authority?
Hiko-Tahuri: I have not thought about that before—thanks for raising it. It can depend on the context. In Māori spaces, such as during hui (gatherings), men often lead public speaking. But that does not mean the women are absent or secondary. Each has a role, and these roles complement each other. The men’s roles do not exist in isolation from the women’s. There is a balance, and it is understood within the cultural framework.
Jacobsen: Regarding parenting roles, particularly for men, is it seen more as a privilege or a responsibility—or perhaps both?
Hiko-Tahuri: I do not know precisely how it is framed. I think it is just something you do—it is expected. It is part of being a decent human being and part of the community. Maybe that makes it both a responsibility and a privilege, but it is not always discussed in those terms.
Jacobsen: There is no question about it—you are either a parent or not. And if you are, then you try to be the best parent you can be. Are there deterrents from going against the norm of being a good parent?
Hiko-Tahuri: Not that I know of.
Jacobsen: Does this idea get built into Māori mythology at all? You mentioned the void or the nothingness. So, from that, as things flow forward and creation happens—is that somehow integrated into the founding mythology? I am just trying to think of examples.
Hiko-Tahuri: I guess it would have to be, in a way. But I can’t specifically say how without spending a couple of years thinking about it.
Jacobsen: Now, in North American Indigenous cultures, there is precedent for LGBTQ people—like the concept of Two-Spirit. You do not see that in traditional European culture, at least not in the same way. Of course, in contemporary Western European culture, LGBTQ identities are widely recognized and increasingly central to cultural discourse. But is there something akin to Two-Spirit in Māori history?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yep. Some people were considered different from the mainstream. Members of what we now call the LGBTQ+ community often became the spiritual guides of the people. Because they were different, everyone recognized that they saw the world differently. That gave them a special place in society, and we could learn from them. They would often become what we call tohunga—the spiritual specialists or priests of the iwi (tribes).
Jacobsen: What responsibilities are given to men who work their way up to higher strata in Māori society?
Hiko-Tahuri: Speaking rights, usually. They would be the ones looked to for guidance in community matters and would be given elder status.
Jacobsen: What complicates that in New Zealand is that those lines blur when living between two worlds. Most people live in the contemporary European system, but that status only sometimes translates when they cross into Māori contexts. It is not guaranteed to carry across both systems. I think contemporary North American culture has, to some extent, retained a decent amount of respect for elders, which many other cultures have lost.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah. We still show respect to our elders in Māori society. But I have also been the kind of person who says, “Well, you cannot earn mana before you deserve it.” So, I ask—do I need to respect you if I completely disagree with your statement? Maybe. But we can talk about that. Generally, though, yes, we show that respect.
Jacobsen: How is parenting viewed? What is considered good parenting, and what is regarded as bad parenting?
Hiko-Tahuri: I do not know if there is a single answer. Most of us try to do our best.
Jacobsen: What is considered good parenting in Māori culture?
Hiko-Tahuri: I do not know precisely what defines good parenting in a uniquely Māori sense. But I would say children should have some knowledge of their cultural background—they should know where they are from and what tribal group they belong to. It would be ideal if they knew some of the language. They should understand the cultural practices expected of Māori people and learn how to conduct themselves in those situations. Aside from all the general things that would be a big part of it, like not being a terrible person. You know, the fundamental values everyone would agree on.
Jacobsen: Historically—and generally speaking—many societies have grappled with what to do with their young men. Cultures create rituals, rules, taboos, or even superstitions to guide them. What are the cultural guardrails for young Māori men?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah, that is a difficult question. Let me think. The biggest thing we try to do is set the best example we can, which is often all we can do. Our cultural practices and way of life have been quite decimated over the last few hundred years. It is hard now to describe what a Māori view is compared to what we have had to adapt to just to navigate the modern world.
Jacobsen: How much have Christianity and the broader colonial enterprise influenced traditional Māori beliefs? I ask because, although you live in what is now a largely post-colonial and post-Christian society, it has certainly left an impact. In North America, for example, I have met Indigenous people—First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Native Americans—who identify as Christian but combine it with traditional beliefs in quite a syncretic way.
Hiko-Tahuri: Most definitely. That happens here, too. There are probably four fairly prominent Māori Christian churches.
Jacobsen: What does that mean in practice?
Hiko-Tahuri: Well, the language they use is Māori.
Jacobsen: So there’s a Māori Bible?
Hiko-Tahuri: Yes, it is written entirely in Māori. The first parts of it were translated around 1848.
Jacobsen: What do they call it?
Hiko-Tahuri: Te Paipera Tapu—the Sacred Bible.
Jacobsen: That’s interesting. Do they tell any of the stories differently?
Hiko-Tahuri: No, they are the same.
Jacobsen: What is the name of Jesus Christ in Māori?
Hiko-Tahuri: Ihu Karaiti.
Jacobsen: That sounds a bit more beautiful. I think it’s a better way to say the name.
Hiko-Tahuri: Yeah.
Jacobsen: So what are some of the other things? You mentioned the four Māori churches—what else? Do you have the Bible?
Hiko-Tahuri: Well, there are probably more than four. There are so many small Māori crossovers into Christianity. I could name four or five just in the local area that have popped up. There were also many Māori prophets at the time—young Māori men in the early 1800s whom Christian ministers brought up.
They read the Bible, reflected on it, and created their versions—sort of a spiritual cocktail, you might say. There were lots of those movements. The Bible had a huge influence here, especially from the 1800s to about 1950.
We went from 1769, when Captain Cook first arrived, to being about 90% Christian by 1890.
That’s a dramatic shift.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the your time, Eru.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/31
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman discuss the U.S. decision to ease some Syria sanctions via the Caesar Act waiver, influenced by regional diplomacy and economic interests. European allies express frustration over being sidelined. Trump’s inconsistent foreign policy, including business ties with the UAE, is contrasted with Europe’s unified push for accountability. Broader analysis includes Thailand and Vietnam’s strategic balancing, the Vatican’s more assertive stance under Pope Leo XIV on Ukraine, and criticism of Human Rights Watch’s selective scrutiny. They conclude with updates on Congo and Sudan, where international coordination is lacking, and a ceasefire proposal in Ukraine dismissed by Russia, with Trump offering little pushback. This interview took place on May 16, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s sources are Reuters, AP News, the United Nations, and Human Rights Watch, in no particular order. The United States has announced a plan to ease some sanctions on Syria. This decision involves using a waiver provision under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. The policy move is said to be influenced in part by regional diplomatic overtures, particularly from Saudi Arabia, and is aimed at facilitating post-war reconstruction and limited economic recovery in Syria. The U.S. Treasury Department is expected to issue general licenses for specific sectors essential to humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. Any comments?
Irina Tsukerman: While Saudi Arabia has reportedly encouraged regional reintegration of Syria, especially in the context of the Arab League, this particular U.S. policy does not appear to be directly driven by the Crown Prince himself. Instead, it reflects broader foreign policy calculations across multiple regional state actors. Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy establishment has increasingly emphasized pragmatic diplomacy and regional de-escalation, with less focus on ideological or sectarian alignment.
Though the Crown Prince has hosted recent regional summits involving Syria, he does not appear to be an enthusiastic proponent of Ahmed Al-Sharaa’s regime. Photographic and diplomatic evidence suggests a cautious and calculated approach in such interactions.
The move to issue sanctions waivers will likely be controversial. The Caesar Act is a U.S. law passed with bipartisan congressional support and is designed to penalize the government and not just any particular figure, so the Ahmed Al-Sharaa regime for war crimes and human rights violations. Any easing of sanctions will require close coordination with multiple U.S. agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Department of State. While the Treasury Department may act more quickly, the State Department could face political headwinds—particularly from legislators like Senator Marco Rubio, who have strongly opposed any rapprochement with the Ahmed Al-Sharaa government.
Initial diplomatic talks are reportedly being considered between U.S. State Department officials and representatives connected to the Syrian government, possibly in a neutral location such as Turkey. These talks likely include specific U.S. conditions, including political reforms, humanitarian guarantees, and commitments to international law. Verifying any agreement would be a significant hurdle, and the integrity of such a process remains uncertain.
There have been some private business deals involving high-profile figures or promises related to rare earth mineral access—Al-Sharaa direcrly proposed the deals.
European allies have expressed frustration over the decision. They are concerned both about being sidelined and about the potential normalization of a government responsible for mass atrocities. Several EU member states have called for a coordinated international approach that includes robust security assessments, human rights protections, and accountability mechanisms.
There have been reports that, under international pressure, the Syrian government has agreed to specific monitoring proposals to protect vulnerable communities. However, these commitments remain vague, and enforcement mechanisms are limited. Furthermore, ongoing violence and the lack of territorial control in parts of the country continue to undermine security.
A credible and transparent multilateral oversight framework would be necessary for any sanctions relief to be responsibly implemented. However, it remains unclear whether the current U.S. administration prioritizes multilateral engagement. While Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have expressed interest in facilitating economic investment and humanitarian aid, enforcement and accountability remain unresolved.
Meanwhile, Turkey remains a key regional player with a complex role—hosting millions of Syrian refugees, backing opposition elements in northern Syria, and maintaining strained relations with both Ahmed Al-Sharaa and Israel. Its actions could significantly influence the outcome of any regional diplomatic framework.
The evolving U.S. approach to Syria sanctions is fraught with geopolitical complexity, legal constraints, and significant uncertainty regarding outcomes and intent. While many Syrians and observers across the region greeted Trump’s announcement with optimism, it is likely to be far more challenging to implement than he realizes. He is making the announcement primarily for publicity and to win favour with business partners in Middle Eastern countries. But making a public statement is one thing; figuring out how the plan will work is another.
The Caesar sanctions are complex. In addition to them, other U.S. and international sanctions are in place. There is no clear announcement about whether these sanctions will be lifted all at once, whether they will be phased out incrementally, or whether each sanction will be tied to specific benchmarks related to Syria’s conduct.
Many people forget that the Caesar sanctions were designed to target specific types of behaviour, particularly war crimes and crimes against humanity, and not just individuals like Ahmed Al-Sharaa himself. While Al-Sharaa and his regime were the primary focus, the law is structured to pressure for systemic change.
Syria may be meeting some U.S. demands, but certainly not all of them. Reportedly, Trump has requested additional measures, including the expulsion of Palestinian militants and all other foreign fighters. That is a highly complicated demand because many of those fighters are personally connected to Ahmed Al-Sharaa and function as security guarantors for the regime. Some of those fighters did come under Assad, but other foreign fighters (not the Palestinian ones) were invited by Al-Sharaa, and that’s why it’s a problem for him to get rid of them. These are people he invited in, and in some cases, they have even been granted Syrian citizenship.
Once citizenship is granted, it is difficult to revoke it arbitrarily under international law. While Syria may prevent the entry of additional foreign fighters and attempt to increase border controls, with potential coordination from Iraq, removing those already present is another matter entirely. In practice, the expulsion of embedded foreign fighters is unlikely in the near term.
Trump may overlook some of these unresolved issues in exchange for the economic incentives the Gulf States and Syria proposed. That raises serious concerns, particularly given that the policy was announced before Syria demonstrated substantive compliance with international standards or U.S. demands.
This approach is reminiscent of awarding a “preemptive Nobel Prize,” which grants rewards for promises of future behaviour rather than measurable progress. Traditionally, significant and verifiable reforms precede any discussion of lifting sanctions.
Now that Trump has said he will proceed, bureaucratic infighting is expected to unfold among various departments and officials. However, Trump still has significant political influence. If he decides to override opposition—from figures like Senator Rubio or other institutional actors—he may do so through informal channels, incentives, or pressure tactics, potentially bypassing established legal procedures.
Jacobsen: Moving to the next topic, on the European front, the European Union is also considering easing sanctions on Syria. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas recently proposed relaxing certain sanctions, including those targeting the Commercial Bank of Syria, and allowing funding to flow to ministries tied to reconstruction and counterterrorism efforts.
Tsukerman: This is noteworthy because the European Union has long positioned itself as a guardian of human rights and democratic norms in Syria. It was among the strongest proponents of sanctions during the earlier phases of the conflict. While some Eastern European countries have taken a more pragmatic stance in recent years, others remained cautious—until recently.
It signalled a turning point when France welcomed Syrian representatives like Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad (not “Charam,” which appears to be a mistaken name). That initiative—seen as a form of quiet diplomacy—seems to have helped break the unified EU stance. France positioned itself as a mediator among the Gulf States, the EU, and the broader international community.
And the UK, despite its exit from the EU, was also unwilling to forgo the opportunity to reassert itself diplomatically in the region. In effect, many European leaders realized that if the United States was going to take aggressive steps toward re-engaging with Syria, they risked being sidelined unless they acted.
There are no reconstruction contracts, no ability to influence the situation, no counterterrorism input, and, most importantly, no opportunity to help resolve the refugee issue involving millions of displaced Syrians who may consider returning home if the situation stabilizes. That is the European Union’s strategic dilemma. As the United States moves forward, the EU follows suit, trying to secure its seat at the table.
Their motivations are clear: first, gaining investment opportunities and a chance to profit from reconstruction; second, playing a meaningful role in counterterrorism. European policymakers are concerned that if Syria is denied funding, even if Al-Sharaa cooperates within a counterterrorism framework, he may lack the resources to enforce it. In their view, the funding allows him to stabilize the region and manage jihadist networks.
The concern is that such support might result in Al-Sharaa “buying off” these networks, bribing them into temporary compliance. That is a deeply flawed and morally questionable approach, but one that some European actors may be willing to tolerate after years of ISIS-linked terrorist attacks across the continent.
This is where geopolitics meets brutal realism. It is not about endorsing Al-Sharaa but managing risks in a fragmented and dangerous landscape. From their standpoint, allowing Al-Sharaa access to reconstruction funds may be the lesser of several evils if it prevents a resurgence of violent extremism.
Jacobsen: Shifting to the U.S.–UAE economic agreements now—during President Trump’s latest Middle East tour, Gulf tour, which ironically diverged from his usual domestic golf outings on the public dime, he struck some significant business arrangements.
In particular, the United Arab Emirates agreed to purchase advanced AI semiconductors from American companies. Even more noteworthy, the UAE pledged to increase its investment in U.S. energy projects from $70 billion to $440 billion over the next decade. Do you have any thoughts?
Tsukerman: First, it is essential to note that the UAE is among the most pragmatic countries in the Gulf region—arguably the most. However, large numbers like $440 billion are aspirational. Signing such commitments during a favourable political climate is easy, but whether they materialize depends on future leadership.
If Trump leaves office in four years and the U.S. administration’s policies shift dramatically, the agreements may not be fully implemented. Technically, these deals are struck between nations and are meant to be upheld regardless of leadership changes. But in practice, continuity is not guaranteed. We have seen many trade and strategic agreements falter under new administrations—not just in the U.S. but globally.
Will the U.S. benefit from these agreements during Trump’s tenure? The answer is: only to the extent that the UAE perceives a direct, immediate benefit. For instance, the semiconductor deals will likely proceed. AI and advanced technology are top priorities for the UAE, and they are willing to spend heavily to secure their position as a regional tech leader.
For the U.S., this cooperation is a broader strategy for reducing the UAE’s technological reliance on China. Until recently, the UAE had maintained strong tech partnerships with Chinese firms, raising U.S. national security concerns. From the Biden administration to the Trump team, a surprisingly consistent push has been to curtail Chinese influence in sensitive technological sectors. Whether that pressure will continue to bear fruit remains to be seen.
The Trump and Biden administrations have stayed relatively on top of the AI chip issue. Not necessarily on top of everything else, but when it comes to advanced semiconductors, there has been a remarkable degree of consistency. Given their increasing importance to U.S. national security infrastructure, this emphasis is expected to continue regardless of who is in office.
Military and defence-related agreements are also likely to remain a high priority. However, there are already signs of congressional resistance—Senator Chris Murphy, for example, has signalled potential efforts to block certain deals. His concern is not solely about arms sales per se but rather the additional components tied to them, including investments by Emirati officials into Trump-linked cryptocurrency ventures. These ventures are widely seen as opaque, unregulated, and primarily designed to enrich Trump family members.
That kind of financial entanglement could slow the implementation of ongoing weapons sales. Other commercial investments are tied to UAE–U.S. cooperation, but much of their success will depend on follow-through. Many may remain on paper if the U.S. is not assertive in cultivating and enforcing the agreements. Some of the pledged funds may arrive eventually, but likely not quickly.
One troubling aspect of these deals is that they overwhelmingly favour a small group of top-tier U.S. companies. This concentration of benefits in the hands of a few well-connected players—many with close ties to Trump or his political allies—means the broader U.S. economy may see minimal impact. Small and medium-sized businesses, as well as innovative startups, are largely excluded from the windfall.
So, while these deals are not necessarily harmful, they are also not particularly helpful for the American public. They do not reflect the corruption seen in places like Qatar, but their structure and execution are likely to reinforce existing economic inequalities. The agreements could be seen as routine geopolitical arrangements—normal, understandable, and arguably beneficial in a narrow sense—but unlikely to deliver widespread domestic benefit.
In short, these are not transformative national agreements; they will make a few already powerful companies even wealthier, particularly those aligned with the Trump family’s business interests.
Jacobsen: Shifting focus slightly, let us talk about Vietnam and Thailand—regions we do not hear much about in the American press, particularly in places like the Pacific Northwest or the far Northeast. Yet they are quietly playing increasingly strategic roles.
Vietnam and Thailand have been enhancing their bilateral strategic partnership. Thailand has aligned more closely with Vietnam’s key international partners, namely the U.S., China, and Russia. This curious mix suggests an intentional strategy of playing all sides in a highly competitive geopolitical environment.
That partnership has grown in key sectors like defence, security cooperation, and politics, along with increased bilateral trade, which has now reached $25 billion. It is a delicate balancing act. Smaller economies like Thailand and Vietnam try to maximize leverage and independence by maintaining relationships with all major powers. Do you have any thoughts?
Tsukerman: The U.S., however, has not been particularly aggressive in engaging with these neutral or semi-aligned nations under any of the last three administrations—Trump, Biden, or Trump again. That leaves space for countries like China and Russia to build influence, especially when the U.S. does not offer a compelling alternative.
Even under President Obama, there was supposed to be a “pivot to Asia,” but that strategy never fully materialized. The Biden administration was more aggressive in engaging with the region, but it prioritized issues, such as climate change and energy transition, that were not always top concerns for countries like Thailand.
Thailand, in particular, focuses on pragmatic economic development and defence. China and Russia, by contrast, have never tried to impose those priorities. They have followed a simpler playbook: selling what they want, when they want.
Russia is primarily a weapons and energy exporter. China, meanwhile, has invested heavily throughout Southeast Asia. While a significant portion of Chinese investment has gone to Malaysia, a substantial amount has also flowed into Thai startups and infrastructure. In comparison, the U.S. has been relatively slow and uncompetitive. Its trade volume and foreign direct investment in Thailand are modest by regional standards.
Thailand sees the U.S. market as desirable, but with the current tariff environment and lack of comprehensive trade agreements, it is uncertain whether Thai products will be welcomed in the U.S. as they might have been in more favourable trade conditions.
The broader issue is that Thailand is pursuing defence and trade agreements with nearly every major player—China, Russia, and the U.S.. That strategy is advantageous for Thailand but undermines any coherent U.S. effort to build an anti-China bloc in the Indo-Pacific.
The Trump administration undermined its long-term strategy by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) without offering a viable replacement. That left a vacuum in regional economic leadership. If the U.S. is serious about countering China comprehensively—economically, militarily, and diplomatically—this is an opportunity to reevaluate whether isolationism serves national interests.
You cannot pursue a policy of economic nationalism while expecting other countries to align with your strategic vision. The inconsistency is exactly why Thailand can play all sides. The U.S. has not built the infrastructure necessary to contain or compete with Chinese investment drives across the region.
Jacobsen: This subsequent development is quite important. In religious news this week, Pope Leo XIV met with His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, at the Vatican. During the meeting, Shevchuk formally invited the Pope to visit Kyiv and presented him with a list of Ukrainian prisoners currently held by Russia. The Vatican continues to engage diplomatically, aiming to position itself as a neutral mediator in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Any general thoughts on the new Pope, especially in light of the Russian-Ukrainian war?
Tsukerman: Pope Leo XIV has been notably active in the papacy’s spiritual and diplomatic dimensions. He has referenced the principles established under the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), including a renewed emphasis on peace-building, dialogue, and interfaith diplomacy. His approach blends theological continuity with geopolitical urgency, especially in addressing the suffering caused by war in Ukraine. He seems determined to use the moral authority of the Holy See to promote negotiations, though whether any party will accept Vatican mediation remains to be seen.
The new Pope, Leo XIV, has already spoken about theological pilgrimages to Turkey and has been highly engaged from the outset from a political and moral standpoint. His very first international phone call was to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Now, by meeting with His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, he is sending a clear message about the Vatican’s priorities, especially regarding the protection of communities suffering under Russian aggression, including Christians.
The Catholic Church in Russia, as well as in territories currently occupied or invaded by Russian forces, has faced discrimination and persecution for decades. Catholics have never been particularly welcome in Russia, despite the presence of a significant Catholic minority. Other Christian denominations are also facing extreme pressure, both within Russia and in Ukraine, as a direct result of Russian actions.
This new dynamic marks a departure from Pope Francis’s approach. While Pope Francis often spoke of peace, his stance sometimes suggested that Ukraine should compromise or give in to Russian demands. He rarely, if ever, offered strong support for Christians affected by the Russian invasion. In contrast, Pope Leo XIV appears to be positioning the Church as an advocate for justice and accountability. There is growing anticipation that Ukraine will be one of the first countries the new pope visits. That would send a strong signal—not only to Russia and its allies, but also to the Trump administration, which has yet to prioritize a visit to Ukraine.
This shift also has potential implications for Vatican policy in other regions. Under Pope Francis, the Vatican pursued a controversial agreement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which many saw as a betrayal of Chinese Catholics who were forced into compliance with the state-controlled Church. It remains unclear whether Pope Leo XIV will continue this policy. His early actions suggest he may take a firmer stance on religious freedom.
He also appears committed to expanding interfaith dialogue, establishing deeper relationships with Jewish communities, and reinvigorating theological engagement. How this will evolve remains to be seen, but it is a promising start.
Jacobsen: Moving on—Human Rights Watch has released a report criticizing the British government for continuing to approve arms exports to Israel, despite ongoing concerns about potential violations of international law and the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The matter was brought before the UK High Court. Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: From a strictly pragmatic standpoint, this criticism is somewhat overblown. The volume of British arms exports to Israel is relatively small. The overwhelming majority of Israel’s weapons and defence systems come from the United States, not the United Kingdom. The British contribution is minimal, both financially and logistically.
So while Human Rights Watch may raise concerns about consistency in foreign policy or international legal standards, the actual scale of the UK’s involvement is marginal. The report does not reflect a substantive shift in the broader dynamics of arms flows to Israel. It may serve more as a symbolic critique than a report on a major humanitarian issue.
It is an entirely political position in that regard. Furthermore, I noticed that Human Rights Watch had nothing to say about Trump’s arms deals with Qatar, a country that is a well-documented human rights violator, both within its borders and in its funding or support of various extremist organizations globally. This kind of selective scrutiny reveals a lack of consistency, making it difficult to take some Human Rights Watch’s reports at face value.
That is not to say there are no legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy. For instance, allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza but then failing to implement measures to ensure Hamas does not divert or confiscate it is a flawed policy. It helps no one—not civilians in Gaza, not Israel, and not the broader international community.
That type of critique is valid and shared by many people who nonetheless support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, what Human Rights Watch appears to be arguing here is that Israel should not confront or engage terrorist organizations because it has made implementation errors in certain areas. That is not a tenable or coherent position.
Jacobsen: Now shifting focus—Africa does not receive much sustained coverage in North American media, at least not within the primary information flow. Yet, there are significant developments that deserve attention.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in collaboration with the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and Congolese security forces, successfully escorted 1,359 disarmed soldiers, police officers, and their families from Goma—a city with rebel presence—to the capital, Kinshasa. The operation aims to reunite displaced personnel with their families and de-escalate regional tensions.
Any such step is welcome, and it represents incremental progress. But is it a groundbreaking achievement?
Tsukerman: No. It is a tactical step that may help generate a more positive atmosphere but does not resolve the deeper, entrenched causes of conflict.
The underlying issues—ethnic tensions, resource disputes, political instability, and corruption—require long-term commitment and coordination. Right now, there does not appear to be sufficient political will, either domestically in the Congo or internationally, to pursue those long-term objectives seriously.
The U.S. has played a role in diffusing some high-level tensions between Rwanda and the DRC, but that does not address the core conflict dynamics. Addressing rebel movements requires a separate and sustained track involving diplomacy, intelligence-sharing, humanitarian investment, and economic development. That includes engagement not only with national governments but also with the communities most affected.
Given the corruption and governance issues in the DRC, especially in border regions, this will not be solved quickly. What is needed is a comprehensive, internationally coordinated framework of response. One that looks beyond reactive efforts and gets to the root causes: why armed groups continue to form, why people support them, and what systemic incentives allow violence to persist.
The focus should be on dismantling those root causes, not just reacting to the actors themselves. Without that, violence and instability will remain cyclical. Sudan is in an even more dire situation, yet it has received only a fraction of the global attention. The pattern of underreporting African crises while overemphasizing more politically charged conflicts elsewhere is all too familiar.
Jacobsen: We do not want this to get lost in the noise. The most significant development this week is the ceasefire proposal being ignored. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Andriy Sybiha, stated that Russia has completely disregarded a 30-day ceasefire, backed by European powers, proposed by Ukraine. The truce was intended to begin on May 12.
I am unsure what will come of this, but I hope the urgency catches on—there is a clear need for expedited action. Following this, European leaders, including those from France, Germany, Britain, and Poland, have urged the European Commission to draft a new package of massive sanctions, primarily targeting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. As with previous sanctions, the goal is to pressure Putin into agreeing to a ceasefire.
Any thoughts?
Tsukerman: Yes, it is unlikely to happen despite some rhetoric from various corners of the U.S. government about penalizing Russia if it fails to honour the ceasefire process. Trump has given Putin a pass for abandoning his proposals. Let us not forget: Putin initially suggested a top-level meeting in Istanbul. President Zelensky responded directly, saying he would meet him there. But instead, Putin downgraded the meeting to a lower-level delegation and then reportedly went to a restaurant. This was a provocation. This behaviour—last-minute reversals and low-level substitutes—is not just diplomatically unserious; it is performative. It is as if Putin is playing to an audience of one: Trump. He seems to care very little about the broader international community.
Trump’s response—that he would need to meet with Putin directly for Putin to agree to meet with Zelensky—is deeply concerning. It signals that the U.S. president is not serious about consequences for Russian violations. Any meaningful sanctions would have to come from Congress, and even then, it is unclear whether Trump would sign off on them.
After all the tough talk and grandstanding, it is becoming evident that the U.S. may not follow through. However, it is encouraging that Europe now seems united in its commitment to imposing long-overdue accountability measures. These sanctions should have been in place from the beginning. There was never a reason to give the Russian economy breathing room while it financed a brutal and unlawful war.
Jacobsen: All right, take care.
Tsukerman: You too. Have a good week.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/31
Seyfi Tomar, an independent scholar from Maras, Turkey, explores the intersections of Anatolian Alevism, Zoroastrian heritage, and pre-Islamic beliefs. He shares insights into rituals emphasizing peace, sacred elements like fire and the sun, and a moral code centred on good thoughts, words, and deeds. Tomar highlights the persecution of Zoroastrians in Turkey and the concealment of their identity, the syncretic nature of Alevism, and the value of spiritual integrity over religious conversion. Emphasizing tolerance, he advocates for a world where beliefs are not imposed, and all individuals flourish freely in their spiritual paths.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So Seyfi Tomar is an independent scholar and cultural researcher focused on the intersections of Anatolian Alevism, pre-Islamic belief systems, and Zoroastrian heritage. Born in Maras, Turkey, Tomar documents oral history, symbols, and rituals that connect contemporary Alevi practices to ancient spiritual traditions. His work explores identity, resistance, and sacred ecology through a multidisciplinary lens. Sebi is especially interested in the survival of esoteric knowledge under religious and political pressures, contributing to community dialogue and interfaith understanding. He presents at cultural forums and contributes essays that highlight the enduring legacy of Anatolia’s syncretic spiritual history. Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Tomar: Thank you for the interview.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the insight into Zoroastrianism. So, who was Zoroaster? For many enmeshed in some Western literature, people mostly know Zoroaster by the name Zarathustra, primarily from Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra.So, is there a relationship between these terms and who Zoroaster was in the original sense?
Tomar: Yes. Zoroaster, or Zarathustra in the Avestan language, was the founder of Zoroastrianism, one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions. Zoroastrianism originated in ancient Persia, likely around the 2nd millennium BCE, and emphasizes the worship of Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, along with principles like truth, righteousness, and the cosmic struggle between order and chaos.
Zoroastrianism, or Mazdayasna as it is known traditionally, is not officially banned in Turkey today. Still, it is not formally recognized or supported by the state. In Iran, it is a legally recognized minority religion, though historically, it faced severe persecution, especially after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century. During the Ottoman Empire, heterodox beliefs such as Alevism were often suppressed or marginalized.
Many of my ancestors, even after centuries, retained elements of Zoroastrian tradition, though often blended into Alevi practices. Alevism is a distinct syncretic tradition within Islam, especially in Turkey, incorporating Shia Islamic, Sufi, and possibly pre-Islamic elements, including influences that may resemble Zoroastrian customs—such as reverence for fire, the sun, and water—but it is essential to clarify that Alevism is not simply a continuation of Zoroastrianism.
Alevism varies significantly by region and community. For many, especially those critical of institutional religion, Alevism has become a spiritual or cultural refuge because it lacks rigid dogma: it does not require mosque attendance, five daily prayers, or strict fasting like Sunni Islam. Instead, it emphasizes internal morality, music (using the saz), and communal worship in clevis (Alevi gathering houses).
This openness may explain why people from different backgrounds—including, historically, some Armenian or Christian families—might have found refuge in Alevi communities and integrated elements of their heritage into local traditions. However, these integrations are complex and vary significantly by geography and historical circumstance.
My family’s traditions reflect Zoroastrian heritage. My parents and grandparents practiced rituals that echo Zoroastrian respect for natural elements, such as honouring the sun at dawn, cleansing the face with water while facing the sun, and treating fire with deep respect, never extinguishing it with water.
Although not strictly Zoroastrian in their current form, these practices suggest a syncretic spiritual lineage that preserves fragments of ancient belief systems within modern cultural frameworks like Alevism.
They have other ways of extinguishing fire. If you’re a firefighter, you wouldn’t be Zoroastrian in the traditional sense because Zoroastrians believe fire is sacred and should not be put out with water. That’s just something I remembered. They have to do it differently. And every house in my town had some symbol of a peacock, which also comes from traditions influenced by Zoroastrianism. We retain so many signs and symbolic elements. That’s what I want to share with you.
Jacobsen: When I used to work at a horse farm for about 27 months, it became a side project: a book of conversations with equestrians. The second volume is ongoing. The owners, one of whom had been on the Canadian Olympic show jumping team in 1984 and 1988, had a peacock fly into her deceased father’s yard, where they were living. That man brought McDonald’s to Canada and founded The Keg restaurant chain and the horse facility called Thunderbird, probably the second largest in Canada. They decided to take a road trip to Saskatchewan and picked up three more peacocks. They just said, “We’ll be gone for four days,” hitched up a trailer. I filled the three-horse trailer with shavings and timothy hay. They drove off and came back with three peacocks. So, if I had any introduction to Zoroastrianism, it was through three peacocks at a horse farm.
Tomar: And as I said, I cannot say all Alevis are Zoroastrian. Right now, there’s a genocide happening in Syria targeting the Alawites, or Nasiris, who are often grouped under broader categories like Alevis. But they are not the same. They are different sects, united mainly in opposition to Sunni orthodoxy, but their sources differ. Even within Turkey, Alevism is not homogenous. If you’re in cities like Sivas, closer to the Black Sea, the Alevis are more likely descendants of Armenians who survived by integrating. In my region, which is closer to Syria and Iran in the southeast, I believe many of us are descendants of Zoroastrians who survived by practicing under the cover of Anatolian Alevism. That’s why there are differences. When we hold large gatherings to discuss what Alevism is in Turkey, there’s always division because the roots of Alevism are diverse. It comes from many sources.
Jacobsen: What is the central message of the Gathas–the sacred hymns of Zoroastrianism?
Tomar: Ah, yes. The Gathas are the oldest part of the Zoroastrian scriptures, written in Old Avestan. The core message is about living in harmony with nature. We didn’t necessarily know we were following it consciously. We were never formally educated about Zoroastrianism. It was always viewed negatively and always prohibited. You couldn’t even say the name. In Turkey, from Prime Minister Erdoğan down to other officials, calling someone a “Zoroastrian” is an insult. It’s used as a slur. That’s how deep the repression goes.
Jacobsen: So there’s even a limitation in self-knowledge due to governmental repression?
Tomar: Absolutely. Right now, if you want to insult someone or accuse them of being evil, you call them a Zoroastrian. That’s how bad it is in Turkey. It means you’re the worst; you’re evil. That’s how they portray it.
Jacobsen: Would you say Turkey is the worst?
Tomar: No, I wouldn’t say that. Iran is probably worse. Turkey isn’t the worst. Syria and Turkey weren’t bad historically, but today, even Syria might be worse because there is either an Islamic regime or no functioning regime at all. That makes things more dangerous. Turkey may have been worse in the past. In the last 15 to 20 years, even though the term “Zoroastrian” is still used as an insult, Turkey has seen some changes. But generally, minorities like Armenians and Zoroastrians in Turkey are very self-disciplined. They hide their traditions. That’s why you don’t see them much in the media.
You know, probably in the beginning, when people opposed it, it made the news, and there were all kinds of court cases and controversies. Now, I don’t think there are many of those anymore.
Jacobsen: What are the roles of Asha and Druj in the moral framework of Zoroastrianism?
Tomar: Asha?
Jacobsen: Truth, order. Druj—falsehood, chaos.
Tomar: I don’t really know in detail because although we had those concepts, I never delved into them. I never had a strong interest in learning more formally. Whatever I absorbed was passed down from my parents, and that’s all I carried forward.
Jacobsen: One thing you mentioned earlier was the significance of fire. For example, in Zoroastrianism, someone wouldn’t become a firefighter because of the sacred status of fire. So, even if a person grows up with some foundational Zoroastrian theology when you live under a repressive regime, most people keep their spiritual practices private.
Tomar: Yes. Even today, our practice includes elders who can be either male or female, which is very different from many traditional religious leadership models. Our leaders can be female—and many of them are—and that’s already very different from what has been dominant over the past thousand years. We also create a circle. The circle is significant; everything begins with that shape.
Within that circle, everyone must be at peace. If someone has had a falling out with another, if someone has hurt another person, or if someone isn’t speaking to them, the circle cannot begin. Prayers cannot start until reconciliation happens. So, before anything else, the leader—male or female—ensures that everyone opens up, expresses what is in their heart, and makes peace with others.
Once peace is restored, the prayers begin, led by the elder. They move around the circle, asking about people’s everyday challenges, concerns, and personal matters. After that, there’s usually a communal movement—what you might describe as a kind of dance or turning—which is a part of the prayer ritual.
But in the beginning, the emphasis is on creating a shared space of peace and openness. Only then can the circle form and the prayer proceed. That has always been the structure in our village settings—it’s a communal tradition deeply tied to locality.
At the end of the ritual, we do something like a whirling movement. It’s similar to what people see in whirling dervishes, but it is not the same.
Jacobsen: Is it similar? Do you mean the whirling dervishes of the Mevlevi Sufi tradition?
Tomar: Yes, but ours is completely different. In our tradition—called Lerdrish—we never turn our back to the leader, who symbolizes the sun. She represents the sun, and we must always keep our face toward her. Even when we whirl, we are mindful not to turn our backs.
Additionally, our foreheads are directed toward the sun, or if we’re indoors or it’s cloudy, we look into our palms. The palms serve as a mirror. By looking into them, we reflect inward, we self-criticize, and we open ourselves emotionally and spiritually. That is part of the prayer.
So, although it may look like the whirling dervishes from the outside, it is entirely different in essence. Whirling dervishes may appear as if they’re in an altered state, spinning endlessly. Still, for us, every movement has a purpose. Every second of the ritual is intentional. As we move, we keep adjusting to ensure our faces remain aligned. It is a profoundly symbolic and disciplined practice.
As soon as you face the leader, you look into your palm as a symbolic mirror—looking inward, opening yourself up, and cleansing yourself emotionally and spiritually. So, it’s different from the whirling dervishes. Whirling dervishes often appear like someone in a trance, just turning and turning in a repetitive ritual. Ours is dynamic and constantly shifting. It’s not about zoning out; it’s about heightened awareness and internal reflection. These are the practices I’ve followed, witnessed, and participated in.
Jacobsen: When you see practices and rituals in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, how much do you think Zoroastrianism has influenced them?
Tomar: I think confession is one of the clearest examples. Islam doesn’t include a formal confessional ritual, but Christianity does. I believe the practice of confessing comes from Zoroastrianism. In our tradition, you must first confess to begin prayer and join the circle. That confession can be private but happens more often among friends, family, or those in the prayer circle. People admit how they may have harmed someone or if they’ve done something wrong. Everyone in the circle hears it and digests it. Only after that can the prayer begin. You cannot enter the sacred circle without making peace; confession is part of that peace. So yes, I think confession as a spiritual and communal practice has its roots in Zoroastrianism.
Jacobsen: How did Zoroastrianism function as a state religion during the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires?
Tomar: No idea.
Jacobsen: What does the triad “Good thoughts, good words, good deeds” mean?
Tomar: It’s about behaviour—how you govern yourself. You must behave with your hands, meaning you do not steal or harm others physically. You must behave with your tongue, meaning you don’t speak badly or swear, and you think before you speak. And you must behave with your belly. That’s harder to translate, but it means you respect the sexual boundaries and dignity of others. You don’t go after what belongs to others, sexually or otherwise.
It’s not like in certain interpretations of Islam, where polygamy is allowed and there’s a strong male-centred structure. In Zoroastrianism, there is no gender hierarchy in moral expectations. Respect for sexuality applies to both men and women equally. You have to respect your partner and not pursue others. It’s a form of moral discipline.
So again: behave your hands—do not steal; behave your tongue—speak with care and truth; behave your belly—respect others and yourself in intimate matters. Those are the three pillars we focus on, and they guide how we live.
Jacobsen: How are practices preserved among Parsi and Iranian Zoroastrian communities?
Tomar: I don’t know the difference between Parsis and Alevis in Turkey. I don’t know. We never interact. I know what I’ve experienced. At least, as we say them, the teachings come down to being mindful of your hand, waist, and tongue. That’s what it means—control your actions, your desires, and your words. Or, as it’s often translated, guard your behaviour, body, and speech. But in Turkish, the meaning feels different.
Jacobsen: What are the key festivals?
Tomar: Nauruz is one. Yes, Nauruz. We celebrated it yesterday. Other than Nauruz, I’m not sure.
Jacobsen: What about Sadeh or Mehregan?
Tomar: Maybe in Iran or other communities, but I don’t know in Turkey.
Jacobsen: What about environmental stewardship or reverence for nature?
Tomar: There is an extreme respect for nature. I don’t know exactly why or how, but my parents and people like them respected everything—from ants to cows. Every living being was treated with more care than in other religious or cultural settings in Turkey. I don’t know if it’s from Zoroastrianism, but they were highly mindful. They wouldn’t even kill a mosquito without hesitation. It’s deep, it’s sincere—it goes beyond usual respect. It feels like something more profound than just being kind. It’s almost sacred.
Jacobsen: Was there any influence on Freemasonry or Yezidism?
Tomar: Yezidism? I think it’s very similar. I don’t know all the differences or similarities, but I don’t think they’re that far apart. Still, I don’t know enough to say more. And in my area, we don’t have Yezidis, so I haven’t seen it personally. Maybe in other areas.
Jacobsen: How extensive were Zoroastrian communities before the Islamic conquests?
Tomar: Before the Islamic conquest, Zoroastrians were well-known and respected. It was practiced openly and freely. What I understand is that Zoroastrians are very different from other religions in one key way: they don’t care about spreading their religion. Every other religion seems to have a goal of expansion—to make the entire world adopt their beliefs. But with us, it doesn’t matter if my neighbour is Zoroastrian. We don’t try to convert anyone.
I’ve never seen a Zoroastrian try to convince a non-Zoroastrian to convert. There’s no attempt to proselytize. None of our ancestors taught us to do that. I think that’s the main difference. That’s also why the religion stayed small and marginalized—because it didn’t fight back with expansion. Meanwhile, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism all have missionary aspects, aiming to spread everywhere. I never understood why that is.
Jacobsen: What are key symbols you’ve noticed in Alevism or Zoroastrianism? Other than the peacock? The peacock, fire, and water—those are central. What else?
Tomar: I can’t think of other symbols off the top of my head, but I’m sure they exist in my life—I never think about them consciously.
Jacobsen: What about the sun and the earth?
Tomar: Oh yes, absolutely—the sun and the earth are central. Along with water and fire, they’re essential elements. We see them as part of the cosmic cycle—everything flows, everything returns. It’s all about circulation. That’s why we use the symbol of the circle. It’s not that we believe in reincarnation the way some religions do—where you die and come back as an animal or a human. We don’t think that. We believe you don’t indeed die—you transform into something else. And that’s why we respect the earth so profoundly. It’s a part of you. Your body, your self, becomes the earth again.
Jacobsen: What about the peacock angel—Tawûsê Melek?
Tomar: The Tawus? Do you mean the peacock angel? I’ve heard of it but don’t know much about it. Those more detailed theological elements—I can’t say because I never practiced in that specific way. It was a natural part of life, not something we studied academically or systematically.
Jacobsen: Can you describe a common ritual you participated in growing up or even now?
Tomar: I haven’t practiced much in Canada, but as a child, the rituals were very special. The village leader—often a woman—would come, and we would create a protective setup outside. Not for protection from outsiders, but more like making a sacred space. We would have twelve people, each with a task, watching the perimeter or handling responsibilities.
Then, the ritual began with confessions. Everyone had to confess their current emotional or interpersonal issues. Once everyone had opened up, the leader would make decisions or offer guidance. After that, the dancing would start. It would go on through the night. It was long, but it was beautiful and meaningful. I used to enjoy it so much.
Jacobsen: In other religions, like Catholicism or Sufism, there are sometimes rituals that involve substances—wine, incense, or even hashish in some mystical practices. Was there any of that in Zoroastrianism?
Tomar: None. Just water—always water. I don’t remember food or drink being part of it at all. No one even seemed to feel hungry or thirsty. It all flowed so smoothly. There was no alcohol, no substances. During the ritual, one person would walk around continuously serving water. That was their task—serving water to everyone all the time. After the ritual, people might drink or relax, but not during prayer. During prayer, it was pure.
Jacobsen: How was respect for elders observed?
Tomar: Respect for elders was extremely strong—but I think that’s true in many cultures and religions. I’m not sure if we were unique in that regard. But yes, deep respect was always shown.
Jacobsen: What about family lineage or customs tied to ancestry? In Islam, lineage is critical. Judaism has its genealogical traditions. Christianity, particularly in medieval Europe, also kept family records in church archives. Was there an emphasis on that in Zoroastrianism?
Tomar: No, I don’t understand that concept in our context. In Alevism and Islam, yes, there’s a focus on lineage. But in Zoroastrianism—at least as I knew it—the ritual leader wasn’t chosen based on bloodline. If someone was seen as worthy, they could take on the leadership role, even if they weren’t the daughter or son of the current leader. The leader decides who follows—not necessarily their child. It’s about merit, not inheritance.
Jacobsen: What about the Fravashi—the guardian spirits in Zoroastrian belief?
Tomar: I’m not sure. We may have something similar, but we probably call it differently. I don’t recognize the word, but the concept may exist in another form within our tradition.
Tomar: Yes. I don’t know a lot of these things. There’s much I’m not familiar with. You’re already more educated than me on some of this.
Jacobsen: What about veneration for the dead or end-of-life rites? And is it “Cem” rituals or “Sem” rituals?
Tomar: Ah, yes. Some rituals are called Cem rituals—spelled C-E-M. Those are our gatherings. I referred to earlier, where we dance, reflect, and face the symbolic sun. You look at your palm like a mirror. Your forehead turns toward the sun; you never turn your back on it or the leader who symbolizes it. That’s why I didn’t recognize the word earlier; it didn’t sound familiar at first when you pronounced it. But yes, Cem rituals are central to our practice.
Jacobsen: What about fasting? How much do you fast?
Tomar: I don’t fast at all. It’s just not part of my habits. Some do, however.
Jacobsen: In Alevi customs in Turkey, which parts of Zoroastrian life are practiced publicly, and which parts are kept private—especially under Erdoğan’s regime?
Tomar: Everything is kept private. No one says they’re Zoroastrian. Everyone says they’re Muslim. You are required to list your religion as “Muslim” on your ID. And this predates Erdoğan—it’s not new. It’s always been that way. Nothing changed. It’s the same system, the same repression.
More recently, Erdoğan removed the mandatory religious declaration from national ID cards, so you’re not forced to expose yourself openly anymore. But even so, if you are known in your village or community, they will label you Alevi—but no one, I mean no one, ever dares say openly they are Zoroastrian. I’ve never seen anyone with that kind of courage in Turkey.
Jacobsen: What kinds of slurs are used against people from your community in Turkey or Iran?
Tomar: The slurs… yes. People accuse us of all sorts of things. Because we pray with candles and don’t separate men and women during worship, they accuse us of group sex or other immoral behaviour. They slander us simply because we’re different. Our leadership can be male or female, and everything is family-oriented. But people twist that and use it to insult us.
I imagine it’s the same in Iran, though I’m not as familiar with the specifics there.
Jacobsen: And fasting—you mentioned something more spiritual. Could you elaborate?
Tomar: Yes. In our tradition, there’s fasting of silence or refraining from eating meat. But I never consciously practiced it formally. Maybe I was living it as a part of daily life. The only one I truly know is fasting in the form of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. That’s the one I’ve seen practiced and even used as a form of purification or discipline.
Someone might be asked to take time in silence, to eat less, or to purify their thoughts—not as punishment but as a way to reset spiritually. So yes, it’s less about food and more about purifying the mind. That emphasis on purifying one’s mentality was always central.
Jacobsen: We’re getting close to the end. What’s your big message—your central insight—from practicing within this tradition?
Tomar: My big message? No one should need to spread their beliefs or impose them on others. Zoroastrianism never taught us to do that. And, across all cultures and traditions, we should live that way. Let people live freely without trying to convert or dominate. That’s the core of how I try to live.
If you are Muslim, if you are Catholic, if you are Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative—why do you have to force other people to be like you? Let everybody be their colour, freedom, and flower. That’s where it comes from—Zarathustra. And that, I believe, is the best way to live.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Beautifully said. Thank you very much.
Tomar: Thank you, too.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/30
Fostering Healthy Masculinity in Our Kids: A Humanist Parenting Webinar
Tuesday, June 10 at 7:00 PM ET
Register on Zoom: https://bit.ly/JuneMasculinityAHA
Washington, DC—The American Humanist Association (AHA) proudly announces the next in the Humanist Parenting webinars: Fostering Healthy Masculinity in Our Kids. On Tuesday, June 10, at 7:00 PM ET, this event brings leading voices in progressive parenting and men’s health for a conversation on raising boys into emotionally intelligent and compassionate men.
Featured speakers include Dr. Jed Diamond, LCSW, a psychotherapist and internationally known author of work on men’s health, and Alastair Lichten, author of the Humanist Dad blog and a longtime advocate for secular education. This discussion explores outdated ideas of masculinity hindering emotional development and helping children thrive.
“As parents, we all want to raise kind, confident, emotionally healthy kids,” said Fish Stark, AHA Executive Director and webinar host. “Too often, boys are taught to suppress their feelings or equate vulnerability with weakness. This event is about rethinking those messages—and giving parents the tools to raise boys who embrace their full humanity.”
Whether raising toddlers or teens, the webinar provides valuable insight. It also gives practical advice on modelling and nurturing healthy masculinity from a humanist perspective.
This event showcases AHA’s commitment to supporting humanist families and caregivers. All webinars in the series are recorded and made available on the AHA’s Humanist Parenting YouTube Playlist. Additional resources are available via the Humanist Parenting channels on Discord.
About the Speakers:
Dr. Jed Diamond, a licensed psychotherapist and founder of MenAlive.com, holds a Ph.D. in International Health and a Master’s in Social Work. He has written 17 books—including Long Live Men!, The Irritable Male Syndrome and My Distant Dad. He contributes to leading media outlets around the world. In 2025, he will launch a new course series on Gender-Specific Medicine and Men’s Health.
Alastair Lichten, a progressive humanist parent and author of the Humanist Dad blog, led education campaigns at the UK’s National Secular Society for eight years and spent three years building community with Humanists UK. He previously volunteered with Camp Quest UK and now lives in Brighton with his family, continuing to write about parenting, relationships, and humanist values.
Media Contact:
Fish Stark
Executive Director, American Humanist Association
About the American Humanist Association:
The American Humanist Association advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists, atheists, and other nontheists. Since 1941, AHA has promoted humanist values through education, policy, and community. Learn more at americanhumanist.org.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/30
Melissa Bauknight, Founder and Chief Visionary of The Nova Global, transitioned from a successful medical sales career to entrepreneurship, building a community for soul-led women leaders. She emphasizes collaboration over competition, promoting relational, authentic, and purpose-driven leadership. Bauknight discusses balancing ambition with personal health, modelling soft strength through vulnerability, and supporting sustainable growth. Her work integrates nervous system training and AI tools to enhance efficiency and mission alignment. Through The Nova Global, Bauknight mentors women to trust their intuition, cultivate authentic leadership, and create meaningful, enduring businesses rooted in community and personal empowerment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Melissa Bauknight. Melissa Bauknight is the Founder and Chief Visionary of The Nova Global, a community empowering soul-led women to lead with authenticity and purpose. After a successful fifteen-year career in corporate medical sales, Melissa transitioned into entrepreneurship to create spaces where women thrive through collaboration, not competition. The Nova offers global and local “constellations” that foster deep connection, mentorship, and holistic success. A former top-ranked network marketing leader and certified Business Alignment Coach, Melissa blends strategy with soul to help women align their careers with their values. She has been featured in Authority Magazine and HappiFul for her insights on feminine leadership and community-driven growth. Thank you for joining me today. Why transition from corporate medical sales to founding The Nova Global? The money was not immediately better.
Melissa Bauknight: There was a transition period of about six years between my career in medical device sales and the launch of Nova Global. During this time, I experienced what I would describe as an awakening—a deepening of myself through personal growth, work, and exploration.
I truly loved my career, and I was successful. It is not a classic story of burnout or dissatisfaction leading to reinvention. Instead, it was a gradual evolution: I began identifying more deeply with personal passions and stepping into my next era of leadership—one grounded in ambition, service, and authenticity.
As I uncovered these new parts of myself, I felt a strong calling to turn what I was learning into ways to empower others. A pivotal step in this journey was working with Beautycounter, a mission-driven company in direct sales and advocacy. That experience taught me how deeply I care about aligning with meaningful missions and about the power of mobilizing communities to create systemic change.
All of these experiences fueled the vision for The Nova Global, which had been quietly forming inside me for years. While it is not — at least yet — as financially lucrative as my medical sales career, it is far more fulfilling. It is not about a money grab but about purpose-driven leadership and service.
Jacobsen: The emphasis on collaboration over competition really contrasts with the competitive nature of traditional market-driven sales environments. So, how do you re-envision leadership when reframing it as collaboration rather than competition? The first thing that comes to mind is that leadership becomes lateral and relational rather than vertical and hierarchical.
Bauknight: That is the future of leadership. It is less about “power over” and more about “power with.” When I look at what I have been able to accomplish in my life — and the capacity to have a vision as big as I have — the only reason I am able to execute it is because of the generosity of so many people who have been in similar businesses, both women and men, who have said, “I really believe in what you are doing. Let me open a door for you. Let me make an introduction for you.”
I am here to help other purpose-driven people fulfill their dreams. It is less about thinking, “We are the only organization that can do this,” and more about asking, “How do we reach across the table? How do we bring people into the fold?” So, we are less isolated, less siloed, less lonely — where people feel like they are bearing the burden of building their businesses alone — and instead come together to do it more efficiently, with more joy, more support, and a greater sense of being seen.
A lot of the things we do not normally associate with career growth—like having fun, listening to your body, and honouring your health—get lost in more traditional models. Traditional leadership often emphasizes grinding it out, ignoring body signals, powering through health issues, and even trampling over people to climb to the top.
I do not want to live that way, and I do not think most people do either. Collaborative leadership is a more joy-filled, love-filled, positive way of exerting influence, and nobody has to lose in the process.
Jacobsen: Many of these leadership styles can typically be framed economically, in terms of opportunity costs or trade-offs. What are the trade-offs when switching from competitive to collaborative leadership?
I should add a caveat: leadership effectiveness really depends on context. If the future you are referencing is one where collaborative approaches become more effective, what are the trade-offs as we transition into that period—where collaboration becomes more salient or pertinent than competition?
Bauknight: I can definitely speak to that, because I’ve lived it.
When you lead collaboratively—when you actually care about the whole human, not just their output—you are playing a longer game. And honestly, it can cost you in the short term. Sometimes you hold onto people longer than you should. Sometimes projects move slower because you’re making space for real conversations, real emotions, and real life happening behind the scenes.
It’s way messier than the old model of “just hit the number, just do your job.”
And if you’re someone who was trained to be fast, efficient, and results-driven (like I was), it can feel frustrating at times. Like, couldn’t we just move faster if we didn’t have to hold all of this?
But here’s the thing: people are done performing. They’re done compartmentalizing to survive at work. And if leaders don’t evolve to meet that, they’re going to lose their people—period.
So yes, there’s a short-term trade-off in terms of speed and maybe even productivity if you’re measuring it the old way. But the cost of not shifting is way bigger: turnover, disengagement, burnout, resentment, and ultimately, companies that become irrelevant because nobody wants to work for them anymore.
People will stay longer. They’ll care more. They’ll build with you instead of just working for you—if you’re willing to lead with more humanity and less control.
It’s slower at first. But it’s more sustainable. And honestly, it’s the only leadership model that’s going to work in the future we’re walking into.
Jacobsen: You are seeing this dynamic not necessarily directly commented on, but almost directly, in interactions that simply would not have happened before the 2020s.
For instance, you have prominent conservative corporate-branded journalists like Megyn Kelly having conversations with liberal online activist journalists like Ana Kasparian — discussing difficulties younger professional women are facing, like in dating life and professional balance.
I am not focusing specifically on the content of those conversations but more on what they suggest: a more profound cultural commentary and a search for a more balanced life while still pursuing professional aims.
Do you think that looking at the whole person and promoting collaborative leadership are aligned with the cultural shifts people like Ana and Megyn are pointing toward?
Bauknight: Yes, that is what we want. Speaking for myself, I carry a lot. I wear a lot of hats—I’m a mother, a business owner, a wife, a friend, a community leader—and that’s true for so many women I know.
And honestly? I don’t even know what “balance” means anymore.
If we’re defining balance as everything getting equal attention all the time, that’s just not real life. It’s completely unrealistic.
But what is real, and what we’re asking for, is the ability to manage what’s on our plates without completely losing ourselves in the process. Maybe even thrive while doing it, which, yes, feels like a lofty goal some days.
And that cannot happen when the scales are so far tipped in one direction. At a minimum, it has to include taking care of our personal health, right?
The truth is, the way we’ve been conditioned to lead, especially as women, is extremely sacrificial. It’s take care of everyone else first, and then if there’s anything left over, you might get a piece of it for yourself.
And that model is broken. It’s not sustainable. It’s not leadership, it’s martyrdom.
If we want to build careers, communities, and companies that last, we have to start leading differently. We have to look at the whole human: their health, their well-being, and their life beyond the quarterly goals.
Jacobsen: People in private typically go to leaders of organizations or people they know who have deep experience in a particular industry and share their concerns — younger people expressing their anxieties to older people. What have younger women aspiring to be leaders in different industries expressed to you about their anxieties?
Bauknight: One of the biggest things I hear from younger women is this deep desire to be seen.
It’s not always the first thing they say, but underneath their fears about career paths, leadership, or belonging, there’s this thread: Will I be accepted if I show up as my full self?
There is this “good girl” training we received, where we are taught that if we show certain parts of ourselves—if we are disruptive, too much, too big, too bold, if we use our voice—then we are bad, wrong, less-than, or not following the rules.
What I’m seeing now is a generational shift. Women in my age group—I’m in my forties—are the ones doing a lot of the heavy lifting of unlearning.
“Can I actually show up differently?”
“Can I bring compassion into leadership?”
“Can I make new rules around this?”
“Can I show my humanity and still be taken seriously?”
Younger women, though—they’re coming in with a different energy. They still feel the pressure to perform, to belong. But it’s not as deeply cemented yet. They’re quicker to question the system. They want work that feels meaningful. They want community. They don’t just want to climb a ladder, they want to build something worth climbing.
When younger women come into our community, they often say, “Wow, you are doing something disruptive. You left a very traditional path, and it is inspiring to imagine something else for myself.”
And that’s the beautiful thing: whether you’re 22 or 62, the questions women are asking now are remarkably similar. What if we could do it differently? What if we didn’t have to leave parts of ourselves behind to succeed?
Jacobsen: For two years, I did ethical and sustainable fashion journalism and spoke to a lot of business owners in that space. Most of them were small to medium-sized businesses. In that industry, you sometimes find a little bit of borderline “crystal” kind of stuff.
But broadly speaking, the premise was legitimate — sustainable sourcing and production of textiles, clothing, and garments. Most small and medium-sized businesses were women-led, regardless of where they were located globally.
If the emphasis is on collaboration rather than competition — so it is not so single-minded to the point where you need to take ketamine for depression — does that hurt the intensity of focus on the bottom line, even though the person is psychologically much healthier?
In other words, could it limit the scaling of the business? It might slow it down.
Bauknight: Yes, it can slow it down. And this is something I have had to personally reckon with in my own growth — sustainable growth versus being in a rush to meet certain goals.
Yes, it can slow scaling, but it depends on your priorities. I do not want to grow a company so quickly that we have a great run for five or ten years and then crash and burn because we cannot sustain what we built or because we failed to model our own values.
And I battle with it—of course. These are the financial goals we would like to meet for our family, our business, and our impact. But at the end of the day, what matters to me is building a legacy, not something that comes out hot and fast, is financially successful out of the gate, but lacks sustainability.
Jacobsen: There is a famous quote in philosophy: “All of Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato.” And I mention that because most commentary is not necessarily new if you dig a little deeper. The same is true for prototypes of leadership styles, too.
So, thinking about yourself leading an organization with a collaborative leadership style: who, from older generations — living or deceased — do you believe embodied some of those principles? A man or a woman who demonstrated a collaborative leadership style and contributed to a sustainable, legacy-based model?
Bauknight: Without diving too deeply into the second part about the economic model, one of the things I have been studying — and sitting in a circle with, personally — is what I would call the sacred feminine.
When we look back at how women have gathered since the beginning of time, we see that women were the temple keepers, the priestesses, and the wisdom keepers of communities. Women cared for each other’s families and supported each other in very communal ways.
So, instead of referencing a modern business figure, I see it as a remembrance — a return — to how we had always related to one another before systemic shifts altered those natural dynamics.
It is not new. It is ancient—an instinctual, natural way of being in community with one another. And that has been one of the most beautiful parts of this work: it feels natural and instinctual.
Bauknight: When you experience it, it feels like deep permission. You just know—this is how I want to do business, how I want to lead, how I want to live.
It creates a continuity across your whole life. It’s not, “Here’s how I show up in business, and here’s who I am at home.” It’s this is who I am, everywhere. That kind of leadership isn’t something you perform. It’s something you become.
Jacobsen: What is soft strength? You mentioned it. What is it?
Bauknight: Oh gosh. It is something I have worked hard to embody.
It is a vulnerability. I used to believe strength meant not showing what was actually going on — powering through, putting on an “everything’s fine” face, and getting the job done.
But from my personal experience, people value appropriate vulnerability — right? Not trauma dumping or oversharing, but being willing to say, “I am on the same playing field as you.” Yes, I am the founder of this organization, but I am also in life with you. I am navigating similar things.
Soft strength feels grounded. It feels rooted. It holds a presence in the room without needing to overpower it. It is not hierarchical — I do not need to control people — but I can still lead the space.
I can continue to build and expand my capacity to hold more while not overriding my intuition, vulnerability, and authenticity. I truly believe it is one of the most powerful forms of strength when you can have both strong leadership and real authenticity.
Jacobsen: I want to touch on authentic leadership and the use of these intelligent algorithms. A big topic for quite a while has been narcissism — the debate around whether narcissism is rising in American culture. Some argue it is growing; others argue it is not.
But one common point that many experts agree on is this: if narcissism is increasing, authenticity is an antidote. When you deal with authenticity, you are dealing with the authentic self — not a false or performative one.
So:
- How do you mentor or provide a space for women to lead authentically so they can make realistic judgments and build sustainable businesses?
- And second, how do you realistically and ethically use AI systems to help build a business without compromising those values?
Bauknight: When I think about mentoring women to lead authentically and build sustainable businesses, I look at how we gather, whether virtually or in person, as a practice field.
I was a competitive athlete—I played softball through college as a pitcher—and one thing I know is that building any real skill set takes practice. Authentic leadership isn’t different. You have to practice showing up differently, especially in spaces that feel safe enough to try, stumble, and try again.
So first and foremost, we model it.
At The Nova, we have specific values and ways of holding the room that allow women to see what authenticity actually looks, feels, and sounds like. It’s not just a concept—it’s a lived experience.
Recently, at our Denver chapter gathering, our local leader, Emily, was going through an incredibly tough season of life—and a particularly hard day. She called me right before the event, melting down. She said, “I literally can’t do it. I can’t hold space for everyone tonight.”
I told her, “I’m coming anyway—and I’ll lead it with you, or for you, whatever you need.”
She stayed. And what we modeled that night was something I’ll never forget. I didn’t share her personal story, but when the group arrived, I explained: “Normally I come to participate, to receive. But today, Emily asked for support—and so I’m here to lead alongside her.”
I made it clear: Emily’s need for support didn’t diminish her leadership one bit. In fact, it showed the strength it takes to ask for help. That kind of visible, real-time leadership modeling created a ripple effect. The number of women who came up afterward saying, “That was so powerful—to watch how you co-led and allowed her to just be where she was without judgment” was overwhelming.
This is what I believe: Authenticity isn’t something you tell people to be. It’s something you show them, over and over again. And then you give them safe places to practice it themselves.
We intentionally design our gatherings with that in mind—through curated conversations, specific questions, breakout groups, and group shares—so women can experience the safety of being seen exactly as they are.
Because real authenticity needs two things:
(1) To know you’re not alone in what you’re experiencing, and
(2) To feel safe enough, inside your body and your nervous system, to take the mask off.
We also bring in experts in nervous system regulation because safe space isn’t just an emotional idea—it’s biological. Authenticity can’t survive if you don’t feel safe in your body. Many of our facilitators are trained in neurosomatic work, helping women understand what’s happening inside their bodies, how to rewire old patterns, and how to actually feel safe holding new behaviors. It’s deep work, and it’s vital.
Then, pivoting to AI, this entire business has been built with AI’s help. I was actually coaching someone today on using AI for business growth, and I told them, “Think of it like a thought partner. It’s still garbage in, garbage out.”
If we’re talking specifically about ChatGPT — the main AI tool we use — the quality of what you get back entirely depends on the quality of what you put in. What it’s helped me do — and what it’s helped many of my clients and the business owners we work with — is stay firmly in our zones of genius.
Our business is only eighteen months old, but the amount we’ve been able to create and scale would blow most people’s minds. I truly believe that success comes from a few key things: we live by what we stand for, and we’ve leveraged AI to support our mission, not replace it.
We can now complete projects in hours that used to take weeks — sometimes even months. We can input our brand guidelines, our voice, our personal stories, and have AI help us create content that often turns out even better than what we could have manually pieced together under pressure.
The number of policies, procedures, templates, and event designs we’ve been able to refine has dramatically increased our creative flow. And still — we use our authentic voice. AI doesn’t replace that; it amplifies it.
Truthfully, AI has probably saved me over $100,000 in hiring costs. As a self-funded small business owner, I wouldn’t have been able to bring my vision to life at this scale without the support of a tool like this.
If you stay in your zone of genius — and, of course, we still hire people to do work that AI can’t — but if you use AI as a virtual assistant, a thought partner, or a brainstorming collaborator, the level of efficiency it allows is remarkable.
Honestly, I don’t think I would be as mentally stable today without it. And that’s giving it a lot of credit, but truly — when you consider everything I’m holding between business, family, and personal life — it has made me more efficient in every area: business operations, meal planning, vacation planning, kids’ birthday parties — you name it.
I can hop on, get what I need faster, and move forward more easily. AI has been an incredible support tool — one that’s allowed us to stay focused on our bigger mission while spending far less time slogging through the backend work.
Jacobsen: Final question. What are your favourite quotes by women, by leaders, or on women’s leadership?
Bauknight: Well, one of my favourite quotes is my own — and not to be arrogant — but I always say, “I have never met a confused woman.” I believe that we are taught not to trust ourselves.
One hundred percent of the time — and I have been in deep, vulnerable conversations, having been a business coach for eight years — when people say, “I do not know what to do next,” and when I dig deeper, they know with incredible specificity.
They can tell you the type of plant in the corner of their future office or what the person at the front desk looks like—they have that clarity inside them. We need to learn how to trust it. That is the only personal quote I love to share.
Another quote I love — and I had to look it up because it escaped me for a second — is:
“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
Jacobsen: It is a pretty good one.
Bauknight: Because it is true. When I first moved to Colorado — and did not know anyone — and took a big, bold leap, that was the first thing I purchased: a small bracelet with that quote on it.
And that is really how you get there — one tiny step at a time. Those micro-actions, those micro-steps, bring big visions to life. So, that one resonates with me.
Jacobsen: Melissa, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was nice to meet you.
Bauknight: Thank you, Scott. Cheers.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/29
Teresa Omondi-Adeitan, Deputy Executive Director of FAWE, discusses women’s leadership in Africa at CSW69. Despite international agreements like the Maputo Protocol mandating gender parity, implementation remains weak due to cultural and political resistance. Rwanda exemplifies deliberate leadership in women’s inclusion, but many nations lack enforcement. Economic arguments have proven effective in convincing male leaders of the benefits of gender equality. FAWE emphasizes early leadership training for girls and boys to normalize women’s leadership. Challenges persist, including campaign financing and election-related gender violence, but institutionalizing gender equity, rather than relying on individual leaders, is essential for lasting progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Name and title.
Teresa Omondi-Adeitan: My name is Teresa Omondi-Adeitan. I’m the Deputy Executive Director of the Forum for African Women Educationalists, commonly known as FAWE.
Jacobsen: Today, we are at the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW68), marking Beijing+30 and the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. It’s a significant year for these discussions.
Recently, we have seen political shifts, particularly within the American administration and among other political leaders, including autocrats, who view these developments as beneficial to their agendas. However, these changes are not favourable for women globally in terms of political representation, economic participation, and gender parity in general.
First, taking a broad perspective, what has been your major takeaway from this particular Commission compared to previous ones?
Omondi-Adeitan: This is an important commission because this year marks 30 years since the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. That conference is especially significant because it led to adopting the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which remains a comprehensive framework for advancing gender equality. Many of the women’s rights we enjoy today are based on that declaration and the commitments made by governments worldwide.
It is inspiring to walk into this conference and see some women present at the Beijing Conference still championing gender equality and pushing for advancements in political, economic, social, and cultural participation.
Being here during this conference is about evaluating our progress. How far have we come? Have we achieved the commitments made 30 years ago? Are we living up to the promises made by those who came before us?
At the same time, I have observed significant setbacks. Progress often feels like taking one step forward and two steps back. The question I keep asking is: What is going wrong? Why are we unable to sustain the gains we have made?
This conference has been particularly valuable because I have had the opportunity to hear perspectives from different countries. These discussions are shaping my thinking, especially as the Deputy Executive Director of FAWE. They are prompting me to reconsider our approaches and strategies for achieving and maintaining women’s rights.
Jacobsen: We just came from a session in the Church Center for the United Nations (CCUN) on the eighth floor. One thing that stood out was the striking similarity in shared stories. They were not identical, but regardless of the country or whether someone comes from a background of disability or not, the emotions and words used to describe the current situation were remarkably similar. There is a clear sense that we are in a period of pushback. When reflecting on that pushback in the context of FAWE’s programs, what are you considering for the sustainability of those programs and the efforts they advance?
Omondi-Adeitan: We discussed women’s participation in politics in the session we just attended. At FAWE, we recognize that early intervention is crucial. Too often, women are expected to run for political office or serve in public leadership roles without prior exposure to leadership experiences.
As an education-focused organization, we aim to empower girls and women through education in Africa. Leadership development must start early, equipping young girls with the skills, confidence, and knowledge necessary to step into leadership roles later in life.
We are using the education system to teach girls early on to become leaders. As early as five years old, a child can begin serving as a class prefect or class president, depending on the terminology used in different countries. They can already be given responsibilities in grade six or seven. By the time they reach grade nine, they may even lead a school as a school president.
This way, when they get to university and beyond, and someone approaches them with a leadership opportunity, they are ready because they have already gained experience. In many parts of Africa, particularly among women, leadership exposure often comes only after completing university. The common refrain has been, “Oh, but there is this position, but no women are interested.” It is not that women are uninterested, but rather that this is the first time they are told they can lead. Too often, they are quickly processed or hastily trained for leadership at the last moment.
At FAWE, we aim to change this by creating a pool of young women prepared for leadership roles from an early age. It can be as simple as being a class monitor responsible for taking books to the teacher for marking, leading the Girl Guides in school, or heading the debate club. These small responsibilities help normalize leadership so that when greateropportunities arise, it is neither a surprise nor an overwhelming challenge. Our approach within the education sector is to embed leadership training early, ensuring that young women are already equipped with the necessary skills when they enter public life.
We hope this will increase the number of women willing to enter public leadership. When young girls start experiencing criticism early on, they become more resilient. By the time they face the more intense scrutiny that comes with public leadership, they will have already toughened up and know what to expect.
Jacobsen: One critical aspect of leadership is skill-building. In a session I attended a few days ago, a European delegate noted that women are often over-mentored but underprovided with opportunities in their cultural context. They receive extensive guidance but are not given the actual chance to lead. The question then becomes: How do we balance early leadership opportunities with continued mentorship so that young women receive training and have real platforms to exercise their skills?
Omondi-Adeitan: There are two primary public spaces for leadership. One is within government institutions, such as serving as a minister, a permanent secretary, or a leader in a state-owned corporation. This type of leadership does not require substantial financial resources but depends on skills, positioning, and opportunities. However, the most persistent challenge remains political leadership. We all know that running for office requires resources, and that is where many women face significant barriers.
There is bribery, issues of positioning, and many other challenges. Women often lack the financial resources needed to run effective campaigns, leading to what some call being “over-skilled.” These women have the expertise and are mentors, but they cannot afford a campaign tracker, campaign T-shirts, or television advertisements to promote their candidacy. I have heard this concern repeatedly.
At the same time, development partners who advocate for women in leadership are often unwilling to fund essential campaign expenses, such as fuel for campaign vehicles, advertising costs, or campaign materials like T-shirts. I have worked in contexts where we had to be creative with available resources. If a development partner provides funding for a workshop to train women instead of only producing standard information, education, and communication (IEC) materials, we can also use that opportunity to create campaign T-shirts. This is simply the reality of the political landscape—while it is possible to tell women that they do not need T-shirts to campaign, their male counterparts will be everywhere with banners, posters, and branded materials. Women candidates cannot afford to be left behind in visibility.
This is how we are innovative with development partner funding while organizing efforts to secure direct campaign financing. Running a political campaign is extremely expensive in Africa. In theory, Campaign finance regulations exist but are among the least enforced. There are legal limits on campaign spending, but these limits are routinely ignored, and little is done to address violations, especially during election periods.
Beyond financial barriers, women also face election-related gender-based violence. During campaign seasons, women struggle the most to access financial support and campaign platforms. It is also the time when they are reminded of their family roles and their supposed “feminine nature,” often as a tactic to discourage them from running. Even when a woman has the opportunity to stand as a candidate, she must also navigate these societal pressures and cultural barriers.
I completely understand and agree with women who say they feel over-skilled but lack the resources to compete effectively.
Jacobsen: It is like football—one may have the skills to play, but if they are competing against a team that has proper gear, including socks, boots, and training facilities, while they have none, it will never be a fair competition. It is a bit like a Tom Brady situation—being highly skilled but unable to access the necessary resources, forcing one to take work elsewhere, like at T-Mobile.
One of the most surprising things I learned from that session was that Africa has both the lowest and the highest rates of political participation among women. The variance in participation across the continent is striking. Why is that?
Omondi-Adeitan: The type of leadership and the deliberate efforts of those in power play a critical role. Rwanda, for example, constantly sets the benchmark for Africa, as it has the highest percentage of women in parliament worldwide. However, this is not just about numbers—it is about the type of leadership and the purposeful, deliberate inclusion of women. President Paul Kagame has intentionally integrated women into leadership at all levels. His approach is strategic, from appointing women to his cabinet to ensuring strong female representation in parliament and public office.
Finding similarly deliberate leaders across Africa remains a challenge. Why is this level of intention necessary? The answer lies in deep-seated socio-cultural norms. Many African societies have long been structured around male dominance in leadership. If a male leader is already in power, it often requires significant resources to shift his perception before he can even consider appointing women to his cabinet or other leadership positions. Research has confirmed that Rwanda’s success is not just about having policies—it is about the political will of the country’s leadership to implement those policies.
Most African nations have policies mandating at least 30% female representation in government. However, implementation is inconsistent. Achieving gender parity requires a deliberate commitment from the highest levels of leadership. Without strong political will, these quotas remain theoretical rather than practical.
Jacobsen: Which country has the lowest level of political participation, and what is the key factor behind it?
Omondi-Adeitan: The biggest factor is cultural and religious influence. In some regions, religion plays a major role in shaping leadership norms. Certain interpretations of religious doctrines, whether in Islam or Christianity, reinforce the belief that women should not hold leadership positions.
For example, countries with dominant Islamic or Catholic populations tend to have lower female political participation. However, the extent of women’s exclusion depends on how religion and culture intersect in different societies. It is not about the faith but how leadership roles are perceived within these religious frameworks.
I know of a community in Kenya where male leaders formally convened a conference and collectively declared that their culture does not permit women to lead. They refused to support a female candidate, not because she lacked qualifications, but because leadership had always been seen as a male role. They eventually accepted a woman in office because the law required them to elect a female representative. So, what happens in such situations?
Continuous sensitization and engagement are necessary for young people because their perceptions are already shifting. They are growing up in a slightly different cultural environment and are adapting more quickly to global norms.
You previously asked Senator Reddy Kengueve about economics as the key factor, suggesting everything else flows from economic independence. Your question made sense, but our discussion now highlights that religion and traditionalism play an equally significant role. Economic independence is crucial, but deep-rooted religious and cultural traditions can sometimes outweigh economic considerations in determining women’s access to leadership.
Jacobsen: What about policy and law? If a strong policy or law is in place, does that guarantee change, or is implementation still a major obstacle?
Omondi-Adeitan: As I mentioned earlier, most African countries already have policies promoting women’s representation. I do not have the exact statistics, but almost every African country has a 30% female leadership quota. In theory, the framework is there. The problem is implementation and genuine commitment to enforcing these policies.
Take the Maputo Protocol, for example—the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on Women’s Rights in Africa. This protocol mandates equal representation and explicitly calls for 50/50 gender parity. Almost all African nations have signed it, with only a few exceptions. Yet, despite this formal commitment, gender parity in political representation remains elusive.
So, the real question is: If African countries have signed these agreements and adopted gender quotas, why is representation still so low? The answer is that policy alone does not guarantee change. It comes down to leadership and political will. The leaders in power decide whether or not policies are fully implemented.
For example, if a president sees that an election has resulted in less than 30% female representation, they should take steps to nominate additional women to meet the quota. However, if the leadership lacks the commitment to act, the policy remains meaningless.
Look at Botswana and Rwanda—two countries that have excelled in women’s political representation. Their success is not just due to laws but to leaders who actively enforce those laws. The problem is that leadership enforcement should not be necessary—the law itself should be enough. Unfortunately, in many cases, the implementation of gender policies depends on the goodwill of an individual leader rather than a systemic commitment to gender equality.
This raises an important concern: What happens when a strong leader leaves office? For example, President Kagame of Rwanda has deliberated on promoting women’s leadership. But if something happened to him, would Rwanda’s gender progress be sustained, or would it regress? These are the challenges we face—ensuring that gender equality is embedded institutionally, not just dependent on individual leaders.
Regarding laws and policies, most African countries are already clear on women’s representation. They have signed international protocols and legislation beyond national constitutions, committing to gender equality on paper.
Jacobsen: If the linchpin of change is leadership, and the individuals with the most political control and decision-making power are men, what has been the catalyst for shifting the mentality of those men who have demonstrated the political will to align with the Maputo Protocol and existing gender policies?
Omondi-Adeitan: One of the biggest catalysts for changing male leaders’ perspectives has been demonstrating the economic benefits of having women in leadership. We have learned—especially in Kenya—that the most effective way to convince governments to support women’s representation is to translate gender equality into economic value.
When women’s leadership is framed in economic terms, governments stop and listen. This is how we secured the women’s representation seats in Kenya. Unfortunately, the reality is that money talks, and when gender equality is shown to be economically beneficial, male leaders are more likely to take action.
No country can afford to leave half its population behind and still expect strong economic growth. The evidence is clear—economies that actively include women in leadership perform better than those that do not. That economic proof has been a key strategy for influencing decision-makers.
Beyond policy advocacy, FAWE believes in starting early. We do not only work with girls—we also engage boys to normalize women’s leadership from a young age. If we instill these values early, future generations will not have to fight the same battles.
I want to believe that by the time my 11-year-old daughter and my 4-year-old daughter reach my age, their struggles will be different. Their debates will no longer be about whether women deserve a seat at the table—instead, they will engage in intellectual discussions about policy and governance rather than basic representation.
We are working hard to change perceptions early so that the next generation does not have to fight for what should already be accepted.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Omondi-Adeitan: Thanks, I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28
Edwin Aiwazian is a leading California trial attorney and co-founder of Lawyers for Justice, PC, where he spearheads a high-impact legal team committed to justice and equity. Known for his courtroom excellence and principled advocacy, Edwin has built a reputation for standing up for exploited workers and victims of negligence. His unwavering belief in ethical representation drives his mission to protect the rights of the marginalized. Edwin’s leadership has positioned him as a trusted voice in legal circles and a tireless defender of state-based protections for vulnerable communities. Learn more: calljustice.com/team/edwin-aiwazian.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maine redefine federal versus state authority?
Edwin Aiwazian: It challenges the idea that states can make their own decisions about fairness and inclusion in schools. If the federal government wins here, it shifts the balance; taking decisions out of local hands and giving Washington more control.
Jacobsen: What legal arguments has the federal government used to justify transgender sports bans?
Aiwazian: They’re leaning on a narrow interpretation of Title IX, claiming it’s about biological sex only. But that ignores court rulings that say gender identity matters too. It’s a one sided reading of the law to support a political agenda.
Jacobsen: If the courts side with the federal government, what precedent might this set?
Aiwazian: It opens the door for top-down mandates on any number of civil rights issues. Today it’s sports, but what’s next? Bathrooms, school curriculum, workplace protections? Once that door’s open, it’s hard to close.
Jacobsen: Could this case become a landmark decision?
Aiwazian: Absolutely. If it reaches the Supreme Court, this could be one of those defining cases that shapes how Title IX is interpreted for years. It would impact not just sports, but civil rights law more broadly.
Jacobsen: How does this legal action affect the autonomy of states?
Aiwazian: It weakens it. It sends a message that states can’t chart their own course when it comes to equality, even when their laws reflect the will of the people. California should be concerned, this could undercut our own protections.
Jacobsen: How does this conflict reflect Title IX interpretative tensions under different federal administrations?
Aiwazian: Title IX has become a football game. Until courts draw a line, we’re going to keep seeing these wild swings in interpretation.
Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences transgender youth may face?
Aiwazian: They’re the ones caught in the crossfire. Exclusion from sports isn’t just about the game; it’s about identity, belonging, and mental health. Being pushed out sends a message that they don’t belong anywhere.
Jacobsen: How might this lawsuit influence upcoming legislation or judicial decisions?
Aiwazian: Lawmakers watch the courts closely. If this lawsuit gains traction, you’ll likely see a wave of copycat bills in other states; and more courtroom battles to come. It’s a legal snowball effect.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Edwin.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/28
Peter Whitehead is the CEO of Light AI Inc.. The company partnered with Beast Philanthropy to combat rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in Africa by using AI-powered Strep A detection. Their smartphone-based diagnostic tool provides rapid, accurate results without swabs or lab equipment, helping prevent RHD. The AI algorithm achieved 96.57% accuracy in pre-FDA validation studies. Globally, over 600 million cases of pharyngitis occur annually, with untreated Strep A leading to severe complications. MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson), a prominent YouTuber, supports the initiative through Beast Philanthropy. Light AI aims to expand its AI technology to diagnose other conditions using smartphone imaging, making healthcare more accessible worldwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the purpose of the partnership between Light AI Inc. and MrBeast Industries? (How did this fortunate happenstance arise?)
Peter Whitehead: The partnership between Light AI and Beast Philanthropy was formed to address a critical healthcare challenge in Africa—rheumatic heart disease (RHD), which stems from untreated Strep A infections.
By combining our AI technology with Beast Philanthropy’s mission-driven initiative, our work together will provide healthcare workers in underserved regions with the tools they need to quickly and accurately detect Strep A because Strep A is manageable and RHD is preventable.
Our first interaction with Beast Philanthropy made clear the alignment between our two organizations. Beast Philanthropy is well known for tackling humanitarian issues and once we learned what they were hoping to achieve, we knew our technology had a part to play in it.
Currently our campaign is active and over the next six months we are raising proceeds to help support this cause. For every dollar donated we will provide one AI-powered Strep A test with an overarching goal of providing 10,000 tests. Through this partnership, we are working to not only create healthier, heart-safe communities in Africa, but also showcase how AI can be used for good.
Jacobsen: How does Light AI’s diagnostic technology work in a casual way and then in technical language?
Whitehead: Our AI-powered technology allows for rapid and accurate Strep A diagnosis through smartphones. It provides results in under a minute and no swabs or expensive lab equipment is required. Healthcare workers simply scan the back of the throat, through our platform, and once the results are in, they can immediately begin treatment, reducing the risk of rheumatic heart disease and saving lives, one smartphone at a time. In regions with limited healthcare resources, this solution is a lifeline.
Technical Explanation
A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained using thousands of images confirmed by culture to be either Group A Streptococcus (GAS) or viral pharyngitis. Once the machine learning algorithm accurately differentiated between GAS and viral pharyngitis, it was locked and stored in the cloud.
A second algorithm was developed and embedded into a smartphone app to assist users in capturing high-quality throat images. Once an image is collected, it is sent to the cloud, where it is processed by the first algorithm. The algorithm then analyzes the image and provides a result: either positive for Group A Strep or negative.
Jacobsen: Why is early detection of Strep A important for treatment or providing proper remedies?
Whitehead: What we want to steer clear of are those more severe infections and the post-infectious complications caused by Strep A. The only way to do this is by diagnosing it and treating it as early as possible. I cannot stress the importance of this enough.
Strep A causes a range of infections, from mild to severe. Common mild to moderate infections include strep throat, scarlet fever, impetigo, cellulitis, and erysipelas. However, when left untreated, the bacteria can lead to more dangerous invasive infections such as necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS), bacteremia, and pneumonia. It can also trigger serious post-infectious complications like rheumatic heart disease and post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis (PSGN).
While Strep A has traditionally been considered a mild illness in the West, mainly associated with sore throats, recent trends show a concerning increase in severe cases. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sharp rise in deadly Group A Strep infections. In fact, preliminary data from the CDC shows that Strep A reached an all time high in 2023.
Jacobsen: What are the performance metrics Light AI’s algorithm achieved in the pre-FDA validation studies?
Whitehead: Our platform’s algorithm generated pre-FDA results that were in the range of the “Gold Standard” swab culture currently used for diagnosing GAS (group A strep).
It achieved a 96.57% accuracy rate and also attained a Negative Predictive Value of 100%, indicating its high reliability in confirming the absence of Streptococcus A infection.
Jacobsen: What is the global impact of viral and GAS pharyngitis as mentioned in the release?
Whitehead: Pharyngitis (sore throat) is one of the most common infections worldwide. According to MDPI, viral infections are responsible for up to 80% of sore throat cases. While viral pharyngitis is usually self-limiting, GAS pharyngitis can have serious global health consequences when left untreated.
Viral and GAS pharyngitis affects over 600 million people annually, and if untreated, can lead to Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD)—a fatal condition with an annual global economic burden exceeding $1 trillion and which kills 350,000 annually. For such a preventable condition the burden is too high.
Jacobsen: Who is ‘MrBeast’ (Jimmy Donaldson)? I’ve never heard of this person until now.
Whitehead: MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson) is one of the most influential digital creators in the world, with over 365 million subscribers on YouTube and a combined following of over 400 MN+ followers. He is a YouTuber, philanthropist, and entrepreneur known for his large-scale charitable efforts.
His charity channel, Beast Philanthropy, donates 100% of its revenue to charitable causes, tackling urgent global issues. Beast Philanthropy exists to leverage the power of social media to raise funds and help charitable causes around the world.
Jacobsen: What else could Light AI be used to detect into the future?
Whitehead: Our approach — applying AI to smartphone images — can be expanded to other throat conditions, and other areas of analysis, such as the human eye and skin.
Our vision is to combine the smartphone with AI in-the-Cloud to create a Digital Clinical Lab that can provide quick and accessible diagnosis for countless conditions that today require expensive and time-consuming imaging or lab processes. This is how we open access, provide efficient and effective care, and redefine healthcare to meet the demands of our growing population.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Peter.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/27
Padideh Jafari, founder of Jafari Law & Mediation Office, shares over two decades of family law experience, emphasizing her ethical stance against legal abuse. She discusses the emotional and financial toll of high-conflict divorces, especially when clients weaponize the legal system. Attorney Jafari highlights her firm’s vetting process, refusal to represent unethical behaviour, and the importance of therapy in cases involving narcissistic traits. She explains systemic challenges in California’s family court system and her passion for advocating for vulnerable clients. Beyond law, she maintains emotional balance through horseback riding, mental health days, and her rescue dog. Lastly, she also offers insight and guidance for aspiring women lawyers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Padideh Jafari who is the founder and CEO of Jafari Law & Mediation Office, with over 22 years of experience in family law. She is a leading voice against legal abuse—when clients weaponize the legal system to harm ex-spouses through prolonged litigation and manipulation.
Padideh Jafari: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Attorney Jafari is known for her ethical integrity, often walking away from cases when ethics cross the line. She speaks candidly about how economic pressures compromise attorneys, the ethical dilemmas in high-conflict divorces, and the urgent need for systemic reform. Her insights are essential for understanding the intersection of legal ethics, family court, and client-driven abuse.
I have one quick question on the side—something I was thinking about. When do you feel a case has crossed the line? Or is there a specific example that illustrates when you, based on your ethical standards, decide not to take or continue with a case?
Attorney Jafari: Our firm has a clear vetting process, especially early on. We avoid representing individuals who present with Cluster B personality disorders—such as narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder—unless they are under appropriate psychiatric care and treatment. The reason is that such individuals often complicate the divorce process for their soon-to-be ex-spouse and their own attorney.
They tend to be high-conflict and difficult to manage. They may send excessive emails, text messages, or calls during weekends, disrupting boundaries and creating emotional chaos. These are not the types of clients we aim to work with.
Additionally, when someone seeks to switch attorneys—commonly referred to as “subbing out” their previous counsel—we request full documentation and context from the former attorney. We need to understand why the client leaves one lawyer to hire another. In many high-conflict cases, the client fires the attorney after not hearing what they want. Then, they move to a new attorney who becomes a “saviour” for a short time—until the cycle repeats.
They do not want resolution; they want to perpetuate conflict. Eventually, they fire the new attorney as well. It’s less about strategy and more about maintaining emotional control and chaos. They may continue this cycle multiple times.
Let me give you an example. A couple of years ago, I saw a litigant—on the opposing side—who had gone through seven attorneys in just eighteen months. That was not our client, but it illustrates the situation we try to avoid at all costs. At our law firm, we are committed to ethical representation. We aim to offer thoughtful, solution-oriented legal services—not to enable conflict or dysfunction.
Attorney Jafari: California’s family law is somewhat black and white. It is a 50/50 community property state. But there are gray areas, and that’s where we advocate for our clients—working within those gray areas to find solutions. We do not want to be used as pawns in the sick game of hurting spouses. That is not what our law firm wants to be known for.
Jacobsen: Something that people do not often talk about—at least not as openly as other forms of abuse—is legal abuse. The concept is more familiar in professional circles, such as among psychologists or clinicians. In public discourse, however, physical abuse and sexual abuse are more easily discussed. Subtler forms like emotional, psychological, financial, or legal abuse are still newer to mainstream awareness. They are not new to practice—in law, psychology, or clinical settings—but they are newer to public vocabulary.
So, when we look at a technical definition of legal abuse, what does that imply? And conversely, what is something that may seem like legal abuse but is not?
Attorney Jafari: I do not know if you know, but California has now codified coercive control.
Jacobsen: I did not know that.
Attorney Jafari: You can look up the legal definition of coercive control. It captures the emotional abuse through legal abuse that you’re referring to. The challenge is that although California—and some other states—have codified coercive control, lawyers and judges have not fully embraced the law yet. It is still very new.
To me, legal abuse is when someone—whether it’s our client or the opposing party—files legal documents knowing they have no merit, purely to force their ex or soon-to-be ex-spouse to defend against them. Whether it’s a motion, discovery request, or any other filing, the intent is to overwhelm or financially exhaust the other party. That is legal abuse.
Now, if there’s even a 10% chance that a claim is legitimate, that is not legal abuse. There must be a clear absence of merit and an intent to harass or intimidate.
Some law firms—particularly in Southern California—have developed a reputation for what is called churning. Churning divorce cases, unfortunately, is quite easy, especially when children are involved. There’s so much at stake, and emotions run high. You might be dealing with allegations of physical abuse, domestic violence, or other complex issues.
It’s why people refer to personal injury attorneys as “ambulance chasers.” Divorce attorneys have their stereotype: sharks. There’s a perception that we are here to break couples apart—that we love divorce. Unfortunately, a subset of divorce attorneys reinforces that perception. They profit from conflict because if people do not get divorced, those attorneys do not make money.
But there is another kind of divorce attorney—those here to offer real solutions. We work with our clients and opposing counsel to reach a workable solution. I hesitate to say “win-win” because, in divorce, it rarely feels like anyone is truly winning. However, we aim for a resolution both parties can live with, especially when children are involved.
When there are no children, it is generally easier—California is a community property state, after all. But when there are kids, emotions rise and fall, and things become far more complex.
So, I would define legal abuse as filing motions or discovery requests that have no merit. It’s Family Code Section 6320, as amended in 2021 by Senate Bill 1141.
Jacobsen: So, in the context of divorce and family law, how does legal abuse play out? Can these cases drag on for years, or is this the kind of abuse that usually peters out within a few months?
Attorney Jafari: Oh, it can last for years. Unfortunately, legal abuse can persist in the long term. The longest case I have seen lasted 12 years. It was in Downtown Los Angeles. One party would file for discovery, the other would not respond, and the cycle would be repeated.
This was a case involving a celebrity client. Their daughter aged out during the litigation—she turned 18—so custody was no longer at issue. But the fighting continued. The client refused to settle. Her husband would make settlement offers, and she initially agreed, saying, “Yes, I’ll take it.” Then, two days later, she would call back and say, “I think I should get more.”
It reached the point where the judge retired, and a new judge took over the case. The new judge looked at the case file and asked, “What is happening here?” It was a perfect illustration of legal abuse.
You and I can chuckle about it in person, but when you think about it—do these people want to resolve their financial issues now that their child is an adult? The answer is no. People who want resolution will often settle, even if they receive less than they believe they deserve because they value their mental health more than continued litigation.
At one point, I told the client, “Do you want to live in the courthouse? Because you’re here more than I am.” And yes, I have seen legal abuse stretch on for years.
Unfortunately, judges in Southern California often do not put a stop to it. Even in the case where the opposing party had gone through seven different attorneys, every time we went to court, I would say, “Your Honor, this is a new attorney. It’s costing my client more attorney’s fees to bring this person up to speed.” But the response was essentially, “It is what it is.” The judge was not saying that, but that was the attitude.
Then, that judge moved to a different department, and we had yet another new judge come in. So yes, legal abuse is real, and it can take years.
Jacobsen: How do you stop it?
Attorney Jafari: The truth is—it’s difficult. It might be easier in other jurisdictions or states, but I can only speak for California where I practice, and it is not easy.
Even if you raise the issue of legal abuse with the judge, the response might be, “Well, it’s the clients who are perpetuating it. If they agree, I’ll sign off on it.” So, it is not necessarily the judge’s fault. Sometimes, judges will order a Mandatory Settlement Conference—an MSC—to try and force both sides to resolve the case.
But I have seen MSCs continue for months. And then you’re back in court, hearing the same stories, with the same circus. One side says, “I’m not ready for the MSC.” The judge asks, “How much time do you need, Counsel?” They say, “I don’t know… ninety days?” Then, ninety days pass, and the other side asks for a continuance. It becomes a cycle.
Meanwhile, the client is asking, “What do I do?” And the answer is: settle. Settle for less than you think you deserve—because if you want it to be over, that is how you regain some control. These cases can go on and on, and they are not cheap.
Jacobsen: These cases are not free—they cost a lot of money. So, are we typically dealing with people from a higher professional strata? Or someone who happened to come into a significant inheritance? How are people affording this? Are there cases where, due to some legal technicality, one party is forced to fund both sides—creating a dynamic where they mutually abuse each other and drag the case out for up to twelve years?
Attorney Jafari: All of the above. It can be someone working and genuinely believing in their case, believing it’s about principle. They’ll say, “I must do this because it’s the principle.” But unfortunately, the law is not concerned with your principles. And those cases can take years because people remain emotionally invested.
They could also be individuals who received an inheritance. Of course, here in Los Angeles County, we represent a number of celebrities who have their own independent income streams.
Then, there’s the situation where a judge orders one party to pay the other’s attorney’s fees. In that twelve-year case I mentioned earlier, that’s exactly what was happening. The husband was a celebrity, and we’d return to court every couple of months to request more attorney’s fees. He was funding both his legal team and hers.
But I will tell you this—it continues until the money runs out. When the stock market is doing well, and home values are rising, we often see cases where a property is sold, and the proceeds go into a client trust account. One of the attorneys manages the account, and we might agree: “Okay, each attorney gets $25,000 from the trust.”
But when that money is depleted, suddenly, the conversation changes. Clients begin to realize, “Wait a minute—I’m not even going to walk away with anything from the equity in my house.”
That’s when we sit with our client and say, “You can stop this. You can stop the bleeding.”
The best-case scenario is when both parties come to that realization. They see their monthly legal bills and say, “I don’t want to keep paying for this.” Then they go to their attorney and say, “I’m done.” And the attorney responds, “Great. Here’s a workable solution we can settle on.”
Now, since we operate in a high-conflict area of family law, we do encounter cases involving narcissists or individuals with Cluster B personality disorders—people who fundamentally do not want to settle.
So the question becomes: how do you resolve those cases?
Once again, we tell our clients to take less than what they think they’re owed. The goal is to end the debt.
Jacobsen: Are there emotional strategies you recommend in those cases? For example, certain white lies—emotionally flattering statements directed at the opposing party, who may display narcissistic traits or a full-blown Cluster B personality disorder. I’m thinking of using a combination of flattery and compromise—taking a little less than what the client thinks is justified—to bring the case to a close and get their life back. Is that something you counsel clients to do?
Attorney Jafari: Absolutely. It might sound counterintuitive, but in some situations—especially when the opposing party is narcissistic—you can get further by saying something like, “You’re such a good father,” or, “I appreciate how involved you’ve been.” It may not be how the client feels, but it’s a strategic concession while not quite flattery. It helps the other party feel validated and resolves the case.
We explain to clients that it’s not about fairness anymore. It’s about freedom. Sometimes, you need to take a bit less and say what needs to be said—not because it’s entirely true, but because it allows you to walk away and live your life.
I don’t know if I would call it flattery. I tend to say, “You catch more bees with honey.” I have even said—just as an analogy—”If you need to bake cupcakes for the person, why do you care?” That’s just an example, of course.
There are some people, Scott, who have been abused in the relationship or the marriage, and they do not want to give anything. They do not want to see this person get away with anything. For them, it becomes about principle. But, as I said before, the law is not about principle.
So yes, I have coached clients to resolve the matter—even if it means taking a little bit less—by whatever means are available. I have arranged four-way meetings with the other side, where we sit together in an office and ask, “How can we resolve this?”
Sometimes, face-to-face interaction helps. When I started practicing in 2002, that’s all we did. There was no Zoom, no constant texting. I still hold onto that old-school mentality where, when you’re sitting in front of someone, it’s harder to say “no.”
That kind of meeting lets you say, “Let’s try to make the best out of this situation—for both clients.” And sometimes, you can reason with the opposing attorney in that setting.
That approach does not always work, but it is worth trying. Sometimes, issues do not get resolved in the first meeting. Then we say, “Let’s take two or three weeks, give it some space, and revisit.” Then, you hold a second meeting, and some issues may finally be resolved.
In Southern California, about 95% of cases settle before trial because trial is extremely expensive. It can cost anywhere from $25,000 to several hundred thousand dollars.
So these cases usually resolve before trial—but how you get there, especially with high-conflict individuals, is another matter entirely. It can still take years.
Jacobsen: What you describe sounds like a pressure valve release—a de-escalation tactic. At the same time, it also serves as a release valve for the emotional pressure your client is enduring. Do you ever feel sorry for both parties? Do you ever find yourself watching two people go in circles—over an issue that should have been resolved individually—and realize the court is now functioning more like couples therapy for two people who are no longer a couple?
Attorney Jafari: That is a fair question. Twenty-two years ago, when I was much younger, I had more of an emotional response to these situations. But now, I am much more stoic.
I look at it this way: this couple got married. They were—hopefully—in love with each other. They said vows in front of family and friends. And now they are getting divorced. I try to understand the psychology behind how they got to this point.
But do I feel sorry for them? What I feel is a sense of duty—how can I best advocate for my client.
And sometimes that also means advocating for the other side. You’re acknowledging that the other side is suffering as well, right? It is not like they are sitting there completely happy. These are deeply emotional situations.
That’s why I bring both parties together in a meeting and say, “How can we resolve this?” I want to look at them and say, “Look, I’m not here to hurt you. That’s not my intention as your spouse’s attorney.”
But at the same time, I am bound by what my client instructs me to do. I can only act within those limits. So I say, “Let’s try to resolve this. Let’s find a way forward.”
Now, I do get emotional in cases involving child molestation or rape. A separate division of our law firm handles those cases. I get emotional about those—I have sleepless nights, moments of outrage, and a range of reactions. Those cases stay with you.
But with the more typical divorce matters, I’ve developed more emotional distance over the years. After 22 years, you’ve seen almost everything.
Jacobsen: I think we mentioned the horse farm in our last interview. I might be misremembering, but there was an older lawyer woman—not saying her name, of course—who was well past retirement age but was not retiring. A few times, she would come to the horse farm, and people asked, “Is she okay?”
By then, there had been a few signs that something was off. She did not connect well with clients or staff those days, not often. But on those days, she would stay with her horse, enter the indoor arena, ride, and quietly leave. I remember thinking, “That’s the tail end of something.”
Do you change your tone with clients in moments like that? You mentioned being stoic—but what kind of linguistic wizardry do you employ at Hogwarts Legal Abuse, Inc.?
Attorney Jafari: [Laughing] Are you asking generally or specifically in high-conflict cases?
Jacobsen: We do not have time to discuss this in-depth, but I mean broadly—what general principles do you apply in your speech and presentation?
You will not speak to me like you’d speak to a distraught client. You’ll be dressed professionally, calm, and composed. Outside of those exceptional cases, you’ll be stoic but adjust your tone, pace, and inflection. You’re using your knowledge of the case to convey a sense of stability and safety. Then, you do what your practice is built to do: propose solutions.
So, what does that communication strategy look like?
Jafari: I’d love to say I always have it perfectly under control, but that’s not the case. And anyone in this profession should not pretend otherwise. As divorce attorneys, we must be extremely careful about what we say because our clients hang on to every word.
We work in high-conflict divorce. Most of the time, we represent the “innocent” spouse. Not innocent in the absolute sense—everyone has ups and downs in a marriage—but innocent in the sense that they are not the abuser.
They are not the narcissist. They are not trying to hurt their spouse. They are victims of narcissistic abuse or domestic abuse. So yes, 100%, the way we talk to them—our tone, our language—matters deeply.
At the same time, we also have to be extremely firm. I do not sympathize to the point of being seen as a “girlfriend”figure. That can happen, especially when you have a female attorney and a female client. Those boundaries can blur quickly if you are not careful.
So, it is very important to establish healthy boundaries from the beginning. I’ll advocate fiercely for my clients and clarify: “No, you cannot have my cell phone number. No, you cannot text me on weekends—unless it is a true emergency.” That kind of clarity is essential.
And I speak from experience. Twenty-two years ago, I was a young attorney early in my career. You want to connect and commiserate with your clients, but over time, I learned that it does not help them. It blurs the lines and can disempower both the client and the attorney. Boundaries are critical.
Some clients, Scott, do not even know what boundaries are—especially if they have come out of abusive marriages.
Jacobsen: Oh yes, I completely understand.
Attorney Jafari: When someone has spent years in an abusive relationship, they may interpret a firm boundary as being mean or even abusive. And I have to explain, “No, this is not about rejecting you. This is about setting a healthy boundary—for both of us.”
That is when I usually suggest therapy. A good therapist will help teach boundary work if nothing else. And I tell clients, “You do not have to go to therapy forever. Even if you go for three or seven sessions while the divorce is active, it can make a huge difference.”
When they hear that, they feel some relief. It feels manageable. I have had clients come back and say it was the best thing they did for their mental health. It helped them make better decisions and finally move forward—rather than staying stuck in the abuse.
Jacobsen: Yes. When someone is of sound mind and in healthy circumstances, the present moment is clearer, boundaries are intuitive, and decisions are grounded. But for people who have been tortured or raised in abusive families, that clarity can be shattered. Their perceptual boundaries are skewed. Whether it is a journalist, therapist, or lawyer, they’ll often project a lot unconsciously.
Certain themes always emerge in those cases, and that’s very apt. Before we wrap up, I want to note one other thing. When we last spoke in December, around Christmas, you mentioned launching a podcast. How is that going?
Attorney Jafari: Yes! The podcast is now in Season Two. It is another valuable resource I recommend to my clients. I tell them to go to The Narcissist Abuse Recovery Channel on Spotify or Apple Podcasts and listen to the episodes.
We also have an Instagram account—@narc.podcast—where we post supportive content. It helps clients know that I understand what they are going through, even if I do not disclose my own experiences during our meetings. This builds trust. They see that their attorney gets it—and that I can help guide them out of it if they’re willing to listen and take the advice.
If they go off and do their own thing—or want to make it about principle—that’s a separate issue. They’ll end up stuck in the court system, which I call the hamster wheel. You’ll return every month or every two to three months, just showing up repeatedly.
The judge will be there—that’s their job—and you’ll keep showing up, too. That’s what the hamster wheel is. I can help you get out of it, but it will take time, patience, and a willingness to listen to the advice of your counsel.
Jacobsen: What happens when people don’t take that key advice? Do they end up back on the hamster wheel? Or is it worse—like they made a bad decision, and the situation has escalated?
Attorney Jafari: I’ve seen it get worse. Clients who take things into their own hands and ignore their attorney’s advice often complicate the situation.
I’ve seen the attorney file a substitution of attorney to remove themselves from the case entirely. The client will then say, “Why are you doing this? You’re abandoning me!” But the attorney thinks, “Look, I’ve given you every possible tool, and you’re ignoring all of it.”
I always give my clients this visual: “You and I are standing on the ninth floor of a building. If you jump, I’m not jumping with you.” I will stand beside you, advocate for you, tell you what the law is, negotiate for you, and do everything I can within my professional boundaries.
But if you decide to jump—meaning, to make reckless or emotional decisions against legal advice—then you’re on your own. And I think that is how most divorce attorneys feel. It’s a pretty accurate visual representation of the role.
Jacobsen: That seems like a fundamental life lesson for a lot of people—not just about getting information from open-source tools, like your podcast or social media, but also about understanding that tailored legal advice is there for a reason. The decision is theirs—and they have to own it.
Attorney Jafari: Yes, it’s ultimately their decision and impacts their life—and, in many cases, their child’s life, too.
If you do not have children, then it’s your life alone. You can make mistakes and live with the consequences. But when you have children, your decisions affect more than just you. You must think long-term about whether there’s a custody dispute or anything related to the child.
And Scott, it’s not like it was 22 years ago. Children today learn everything. They have access to social media, online court records, and public files.
I’ve had a child reach out to me and say, “Can you get me my parents’ divorce file?” And I said, “Absolutely not.” But the reality is that it’s public. They can go look it up themselves if they’re of age. That’s the world we’re living in.
So yes, it’s hard. But bringing in the right professionals—like a good therapist who understands divorce dynamics—makes a huge difference. Especially if you believe you’re divorcing a narcissist.
And I always clarify: only a licensed mental health professional can diagnose narcissistic personality disorder. But yes, people can display narcissistic traits.
Attorney Jafari: So it’s not necessarily full-blown narcissism, but rather narcissistic traits. In those cases, you need a therapist to guide you through the emotional aspect and your attorney to guide you through the legal aspect.
Jacobsen: Is it only on Apple Podcasts, or is it on Spotify too?
Attorney Jafari: It’s also on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
Jacobsen: What’s the tension between the duty to advocate and the responsibility to act ethically?
Attorney Jafari: First and foremost, ethics. That always comes first. I am obligated to the California State Bar—the governing entity—and I feel a personal moral and ethical obligation to myself. And then third, I have an obligation to the client.
There are law firms that will take on any divorce client without going through the kind of vetting process I mentioned earlier. Then, they eventually realize the client is difficult or in conflict. These clients go from attorney to attorney, subbing one out after another—and that’s when you see the hamster wheel pattern emerge.
For us, ethics matter deeply. That’s why we work with fewer clients. Not everyone who walks into our office is accepted. And it’s interesting—some people get angry when we decline a client. They say, “Now I want you to represent me.” And you’re thinking, “There are plenty of attorneys down the street.” But no, they want you, specifically, because they know you have strong boundaries and won’t compromise—and yet, paradoxically, they want you to operate in that gray area anyway.
I’ve had that happen. And we’ve had to withdraw from those cases. Those are tough conversations to have. You must tell the client, “You’re asking me to do something unethical, and I’m not going to do it.”
It’s easy to say that to you, Scott. But it is hard to say it to a client, especially when emotions are running high. They’ll ask, “What do you mean?” And I’ll reply, “Here are ten examples of how you want me to ‘advocate’ for you—but that’s not true advocacy. What you’re asking for is misuse of the legal system.”
The law is meant to be a shield—not a sword. But they want me to act as a sword, and I am only willing to act as a shield.
Jacobsen: Are there some cases where that shield is so important to you that you will take on the case pro bono?
Attorney Jafari: We take on pro bono cases a few times a year. Sexual abuse of minors, for instance—those cases are incredibly important to me.
When I worked for the District Attorney’s Office, I was assigned to a unit called Stewart House. It’s still in existence in Santa Monica, California. They specialize in child molestation and rape cases. The DAs work closely with the parents and prosecute the offenders. Unfortunately, many of those cases do not go to trial because children under 18 are often deemed incompetent to testify.
I interned at Stewart House for three months between my first and second years of law school, and that experience shaped me. So when cases like that come into our office—where one parent has molested or raped the child, and now that same parent is asking for visitation rights—I take them seriously.
Sadly, in California, parental rights are often prioritized over the child’s rights. Unless those rights are formally terminated or the District Attorney prosecutes and obtains a conviction, that parent may still be granted visitation. It is a heartbreaking legal reality.
I’m passionate about those types of cases. In some of those, the firm may do pro bono work. But generally speaking, if it’s a standard divorce case without such egregious circumstances, we do not handle it pro bono.
Jacobsen: So through this, the City of Santa Monica agreed in April 2023 to pay $122.5 million to settle claims involving 24 individuals who alleged they were sexually abused as children by Eric Uller—a former city employee and volunteer with the Police Activities League. He was arrested in 2018 on multiple molestation charges and died by suicide later that year. So, in cases like that, they run through Stuart House?
Attorney Jafari: Yes.
Jacobsen: For those who may not know much about the legal context in the United States—it’s a free country, so you get extremes. There’s more variance in legal applications compared to more centralized systems.
You might have the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but in these cases, parental rights can often supersede that Convention regarding U.S. legal interpretation or application, right?
There are still cases where child marriage laws are lacking or other protections aren’t fully enforced. This kind of thing has happened often—though it often escapes attention.
Attorney Jafari: Yes.
Jacobsen: When do you feel emotionally exhausted as a lawyer working in a “high-conflict” law system?
Attorney Jafari: Wow—that’s a question nobody asks me. I don’t know if anyone besides my husband truly cares—because he doesn’t want an emotionally exhausted wife.
It is not easy. Twenty-two years later, I am still trying to find that balance. I do have hobbies, one of which is horseback riding. I’ve taken up becoming an equestrian over the past year. Spending time with animals is incredibly grounding.
The thing about animals is—they love you unconditionally. You can talk to them as much as you want or not at all. And they understand your silence. That’s one thing that helps me.
I also adopted my dog, who came from the Los Angeles Wildfire Rescue. He is a licensed emotional support animal, but to be honest, he supports me more than he supports our clients, so that has helped me a lot.
Jacobsen: He has a side gig in the emotional law department.
Attorney Jafari: Yes! [Laughing]
I would say the cases involving sexual abuse are by far the most emotionally draining. That’s where I feel it most intensely.
I also take mental health days. If I feel like I’ve reached a limit—where my brain does not want to operate anymore—I’ll take a half day off or a full day if possible. That does not happen often—there’s always something going on at the firm—but I’ll say to myself, “Tomorrow is a mental health day,” and I mean it.
Because what happens with divorce attorneys is that we think about our cases after 6 p.m., we think about them on weekends, and we think about them on vacation. So when I declare a mental health day, it’s a promise to myself that I will not think about any cases.
I’ve found three things helpful: horseback riding, adopting my rescue dog, and mental health days. They’ve been essential for my well-being.
Jacobsen: Quick advice for women just starting in divorce law? They could be interning at Stuart House or entering their first or second year of law school—or maybe even in the final year or two.
Attorney Jafari: It’s important to realize why you want to pursue the profession of law. I knew why I wanted to pursue it—since I was five, I wanted to be a lawyer. I know we talked about that during our first interview. I’ve always known my “why.”That has been essential.
It’s important to figure that out early on because once you’re done with law school, you’ll either find a job at a firm or start your own. At that point, you don’t get to stop and ask yourself those foundational questions.
For me, it was clear. I’ve had that passion since I was five. When I needed to step back from practice for a while, I taught at NYU. You can do many things with a law degree, opening up many paths. But for me, it’s always been about my passion for my clients and the drive to advocate for the underdog—the person who cannot speak up for themselves or doesn’t have a voice. Seeing them on the other side of that journey—free from abuse, free from the toxic relationship—that freedom and peace are incredibly rewarding to witness.
I also know for a fact that there are now more women in law school than men. When I heard that statistic, I was excited. It’s a great field for women. Women, by nature, are nurturing. They want to see justice prevail. So, it’s a great profession for women.
And within the law, there are so many different areas. Not everyone can be—or wants to be—a divorce attorney, and I respect that. But law is still a noble profession. No matter what anyone says, it’s noble. People who aren’t lawyers don’t understand what we do, so it’s easy to judge. But only another lawyer really knows what it takes.
So, it is a noble profession for anyone who wants to pursue law.
Jacobsen: My last question is purely self-indulgent—just something for the equestrian in me. So, regarding your type of riding, are you doing show jumping, dressage, or three-day eventing? What’s your discipline? Please tell me it’s not a three-day event. I’m hoping.
Attorney Jafari: [Laughs] English. I’m taking English riding lessons.
Jacobsen: Excellent.
Attorney Jafari: Eventually, I’d like to do jumping, but I’m not there yet. That will take a couple of years.
Jacobsen: When you get to the meter-sixties, let me know. We’ll see you on the American show jumping team.
Attorney Jafari: [Laughing] Sounds good. Sounds good, Scott.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today.
Attorney Jafari: Thank you so much, Scott. It’s great to see you.
Jacobsen: Great to see you, too. And congratulations on your dog and your horsey.
Attorney Jafari: Thank you so much!
—
For more information: https://www.jafarilegal.com/team/padideh-jafari-orange-county-family-attorney/.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/27
Jeep Kline, a finance professor and venture capitalist, discusses the multifaceted impacts of Trump-era tariffs. These tariffs have disrupted global investment patterns, compelling multinational corporations to reevaluate supply chains and portfolios. Long-term, sustained tariffs may lead to higher consumer prices, dampened economic growth, and strained international trade relations. Developing economies are particularly vulnerable, as increased tariffs can render their exports less competitive, hindering growth. Startups face challenges due to fluctuating regulations and increased costs, though some pivot to local sourcing. Countries like Japan and Taiwan have adopted strategic responses, balancing alliances without escalating tensions. Kline advocates for the U.S. to invest in innovation and forge equitable trade agreements over imposing tariffs. Sectors such as semiconductors, biotech, and clean tech experience both hurdles and opportunities, with some companies localizing production to mitigate global supply chain disruptions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have the Trump-era tariffs influenced global investment trends?
Jeep Kline: The escalation of U.S. tariffs on imports, particularly those from China, triggered significant market volatility and prompted investors to strategically reassess their portfolio allocations while compelling multinational corporations to reconfigure their global production networks and supply chain architectures.
Jacobsen: With experience with The World Bank and in international economics, what will be the long-term economic impacts of sustained tariff policies?
Kline: If tariffs remain long term, consumers will face higher prices for everyday items to absorb the cost. In addition, overall economic growth will most likely decline. International trade cooperation will likely see a downturn due to retaliation, and create barriers for businesses in both sourcing and accessing markets overseas. Overall, it’ll be hard both for businesses in the United States and internationally to accomplish their goals while maintaining their bottom line.
Jacobsen: Particularly, how will these acutely affect developing economies?
Kline: Poorer countries get hit the hardest as they depend on selling things to larger and financial stronger countries. When tariffs increase, their good will become too expensive and will be replaced by alternatives locally sourced. Poorer countries also can’t afford to quickly build new factories or systems to keep up, so it will slow down their growth and progress, and economic positioning.
Jacobsen: What ripple effects have happened in startup and innovation ecosystems?
Kline: When the regulations about buying and selling goods between countries keep changing, it’s increasingly challenging for startup businesses. Since everything costs more, it’s more difficult for them to get supplies as well as ship their products. However, some startups can seize this as an opportunity to get the supplies they need without depending on countries overseas, depending on local production instead.
Jacobsen: How does economic uncertainty affect fundraising and strategic decision-making for early- and growth-stage companies?
Kline: When the regulations about buying and selling goods between countries keep changing, it’s increasingly challenging for startup businesses. Since everything costs more, it’s more difficult for them to get supplies as well as ship their products. However, some startups can seize this as an opportunity to get the supplies they need without depending on countries overseas, depending on local production instead.
Jacobsen: What is your professional assessment of the comparative responses of countries like Japan and Taiwan to U.S. tariffs?
Kline: Japan and Taiwan have played it smart. Japan is making lots of allies through trade deals. Taiwan, which is critical to computer chip manufacturing is being cautious and remaining in negotiation with the U.S. but not retaliating with China either. Both countries are trying to maintain their strength without compromising their positioning.
Jacobsen: Are there more constructive and forward-looking U.S. tariff strategies available to the United States, or are these well-suited to contemporary economic and technology challenges for the global economy?
Kline: Yes, instead of relying on tariffs, the United States has alternative strategies it can take advantage of to boost its trade and economic positioning. One avenue is investing in the development of innovative technologies and desirable products that interest other nations. Partnering with allied nations to establish fair regulations and smarter trade agreements can also create mutually beneficial outcomes for all countries. This strategy allows America to remain competitive without creating destruction to its own economy or bringing on retaliation and boycotts from other countries.
Jacobsen: How have sectors like semiconductors, biotech, and clean tech been affected?
Kline: These industries are important as they power US tech, create life-saving medicines, and provide solutions to make a cleaner planet. But trade tensions and tariffs have made it more challenging for them to operate across different countries. It has slowed down progress in some areas. Still, it has also motivated some companies to get more creative and build more of their products locally instead of relying so heavily on global supply chains.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jeep.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/26
John Levy, Co-founder, CEO, and Chair of SEEQC, talks about quantum computing as a company developing scalable, energy-efficient digital quantum systems. Levy discusses SEEQC’s origins in Hypres and its evolution through IARPA’s C3 program. The company uses superconducting single flux quantum (SFQ) technology to achieve dramatic reductions in power consumption—up to nine orders of magnitude. Levy outlines partnerships with NVIDIA, error correction infrastructure, and SEEQC’s vision for contextual and heterogeneous computing that integrates CPUs, GPUs, and CPUs. With its SEEQC Orange platform and chip-based architecture, SEEQC aims to enable real-time quantum-classical processing and unlock the practical utility of quantum computing at the scale.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with John Levy. He is the Co-founder, CEO, and Chair of SEEQC (“Seek”), a leading company developing scalable, energy-efficient quantum computers. He has over 35 years of experience at the intersection of technology and finance, previously serving as chairman of Hypres and sitting on the boards of goTenna and BioLite. He is a founding partner of L Capital Partners, where he has led investments in the technology sector and served on the boards of companies such as WiSpry, OnPATH Technologies, and HiGTek. He earned an A.B. in Psychology and an MBA from Harvard Business School. Two things often come up in the news.
John Levy: By the way, your company’s name is SEEQC—as in, you have an aspiration; you are seeking to do something. It is an acronym.
Jacobsen: Two things about quantum computing often appear in the news—particularly scalability and energy efficiency. People often discuss computation as one barrier to competition, but another is energy. I recall Eric Schmidt, in a recent interview, suggesting that the U.S. may need to partner closely with Canada to access sufficient hydroelectric power for large-scale AI data centers. So these things pop up. Within that context—was that the modus operandi?
Levy: First, thanks for reaching out and doing this.Yes. So, first, SEEQC began as a spinout of Hypres, which had its roots in IBM’s superconducting electronics division. When we were operating as Hypres, around 2014, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) launched the Cryogenic Computing Complexity (C3) program to explore superconducting computing as a solution to the power and cooling challenges of exascale computing.
They realized that, over time, we would need nuclear power plants to run data centers—which is precisely what is happening. Astonishingly, they foresaw this. Their response was: Let us see if we can develop entirely new kinds of classical computers that are incredibly energy efficient.
That was the idea: exascale computing at orders of magnitude lower power because that is the trajectory we needed to be on.
So we started working. There was a program at IARPA called C3, and we partnered with IBM and Raytheon BBN to build superconducting logic and superconducting memory for energy-efficient classical computers that could scale to exascale. That was the core idea.
We finished that project in early 2017. Following this, we held a strategic planning session at Hypres to further develop the idea.
We realized it was a perfect fit because we were already operating in the superconducting domain (i.e., 4 kelvins and below), and quantum computers—at least those using superconducting qubits—needed to operate at temperatures in the millikelvins.
Our technology could power quantum computers, and we knew how to scale them. We had, and still have, a chip foundry to do it. The core idea is that CMOS chips—designed and manufactured by companies such as TSMC, Intel, AMD, and others—consume excessive power.
Power turns into heat, which must be dissipated. CMOS chips are too slow and prone to noise.
If we could substitute the circuits we were building—based on single flux quantum (SFQ) technology—where we are using Josephson junctions instead of transistors and niobium instead of copper, we could change everything.
We produced these circuits in an entirely different way, and that is how we realized we could build scalable, energy-efficient quantum computers. That is how SEEQC was born.
We spun out. It took us a couple of years, but we officially spun out in 2019. Since then, we have been focused on that.
Now, to make that real, let us consider Google’s November announcement about error correction and what their Willow quantum computer looked like. It was a fantastic piece of engineering—honestly, it could be in an art museum. It is beautiful.
However, here is the reality: every qubit needs five cables. Moreover, to power each qubit using room-temperature electronics, you need 2 to 5 watts per qubit.
Because of what we are doing—by building energy-efficient circuits—our circuits operate at three nanowatts. That is nine orders of magnitude—a billion times more energy efficient—not 10%, not 1%, not a fraction of a percent—a billion times more efficient.
Why? Because our circuits are operating at the same cryogenic temperatures as the qubits. CMOS cannot do this—putting too much power into CMOS would generate heat and destabilize the qubits.
So, this is a technology that we have developed, patented, and brought into practice. Moreover, we are running quantum systems today based on this core technology.
We announced SEEQC Orange, which is now operational. It is digitally controlled using SFQ logic and digitally multiplexed to reduce cabling requirements significantly.
Now, think about what that means for data centers.
It is one thing to demonstrate this on a small circuit. However, imagine you want to build a quantum data center with a million qubits.
We studied the energy budget for building a 100,000-qubit system using conventional methods. The estimate ranged from 10 to 40 megawatts of power.
Using our approach, we estimate just 63 kilowatts of power, a massive reduction.
Jacobsen: So you have provided a real-world demonstration of scaling laws that show gains of nine orders of magnitude in energy efficiency. Sam Altman has said there are no foreseeable limits to the scaling laws—well, this seems like one of those parameters.
Levy: But it is critical to realize that this is only one of many technical hurdles—serious, nuanced engineering problems—that must be overcome. Moreover, you cannot just solve one. You have to solve all of them to build a utility-scale quantum computer.
Cabling is a huge issue, too, right? Do you have five cables per qubit? Or even three? Or two? Not if you are scaling to a million qubits. It is not feasible. It would be prohibitively expensive. The meantime between failures would be extremely short. The physical complexity would be overwhelming—encompassing space, thermal load, reliability, and other factors.
So you must solve that problem.
How do you do it?
You package chips in a way that allows them to communicate directly—essentially forming a multi-chip module. Think of it like a sandwich: one chip stacked directly on another.
That gives you direct connectivity, reduced latency, and increased speed.
So that is key for things like error correction. Do you want to do error correction? You have to have low latency. You have to solve that. I am telling you—it is like whack-a-mole. However, it is whack-a-mole at a level you cannot even imagine.
Jacobsen: You are also partnering with a major company, NVIDIA. Jensen Huang is known to be a sober and mature individual. Unlike some others, he does not speak off the cuff too often. So, what does this partnership mean for SEEQC?
Levy: Let me explain how it happened—it is a great story. I love this.
So, about three years ago, we were at one of those many quantum computing events. I met Tim Costa and Sam Stanwyck, who run Heterogeneous Compute and Quantum Computing at NVIDIA, respectively.
I often said, “Hey, let us get together—I will share our latest results.” So, I showed them what we were working on.
By the way, I have not mentioned this yet: our chips are fully digital.
Now remember—quantum computing exists in the analog space. People typically control and read out quantum computers using microwave pulses—that is, analog RF signals. Everything is in the analog domain.
However, we are doing it in the digital domain.
So I told them, “Imagine a GPU and a CPU connected to a QPU—chip-to-chip—with the same latency you have with NVLink between CPU and GPU.”
Ultimately, we want it to operate at such low latency and high speed that we can share memory across the QPU, CPU, and GPU. So, instead of having two separate systems connected by Ethernet or PCIe, we would have chip-to-chip-to-chip communication.
Just as NVIDIA’s CPU-GPU superchip is connected internally via NVLink, imagine a system where the QPU, CPU, and GPU operate together as one unit inside a single computing node.
Now, think about the possibilities we have opened up. We are introducing the concept of trustworthy heterogeneous computing. You can combine a quantum algorithm with a classical algorithm or an AI learning model. We are building the infrastructure to allow that.
Moreover, they said, “Yes.”
Yes, they were in. That is what we have been building together.
Our recent announcement marked the first time we had demonstrated it. Now, we are focused on two main goals:
- Reducing latency—getting it down below a microsecond, ideally into the hundreds of nanoseconds, to make it viable for error correction.
- This makes it bandwidth-efficient—it does not require terabytes of data transfer but rather gigabytes, which is much more feasible.
Since we are working in the digital domain, we can optimize for both low latency and high throughput. That is the winning combination.
Jacobsen: I talked to a friend the other day about all this. One thing that came up was that we have GPUs, CPUs, and QPUs, but you are building an entirely new architecture. What you explained to me feels like contextual computing (Contextual Compute), where the system optimizes computation dynamically depending on what is needed at the time.
Levy: You could call it that.
You have made it once you build the software layer on top of this architecture.
That is what we are doing. We are building tools—new tools, such as a quantum computer.
However, even a QPU—let us be careful how we define it—is more than just a “quantum processor.” CPUs and GPUs are more than just arrays of transistors. They are architectures, ecosystems, and toolchains. We are doing the same thing for quantum computing.
They are high-level functions, such as arithmetic units, cache memory, power management, and I/O subsystems, among others. When people talk about QPUs, they often mean just an array of connected qubits. However, they do not encompass the full system-level functionality that constitutes a complete processor from a systems engineering perspective. That is what we are doing, and that is an important distinction.
So, when you connect an integrated QPU—or something architecturally complete—and connect it, it becomes contextual computing. I love that idea. Jensen Huang, at NVIDIA, thinks of it as accelerated computing. Moreover, rightly so—think about it: he was moving from CPUs, which are fundamentally serial processors, to parallel GPUs. He would explain this better than I could. However, that is the idea—acceleration.
Here, though, we are going beyond acceleration. We are changing the model entirely. Just as quantum computing represents a metaphorical leap from classical digital computing, what we are building represents a similar leap. It is not just about speed anymore—it is about solving NP-hard problems, doing so in the quantum domain, and coordinating those results with the classical domain when needed. That is an extraordinary shift. It is the kind of thing dreams were made of in the golden age of science fiction. It is the reason I do this.
Jacobsen: What did Isaac Asimov write about? This would be akin to laying the foundations for a positronic brain. Right? Because there is a certain resilience in the human brain, even after injury or insult, we often assume the brain is our working model of general intelligence—though “general” always needs a frame of reference. Still, what we are doing could be viewed as forming the synthetic equivalent of such resilience and versatility. Moreover, thinkers like David Deutsch have frameworks for describing systems like this—universal constructors. Shall we go there? We are not going down the panpsychism path. We will not claim that everything is conscious. Honestly, that is the kind of conceptual rabbit hole. The one who more or less caused all the panpsychism noise—he invented a problem, then offered no solution. Right.
Even when it comes to evolved systems like the human brain, which shows tremendous versatility and operates with high efficiency over decades, what we are building now forms the foundational architecture of something analogous. Moreover, that is incredibly exciting.
So, what do you see as the first immediate application—even before you get to those higher-level functions?
Levy: Funny enough, the first application we are considering is entirely internal to the quantum computer—error correction. So imagine how we manage error correction now: trying to do everything using FPGAs or cryo-CMOS. Instead, imagine a different structure where you do a portion of the processing on-chip at the millikelvin level using high-speed, low-power superconducting logic. That would handle the quick, easy stuff. Then, that chip is connected via superconducting ribbon cable to a digital pre-decoder operating at 100 millikelvins or even a single Kelvin. That would do the next layer of processing. If the error cannot be resolved at those two levels, the system hands it off to a GPU or classical processor that can take a global view of the data and run more complex algorithms.
The idea is to build a chip-based infrastructure for quantum error correction—something versatile and adaptable that software developers and quantum scientists can work with. That way, anyone with a new algorithm or software approach to error correction can plug it into this infrastructure. They do not have to reinvent the hardware stack. It gives them a toolkit. Our first instantiation of this heterogeneous computing system will most likely be focused on—error correction. Once we unlock quantum error correction effectively, we also unlock the real capabilities of this new form of contextual—or, as you said—contextualized computing.
Jacobsen: Where do you see the unknowns in developing this infrastructure, especially after the hardware layer, once we start layering algorithms on top of it?
It is funny—everyone asks a slightly different version of this question. Moreover, it is a good one because when I say, “Hey, we are building a new architecture,” or at least extending the existing one and bringing together two entirely different computing domains, it naturally begs the question: for what purpose? Where is this going? How is this going to play out?
Moreover, I will give you the same answer I gave Jensen at GCC. Imagine someone takes you down into the basement of the University of Pennsylvania in 1946 and shows you the ENIAC. You look at it and ask, “What is this good for?” Moreover, the answer might be, “Well, it is good for arithmetic. It is a super-calculator. I can crunch enormous volumes of numbers.” That is all very impressive—for that time. However, it is not the same as imagining that, one day, you would have a device in your pocket that could stream every movie and song ever created or help drive a car that picks an optimized route, pays for gas via a chip, and texts your friend that you are picking them up—all in real-time. No one imagined that in 1946.
Similarly, we are developing these tools and infrastructure without necessarily knowing the full extent to which they will be utilized. I mentioned one example earlier—error correction. However, broadly, we are trying to build a computational capability that can be released into the world, allowing others to discover what they want to become. Louis Kahn, the architect, used to say things like, “What does a brick want to be?”—as if his materials had their ambitions. His goal was to understand the brick deeply and let it express itself.
That is what we are doing. We are developing these technologies, engineering them with precision, and putting them in the hands of the Louis Kahns of the world to figure out what they should become.
Jacobsen: It is like Michelangelo saying that David was always in the stone—he just had to carve him out.
Levy: Right. By the way, there is an excellent book I have been reading called The Rigor of Angels. Have you read it?
Jacobsen: No.
Levy: It is about Kant, Borges, and Heisenberg. Moreover, a recurring theme of infinity and unknowability pervades philosophy, literature, and physics. That is the thinking we need now—cross-disciplinary, multidisciplinary, with an open head and heart. That is how we determine what we want to express through this technology. Moreover, it is going somewhere—undeniably.
Jacobsen: I am reminded of that famous Michio Kaku story about the U.S. attempting to build a particle collider three times the size of CERN’s in Geneva. They dug a massive hole—and spent a billion dollars doing it. Moreover, when someone asked, “Are you going to find God with this machine?” They said, “No. We are going to find the Higgs boson.” Then Congress promptly spent another billion to fill the hole back in.
That is the tension—people want immediate answers to fundamental work that will pay off in decades. However, all I can say is this: we have reached the point where, in some integrated systems and breakout circuits, you have built all the core elements of a quantum computer—on a single chip, digitally, operating at temperatures in the millikelvins and ultra-high efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, by the end of next year, we will have complete core quantum computing functionality on-chip digitally.
As we refine this, we will enhance our connectivity to GPUs and CPUs and continue to expand our infrastructure. Some of that work is already happening at the National Quantum Computing Centre in the UK, where we expect the next generation of our contextual computing systems to emerge.
I like contextual computing. It is a good idea. I might use it.
Jacobsen: Because, conceptually, for me, it is taking the physics of this new infrastructure that you have built—and integrating that with a new stack of algorithms. Whether they are layered, modular, or stacked, the point is that they become bright and aware in a way that allows them to say, “I do not need to use this for that—I will use that for this.” It becomes efficient in a fundamentally new way.
Levy: Yes. Look, the issue, of course, is that we need to scale.
We are currently operating at a relatively small scale because you need to scale up before scaling out. Moreover, that is precisely what we are focused on—scaling up. We are building the foundational elements to scale out once we have all the core functionality integrated into a single chip.
Moreover, that is when this starts to come alive. That is when it becomes real at a systems level. At the very least, we are headed in the right direction.
Moreover, as I said earlier—error correction will likely be the first serious focus, as pick-and-shovel as that might sound. However, it is the groundwork we need to lay for everything else to follow.
Jacobsen: John, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise.
Levy: Yes. No—it was great to meet you.
Jacobsen: Great to meet you, too. This was helpful.
Levy: Excellent.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/26
Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy is an award-winning Harvard scholar, educator, and human rights defender specializing in educational equity, leadership and communication, and the history of social movements. He is Faculty Chair of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Kennedy School’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights. Diego Garcia Blum is Program Director for the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at Harvard Kennedy School. A former nuclear engineer, he now champions LGBTQI+ advocacy and co-teaches “Queer Nation” with Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy. David Grasso is the founder and CEO of Project Amicus, a global LGBTQ+ rights nonprofit. A Harvard Kennedy School graduate, he is also a media entrepreneur and political commentator featured on CBS, Fox News, and Newsmax. They discussed generational shifts in media consumption, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and the challenges of messaging in today’s polarized, attention-driven landscape. They explored how social media ecosystems shape information, emphasizing micro-influencers importance, humanizing marginalized communities, and balancing seriousness with humour. With firsthand experience at Harvard and through grassroots activism, they offered strategies for bridging ideological divides by using relatable storytelling, strategic platform targeting, and cultural fluency. Their insights reflect a critical need for compassionate, clear communication that honours expertise and lived experience in a fragmented digital world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, you are here with Diego Garcia Blum, Timothy Patrick McCarthy, and David Grasso. Whether in Boston or Texas, when looking at the new landscape of media—social media like X (formerly Twitter), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and TikTok—which platforms do you find most effective when you want to communicate with an older generation?
Dr. Tim McCarthy: As the elder in the room, this is a big challenge in communicating broadly and specifically to different generations. We are using various platforms and other communication practices. The older you get, the more people are inclined—by how they have been socialized—to want in-person connections and email communication. Facebook is about as far as people older than me, from my age and older, get.
Some folks in Generation X and the Baby Boomer generation have migrated to platforms that are more likely to be spaces for the younger generations, but that is a relatively new phenomenon for us. People talk about “digital natives” (people who grew up with digital communication as a norm) versus “digital migrants” (those of us who did not and have had to learn these modes of communication). That distinction holds. For example, we did not have email when I was in college. I got my first email account when I started graduate school in 1993. I had to train myself to use email and other digital technologies, and that learning curve has continued over time. I am 53 now, so I am not ancient by any means.
I have tried various social media platforms like Twitter (now X), Instagram, and LinkedIn. But I have not truly taken to any of them.
David, why don’t you weigh in on that first question, and then Diego and I can follow you?
Grasso: Sure, no problem. I see where you were going with that.
We were talking, Scott, and we think older people consume information differently. That is why cable news remains so profoundly influential, especially among a demographic that votes significantly higher than younger demographics. Initially, we were talking about the importance of micro-influencing among older people. Here is a concrete example: it is currently very much in the news that Harvard University conflicts with the U.S. federal government over issues including affirmative action and freedom of speech on campus.
Since Tim was one of my professors and others, I went straight to Facebook to find out what they were thinking. What is their general line of thought? What are the next steps, especially since I am no longer on campus? As much as we hear about micro-influencing among younger people, with older people—especially regarding LGBTQ+ issues—one trusted person in their social network can significantly change their thinking and help them evolve, whether it involves politics, social issues, or something else.
Fortunately for us, many older people, despite being associated more often with social conservatism than younger generations, are more open to change because their digital environments are less saturated with media and often have longer attention spans.
Diego Garcia Blum: I would add something regarding LGBTQ+ issues as well. These very carefully crafted spin points and misinformation narratives are disseminated with precision, especially on television.
Instead of talking about LGBTQ+ people simply as people with diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity—which has existed throughout recorded history—there are all these ideas pushed that portray LGBTQ+ identities as abnormal or as a fad. Rather than trying to foster understanding, many television outlets, particularly Fox News and others, frame LGBTQ+ issues as part of a so-called “social contagion.” People, especially older people, often plug into those channels for hours.
That is why that demographic tends to fall more heavily into anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, myths, and misunderstandings. In contrast, many younger people usually get their firsthand information from friends who tell their stories, which helps challenge those talking points directly.
Usually, an older person, especially because it was much harder to come out earlier in life, may not have had the opportunity to hear directly from a transgender person, for example, and may not know one personally. That lack of firsthand connection is a challenge, especially now, when even the White House has been criticized for referring to gender-affirming care in damaging and misleading ways, framing it as something harmful rather than a recognized, evidence-based medical practice.
McCarthy: One of the things I would add to this is that the way media culture has become much more differentiated and variegated in the last two decades or more—this is a 21st-century phenomenon with the advent and proliferation of smartphones and social media—everyone is now a creator, a producer, a circulator, and a consumer.
That has not been true historically. If we are engaged on these various platforms, we will play multiple roles simultaneously, which is interesting. We are not thinking about that as intentionally as we might be.
What does it mean to consume, as opposed to create, as opposed to produce, circulate, or amplify? If we were more intentional about what roles we are playing—what hats we are wearing—at any given time, we might have less of a chaotic cacophony of information.
Interestingly, David brought up the idea of older micro-influencers. When you hear the term “influencer,” you usually think about younger folks—Gen Zers, people on TikTok generating content, often to sell, make money, gain influence, increase their celebrity, brand, or platform. I think that is the most common association.
But the idea of an influencer being older is interesting, and I had not thought about it until David gave this very specific example. I think about this in the context of what is happening on campuses right now. I went to Columbia, and when the protests were happening there last year and the administration decided not to resist federal authority, I immediately contacted people I know at Columbia. I have friends who teach there and friends in the administration. I went directly to them to understand what was going on.
In addition, on the Harvard side, I have been getting a ton of inquiries from people following what I am writing on Facebook and other platforms—though mostly on Facebook because I am not very active on other social media. They want to reach a source they perceive as closer to the situation, someone who might have firsthand experience or connections.
That dynamic is much more pronounced among Gen Xers and older generations. They are more likely to contact someone they know personally for information rather than rely on a public figure they do not personally know.
That is true. I had never thought about it as older people being influencers, too—but they are in a very different way.
Jacobsen: Do you find that younger people have a broader spread in how they use social media? Are they using not only Meta but also TikTok, Instagram, and other platforms? Or do you find they primarily focus on TikTok and Instagram for most of their viewing, consumption, and creation?
McCarthy: I will let the younger folks answer the social media question. But when I think about where I go for my information, I am on Facebook and have a pretty active presence there. I was on Twitter, though I was never very active on Meta’s other platforms. I got off Twitter because it became a sewer.
I am new to LinkedIn and do not use it as effectively as I could. However, I still get the Saturday and Sunday print editions of The New York Times delivered to my house, and I listen to NPR regularly.
I am very careful about how I curate and consume information. As for television news, I have not watched a full cable news show since the day after the election—which was not the case before the election when I watched it every day. It was on 24/7. That has changed how I engage with television media.
Someone like me uses diverse media sources, but social media is still only a relatively small percentage of that. Younger generations are not reading the New York Times print edition, listening to NPR, or watching TV regularly while working from home. They are leaning much more toward social media for their information and communication.
Grasso: But all of these are related, right? That is what people often do not understand: even now, social media has a waterfall effect.
High-level thought leadership usually comes from public leaders and official experts—journalists, academics, and policymakers. As much as we are in an anti-expertise era, it was very clear when I ran a full media brand and monitored our dashboard. Whatever you saw trending on social media fundamentally started at the top and then came down.
There is a real quality problem the further down you go. While people may be getting great information from their social media platforms, fundamentally, it is a reduced and simplified version of something in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or another reputable outlet.
Young people must realize that whatever issue they are studying, they often get a very simplified, viral-consumption-ready version of the facts—which tends to be very low-brow. Thinkers like Tim, Diego, and others working in academia tend to go to primary rather than secondary or tertiary sources.
That is how we should think about social media: not as a source of information but as a derivative of real reporting and scholarship.
Blum: I will say that there are newsmakers, and then there are news spreaders. To grab headlines, stories often get filtered into the messaging that various outlets and creators want.
They will take a story that was maybe originally published by The New York Times and then put a spin on it—perhaps with a conservative bend or some other ideological slant. That is an interesting part of how people consume the media created by the original newsmakers.
They will also add commentary on social media about current events, and that commentary heavily influences people’s takeaways. There are also little ecosystems or media bubbles that are overtly anti-media. For example, the “manosphere” is one of them, as are many conspiracy theory groups and influencers.
These groups gain a large following by promoting messages that are oppositional, very controversial, or lacking thoughtful leadership—because the messages are often extreme or unfounded. Nevertheless, they generate significant bottom-up energy, which we now see reflected in the proliferation of podcasts, manosphere influencers, and related figures.
So yes, these ecosystems are related, and their interrelationships are incredibly complicated.
Jacobsen: I take two points from those three comments.
First, we have micro-influencers among older generations—an important concept. Second, people consume information in different ways.
So my first question is: How do you meet people where they are if they are consuming information from that lower stratum of delivery—a simplified version that does not cognitively resemble what Tim, Diego, or you, David, are reading? They are getting the story, but it is very much a caricature.
Second, I want to introduce a related concept: We have lived a few years dominated by prominent provocateurs who peaked and then faded. Do you see any phenomenon emerging around micro-provocateurs?
Grasso: I think, in general, to put a pin in this conversation, we have a major problem—especially with younger generations—distinguishing between fact and opinion.
Tim is old enough to remember when news and opinion were clearly labelled and did not bleed into each other. We are now in an era where everything is politicized. People use virtue signalling to establish their side when meeting strangers quickly.
What is happening is that the expertise class ends up talking to itself instead of reaching the wider public. This creates weird echo chambers that breed misunderstanding.
So, how do you talk to the general public? That is an art we have largely lost.
We see it a lot in our politics: Whoever can speak to the general public most effectively often wins their support. The public is not very ideological. If someone can communicate well and plainly, they are liked.
That is an important reflection here, especially talking to three Harvard-affiliated people. Public speaking is an art we have lost. Tim was actually my public speaking professor, so it is very interesting—and somewhat ironic—that although we have become so good at public speaking within elite circles, we have become terrible at speaking to the general public.
McCarthy: Interestingly, you would mention David because I think it is true—the siloing and the distance people have.
It is interesting because, in some ways, the distance has been closed. So many people are in virtual space all the time. On the face of it, there is no physical distance at all—and yet, paradoxically, there is so much distance because we are not all in the same digital or virtual spaces together at the same time. People get different information and talk in echo chambers.
That exists across the ideological spectrum. A lot of what you are saying is true. We have lost the art of communicating with each other in interpersonal ways that do not immediately ignite and fuel the polarization we see.
Interestingly, there is long-standing research on communication that supports this. For example, in the late 1970s, a major UCLA study—the largest of its kind—shed light on what makes communication “stick” or stay with people over time. They looked at conversations, public speaking, different audiences, and so forth.
One of the groundbreaking findings of that study was that very little of what sticks, stays, or moves people has to do with the actual words or arguments being made. What truly accounted for it was the sound of the voice, the facial expressions accompanying the words, the gestures made, how people used space, and the emotional or affective feelings people experienced while listening and observing.
When you consider how important interpersonal dynamics are to communication, you realize that we have lost almost all of them on social media. Everything that happens there is disembodied. It is behind avatars, pseudonyms, reactive, and driven by algorithms. There are so many factors that strip away the interpersonal dynamics that are essential to real communication.
Therefore, it does not surprise me that as the country and culture have become more affectively polarized, people react and respond more emotionally to each other. We have also developed a much more heightened sense of disgust for those with different opinions.
We mistakenly think we are in a debate or disagreement all the time; this is more persistent and more emotional now. It is often easier to debate and disagree without being disrespectful or denigrating when we are interacting in person rather than online.
We have not studied this transition as well as we should. There has been what I would call a revolution—or at least a profound transformation—as we have moved from in-person to online or digital contexts.
That shift has had a perilous impact on our ability to talk to each other, engage in reasoned debate, respect one another’s personhood, and hold contentious or conflicting views within the same space without dismissing, denigrating, disrespecting, or discriminating against people who are different from us—whether that is viewpoint diversity or any other form of diversity.
Blum: One of the last things I want to say is that attention is one of the most important currencies.
Apart from people making substantive news, simply making news often now means doing something that catches much attention. The incentives have shifted: even if you have something important to say, it is very difficult to break through when someone else can say something provocative and attract all the traction.
We see this all the time with our experts. Many people do incredible work in academia and have a lot to say. Still, they struggle to break through the noise created by provocative statements. Even very negative or outrageous things, which in earlier times might have backfired, now create so much conversation and engagement that negative attention becomes a net positive for some individuals.
Donald Trump is one of the best examples of that dynamic. Younger people no longer use television in this difficult and distorted attention economy. They are turning to YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms. Even members of Congress are now often more interested in doing something provocative than engaging with actual substantive policymaking.
The real question is: How do experts go through that environment, especially when people do not want to listen to nuanced analysis? It is a major struggle in today’s media landscape.
McCarthy: Part of the inability—or the loss—of the art of communication is the loss of the art of listening.
In digital spaces, we no longer need to listen to each other. We do not even need to read everything. We can just read a clickbait headline. How many of us have reposted something based solely on the headline—something we have not read?
I know that I have been guilty of that in the past. I do not do it anymore, because people have called me out: “Did you actually read this article?” I have been shamed publicly—and rightly so.
As a Harvard professor with a Ph.D., if I am not reading something carefully, then God help us all! So, good on the people who called me out. It was important and it changed my social media practice.
To Diego’s point, there is also research about our diminishing attention spans and the impact of this cultural transformation. The idea of “too long, didn’t read”—TL; DR—was not something we said back when we sat at a table reading the Sunday New York Times op-ed section.
We did not say “TL;DR” in those days. But now, when people repost an article, they sometimes add “too long, didn’t read” as a signal that it does not matter whether they or anyone else reads it. Yet, they still expect others to be angry or react emotionally.
That is a major cultural shift with the advent of the digital age.
Jacobsen: CBC Radio is a big factor in Canadian life. It receives government funding and, speaking more broadly about North America, is very dear to many Canadians. It has been a staple of Canadian society for several decades.
It is still there—it has not gone anywhere—but it now exists within a much more diffuse media landscape. It remains a very big pillar, but it is now one among many.
As you all know, Marshall McLuhan had a famous phrase at the beginning of his work. There is also the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould—someone very familiar to many—who played a lot of Bach and provided much commentary about media.
One thing Gould noted about music, at least for himself, was that he saw it as creating something he called “electronic wallpaper.” In a broader sense, I think of that as a sort of “2.0” version of McLuhan’s ideas.
However, I believe we live in a “3.0” version today. Gould spoke primarily about music because it was his medium of expression. He once joked that if he had not been a pianist, he would have been a writer; as a pianist, that was how he expressed himself.
In the current context, we now have a multigenerational influence of the internet and, increasingly, social media. We are living in a world where, as you noted earlier, Tim, the news used to be on all the time for you—you curated it more carefully later—but earlier, it was a 24/7 immersion.
So, how can those more activist-oriented regarding factual information—those trying to get people activated—tap into that broader electronic wallpaper? Not just older folks on Meta, but everyone across social media? How can we message more effectively across that landscape?
McCarthy: I need clarification on the question. Are you asking how we can use social media to promote or incorporate other kinds of forms—like music and art—to communicate more effectively? Is that what you are asking?
Jacobsen: That is an interesting angle. Getting more at what David said earlier, where you have this lower information strata that people are primarily engaging with: How do you tap into that strata?
Think of it as “wallpaper”—it is everywhere and multimodal. How do you tap into it effectively? It could involve art, music, and other forms. But the idea is to do it strategically—to have a plan of action, identify specific media, and target them with coherent content for a unified messaging strategy.
McCarthy: Two things are important.
First, Diego will laugh because I talk to him and some of my younger colleagues about this often, about my need for intervention and instruction when it comes to social media communication. As David said, I teach leadership and communication, so you would think I would be approached as an expert in this. Yet when I think about my social media inadequacies, I sometimes feel like, “Help!”
If you are not already on the relevant frequency—whether that is a lower-frequency platform or a different media environment—then if you want to communicate with people who occupy those spaces, you must find a way to connect. That could mean learning how to use the platform yourself, getting help from others, or putting intentional time and effort into understanding how to participate in that space in a meaningful and good-faith way.
People who must lead across generations—such as those running for elected office with diverse stakeholder constituencies—have to do this, and many already are. You cannot run for office today without a social media presence.
What often happens when older candidates run for office—and I know this because I work with many campaigns and politicians—is that they hire teenagers or twenty-somethings. One of my friends worked for a state party organization, and during a campaign that turned out to be very successful statewide, she found a high school student to handle their TikTok strategy.
I will not tell you which state it was, but the point is that you have to find the right people to help you infiltrate the right frequencies.
Second, Diego’s earlier point about academics is very important. We do have expertise. We do research. We write. We publish. We develop scholarly knowledge. But that does not matter if we cannot communicate it to a broader audience.
It all comes down to translation—how you translate what you know into a language that other people will understand. This is a massive challenge, not only for individuals but also for institutions like the Democratic Party.
For example, during the last election cycle, every time someone mentioned how tough the economy was and how people were struggling, Democrats would quote Nobel laureate economists about how “Bidenomics” was working. That did not land with someone who cannot pay rent.
Most Americans have no idea what a Nobel laureate is, much less what an economist does.
Thus, being able to translate knowledge and expertise into everyday human experiences is not just a technological question about which platform to use or what frequency to operate on. It is a human question about connecting real people’s experiences to the information you are trying to share.
That is a huge challenge.
We also know that communication is fundamentally about relationships. If I walk into a room to talk about anything, I want to know who is there, what they might already know or not know, and what they might be curious about about what I am there to discuss.
For example, if I am speaking to a room full of young men who are not party-affiliated, I should know that they are probably listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast. I should probably listen to the latest episode before I walk into that room.
And frankly, not everyone is willing to do that work.
As a matter of practice, I used to watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News when I was teaching. I would spend time on each of those channels.
This was more the case when we were living in the days when those kinds of TV shows were really powerful and important. They still are, of course, but their influence has diminished somewhat in the country’s latest political incarnation, especially among younger people.
But I did that because I wanted to know: if I encountered someone who was only watching Fox News, then MSNBC would not help me reach them—and vice versa. If I were only consuming MSNBC, I would not be able to effectively communicate with people watching Fox News or CNN, or listening to talk radio or some particular podcast.
It is incumbent upon those of us who want to communicate across divides to be willing to step into those different media worlds. That requires humility and openness; frankly, we are not currently experiencing an abundance of either in America.
Jacobsen: I talked to some child psychologists for another set of interviews, and you are correct. It starts early.
Grasso: most people are apolitical, Scott, which is hard for many people to realize.
Ultimately, most people consume culture more than they consume politics. However, culture is ultimately downstream from politics.
So, when we are talking about LGBTQ+ issues, for example, culture ultimately sets the tenor—and the United States plays a major role in setting that global cultural tone. People worldwide look to the United States—whether they love it or hate it—because we tend to be where things happen first, and then those developments get exported elsewhere.
With the political changes we are experiencing in the United States, we are only seeing the beginning of a global trend. Other countries will likely experiment with their versions of populism, influenced by what happens here.
People are largely apolitical, and it is hard for many people—even myself—to understand that fully. I am less political than Diego and Tim. But interestingly, in my apolitical stance, I look to them to understand what is going on.
When you are more middle-of-the-road, you need people. And if you are middle-of-the-road and open-minded, you should listen to diverse voices and perspectives to better connect with different communities.
We live in a world where we need coalitions to get anything done. Ideological diversity is normal—and ideological purity is poisonous on both sides.
Bridge-building requires understanding that the masses are largely apolitical and recognizing that people are different from you. You must try to think like them to understand their position truly.
Blum: I want to add to that by sharing a Media Matters study that shows that the right-wing utterly dominates the podcast sphere and the broader online media ecosystems.
One thing we are learning—especially after the last election—is that there are far more right-leaning spaces with different ways of talking and different communication styles, and they are deeply influential. According to the Media Matters study, nine of the ten online shows with the largest followings were right-leaning.
This dominance was not accidental—a coordinated strategy that paid off. At the same time, many left-leaning activists largely ignored the growing importance of podcasts, YouTube channels, and other emerging platforms.
It was a huge missed opportunity, and it was too late by the time they realized it. These spaces had already become major avenues through which people received information.
One of the key lessons from this is that when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues—where so much misinformation and harmful myths are spreading—there are huge, largely unregulated spaces where disinformation circulates freely.
If activists do not meet people in those spaces, they will be completely dominated by those spreading myths and misinformation. It is critical to engage in those ecosystems before they become entrenched.
Another issue is that activists, particularly in the LGBTQ+ space and within the Democratic coalition, have been slow to develop catchy, culture-driven messaging. They often over-anchor on expertise—which is important—but it does not always resonate with the broader public.
The challenge is to develop effective communication and attention strategies while maintaining journalistic integrity, a commitment to truth, and factual accuracy. Different standards operate on each side, but breaking through remains as important and difficult.
Grasso: Really interesting study, Diego. Thank you.
McCarthy: It is interesting.
Getting back to the point I was making about affective polarization—this idea that we are experiencing increasing feelings of disgust toward people with different experiences, identities, and viewpoints than we do—this has been well-documented.
The Pew Research Center has done a series of longitudinal studies on this, and we know it is happening. It is one of the key dimensions of polarization within the United States, particularly in our politics.
When you think about how best to message—whether that means engaging on lower frequencies, using the platforms others are using, listening to the media they consume, or reading what they read—all of these communication strategies presume a fundamental acknowledgment of the humanity of the various sides involved in these issues.
And I want to be very clear about this: one of the things happening right now is the dehumanization of certain groups of people. We see it particularly with the LGBTQ+ community and especially the transgender community.
There has been recycling and amplification of ancient tropes—accusations of pedophilia, child abuse, and other baseless claims—designed specifically to serve a dehumanization project. Because if you deny a group’s humanity, it becomes much easier to deny them rights and resources and strip away their dignity.
Suppose we have a good-faith conversation about how the LGBTQ+ community should better message to broader groups in society. In that case, we first need to ask a basic question: Are the people we are trying to reach willing to acknowledge that LGBTQ+ people are human and deserving of human rights?
If the answer is “no,” then we should not waste our time messaging to them. I want to be clear about that. I am not interested in spending what precious time I have left on this earth trying to message to people who fundamentally deny the humanity of our community. That principle extends to all communities that face discrimination and are targeted with ancient stereotypes and persistent prejudices.
It makes sense to clarify that. In politics and polling, we often talk about the “movable middle”—the people who are not yet firmly decided but are willing to listen, willing to hear new information, and can potentially be persuaded.
But again, that presumes a good-faith engagement around mutual humanity. What we are seeing right now in this intensely polarized culture—not just within politics but across society—is a crisis of dehumanization.
While the right and conservatives are certainly not the only ones who engage in dehumanization, when it comes specifically to LGBTQ+ people, conservatives and the political right are disproportionately represented in advancing that dehumanization project.
Blum: I want to end with this point.
There is a very effective campaign underway to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people, by pushing the false message that “real trans people do not exist.”
Of course, that is complete nonsense. We have had trans people throughout recorded history. For example, Roman Emperor Elagabalus is often cited as someone who would today be understood as expressing gender variance. Long before we even had modern language to describe trans identities, people were living experiences consistent with what we now recognize as trans.
Over time, there has been an attempt to reframe trans identity as an “ideology” rather than as an aspect of human diversity and existence.
This rhetorical shift is not accidental. It is designed to strip away rights and recognition. It is a deliberate project of erasure and dehumanization.
The more dehumanized a group becomes, the easier it is to enact increasingly harsh policies against them. That, in turn, galvanizes political support around cruelty, which historically has led to some of humanity’s worst atrocities.
We have to be extremely vigilant because that process is actively underway right now against trans people.
Jacobsen: If we are to think about this in constructive terms, Where do you most effectively meet people regarding their attention, particularly considering what Diego mentioned about the attention economy? Furthermore, once you find those pain points, how do you most effectively engage them?
Grasso: We have to talk to people in a way that makes sense to them.
We live in a fragmented world, separated into tribes based on ideology, geography, class, and more. People may say similar things but use very different language depending on their origins.
We need to meet people where they are, using ways of communicating that feel natural and understandable to them.
People often do not understand the practical implications of policies in their everyday lives. Intellectuals sometimes talk in terms that even I find hard to relate to. The real questions for everyday people are: “How does this affect my life? How is this important to me?” Often, the narratives we hear seem abstract or irrelevant.
We need to break it down so people can see how they are part of the broader world and how they stand to gain or lose depending on which policies are adopted. It is not just about government, either. We often overestimate the role of government when the private sector, the public sector, and academia—all institutions—need to communicate better with regular people.
They need to demonstrate their value propositions, which are how they help people live better, happier, healthier lives.
Jacobsen: You remind me of an individual who has since passed away. When she died, she was in her 90s. I had the privilege of conducting one of her last interviews. She was the Communications Director for Atheists for Human Rights, and we did a few interviews together.
One thing she noted—this was related to reproductive healthcare and abortion—was making issues personally relevant to the individual. Based on many of the harder years in that space (long before Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022), her analysis focused on making people understand the personal stakes involved.
When I interviewed her, she pointed out that you must make it personally impactful, particularly to men. Because in cases of pregnancy, there are two people involved, the conversation has often been one-sided, without involving a full, bidirectional conversation about responsibility and accountability. For 50 years, the conversation has often been one-sided.
Her point was that you have to make men realize that they could be liable for child support payments for 18 years if they father a child. You must make the issue grounded in something personally costly so they understand why it matters to them.
That would be an example of negative framing. But you can do the same with positive messaging: for example, pointing out that someone probably has a cousin, a friend, or a family member who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. You make it personal—an investment in the lives of people they know and care about.
Is that style of personal messaging—what Maria Lena Castle emphasized—effective in your experience?
Grasso: It has always been effective.
It goes back to what Tim said earlier: talking to people one-on-one is a completely different experience.
Even with the limited amount of person-to-person interaction we still have daily, it is crucial to represent our communities, humanize ourselves, and remind people that we are not some invisible enemy.
We are their neighbours. We are their children. We are their family. That has always been the most effective feature of the gay rights movement. You cannot “other” people when they are embedded in your everyday life.
The same principle applies to any bridge-building space. When trying to appeal to a population that does not think or look like you—or whatever the difference—the best strategy is re-humanization.
We are discussing dehumanization, but the fight against it must involve re-humanizing people.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of one other point. There was an American comedian who, in the early days of the web, had a series called Web Redemption on a show called Tosh.0—the comedian Daniel Tosh.
Daniel Tosh, an American comedian, was very laissez-faire in his use of words, concepts, and language—often intentionally offensive. He had a segment called Web Redemption on his show Tosh.0, where people who had embarrassing or viral moments online would get a chance to “redeem” themselves in a humorous way.
Similarly, thinking about LGBTQIA+ topics and public framing, there was a viral moment involving Louis Otieno, a former Kenyan news anchor.
In one particular interview that became internationally famous, Otieno asked the guest bluntly, “Why are you gay?” and then followed it up with, “You are gay. You are transgender, so you are gay.” It became a widely circulated clip.
Interestingly, there was also an informal kind of “web redemption” for Otieno. He later appeared in different contexts, doing light-hearted takes on the original viral moment.
This helped humanize him. He was no longer just a one-dimensional caricature of a news anchor who opened interviews with inflammatory questions. It brought humour and a sense of humanity to the whole thing.
Grasso: We have all seen that clip, Scott [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing] So Louis Otieno essentially had an international version of web redemption.
There are other examples, though I cannot think of them off my head. But moments like that—where the original moment and the later humanization touch people—show the power of humour.
Is there room for something similar in messaging around serious issues? Something that acknowledges the gravity of the issues—legal and individual impacts on people’s lives—but does so in a way that is also charming and humanizing?
Grasso: As much as you can criticize me for my love-hate relationship with social media, one thing about it is that it is really funny.
Social media makes us laugh. Even if I am busy, if I spend five minutes watching little reels that my friends send me, I laugh. Humour brings levity to high-stakes situations.
For activism, even though the issues are serious, humour helps decrease the temperature. Humour resonates with a lot more people because people love to laugh. Sometimes, we all take life—and ourselves—too seriously. Humour is a greatvehicle for social change.
Jacobsen: I interviewed the late Paul Krassner, the founder of The Realist magazine, once.
At the end of the interview, I asked him for advice for young people. His response was very terse—maybe even one sentence—and it was to the effect of: “Do not take yourself as seriously as your causes.”
Krassner emerged from a prime era of in-person activism in American life through literature, comedy, and imagery featuring figures like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and others. Does that advice still hold today?
Grasso: “Do not take yourself too seriously” holds. I do not know if that would go over well with some of my colleagues—they are very serious!—so I might hesitate to say it out loud.
But it is true. Do you need anything else from me?
Jacobsen: Favorite quote?
Grasso: Favorite quote? That is a hard one. I am not a “quote person.” I have no idea. I will have to think about it. I will prepare one for next time! Thank you for making me do this.
Jacobsen: You are welcome. Good luck with your work.
Grasso: No problem. Let me know if you need anything, Scott.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye-bye.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/25
Racism fueled Nazi ideology and policies. The Nazis viewed the world as being divided up into competing inferior and superior races.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
At its core, the Nazi worldview was racist and biological, positing that the so-called ‘Aryan’ race – primarily the North Europeans – was the superior race of humanity.
Yad Vashem – The World Holocaust Remembrance Center
The German Nazis were decidedly far-Right, not leftwing. To call the Left “Nazis,” or frame the German Left as Nazis, when the enormous weight of corpses and contemporary political analyses note the German Nazis as Right-wing, congratulations, you have taken on the tactics of abusers: Gaslighting.
They merely had “Socialist” in the name. They used the language to co-opt working-class support. Then they aggressively persecuted leftists–i.e., trade unionists, socialists, communists–while advocating for anti-Communism, authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism, traditionalism, and xenophobia.
Facts of history and the dead matter, not scoring political points for personal gain. To more recent history, German intelligence agencies ranked the AfD with neo-Nazi groups as a Gefahr für die Demokratie (danger to democracy).
May 2025…: German intelligence agencies connected the Afd to extreme-right ideology. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) report stressed AfD’s ethnisch-abstammungsmäßiges Volksverständnis(ethnically defined concept of “the people”) as violating democratic order, seeking to exclude entire groups. AfD characterized as a “racist and anti-Muslim” organization, e.g., slogans like Abschieben schafft Wohnraum(“deportation creates housing”) and Jeder Fremde mehr in diesem Land ist einer zu viel (“each more foreigner is one too many”). These are listed as evidence of dehumanizing language. BfV President Thomas Haldenwang called this “a good day for democracy.” A history exists here, too.
March 2022: a Cologne court upheld the BfV’s classification of the AfD and its youth wing as a Beobachtungsobjekt (Verdachtsfall) (suspected extremist organization), finding ausreichende tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte für verfassungsfeindliche Bestrebungen– “sufficient factual indications of anti-constitutional aims.” The BfV 1,100-page report filled the extremism criteria.
Late 2023: Bavarian prosecutors opened investigations into newly elected AfD MP Daniel Halemba for possible use of Nazi symbols. He previously belonged to a student fraternity raided for Nazi paraphernalia.
December, 2023: Several state Verfassungsschutz offices flagged AfD branches. Saxony’s domestic intelligence classified the Saxony AfD as gesichert rechtsextremistisch. Saxony’s VS president Dirk-Martin Christian said, “…an der rechtsextremistischen Ausrichtung der AfD Sachsen bestehen keine Zweifel mehr”(“there is no longer any doubt about AfD Saxony’s right-extremist orientation”) The party held typische völkisch-nationalistische Positionen (“typical folk-nationalist positions”) and used common anti-Semitic conspiracy language. These mirrored Nazi-era rhetoric. Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt earlier flagged local AfD branches as extremist as well.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) called the intelligence review legal and independent, resulting in a 1,100-page internal report being apolitical. The new classification permitted intensified surveillance, including deployment of informants and communication interception.
May, (2024). German courts have penalized AfD members for Nazi-linked speech. The Halle state court convicted Thuringia AfD leader Björn Höcke for using the SA slogan “Alles für Deutschland!”
2025: Two Saarland AfD local councillors liked a Facebook post celebrating Hitler’s birthday. Authorities launched a Volksverhetzung (incitement) probe and party expulsion proceedings.
Leading German politicians likened the AfD to fascism and Nazi extremism. SPD Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned protesters in 2024: Wer die AfD aus Protest wählt, dem müsse klar sein, dass sie Faschisten wählten. (“Anyone who votes AfD out of protest must be aware that they are voting for fascists.”) SPD leader Lars Klingbeil accused AfD co-leader Alice Weidel of heading a rechtsextreme Partei… die AfD ist durchsetzt auch mit Nazis in Europa. (“the AfD is also filled with Nazis in Europe.”) Former SPD head Sigmar Gabriel compared hearing AfD rhetoric to his Nazi-father: Alles, was die [AfD] erzählen, habe ich schon gehört — im Zweifel von meinem eigenen Vater, der … ein Nazi war. Green and Linke politicians made similar warnings. Expert commentators warned of Nazi parallels.
German officials and courts drew a direct line between AfD rhetoric and Nazi-style ideology. Official reports cite AfD policy goals, mass deportation slogans to ethno-nationalist immigration stances, as incompatible with Germany’s constitution.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/25
Growtherapy: Cultivating Emotional Resilience and Secure Attachment in the Age of AI and Overstimulation
Stacy Thiry, LMHC, is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor based in Florida. Thiry discussed how childhood needs for mental health have evolved, with modern environments posing unique psychological challenges, mainly due to social media and instant access to global information. She emphasized the importance of unstructured play, secure attachment, emotional validation, nutrition, and self-regulation. Thiry highlighted shifts in therapy toward integrating somatic techniques alongside talk therapy. She noted that parents today often shield children from necessary discomfort, impacting resilience. Thiry also warned about AI’s growing role in children’s lives and stressed the need to maintain foundational emotional needs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Stacy Thiry, LMHC. She is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor based in Florida, with extensive experience supporting adults facing a wide range of challenges, including anxiety, depression, trauma, substance use disorders, personality disorders, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and relationship issues. Drawing from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI), humanistic therapy, and mindfulness-based approaches, Stacy helps clients identify goals, build coping strategies, and improve communication skills. With a background in communication, she values authentic connection as a foundation for healing. Stacy also offers assessments for emotional support animals (ESAs), ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder. She provides virtual sessions and empowers clients to create meaningful, lasting change through compassion and collaboration. Thank you very much for joining me today.
So, as always, a big overview question: Is the contemporary context different from fifty years ago or a thousand years ago in terms of what a human being needs for mental health in childhood and adolescence?
Stacy Thiry: That is an excellent question. I would say yes. It is not so much survival-based as it used to be—whether fifty years ago or a thousand years ago—yet our nervous systems, especially the sensitive nervous systems of small children, are still wired to detect threats.
Now that we generally have safer homes and environments for children, they will oftentimes still search for threats and may even perceive themselves as the threat, internalizing self-blame. So, psychologically, it is a little more complicated today.
Jacobsen: How do the Internet and social media impact this?
Thiry: That is another excellent question. If you think about fifty or a thousand years ago, humans were not designed to have instant access to information about the world’s problems. We were not designed to experience insecurity, jealousy, or comparison based on distant events or strangers’ lives.
Back then, people were mainly responsible for showing up for their immediate family members and local communities.
Now, consider the constant availability of anxiety-provoking content on the news and social media—the amount of content that is accessible at any moment. That represents a significant difference and impact compared to the past.
Jacobsen: What about the role of unstructured play in emotional and cognitive development? Does it necessarily have to be outdoors, or are some of these devices helpful for development?
Thiry: Yes. Unstructured play is essential. Through unstructured play, children learn how to build resilience—they must understand that making mistakes is safe, healthy, and part of learning. It allows them to continue trying, problem-solving, and growing without feeling restricted in their exploration.
It is also highly beneficial for socialization. Children learn how to negotiate, cooperate, and navigate social dynamics—essential skills for healthy group living. In animal behaviour, for example, rehabilitating a socially struggling dog often involves integrating them into a healthy “pack” to model and reinforce appropriate social behaviour.
Jacobsen: How does secure attachment in early childhood influence long-term mental health? If someone is unfortunate enough to develop a non-secure attachment—not necessarily an insecure one—are there ways to move toward a more secure attachment later in life?
Thiry: Yes. Secure attachment formed early in life provides a strong foundation for emotional regulation, self-esteem, and healthy relationships throughout the lifespan. However, if someone develops an insecure, avoidant, anxious, or disorganized attachment style, it is possible to “earn” a more secure attachment later through corrective relational experiences. This can happen through therapy, healthy adult relationships, or conscious self-work to understand and heal early attachment patterns.
Alot more research has been published about attachment style, so I am glad you are bringing attention to that topic.
To summarize, as children, we look to our caretakers for our safety, security, and survival. If our caretakers are inconsistent, neglectful, or avoidant about emotional attunement, this can result in an insecure attachment—whether anxious or avoidant.
Then, when we transition into adulthood, the attachment we form with our caretakers is something we carry within ourselves.
Often, what we think of as insecure or anxious attachment in our relationships is how we are attached to ourselves, not just how we attach to our partners. I want to clarify that if I have a more anxious attachment style, I might come across as anxious with a potential partner, but it is because I cannot soothe my anxiety.
It can certainly be rewired. Reworking that kind of conditioning takes quite a bit of effort. You have to be very intentional about breaking the patterns, bringing awareness to those patterns, and bringing them into your body. Some somatic techniques can be particularly useful for addressing insecure attachment styles.
To answer your question directly, yes, insecure attachment can have a significant impact, but it can also be rewired with effort.
Jacobsen: Does it become harder over time?
Thiry: Anytime we reinforce a pattern, changing can become more challenging. It is like paving a highway.
The more times you travel on a particular path or highway, the easier it becomes to follow that same route automatically. So think of it just like that: every time you break a pattern and try something different, it is like trying to forge a new route. You “repave” that neural pathway over time through repetition and consistency.
Jacobsen: What about the role of nutrition and physical activity in helping build mental wellness in kids?
Thiry: Yes. Nutrition is one of the fundamental building blocks for wellness.
What we want to look at is making sure children are eating whole foods.
The more we can minimize processed foods, the better. A study indicated that symptoms of ADHD were reduced by over fifty percent in children who removed processed foods from their diet. That is a pretty significant finding.
So, the more we can focus their diets on protein, healthy fats, and complex carbohydrates, the more this will support their overall well-being.
Jacobsen: I did another interview with Dr. Caroline Fleck, and she talked about validation as an important thing for kids and adults.
So, within the more precise terminology of psychology, what is validation in the clinical setting, and how do you help kids develop some of those skills without necessarily needing constant external validation?
Thiry: Yes. That is another excellent question.
I like to think of validation as something that comes from emotional attunement, similar to how a tuning fork resonates.
When we validate our children and teach them how to validate themselves, we are looking for emotional resonance: recognizing, honoring, and affirming their internal emotional experience.
Thiry: They are at this level emotionally, and they need us to resonate at that level calmly so we can help them co-regulate. The validation comes from being able to name, notice, and validate those emotions—making sure they feel seen and heard.
That helps them develop emotional intelligence and resilience.
That includes allowing space for what are often considered “negative” emotions—like anger, sadness, and fear—without attaching any shame to them.
We want to make sure our children understand that, yes, this is a normal, healthy emotion. I would feel this way, too, if something like this happened to me.
That is a helpful way to validate. Then, the next step is to determine what we need to do to help process this feeling. I love an example from one of the kids I work with: when angry, they say, “I feel like a volcano.”
It is adorable because they are small, but you want to ensure that feelings are processed healthily before that small child grows into an adult who does not know how to manage them.
Jacobsen: What are some wrong things to do as a parent—the biggest no-nos?
Thiry: At the top of the list would be dismissing emotions.
If you are uncomfortable because your child is experiencing something that stirs discomfort in you, and you dismiss it, you are teaching them it is not safe to feel their feelings.
That is where the validation component becomes especially important.
Also, being inconsistent or showing an overreaction can be very unhelpful.
Children can start to perceive that they have to manage their parent’s emotions rather than their own, and they can begin to “parentify” themselves emotionally.
If you feel particularly reactive or uncomfortable, the best thing you can do is take a deep breath, ask for a couple of minutes, and then come back to your child to let them know you are in it together—you will talk about it and figure it out together.
Jacobsen: How can parents identify and distinguish when to use different approach strategies—based on real signs of anxiety and depression versus ordinary stress kids feel?
Thiry: Some approach strategies I recommend include planning open discussion times that are predictable and that your children know they are coming.
Many times, they do not even understand their feelings, or they do not know they are not supposed to feel a certain way consistently.
So once a week, have a structured time to sit down and discuss feelings.
Another approach would be to check in on key areas I typically assess for:
- Appetite
- Nutrition
- Hydration
- Sleep (both level and quality)
If significant fluctuations are reported in any of these four areas, that would be a sign to inquire further—or even consider talking to a doctor.
Jacobsen: How can caregivers foster a healthy sense of identity and self-worth in a world where digital technology is everywhere? That artifice is a fast-paced phenomenon in the world.
But I do not know if that is the case. It seems more like rapid attention shifting than actual speed because ordinary life still happens at the same rate. It is just that we are more and more distracted.
Characteristically, girls are often on Instagram and TikTok, shooting videos and trying to get likes, and boys are usually trying to get ranks in video games. Let us say they detach from those platforms or get some time away from them.
How can you help them develop a sense of self-worth not necessarily connected to these other superficial aspects of the digital world?
Thiry: Yes, that is another great question. You have some excellent questions today, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them.
What is happening there is that they are being taken out of the present moment.
Specifically, they are being taken out of their own sensory experiences.
One of the top things I would recommend is teaching them how to care for their physical bodies in a disciplined and consistent way.
Building those habits creates a sense of trust within themselves.
If they can do that consistently enough, create a safe routine or system that gives them a “safe landing space” to take appropriate risks.
For example, I feed myself a nutritious morning breakfast, get a good night’s sleep, and stay hydrated throughout the day.
I can afford to stay up a little later one night to play a pickup game or socialize because I have a strong foundation to return to.
Through consistency and building trust with these nourishing, healthy routines, we start to develop true confidence and self-worth.
Jacobsen: What about those who, by the circumstance of birth or accidents, do not necessarily have the same opportunities?
Or if they do, they have to exert significant extra effort—such as children who have a formally classified learning disability, who are physically disabled in some way, who come from gender or sexual minority backgrounds they are discovering during adolescence, or who grow up in poverty?
Even though living in enriched societies like Canada and the United States is a blessing in many ways, it does not erase the real difficulties these individuals face. Do you need to reframe wellness for a child or adolescent in those contexts? Or do you tailor it, case-by-case, in terms of orienting them toward functioning within society and education systems?
Thiry: Yes. What is essential is that children of all socioeconomic statuses and classes feel seen and heard.
When I heard you ask the question, my first thought was a quote by Carl Jung: that loneliness is not about not having enough people around but about the inability to express the things that seem important to oneself.
So whether a person or a child has access to healthy food, movement, or any of the other things I previously mentioned, it is still vitally important that they feel a sense of belonging within their community—that they feel connected, seen, and heard.
I would add that part of wellness might also include allowing them to find ways to express what is important to them.
That is how all great art and music are made.
Whatever that looks like within their family and communities is what I encourage.
Jacobsen: What about emotional regulation and self-awareness?
You mentioned putting a word to the feeling a child has as part of emotional intelligence development. What about self-awareness? And what about cases where kids need to learn that emotional regulation is an essential tool in most life contexts?
Thiry: Yes.
When working with children, it is always helpful to remind them that their emotions—those intense feelings present in their bodies—must be expressed healthily.
Whether that is through naming them or moving the body, or if it is sadness, through comfort and self-soothing.
Those feelings need to be tended to in a sensory way.
Then, as they age, it is essential to discuss the difference between their intentions and their behaviour’s impact on others.
That speaks directly to self-awareness.
It is not just about what I intended to do but how my behavior impacted the people around me.
One of my close friends said something the other day that I loved:
Especially with young men and boys, anger is often the only emotion society conditions as “acceptable” to express.
But oftentimes, that comes out as violence.
So, teaching them that strong men are dangerous but weak men are violent is crucial.
The impact of anger being expressed violently toward others is unacceptable.
I just wanted to add that point.
Jacobsen: Are there statistically significant gender differences in childhood noteworthy regarding the development of mental wellness and the timing at which verbal, emotional, and social skills come online for boys and girls? Are those relevant and valid questions based on the evidence?
Thiry: Those are valid questions.
However, I do not have enough information to discuss that in detail.
Jacobsen: What is your favorite quote by Jung?
Thiry: Oh, the loneliness quote.
Jacobsen: At what age do you think kids are mature enough to learn practices like pranayama, which is called pranayama in Eastern traditions, or tactical breathing in the Canadian military? Essentially, controlled breathing techniques to induce relaxation and calm. It is relaxation in the body and calm in the mind. Or are different techniques more practicable for them?
Thiry: We call them somatic techniques, and they are some of the most effective tools to use with children because they are already naturally aware of and in tune with their bodies.
They naturally move, stretch, dance, jump, and physically express their feelings.
It is helpful to teach them, as young as possible, how to shake out their arms if they are feeling anxious or take a large breath followed by a shorter one.
Teaching them to control their breathing is very powerful.
Like I do with my adult clients, I also ask them, “Where do you feel this in your body?”
Helping them understand the sensation—like anxiety being felt more in the chest, fear often being felt in the stomach, and anger more in the head—builds a strong mind-body connection and helps them learn how to self-regulate.
They do a lot of this in martial arts, too, which can be very helpful for children: deep breathing, body control, and focus.
Yoga classes can also be an excellent option for developing these skills.
Jacobsen: I remember, before he passed, Philip Zimbardo talking about how for a single mom or a single dad, there can be much stress because they are working, then coming home and caregiving, then going back to work again—without necessarily having enough income to purchase extra support or strong social or family connections to help them.
They can become very isolated. He mentioned that the stress gets passed on to the child in various ways.
Is that still correct based on current evidence? Also, what are some ways that this stress might manifest if so?
Thiry: Yes. There is definitely a connection between parents’ stress levels and how children internalize, interpret, or perceive that stress.
I cannot speak to every specific example without more context, but in general, I have seen some common patterns:
One is that children often develop higher levels of anxiety because they can sense that their parent is overwhelmed or stressed, but they do not understand the full scope of what is causing it.
As I mentioned earlier, children tend to internalize these experiences.
They may try to identify the cause—and if they cannot imagine a world outside of their home environment, they might conclude that the problem must be them.
They may think, “How can I make Mom or Dad feel less anxious, worried, or scared?”
Alternatively, they may go completely internal and develop what we would call more avoidant tendencies—telling themselves, “I will just self-soothe by myself.”
They might think, “My parent is too overwhelmed to help me co-regulate, so I will go be alone,” and distract themselves, escape into solitary activities, or develop coping mechanisms that center around emotional withdrawal.
Jacobsen: Over the course of your career, what have you noticed are things that we once thought were evidence-based practices—or at least were considered evidence-based based on the evidence available at the time—but with new evidence, are no longer seen that way, or are not as strong as previously believed?
In other words, specific claims were toned down over time. How has that then made you change or adapt your practice?
Thiry: In my experience—okay, I heard a quote that applies here:
“You do not learn how to swim by reading a book about swimming.”
Therapy has involved a lot of thinking, talking, identifying, and naming—what you might call “cognitive” work.
I do use a lot of cognitive behavioral work (CBT), but I do so to build self-awareness.
Eventually, though, you have to jump in the pool—you have to get into your body and learn what it feels like to break a pattern, try a different response, and allow your nervous system to have what is called a corrective emotional experience in the body.
Historically, a lot more emphasis had been placed on talk therapy alone.
It is better understood that the best therapeutic outcomes often come from a combination of talk therapy and somatic (body-based) work.
Jacobsen: What do you see as the issue? I will take a step back and twist the old adage, “What’s wrong with the kids today?” into, “What is wrong with the parents today?” Then, we will move on to the kids.
Prototypically, what are parents doing wrong in this cohort? We use terms like Greatest Generation, Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, etc.
I understand these terms are partly arbitrary and help demographers organize categories, but we still use them in conversation. So, with the current cohort of parents, what are they doing prototypically wrong?
Thiry: That is a big, important question.
Today, parents often try to prevent their children from experiencing what they perceive as “negative” experiences.
You are right: we do not want bad things to happen to our kids.
But often, we prevent them from experiencing the necessary discomfort—discomfort that is required for building resilience.
We also sometimes prevent them from experiencing natural consequences required for learning and behaviour change.
I have a child, so I deeply relate to the instinct to protect.
However, children must independently learn some of these emotional regulation and coping skills.
They need to experience discomfort—it is required for growth.
So, a lot of what we see is a kind of enabling behaviour.
The causes for this are multifaceted.
Some of it is because parents today are very busy—they do not always have the time to work through these issues slowly and deliberately with their kids.
It can feel easier and faster to say, “Let me do it for you,” or “Just listen to me so you do not have to go through this heartbreak,” or “Just avoid this experience.”
Sometimes, it is also because such difficulties were not part of “the plan” parents envisioned for their children.
Thirty: Also, I have seen some expectations placed on kids that are not conducive to them figuring out their own identities—their own paths, their own wants, and how they can be fully empowered to take ownership of who they are as individuals.
So those are a few of the reasons.
Jacobsen: What is wrong with the kids today?
Thiry: The kids are hurting.
Many of them are lonely, and they do not feel a sense of belonging or connectedness.
There is a saying—I forget where I heard it—that if you are starved of something, you will “lick it off of knives.”
That applies to some of the engagement kids have with social media today.
Even though it is painful for them, they keep engaging with it.
I have kids who say things like, “I need boundaries,” or “I had to delete my Instagram because every time I looked at it, I felt terrible about myself.”
They are trying to figure out how to protect themselves.
But listen—our kids are up against the best and brightest engineers in the world, designing algorithms to capture and keep their attention.
Even if they wanted to stop looking at some of this content, they would still be inundated with it.
They cannot easily go in and change the algorithm.
Neither can we, as parents—even though we are supposed to protect them.
So, many kids today express feelings of powerlessness and meaninglessness and struggle to find where they belong or feel seen.
Jacobsen: Cultures differ. Families differ. The values of cultures and families differ internally and across different parts of the world.
But evidence is evidence when it comes to mental health practices. How do you balance cultural and family values with fully evidence-based mental health practices in child development?
Thiry: Some human needs are inherent.
The need for belonging, the need for a sense of significance, and the need to feel loved are universal human needs.
I like to stick with the foundational principles known to be true across cultures.
From the moment they are born, children are constantly scanning their environment for safety:
“Am I safe? Am I safe? Am I safe?”
And if they feel that they are in a safe environment, then they begin scanning for attunement:
“Am I loved? Am I loved?”
Am I loved?
Am I seeing myself reflected to me as part of that natural childhood development?
This is true across cultures.
Only from a place of safety—and then feeling attuned—can children feel safe enough to start being curious, to learn, to explore, to take risks, and to grow.
If not, they will constantly be scanning for safety and attunement.
So, start at the foundation.
Jacobsen: Social media and the Internet were transformative to social interactions in a very significant way.
On the one hand, they gave the world access to the world: anyone, if motivated, can now know almost anything about any place, and most of it is available in translation into their native tongue.
On the other hand, all of these associated issues—overuse, addictive design, isolation—became compounded, especially with the best engineers in the world developing programs that tap directly into dopaminergic reward systems and get kids hooked.
So, there is an addictive quality and a self-isolating tendency that can develop from that as well.
I cannot think of anything in the nineteenth century—or even early twentieth century—outside of maybe the invention of the Ford Model T and the subsequent revolution in mobility that was as immediately transformative as the advent of widespread social media.
Do you see anything on the horizon that could be as impactful—or even more impactful—regarding child development that we should be mindful of?
Thiry: AI is already very significant.
In some contexts, it is being used in place of relationships, and parents need to monitor it very closely.
Honestly, we do not even fully know what it is capable of.
It is an incredible tool—just like social media is unbelievable for spreading information—but parents need to know that young minds do not necessarily understand who or what is on the other side of these interactions.
And yes, I strongly caution parents to stay alert to that.
Jacobsen: Stacy, thank you for your time today and expertise. I appreciate it. Nice to meet you.
Thiry: Yes. Thank you. It was a pleasure.
Jacobsen: We will be in touch. Thank you.
Thiry: Thank you.
—
https://growtherapy.com/provider/mvubs5f5trs7/stacy-thiry
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/24
FireSmart™ Canada talks about Wildfire Community Preparedness Day (WCPD), a national initiative encouraging citizens to reduce wildfire risk and enhance community resilience. Since its inception, participation has grown from 29 applications in 2015 to 466 in 2025, with 404 awards granted. Supported by the Co-operators, the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR), and wildfire agencies, the program offers $500 grants for local projects like vegetation clearing and evacuation planning. FireSmart Canada promotes shared responsibility in wildfire risk reduction, emphasizing collaboration among neighbours to protect overlapping Home Ignition Zones and strengthen collective preparedness through community-based solutions.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the purpose of Wildfire Community Preparedness Day?
FireSmart™ Canada: Wildfire Community Preparedness Day (WCPD) is a national campaign that encourages citizens to take actions that will increase their home, neighbourhood and community’s resilience to wildfire. It’s a great first step in the FireSmart journey, aimed at educating participants and helping them take risk reduction actions in their community.
More information on WCPD can be found here – Wildfire Community Preparedness Day | FireSmart Canada
Jacobsen: How has this Day grown over the past decade?
FireSmart™ Canada: In 2025, FireSmart Canada awarded more recipients than ever before with 404 communities. The years ago, back in 2015, we received 29 applications from only a few provinces. Over the past two years we’ve received and awarded applications from every province and two territories, with a record of 466 applications in 2025.
Jacobsen: How many community events were awarded in 2025 compared to 2024?
FireSmart™ Canada: In 2025, FireSmart Canada awarded more recipients than ever before with 404 awards. *In 2024, 378 neighbourhoods were awarded in 10 provinces and two territories, compared to 230 neighbourhoods in 2023 and 162 neighbourhoods in 2022.
*In 2024 this figure includes 97 communities that were also Neighborhood Recognition Participants. This would bring Prep Day recipients down to 281 in 2024. In 2025, these neighbourhoods were awarded through a separate incentive program and are not included in the final 404 count.
Jacobsen: What are the roles of Co-operators, ICLR, and wildland fire agencies?
FireSmart™ Canada: FireSmart™ Canada, in collaboration with the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR), Co-operators and the provincial and territorial wildfire agencies, support this annual event by offering the $500 award. ICLR and Co-operators are long standing sponsors, contributing funding towards this program. The provincial and territorial wildfire agencies also contribute towards the program to support the funding flowing towards the communities within their respective regions.
Program descriptions can be found at the bottom of this email.
Jacobsen: What specific activities do communities typically undertake during the Day?
FireSmart™ Canada: Anyone can participate in a project that reduces wildfire risk, increases resilience, and helps neighbourhoods become FireSmart. Projects can range from hour-long work sessions to full-day activities, or even weekend undertakings. Popular activities include community information sessions and BBQs, community vegetation clearing/removal, evacuation planning, and more!
Jacobsen: How does FireSmart Canada define “wildland fire resilience”?
FireSmart™ Canada: A wildland fire resilient community is a community that is prepared to live alongside fire and have mitigated their risk from it, by implementing FireSmart best practices and recommendations.
Jacobsen: What is the significance of community participation in wildfire preparedness?
FireSmart™ Canada: The FireSmart program helps reduce wildfire risks to homes, neighbourhoods, critical infrastructure, and vital natural resources. This is a shared responsibility between us all. Individuals, communities, governments, and private sector organizations all have a part to play.
As many neighbourhoods across the country are densely populated, it is very likely that properties will have overlapping Home Ignition Zones. When neighbours have overlapping zones, they then share a heightened risk of ignition during a wildland fire. In these cases, it is crucial that they work together to reduce their shared risk. Neighbours can enhance the resilience of their individual properties and that of the entire neighbourhood by working together to reduce risk and remove potential hazards in their overlapping zones.
Jacobsen: How does the ICLR contribute to disaster loss prevention and community resilience in Canada?
FireSmart™ Canada: Please contact ICLR for more information: info@iclr.org
About FireSmartTM Canada
FireSmart Canada™ is a program committed to helping Canadians reduce their wildland fire risk and become resilient to wildland fire through community-based solutions. Through publications, programs, outreach training, and workshops, FireSmart Canada provides tools for Canadians to be pro-active in preparing their homes, properties and neighborhoods for the threat of wildland fire. FireSmart Canada operates under a mandate from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, and is supported by federal, provincial, and territorial wildland fire management agencies and partners with municipal governments and the private sector. For more information visit www.firesmartcanada.ca.
About Co-operators
Proudly Canadian since 1945, Co-operators is a leading financial services co-operative, offering multi-line insurance and investment products, services, and personalized advice to help Canadians build their financial strength and security. With more than $71 billion in assets under administration, Co-operators is well known for its community involvement and its commitment to sustainability. Currently a carbon neutral organization, Co-operators is committed to net-zero emissions in its operations and investments by 2040, and 2050, respectively. Co-operators is recognized as one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers and ranked as one of Corporate Knights’ Best 50 Corporate Citizens in Canada. www.cooperators.ca
About ICLR
Established in 1998 by Canada’s property and casualty insurers, ICLR is an independent, not-for-profit research institute based in Toronto and at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada. ICLR is a centre of excellence for disaster loss prevention research and education. ICLR’s research staff is internationally recognized for pioneering work in a number of fields including wind and seismic engineering, atmospheric sciences, water resources engineering and economics. Multi-disciplined research is a foundation for ICLR’s work to build communities more resilient to disasters. Visit www.iclr.org
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/24
A Yale study revealed that between 2001 and 2022, 92 S&P 500 healthcare companies allocated 95% of their $2.72 trillion net income—totaling $2.6 trillion—to shareholder dividends and buybacks, with 19 companies accounting for 80% of these payouts. Sarah M. Worthy, CEO of DoorSpace, criticizes this trend, stating, “American tax dollars are supporting the purchase of health executives’ vacation homes and yachts instead of the healthcare for Americans it’s intended for.” She advocates for clinician-led leadership and strict regulations to limit shareholder profits in healthcare.Worthy emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and a shift towards a people-centered healthcare system that prioritizes patient outcomes over executive compensation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What drives the 315% surge in shareholder payouts among healthcare companies?
Sarah M. Worthy: The 315% surge in shareholder payouts among healthcare companies can be traced back to the 1970s, when the philosophy of shareholder primacy began to dominate corporate decision-making. This era marked the start of aggressive lobbying efforts to dismantle policies that had once protected the public from excessive profit-seeking in essential sectors like healthcare. By prioritizing shareholder returns above all else,including patient outcomes and public health,corporations laid the groundwork for today’s crisis. Many healthcare economists now agree that allowing unchecked profit motives to infiltrate the healthcare system was a serious misstep, and reversing this trend is critical for the well-being of both patients and the economy.
Jacobsen: Why did this happen between 2001 and 2022?
Worthy: The period between 2001 and 2022 saw rapid transformation in healthcare, with a major turning point occurring around 2007–2009. This era coincided with the launch of the iPhone and a broader digital shift in how Americans experienced everything,including healthcare. Tech companies from Silicon Valley, working alongside Wall Street and policymakers in Washington, began pushing into the healthcare space with digital tools, platforms, and systems. At the same time, the federal government mandated the adoption of electronic health records, offering funding to help hospitalsand practices modernize their digital infrastructure.
This convergence of government policy, financial incentives, and tech industry influence brought a stronger focus on efficiency, data, and profitability. Around 2010, regulations targeting physician-owned hospitals began to be enforced, and we started to see a significant shift from clinical leadership to MBA-trained executives. These changes solidified the dominance of shareholder-driven priorities in healthcare, setting the stage for the financial patterns we see today.
Jacobsen: How does the shareholder-focused model impact patient care in America?
Worthy: When 95% of healthcare profits are going to shareholders, that leaves just 5% to reinvest in the system. That sliver has to cover pay raises for clinical staff, investments in new technology, cybersecurity upgrades, facility improvements—you name it. And it’s simply not enough to keep the system functioning at the level patients deserve.
This model also makes the high cost of healthcare in America more clear. It’s not about the cost of operations or manufacturing—it’s about profit extraction. Shareholders are taking the bulk of the money that could otherwise go toward lowering insurance premiums, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, or improving access to care. Patients are paying more and getting less, while investors walk away with record returns.
Jacobsen: How do Medicare and Medicaid play indirect roles supporting this profit model?
Worthy: While Medicare and Medicaid do play a big role in the problem of clinician turnover and lack of access to affordable care and are certainly in need of reform as well, I don’t view CMS as supporting this profit model so much as seeing how they’re used as scapegoats by politicians and shareholders to rationalize their greed.
An example to show what I mean by this is we see politicians claim they don’t need to create regulations or policies that restrict for profit greed because Americans who can’t afford private insurance have these government supported options.
Jacobsen: What are some examples of healthcare executives personally benefiting while Americans struggle?
Worthy: Some healthcare executives are making decisions that cost people their health, their lives, and their financial security—and they’re walking away with millions. While Americans are denied care, saddled with medical debt, and forced to choose between medication and rent, these executives face no criminal charges and are rarely held personally accountable in civil court. There’s no legal or financial penalty for profiting off policies that actively harm people.
Many of these executives are not medical professionals. They’re former bankers, consultants, or career administrators whose primary objective is to maximize profits—not improve care. Through a mix of bloated salaries, stock-based compensation, performance bonuses tied to cost-cutting, and golden parachutes, they’re able to accumulate generational wealth. Meanwhile, hospitals in rural and low-income areas are shutting down, nurses are underpaid and overworked, and patients are left waiting weeks or months for basic services.
And let’s be clear—some of those “cost-cutting” decisions include denying coverage for critical treatments, pushing physicians to see more patients in less time, and underinvesting in staff and infrastructure. All of this boosts short-term profit metrics, which inflate executive bonuses—while communities are left to suffer the long-term consequences.
This is not about isolated bad actors. It’s a systemic issue driven by a model that rewards financial performance over human outcomes. When healthcare becomes just another line item for Wall Street, patients lose.
Jacobsen: What can curb healthcare profiteering?
Worthy: Americans must protest to their politicians at state and federal levels, loudly, vigorously and unrelentingly. We must elect the politicians who explicitly refuse to take campaign donations from these for profit healthcare companies. We must demand strict regulations that sharply limit how much shareholders can profit from keeping America sick.
We tried deregulating the industry and letting for profit corporations regulate themselves. That experiment got us to where we are today. It didn’t work. They will not regulate themselves – they will enrich themselves. It’s human nature, perhaps – and laws with big fines and criminal charges for
violations are the only way to resolve this problem so the US Healthcare System works to keep all of us healthy, not support a few billionaires..
Jacobsen: How can everyday Americans take action?
Worthy: We need to stop letting politicians make this a partisan issue. An affordable, high quality healthcare system shouldn’t be up for debate. We have the best doctors and nurses in the world It doesn’t make sense that our healthcare would be the worst in the world and so we need to put the focus back on listening to our clinical experts instead of corporate salesmen and political pundits.
Everyday Americans can start by shifting the conversation. Talk to your friends, neighbors, and local representatives about what’s really going on—about the greed driving up costs and the professionals being sidelined in their own field. We need to start listening to our clinical experts, not corporate salesmen or pundits on TV.
We can also demand more transparency and accountability. Ask your elected officials where they stand on healthcare profiteering. Support legislation that prioritizes patient outcomes over executive compensation. Show up at town halls. Vote with healthcare in mind—not along party lines, but based on who’s actually working to fix the system.
And finally, support movements and organizations that advocate for patients, nurses, and doctors—not shareholders. Push back on hospital closures in your community. Speak up when care is delayed or denied. Change doesn’t come from the top—it starts with people refusing to accept a system that’s broken by design.
Jacobsen: How would a people-centered healthcare system look like, in practical terms in practice?
Worthy: A truly people-centered healthcare system would look very different from what we have today. For starters, we’d see far fewer MBAs in charge and far more clinicians—nurses, physicians, therapists—holding leadership roles in the C-suite and on boards. We need decision-makers who have actually worked at the bedside. People who have stayed up all night comforting grieving parents, or who have had to look patients in the eye and deliver devastating diagnoses.
Right now, too much of what passes as “leadership” in healthcare is just business executives focused on funneling money upward to shareholders. Many of them have no real understanding of healthcare, and they routinely dismiss the expertise of the very people who live and breathe it every day. Clinicians understand the full picture—they navigate hospital systems, patient care, government regulations, insurance bureaucracy, pharmaceutical companies, and tech vendors.
Despite that, they’re often left out of the rooms where major decisions are made. A people-centered model would change that. It would prioritize the lived experience of caregivers and patients, not just profit margins. It would mean listening to those who’ve dedicated their lives to healing—not just those trying to maximize revenue.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sarah.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/23
Representatives of the Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh talk about its $25 million renovation. The upgrades include new HVAC and fire suppression systems, a pumphouse, modernized exhibits, and the transformation of office space into a multipurpose conference centre. New interactive exhibits aim to foster wetland conservation awareness through engaging, age-inclusive experiences. The theatre now supports educational programming, and the restored diorama simulates natural wetland cycles. With 50% improved energy efficiency and full accessibility, the project was funded by the Government of Canada, the Manitoba government, and private donors to support environmental education and sustainability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For the renovation of the Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre, how will the $25 million be spent?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: The renovation of the building included new windows, HVAC system and fire suppression system. The fire suppression required an new pumphouse building to store the water. As well, brand new exhibits were built and renovations were made to the full 55,000 sq foot building (including theatre and cafe). The top floor offices were removed and the space transformed into a multipurpose space for conferences and events.
Jacobsen: How will the new interactive exhibits at the centre enhance environmental education for visitors?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: Our goal is to connect people with wetlands by providing engaging experiences for all ages. We have created a visitor journey so that at the end of the visit there is a call to action. Whether it be to learn more about the importance of wetlands or donate to a wetland conservation organization like Ducks Unlimited Canada
Jacobsen: How has the upgraded theatre improved the wetland conservation?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: The theatre is for educational films as well as conferences and other gatherings. Through this medium, education leads to conservation.
Jacobsen: How does the restored diorama simulate natural wetland conditions?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: Using a combination of lights and sounds, the diorama depicts a full day at the marsh from dust to dawn.
Jacobsen: What amenities does the new event and conference centre offer?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: This second floor space offers views of the marsh, a full service kitchen for onsite catering, spectacular wetland scenery from the deck, full audio visual system, and a bar/flexible food space for lounging.
Jacobsen: Are there specific provisions for events and educators?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: We specialize in providing curriculum-linked programming for students of all ages. There are lesson plans and pre/post activities for educations as well. Special provisions for events include fully accessible facilities. Our new conference centre has a special HVAC system to accommodate smudging.
Jacobsen: How significant is the expected 50% energy efficiency improvements in reaching the centre’s sustainability goals?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: Considering the building was ahead of its time when it first opened in 1993 (green roof, underground cooling system, sewage lagoon system) achieving 50% really exceeded our expectations.
Jacobsen: What role did the Government of Canada and private donors play in supporting the renovation?
Harry J. Enns Wetland Discovery Centre at Oak Hammock Marsh: The Government of Canada made a significant contribution through the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) Program as well as Cultural Spaces. The Manitoba government also provided generous funds towards this project as well as several private donors.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/23
*This interview is a contribution to an upcoming text on global indigeneity and international humanism from In-Sight Publishing.*
David “Maheengun” Cook, an atheist and humanist from the Mississaugas of the Anishinaabe people, shares his life journey navigating Indigenous identity, secularism, and cultural heritage. Raised near Rice Lake, Ontario, he learned traditional teachings—like oral history, plant knowledge, and seasonal rhythms—from elders. Yet, he embraced atheism at 13, finding Christian doctrines unconvincing and later stepping away from formal Indigenous spirituality, such as pipe-carrying and Midewiwin ceremonies. Cook distinguishes between Indigeneity as a cultural-historical identity and Indigenous humanism, which he sees as increasingly conflated with spiritual beliefs incompatible with secular humanism’s reliance on reason and evidence. He critiques the romanticization of Indigenous knowledge systems, warning against overvaluing localized spiritual traditions as universal truth. Still, he values cultural respect, environmental ethics, and communal decision-making embedded in Anishinaabe life. While he sees overlap with secular humanism in compassion and ethical living, he insists on epistemological clarity: lived experience and reverence are not scientific knowledge. He emphasizes the importance of dialogue, mutual understanding, and intellectual honesty, challenging assumptions from Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. Cook’s reflections underscore the complex interplay between cultural continuity and philosophical integrity in modern Indigenous life.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by David Cook, also known by his Anishinaabe name, Maheengun, which means Timberwolf in the Anishinaabemowin language.
David will share his perspective on Indigenous identity, humanism, and atheism. He was raised near Rice Lake in southern Ontario, where Anishinaabe teachings influenced his formative years. He learned from elders about oral traditions, plant knowledge, and cultural practices rooted in the land and community. Despite this deep cultural foundation, Cook did not adopt theistic beliefs. He embraced atheism at the age of 13 after finding Christian teachings unconvincing.
His journey exemplifies the complex and often misunderstood relationship between Indigenous spirituality and humanist principles. Cook observed that traditional Anishinaabe worldviews emphasize spiritual relationships with the natural world, ancestors, and beings—but not in the form of hierarchical theism or deity worship. Over time, however, he has witnessed a shift in some Indigenous communities toward institutionalized or formalized spiritual practices, influenced in part by colonial impositions and revivalist movements. These shifts sometimes conflict with secular or humanist frameworks. In navigating this tension, Cook stepped away from ceremonial responsibilities, such as being a pipe carrier, to live more authentically within his philosophical values.
His experiences challenge the stereotype that Indigenous identity must be tied to religion or theism. They also highlight the diversity of beliefs and spiritual expressions among Indigenous peoples. Through these conversations, we will explore how Indigenous cultural heritage can intersect with secular humanist values, contributing to a broader discussion on Indigeneity and humanism. I approach this as a learner, open to where the dialogue leads. You never know unless you ask.
David, thank you very much for joining me today.
David “Maheengun” Cook: Thank you for inviting me.
Jacobsen: My first question is: Do you come from an Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Algonquin, Mississauga, or Nipissing background?
Cook: My experiences come from Mississaugas, originally.
Jacobsen: That helps. For those who may not know—like myself—how are the various Anishinaabe peoples distinguished from one another? Is it primarily geographic, or is there more to it?
Cook: It is mainly geographic but also linguistic and historical. The Anishinaabe are a group of culturally related nations who speak dialects of the Anishinaabemowin language. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa, stretch across a wide area from Ontario to Minnesota and beyond. The Odawa traditionally lived near the Ottawa River Valley, and the Potawatomi were based around Georgian Bay and further south around Lake Michigan, though many were displaced. The Mississaugas settled primarily in southern Ontario. While they share cultural foundations, each group has distinct histories, migration stories, and regional practices.
Jacobsen: The Anishinaabe are often translated as “original people” or “spontaneous beings,” they are tied to “Mother Earth” and “spiritual emergence.” What does that name signify within the culture?
Cook: Anishinaabe is often translated as “original person” or “first person.” It reflects the belief that our people were created and have always been here—on what we call Turtle Island. In many oral traditions, there are creation stories, including that of Sky Woman, though this version is more prominent among the Haudenosaunee(Iroquois). Among the Anishinaabe, the tale of Nanaboozho is central—he is a cultural hero and teacher who helped shape the world. These stories reflect a worldview grounded in a relationship—with the land, the animals, the elements, and one another—not in dominion or hierarchical worship.
Specific to the Anishinaabe people, there’s a story of our ancestors—the Lenape (or Leni Lenape) from the East Coast—being our predecessors. The Anishinaabe people are said to have split off and migrated westward, following a sacred object known as the megis shell. It is a type of seashell. We followed its appearance and migrated to places where wild rice—manoomin—grew, ultimately reaching the Great Lakes and settling in areas like Minnesota, which marked the endpoint of this ancestral migration.
Jacobsen: What is the significance, within traditional practices, of things like birch bark, wild rice harvesting, and clan systems as part of the Anishinaabe worldview and social structure?
Cook: Good question. So, the teachings of the Seven Grandfathers instructed that our people should follow the megis shell, and we would stop where we found wild rice. As I mentioned, the Anishinaabemowin word is manoomin. Wild rice was—and still is—a staple food and ceremonial plant for the Anishinaabe. Its presence indicated where we were meant to settle.
Birch bark was—and remains—immensely important. It was used to build our traditional homes—wigwams, not tipis. Tipis are associated with Plains cultures, but our homes were dome-shaped structures covered in birch bark.
The Midewiwin society—the keepers of ancient and ceremonial knowledge—used birch bark scrolls to record teachings, medicines, songs, and instructions for building Mide lodges. These scrolls served as a traditional archive. Birch bark also had everyday uses: for containers, canoes, and art.
We also interacted extensively with other nations, including the Haudenosaunee Confederacy—the Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Oneida. Later, the Tuscarora joined, forming the Six Nations. Through this contact—both peaceful and hostile—we came to share some elements like the agricultural trio called the Three Sisters: corn, beans, and squash. These came more from our interactions than from our ancestral practices.
Jacobsen: You mentioned conflict. What were the historical bases of some of these clashes between the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee?
Cook: Primarily, it was about control of the Great Lakes region, especially trade routes. This was pre-European contact, so before 1497—when John Cabot explored parts of what is now Canada—and certainly before 1603, when Samuel de Champlain arrived. The Great Lakes were vital corridors of commerce, diplomacy, and warfare. A complex trade web stretched across the continent—copper from Lake Superior, shells from the coast, obsidian, tobacco, etc.
The Haudenosaunee traditionally occupied the south side of Lake Ontario, while the Anishinaabe, including the Potawatomi, Odawa, and Mississaugas, were on the north side. These three groups comprised the Council of the Three Fires, a longstanding alliance rooted in kinship and defence.
The conflicts intensified after Champlain allied with the Wendat (also called the Huron), who had accepted the Jesuit missionaries and their Christian teachings. The Jesuits introduced not only religion but also disease, which devastated many Indigenous communities. Champlain and his Wendat allies—including some Ojibwe—launched attacks on the Haudenosaunee south of the lake. That began a cycle of violence and displacement that lasted for centuries.
Jacobsen: That’s quite the historical sweep. Growing up, what was your sense—within your Indigenous community and in nearby non-Indigenous communities—of the mythologies or perceptions each had of the other?
Cook: That’s a rich topic. The mythologies held by each group—Indigenous or settler—about one another were often oversimplified or distorted. Indigenous communities saw settlers as disconnected from the land, lacking the spiritual and relational teachings that tie people to place. On the other hand, settlers often romanticized Indigenous people or reduced us to caricatures—either the “noble savage” or the “vanishing Indian.” Meanwhile, different Indigenous nations had their own stories and rivalries, often shaped by centuries of conflict, trade, and adaptation.
Jacobsen: Regarding social mythologies specifically, what kinds of stories or collective ideas did Indigenous communities have about surrounding non-Indigenous people, and vice versa? And I mean not religious mythologies like Christian beliefs in an intervening God or Indigenous cosmologies like the creation of Turtle Island, but more about the social perceptions communities held about one another. Also, are you speaking from personal experience growing up or from a more historical lens?
Cook: That’s a good question—and I think both apply. Historically, and in my experience, those perceptions have shifted significantly over time.
Going back to the early contact era—when Champlain was active in this region—you had the Wendat (also known as the Huron) accepting, or at least entertaining, Christian missionaries like the Jesuits. That affected how other nations, including the Haudenosaunee, viewed Wendat and the newcomers. But in those early days, there weren’t many non-Indigenous people in Ontario—just a few priests and fur traders—so social mythologies were formed based on limited interaction.
As colonization progressed—particularly during the expansion of Ontario’s colonization roads in the 19th century—Indigenous people in many areas were respected for their deep knowledge of the land, for trade, and for helping early settlers survive. My family has a cottage about an hour and a half north of here, and there’s a long history of cooperation between Indigenous communities and pioneers. There was absolute mutual respect, at least in some areas.
But then things shifted. Public perceptions began souring by the 1960s and 1970s, especially among non-Indigenous people. Many stereotypes took hold—things like alcoholism, laziness, or exemptions from taxation—which created resentment and suspicion. A lot of this was media-driven. People formed their opinions not from direct interaction with Indigenous people but from distorted narratives coming out of other regions or from sensationalized news.
I remember vividly the Oka Crisis in 1990. It was centred in Kanesatake and Akwesasne, Mohawk territories in Quebec, and had ripple effects across the country. Suddenly, many non-Indigenous Canadians—especially in Ontario and Quebec—developed very negative views of Indigenous people, even if they had never met one in their lives. It was a myth-building through fear and media framing.
But today, things are changing with the ongoing work of Truth and Reconciliation and the broader public access to accurate historical information. Conversations are more open. There’s greater willingness—among non-Indigenous people especially—to listen, learn, and reconsider those long-held social mythologies. Today’s understanding is more grounded in reality than it used to be.
I was working hard to raise awareness about something that deeply concerned me. An NDP Member of Parliament from Winnipeg introduced a private member’s bill that would have criminalized the denial of the residential school system.
Jacobsen: How did that go over?
Cook: Well, while I believe that residential schools were a horrific part of Canadian history—and that the intergenerational trauma they caused is still being felt today—I don’t think criminalizing denial helps truth and reconciliation. And it certainly doesn’t support the free speech rights of non-Indigenous Canadians.
I’ve had many conversations with people who didn’t believe in or understand the impacts of residential schools. I often wonder whether I could have had those conversations if a law had made such speech a felony. I’m relieved to say that the bill did not pass the first reading in the House of Commons.
Jacobsen: That’s good to hear. That’s a win for open discourse. These conversations will be exploratory, and while there will be common themes and throughlines, we’ll also encounter offshoots. That issue you raised—around free speech and truth-seeking—is critical. It resonates across different communities in Canada.
How do different communities, in your experience—Francophone, Anglophone, Indigenous, and others—view universal rights commonly claimed internationally, such as freedom of expression or speech, especially as they’re articulated in the U.S.? How are those rights viewed, upheld, or contested in public, private, or sacred spaces within these cultural contexts?
Cook: That’s a great question, but I am unlikely to answer comprehensively since I live in one small corner of southern Ontario. I can only speak to what I’ve seen locally.
But it’s interesting. One thing that stands out is how cultural shifts in Indigenous communities—both on reserves and among urban Indigenous populations—have been influenced by younger generations attending Indigenous Studies programs in colleges and universities. I’ve been involved for over 35 years in the Elders’ Conference at Trent University in Peterborough. The tone and focus of that gathering have changed dramatically over the decades.
Like the rest of North America, there is a widening political divide. On the right wing, there tends to be skepticism about what is seen as special rights or accommodations for Indigenous peoples—questions about responsibilities and accountability. On the left wing, particularly within academic environments, there’s often a tendency to avoid saying anything that could be construed as challenging the dominant narratives taught in Indigenous Studies courses.
You risk being accused of creating an “unsafe” environment; honestly, I find that term increasingly vague. It used to refer to a physical threat, but now it can mean someone holds a different opinion from you on campus—the redefinition of “unsafe” to include disagreement.
I’m rambling now, but my answer to your question is elsewhere.
Jacobsen: It’s like that old Billy Connolly joke about getting older—he says (and I’m paraphrasing here, Jacobsenizing it): when you’re young, someone comes into town and asks you for directions to the gas station. You confidently lift your arm, point with your finger, and say: “Go two streets north, take a left, then a right. You’ll be at Smith and Cook Avenue. The gas station’s right there. You’re good to go.”
“Thank you for that, sir. Have a good day.”
Then you get to middle age, and you just sort of wave vaguely with your arm—”Yeah, it’s over there, young man.”
And by the time you’re in your eighties, you’re lifting your leg and going, “Over there!” You know? It’s somewhere in that general direction.
Cook: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Somewhere in that general direction—that’s precisely it. Now, a pattern in public discourse connects to what you’ve just described. When people speak in the terms you just used—thoughtfully but with nuance—they are sometimes misunderstood, either deliberately or inadvertently. That misunderstanding is then used as grounds to accuse them of dismissing Indigenous teachings or even of being belligerent toward those who describe themselves as feeling unsafe.
How do you feel when you hear someone attributing motives like that to things you genuinely believe? How are your views being mischaracterized—or, on the more benign side, how are they being misunderstood?
Cook: That’s a great question. I love to philosophize, so stand by… [Laughing]
You’ve captured the polarization well. Some people, yes, are intentionally provocative—they want to be misunderstood or create conflict. On the other hand, there’s a tendency to be hyper-vigilant—a kind of eagerness to pounce on any statement that might not align perfectly with what’s expected. They say it becomes a race to display our virtue or signal.
But the reality lies in the middle. And that’s where the real work of democracy and dialogue happens.
We think of democracy as voting for someone who disappears into a legislature to make decisions. But in truth, democracy is the conversation. It’s the dialogue we have as a society.
If you look at small Indigenous bands historically, decisions were made collectively: where to move, when to hunt, how to respond to challenges. That was real, participatory decision-making—consensus-based. As populations grew and governance became more complex, that model had to evolve. However, the essential ingredient remains: meaningful dialogue that defines the middle ground.
To bring this back to Indigenous roots, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy—the union of the Five (later Six) Nations—is often cited as one of the inspirations for American democracy. That system of deliberative councils and consensus-seeking is a powerful model.
Unfortunately, today, we’ve moved far from that. We’re at a point where people on opposite ends of the spectrum can no longer even speak to each other. Everyone sees the other as an enemy rather than someone with a different perspective.
You’re right. On both extremes, it’s not about understanding anymore—it’s about triggering a reaction or defending territory. But democracy cannot survive without conversation, and we lose a lot when we abandon the middle ground.
It’s about active listening. Listening so that you can hear someone and repeat what they just said to demonstrate understanding rather than interrupting to make your point. That’s missing from many conversations now.
I have a theory about that. When I worked for a vast Fortune 50 corporation, I had the honour of contributing to DARPANet, which was the predecessor to what we now call the Internet. I was on the front lines of Internet development in Canada and North America—working on IP addressing, how networks function, how computers talk, and so on.
Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked on efforts related to the World Wide Web and how it could be opened for commercial use. The Web was envisioned as a beautiful, global network of connections—a web of shared knowledge, freely accessible and interactive.
But this Web has become a series of cocoons. People don’t hear each other anymore. Instead, they’re caught in echo chambers, where they only receive information reinforcing their beliefs.
Algorithmic polarization: The algorithms behind social media platforms now filter content so that you rarely encounter ideas that challenge your worldview. If you lean left, your feed is filled with progressive content. If you lean right, you get conservative content.
So, instead of a web connecting people and ideas, we’ve ended up with millions of isolated and insulating bubbles. People don’t even know that other perspectives exist anymore. They hear their thoughts reflected on them.
Jacobsen: That’s not off-topic—it’s a key part of this discussion. What people now call virtue signalling, for instance—it’s not a new phenomenon. We talk about it more explicitly now.
Looking at the last five to twenty-five years, you can see it evolve in public discourse. For example, on the left, wearing a rainbow lapel pin signals affiliation and values. On the right, someone might wear a Christian cross. Both are symbolic affirmations of identity and belief systems. It’s the same impulse, just expressed differently depending on the group.
When people talk about “wokeness,” it’s not fundamentally different from the conversations around identity politics we saw in the 1990s. Those earlier discussions were more implicit, while today’s are explicit—partly because of the digital tools you helped build: the Internet, social media, and open commentary platforms. Everything is exposed now; everything is analyzed or debated instantly.
So we’ve seen this explosion of neologisms—some serious, some silly—all part of a broader cultural shift toward explicit signalling. But returning to our core topic—Anishinaabe culture—we’ve been reflecting on Midewiwin, the Grand Medicine Society.
Cook: [Laughing] Sorry—I have an opinion on everything.
Jacobsen: No, that’s fine. That’s the point of this kind of dialogue—to explore thoughts that aren’t usually expressed inside the Beltway or in typical public discourse. And it’s also an opportunity to bring cultural memory and philosophical perspective into deeper public awareness.
Jacobsen: We discussed the Ojibwe and some of the broader Anishinaabe identity. But what about the more spiritual or ceremonial aspects—the degrees of initiation, moral teachings, balance, healing, herbal medicine, medicine lodges, chanting, and drumming?
You carried the fight, so to speak. You lived with both the theoretical understanding and practical application of this worldview. How did traditional beliefs frame ideas like the world and the Creator? Would you say that worldview is monotheistic—or is that a result of Christian influence, shaping the image of an intervening Creator?
Cook: Again, I can only speak from personal experience—and it’s important to note that Indigenous cultures are oral traditions. So, everything gets passed down through storytelling, and every elder brings their knowledge, memory, and philosophy to their teaching.
The result is that the stories vary. No matter how much we respect the teachings or the history, there’s no such thing as a single, unchanging version. As I’ve gotten older—and now consider myself an elder—I’ve become acutely aware of how fragile memory can be and how much responsibility it takes to carry those stories forward.
When I was younger, the culture I was taught was not formalized. It was experiential—you learned by being there, by participating. There were seasonal rhythms—like telling stories in the winter, an established cultural practice—but the storytelling was light-hearted, even humorous. There wasn’t the solemnity I see today.
Over time, things have become much more formal. There’s now a strong emphasis on protocols, like clearly stating your name, your community of origin, and your clan and doing so in Anishinaabemowin (our language), even if that’s the only part of the language someone knows. There’s also the expectation to establish credibility—to show who your elders were, who taught you, and whether you are authorized to share what you’re about to say.
That wasn’t the case when I was younger. But now, the role of “Traditional Knowledge Keeper” is formalized and widely used, especially in academic settings and government relations. A big part of that came from the rise of Indigenous Studies programs at universities. Those programs needed structure, so they created protocols to ensure that only those with proper knowledge and cultural authority could teach or share stories.
I understand its intent—ensuring authenticity and preventing cultural misappropriation—but the formality has become quite rigid. It’s now common that, right after someone introduces themselves, they’ll light a smudge—often using a smudge bowl made from an abalone shell, even though abalone isn’t from this region. The same goes for sage, which is not traditional to all territories but is now widely used.
So, there’s been much cross-pollination—ceremonial blending—between First Nations across Canada’s diverse regions. Historically, hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct communities, nations, and cultural protocols—from coast to coast. But now, there’s a kind of pan-Indigenous ceremonial standardization, where some practices have become symbolic shorthand for Indigenous identity, regardless of their geographic origin.
And over time, there’s been much blending—so much so that if you attend a powwow anywhere in North America, you’ll likely see women dancing in traditional jingle dresses. It’s a regalia adorned with 365 cones, often made from the lids of snuff cans. Each cone represents a day of the year and is specifically sewn onto the dress. The sound they produce during the dance is part of the healing tradition.
It’s become that rigid, formalized—and you can now see consistently from Mexico to the northern territories. Well, perhaps less so among Inuit communities, but certainly within a broad swath of First Nations and Native American cultures, you see this kind of cultural homogenization.
Jacobsen: So, let me ask you this. What’s your take on Canada’s earlier cultural flashpoints—the Oka Crisis? How do you see those moments now?
Cook: Oh, wow. The Oka Crisis (1990) was a defining moment for Canada, especially for people in Ontario and Quebec—the so-called centre of Canada. It was the first time that many Canadians had to confront the reality that there were unresolved land disputes, some going back centuries, and that Indigenous people were not a relic of the past. They were present, organized, and resisting.
It forced the conversation into the open and made people aware that fundamentally different worldviews were at play—particularly sovereignty, land stewardship, and historical injustice. But like most big cultural moments, it also became deeply polarizing.
Some people were severely injured—people throwing stones—and others were offering help and support. A similar situation happened here in Ontario with the Ipperwash Provincial Park standoff (1995) when the Premier sent in the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). They shot and killed Dudley George, a young man who was not posing any physical threat. It became an embarrassment and a tragedy.
Events like Ipperwash and Oka truly set the stage for the emergence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They pushed the public to realize that something needed to change—that Canadians needed to become more aware of Indigenous history, the longstanding injustices, and the ongoing consequences Indigenous communities still face as a result. They were defining moments—significant events.
Jacobsen: Now, shifting a bit more toward the central focus of this project—when we talk about people who reject supernaturalism or theistic interpretations of belief within Indigenous traditions, there’s often a social cost.
In European, Anglo, and Franco-North American cultures, people who reject religion or belief in God are often met with a wide range of slurs—“devil-worshipper,” “possessed,” “demonic,” “immoral,” “untrustworthy,” “disgusting,” and so on. These labels don’t function as intellectual arguments—they’re emotional reactions. They show up in polling and population studies as deeply ingrained sentiments toward atheists and humanists.
This prejudice has real economic, social, familial, and professional consequences. Take the example of a woman in a fundamentalist Christian community working at a university with doctrinal covenants. If she gets divorced, that can be considered grounds for dismissal or social shunning. The emotional pain can be deep—and neuroscience tells us that social rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain.
Now, within a Canadian Indigenous context, particularly in Anishinaabe communities, are there slurs or informal labels used to describe those who reject traditional beliefs—especially those from Indigenous backgrounds themselves? And how do those social dynamics unfold?
Cook: Great question. The only epithet I can remember growing up was for Native people who were seen as “not Native enough.” In other words, if someone had adopted more mainstream, settler characteristics, they’d be called an “apple”—red on the outside, white on the inside. That’s the only derogatory term I ever heard used within the community.
In Anishinaabemowin, there are some terms for non-Native people that can carry a derogatory tone depending on how they’re used. I remember one elder in particular who always referred to white people with a specific term—though I haven’t heard it used in a long time. I don’t know the exact linguistic root of the word, but it was always spoken with a tone of contempt, so it carried weight.
But to your main point—no, I haven’t heard specific slurs or labels used against Indigenous atheists or secular people within the community. You’re right, though: in broader society, people who reject supernatural beliefs get hit with negative assumptions. But I haven’t observed a structured vocabulary around that kind of rejection within Anishinaabe communities, at least not in my experience.
Jacobsen: I mean, if you’re only hearing epithets in English, as opposed to, say, Finnish or Arabic or Anishinaabemowin, does that in itself serve as a kind of psycho-cultural commentary on the use—or limitation—of slurs?
Cook: That’s a good question. I don’t know. There could be all kinds of factors contributing to that dynamic. It might also be that not everyone speaks Anishinaabemowin fluently enough anymore to use slurs in the original language—or even to recognize them if they’re used. So, if those sentiments are expressed, they’re more likely to appear in English, where they’re understood. It’s tough to say what the root of that would be.
Jacobsen: If there’s not much in terms of verbal slurs, then what about other forms of social consequences? Not necessarily professional impacts—but gossip, social standing, and social status. That’s a big part of any culture.
Cook: Absolutely. I think there are all kinds of social consequences for not following what I’d call the “received wisdom”—the currently accepted norms or teachings within the community.
Before we started recording, I told you about a social worker I know who worked for Native Family Services. He’s about fifteen years younger than I am. He grew up on a reserve, and although he identifies as Indigenous, he eventually felt forced to leave his position.
He struggled with expecting every meeting to begin with a smudging ceremony, prayers, sage, abalone shells, eagle feathers, etc. He was told he’d be required to take turns leading the ceremonies—to say the opening prayer, light the smudge, and perform those protocols.
When he said he didn’t want to participate, the response was unsupportive. He wasn’t given space to opt-out. He was made to feel very uncomfortable—like he wasn’t “Native enough.” So yes, even in the workplace, there are real consequences for not conforming to certain spiritual expectations.
Jacobsen: That’s significant.
Cook: It is. Because so much of what is now called “Native culture” is deeply tied to spiritual practice. And I use the word spiritual here more in the religious sense—because when something is no longer optional when it’s mandatory, it stops being about personal spirituality and becomes more like a codified belief system—almost like organized religion.
Jacobsen: That distinction makes much sense.
Cook: For example, when I was growing up, women were not allowed to sit at the big ceremonial drums. There were strict gender roles embedded in the ceremonial life. There was much pushback from the 1960s through the 1980s, especially as broader society moved toward women’s equality. But in many Indigenous communities, especially in ceremonial contexts, women were still restricted from participating fully—particularly if they were on what we call their moon time.
During their menstrual cycle, during their moon, women were often expected to abstain from participating in ceremonies. That was the tradition. But that tradition has also been challenged, especially by younger generations. Still, even today, there are ongoing tensions around these issues. So again, when spiritual practices become mandatory, especially in public or professional settings, they stop being spiritual personally and start resembling an institutional system of belief.
So, during their menstrual cycle, women were not allowed to participate in certain aspects of ceremonial life—sometimes even to the extent of not being in the presence of men during specific spiritual events. There are separate ceremonies for men and women. I have many teachings I’m not permitted to share with women, and my wife has teachings she’s not allowed to share with men.
There are still very distinct roles for men and women. For example, women are the carriers of water at ceremonies. Only women are permitted to touch the water and prepare it. Women traditionally gather the so-called “sacred medicines”—cedar, sage, sweetgrass, and tobacco.
Then, there are specific ceremonial medicines—some used only by women and others only by men. I have to be careful here not to share teachings that could get me into trouble, but yes, there are medicines restricted by gender.
During menstruation, a woman on her moon cannot participate in ceremonies and is expected to avoid ceremonial grounds. At full moon, women’s ceremonies celebrate the menstruation cycle, while men hold their parallel gatherings—often involving cleaning ceremonial pipes, for example. These dual ceremonies happen every full moon.
It’s challenging to separate cultural from spiritual or religious aspects because the two are deeply entwined in Indigenous traditions. But what’s clear is that gender plays a significant role in determining who can do what within ceremonial life.
And if you don’t believe in those teachings—if you’re an Indigenous atheist or secular humanist—there are social ramifications. Questions arise: Can you participate in ceremonies? Can you be a dancer at a powwow?
Let me give an example. I helped create a Native cultural community centre here in the Durham region of Ontario, where I live. We didn’t have any services for what we used to call urban Indians—people living off-reserve in urban areas. So we created this centre to offer programming and support. I was elected chief of that organization’s council.
Now, I used to get into trouble constantly. In Anishinaabe culture, people dance clockwise around the drum at powwows. But here, we also have Haudenosaunee people—alongside Inuit and other First Nations folks—who have different ceremonial expectations. For example, some Haudenosaunee teachings say you must dance counterclockwise around the drum.
So, what do you do in an urban setting where one group deeply believes in dancing clockwise and another holds just as strongly to dancing counterclockwise?
That’s a powerful image—and pretty funny. It is a sort of ceremonial traffic jam. It shows how diverse Indigenous cultures are, even among just the First Nations, not to mention Métis and Inuit peoples. It also highlights the challenge of creating inclusive ceremonial spaces in urban environments—where you’re not just dealing with intercultural dynamics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people but also intracultural tensions within Indigenous communities themselves.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of the diversity in Christian traditions, too. For instance, the modern evangelical movement in the U.S. and Canada is relatively uniform. However, traditions like Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism remain distinct, owing to their long historical separation—between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Pope.
Cook: Right—and even within those traditions, each has its own internal governance, rituals, and symbolic systems, just like us.
Jacobsen: That’s correct. And in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarch is called “first among equals”—a primus inter pares. However, The Catholic Church does not see the Pope that way. So there’s a lateralization of hierarchy in Eastern Orthodoxy that you don’t see in Catholicism, where the hierarchy is more pyramidal.
Given that, though—and more to the point ritualistically—both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, from what I’ve seen in their communities, have a very intricate ceremonial life. I don’t mean “better,” just more complex in structure, especially compared to modern evangelical or prosperity gospel movements, which tend to be simpler in ritual and more overtly political in tone after their Sunday services.
From what you describe about the Anishinaabe, I understand that the rituals are deeply tied to place, history, and cultural memory. Almost everything is done within a spiritual context, whereas in Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, the rituals are rich and symbolic. However, many adherents return to their regular, often secular, lives after the liturgy.
Cook: I think that’s fair. I also believe that a kind of hierarchy of belief or ritual commitment exists within Anishinaabe communities. Let me go back to an example.
Just north of here—about a twenty-minute ride on Lake Scugog—there’s a First Nation where I have many ties. I probably spent as much time there as I did on Rice Lake, where I grew up. That community had a longstanding chief lineage—a family that had held that leadership position across several generations.
But I remember from back then that there wasn’t much visible spiritual practice. It all seemed private; at least, that’s how I experienced it.
Just before COVID, I went up to visit friends in that community. I dropped into the health centre and chatted with some people about my history with the Nation. I’d helped them re-establish the powwow there about thirty or thirty-five years ago. At the time, they had never held a powwow, but I’d been involved in running a successful one in Oshawa for about five or six years. They asked me to help organize their first one—show them how to build the arbour for the drum according to tradition, invite elders, and how to structure the event.
When I visited more recently, I spoke about possibly getting more involved in the community again. But they asked me directly whether I was Midewiwin—or Mide, as it’s often shortened. They implied that if I wasn’t, I might not be welcome like I once was.
That’s a community I grew up in. But they had started holding Midewiwin ceremonies regularly, and those come with a much more formal structure. So yes, there’s a hierarchy there. That particular spiritual tradition—the Midewiwin or Grand Medicine Society—requires a kind of adherence to specific teachings, ceremonies, and protocols.
You could compare it loosely to a Masonic lodge in structure—not in content, but in how it’s organized into degrees or levels. As you advance, you gain access to more profound teachings, some of which are kept secret or sacred until you reach a certain level or have participated for several years.
Jacobsen: That’s a very structured system. You mentioned earlier the status of women as a factor. Most cultures at least pay lip service to the ideals the international community promotes—things like gender equality and inclusivity.
What parts of traditional or historical Indigenous culture—specifically Anishinaabe—do you see as genuinely practicing gender parity? And conversely, where is that parity lacking? Especially in today’s conversation, are there ways that transcendental, supernatural, or extra-material justifications are used to explain or defend those inequalities—or even to silence criticism?
Cook: Great question. Let me start with something I touched on earlier—women sitting at the drum. Today, if you attend powwows—certainly in this region—you will see women sitting at the main drum and singing, the big drum representing Mother Earth’s heartbeat. Traditionally, women used smaller hand drums, usually 12 to 18 inches in diameter, and men sat at the big drum. That’s changed. There’s no more gender parity in that ceremonial role, at least in some communities.
As for justifications for maintaining older traditions or exclusions—yes, there are stories. Indigenous cultures often preserve and transmit social structures through traditional narratives. These stories are told to explain why things are the way they are, often in spiritual or cosmological terms.
To give you a tangible example: at a powwow, a man can dress however he likes—shorts, a T-shirt, and running shoes. He’ll still be allowed into the circle to dance. Some of us old-timers still wear ribbon shirts and regalia, of course. But if a woman shows up in a dress that doesn’t go to her ankles, someone will almost certainly take her aside, ask her to change, or even leave the circle.
That gender-specific expectation is still very much present—at least here. It could certainly be viewed as restrictive or patriarchal from a mainstream cultural lens. However, within the culture, teachings passed to women help contextualize and justify these expectations. Whether you see it as subjugation or sacred protocol depends on your frame of reference.
Jacobsen: That reflects a broader tension—between cultural tradition and modern equality frameworks. And I’ve seen this tension play out even in international settings. I did two weeks of journalism in mid-March at UN headquarters in New York City during the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69). I sat in on an entirely Indigenous-led session with a panel of Canadian Indigenous women—both young and older voices.
The stories shared were incredibly moving. There were moments during the panel when there was open crying—not just among the speakers but also among the audience. The speakers discussed intergenerational trauma, displacement, gender-based violence, resilience, leadership, and cultural renewal.
That kind of setting brings out the depth of these issues. It shows how women’s voices in Indigenous communities—especially when given a platform—often expand and complicate the narrative beyond the neat boxes that institutions like the UN try to put things in.
These weren’t minor figures either—these were foremost Canadian Indigenous leaders, speaking candidly. At the same time, you had high-profile figures like Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, walking through because he had other meetings—there was this strange mix of formality and intimacy.
What struck me most, though, was how it tied back to what you mentioned earlier—the consciously inflicted tragedy of the residential school system. What I saw in that room wasn’t necessarily what I’d call healing, at least not in the clinical or complete sense. It was more like people were, at that moment, relieving themselves of the burden of silence—finally saying things aloud that had weighed on them.
To me, that release—while powerful—is private and not always therapeutic in the lasting sense. It’s more like a momentary purging. It’s the difference between washing a wound and disinfecting and stitching it. That open expression of pain, especially in a public space where others have shared history if not identical experiences, creates a kind of communal recognition.
Now, the women themselves would describe it far more eloquently and precisely. However, that was the emotional atmosphere I absorbed from that session at the UN in New York. That said, this living history is not something we can choose to ignore. It’s here, whether we talk about it or not. That brings me to this: Are there contexts in which traditional beliefs can offer an anchor, a sense of grounding—but where supernatural elements or superstitions surrounding those beliefs may not serve long-term health or healing?
I’m thinking here of something Noam Chomsky once shared. He described knowing an immigrant mother who had lost her child. She found deep comfort in the belief that she would be reunited in heaven with her child after her death.
Chomsky, of course, didn’t believe in that promise. But he also didn’t try to strip her of that consolation. He understood that in the moment, it brought genuine emotional relief. Still, he questioned whether that kind of belief system, while temporarily comforting, is ultimately sustainable or healthy. It’s sort of like using an antidepressant or anxiolytic for a period of acute need—but then pairing that with practical life changes or cognitive tools that support longer-term well-being.
Over time, you wean off the medication, and you’re left with sustainable skills and insights. In this way, the person can integrate their trauma rather than escape it.
So, Can traditional Indigenous spirituality serve that kind of transitional function—providing ritual and meaning early on but eventually giving way to something more lasting, less myth-bound, and potentially more universal? They’re dealing with the context of their own life story.
Cook: Absolutely. And I have some pretty strong opinions about that—because I know so many people who experienced residential schools firsthand and who still live with that trauma. And what’s even more heartbreaking is how that trauma was often passed on. It created parents who didn’t know how to nurture or protect their children, and those children—now adults—passed the trauma on again to their kids. That’s the intergenerational trauma we keep talking about.
This is one of my core criticisms of Indigenous humanism as it is sometimes practiced today. One of its guiding ideas is the creation of strong communities rooted in culturally grounded mental and physical health programs tailored to Indigenous needs. While that’s well-intentioned, I worry that, in some cases, it does not address the root problems.
It’s similar to my broader critique of religion. As Marx said, it’s the opium of the masses—not because it’s inherently evil, but because it can offer a Band-Aid without providing honest answers. It may feel good to believe in the power of prayer. But to me, prayer and meditation are quite different. Meditation is an internal process, a focus on self-awareness and grounding. In many traditions, prayer involves asking for something, often from a higher power. That’s a very different kind of psychological engagement.
My point is this: religions tend to provide emotional scaffolding, a way of soothing pain. But mental health professionals can do that too, and in many cases, more effectively, without relying on superstition or magical thinking.
So, in the Indigenous context, when Native spirituality is used to help people cope, yes—it can offer comfort. But I also think it can delay more profound healing or perpetuate specific traumas under the guise of tradition. Some of this intergenerational pain might be addressed earlier and more effectively if we approached it with direct, evidence-based support instead of spiritualized frameworks alone.
Jacobsen: That’s a very personal critique. Speaking of personal—what about your own experience, living as an atheist within the community?
Cook: [Laughing] The short answer is: I’m not really “out.”
Jacobsen: Oh? Some people might be in for a surprise.
Cook: Yeah— Because honestly, it wasn’t hard for me to step away from social and ceremonial aspects of community life.
All of my elders, the people I deeply respected—the ones who made the Native community meaningful to me—have passed away. That’s the thing about being an elder: there’s only one destination, and we’re all moving quickly. (chuckles)
I’d had conversations with a few while they were still alive. They knew where I stood. They understood that for me, participating in ceremonies wasn’t about belief but culture and showing respect for our traditions and them.
For example, when I was growing up, the concept of a single, monotheistic Creator never really came up—at least not in any way I remember. That may have been introduced later or emphasized more heavily as Christian influence spread.
When we got into a canoe to cross a lake, we would put down tobacco at the edge of the water—or directly into the water—to honour and protect ourselves from the spirits believed to inhabit the area.
There’s a specific water spirit in Anishinaabe tradition, Mishipeshu, or the underwater panther. In our traditions, Mishipeshu lives in lakes and rivers. If you fail to pay proper respect, you might experience a storm, or your canoe could capsize, or worse. That spirit wasn’t just a story—it was part of the everyday consciousness of being on the land and water.
As a kid, when you were alone in the forest, we also had stories about Wendigos. There’s even a famous poem about them. In our culture, the Wendigo was this malevolent, ghost-like creature—part spirit, part cautionary tale. They were associated with greed, cannibalism, and spiritual imbalance. They lived in the woods and were a real part of the spiritual landscape.
Everyday life included constant gestures of respect toward nature and the spirits. In that way, it’s very similar to Shinto, the traditional Indigenous religion of Japan, where kami, or spirits, are found in rocks, trees, rivers, and mountains. That was the world I grew up in.
Even now, when I walk past a giant tree, I instinctively put my hand on it—not because I believe it will speak to me, but out of respect. So, maybe some of my “superstitious” thinking hasn’t completely left me. But for me, it’s not superstition—it’s about honouring the natural world around me. Or at least, that’s how I justify it now.
As a child, though, this wasn’t metaphorical. It was literal. We believed in individual spirits—everywhere. And this is deeply embedded in Anishinaabemowin, our language. The language doesn’t just have masculine and feminine genders, like French or Spanish—it also distinguishes between animate and inanimate nouns.
And what’s considered “animate” isn’t always what Western culture would define that way. A boulder, for instance—a glacial erratic you might stumble upon in the forest—is considered animate because it has spirit. We’d refer to it as a grandfather, a being who has been there since time immemorial.
In the sweat lodge ceremony, when heated stones are brought in, they’re not just “rocks”—they are greeted as grandfathers (Mishomis) and treated with reverence. That’s the spirituality I grew up with. It’s not monotheistic or dogmatic, just interwoven with the land, the water, and the life around us
Jacobsen: How are you distinguishing Indigenous humanism (or Native humanism) from secular humanism? And why don’t we collapse the terms under something broader like Humanists International’s definition of humanism?
Cook: Because they’re not the same. In some ways, yes—there’s overlap, and they can work together in many areas, but at a fundamental level, they’re incompatible.
Secular humanism is grounded in reason, science, and ethics without reliance on the supernatural. It emerged from the Age of Reason, and its philosophical foundations rest on empirical evidence, reproducibility, and skeptical inquiry.
On the other hand, Indigenous humanism is deeply embedded in spirituality and cultural tradition. Spirituality and culture are not separable in Indigenous contexts. There’s no culture without spirituality and no spirituality without culture. They’re intertwined.
Indigenous humanism also emphasizes connection to nature, reverence for the land, and relational thinking, aligning with some of secular humanism’s environmental ethics. So there’s common ground, especially around values like sustainability and community well-being.
However, the gap becomes philosophically significant when one worldview is based on ancestral wisdom, oral tradition, and what’s now often called “alternative ways of knowing,” and the other is based on scientific rationalism.
Jacobsen: What do you make of attempts to merge the two—to create some hybrid identity between Indigenous and secular humanism?
Cook: I think doing so requires a massive amount of cognitive dissonance. The two systems operate on very different epistemological foundations.
Secular humanism—again—is about what can be tested, measured, and replicated. It’s a product of Enlightenment thinking. Indigenous humanism is about lived experience, ancestral teachings, oral transmission, and sacred relationships with land and life. When someone tries to blend the two, they often end up unconsciously prioritizing one over the other or reframing one to fit the lens of the other.
And to be honest, the modern framing of “alternative ways of knowing” tends to get used in philosophically muddy ways. It can obscure more than it reveals, especially when not critically examined.
Jacobsen: Would it be fair to say that secular humanism doesn’t offer a “variety of ways of knowing” but a shared standard of inquiry?
Cook: It’s not about many truths—it’s about one standard for evaluating truth claims. In that sense, it doesn’t offer pluralism the way Indigenous frameworks do. And that’s where deep tensions arise when people try to conflate the two without acknowledging that.
So that concept—“ways of knowing”—is one that, as a secular humanist and as a scientist, I find very difficult to accept in a literal sense. I don’t believe there are multiple valid epistemologies when uncovering truth. There are ways of being, indeed—those are cultural. But I’m very skeptical of ways of knowing as alternative epistemic systems.
We know things through scientific inquiry and critical thinking—through processes that yield repeatable and reproducible results. That’s the foundation of empirical knowledge. Now, I know there’s a common critique that science is reductionist. That’s true, but reductionism has also given us tremendous insight into the natural world and a robust framework for understanding reality.
My experience has been that Indigenous ways of knowing are often tied to experiential learning—through direct engagement, observation, and interaction with the environment. This can be valuable as a teaching method and cultural transmission, but it is unreliable for discovering objective truths.
We’d still be stuck in a Newtonian physics model if we relied solely on direct experience as a path to knowledge. We wouldn’t have the relativity of Einstein or the quantum models of the subatomic world—because you can’t see those things with the naked eye. Much of what we now understand about the universe is counterintuitive, and it took sophisticated tools and models to uncover those truths.
The reality is that humans have cognitive biases—lots of them. And when we rely only on intuition, feeling, or observation without rigour, we risk being led astray. I often hear, even within Indigenous communities, references to people who claim psychic abilities or who say they “just know” something spiritually or emotionally about the land or the Creator—because of a sign or feeling only they can perceive. That’s very similar to what you hear in other religious traditions.
As a humanist, I struggle to understand how that could be called knowledge in any formal sense. We must be careful not to confuse belief or emotional insight with empirical evidence. Many people feel compelled to pay deference to Indigenous humanism because they have a genuine desire for reconciliation, respect, and inclusion. I support that. I respect the individuals.
But that doesn’t mean I have to respect the belief system—especially when the system makes claims unfalsifiable or unsupported by evidence. So, when someone says, “I know this is true because an elder told me,” it’s a classic example of an appeal to authority. By scientific standards, that doesn’t constitute knowledge.
To be clear, Indigenous humanism has beautiful and valuable elements. The ethical teachings, especially around respect for the environment, are profound. But even there, we must be honest—those values are not unique to Indigenous worldviews. Take Greta Thunberg, for example. She is not Indigenous, yet her environmental ethic is evident, principled, and powerful.
Jacobsen: We also need to distinguish between humaneness, as in compassion or emotional sensitivity, and humanism, as a defined philosophical and ethical worldview. You mentioned feelings earlier—that idea of having a feeling about a rock, a vibe from a place, or a sense about a person.
That kind of subjective experience—how I feel about a particular location or object—might be meaningful in a personal or cultural context. Still, it’s not a factual claim about that location’s chemistry, biology, or geophysics.
Those are different domains. One is about the internal emotional experience; the other is about objective external reality. Confusing the two can lead to misunderstandings within Indigenous communities and broader knowledge, belief, and truth discussions.
There’s a subjective fact there. You can describe how someone feels about something and that’s real for them. However, it does not represent the objective state of affairs external to the person. It’s not about the object itself but about how that person experiences the object.
So, there’s a difference between that kind of emotional resonance and what we might call the “woo-woo” formulation of a vibe. In the 1960s and 1970s, this vibe culture emerged among many Euro-American communities, especially within a hippie culture—a sort of diffuse, mystical energy reading of the world.
But that’s distinct from something like intuition. Sure, people can misunderstand or misuse intuition, but in many cases, intuition is grounded—it’s developed from experience and a deep familiarity with a field. For example, a scientist might have a hunch about a hypothesis or direction for research based on years of work, even before the data fully confirms it.
So those are subtle but important distinctions. And I think there’s a humanistic, empirical way to talk about those kinds of experiences—intuition, emotion, reverence—without turning them into mysticism or supernaturalism. That way, we respect the emotional or intuitive side of human understanding while remaining grounded in the natural world and a commitment to truth.
Cook: I agree. And earlier, you used the word “humaneness.” I think as a secular humanist, and in my case, not just an atheist but an anti-theist—because I believe religion does real harm—it’s still essential to recognize context. I don’t need to brandish my atheism in people’s faces.
If someone finds comfort at a funeral because they believe their loved one is in a better place, now is not the time to challenge them. That’s not compassion. A compassionate stance is central to secular humanism—the desire to support well-being and respect others, even if we don’t share their beliefs.
So I get it if someone tells me they had a powerful emotional experience in the woods—a deep sense of connection or reverence. I’ve stood under the aurora borealis and felt awe; that emotional reaction is human. It might arise from intuition, nature’s scale, or raw beauty. And that feeling can lead us into scientific exploration. The stars can move you, and you still want to understand the physics behind them.
So again, to return to what I said before, conversation is critical. We lose opportunities for shared understanding when we shut down dialogue or categorically dismiss something without engaging.
Many discuss integrating science and Indigenous humanism or bringing the two into respectful dialogue. I support that principle—as long as we maintain clarity about what we mean by knowledge, belief, emotion, and experience.
And probably the most controversial thing I’ll say is this: I don’t think there is anything uniquely Indigenous—in terms of knowledge or worldview—that doesn’t exist elsewhere. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable, but I question whether it’s epistemically unique. I’d go so far as to say that, in some cases, these cultural beliefs can have an adverse effect—they can hinder rather than help.
I have two anecdotal examples that shed light on what I mean.
First, I recently watched a documentary about bison in Yellowstone National Park. Researchers had long believed the bison population was dwindling because wolves had been reintroduced to the park. But after years of research and scientific reductionism—they discovered that the real culprit was lake trout.
Here’s how: the lake trout were predators of salmon, a primary food source for grizzly bears. And grizzlies, who usually don’t prey on bison outside of a very short period during calving, were now starving. The only time bears can kill bison is for about two weeks in the spring when the calves are still tiny. However, the bears hunted more young bison during that narrow window because of the salmon shortage. Wolves had not contributed to the bison population decline.
You can only arrive at that kind of conclusion through systematic scientific inquiry. You cannot deduce that from direct observation alone—not with any reliability. Yes, maybe you’d intuit that something upstream was causing the bears to behave differently, but then you would need to test that hypothesis in a repeatable and reproducible way. That’s how we know what’s happening.
The second example relates to archaeological research. The Smithsonian Institution has a vast collection of human skulls from all over the world. These have been used for anthropological, archaeological, and evolutionary research. Some of the skulls in the collection are of Indigenous origin.
The law rightly states that when the provenance—that is, the tribal or cultural origin—of a skull is known, it should be returned to that Indigenous group for repatriation and appropriate cultural handling. I fully support that.
But it becomes complicated here: many skulls have unknown or unverifiable provenance. And some Indigenous groups are now refusing to allow any study of those skulls. In some cases, female researchers are prohibited from touching the remains during certain times of the month based on ceremonial protocols. Even x-rays of the skulls—non-invasive digital scans—are sometimes requested to be returned or destroyed because they are also considered sacred representations of the remains.
Now, I ask—where do we draw the line? I find it very difficult to see how treating an X-ray as a sacred object benefits anyone, especially when we’re talking about the pursuit of human knowledge and scientific understanding that could benefit all people, including Indigenous communities themselves.
Jacobsen: That raises a lot of essential questions. As our mutual friend, Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, often points out, the self—and, by extension, culture—is not static. It’s a dynamic process. Cultures evolve and adapt over time, as individuals do, at varying rates and ways.
How have you seen Indigenous culture evolve in Canada over the years? Some observers describe what’s happening now as a renaissance—a revival or reinvention of traditional knowledge and spiritual practice. Do you see it that way?
Others have observed something different—an integration between Indigenous cultures and Anglophone or Francophone Canadian culture, resulting in what might be called a hybrid identity, particularly among urban Indigenous peoples.
Then you have people—like yourself—taking a more universalistic approach, seeking frameworks that view the human species through a scientific lens. That’s the truth-based perspective, where ethnicity is understood as a sociological category, a layer we place over our shared biology.
This also ties into an epistemology that aspires to be universal—not necessarily in opposition to every microprocessor within broader “ways of knowing,” but certainly in tension with epistemological pluralism, which often rests on less rigorous foundations. By contrast, the scientific method offers a universal filter for arriving at objective truths about the world.
So, how have you seen these elements—cultural revitalization, hybridization, and scientific humanism—evolve during your lifetime?
Cook: Wow. That’s a big question.
Specifically regarding knowledge, I would say that Indigenous culture has crystallized—that is, it’s become more codified and standardized in ways that weren’t present when I was younger.
As I mentioned earlier, there’s been a homogenization of Indigenous cultures across North America. Historically, sharing between nations was done to support trade—cultural elements were exchanged pragmatically. But now we see deeper integration and standardization of ceremonial practices. From coast to coast to coast, there are often standard formats for things like vision quests, sweat lodges, powwows, and even the regalia worn at those gatherings.
Alongside this has come a more defined idea of Indigenous humanism, particularly regarding how knowledge is transmitted. There’s a growing emphasis on learning from elders, which is being passed on in Native Studies programs, language classes, and cultural revitalization efforts. The resurgence of Indigenous languages is one of the best things happening now. There’s nothing to criticize about strengthening cultural continuity—that’s essential and beautiful.
But where I start to think critically is in the epistemological space. All around the world, cultures have developed systems of knowledge—about the environment, healing, and ethics. Indigenous cultures have made meaningful contributions, for example, to agricultural practices like crop rotation or land stewardship. But I wouldn’t say those practices are uniquely Indigenous. Versions of them exist across many cultures globally.
And that’s where I think the scientific method offers something distinct—the process that has served us best since the Age of Reason. It begins with hypotheses, follows with testing, and leads to the development of theories—not just beliefs but replicable, predictive models.
I struggle sometimes to express this clearly, but what I’m getting at is that while the diversity of cultural worldviews is essential and enriching, when it comes to understanding the natural world, the scientific pursuit of knowledge remains the most reliable, universal process we have. That doesn’t invalidate cultural meaning-making, but we shouldn’t confuse it with empirical truth.
Of course, you understand how “theory” gets thrown around—“It’s just a theory.” But a scientific theory is far more than a hunch or intuition. It’s something that’s been tested rigorously, often in hundreds of different contexts, and has repeatedly held under those conditions.
That doesn’t mean it’s 100% guaranteed—it’s not absolute certainty—but it does mean that we haven’t yet found a way to disprove it. And that’s meaningful. That’s what knowledge grounded in evidence looks like.
That way of thinking is foundational for me—and this is how I’m wired, maybe because I come from a scientific background. There are Indigenous and scientific parts of me, but I can’t help it: I reason, believe in systems, and think in processes.
I have difficulty conceptualizing some of these so-called “other ways of knowing.” Throughout my life, I’ve understood the cultural teachings I received not as truth claims but as stories—valuable but not epistemologically authoritative.
So when I walk through the woods and put my hand on a tree, that action connects to something cultural—maybe even spiritual, in a poetic sense—but it feels like a kind of vestigial organ from that part of my heritage. It doesn’t represent the truth to me. As I see it, the truth comes from science and rational inquiry.
And I don’t know how we’re supposed to reconcile that tension. From my perspective, scientific thinking is still the best tool we’ve developed as a species to understand the world around us. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than anything else.
And the scientific method isn’t culturally exclusive. It may have been formalized during the European Enlightenment, but it’s been adopted and applied by cultures around the world. The cross-cultural sharing of scientific knowledge has done more to bend the moral arc of history than the exchange of supernatural or magical beliefs ever has.
Jacobsen: In the African American community in the United States, there’s often the perception that atheism or humanism is a “white thing.” Do you find anything similar in Indigenous communities in Canada—where science, secularism, or even atheism is seen as foreign, colonial, or somehow outside the cultural norm?
Cook: Oh. That perception exists.
And I think that’s part of the reason Indigenous humanism has taken root—it’s a kind of response to the perception that science, and by extension secular humanism, is a product of white Western culture. There’s a historical trauma there, of course, because science was often tied to colonial institutions—residential schools, anthropological exploitation, eugenics, resource extraction—you name it.
However, that distrust of science is not unique to Indigenous communities. Just look at the religious right in the United States. Much of that worldview is grounded in Christian fundamentalism, and it also treats science as a left-wing enemy.
So you get this strange convergence: one side rejects science because they see it as secular, the other see it as colonial—but both resist the same process that has arguably done the most to improve human life on a material and ethical level.
The current administration is actively dismantling scientific institutions and educational infrastructure because it sees science as foreign, something separate from its culture and worldview. So yes, after having been to many universities across Canada, I’ve never seen an Indigenous science class. I’ve seen Native Studies classes at virtually every institution—but not Indigenous-led science education that operates by scientific principles. That absence is telling.
Jacobsen: I often point out, for example, that however the Egyptians built the pyramids, it wasn’t “Egyptian engineering.”It was just engineering. It happened to be carried out by Egyptians, but it was part of the universal domain of human problem-solving. And the same applies to science. It emerges from culture, sure, but any one culture does not own it.
Cook: That’s exactly right. That’s why I made that flippant comment about Greta Thunberg—ethics, environmentalism, and scientific reasoning aren’t culturally bound. They’re philosophical systems we’ve developed as a species.
I’d say the opposite of what’s often claimed. One commonly repeated claim about Indigenous humanism is that it has forced science to become more ethical and environmentally aware. But I don’t believe that’s true.
Regardless of cultural background, many scientists are already working hard to integrate ethics, sustainability, and responsibility into research. That pressure didn’t have to come from any single cultural worldview. It’s not a unique contribution of Indigenous epistemology or any other cultural system. These are universal human concerns.
I mentioned this earlier: the moral arc of history is bending, but not because of culture. It’s bending because we’re becoming more interconnected and aware of how we are all part of the same planetary system. That’s where progress comes from—not from traditionalism, but often despite it.
Cultural frameworks can often become obstacles to progress. They assert, “That doesn’t fit my culture, so I can’t accept it.” But when you look at what has slowed human development, it’s often things like religious dogma, nationalism, and rigid racial or ethnic identities. These forces have stifled progress—not fostered it.
So, progress didn’t happen because of culture; in many cases, it happened despite culture.
Jacobsen: Do you think that some of the current emphasis on race and ethnicity, particularly in academic or professional contexts—using the language of “allies” and “identity”—might deter Indigenous people and other minorities who are genuinely interested in joining science or engineering departments?
In other words, does the intense focus on Indigeneity as identity, when applied to objective disciplines like science, inadvertently create a kind of self-re-racialization that alienates people from universal spaces of inquiry?
Cook: You know what? I hadn’t considered that before, but that’s a critical point.
Let me collect my thoughts without sounding too controversial right off the bat.
But yes—I would have to say yes.
I think all young people—regardless of background—reach a point where they have to decide the direction of their future: career, values, identity. For young people in Indigenous communities, especially on reserves, that decision can be even more complicated.
Some may enter fields like political science, sociology, or psychology, where they can gain knowledge and return to their communities to provide leadership or serve as advocates. That’s admirable.
But here’s where I get stuck: I have difficulty articulating this clearly, and I don’t know if it’s truly possible to keep one foot firmly in the culture and one foot in a scientific discipline—at least not without tension.
And maybe that’s not a fair generalization, either. Take anthropology, for example. That’s a scientific field where you could still honour and explore your cultural background. That could be a space where the two can coexist.
You know what? I don’t have a complete answer to this. It’s something I’d need to think more about. Speaking just for myself, my gut instinct is that I can’t do both. I can’t believe in the cultural stories as truths, and, at the same time, I am fully committed to science. But that’s just me—and I wouldn’t want to impose that view on others.
This is probably a research project in the making. We need a proper survey of Indigenous students—which career paths they’ve taken, especially those who’ve pursued STEM fields—and what kinds of internal or external tensions they’ve experienced. That’s your next project right there.
Jacobsen: Is there a kind of taboo around pursuing formal education—particularly using the academic vocabulary of the Anglophone world? I remember watching a documentary on educational attainment, where a Black British educator pointed out that, for some Black boys in the UK, having a strong English vocabulary was viewed as “acting white.” So, you get this intra-cultural stigma where academic achievement becomes a source of social deterrence.
Do you think something like that might be at play in Indigenous communities in Canada, too—where embracing science or formal academic discourse is seen as stepping away from the culture?
Cook: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know if I’ve experienced that.
I haven’t noticed students avoiding academic vocabulary in some Indigenous Studies classes I’ve taken at Trent University. The conversation is usually conducted as you’d expect in any university-level seminar. I didn’t get the sense that anyone was being stigmatized for speaking in that way or that it was seen as “too white.” Based on my experience, I haven’t witnessed that dynamic.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. Another way humanism is often summarized internationally is with the triad: reason, compassion, and science. Where do you see sufficient overlap between that kind of humanist framework and the values within Anishinaabe culture? I mean that we’ve talked about birch bark, the sacredness of nature, and the spiritual worldview in Anishinaabe culture, where rocks, trees, and rivers all have spirits. That’s quite different from a scientific-naturalist framework.
So, where do you see alignment points in broad strokes—places where secular humanism and Anishinaabe worldview might meaningfully intersect?
Cook: So there are some areas of overlap, though not necessarily the ones people assume. Given some of the things I’ve experienced—and again, it’s hard to define this solely as “Anishinaabe culture” because it has shifted quite a bit over my lifetime—I’d say the places where mainstream society and secular humanism intersect with Indigenous culture are rooted in respect.
That includes respect for history, traditions, culture, and older people—I’ll say older people rather than elders since the term elder has specific ceremonial and cultural significance.
There’s also respect for all living things, which is where environmentalism or environmental stewardship comes in. Then there’s the idea of balancing our lives—the physical, social, and emotional aspects of being. Even values like diversity and inclusion are embedded in Anishinaabe culture to varying degrees.
I’d also mention the pursuit of ethics and ethical behaviour. These aspects are part of Anishinaabe traditions and secular humanism’s fundamental premises.
Jacobsen: That’s generally what I was getting at. Far be it from me to be a fan of evangelicalism, but if we take Protestantism more broadly, there are specific values that, while not always embraced to the extreme, have merit. For example, there is an emphasis on work ethic, which has virtue, whether applied to building a family, community, infrastructure, business, or academic excellence.
But I think the dominionist strain—particularly the desire for political control under religious mandates—is corrosive. It’s at odds with the secular aims that most humanists value: freedom of thought, pluralism, and individual rights.
On the Indigenous side, I don’t gravitate toward supernaturalism, but I see value in the naturalistic emphasis found in many Indigenous spiritual teachings. It’s concrete and practical and reflects a deep awareness of interdependence.
The ethic of caring for the environment rather than asserting dominion over it seems far more appropriate—especially given where we are as a planet. So, no culture has a monopoly on wisdom, but I think if we take a fine-grained look at different espoused virtues, there’s a lot we can learn.
Cook: I agree.
Jacobsen: And, of course, we must also acknowledge that espoused values are not always lived. That’s true in every culture. People often say one thing and do another.
Cook: Right—and a lot of that, I think, is related to scale and scope. Most people, outside of those with diagnosed psychopathy or similar disorders, aren’t going out of their way to harm animals or inflict suffering just for the sake of it.
Ethical lapses stem more from systems, pressure, or disconnect than intentional cruelty. Those systems are shaped by histories and structures, not just individuals.
The sheer scale of the challenge—feeding 9 billion people globally—has created a significant tension between ethically desirable and operationally scalable. That’s one of the things I’d say about Indigenous humanism: there’s much talk about ethics, sustainability, and traditional methods. Those ideas are important but also easier to apply in small communities or enterprises.
When you zoom out to the planetary scale, it becomes much harder. Yes, you can rotate crops to preserve soil health. That’s good practice. But then you hit a wall: monocultures exist because they allow for massive food production. And if you remove them without scalable alternatives, you run the risk of people starving.
So while many of us would love to see greater sustainability, better treatment of animals, and more respect for traditional practices—especially in smaller, land-based societies around the world—the hard limits of global logistics can challenge those ideals.
Jacobsen: It becomes an issue of scale and how values operate differently depending on context.
Cook: And that’s where utilitarian philosophy comes into play: Jeremy Bentham. It’s really about doing the least harm when faced with difficult trade-offs.
Again, those ethical frameworks—balancing harms and considering outcomes—aren’t uniquely Indigenous or part of Indigenous humanism. They’re part of global ethical discourse. I’ve often heard atheists say, “If I had to write a list of Ten Commandments, I could come up with seven better ones than the original.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s a valuable thought experiment.
Cook: Absolutely. It helps clarify what values matter. Because let’s face it: we’re not hunter-gatherers anymore. And while the Haudenosaunee agricultural tradition of planting corn, beans, and squash in the same mound—with a fish for fertilizer—is a brilliant, sustainable method, it’s not practical for feeding billions.
Jacobsen: How much interaction have you had with global Indigenous groups—from places like Western Europe, Latin America, Africa, or elsewhere?
Cook: Virtually none. I’ve interacted with Indigenous Australians and am familiar with some of their traditions. And I’ve only had limited interactions with Inuit here in Canada. That’s why I try not to generalize too broadly. I know my cultural neighbourhood and try to speak from that place.
Jacobsen: Do you watch the news much?
Cook: Every day.
Jacobsen: When it comes to Indigenous issues—as they’re often referred to in Canadian media—what are the things that mainstream outlets are getting right, what are they getting wrong, and what are they ignoring or failing to cover adequately? I’m thinking specifically in terms of factual accuracy and proportionality.
Cook: That’s a big one. I think it’s hard to get mainstream media to pay attention to Indigenous issues unless Indigenous people themselves create what looks like a crisis.
Take the example of Chief Theresa Spence and her hunger strike. That pushed attention toward the Idle No More movement across Canada. It wasn’t until thousands of us took to the streets, raised flags, and blocked bridges that the broader public started to see issues like many First Nations communities lacking clean drinking water. These communities have been on boil water advisories for over 50 years.
That’s a critical issue—and it’s one that’s barely covered. It occasionally pops up in the media, but there’s no consistent attention. And because of that, municipal, provincial, and federal governments only respond when there’s noise. Even the current Liberal government, which talks a lot about reconciliation and Indigenous rights, hasn’t made anywhere near the progress they promised. And I think part of that is because mainstream media is not holding them accountable—there’s no sense of urgency being communicated to the broader public.
Jacobsen: So, what does the media get right, wrong, and ignore? What would you say?
Cook: Okay, let’s break it down.
- What they get right: Occasionally, the media does highlight real issues—like lack of clean water or specific Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations. But it’s usually episodic and reactive, not consistent or systemic.
- What they get wrong: Often, there’s a lack of nuance and a tendency toward sensationalism. For example, when unmarked graves were discovered at former residential school sites, the coverage quickly escalated to headlines about mass murder—even in international outlets like the New York Times. The reality is deeply tragic, yes, but these were not mass executions. They were individual deaths, many from neglect, abuse, or disease. It was still horrific, but how it was framed in the media lacked historical and forensic context. That reporting distorts the conversation and leads to reaction instead of reflection.
- What they ignore: So much. Policy follow-up, for example—how many of the 94 Calls to Action from the TRC have been implemented? How is funding allocated to on-reserve infrastructure? Or the legal challenges around land back, resource development, and treaty rights? These are complex stories and don’t sell as easily as headlines about protests or conflict.
And the old saying about the media—what is it? “If it bleeds, it leads”?The media is built to chase the dramatic story, not the slow-moving but essential. Unfortunately, that means the real work of reconciliation—the hard, slow, policy-based work—often goes uncovered. When that happens, public pressure fades, and governments don’t feel compelled to act.
I can’t be entirely critical in terms of getting things right. The fact is, Indigenous issues do pop up in the news, and they do receive some visibility. You’ll see coverage of the leadership of various national and provincial Indigenous organizations, and there’s at least some public awareness.
But again, coverage often happens when there’s controversy—incompetence, criticism, or a political failure. The positive, ongoing work tends to be overlooked. So, while I appreciate that Indigenous issues remain somewhat within the mainstream’s awareness, I don’t think the media does an excellent job in terms of in-depth, accurate, or wide-ranging coverage.
Jacobsen: I once interviewed Lee Maracle before she passed away. I don’t recall whether we published it, but I remember something she said that stuck with me. She made a passing remark about how, if you took a river and superimposed a cylinder—completing its spatial circularity rather than thinking in just half or three-quarter arcs—you could use that to calculate the flow or size of the river. It was a fascinating metaphor.
What struck me was how she connected abstract structures, like those found in geometry, quantitative reasoning, or even axioms, with real-world patterns and spatial awareness. That got me thinking: Are there aspects of Indigenous thought or daily practice that incorporate this spatial or abstract reasoning—not through formal schooling in mathematics but through the lived culture itself? I’m curious whether these forms of insight emerged in ways that are just embedded in how people lived—whether nomadically, semi-nomadically, or in place.
Cook: Oh, wow. That’s a great question.
Strangely enough, the first thing that comes to mind is how Plains Indigenous peoples used buffalo hides to record their histories. They did it in a spiral format, starting from the center and spiralling outward, year by year, marking significant events. It’s a circular conception of time, which I’ve always found fascinating. It’s not linear—it emphasizes cycles, return, and continuity.
Another area is astronomy. Our constellations and celestial stories are very different from the ones recognized by European science. But the concept of constellations—linking stars into meaningful shapes that connect to narratives or moral teachings—is shared. It’s another way of imposing structure and meaning on the natural world. The patterns are interpreted differently, but the cognitive process is quite sophisticated.
Even if the outcomes are different—logic, categorization, and relational thinking exist. In many traditions, that reasoning is still embedded within a spiritual framework. There’s usually some spirit or force causing events to unfold. So, even where there’s spatial or numerical thinking, it often comes with a sacred or mythological dimension. That doesn’t make it less analytical—it just means it’s integrated differently than in Western scientific models.
I think in the other direction. The perception of time as cyclical is very prominent.
That’s true for many Indigenous cultures around the world. Time is often seen as cyclical rather than linear because of its close relationship to the natural environment. When you’re living within the rhythms of the land, you begin to observe and internalize the constant cycles of seasons, plants, animals, migration, birth, and death.
Jacobsen: What about the social and ethical culture? Are there aspects of Anishinaabe tradition—like an emphasis on compassion or universal moral principles—that overlap with humanism? For example, in situations like a dispute over food or land, whether with another community or within a family, were there mechanisms of resolution that reflected something like a humanistic ethic?
Cook: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know how to characterize it as a humanistic ethic in the Western sense. But what I find remarkable and unique in Anishinaabe culture is the approach to guiding others. It’s often done through gentle encouragement rather than direct correction or authoritative instruction.
Let’s say a child is doing something dangerous. In mainstream Western culture, a parent might yell, snap, or slap their hand if the child reaches for something hot. But in the Indigenous contexts I’ve been part of, the response is often gentler—more about guiding the child away from harm than punishing them for curiosity.
I remember an example from one of the elders I knew, a remarkable woman. She ran visiting elder programs, going into schools and organizations to share wisdom and offer guidance. One day, she came to me with a concern.
The community near me, which I’m closely tied to, had repatriated a skeleton—the remains of a man who had been identified, through evidence, as Midewiwin. The bones were around 300 years old and had been found off-reserve. The community brought him home and held a traditional Midewiwin ceremony to lay him to rest in their cemetery.
The woman who led the ceremony told me that she felt that the community wasn’t treating the grave with enough respect. Her concern wasn’t expressed in anger or confrontation but with sorrow and gentleness. She felt a sacred duty had been mishandled—not out of malice, but out of forgetfulness or carelessness.
That speaks to a relational ethic—not one rooted in universal rules but in context, relationships, and reverence.
I hesitate to call it “humanism” formally. But there are shared values: compassion, restraint, and guidance without domination. And those principles—whether Indigenous or humanist—have much to offer today’s world.
In modern Anishinaabe culture, that translates to the belief that graves must be well-tended and respectfully maintained. In this case, the elder I mentioned was concerned because the repatriated grave was neglected. She shared her concern with me, and I responded, “No problem—I’ll go back and make sure that it gets done.”
But I was wrong to use that kind of directive language—”I’ll make sure it gets done.” That’s not how guidance works in Anishinaabe culture. You don’t give orders. You don’t tell people what to do or how to behave. Instead, you tell stories, you coach, and you nudge gently. That’s the approach. It’s gentle, respectful, and, in many ways, a beautiful part of the culture. I was counselled to tell the traditional story of Nanaboozho and his fight with his brother. That was the right way to help the community understand why the grave needed to be more carefully tended.
But there are downsides, too.
In a community where alcoholism can be pervasive, for example, people might not intervene. They won’t necessarily step in to stop someone or help them recover. If someone is engaging in self-harm, the traditional approach of non-interference may mean the community stays quiet, even when someone needs help. That’s changing now, thankfully, as many reserves are getting better access to health services, mental health support, and intervention programs.
But culturally, there’s still a tendency toward non-intervention, which can be both a strength and a weakness, depending on the situation.
Jacobsen: That seems like a deeply embedded ethic—one that’s built around respect and autonomy, but that can have real costs when applied rigidly. Are there any parts of your notes you haven’t had a chance to bring up yet—things you think should be included in this conversation?
Cook: Let me take a look. I haven’t even checked my notes in about three hours now. [Laughing] You’ve been good company.
One thing that stands out in my notes, which we haven’t discussed much yet, is how people—especially in more left-leaning or social justice-oriented circles—value Indigenous humanism. I don’t particularly like terms like “woke” or “social justice warrior”—mostly because I think they’re overused and poorly defined—but I think we all know the general type of person I’m talking about: culturally aware, often highly sensitive, and well-intentioned.
These individuals sometimes overvalue Indigenous humanism. I’ve thought about why that might be. I understand why people associate environmental ethics, climate consciousness, and spiritual ecology with Indigenous traditions. There is value there.
However, I suspect that part of the overvaluation is due to intellectual laziness. People latch onto romanticized ideas of Indigenous wisdom without thinking critically about what’s being said or those philosophies’ real-world impact.
For instance, if we’re talking about climate change, and someone says that Indigenous knowledge systems provide foundational insight into global warming, I argue that the actual contribution is limited. Most Indigenous knowledge systems were developed in local ecological contexts, not global climate models. They offer invaluable insight into local environmental shifts but are not a substitute for climate science.
So, yes, if you’re an Inuit in the High Arctic, you’ll notice the dramatic changes in seasonal patterns and temperatures. Your lived experience becomes a powerful data point. But to say that Indigenous humanism provides a universal climate ethic—I think that’s an overstatement.
That’s a necessary clarification. Respecting a tradition doesn’t mean inflating its scope. It means understanding it on its terms and recognizing its value within the context in which it was developed.
If you live in a small community north of Toronto, on a reserve, I can’t imagine that your local weather observations would offer any unique insight that meaningfully contributes to our broader understanding of climate change. That’s not a criticism of local knowledge—it’s just a recognition of scale.
This brings us back to the need for centralized mechanisms to evaluate truth and knowledge—systems that can collect localized observations, synthesize them, and turn them into theories that are then made actionable. That kind of comprehensive perspective is impossible to form solely at the local level—especially when the issues are global in scale.
So, while the ethical and moral frameworks present in Indigenous humanism are admirable—and often very positive—they’re not unique to Indigenous cultures. People all over the world have developed similar values in different ways.
I guess the summary for me is this: Indigenous humanism is often overvalued, especially by the “woke” or “social justice warrior” types. Not because the ideas are wrong—but because people sometimes elevate them without adequate critical reflection or contextual understanding.
Jacobsen: That’s an important distinction. Lloyd Robertson wrote about Indigeneity and humanism and argued—rightly, I think—that they can be compatible if you frame the conceptual puzzle carefully.
Now, you’re focusing on Indigenous humanism and its relationship to secular humanism. The mistake people often make in reasoning isn’t necessarily with the premise but with the categorization of humanism itself.
Many people mistakenly believe that humanism—of any variety—is a political party or ideology. But that’s fundamentally incorrect. The earliest declarations and policy statements, especially those formalized through bodies like Humanists International, are very careful with their language. Humanism emerged as a philosophical life stance—particularly after the barbarism of World War II—in reaction to the atrocities committed under both totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism.
In that sense, humanism is not political as people often frame it. It’s not anti-religious people—it’s anti-theology when theology violates autonomy, critical inquiry, and shared human values. It’s also not a political party, although it can align selectively with political movements that advance secular, evidence-based policy.
Right. Also, groups like Humanists UK carefully show that humanists can fall across the political spectrum. You’ve got Humanists for Labour, Humanist Conservatives, and so on. The philosophical core of humanism is one thing—how you apply that philosophy in politics is another.
So we shouldn’t expect humanists to vote as a bloc, though you might see that happen when a party becomes too deeply entrenched in religious fundamentalism or violates secular norms.
That’s one piece. The other issue is this concept of “wokeism” or identity politics—or whatever form of it people are reacting to. What often happens is that humanistic language gets co-opted for tribal political goals. And that can distort what humanism is actually about.
They come from good intentions and can undoubtedly have positive effects, particularly in mobilizing people around important causes. But where people seem to react negatively is with the language, the intimidation tactics, and the tendency to cancel rather than engage. That creates a moral pressure that can become alienating.
There’s also sometimes a lack of empirical rigour, especially compared to the standards you’d traditionally expect from humanist approaches—where careful reasoning, evidence, and thoughtful dialogue are foundational before you become “activated” around an issue. Of course, something might trigger you emotionally or historically, and that might lead you to pursue deeper research. But too often, it feels like the research is skipped, and people go straight to outrage.
Cook: We’re seeing a similar dynamic emerge in the context of Indigenous humanism. There’s cultural meaning, yes—but there’s also a risk of conceptual inflation and politicization, identical to what’s happening in other identity-based or ideologically driven spaces.
Jacobsen: That brings me back to what I raised about Dr. Lloyd Robertson’s paper earlier. He’s deliberate in using the term indigeneity rather than Indigenous humanism per se. He argues that Indigeneity—the full range of characteristics, histories, and identities that define someone as Indigenous—can be integrated with humanist thought if the framework is structured correctly.
So, moving beyond whether Indigenous humanism and secular humanism conflict, what about Indigeneity and humanism more broadly—can they coexist as a single, integrated worldview?
Cook: I’ve heard the term indigeneity before. Lloyd’s used it with me in conversation a few times. And if we define it broadly—all the things that make a person Indigenous, culturally, historically, linguistically, spiritually—without trying to narrow it down too tightly, then there’s no incompatibility.
The difficulty comes when we start labelling things. Humanism’s values can easily be co-opted by people with genuine ethical commitments or those more interested in virtue signalling. That’s not unique to humanism; it’s true for any moral framework.
While we were briefly pausing, I asked Google to pull up a list of humanist values to see how they read in plain language.
Let’s take a few:
- Dignity and worth of every person—hard to argue with unless you’re invoking the logic of 1940s fascism.
- Reason and science—even the most devout religious believers often claim science supports their views, even if it’s been twisted to fit.
- Ethics, compassion, and empathy—again, universally defensible.
- Human rights—yes, people sometimes limit them to “people who look and sound like them,” but the idea remains powerful.
- Social justice and equality are widely appealing and challenging to reject outright.
Honestly, this list reads more like what the Ten Commandments should have looked like. Instead of a list of “thou shalt nots,” it’s a positive ethical framework.
Jacobsen: So, in essence, these values are philosophically universal, making them easily embraced but also misused.
Cook: It’s easy to co-opt this language for your cause—whether ethical or performative. But the values themselves? They’re very hard to argue with—and I think that’s why properly understood humanism can be a meeting place, not a battleground.
When we use the word Indigeneity, there’s nothing in Indigenous culture that would contradict core values like dignity, worth, or reason. The definition of science might differ from the Western model, but what is often called Indigenous science still involves observational knowledge passed down through generations.
Take willow bark, for example. It contains acetylsalicylic acid—the active ingredient in aspirin. Indigenous people knew it could relieve pain, even though they didn’t see the chemistry. That’s still a form of empirical, experience-based science.
Ethics, human rights, and social justice are all values Indigenous people would recognize and affirm, whether explicitly or in practice. So, Indigeneity fits very comfortably with humanist values.
The only area where I find some tension is naturalism—the idea that the universe is governed strictly by natural laws, without supernatural forces. That’s where worldviews can diverge. In many Indigenous cultures, spiritual forces or non-material entities are part of how knowledge is explained or understood.
So, while I don’t think anyone would argue with the core principles of humanism, the point of difference lies in the belief that you can know things in ways that aren’t empirical or naturalistic. Aside from that, there’s widespread respect for the ethical foundation of humanism, even if the epistemological framing differs.
Jacobsen: That’s well put. And to nod to critics and defenders of those labelled as “woke,” something is interesting about how people signal their values. On one hand, critics might point to something like a rainbow lapel pin or a cross necklace—as a way of saying, “I’m a good ally” or “I’m a good Christian.” It becomes a kind of virtue signalling—an external signifier of internal moral standing.
Are there parallels in Indigenous culture today, particularly among younger generations—or even some elders—where there’s an increased use of symbolic items or participation that might not carry deep personal meaning but instead function as a cultural signifier?
Cook: I think I understand what you’re asking: whether some people are going through the motions—participating in culture symbolically without necessarily believing in the deeper spiritual or philosophical layers.
And the answer is absolutely.
In Anishinaabe culture, for instance, there’s a widely recognized symbol—the medicine wheel, sometimes called a unity pin. It’s a circle divided into four quadrants:
- White (North)
- Yellow (East)
- Red (South)
- Black (West)
An entire lifelong system of teachings is embedded in that wheel. It includes medicine teachings, stages of life, seasons, directions, and spiritual roles. However, not everyone who wears the medicine wheel engages deeply with those teachings. Some wear it simply as a cultural marker—a way of showing identity or solidarity.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But yes, it can become the Indigenous equivalent of a symbolic lapel pin. And just like in other communities, symbols can be used meaningfully or superficially.
It’s the Anishinaabe equivalent of a cross on your lapel. For a Christian, the cross is supposed to represent all the teachings and values of the faith. But for some, it’s simply an accessory—”I don’t know what it means, but it looks good on my jacket.” It’s symbolic shorthand, like an American flag pin on a senator’s lapel.
You see medicine wheels all over the place, and I could talk for days—possibly months—about the depth of teachings that go into those four colours arranged in a circle. So much culture, history, philosophy, and spiritual guidance are tied into that symbol. And yet, I don’t wear one.
Because, like with other symbolic items, some people wear it without engaging with its meaning. You’ll find people proudly wearing a cross who can’t explain even the basic tenets of Christianity. Or LGBTQ+ individuals wearing the Pride flag without necessarily understanding the struggles of the ’60s and ’70s—the history of protest, persecution, and civil rights activism that made those symbols possible.
So yes, absolutely—virtue signalling exists within Indigenous communities as well.
Jacobsen: That brings to mind the idea of private or protected knowledge found in some Indigenous traditions. You mentioned earlier that there are certain things you cannot speak about publicly—because doing so could lead to pushback or even breach community expectations.
That sounds reminiscent of Freemasonry—where inner circles, ritual practices, and esoteric teachings are passed down within structured hierarchies. It stands in contrast, in some ways, to humanism, which leans heavily on transparency and open inquiry.
So my question is this: What role does that kind of secrecy or ritual exclusivity play in Anishinaabe society—either historically or in the present day?
Cook: That’s a great and tricky question. Yes, you’ll find elitism in ceremonial groups like the Midewiwin Lodge—but it isn’t purely negative. It shows that members earn their place through real commitment and participation, creating a clear hierarchy.
A useful, if imperfect, comparison is the Shriners (an offshoot of Freemasonry). Structurally, the Midewiwin works the same way: you progress through degrees, and each degree unlocks deeper teachings. Whether those teachings focus on practical skills or spiritual wisdom often depends on your own path and experience.
Advancing has always carried a cost. In the past, members offered goods—livestock or trade items. Today, it usually means significant travel, time, and money. Those costs both limit membership and prove dedication: they show you’re serious about this path.
Like Freemasonry, the Midewiwin includes rituals—special handshakes or signs that mark your level. The details differ, but the organizational logic is similar. (I’m not a Freemason myself; I’ve drawn this understanding from research and conversations.)
In the Midewiwin Lodge, each level has its own rituals and secret knowledge. If you haven’t reached a given level, you don’t participate and you don’t observe. It’s a deliberately structured system.
Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating comparison—not in terms of belief systems, but organizational logic, ritual structure, and gatekeeping of knowledge.What else is on your mind?
Cook: [Laughing] We’ve covered a lot.
I keep thinking about the word “indigeneity” and how I’m trying to understand it. Is there a helpful distinction between ethnicity and culture here?
Take someone Jewish, for example. They can be ethnically Jewish but secular, with no religious inclination, or the reverse—they can be religiously Jewish but not ethnically.
I wonder if Indigeneity works similarly. It can describe someone’s ethnic identity or heritage, regardless of whether they fully engage with the cultural or spiritual practices traditionally associated with it. Maybe that’s why I can reconcile humanism with Indigeneity—because it’s about roots, background, and shared history.
But I struggle to reconcile humanism with “Indigenous humanism,” especially when the latter emphasizes supernatural belief systems or non-naturalistic knowledge. Humanism’s focus on science, reason, and naturalism creates tension.
Indigeneity can be descriptive and inclusive, while “Indigenous humanism” might sometimes involve conflicting epistemologies—mainly if the framework includes magical thinking or metaphysical assertions.
Jacobsen: One from left field: In history, if you could have dinner with Pontiac or Tecumseh, who would you choose?
Cook: [Laughing] Wow.
Honestly, I would’ve loved to have had dinner with Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. From everything I’ve read, he was a remarkable human being—deeply ethical, thoughtful, and courageous.
Between Tecumseh and Pontiac? That’s harder to answer. One of my elders, who passed away in 2013, was named Angus Pontiac—a direct descendant of the Pontiac. So, out of respect, I’ll stay quiet on that one. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: Fair enough. How about something more contemporary—what do you think of Adam Beach’s acting?
Cook: I like Adam Beach. He brings a lot of depth and vulnerability to his characters. He’s got great range. I know Adam Beach. He’s a pretty good actor. He’s been cast in more comic or comedic roles; sometimes, he plays them with humour. But he’s also done some serious work that is quite strong.
[Laughing] I’ve got five more names I could throw out, but I’m not sure how far down that rabbit hole you want to go. One of them is Tom Jackson—he’s a friend of mine.
Jacobsen: I was thinking about William Whipple Warren, who was of Ojibwe and European descent and authored History of the Ojibwe People in 1885.
Cook: Oh—that does ring a bell. I have a very extensive library and that book is included.
Jacobsen: Or Louise Erdrich or Chief Peguis?
Cook: Chief Peguis—yes, that name rings a bell. I’m struggling to recall the details off the top of my head. He was a prominent leader, but I’d need to double-check the historical specifics.
Jacobsen: One more: Autumn Peltier—born February 2004. A young activist, she’s spoken at the United Nations, criticized environmental policies, and received awards like the International Children’s Peace Prize. She’s a leading voice in the global environmental movement.
Cook: I wasn’t aware of her. I was thinking of Leonard Peltier—he was part of the American Indian Movement, and he’s currently serving time in a U.S. federal prison, accused of involvement in the murder of an FBI agent during a standoff in 1975.
Jacobsen: Possibly a relation—but maybe not.
Cook: The structure of bands and surnames can be more complex than people outside Indigenous communities realize.
Jacobsen: Many First Nations in Canada have quite a small population. The numbers drop significantly once you get past the first 2,000 to 3,000 members.
Cook: We have a Mississauga Anishinaabe reserve about an hour and a half north of here. There are only about three surnames on the entire reserve.
Now, that doesn’t mean everyone’s related—though some are. But many are not. And a lot of that traces back to residential schools. When children were taken, they were often renamed. If your name was “Little Squirrel,” that wasn’t good enough for the school system. So, kids were given new first names, often English or biblical.
In many cases, they were also assigned the last name of the Indian Agent in charge of that reserve. That’s how family names were standardized, and that’s why surnames aren’t reliable indicators of lineage in many Indigenous communities in Canada.
Jacobsen: That’s incredibly revealing—how naming was institutionalized and how identity was systematically altered.
Cook: When people trace ancestry by surname, they often run into dead ends or false assumptions. Our names were reshaped by colonial policies, not by our customs or kinship systems. And that legacy still lingers.
Here’s a closing comment, I suppose:
I’ve said things today that could be perceived as critical, but I’ve lived an extraordinary life in the Native community. I’ve spent years balancing one foot in the scientific world and one foot in Indigenous culture. I love Indigenous culture deeply, but at some point, it became impossible for me to reconcile its spiritual components with my atheism and humanism.
Still, I have immense respect for the challenges Indigenous communities face and the progress they’ve made. And if people rally around something like Indigenous humanism as a unifying framework—even if I see tensions between that and secular humanism—I won’t take that away from them. If it brings meaning and solidarity, that’s their opium, to borrow a phrase.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much.
Cook: Thanks, Scott. I’ve enjoyed our conversation.
Jacobsen: Take care, David.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/22
CCI Kenya CEO Rishi Jatania discusses the company’s flagship sustainable facility in Tatu City, designed to align with global sustainability goals while fostering business efficiency. The facility prioritizes energy efficiency, water conservation, and sustainable materials, earning EDGE certification. Tatu City’s infrastructure and sustainability focus made it the ideal location. Innovations like self-shading façades and high-performance glass enhance employee well-being while reducing energy use. Local sourcing supports the economy, and partnerships like BuildHer promote workforce diversity. CCI Kenya plans to expand with a second facility, creating 5,000 jobs and reinforcing its commitment to sustainable development and economic empowerment.discusses the company’s flagship sustainable facility in Tatu City, designed to align with global sustainability goals while fostering business efficiency. The facility prioritizes energy efficiency, water conservation, and sustainable materials, earning EDGE certification. Tatu City’s infrastructure and sustainability focus made it the ideal location. Innovations like self-shading façades and high-performance glass enhance employee well-being while reducing energy use. Local sourcing supports the economy, and partnerships like BuildHer promote workforce diversity. CCI Kenya plans to expand with a second facility, creating 5,000 jobs and reinforcing its commitment to sustainable development and economic empowerment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What motivated CCI Kenya to invest in a flagship sustainable facility in Tatu City?
Rishi Jatania: The development of the flagship sustainable facility in Tatu City was driven by the vision to create an environmentally responsible space that meets the needs of modern businesses while aligning with global sustainability goals. This included a commitment to minimizing environmental impact through energy efficiency, water conservation, and the use of sustainable materials, all in line with green building standards. The facility was also designed with future-proofing in mind, aiming to be resilient and adaptable to climate change, supporting long-term growth and operational efficiency. Additionally, the development sought to integrate seamlessly into the local community, offering a sustainable environment for people to thrive in. Positioned in Tatu City as a modern, international business hub, the facility was designed to meet the growing demand for high-performance workplaces that balance business success with environmental stewardship. This flagship facility represents a forward-thinking approach to urban development, fostering both local and global sustainability goals while contributing to a thriving business ecosystem.
Jacobsen: Why did CCI Kenya select Tatu City as the location for this project?
Jatania: Tatu City offers a prime location with easy access to Nairobi, key transportation networks, and proximity to both local and international markets, making it ideal for CCI’s expanding operations. The city features advanced infrastructure, including state-of-the-art contact centre and reliable power and water systems, providing a solid foundation for efficient business operations and connectivity. Additionally, Tatu City’s focus on environmentally sustainable development aligns perfectly with CCI’s commitment to sustainability, with its green spaces and eco-friendly practices making it the ideal location for CCI’s flagship sustainable facility.
Jacobsen: What sustainability criteria did CCI Kenya prioritize in order to achieve EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies) certification and secure recognition at the African Business Awards?
Jatania: To earn EDGE certification and win prestigious awards like the African Business Awards, a project must meet stringent sustainability criteria focused on resource efficiency. The flagship facility in Tatu City exemplifies this by reducing energy consumption by 20% through efficient systems, renewable energy, and advanced HVAC and lighting. It also cuts water usage by 20% with the use of low-flow fixtures, water-saving appliances, and rainwater harvesting systems. True to Tatu City’s commitment to sustainable development, the facility uses locally sourced, recycled, and low-impact materials, further minimizing its carbon footprint. Designed to promote natural light and improve air quality through smart building design, the facility is built for resilience against extreme weather and climate change. Additionally, the construction process minimizes waste, promoting recycling and reuse of materials. These sustainability features not only align with Tatu City’s green vision but also set a benchmark for future developments in the region.
Jacobsen: How do the self-shading façades and high-performance glass in the building align with CCI Kenya’s commitment to energy efficiency and employee well-being?
Jatania: At CCI, we prioritize both sustainability and the well-being of our employees, and the self-shading façades and high-performance glass in our building reflect this. These design elements work in tandem to block excess sunlight, keeping the building cooler during the summer and warmer in the winter. As a result, we reduce the need for air conditioning and heating, significantly saving energy. Beyond energy efficiency, these features help improve the workplace environment by allowing more natural light to flow into the building. This boosts employee mood, enhances focus, and drives productivity. Moreover, by maintaining a stable indoor temperature, we create a comfortable work setting with fewer distractions caused by temperature fluctuations. These innovations not only contribute to a healthier, more productive workspace but also align with our overall sustainability goals at CCI.
Jacobsen: In what ways did sourcing local timber and stone contribute to the sustainability goals and the local economy? ( Sent the question to GRIT/GREA)
Jatania: As per the representative at Eneo, use of timber and stone in the building was minimal, and where these were incorporated, they were sourced locally. By sourcing locally, this promoted responsible sourcing from certified timber mills and quarries. Local sourcing also reduced the project’s overall carbon footprint as it eliminated the need for long distance transportation. Additionally, it provided direct benefit to the local businesses in timber processing, quarrying and transportation fostering job creation and supporting the circulation of money within the local economy.
Jacobsen: How has the collaboration with BuildHer supported CCI’s efforts toward workforce inclusion and diversity?
Jatania: CCI’s partnership with BuildHer focuses on empowering women in leadership, with a strong emphasis on providing training and employment opportunities in sectors where women are often underrepresented. This collaboration has enabled women to gain valuable skills for career advancement and has supported the development of a diverse and inclusive workforce. By increasing female representation in our workforce, we are not only promoting gender equality but also encouraging innovation and diverse perspectives within our company.
Through this partnership, we are breaking down gender barriers by challenging traditional stereotypes and offering equal opportunities in industries previously dominated by men. The collaboration also aims to build a skilled and sustainable workforce, contributing to CCI Kenya’s growth and enhancing the country’s labor market. Our commitment to women’s empowerment is further reflected in our leadership structure, with 67% of leadership positions held by women. Beyond the company, this partnership has had a positive impact on the wider community, inspiring other businesses to adopt similar workforce inclusion practices and supporting the economic empowerment of women across Kenya.
Jacobsen: What key innovations in this project do you believe will set a new standard for future call center developments in Kenya?
Jatania: The CCI Kenya flagship facility in Tatu City sets a groundbreaking bechmark for a call center developments in Kenya. It’s 97% sustainable state-of-the-art building that features, solar panels, energy efficient, self-shading façade and high performance glass that optimizes energy used by reducing reliance on air conditioning and heating while allowing natural light to penetrate the space.
Achieving EGDE certification is a recognistion for excellence in sustainability, energy and water effeciency – the facility illustrates how a business can embrace sustainable building practices without compromising operational performace. The integration of renewable energy, low-flow water fictures, and rain water harvesting systems exemplifies a commitment to large-scale resource convservation.
Jacobsen: Does CCI Global have plans to replicate this sustainable approach in other regions, and what lessons can be shared with other organizations from this initiative?
Jatania: Our second building in Tatu City is currently under construction and is set to play a pivotal role in driving both economic growth and social impact in the region. Once completed, it will create an additional 5,000 jobs, providing meaningful employment opportunities to individuals from underserved communities. This expansion aligns with our commitment to supporting local development and fostering economic empowerment, particularly in areas where access to quality employment has been limited.
The jobs created will span various roles, ranging from customer service to managerial positions, and will help upskill the local workforce through specialized training programs, ensuring long-term career growth for individuals in the community. This initiative will not only contribute to the economic stability of the region but will also encourage a more inclusive, diverse workforce, where people from all walks of life have the chance to thrive.
By providing these job opportunities, we aim to uplift the community, promote financial independence, and enhance the overall well-being of those who may otherwise face limited employment prospects. Furthermore, this development will strengthen the local economy by attracting further investment, boosting infrastructure, and fostering a sustainable cycle of growth that benefits everyone. Our second building is more than just an expansion—it’s an opportunity to make a lasting, positive impact on the lives of thousands of people.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Rishi.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/22
Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based human rights and national security lawyer and Scarab Rising, Inc. president. She specializes in information warfare, national security, and geopolitical analysis, focusing on MENA, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. In an extensive interview, she explains how the West is losing the information war due to weakened public diplomacy, internal targeting, and the rise of hostile state-sponsored narratives. She argues that modern information warfare is non-lethal but strategically disruptive, eroding trust and empowering adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. Tsukerman highlights the evolution of hybrid warfare, noting Ukraine’s innovative counter-disinformation strategies despite Russia’s sheer volume and persistence. She also examines absurd and dangerous dynamics in intelligence circles, including propaganda tools like Jackson Hinkle, and stresses that real intelligence work is far more mundane than Hollywood’s portrayals. On prisoner exchanges and economic warfare, she critiques both U.S. and Russian short-termism compared to China and Iran’s long-term strategies. She emphasizes the importance of cybersecurity, the rise of cyber militias, and ideological hacker collectives. Finally, she underscores how volatile governance and declining institutional awareness—especially in the U.S.—have created vulnerabilities in intelligence, counterintelligence, and strategic policymaking in a new era of digital-age conflict.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Irina Tsukerman. She is a New York-based human rights and national security lawyer and geopolitical analyst. She specializes in national security, information warfare, and foreign policy, focusing on strategic dynamics in the MENA region, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. She is the president of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategy firm. With a background in intelligence analysis, she focuses on counterintelligence, hybrid warfare, and the intersection of diplomacy, law, and defence. Her work examines how information warfare and non-state actors influence global security. She frequently comments on U.S. foreign policy, regional conflict, and global risk, contributing to international discourse on sustaining democratic resilience amid authoritarian influence and transnational challenges. Thank you for joining me again. How do you define the current landscape of information warfare? We are not yet hacking people’s brains.
Tsukerman: We are losing the war—by “we,” I mean the West and the U.S.
Information warfare means dominance in the information space. Victory involves influencing perception, shaping decisions, and disrupting adversaries. We’re not making gains. We’re weakening our position by shutting down public diplomacy tools like Voice of America, allowing individuals with foreign allegiances into policymaking, promoting foreign propagandists, and deprioritizing truth and transparency. We’ve turned information operations inward, targeting domestic critics instead of foreign adversaries. This weakens our strategic posture and empowers hostile actors.
By “the other side,” I mean not only adversaries like Russia, China, or Iran but also opportunistic actors exploiting disinformation to weaken democracies. Even neutral states can become conduits for hostile narratives when they see the West as inconsistent.
Jacobsen: How is this more dangerous than conventional warfare?
Tsukerman: It complements conventional warfare. Deception, psychological operations, and influence campaigns have long been part of military strategy—from Sun Tzu to Soviet active measures.
You cannot win militarily without managing perception. What’s changed is the scale and speed of digital technologies, allowing actors to bypass defences and directly target populations. These tactics may be non-lethal but can cause destabilization, incite violence, and erode institutional trust.
Jacobsen: Has the war in Ukraine redefined information or hybrid warfare, or just increased investment?
Tsukerman: It has not redefined it but has highlighted its centrality. Hybrid warfare—integrating military force with cyberattacks, disinformation, and economic coercion—was already key to Russian doctrine, primarily through the Gerasimov Doctrine. The Ukraine war demonstrated how these tools work in tandem.
It forced governments and the public to take information warfare seriously—not as peripheral, but as central to modern conflict.
Information dominance remains information dominance, but the war in Ukraine has fostered new tactics and creativity. Ukraine has been innovative in drawing global attention to its struggle by overcoming Russia’s advantage in sheer volume of output. It has done this by finding allies—particularly in the West—and amplifying its counterintelligence and counter-disinformation efforts.
Russia continues to sway in parts of the West, particularly in the United States. It is not definitively losing even in Europe; despite governmental efforts to contain it and enforce sanctions, it cannot easily be circumvented. Russia has still made notable gains in the political arena, translating to fractures on the battlefield. NATO and EU assistance remains fragmented and contested, with ongoing debates about the scope and impact of support. These political divisions create opportunities for Russia to exploit through information warfare. Even when it is not winning outright, it manages to avoid losing simply by the volume of resources it devotes to the information space.
We see this in the increased Russian budgets for information operations—official propaganda—not including the covert funds from intelligence agencies, which are untraceable. These are public allocations to entities like RT and state-sponsored initiatives in the West. The propagandists involved are not hidden assets but are linked to state institutions. Russia’s century-long history of influence operations gives it an advantage, even when it uses outdated and transparent methods. Its persistence, funding, and reliance on proven strategies give it a lead, especially compared to Ukraine and Western countries that lack the infrastructure or political will to match that effort.
Jacobsen: What is a striking example of how strange or absurd the intelligence and counterintelligence world can become?
Tsukerman: One of the most bizarre examples involves Jackson Hinkle. Some have accused him of secretly working for U.S. intelligence, travelling to adversarial countries to collect information, and avoiding arrest because of it.
In reality, Hinkle began as a far-left activist. As a teenager, he was recruited by Tulsi Gabbard. They both later appeared at an event organized by the widow of Lyndon LaRouche—a fringe U.S. political figure often seen as aligned with Russian interests and known for influencing Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). After LaRouche’s death, his widow continued his operations, identifying public figures—journalists, politicians, activists—who could serve as agents of influence.
Hinkle eventually shifted from a hard-left communist stance to a pro-Trump, “MAGA communist” position. His political messaging is now a strange mix of radical leftist ideology and far-right populism. Others in this network include figures like Matt Gaetz and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have found platforms and audiences through contrarian politics and amplified visibility, often benefiting from state-aligned propaganda networks.
Hinkle later got engaged to a Russian model, began travelling to Russia, and publicly praised Moscow and Vladimir Putin. He became a vocal propagandist. Initially, he had a minimal social media following—around 1,000 to 1,500 followers. That changed after Elon Musk acquired X (formerly Twitter), where the platform actively promoted and boosted Hinkle. His visibility increased significantly. He began appearing on more platforms, including a podcast with Tulsi Gabbard in 2019, when she was still rising within the Democratic Party, and again in the early 2020s.
Over time, he associated with others in similar circles and gained further exposure. His relationship with the Russian model ended—she reportedly left him partly due to his lack of intellectual depth. While that may not have been the only reason, his limited analytical capacity was a notable issue, even for someone otherwise aligned with his views.
He later travelled to Venezuela, where he was allegedly under the protection of Maduro’s forces for his safety. He ventured into areas where he had no reason to be—even assuming he had any valid reason to be in Venezuela. He also joined a European delegation to Yemen to meet with the Houthis, where he publicly opposed U.S. airstrikes and contradicted official U.S. policy despite his pro-Trump stance. His messaging became increasingly erratic and contradictory. He has also promoted Hamas, although there is no confirmed evidence that he has travelled to Gaza. That may still happen once access is possible, though going to Gaza is highly dangerous.
Despite this, he has been welcomed by various authoritarian regimes. Many have questioned who is funding his extensive travel. So far, there has been no official investigation. After a month-long trip to Moscow—during which he openly promoted Russian interference in U.S. elections—he claimed he was stopped and questioned by TSA upon return and complained about it, asserting his constitutional rights were violated. However, he was not arrested; to my knowledge, there is no formal investigation into his finances or activities.
He continues to travel the world, praising dictatorships, attacking the U.S. and its allies, promoting fringe ideologies, conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and supporting terrorist organizations. He is a clear example of someone likely aligned with foreign intelligence interests. Ironically, some accuse him of being a U.S. intelligence asset using anti-American rhetoric to gain trust in adversarial circles, gather information, and funnel it back. However, there is no evidence supporting that theory.
Surprisingly, nothing is happening to him. But why would it? Even if he publicly disagrees with some U.S. policies, many others do, and they are not investigated. In his case, some who align with his broader messaging may view him as applicable, even if unintentionally.
There is no clear evidence that a foreign government funds its activities. Even if his actions indicate a strong alignment with Russian interests, I doubt he will face any consequences from this administration over the next four years. The only real risk to him would be if he displeased or became a liability to one of the various foreign handlers or networks he may be involved with.
He is highly disposable, not a high-level asset. He holds no official position allowing him to provide Russia, Iran, or any other state with classified intelligence. He is a visible and effective propagandist, not someone with direct access to sensitive information. His value lies in influence, recruitment, and amplification, not espionage.
A different example is Jack Posobiec, who operates within the U.S. and has a background in U.S. military intelligence. He has leveraged those skills to promote conspiracy theories such as Pizzagate, which earned him a large following among what used to be considered the fringe right and also among foreign-aligned audiences. Over time, he and his network moved into more mainstream conservative spaces. He launched media outlets, gained traction, and hosted Republican figures discussing foreign and domestic policy.
He was even invited on a Department of Defense trip as a journalist during the Trump administration, indicating high-level acceptance and normalization of such figures. This raises the question: Why would someone with intelligence training promote narratives aligned with Russian disinformation? Why is someone like that now positioned as a credible media figure?
The answer lies in strategy. The administration actively integrated these personalities into their media ecosystem to replace traditional mainstream journalism. Posobiec is not an anomaly.
Another figure is Paul Joseph Watson, sometimes called “King Paul,” who claimed he was unknowingly paid by Russian entities operating out of a troll factory. He accepted large sums—hundreds of thousands of dollars. This network includes others such as Dave Rubin and Tim Pool. These individuals, once on the fringe, are now embedded in the White House press pool and continue their work. While some have adjusted their messaging to align more closely with official administration narratives, the core infrastructure and influence remain intact.
These are examples of individuals applicable to foreign intelligence goals. There is ample justification for counterintelligence investigations. Yet, instead of scrutiny, these figures are embraced—both by the administration and by the MAGA base. They are held up as alternatives to what is characterized as a “deep state” conspiracy embedded within the traditional intelligence community. Ironically, while the actual intelligence apparatus is being hollowed out by policy and personnel changes, this parallel media-intelligence ecosystem is being strengthened.
These are unusual cases. Typically, intelligence operations rely on low-profile assets to influence policy subtly. Here, overt activity—conspiracy theory promotion, alignment with hostile state narratives, and public engagement—is rewarded and institutionalized. That is what makes it so bizarre and concerning.
Traditionally, someone with foreign ties would present as overtly patriotic—burrowing into institutions, gathering intelligence discreetly, and influencing their environment from within. They would avoid displaying clear links to foreign powers. What we see now is unprecedented: individuals with blatant foreign sympathies are openly promoted, often with institutional support—both from abroad and within the U.S.
Previously, you might see one or two fringe figures strategically elevated to inject certain narratives into mainstream discourse. Even then, they usually had relatively conventional backgrounds—low-level journalists or obscure commentators given visibility by Russia or its allies. Their integration into public life operated within a framework of relative normalcy.
Today, we are witnessing the rise of highly eccentric, attention-seeking personalities—”internet tools” with bizarre and often theatrical backgrounds—who are being elevated and widely embraced. A shift in local culture has made these anomalies more palatable. While this may seem strange, it is still consistent with Russia’s broader strategy: sow chaos, undermine institutional trust, and polarize American society. The tools and characters have changed, but the strategic objectives remain unchanged.
Jacobsen: Are there modern examples of someone like Mata Hari playing both sides?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. A good example involves Congressman Eric Swalwell, a Democrat. He was reportedly targeted by Fang Fang, a Chinese intelligence operative who posed as a civic activist and became romantically involved with several political figures in Washington. Her activities followed a traditional model of espionage: working through social circles, identifying influential targets, and cultivating them.
Despite her open associations with political elites, she ultimately fled the country without consequence. The case was surprisingly public. One would expect more caution—especially from a sitting member of Congress—regarding close association with someone of questionable foreign ties. In past decades, a politician would have exercised more discretion and thorough vetting, particularly when engaging with foreign nationals linked to adversarial states.
But today, we see a broader decline in judgment and diligence. Politicians who once stuck to domestic controversies now seem indifferent even when scandals involve profound national security implications.
Jacobsen: Hollywood has given us this image of intelligence work: lone operatives, secret missions, seductive spies, and Bond villains with henchmen like Oddjob. These are caricatures—but how does real intelligence work compare?
Tsukerman: The reality is far more mundane. Most intelligence operations involve paperwork, bureaucracy, and slow, methodical analysis. Whether it is American officers working under diplomatic cover abroad or foreign agents infiltrating U.S. institutions, much of the work is procedural and administrative.
While covert missions and high-risk operations exist, most activity focuses on information gathering, establishing trust networks, and maintaining plausible deniability. It is rarely glamorous and certainly not cinematic. Intelligence work is about consistency, subtlety, and understanding long-term strategic goals—far removed from the dramatized Hollywood version.
Regardless of cover, all intelligence operatives must file reports, account for funds, follow directives, and engage in careful counterintelligence to avoid detection. Their roles differ, of course. Those operating under diplomatic cover are more restricted in their movements and operations. Their lives may appear more glamorous because they attend official functions, but they must also balance dual roles: performing diplomatic duties while conducting intelligence work covertly.
By contrast, individuals under journalistic or business covers have more freedom to engage and recruit. While all operatives aim to obtain classified information or insights into foreign priorities, not all intelligence work revolves around state secrets. Often, the goal is to develop sources and networks—individuals who can influence policymakers, open doors for future operations, or serve strategic purposes when needed.
Much of this involves understanding the broader environment—political dynamics, economic vulnerabilities, cultural shifts. Intelligence operatives are often embedded in academia, not just politics or government, to monitor intellectual trends and social movements. Academics may be recruited to organize on-campus actions, including protests or advocacy, or as intermediaries between foreign governments and domestic institutions.
Intelligence work spans a range of collection methods, some more visible or glamorous than others. But all of it is high-risk, highly structured, and subject to oversight. Spies cannot simply freelance; even in the most flexible roles, they operate under clear rules that vary by country and agency.
China, for example, operates an expansive intelligence system. It includes not just formal government agencies but also Communist Party-affiliated organizations. This structure allows hundreds of thousands of individuals to participate in data collection and analysis. China’s apparatus significantly exceeds that of the U.S. in scale and explicitly includes industrial espionage as a core objective—something the U.S. does not formally pursue.
U.S. intelligence activity, by contrast, changes with each administration. The current administration has shifted focus toward hybrid models combining law enforcement and intelligence, especially targeting cartels and organized crime. Previous administrations took different paths. For example, the Obama administration emphasized counterterrorism and drone operations in Yemen and Southeast Asia while de-emphasizing traditional human intelligence and great-power espionage.
Jacobsen: Let’s move away from Ukraine for now. A good question to explore is: What are the strategic failures—or sheer absurdities—on both the American and Russian sides when it comes to prisoner or intelligence exchanges? Because frankly, neither country’s leadership impresses me with how they approach intelligence—either as a character trait or a matter of national security.
Tsukerman: So, how are these geopolitical juggernauts behaving in a typical fashion? Let’s unpack some of the more jaw-droppingly absurd, shortsighted, and strategically flawed decisions both Washington and Moscow have made when it comes to high-profile prisoner exchanges.
On the U.S. side, we are witnessing a greatest-hits compilation of strategic missteps. One of the most persistent problems is the habit of trading unevenly. The United States has a longstanding pattern of exchanging chess masters for pawns—giving up convicted arms dealers, spies, or war criminals in exchange for journalists, athletes, or civilian contractors. Are the trades morally defensible? Arguably. Are they strategically consistent? Not.
Take the Brittney Griner–Viktor Bout swap as a prime example. It was a public relations victory but a geopolitical farce. Griner is a beloved celebrity who committed a minor offence. Bout, dubbed the “Merchant of Death,” was a high-value arms trafficker. Yet somehow, Washington considered this a fair trade. The U.S. keeps playing poker like it’s Uno.
Another recurring issue is telegraphing desperation. Both sides of the political aisle have contributed to this. By allowing domestic outrage, social media campaigns, and celebrity lobbying to influence negotiation posture, the U.S. signals to authoritarian regimes that emotional blackmail is effective. That hands them a playbook: detain high-profile Americans—especially those who resonate with progressive activist circles—and watch the White House scramble.
There’s also a fundamental lack of retaliatory structure. The U.S. rarely imposes consequences on regimes engaging in hostage diplomacy. There are no symmetrical detention policies, few systematic diplomatic downgrades, and minimal financial sanctions targeting the individuals responsible. Without a credible stick, every carrot appears to be a weakness.
Then there’s the overreliance on quiet diplomacy. While discreet channels can work, Washington often sticks with them long after adversaries have gone public. The result? America looks slow, reactive, and outmaneuvered—while rogue states control the narrative.
But to be clear, the U.S. is not the only actor making strategically poor decisions.
Russia, for its part, has made its share of reckless choices. It has embraced hostage diplomacy with Cold War-era enthusiasm—arresting journalists on trumped-up espionage charges, detaining consultants on fabricated financial crimes—all in pursuit of leverage over Washington. However, Moscow’s delusion is that it believes this strategy is sustainable.
Over time, these tactics hardened the political resolve of even the most negotiation-friendly factions in the U.S., made neutral states wary of sending citizens to Russia, and further isolated Moscow diplomatically—when it desperately needed non-Western partnerships.
Another misstep is undermining its own claimed “rule of law.” Russia maintains the façade that these arrests and prosecutions follow legal procedure. But in reality, the verdicts are predetermined, and trials are staged. These charades destroy any remaining credibility in Russia’s legal system, especially in the eyes of the international community. While Russia increasingly disregards global opinion, this erosion of trust still matters—particularly in high-stakes international cases.
And then there’s the issue of releasing valuable intelligence assets too cheaply. In its zeal to score propaganda points and humiliate the U.S., Russia has occasionally traded high-value figures like Viktor Bout or embedded spies without securing substantial long-term gains. These are short-term PR wins that sacrifice strategic leverage.
Take the most recent example—Russia extracted significant concessions from the U.S., but not nearly as much as it could have. Moscow enjoys playing with hostages, but sometimes, it gives away strategic assets just to win a meme war. Russian embassies have actively participated in social media meme battles, including around sanctions and trade disputes, reducing serious geopolitical issues to internet theatre.
Another strategic misstep is Russia underestimating how much Global South countries are willing to absorb reputational risk. Using countries like the UAE or Turkey to launder their image through diplomatic channels only works if those states do not feel the international backlash. Russia has often pushed too hard, making itself a liability even among partners it considers reliable. This has already played out with both China and the UAE. When the U.S. began applying pressure on Beijing’s growing influence in the UAE, the Emiratis responded by dialling back certain forms of engagement.
Under the Trump administration, Washington is less concerned about Russia’s presence in the Gulf. This longer-term alignment gives the UAE little incentive to distance itself from Moscow. However, under a different administration, the calculus could shift dramatically.
Both the U.S. and Russia are guilty of turning prisoner exchanges into spectacles rather than strategic tools. For Russia, it is about humiliation and propaganda. For the U.S., it is about closure and virtue signalling. Neither is playing the long game effectively. If you keep trading aces for jokers, you should not be surprised when you run out of leverage.
Compare that to how China and Iran handle hostage diplomacy.
China plays a long, calculated game. It is the ultimate chess master at the international table. If the U.S. and Russia are reckless gamblers chasing short-term wins, China is the strategist—thinking multiple moves ahead. For Beijing, hostages represent geopolitical leverage, not emotional bargaining chips.
Iran, on the other hand, operates more like a shrewd gambler. Its hostage diplomacy is driven by ideological messaging, not purely strategic policy aims. Tehran uses hostages to maintain its narrative of victimhood and resistance while simultaneously applying pressure on Western governments. Hostages become symbols in a broader propaganda campaign, reinforcing the regime’s identity while destabilizing opponents.
Crucially, Iran is patient. It is willing to wait, leveraging time itself as a pressure tool. Iran and China use hostages not for immediate concessions but to extract long-term geopolitical benefits—military agreements, trade deals, or strategic realignments.
By contrast, the U.S. and Russia often engage in emotionally driven exchanges. They respond quickly to public pressure, media narratives, or political urgency—without a comprehensive plan for long-term consequences. The focus tends to be short-term: bring the individual home, win the news cycle, and move on.
China and Iran understand that drawn-out hostage scenarios can create more leverage. They ensure that any exchange is linked to broader strategic objectives, even if the optics are less favourable. In both cases, hostages are not simply political liabilities—they are integrated into a larger ideological and geopolitical framework.
Meanwhile, the U.S. and Russia continue to offer quick fixes—swapping civilians for arms dealers or humanitarian workers for convicted operatives—with little thought given to systemic impact. Public relations triumphs take precedence over durable strategic gain. For China and Iran, hostage diplomacy is part of a long game designed to shape global power dynamics. It remains a reactive, symbolic gesture for the U.S. and Russia—more theatre than strategy.
So, who is playing the long game? The U.S. and Russia’s preference for transactional diplomacy is increasingly outmatched by China’s and Iran’s strategic sophistication. The West must adapt to this shift—or risk becoming another piece on the global chessboard of influence. China and Iran are playing multidimensional, long-term strategy—call it 5D chess, 64D chess, whatever you like—while Washington and Moscow are stuck in tic-tac-toe.
The lesson is clear: when hostage diplomacy becomes a long-term game of influence, the side that takes its time, controls the narrative, and weaves the story into its broader geopolitical strategy will ultimately dominate. If the U.S. and Russia want to regain their footing, they must stop focusing solely on immediate optics—bringing someone home today—and begin thinking about tomorrow’s leverage.
Hostage diplomacy is unlikely to disappear soon, especially without substantial legal consequences or deterrents. It remains a viable tool if criminal liability is weak or unenforced. However, in the grand chess match of international relations, the U.S. and Russia must evolve their approach or risk being outmaneuvered by China and Iran.
There is no shortage of short-term thinking and tactical blunders in the current landscape.
Jacobsen: Are economic tools—like sanctions and energy dependencies—forms of counterintelligence activity? Can they be seen that way, or are they outside that scope?
Tsukerman: Economic tools such as sanctions are primarily foreign policy instruments. They are not, in themselves, counterintelligence activities. However, intelligence plays a vital role in shaping and informing those policies. Intelligence agencies provide the insights needed to design effective sanctions—targeted, disruptive, and strategic.
Economic warfare is designed to weaken or destabilize adversarial states. Intelligence supports that by identifying vulnerabilities, analyzing targets, and evaluating the likely outcomes of such actions. While economic warfare and intelligence are not the same, they are deeply complementary. You cannot wage effective economic warfare without solid, accurate intelligence.
That brings me to a nonsensical example: the U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration.
Who could have predicted that China, with its vast state apparatus, would respond with strategic precision? First, it matched U.S. tariffs with its own. Second, it filed complaints with the World Trade Organization, positioning itself as the defender of free trade. Third, it retaliated by targeting U.S. industries critical to Trump’s political base—agriculture, manufacturing, and key swing states.
This was not unpredictable. It was textbook statecraft. Any administration with functioning intelligence services or access to private firms specializing in Chinese economic policy should have seen it coming.
Instead, the Trump administration sidelined intelligence agencies, mainly due to distrust. The White House avoided relying on the 18 federal intelligence bodies to provide this foresight. It also ignored private sector analysts who could have flagged Beijing’s likely retaliatory strategies.
The result was a foreign policy defined by reaction rather than preparation, optics over outcomes.
What made the situation even more absurd was that the administration did not consult actual experts on China—or even on adversarial economic competitors more broadly—to understand the mood in key capitals or predict how officials might respond. Take Elon Musk, for example. While he frequently engages in business with China and likely had a good sense of Beijing’s likely countermeasures, Trump largely dismissed his input due to Musk’s opposition to protectionist trade policies.
So, we saw a textbook case of China applying strategic foresight—grounded in intelligence and analysis—while the U.S. responded impulsively and without necessity. China carefully studied American political and economic vulnerabilities and responded with precision. Meanwhile, the U.S. approached the situation by “shooting from the hip.”
Jacobsen: What else strikes you as particularly misguided in this scenario? I recently interviewed two authors who wrote an 850-page book on trade and tariffs. They noted two key points that are worth repeating.
First, there is historical precedent for the use of tariffs by the U.S. government, going back over a century. However, at that time, the U.S. economy was more akin to a developing nation seeking to protect emerging domestic industries.
Second, those tariffs were not broad or punitive—they were targeted and strategic, designed to support specific sectors and protect jobs. They were a form of economic policy, not a financial warfare weapon.
Contrast that with the approach under the Trump administration: flat tariffs, across-the-board, often implemented as retaliatory or coercive measures. These were not designed to protect specific American industries but to exert pressure, including on longstanding allies like Canada—the U.S.’s most reliable partner for over 80 years, with whom it shares the world’s longest undefended border.
That shift—from strategic economic policy to indiscriminate economic warfare—was profoundly misguided.
So, the Trump administration essentially declared economic war on the world?
While it did not encompass the whole world, it did encompass a large portion. Depending on how you measure it—by UN member states or global trade partners—we’re discussing tariffs affecting 180 to 190 countries. That includes key allies and economic partners. The remaining states had limited trade relevance to the U.S.—places like the Marshall Islands or Vanuatu—and, ironically, some geopolitical adversaries like Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela.
It resembled a lopsided version of the 2012 UN General Assembly vote on Palestine’s non-member observer status. In that case, only nine countries sided with the U.S. and Israel—some of the usual suspects and a few strategically dependent microstates. The same pattern emerged in Trump’s trade war: broad alienation, minimal alignment, and poorly calculated pressure campaigns.
Tsukerman: The more significant issue here is not just bad policy but the abandonment of intelligence-informed strategy. Instead of using the deep analytical capacity of 18 federal intelligence agencies—or engaging with private firms that specialize in adversarial economic modelling—the administration acted on instinct and optics. That is not just bad economics; it is strategically self-sabotaging. Then you have countries like the Marshall Islands, Nauru—always a favourite—and Tunisia.
Jacobsen: I’ve done many model UN annotations over the years. I do not recall anyone representing the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, or Nauru. They are often diplomatically invisible in these contexts.
It’s funny—when I went to the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) for the first time as a freelancer, a family member asked, “Oh, are you going to another MUN thing?” as if it were just another routine, minor event. I had to say, “No, no, this one’s real—a real one this time.”
So, coming back to policy—when the U.S. frames its economic measures as part of a trade war with Canada, arguably its single most important financial and military ally, then by extension, it implies that every other nation—none of which share that depth of alliance—is effectively being treated as an adversary. That’s a reasonable conclusion.
So does that make all of them, in effect, targets in an undeclared economic warfare zone?
Tsukerman: That’s one interpretation—and not an unreasonable one. The problem is that even within the Trump administration, the justification for these measures kept shifting. It was never clear what the fundamental objective was. One day, it was about protecting American manufacturing; another day, it was about correcting trade deficits; and another, national security. The messaging was inconsistent.
Take Canada, for example. At one point, the U.S. wanted to pressure Ottawa to buy more American products. That could have been negotiated diplomatically. But if the true aim was something unrelated to trade—something more geopolitical—then it was never publicly defined.
Even Prime Minister Trudeau’s reciprocal tariffs were eventually removed after discussions with Mark Carney, but there has been no formal, consistent response from the White House. Negotiations Negotiations may be happening, but the goals and framework remain unclear.
This inconsistency extends beyond Canada. Look at South Korea and Japan. The administration claimed both could receive partial tariff relief if they purchased more U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG). But those countries were already planning to do so—they are energy-import dependent, and the U.S. is now a top producer. Then, suddenly, the administration suspended the entire tariff policy for 90 days without explaining whether those conditions still applied.
Then there is the European Union. The administration demanded $350 billion in energy purchases as a form of “reparation” for past trade imbalances—essentially turning diplomatic negotiations into transactional ultimatums.
This reflects a broader issue: the U.S. forfeits leverage without strategic clarity or continuity. Allies do not know where they stand, adversaries sense confusion, and long-term planning becomes impossible. There’s no cohesive doctrine—just a pattern of improvisation dressed up as strength.
I did not even realize the U.S. had longstanding grievances with Japan and the EU over automotive trade—at least not ones grounded in current economic reality. The claim is that American products, particularly cars, are being excluded from foreign markets, but that does not tell the whole story. Japanese and European consumers tend not to buy American cars because they are not suited to their needs. European cities, for example, often have narrow streets and compact urban layouts—people there prefer smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. U.S. cars, by contrast, are built for space and highway driving.
The reverse is also true. Americans are not lining up to buy French Peugeots. And while some of that might be cultural—sure, there is a segment of the American public that still harbours anti-French sentiment—the reality is that many of those vehicles just do not fit American preferences for size, utility, or design. It is not about tariffs or trade barriers. It is about different markets, geographies, and consumer behaviours.
The U.S. once had a thriving, self-contained automotive industry, but those days are long gone. We are now in a global supply chain era. Components are sourced from different countries, assembled in others, and sold globally. The idea that countries must reciprocally buy the same products to satisfy “fair trade” is outdated. Instead, the focus should be on participation in diversified trade networks that reflect economic reality.
It is absurd to argue that a small Eastern European country—with narrow, cobblestone streets—should buy oversized U.S. trucks.
Jacobsen: Imagine sending a Hummer through the streets of Moldova without suspension. I remember when I flew into Chișinău, Moldova, right after surgery. From the airport, I took a bus to Odessa with a Romanian friend of mine, Remus, who is now a journalist and was a politician at the time. That trip was three or four hours—and once we left the capital, we were off-roading almost immediately. I have a video on my phone. It looked like we were navigating dirt trails in rural North America—but in an old, rickety bus. You are exhausted, jet-lagged, and just trying to sleep while tossed around. That’s not the terrain for American sedans or SUVs.
So, when American officials talk about reciprocity in the automotive trade, they often miss the fundamental mismatch between economic, geographic, and infrastructural markets.
This also reflects a broader misunderstanding about global purchasing power. For example, Moldova’s per capita purchasing power parity (PPP) is about twice that of Ghana, which is considered one of Africa’s wealthier nations. That gap underscores the economic diversity not just between continents but within Europe itself.
So, expecting exact, one-to-one reciprocity in trade—especially in consumer goods—makes no sense in this context. What the U.S. should be doing is adapting its expectations to the economic realities, infrastructure, and needs of its partners rather than framing the non-purchase of American goods as adversarial behaviour.
Failing to teach Americans basic geography, cultural awareness, and global economic literacy has long-term consequences. When you remove education about how the world works, it undermines your economic competitiveness. As you mentioned earlier, there is an increasingly blurry line between economics and intelligence. Understanding another country’s financial landscape is not just good diplomacy—it is critical for domestic economic planning.
Tsukerman: This brings us to the role of information warfare, which is deeply embedded in these dynamics. Russia, unsurprisingly, remains the top beneficiary of U.S. strategic confusion. For example, the Russian embassy in Kenya recently released a meme that perfectly encapsulates its messaging strategy. It showed a Black man lying down and smoking, draped in a Russian flag, looking above a chaotic scene below—where individuals wearing U.S., EU, and Chinese flags were fighting over tariffs. The message was clear: “Let the others scramble while Russia remains above the fray.”
However, this kind of information warfare is not only aimed outward. Increasingly, it is being turned inward—against the American public. Economic warfare is part of that strategy.
The biggest losers in this indiscriminate economic warfare are not Botswana, Lesotho, or other peripheral trade partners—they are American businesses and consumers. Countries like China, Japan, and Germany are major trade players. However, the economic disruptions caused by poorly conceived tariffs do not hurt foreign governments as much as small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises and working-class households.
Before the Trump administration, most Americans were not particularly concerned about trade deficits. The average person focuses on quality of life, inflation, job stability, and the economy’s overall health. If those things were trending upward—if their families were secure and their futures looked promising—there was no political pressure over trade policy. People cared about whether their lives improved, not abstract economic imbalances with other nations.
Then came Trump’s rhetoric: telling Americans they were being “ripped off,” that other countries were “taking advantage” of them, and that trade deficits were an existential threat. This was pure information warfare—a form of domestic propaganda. It manufactured outrage where none previously existed and created a false sense of economic grievance.
This brand of economic nationalism introduced an artificial crisis. It redefined trade as a zero-sum game and convinced people that benefits enjoyed by others were losses for Americans. But this was not true—and it never had to be. It was not a problem until it was turned into one.
Meanwhile, real economic issues—wage stagnation, healthcare costs, climate-linked infrastructure stress, and wealth inequality—were sidelined to fight imaginary battles. The result is real damage: disrupted global supply chains, alienated allies, and a misinformed public.
The question is: Why would any administration introduce a problem that did not exist—and turn it into a political focal point? That is not governance. That is manipulation. And the consequences will take years to undo, regardless of who holds office next.
Unless you’re deliberately focusing public attention on something that was never a priority, that is information warfare—strategically using messaging to manipulate public perception and guide people in a specific direction. In this case, it was toward antagonism: against foreign countries, allies, neighbours, and even fellow citizens.
People who had never seen a problem before were suddenly consumed by it—fixated on trade imbalances, “unfair” global competition, and supposed foreign exploitation. Meanwhile, they were no longer paying attention to the real issues being generated domestically: the rollback of anti-corruption laws, the weakening of the intelligence apparatus, and the mass firing of government scientists—including cancer researchers—which threatens long-term U.S. dominance in scientific innovation.
If this is not information warfare, then nothing is. This is a textbook case of public manipulation—redirecting attention away from consequential, structural problems toward manufactured crises.
Jacobsen: So, if governments and political bodies are to be adequately educated on propaganda systems and information warfare, how effective can counterintelligence be in these situations?
Tsukerman: That’s a critical question. Yes, you can educate agencies and political institutions on how propaganda works. And yes, that can inform more effective counterintelligence strategies. But one of the major problems is that the psyops—psychological operations—are not being waged by foreign actors alone. Increasingly, they’re being waged by the government itself against its population.
Many Americans do not recognize it because they do not understand what information operations look like at scale. They do not realize they are being primed and conditioned. Often, they are even told precisely what is happening—but they do not interpret the language correctly.
For example, early in his presidency, Trump stated clearly that he values volatility. He did not say disruption—he said volatility. That distinction matters. Disruption might lead to reform or reorganization. Volatility, on the other hand, is chaos. It signals intentional unpredictability.
That was not an accident. He was broadcasting his governing philosophy, but people dismissed it or conflated it with generic political turbulence. In reality, Trump announced that he would be an agent of chaos. And that is precisely the role he has played.
There is no consistent tariff policy, not because he cannot formulate one, but because consistency would allow others—domestically and internationally—to prepare, respond, and push back. Volatility denies that. If you cannot predict what comes next, you cannot develop an effective counterstrategy.
This strategy serves multiple purposes: it generates short-term economic opportunities for a select few, keeps foreign leaders off balance, and emotionally and cognitively destabilizes the domestic public. It turns governance into a political and economic rollercoaster and, in doing so, stifles coordinated opposition.
Jacobsen: During his first term, people closely monitored Trump’s Twitter feed because it often dictated real-time policy. That alone should tell us everything about the volatility model he was deliberately advancing. It was never meant to be rational, and that’s the point—it was meant to be unpredictable.
During Trump’s second term, I have not noticed people reacting with the same anxiety about his social media presence. Instead, I see a population in chronic, low-level crisis mode during the first 80 to 90 days—what my friend calls being hit by “the firehose.”
Tsukerman: From a psychological operations perspective, if you want to condition people and shape a certain mindset over time, you start by overwhelming them with constant, chaotic commentary—most of which leads to nothing substantive. The purpose is to inoculate the public. People become desensitized. They say, “Yes, he talks trash, but things seem stable. Some things are even going okay.” They learn not to take what he says seriously.
That’s when the real manipulation can begin. When people stop reacting to the noise, they stop paying attention. Then, you hit them with messy, erratic policy shifts. And because they have tuned out the rhetoric, they also miss the structural changes being enacted under the surface.
Now, there is some genuine incompetence at play here. For instance, the signal leaks during his presidency were more about mismanagement than any grand design. But how those incidents were handled—how the administration reacted—was often deliberate. So, while some moments reflect normal government dysfunction, the broader strategy of constant disruption is intentional.
The goal is to flood the public sphere with too many crises simultaneously. The effect is cognitive overload: people cannot focus long enough on any single issue to organize or respond effectively. It prevents them from forming durable opposition or building a counterstrategy.
This is also why we are seeing fewer protests and rallies—not necessarily because people are less outraged, but because they are too mentally and emotionally fragmented to keep up with the pace of disruption.
Jacobsen: This is a good pivot point: Discuss cyber espionage. Do China and Russia conduct cyber operations against each other? We often focus on their collaboration, but they also have unresolved territorial disputes. The Soviets took Chinese land, and the Chinese have not forgotten that. Let’s explore how that history plays out in the digital sphere.
What about purported allies? Many of these regimes present public unity—gestures of alliance, shared press conferences, joint statements. We’ve heard a lot about growing ties between countries like China and Russia, Iran and Russia, and North Korea. But do these states conduct counterintelligence operations against one another behind the scenes?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Counterintelligence efforts are not just reserved for traditional adversaries, particularly among authoritarian regimes. Even among so-called allies, espionage and surveillance remain very much in play. These relationships are often transactional and strategic, not built on deep trust.
Some rivalries are evident in the global cyber-espionage landscape—like the one between the U.S. and China. That is a reasonably straightforward contest, almost cartoonish in its predictability. They constantly engage in high-stakes surveillance and counter-surveillance, with economic and national security secrets at the core.
However, the cyber relationship between Russia and China is more complex. Think of it less like a Cold War chess match and more like a cyberpunk thriller—equal parts cooperation and subversion. They are frequently described as allies, but in reality, I would categorize them more as frenemies: aligned in public posture, especially against the West, but constantly maneuvering against each other in private.
Despite shared interests in undermining Western influence, they are fierce competitors behind the curtain. Their battles are not just about data or secrets but about control over global infrastructure and long-term digital dominance. This is a cyber Cold War within the broader geopolitical Cold War. Data is the new oil in this arena, and espionage no longer requires trench coats and shadowy meetings in alleys. It comes in untraceable malware, surveillance software, and digital incursions that leave no fingerprints.
It might surprise some, but the rivalry between the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon is real and deeply rooted in history.
Let’s go back for a moment. Russia and China have had a complicated relationship for centuries, defined by fluctuating territorial disputes—particularly around Siberia—ideological divergences, and even outright border conflicts. The most well-known episode is the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s, one of the most fascinating chapters of the original Cold War. These two former allies—initially bonded by communism—eventually turned on each other over ideological differences.
Mao Zedong’s radical Marxism—what would evolve into Maoism—clashed with Nikita Khrushchev’s more reformist, de-Stalinized Soviet model. Khrushchev had attempted to dismantle Stalin’s cult of personality and initiated political rehabilitation for thousands of prisoners. Mao viewed this as an ideological betrayal.
Fast-forward to today, and we find a new ideological confrontation between the two: cyber dominance. While China and Russia have, at times, distanced themselves from each other—China focusing on economic development, Russia pursuing geopolitical muscle-flexing—they’ve both risen to the top of the cyber-espionage food chain.
Yet, their methods and motivations remain distinct.
While they occasionally cooperate on cyber operations against the West, they also spy on each other. Both hack indiscriminately when they see an advantage—but their endgames differ.
For Russia, cyberspace is an extension of geopolitical warfare. Information dominance is a way to influence elections, destabilize societies, and assert Russia’s presence on the global stage, even as its conventional power wanes.
Russia’s cyber espionage strategy is rooted in a legacy of KGB-style secrecy, subversion, and aggression. Since the Cold War, Moscow has treated intelligence as an indispensable tool for maintaining its geopolitical position. The digital revolution has not changed that; it has only expanded the toolkit. Unlike the United States, Russia has embraced the cyber domain as a core component of its information warfare strategy, which remains more cautious and reactive.
Moscow’s primary objective is not to build economic advantage—it is to undermine Western institutions, disrupt democratic processes, and destabilize societies. Its tactics are far-reaching, highly covert, and deliberately provocative, often executed through hacking campaigns, disinformation, and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
Groups like Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear—both Russian state-linked actors—symbolize this approach. Russia’s use of the “bear” motif is no coincidence; it is a projection of national identity and power. These groups operate like phantoms, skilled at avoiding detection and attribution, relying on a well-developed tradition of strategic denial and plausible deniability.
Russia has transferred its human intelligence model into cyberspace. Its cyber operations focus on acquiring political, military, and economic intelligence that can tip the strategic balance. However, unlike China, Russia’s cyber strategy is not primarily about economic growth or industrial advantage. It is about geopolitical leverage.
The aim is to weaken adversaries rather than elevate Russia. This mindset is deeply rooted in Soviet-era doctrine and arguably pre-Soviet imperial strategy. Russia’s approach is not focused on “winning” in absolute terms. It is more about ensuring that others lose. Destabilization is the goal. Cyber tools influence narratives, manipulate public opinion, and sow discord. These are not economic attacks but political and psychological operations.
This emphasis on relative power, rather than economic supremacy, reflects the nature of Russian governance itself: control through disruption, influence through fear, and power through perceived strength—even when materially weak.
China, by contrast, operates under an entirely different set of imperatives.
The Chinese Communist Party views cyber operations as a tool to accelerate its economic ascendancy. China seeks dominance, not through ideological warfare or sabotage but through systematic industrial espionage, financial integration, and long-term strategic planning.
Beijing does not want an equal global playing field. It wants to lead it—primarily through economic dominance, though military capacity is developing in parallel. China’s cyber operations reflect this. Groups such as APT10 and APT1 are known for conducting long-term, highly targeted campaigns to steal intellectual property, technological designs, and sensitive corporate data.
These campaigns span industries: aerospace, artificial intelligence, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and defence. The objective is not to cause chaos, as Russia might, but to steal the crown jewels of technological innovation, allowing China to leapfrog over its competitors.
Where Russia’s cyberattacks are often loud and destabilizing, China’s are quiet, strategic, and cumulative. Over time, this approach not only boosts China’s domestic industries but also erodes the competitive edge of its global rivals, particularly the United States and Europe.
China has allocated vast resources to stealing foreign technologies and developing its capabilities. It is all tightly integrated. China’s cyber espionage strategy operates like a large-scale, state-sanctioned campaign of “pillage and plunder”—stealing cutting-edge research and intellectual property to accelerate its domestic innovation. The goal is to leapfrog over traditional R&D challenges by acquiring the best global ideas—whether from Silicon Valley, European labs, or elsewhere—and adapting them for use.
We have seen this repeatedly, including in areas like 5G networks, smartphone technology, and various so-called “breakthroughs” that were at least partially derived from appropriated foreign IP.
Russia and China use cyber tools for surveillance and espionage, but China’s focus on economic espionage enables it to play the long game. While Russia often seeks short-term disruption, China’s cyber operations are systemic and strategic. For Russia, information warfare is a pressure valve—a way to destabilize and dominate its adversaries quickly. It is impatient and focused on immediate impact. In contrast, China treats cyber espionage as a core element of its national economic strategy. For Beijing, hacking is simply business as usual.
So why the rivalry, given their shared interest in undermining the West?
The answer lies in their fundamentally different long-term visions. Russia sees cyberspace as a tool to retain global influence and punch above its economic weight through strategic destabilization. Conversely, China uses cyberspace to build economic dominance, expand digital infrastructure, and maintain internal political control. These divergent geopolitical versus economic goals inevitably lead to conflict in the cyber domain.
Even though both nations’ postures as allies against the West, historic mistrust, and unresolved territorial tensions continue to simmer beneath the surface, the rivalry has intensified as both countries have become more capable of using the digital sphere. Each seeks to dominate emerging technologies—from AI to cyberweapons to data sovereignty.
Neither side is willing to cede ground or share control over the digital future.
The tension is further compounded by China’s efforts to steal Russian-developed technologies, especially in sensitive areas where China has failed to make independent breakthroughs. In this way, China treats Russia no differently than the U.S. or Europe—a source of value to exploit. Russia has become increasingly protective of its military technologies, cyber capabilities, and scientific assets. Active counterintelligence work is being conducted within Russia to prevent Chinese social engineering, hacking, and infiltration attempts.
That said, none of this rivalry plays out openly.
Moscow and Beijing understand the strategic value of presenting a unified front against the West. Their internal disputes are handled quietly, in the shadows. To the untrained observer, the partnership appears seamless. However, intelligence services worldwide are well aware of this underlying tension. It is recognized in security and diplomatic circles, though it has not become a focus of Western foreign policy.
And that is a missed opportunity. The West has not fully allocated the resources to monitor, expose, or strategically exploit this rivalry. It has not invested in amplifying Russia’s and China’s paranoia or used it as a tool of information warfare to disrupt their collaboration. The ability to do so exists—it has not been prioritized.
Jacobsen: So, what does the future of intelligence and counterintelligence look like when quantum systems or advanced algorithms can potentially crack any encryption or intercept any system?
Tsukerman: That’s an entire conversation—but a vital one. Fundamentally, there’s no such thing as a permanently unhackable or perfectly defended system. Cybersecurity is an ongoing arms race—a constant back-and-forth between innovation and intrusion. Human and AI design ingenuity will continue to push forward while adversaries respond with increasingly sophisticated breach methods.
Quantum computing could significantly shift the playing field, but we are not there yet. Until quantum-secure methods are fully mainstream, we are still in a reactive cycle: creating new protections, watching hackers break through them, and deploying penetration testers to simulate the next exploit.
This pattern will persist until we completely overhaul how cybersecurity is conceptualized and implemented. But even then, the human factor remains the perpetual vulnerability. As long as people are involved in systems—designing, maintaining, or accessing them—there will always be room for error, manipulation, and social engineering.
Deepfakes, voice cloning, and AI-enhanced phishing schemes have made social engineering more challenging to detect. While countermeasures are evolving, they are not perfect. Even the most secure companies and agencies with strong counterintelligence can miss creative new threats from obscure groups operating outside of visibility.
Jacobsen: Are private cyber militias or independent cyber groups now a serious concern on the global stage? Or are they still relatively marginal?
Tsukerman: They are growing, especially as official state policies run into logistical and political limitations. Governments are beginning to outsource offensive cyber operations to private groups, and defensive needs are outpacing institutional capacity. Civilian infrastructure, smaller businesses, and entire economic sectors are vulnerable and often not prioritized by national defence frameworks.
Organizing defensive militias or cyber volunteer brigades could help protect vulnerable systems—banks, utilities, healthcare networks, and more. But this is a double-edged sword.
These groups are only as effective as their training, coordination, ethics, and oversight. Without rigorous accountability, private cyber entities can become destabilizing forces. They might act independently of national interest, pursue private agendas, get caught in internal rivalries and ideological splits, or even become infiltrated themselves.
In worst-case scenarios, rogue cyber militias could provoke international incidents, escalate conflicts with foreign states, or clash with their governments. Such groups will inevitably continue to emerge as cybersecurity becomes more decentralized—but without strong governance frameworks, this trend could backfire catastrophically.
Jacobsen: What about semi-autonomous, high-tech enclaves—regions or cities with advanced cybersecurity infrastructure that function independently, like a digital-age Silicon Valley with sovereignty?
Tsukerman: That is a dangerous possibility. You’re referring to things like seasteading, I assume.
Jacobsen: The idea came from the Seasteading Institute, founded in 2008 by Patri Friedman—Milton Friedman’s grandson—and partially funded by Peter Thiel. The goal was to create floating cities outside national jurisdictions.
Tsukerman: I know it well. Frankly, it sounds like the dark web turned physical. It would not be about freedom if someone like Peter Thiel were truly in charge of such a venture. It would be about power.
Jacobsen: These would be libertarian island fiefdoms.
Tsukerman: They would be governed not by democratic consensus but by philosopher-kings with extreme ideologies, authoritarian leanings, and no real checks on their rule. These projects are often utopian escapes from bureaucracy and inefficiency, but they are power consolidation experiments.
It is not about anarchism or freedom. It is about replacing state institutions with corporate dominance, creating unaccountable parallel systems often hostile to democratic norms.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of the Matrix side stories. In one, the AIs built City 01—a manufacturing hub that outcompeted human cities. Negotiations broke down when they approached the UN, and things got ugly.
Tsukerman: It’s not too far-fetched when you consider the real-world implications of seasteading or private cyber-states. Without accountability and shared ethical frameworks, these projects can easily evolve into unregulated authoritarian zones, destabilizing the global order economically, politically, and technologically.
Jacobsen: After the human-machine war—from the machine’s point of view—it was the humans oppressing the early humanoid robots before they evolved into multi-tech, tentacle-limbed floaters shooting lasers. Are there aspects of counterintelligence today that seem like science fiction?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Some facets of intelligence and counterintelligence strategy already mirror science fiction in tone and scope. Take predictive analysis and technological countermeasures, for instance. These efforts involve identifying adversarial tech trends and preemptively developing tools to neutralize them—sometimes even before they emerge fully into the public or military domain.
Programs like IARPA—the civilian intelligence equivalent of DARPA—exist precisely for this reason. IARPA is tasked with pioneering futuristic intelligence collection, analysis, and defence technologies, including in counterintelligence contexts. Some initiatives involve quantum sensors, next-gen encryption, autonomous surveillance systems, and other projects that read like speculative fiction.
But while parts of this world feel visionary, critical policy failures keep the U.S. from genuinely succeeding in this realm.
Take, for example, the case of Havana Syndrome. The GRU, a Russian intelligence agency, is widely believed to have deployed a highly innovative sonic or directed-energy weapon capable of neurological disruption. It has reportedly caused long-term cognitive and physical damage to dozens of U.S. personnel—intelligence officers, diplomats, and government officials. At least one CIA officer is known to have died, and several others have suffered permanent harm.
Despite lawsuits, media investigations, and successful settlements with victims, multiple U.S. administrations have refused to acknowledge that this is an act of hostile aggression publicly. The explanations offered have ranged from psychosomatic to environmental factors. However, that dismissal contradicts internal assessments and the intelligence community’s findings.
This kind of willful blindness stems from the reluctance to escalate. Admitting that Russia has deployed a covert weapon on American personnel would require either a covert response or public confrontation, which could dangerously heighten tensions. So, instead, the response has been denial.
The weapon is not entirely new in theory—it is an enhanced form of earlier technology—but it is highly effective and strategically deployed. It is lightweight, operable at short and possibly growing long-range distances, and deliberately designed to leave few traces.
So yes, counterintelligence today involves science-fiction-like tools, but too often, it’s contained by institutional inertia and fear of geopolitical consequences.
Jacobsen: We have not yet touched on North Korea, another unique case. Let me compare it with the other players first.
With Iran, you have a semi-rational theocracy rooted in a long-term ideological framework—the Velayat-e Faqih system. They pursue regional dominance and survival through relatively predictable, fanatical means. China, meanwhile, operates with pragmatic authoritarianism infused with cultural continuity—a blend of ancient traditions, ancestor reverence, and Party discipline.
For all its drama, Russia often operates like a seasoned gambler—a bit of a drunk uncle archetype with a few reliable cards: oil, intimidation, and counterintelligence. But its methods are familiar.
But North Korea is something else entirely. It functions as if Scientology metastasized into a national government centralized around a single ethnic group. It is a necrocracy—rule by the dead, as Christopher Hitchens sharply observed. The Kim dynasty is worshipped as semi-divine, and the regime operates more like a totalitarian cult than a standard authoritarian government.
Tsukerman: This makes North Korea extremely unpredictable. It is deeply isolationist, self-mythologizing, and oriented around dynastic survival above all else. It pursues nuclear weapons not merely as geopolitical leverage but as sacred symbols of national immortality. Its cyber operations—like Lazarus Group—are less about espionage and more about financial survival and deterrence, with occasional ideological flare.
In short, North Korea is not playing the same game as China, Russia, or Iran. It is a sealed system, ideologically self-reinforcing, and capable of irrational escalations that defy conventional analysis.
Jacobsen: I suppose North Korea has a trinity of a necrocracy—the two deceased leaders and the son as the living symbol. Under that regime, based on those now-famous satellite images of the Korean peninsula at night, it’s essentially a black zone, save for a small illuminated capital—Pyongyang. So how does counterintelligence work for them, especially since North Korea seems like a modest partner within the Russia-Iran-China axis maneuvering for global influence?
Tsukerman: Regarding intelligence—not economics or conventional diplomacy—North Korea is not a junior partner. In fact, in some ways, it operates as a peer.
North Korean intelligence is highly competent, sometimes even mistaken for Chinese intelligence because of stylistic and operational similarities. Their cyber capabilities have grown tremendously, especially in cryptocurrency theft—now one of their primary funding mechanisms. These crypto heists help sustain both the regime’s security apparatus and its covert international operations. Due to North Korea’s Korean pariah status and inability to engage through normal financial channels, they also serve as a means of financial exchange with non-state actors, including terrorist groups.
They have become proficient at social engineering, successfully infiltrating Western tech companies by having operatives apply for jobs under false identities. Many of these companies failed to conduct proper due diligence, especially in remote work contexts where face-to-face verification was absent. As a result, North Korean hackers were hired into fundamental corporate roles—essentially embedding the regime’s warfare agents inside foreign technology firms.
Jacobsen: And what about the counterintelligence efforts from China, Russia, or Iran—do they direct those against North Korea?
Tsukerman: In general, that is not a top priority. The dynamic is more nuanced.
China, for instance, is hyper-paranoid about North Korea spiralling out of control. It closely monitors and tries to manage Pyongyang, but not necessarily through aggressive counterintelligence. It is more about containment and control.
Russia, at the moment, is more interested in using North Korean soldiers as expendable assets in Ukraine. Reports suggest Moscow is deploying them for combat, and predictably, many of them are being killed off. Russia may view this as a kind of pressure release valve—it gets North Korean support, and in return, it reduces any perceived threat by simply grinding down the workforce.
Iran, by contrast, sees North Korea as highly useful. Tehran has long benefited from the DPRK’s expertise and missile technologies, and there are credible reports of cooperation in those areas. Iran is far less suspicious of Pyongyang than Russia or China. It sees North Korea as a quiet enabler of its ambitions.
What does North Korea gain from these partnerships? Several things:
- Legitimacy—Normalized relations with countries like Nicaragua and increasingly with others create the appearance of a functioning, sovereign player rather than a rogue outcast.
- Resources—Financial assistance, food, energy, and tech components—often in exchange for military supplies, arms, or services.
- Diplomatic openings—Some European countries are even quietly reopening or reengaging with North Korea through diplomatic missions.
So yes, North Korea is still authoritarian and closed, but it is less isolated than it was in the 1990s. That shift has been fueled by:
- Weak sanctions enforcement
- Normalization of nuclear weapons status
- Growing strategic ties with Russia, China, and Iran
- Exploiting Russia during the Ukraine War
Of course, there is some distrust within this bloc. No one fully trusts Kim Jong Un. He is viewed as erratic, unpredictable, and highly self-interested—but I would stop short of calling him “crazy.” His ac” ions are often coldly calculated, even if eccentric in presentation. Because of that unpredictability, all his partners maintain some distance and redundancy in their dealings with him.
Kim is calculating, cunning, and duplicitous in some ways. That combination—psychological unpredictability paired with a reasonably strategic mind—makes him dangerous.
Jacobsen: Do you see any parallels between Trump’s Trump’s behaviour and his?
Tsukerman: It is a strange comparison, but yes, in a limited sense. Both exhibit a volatile mix of impulsiveness and calculation, which makes their diplomacy highly personalized and unpredictable. However, Kim is sharper than he’s often given credit for. He plays a long game for survival, and while his behaviour may seem erratic, it is often tactically sound within the narrow scope of regime preservation.
The dynamic between Trump and Kim was surreal. Trump tried to lure Kim with offers that included developing North Korean beaches—yes, beachfront real estate—if Kim agreed to denuclearize. Kim, predictably, did not go for it.
Jacobsen: So basically, a “Pyongyang Mar-a-Lago”?
Tsukerman: Right, and I’m not joking. Trump tried the same pitch in Gaza later, essentially repurposing the beach-development-for-peace model.
Jacobsen: Think of it as going from one geopolitical potato to another potato: “Let’s Mar-a-Lago.”
Tsukerman: You can almost picture a golf course in the middle of a blacked-out country. There is no electricity anywhere but fairways and sand traps ready for symbolic diplomacy. Of course, that proposal went nowhere, but do not rule out Trump reviving the idea. If he achieves—or fails—whatever he aims for with Iran, he may return to North Korea for another “historic” breakthrough.”
Kim would gladly take a meeting. He sees value in photo ops, potential sanctions relief, and international legitimacy. He will play hardball to get it, but he also knows how to flatter Trump and feed his ego in exchange for concessions that cost him nothing.
Kim closely monitors developments with Russia, the U.S.-China trade conflict, and Iran talks. He assesses how his partners fare in negotiations with the Trump administration and recalibrates his strategy accordingly.
What is particularly concerning is the absence of North Korean experts in the current U.S. administration. There is no John Bolton figure—someone who, for all his flaws, at least understood North Korea’s Korean mechanics. That expertise vacuum leaves the U.S. unprepared for the subtleties of DPRK engagement, particularly if Kim makes another aggressive diplomatic push.
Jacobsen: Let us bookmark two topics for later: one on torture and one more counterintelligence-focused—specifically, a country that punches way above its weight per capita. So, as far as I know—as an academic question and an empirical fact—by and large, torture does not work, or at least, it does not work for the intended purposes of intelligence gathering. Because people are being tortured, they are often motivated to lie or to accept lies told about them just to stop the pain.
So, with that in mind—and considering the ongoing ignorance of many actors within global counterintelligence apparatuses—how much is torture still used? But the point is that torture is still in use. How pervasively is it used? And in light of the evidence, why is it still used if it is?
Tsukerman: In terms of the U.S., there is a distinction between what is termed “enhanced interrogation techniques” and outright torture. Enhanced interrogation includes physical and psychological methods of pressure that stop short of what is traditionally considered torture. These methods can involve sleep deprivation, stress positions, and, controversially, waterboarding. Some classify waterboarding as torture, while others consider it an enhanced interrogation method that has occasionally yielded viable results.
The case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—infamously or famously, depending on your perspective—is often cited as one such instance.
More traditional torture, like severe beatings or having fingernails pulled out, is a different category entirely. That kind of extreme physical abuse tends to cloud judgment. If the subject is sufficiently trained, prepared mentally or physically, drugged, or otherwise conditioned, torture will not necessarily be effective.
It is also not typically useful for eliciting complex or narrative information. Suppose you want someone to tell a coherent story or to become a serious cooperative asset, that usually requires a relationship built on something more stable than raw fear. When someone is that reluctant and resistant, extreme force is more likely to shut them down than open them up.
The U.S. understands this, which is why it has developed highly sophisticated psychological techniques to gather intelligence—methods designed to bypass lying, manipulation, and even mind control. I am referring here to indoctrinated or brainwashed individuals who are used as “dangles” in counterintelligence scenarios.
These advanced techniques are now also being applied in private-sector contexts for various purposes—not only in counterintelligence but also in due diligence efforts in workplaces and corporate environments.
As for why torture is still used, often, it is not about obtaining accurate information. Its use remains fairly widespread globally. In more developed countries, they may refer to different levels of interrogation: first-degree being non-coercive questioning, second-degree aligning with the U.S.’s enhanced interrogation, and third-degree encompassing methods that would likely be classified as torture in the United States.
Even then, these may not be as brutal as those used by fully authoritarian regimes, but they still cross ethical lines. For example, they may involve slapping or hitting a person—not necessarily pulling out nails, but using enough physical coercion to break someone’s will without pushing them into complete shutdown.
Sometimes, these mild coercive methods are used not against hardened spies or terrorists but against regular criminals or individuals involved in various disputes. The goal is to break their resistance and compel cooperation—even if it is unreliable.
That may work. It may work on a regular person—that sort of mild coercion, low-level torture, the so-called third degree.
However, of course, there are reasons why various regimes use far more extensive torture than that. The mild approach probably would not work in those cases. And sometimes, it is not because they are looking for accurate information. They are just looking to confirm what their regimes have already put out. There are a lot of authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes around the world, and they use those techniques extensively.
Not all of them are equally brutal. Some are very concerned about not using anything that will induce severe or permanent injuries. So, will they probably beat someone up? Yes. Are they going to use extremely forceful techniques? Only some more extreme or Western regimes might go that far—but not the semi-authoritarian ones. They would probably use some mixture of strong, enhanced interrogations—some leaking and some non-permanent but painful techniques to elicit information.
Sometimes, it is to confirm the official narrative. They are not necessarily looking to gain new insights into anything; they want to force the person to acquiesce to something.
Other times, it is about revenge. It is less about information and more about punishing whoever is in custody. If you are dealing with a known terrorist, there is often a strong internal drive not to treat them well—because they are seen as a known bad actor or a known threat to the regime or government. So, in those cases, torture is not about gaining information. It is about humiliating and breaking down the suspect—or just giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Another point is that sometimes, when you take someone, prisoner, it is not meant to elicit immediate information. It is meant to break them down over time to the point where they are easily manipulated and will say or do whatever they are told. And, of course, this works far better on people not trained for such circumstances—non-military, non-intelligence civilians—than on people who are prepared. However, it could still work on trained individuals, depending on who is doing it and under what conditions.
So, sometimes, interrogation is not about the immediate gain. It is not about one or two intense sessions where you get piles of information and a confession.
Sometimes, it is about developing a suspect over time—forcing them into becoming pliable people who will sign off on or carry out whatever they are told. And quite frankly, it sometimes works for that purpose. If the goal is to turn someone into an agent rather than to extract highly accurate information, and if they are in prolonged confinement—suffering, but not to the point of mental collapse—they may become a somewhat unwilling but cooperative participant in operations or actions simply because they feel they have no other option.
But if you want this method to be effective, it cannot be the only one used. Naturally, it has to be combined with other types of interrogation, discussions, and incentives.
So, it is a characteristic approach—but much more sophisticated and integrated with other forms of interrogation that are known to be effective when the goal is information gathering. It has to be part of a broader system, not just simple, mindless torture—like torturing someone for hours without breaks or direction.
Also, sometimes, the torture is not even about the individual. It is a message to the group or faction that the person belongs to. In such cases, information gathering becomes secondary.
The captors—or the regime—may want to extract information to pass on to their intelligence agencies, but they are often pursuing additional agendas. So, even if someone gives up accurate information, that may not end the torment. There are other objectives involved—like intimidating other prisoners, forcing concessions from the person’s family, and so on.
Iran, for example, is infamous for torturing people in front of their families. It is not necessarily because they need the information—they could likely get it by other means or do not even need it. It is psychological warfare. They want to silence the person, and they want to break their family mentally. It is torture used on the family as much as on the prisoner to extract cooperation or information.
If you want to get someone else to cooperate, it becomes a form of psychological pressure—to watch someone else be tortured. That fear can be more effective than physical abuse. People can break under that kind of psychological pressure, especially if it is extended over time.
Now, we talked about the big players in counterintelligence—China and Russia—but just one more thing I left out: there are countries that, believe it or not, are not familiar with the fact that torture does not work. They genuinely believe that brute force solves all problems.
These countries are not trained, and their methods are primitive. Psychologically, they are obsessed with power, but they lack access to a variety of tools or sophisticated techniques. So, they do what is easiest. It is as simple as that—they use what they know, even if it is ineffective.
And then there are countries that—for good or ill—punch well above their weight regarding intelligence operations. I mean the top half-percent of countries globally in terms of operational sophistication—the ones with the ability to interject themselves into the internal affairs of other governments and countries.
Jacobsen: Who are those countries?
Tsukerman: Because countries have the means and resources to do something, it does not mean they are good at interrogation. For instance, take the Gulf countries. They have the resources to conduct the most sophisticated types of surveillance. But often, they outsource that surveillance to private companies rather than doing it directly.
Despite being trained by Western institutions, their intelligence services are sometimes not sophisticated enough to handle complex operations independently—or they are too small to scale effectively.
Even though they may have access to equipment, they do not necessarily have access to psychological training or advanced interrogation training. So, they may combine somewhat modern—but not cutting-edge—interrogation techniques with other methods. Just because you have resources does not mean you have access. Some of these super-modern interrogation techniques are proprietary, and countries are not always retrained in them.
That is another issue. Sometimes, money does not solve these problems. And, by the way, just because you have super-expensive equipment does not mean you know how to use it properly. We have seen that in defence operations, particularly in the Gulf.
Jacobsen: Why are they dependent on the U.S.?
Tsukerman: Because some of that equipment has to be operated by the manufacturer’s country. Or, secondly, because it takes a long time to train personnel. And when the equipment is brand new, you do not know how to use it immediately.
Similarly, just because you know torture is ineffective and that better techniques exist does not mean you are good at those better techniques. Just because a method exists does not mean you are skilled in applying it. And when you do not know how to apply it properly, you get frustrated and fall back on what you already know.
Jacobsen: So, which countries?
Tsukerman: Look, any country that operates black sites is going to be using methods far outside the norm of basic enhanced interrogation. Torture happens at those sites. That is just the reality—including in the United States.
Now, what happens in regular prisons is a completely different story. In the U.S., torture is not part of the normal framework in standard prisons. The same goes for most of the Western world. But in other countries outside the West, there is a much higher likelihood of some degree of torture occurring, even in standard prison settings. That is a big difference.
Jacobsen: What about, broadly speaking, in intelligence operations? Regardless of size, which country is at the top of what they do? Is there an informal ranking?
Tsukerman: Regarding general intelligence effectiveness, is it not just interrogation?
Jacobsen: Yes, broadly—who knows how to do intelligence well?
Tsukerman: Russia has always ranked quite high for obvious reasons. However, most of its most effective intelligence operations involved disinformation tactics and active measures, not traditional espionage.
Their expertise was in sowing chaos, not necessarily in traditional intelligence gathering. They have always been good at that, too, but were they the best compared to others regarding the so-called “black arts”? Probably not.
Iranian intelligence is considered quite sophisticated in terms of human intelligence capabilities. As for technical capabilities, the U.S. is absolutely number one.
Its Western counterparts—including the Five Eyes—highly depend on U.S. technical capabilities. That is why, while the U.S. is formally dependent on the United Kingdom, especially regarding human intelligence, the U.S. does not rank at the top regarding HUMINT. It ranks highest in terms of technical and technological capabilities.
Israeli intelligence has been considered highly effective, but most of its effectiveness has been focused on regional affairs and counterterrorism. It is not as effective in conventional, global intelligence and counterintelligence operations.
Anything related to counterterrorism is probably their specialty—perhaps also some types of counterintelligence. But are they number one against state actors like China and Russia? I highly doubt it.
Effectiveness is also difficult to measure because of the immense secrecy in the field. You must judge by known successes, visible failures, disclosed methods—which are not always fully revealed—and general reputation based on activity level, budget, and historical record.
But yes, the general observations about technology and human intelligence you mentioned are widely accepted. It is hard to rank who is number three or four. Those lines are quite blurry.
Jacobsen: My follow-up question would be: What have been the boldest intelligence operations we have seen—or that have been credibly claimed—especially in the 21st century? We could go back in history, but I am curious about recent ones with that modern, digital-era flavour.
Tsukerman: Two that came to mind recently are from Israel. One was the daring operation to smuggle Iran’s nuclear archives out of the country. The other was the Hezbollah “Page Up” operation.
Both were classic Israeli-style intelligence missions: out-of-the-box thinking, deep subterfuge, years of groundwork, trust-building, network-building, and even the creation of a fake company—all to achieve one specific goal or to persuade key individuals to believe a fabricated premise.
Highly sophisticated yet elegantly straightforward, both operations quickly became public knowledge and had a significant impact. They extracted vast intelligence, disrupted hostile networks, and achieved national security objectives. So, yes—they were spectacularly successful on every front.
The U.S., by contrast, generally does not release information about successful operations until many years later. Whatever major successes may have occurred recently, we probably will not know about them for a while.
On the other hand, failures are much easier to trace—often because they become public. These include leaks like Edward Snowden’s and others involving so-called whistleblowers or leakers in recent years. Then there is the Havana Syndrome controversy and, of course, the infamous exposure and loss of intelligence assets during the Obama administration around 2012.
During the Iran nuclear negotiations, assets in China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were reportedly compromised—and many of them met grim fates at the hands of local regimes. So that was a spectacular failure. There were also several people killed—not necessarily because they were actively given up, but due to sloppiness related to poor operational movements. That led to those results.
There have also been some impressive joint operations—like Stuxnet, which was implanted into the Iranian nuclear program. That was, in many ways, a bold and groundbreaking operation. So yes, Iran has been the recipient of some of the most brazen and daring intelligence operations in modern history.
But Iran’s intelligence, especially in tech, is not that strong. We have seen repeated failures not only from major Western powers—like the U.S., the U.K., and Israel, which often work together, sometimes with Australia, the Netherlands, and other allies—but also from terrorist organizations like ISIS and even Iran’s internal opposition movements.
Their counterintelligence is weak. A major reason is that they do not cooperate much with other intelligence agencies. They do not share information, creating structural weaknesses in their operations. There is a high degree of distrust internally and externally. That lack of cooperation makes it extremely difficult to run effective intelligence efforts. You need partners. You cannot rely entirely on your networks.
There was also a major U.S. cyber operation against China recently—this came after a significant failure, during which China gained access to and took control of eight U.S. telecom providers operating based on a single system. That system had a massive vulnerability, and China exploited it.
Jacobsen: What are the weaknesses of having these large, state-level intelligence operations? I get that they are expensive, but large countries can afford that. Are there inherent weaknesses—or are they necessary for the modern world?
Tsukerman: You need strong intelligence agencies in the modern world. But the problem is, when you have too many or become too large, they start overlapping, becoming duplicative, and often end up fighting turf wars. Over time, they become generic and are no longer optimized for their specific missions.
Jacobsen: So you are referring to interagency conflicts?
Tsukerman: Yes—but that is just one piece of it. There is also international interagency conflict, and beyond that, the simple fact that overly bureaucratic, oversized, and rigid agencies are not flexible enough to respond to crises and emergencies in real time.
We have seen failures like that. Take the Prigozhin uprising in Russia. Western powers—including the U.S.—were caught off guard. Their intelligence agencies were not agile enough to quickly collect and act on information. That was a very public and rapid failure.
And, of course, we saw what happened on October 7—a massive counterintelligence failure not only on Israel’s part but also on the part of its partner agencies, including the United States.
All of them failed in the same way to predict that Hamas was preparing for a major attack—with assistance from Iran and other actors. So, that was a huge intelligence failure for many countries.
This is despite multiple reports from individual agents who had accurate assessments. This was an internal agency failure, an analytical failure, and a failure of imagination, a common problem.
Once an agency is firmly established, it becomes slower and more bureaucratic. The more resources it has, the more it gets funnelled into mission creep or administrative bloat. Sometimes, being small and nimble is more effective than being a gigantic barge full of paper pushers.
Jacobsen: Can intelligence agencies become so bureaucratic, duplicative, and large that they begin to challenge the reigning authorities—like, in the way a military might stage a coup?
Tsukerman: I have not seen that happen in the U.S.—and the result has been the opposite. They have become ineffective rather than challenging anyone’s authority (despite what Trump claimed). There has been a lot of internal conflict, half-baked schemes, and counterintelligence failures.
This paranoia about the “deep state” taking over the government is ridiculous. If people understood how bureaucracies work, they would know that the bigger an agency grows, the more internal dysfunction and infighting it suffers. That makes it harder to focus on any mission—even those of critical national interest.
However, Russia is the prime example of subsuming the government. There, the intelligence agencies—not the civilian bureaucracy—are essentially in charge—simple as that. And that has been the case for hundreds of years.
I would also say that in Europe—especially Mediterranean countries—you see power struggles between intelligence agencies and political leadership. Intelligence services sometimes play an outsized role. They might challenge the government and compete with it for influence and agendas. Sometimes, this conflict even plays out publicly.
Jacobsen: We are also forming new information warfare or activism categories. NGOs, INGOs, CSOs, the UN, human rights organizations, state actors, and even non-member observer states like the Holy See or Palestine, religious institutions, and charities. Any one of these can be influenced or even subdued by governments or other powerful actors, right? I mean, even the Russian Orthodox Church is, quite obviously, aligned with the Kremlin.
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Even large, transnational churches can be used for political purposes.
Jacobsen: So, the new category I see emerging—and I will admit my bias—is hacker collectives like Anonymous. They have a different philosophy and a different structure. They operate anonymously and have carried out actions that are often ideologically driven, not aligned with any one state.
This kind of thing is important in how they operate. I mean, they can hold hacking or counter-hacking protests against anti-democratic forces within MAGA. As we know, MAGA’s grievances are legitimate—around offshoring, the loss of manufacturing, and the decline of living standards for the white working class, naturally. However, the anti-democratic forces within it tend to be the ones they go after.
So, what do you make of these new institutions or “collectives” whose entire existence is based around that kind of work but done in this fluid, almost decentralized way?
Tsukerman: Look—technically, if you are an American and you are hacking other Americans, it is illegal. It is as simple as that, no matter what your agenda is.
That said, once something is hacked and the information is leaked—can that information be useful for journalists or others in exposing wrongdoing? Sure.
Let’s say your focus is on a foreign entity, and it turns out there is an American connection—it is still fair game, depending on what you are investigating.
Now, hacking itself is—strictly speaking—illegal. But if you are dealing with highly authoritarian regimes that violate the rule of law, that are essentially at war with your country in some way, and that are actively interfering in democratic institutions through propaganda or other means—then going after them and their agents becomes a gray area.
Are there ways to justify it ethically, even if not legally? Yes, I think so. Ethically speaking, I see how that action is justified and holds value.
Now, who benefits from it, who uses the information, and whether those collectives have informal relationships with law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or private actors—that is something I’m always curious about. One has to be very careful.
In this administration, there is every motivation to go after people—even for minor issues—if they are perceived as going against the administration’s agenda. Those people are likely to be targeted to the extent possible.
Meanwhile, other groups doing similar things but focused on different targets may be completely ignored. Resources are finite. Unfortunately, these particular people will likely become law enforcement priorities under this administration.
But yes, traditional methods are often insufficient to access critical information. Private actors or journalists have no real funding to conduct deep, professional sting operations.
Jacobsen: So, professionally speaking, is it still possible to gain sufficient insight through sting operations by being a member of those collectives?
Tsukerman: It is possible, but building trust would take a long time. And even then, you may not get access to secured communications, financing details, or other sensitive material.
Many of these people are fairly open about who they are, what they stand for, and where their funding comes from. Authoritarian regimes have claimed to have duped people like Tim Pool, for instance.
But honestly, if you are that gullible, why are you in journalism? If you’re that easily duped—if you do not do even the bare minimum of due diligence and have zero questions about the agenda being presented to you, especially when it is propaganda—then you’re not doing your job.
So yes, many people know exactly what they are doing. They are just liars. They are functioning as foreign agents. But even then, because they are American citizens, they still have privacy rights and expectations, which makes it incredibly problematic to go after them through legal means.
You could accidentally expose legitimate personal matters. What you do not want is someone acting out of revenge and endangering the person’s family—minors, for instance—who might get swept up in the fallout. Innocent bystanders can easily end up in the crosshairs.
So, you’re going to do anything. In that case, it has to be extremely precise, very carefully, professionally, and thoughtfully done. It must be completely separated from any culture of revenge. The goal should be to provide real value to the public or law enforcement regarding the authoritarian nature of the individuals in question.
Jacobsen: So, how should people protect themselves?
Tsukerman: Well, first of all—do not commit any crimes. That is a good start.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. Also, do not piss off the mafia.
Tsukerman: Beyond not committing crimes or angering organized crime, everyone should follow some basic principles of situational awareness. For example, walking down the street with your headphones and face buried in your phone is not a good idea. You could get pickpocketed or assaulted. People not paying attention are significantly more likely to be targeted than those who appear confident, aware, and attuned to their surroundings.
Avoid walking alone on dark streets late at night if you can help. But if you must, carry something for self-defence—if you are able. If you practice martial arts, great. If not, pepper spray or some other form of protection is often advisable, depending on your local laws. You want something that gives you an advantage in the event of an attack, especially if multiple individuals confront you.
In terms of cybersecurity, I recommend using Tor to avoid detection. If you are travelling abroad, always use a VPN. I am a fan of ProtonVPN, which is based in Switzerland and is run by the same people behind ProtonMail.
But whether you are using Tor, Signal for encrypted communication, or any VPN service, your overall security depends on the integrity of your device. For example, Signal has vulnerabilities, especially those related to QR codes. If you are using Signal, do not scan QR codes with your phone. Do not take pictures of menus with QR codes—just type in the URL manually, even if it takes a few extra seconds. Be careful.
Unfortunately, modern life—especially events like major conferences—makes avoiding QR codes difficult. However, I usually skip all the surveys and request physical programs instead or go directly to the hosting organization’s website. Conferences are often prime targets for hackers.
Avoid using public Wi-Fi, especially at airports and other high-traffic locations. Use your mobile data or tether from a trusted friend’s hotspot if you need internet access. Public Wi-Fi is just not worth the risk.
Securing your phone and laptop is a must—especially if you live in a country where you are more likely to be targeted for hacking. And I do not just mean Russia or China. Even Gulf states have telecom infrastructure partially or wholly controlled by Chinese companies. The government may not directly target you, but its allies might be.
I recommend carrying a flip phone or an extra phone with a new or local SIM card for basic communication and emergencies. Also, travel with a highly secured laptop—not just email encryption but full device security. Not everyone can afford a satellite phone, but nearly everyone can afford malware protection, antivirus scans, and basic cybersecurity hygiene.
Engage in safe practices. Do frequent scans for malware and spyware. Avoid visiting sketchy websites, especially those that offer online casinos and pornography. I’m sorry, but avoid that content if you want to stay safe. Watch it on TV if you absolutely must. Avoid “smart” devices—the Internet of Things. They are essentially surveillance devices.
If you do not want your phone responding to your voice at random times, do not use AI assistants like Alexa or Siri. They are not good for your mental health either. But suppose you know that China—or anyone—can hack into them easily. In that case, you should assume someone can watch you, whether in the shower, in bed, or working on a sensitive project.
You would not want a stranger to witness these moments, so assume that Alexa or Siri are that stranger. If you are uncomfortable showing something in public, do not let a “smart” device be in the room—it may already be broadcasting that moment to whoever gains access.
As for physical security, it does not hurt to have cameras installed around your home—even if you do not feel like a specific target of criminals, spies, or terrorists. You never know. Better safe than sorry.
Do not advertise your travel plans or absences. Practice common sense digital security. Do not overshare on social media. Do not post pictures of your underage children. There is no reason to. If you want to share with a few close friends, use WhatsApp or similar private messaging apps. You do not need to share names and faces with the whole world.
Do not tell people you have children unless they are trusted colleagues or close friends. Do not share personal information like your home address, routine, or where you are travelling to—or even where you have been—unless it serves a clear purpose. Less is more. The less information is available publicly, the safer you are from strangers using it in ways you never intended.
Use social media for professional purposes, communication, or causes you care about—but be mindful of anything that can be used to identify or track you. Do not tell people what route you take to work or school daily. Do not make your routines predictable.
Jacobsen: So, adopt Donald Trump’s approach to personal safety—be unpredictable.
Tsukerman: Yes—at least somewhat. I do not mean being erratic. Erratic and unpredictable are two different things.
You want to be consistent in your responsibilities but unpredictable in your patterns. You do not want to be the kind of person who suddenly stops showing up to work without warning. But you also do not want to be the person who leaves and returns home at the same time every day, takes the same route, sits in the same restaurant seat, and is always in the same place at the same hour.
Especially if you are in a high-profile role, wealthy, or perceived as influential or a target in any way, that routine can become a vulnerability.
If you go to a restaurant, sit with your back to the wall so you can observe your surroundings. These are just basic, common-sense precautions.
Sitting with your back to the wall means no one can sneak up behind you—including a deranged vagrant wandering into a restaurant. Honestly, that is a much more likely scenario in a place like New York than a random terrorist—but that can happen, too.
Closely watch the people around you. Just be aware of how they are behaving. If something feels off, it is better to leave. Changing your seat, getting off the train, switching buses, or crossing the street is better. You never know.
People can be unpredictable. You do not know what anyone is thinking. They could have a mental illness, be having a moment, be a criminal—or even a terrorist. The key is to watch their behaviour.
For example, if it is 90 degrees out in the middle of summer and someone is wearing a heavy winter coat, that is usually not a good sign. It could be someone with a medical condition. It could be a heroin addict. Or it could be someone hiding a suicide vest. You do not want to get close. Keep your distance, observe, and stay alert.
It is a good habit to develop—regularly scanning your environment and noticing what seems out of place. It can be practiced every day. You do not have to be paranoid—just aware.
Jacobsen: What if someone knows they are entering a dangerous area?
Tsukerman: Then planning is everything.
If you know you’re going somewhere dangerous, plan your route. Establish contact with trusted locals. Understand the specific risks and prepare accordingly. Think through what you will need to stay safe.
Different places pose different types of dangers. Are you entering a high-crime area? Is it a region prone to terrorism? Is it dangerous due to weather conditions—like an incoming snowstorm or icy roads? Are you going into the wilderness where wild animals may be present?
The degree and nature of the danger matter. But in general—try not to go alone. It is always better to have company. Arrange your tasks in advance and rehearse different scenarios. War-game the threat. Run through possible outcomes in your head.
The more prepared you are, the less likely you are to panic. You cannot prepare for every possible scenario. Still, suppose you’re psychologically prepared to stay calm in the face of the unexpected. In that case, you’ll likely escape safely and without harm.
Coordinate as much as possible. Have exit strategies. Always plan for multiple contingencies—Plan A, B, and C.
Ask yourself: What happens if my driver does not show up? Do I have a safe place nearby? Do I have enough cash on me? Am I dressed in a way that draws unwanted attention? Do I have the right gear?
These things can make the difference between being caught off guard—and being in control.
Ask yourself: Do I fit in? Am I unlikely to attract the wrong kind of attention? Those are the questions you want to consider when going somewhere dangerous or unfamiliar. It could be where you are uncomfortable or unsure of what to expect.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today.
Tsukerman: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/21
Erik Larson, PMHNP-BC, is the owner of Larson Mental Health in Denver, Colorado. A seasoned mental health professional, he has worked in healthcare since 2005. After earning nursing degrees from Regis University and the University of Colorado, he served as a U.S. Army Captain and psychiatric nurse practitioner, supporting elite military units. He now treats conditions including PTSD, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and TBI. With additional public health training from Johns Hopkins, Larson combines clinical precision with compassionate care. His practice emphasizes efficient, effective treatment tailored to individual needs. He is licensed in Colorado and Wyoming and is LGBTQ-friendly.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is a secure attachment in the context of contemporary family life?
Erik Larson: In modern psychology, it is generally recognized that the family carries the fundamental conditions for the mental development and formation of the child’s personality as a whole. The child begins forming these relationships from birth, and secure attachment is the basis of all these interactions. This is not just love or attention, but a stable, consistent parental presence, where the child feels that their needs will be heard and met. In simple terms, the child should know that the world around them is predictable, and relationships with loved ones are always reliable. Create a space for deep, conscious interactions where the child actively participates in creating a safe environment for themself and others, rather than just accepting love, especially in the context of a modern family where stress and the fast pace of life can destroy such connections.
Jacobsen: How does instability in relationships affect a child’s sleep, speech, and emotional regulation?
Larson: Such situations cause a child to feel anxious and uncertain, which directly affects their nervous system. If there is no predictability and reliability in the family, the child cannot fully relax. They are always on edge, which can lead to insomnia or restless nights. One may struggle with emotional regulation because they don’t receive the level of support necessary for the safe expression and processing of their emotions. Often, this is manifested in slow or distorted speech development (he doesn’t feel confident to communicate openly), and behavior that begins to be perceived as “inappropriate.”
Jacobsen: How do you distinguish between behaviour showing emotional issues and that part of normal child development?
When a child’s behavior, such as excessive anxiety, aggression, isolation, or constant irritability, persists for a long time and interferes with their daily life, this may be a sign of emotional distress. Unlike normal age-related whims or protests, such problems manifest in the form of frequent bouts of anxiety, aggression, or alienation, and do not go away after the child calms down. If a child constantly feels depressed, cannot cope with ordinary situations, or avoids communication, this already requires attention since such reactions interfere with their normal development.
Jacobsen: What is the role of consistency in daily routines for emotionally secure and mentally healthy children?
Larson: Very important, because when a child knows what to expect and when to expect it, it helps reduce anxiety and creates a stable foundation for proper emotional regulation.
What techniques can children learn about emotional expression without causing harm?
Children are quite capable of mastering simple yet effective ways to express strong feelings without yelling, hitting, or withdrawing into themselves. The key question is how these skills are demonstrated and by whom. One useful technique is to name emotions with words and treat them as causal relationships, such as “I am angry because …” or “I feel sad when …”. To help a child master this skill, adults nearby should model the same behavior. This way, it will be easier for the child to adopt it.
Jacobsen: How can parents identify the early signs of anxiety or depression?
Larson: Parents should be wary if a child suddenly changes behavior for no apparent reason. They may become withdrawn, stop communicating with friends, give up favorite activities, etc. Sometimes anxiety and depression manifest themselves through irritability, apathy, or frequent complaints about well-being without any visible problems. If such changes last longer than a couple of weeks and prevent the child from participation in daily activities and routines, this is a reason to pay greater attention.
What are effective strategies for helping children cope with stress and anxiety?
The first thing a parent can do is try to smooth things over as much as possible by creating an atmosphere of calm, trust, and support. This way, the child will know that at least in one place they can feel comfortable, safe, and confident. Another point worth paying attention to is the amount of quality time spent together. Parents should seek to regularly play and talk together with their children.
Jacobsen: How do medication management and therapy work in supporting children’s mental health?
Larson: Medication is used to alleviate the symptoms, reduce anxiety, stabilize mood, or improve focus (everything is individual). However, in parallel with this, therapy can help the child understand and express their emotions and cope with difficult situations. In this way, medications and therapy work together for a more effective and safe result.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Erik.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/20
Javier Palomarez, CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, highlights how policy uncertainty—especially around tariffs—is destabilizing small and medium-sized Hispanic-owned businesses. Unpredictable trade and regulatory shifts are draining vital resources, forcing firms to rework supply chains, pause hiring, and reassess investments. Industries from construction to food services are affected. Some business owners have turned to lobbying or independent trade negotiations to survive. Palomarez stresses that effective policy must be guided by business leader feedback and consistent communication. Hispanic business leadership, he argues, has the potential to shape resilient trade policy through proactive engagement and collective advocacy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have mentioned that “uncertainty is the bane of business.” How is uncertainty affecting small and medium businesses?
Javier Palomarez: Unpredictability in regard to both U.S. trade policy and the regulatory landscape costs small and medium sized businesses time and resources. For example, many of our member businesses say they need additional time, funds, employees, or resources to devise strategies and accomplish tasks related to supply chain management, importing and exporting, and fulfilling or navigating regulatory requirements. These are resources that a multitude of businesses cannot afford or do not have. This is why responsible deregulation and relying on the feedback of business leaders is so critical for policy implementation.
Jacobsen: What industries within the United States Hispanic Business Council have been disrupted by the unpredictable tariff policy?
Palomarez: Unpredictable tariff policy has affected just about every industry represented within the U.S. Hispanic Business Council, including construction, auto-manufacturing, infrastructure, tech, software and electronics, transportation, agriculture, and food services, among others.
Jacobsen: How have business owners adapted to the fluctuating trade environment?
Palomarez: Reasonably, our member businesses have responded to the unpredictable trade environment by raising costs, altering supply chain management, methods, or routes, and taking a step back to analyze costs and production. Furthermore, some businesses have taken matters into their own hands and have engaged in their own trade negotiations or have lobbied the federal government to make changes. In some cases, tariff exceptions have been granted by the Trump administration as a result of intervention and lobbying by business owners.
Jacobsen: How does the fear of potential tariffs influence hiring, investment, or supply chain decisions, among member businesses?
Palomarez: The fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced business owners to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. These are all business considerations and factors that can and likely will be affected significantly by tariffs. Resultantly, our member businesses are increasingly likely to have to alter their personnel, prices, and supply chains.
Jacobsen: How do you evaluate the communication and transparency of U.S. trade policy now?
Palomarez: At the moment, communication of U.S. trade policy seems to be coming unilaterally and often sporadically from the office of the President. This isn’t beneficial for business owners because policies can change rapidly, forcing quick and significant changes in prices and business practices. Nothing is necessarily being hidden from businesses and citizens in regard to a lack of transparency, but the unpredictability of tariffs on a country-by-country basis makes business and market decisions highly volatile. Our member businesses are reliant on us and their own research to plan and forecast.
Jacobsen: What have USHBC members said about the human and financial toll of the uncertainty?
Palomarez: Our member businesses repeatedly state that the fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced them to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. Unpredictability will undoubtedly cost significant resources, as employees, funds, and time will be needed to devise new strategies, make monetary decisions, alter supply chains, lobby, and negotiate. Revenue, personnel, and prices can all be affected.
Jacobsen: How can Hispanic business leadership shape future U.S. trade policy to support economic resilience?
Palomarez: Hispanic business owners can shape and reshape future U.S. trade policy in a plethora of ways. First and foremost, devoting time and effort to making your voice heard is essential. Political leaders should rely on feedback from business leaders when making decisions that affect our nation’s businesses – especially the fastest growing segment – hispanic small businesses. That being said, making your voice heard is the only path to achieving advocacy and eventual results. Furthermore, taking matters into your own hands, as many companies have, can significantly benefit your business. For example, some companies have achieved tariff exceptions by lobbying the Trump administration. Others have solved issues pertaining to importing, exporting, and supply chain management by initiating their own trade negotiations. Furthermore, businesses like Zions Bank are hosting their own national and international forums and conversations to have discussions about trade policy and forge potential new paths forward. Business leaders undoubtedly have the power to make a difference and promote economic growth and revitalization.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Javier.zJavier Palomarez, CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, highlights how policy uncertainty—especially around tariffs—is destabilizing small and medium-sized Hispanic-owned businesses. Unpredictable trade and regulatory shifts are draining vital resources, forcing firms to rework supply chains, pause hiring, and reassess investments. Industries from construction to food services are affected. Some business owners have turned to lobbying or independent trade negotiations to survive. Palomarez stresses that effective policy must be guided by business leader feedback and consistent communication. Hispanic business leadership, he argues, has the potential to shape resilient trade policy through proactive engagement and collective advocacy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have mentioned that “uncertainty is the bane of business.” How is uncertainty affecting small and medium businesses?
Javier Palomarez: Unpredictability in regard to both U.S. trade policy and the regulatory landscape costs small and medium sized businesses time and resources. For example, many of our member businesses say they need additional time, funds, employees, or resources to devise strategies and accomplish tasks related to supply chain management, importing and exporting, and fulfilling or navigating regulatory requirements. These are resources that a multitude of businesses cannot afford or do not have. This is why responsible deregulation and relying on the feedback of business leaders is so critical for policy implementation.
Jacobsen: What industries within the United States Hispanic Business Council have been disrupted by the unpredictable tariff policy?
Palomarez: Unpredictable tariff policy has affected just about every industry represented within the U.S. Hispanic Business Council, including construction, auto-manufacturing, infrastructure, tech, software and electronics, transportation, agriculture, and food services, among others.
Jacobsen: How have business owners adapted to the fluctuating trade environment?
Palomarez: Reasonably, our member businesses have responded to the unpredictable trade environment by raising costs, altering supply chain management, methods, or routes, and taking a step back to analyze costs and production. Furthermore, some businesses have taken matters into their own hands and have engaged in their own trade negotiations or have lobbied the federal government to make changes. In some cases, tariff exceptions have been granted by the Trump administration as a result of intervention and lobbying by business owners.
Jacobsen: How does the fear of potential tariffs influence hiring, investment, or supply chain decisions, among member businesses?
Palomarez: The fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced business owners to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. These are all business considerations and factors that can and likely will be affected significantly by tariffs. Resultantly, our member businesses are increasingly likely to have to alter their personnel, prices, and supply chains.
Jacobsen: How do you evaluate the communication and transparency of U.S. trade policy now?
Palomarez: At the moment, communication of U.S. trade policy seems to be coming unilaterally and often sporadically from the office of the President. This isn’t beneficial for business owners because policies can change rapidly, forcing quick and significant changes in prices and business practices. Nothing is necessarily being hidden from businesses and citizens in regard to a lack of transparency, but the unpredictability of tariffs on a country-by-country basis makes business and market decisions highly volatile. Our member businesses are reliant on us and their own research to plan and forecast.
Jacobsen: What have USHBC members said about the human and financial toll of the uncertainty?
Palomarez: Our member businesses repeatedly state that the fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced them to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. Unpredictability will undoubtedly cost significant resources, as employees, funds, and time will be needed to devise new strategies, make monetary decisions, alter supply chains, lobby, and negotiate. Revenue, personnel, and prices can all be affected.
Jacobsen: How can Hispanic business leadership shape future U.S. trade policy to support economic resilience?
Palomarez: Hispanic business owners can shape and reshape future U.S. trade policy in a plethora of ways. First and foremost, devoting time and effort to making your voice heard is essential. Political leaders should rely on feedback from business leaders when making decisions that affect our nation’s businesses – especially the fastest growing segment – hispanic small businesses. That being said, making your voice heard is the only path to achieving advocacy and eventual results. Furthermore, taking matters into your own hands, as many companies have, can significantly benefit your business. For example, some companies have achieved tariff exceptions by lobbying the Trump administration. Others have solved issues pertaining to importing, exporting, and supply chain management by initiating their own trade negotiations. Furthermore, businesses like Zions Bank are hosting their own national and international forums and conversations to have discussions about trade policy and forge potential new paths forward. Business leaders undoubtedly have the power to make a difference and promote economic growth and revitalization.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Javier.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/19
Ken Wilcox currently serves on the boards of the Asia Society of Northern California, the Asian Art Museum, and UC San Diego’s 21st Century China Center, as well as Columbia Lake Partners, a European venture-debt fund. He is on the Board of Advisors of the Fudan University School of Management in Shanghai and teaches as an Adjunct Professor at U.C. Berkeley. Ken holds an MBA from Harvard Business School and is a former member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He is former CEO of Silicon Valley Bank (2001–2011) and led SVB’s joint venture with Shanghai Pudong Development Bank. Wilcox discusses the ongoing U.S.-China trade negotiations. Wilcox critiques Trump’s misleading narrative and highlights the longstanding issues rooted in CCP-controlled market advantages, regulatory manipulation, and intellectual property appropriation. Despite years of talks, these core problems remain unresolved. Wilcox casts doubt on Trump’s goals to repatriate U.S. manufacturing and secure fair competition, arguing that bombastic tactics only harden China’s position. He warns that both nations’ win-at-all-costs strategies risk escalating conflict. Meaningful resolution requires structural change, Congressional intervention, and diplomatic recalibration—otherwise, the U.S. may face enduring consequences of a fractured global trade landscape.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the realistic outcome of the U.S.-China trade talks?
Ken Wilcox: It is difficult to reach a conclusion in a world dominated by a leader who is as unpredictable and inconsistent as ours is today. Trump has positioned Biden as the person who caused the conflict with China and himself as the person who is fixing what Biden messed up. This is a total misrepresentation. Is Trump horribly misinformed or is he being deliberately misleading? A rhetorical question.
Jacobsen: What underlying tension have been longstanding and others are new between China and the U.S.? What about the most frequently disrupted or complicated cross-border business agreements, and do those remain unresolved today?
Wilcox: The underlying problem is that: 1) after all these years (since China was given membership in the WTO well over 20 years ago) the CCP still maintains an uneven playing field in Chinese; 2) the CCP controls this playing field; 3) the CCP promulgates regulations that advantage Chinese companies and disadvantage American companies; 4) the CCP subsidizes Chinese companies; 5) the CCP assists Chinese companies in appropriating knowledge from American companies; and finally 6) the CCP is actively involved in creating companies to compete against American companies using the very knowledge that they appropriated.
The so-called good news has changed nothing. The underlying problem is the same as it was before. And regarding the tariffs: Trump imposed them, the CCP imposed counter-tariffs, Trump gave in and rolled his back; the Chinese rolled their counter-tariffs back. We’re right where we were last week. Nothing has changed.
Jacobsen: Which sectors have the most stake in these negotiations? What signals or policy moves should observers watch from the Chinese leadership?
The CCP agreed to discuss things further. They have been discussing things for many years. Before we applaud, let’s wait and see if Trump scores any meaningful wins in the course of these future discussions.
Trump’s original goals were: 1) to open up China to American companies, in a way that would allow them to compete on a level playing field; and 2) to return the manufacturing that migrated from the U.S. to China over the past 30 plus years back to the U.S. If either of these were even possible, they would each take several years to effect.
Xi cannot afford to grant Trump meaningful concessions because he would lose face (and maybe his position) if he did.
Trump has succeeded in making it even more difficult for Xi to make concessions, by being so bombastic, in a very public way.
Jacobsen: How can China help America compromise, and vice versa? How might domestic Chinese priorities in maintaining internal stability and economic growth influence negotiation strategies and expectations of the U.S.? Any role for joint ventures or private-sector diplomacy in easing tensions? If trade talks break down, what potential long-term consequences are reasonable?
Wilcox: My tentative conclusions include the following:
- Trump’s approach to tariffs will do us more harm than good, and it already has.
- The question of whether or not we should be decoupling from China may have already been answered. China does not believe that cooperation with the U.S. is either desirable or possible. The CCP has already acquired all our knowledge and we are now only in their way as they rise to the top.
- Trump’s style of negotiation is—ironically—in some ways Chinese: keep the opponent off balance, ruthlessly apply whatever leverage you have, demean and deceive your opponent, and seek to win at all costs. What good could possibly come out of a negotiation where both parties employ this strategy? It’s true that practitioners of win-win will lose when confronted by “win at all costs”, but when both parties are committed to winning at all costs, can anyone win at all? Especially when both have nuclear warheads?
This last frightening thought leads to the possibly forlorn hope that our elected officials might grow a badly needed backbone and refuse to accommodate such a dangerous strategy of nuclear-armed chicken. The Congress could take back its power of the purse and strike down the tariffs. It’s difficult to see what winning means now, but insofar as the status quo has been so thoroughly upended, decision-makers need to define how the U.S. could correct the failings of its earlier policies and mend the fences that have been so abruptly bulldozed. If, that is, it’s possible. Otherwise, we will need to live in the mess we have created.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Ken.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/18
Dr. Leo Igwe, a Nigerian human rights advocate and humanist, recounted the international efforts to secure the release of Mubarak Bala, a prominent ex-Muslim and humanist arrested for alleged “blasphemy”. Igwe detailed the challenges in advocating for Bala’s release, including navigating Nigeria’s complex legal system, mobilizing international organizations such as Humanists International, Amnesty International, and the UN, and countering misinformation campaigns. Despite resistance from Kano police and authorities, Igwe’s legal and advocacy teams employed a strategic approach, leveraging diplomatic pressure and media coverage. Initially sentenced to 25 years, Bala’s term was reduced to five years on appeal, a significant achievement given Nigeria’s Sharia-influenced legal landscape. The case also exposed cracks and fragilities within the atheist/humanist community, with opportunists attempting to exploit the situation for personal gain, spreading misinformation, and launching smear campaigns against Igwe and his colleagues. Igwe emphasized the importance of institutional support, credible networks, and verification mechanisms in future advocacy efforts. In conclusion, Igwe expressed gratitude to global humanists, legal teams, and international partners who remained steadfast in the campaign, ensuring that Mubarak Bala was not forgotten and ultimately freed.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Once more, we’re here with Dr. Leo Igwe. He is calling from Ibadan, Nigeria, while I am calling from a small town about two and a half hours east of downtown Vancouver, in the far West of Canada. It is cold here, so I am sitting by the fireplace. Let’s continue—no introduction is necessary. How do you approach informing the international community about cases like Mubarak Bala and others?
Dr. Leo Igwe: We are a small organization here, even though there are many non-religious and religiously indifferent people. The case of Mubarak Bala was quite unusual because it was beyond our capacity to handle.
A few days before his arrest, I was notified that he was receiving threats from various individuals who were offended by his Facebook posts. I called him, and we discussed the situation. He told me he would try to neutralize the threats, and I suggested he report the matter to the police. However, he said doing so would worsen things because the police would side with those threatening him.
That was the last conversation we had on the matter. Two or three days later, I received a call informing me that the police had taken him into custody and that we needed to do everything we could to secure his release or at least ensure his safety. Honestly, I was completely confused and distressed.
I immediately began making desperate calls to the police in Kaduna, where he was living. I remember speaking with the police commissioner, who said it was not their case. He explained that the Kano police had issued a directive for his arrest and that they would transfer him there.
We were deeply concerned that transferring him to Kano might mean we would never see him again. I attempted to reach the station where he was being held and managed to speak with him for a few seconds before the phone was taken from him. That was the last time we talked for months.
After his transfer, we called the police in Kano, but they claimed they had no information. When we contacted the police in Kaduna, they said they had already handed him over to the Kano authorities. This was how they kept misleading us, passing responsibility from one place to another.
At that point, I realized the situation was beyond my control. I decided to inform the international community. I sent a message to Humanists International and reached out to all my contacts—atheists, freethinkers, and human rights advocates. I explained the situation and urged them to take action.
I felt that if they could disappear him and get away with it, it would be a devastating blow to our efforts to grow the humanist community. I did everything I could to ensure he would not be harmed. We were gravely concerned that he would be disappeared, as has happened to many others in similar circumstances. Often, when someone is arrested for “blasphemy”, they vanish, and nothing is ever heard of them again.
I was distraught, not only for his safety but also for the future of our movement. Without delay, I contacted my lawyer, a humanist who has worked closely with us. I told him, “We are in serious trouble. “What happened next?
It was during the lockdown, and there were severe restrictions on movement. Everyone was indoors, and people could barely move around within their communities. There was no interstate movement—you could not travel from one state to another.
So, we had to gather contacts and lawyers from different states—Kaduna, Kano, and Abuja. We worked to get these contacts to help us pressure the authorities. Luckily, within a few days, we could put together what we called a legal team.
Yes, but I knew this was not a legal issue. “blasphemy” cases are more political than legal. That was why I also contacted NGOs and other organizations. I wrote to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
I contacted various embassies, particularly those of the EU, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and messaged them. However, I received an extraordinary response and support from Humanists International.
And I must tell you this—not because I am a board member, but because I have over 20 years of experience working and navigating this risky terrain.
So, what I said was that Humanists International responded immediately, publicized the events, and rallied around us. The immediate question was, “What do you need?”
We told them that we needed to have a legal team in place and use our platform to advocate and make noise because that was precisely what the people who arrested him did not want. They wanted him silenced, and anything about him silenced so they could determine his fate.
What they did not and would not have wanted was for anyone to talk about him, make noise, or raise awareness about the case. With Humanists International’s support, we could do precisely that. The case went global, and many organizations, including the UN and international NGOs, got involved. Embassies also took action—they called and checked in with us daily to track progress.
Jacobsen: So, you’re contacting the UN and Human Rights Watch and sending letters and emails to Amnesty International. You’re also using resources such as a humanist lawyer you have worked with before, someone who understands both you and the situation’s complexities.
What strategies worked? What strategies did not? To someone reading this without context, it might seem like you were shotgunning any possible support system. But there was a method to it, even though, in emergency mode, you were essentially scrambling.
Igwe: Yes. The idea of spreading the news worldwide and involving the international community worked—it helped put pressure on the authorities.
But we did not succeed in everything. First, we wanted to prevent him from being taken to Kano, and we failed. When we got the police involved and willing to act, he had already been transferred to Kano.
We also tried to ensure that the Kano police were responsive in telling us where he was being held. Still, we were met with silence and dismissal of our inquiries.
Our efforts to prevent his disappearance immediately failed because the police and the government in Kano did not respond to our requests.
They did not attend to us. They largely ignored us, and I want to emphasize that they ignored the world for a long time.
Even with all the pressure from the EU, the U.S. embassies, and other diplomatic efforts, they held him for six months before officially acknowledging that he was in their custody. So, it was not as though we rallied all these agencies, and they immediately secured his release. No, it took us over four years for him to finally be free.
Many of the pressures we applied were either met with resistance or ignored. However, we persisted, leveraging international agencies, the UN office, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, who was supportive. It was through them that we learned, months later, that he was still alive. We discovered he was being kept in a private cell in Kano.
Even the EU embassies played a role in confirming that he was alive. They signalled to us that he had not been killed but was still being detained. It took considerable time before some of our efforts started yielding results, primarily in confirming his safety. Eventually, the authorities responded to demands that he be released or brought to trial, as required by law.
Jacobsen: How did the global response influence advocacy efforts? You touched on that a bit. I’m particularly interested in cases where there was a complete deadlock—where no progress could be made. Were there instances where people were listening and trying to help, but it was too late, or they were blocked due to a lack of resources or because they had more pressing cases to handle? Also, regarding individuals, I am aware that the prominent and highly respected literary intellectual Wole Soyinka commented on this case. What role did such figures play?
Igwe: Yes.
In the beginning, we mobilized everything we could. We sent letters to organizations, individuals, and prominent Nigerian politicians. We contacted former presidents, urging them to pressure the government for his release.
Wole Soyinka and other respected figures got involved. These efforts aimed to rally prominent, outspoken, and respected individuals to pressure the authorities in Kano and the federal government to release him or ensure his safety. But it took an immense amount of time.
This did not happen automatically. It shows how strong the establishment behind his arrest was and how unwilling they were to relent or yield to international pressure.
We faced significant challenges from the start. One key difficulty was overcoming the authorities’ resistance, as they were determined to suppress any external intervention.
In addition, I did not even know Mubarak Bala well. We live in the same country, but I was studying overseas then. I returned in 2017. While I was abroad, I heard about his decision to come out as an ex-Muslim, and we met on only one or two occasions. So, I knew him as an ex-Muslim, and that was it.
Some people forget that even within the secular and humanist community, we may not always know each other well. Finding the right people to work with when he was arrested became another challenge. There is a concept in some Islamic communities called Taqiyya, which refers to religious dissimulation or concealment. Some individuals were suspected of pretending to be atheists to infiltrate secular networks and pass information to religious authorities.
There was concern that some of those engaging in Taqiyya had infiltrated Mubarak’s network, gathered information, and reported him to the authorities. This added another layer of difficulty because, at that time, we were under lockdown due to the pandemic. We had to rely solely on phone calls, emails, and Facebook messages to coordinate efforts. Still, we had no real way of verifying who was trustworthy.
Given that we were trying to save a life and ensure that Mubarak suffered no harm, we were willing to work with anyone who could help. However, knowing whom to trust was extremely difficult in a case as sensitive as “blasphemy”.
Jacobsen: What were the key steps in bringing together the legal team with the advocacy team so that the advocacy team could inform the legal team about the critical points of the case, and then the legal team could develop a case in defence of Mubarak?
Igwe: Yes. This was another critical task we faced at the time.
Assembling the legal and advocacy teams happened organically—slowly and steadily—because we had to act with extreme caution. First and foremost, we had to find lawyers we could trust. This is something that many people later criticized. Some claimed, “Oh, you hired your friends.” But in this situation, you cannot hire people that you know little about. You cannot put out a job announcement asking, Who would like to take up a “blasphemy” case? In Nigeria, “blasphemy” is a highly sensitive issue, and many lawyers refuse to touch it out of fear.
So, we had to find lawyers we could rely on. I contacted the lawyers within our humanist network—people already working with us. We connected with James Ibor, a lawyer already engaged in human rights work. We tasked him with finding other trustworthy lawyers to build a solid legal team. It was a snowball approach, where one trusted contact led to another.
The same principle applied to the advocacy team. We had to work with organizations and agencies we knew genuinely supported our cause. Otherwise, there was always the risk of sharing information with someone who would leak it to those on the other side. Trust was crucial in bringing together the legal and advocacy teams. That trust was also why, even when strange developments emerged later, we could keep the case together and remain unified in our mission to secure Mubarak’s release.
Of course, as the case gained more publicity, more people wanted to get involved. At a certain point, numerous organizations wanted to take credit for what had become a high-profile case. That created additional challenges because, as soon as the case became widely known on social media, different groups started making statements about it.
Then something else happened. Lawyers I had never met started reaching out, saying, “We have experience in cases like this. We want to take over Mubarak’s defence.” My response was, Take over which case? I did not know these lawyers—I had never met them, I did not know their credibility, and I had no idea whether people had sent some of them on the other side to derail our efforts.
I was firm in rejecting their involvement. Some of them retaliated by going online and blackmailing me, attacking my choices, and claiming that Mubarak had not been released because I had hired “incompetent” lawyers. Instead of recognizing that we were up against a deeply entrenched and fanatical jihadist system, they tried to shift the blame onto us.
These individuals were not genuinely interested in the case; they saw it as an opportunity to attach themselves to a celebrity case. They wanted to ride the wave of attention it was getting. I say this because there have been other “blasphemy” cases in Nigeria, such as Deborah Samuel and Elijah the Barber, and these same lawyers showed no interest in those cases. Yet, suddenly, they wanted to take over Mubarak’s defence from the legal counsel leading the team.
The same thing happened with the advocacy efforts. Many organizations suddenly wanted to be involved.
During that period, someone started an organization called the Religious Freedom Foundation. Another person launched a humanist organization out of nowhere. I had never met him before, but he claimed they were also interested in the campaign. Suddenly, people were getting involved in the push to release Mubarak, and I asked, “Where have you all been all this time?”
That was when things started taking a different turn. Some of these groups began spreading accusations, saying that we were raising money but using it for ourselves instead of helping Mubarak, who was in jail. This led to a smear campaign that hurt deeply. Some people even tried to discredit Humanists International (HI). One online contact went so far as to say they would take HI to court.
Jacobsen: Yes, that is so stupid. It feels like something that might even work.
Igwe: They were making random, careless statements about HI and how the case was handled. But the most frustrating part was that they were unwilling to call out the jihadist sentiments and religious extremism that were central to the case.
Instead of focusing on the real issue—the religious fundamentalism that led to Mubarak’s arrest—they started attacking those of us defending him. We suddenly became the target of accusations because we had established a strong legal defence and raised the case profile.
They acted as if the money we raised should have been handed directly to Mubarak as if we could walk into his prison cell and put cash in his pocket. However, advocacy requires lobbying, travel, and meetings with key stakeholders. That is how we built momentum.
Humanists International ran a fantastic campaign. If you look at their work today, their efforts on “blasphemy” cases are unprecedented. The way we handled Mubarak’s case set a new standard. I also used the opportunity to raise awareness and send a strong message: Do not do this again.
Despite our efforts, some still tried to undermine us.
They assumed that we did not have the resources to mount a strong legal defence or carry out effective advocacy. But we surprised them.
As soon as they realized the scale of our efforts, the blackmail began. They said, “Oh, we didn’t understand—you have the money to hire one lawyer and an entire legal team. You have the funds to escalate the case to the UN. You have the resources and the influence.” Once they recognized this, opportunists appeared from nowhere, trying to insert themselves into the case.
I told them, “Look, there are other “blasphemy” cases. There are other people in need—why don’t you take up one of those cases?” But they weren’t interested. They wanted to attach themselves to our case, which had gained international attention. Despite these pressures, Humanists International held its ground. Slowly and steadily, we managed to fend off these distractions and eventually secured Mubarak’s release.
However, I also want to highlight an important point—some of the people who led smear campaigns against Humanists International and myself were the same people who had privately approached me, pretending to offer help. One of them was a lawyer based in the UK. He contacted me and said, “Look, I’m in the UK. I can go to the office of Humanists UK and tell them whatever I want. I can make them take action to secure Mubarak’s release.”
I responded, “Who are you?” He introduced himself, and I told him, “If you want to help, work with the existing legal team.” But he refused. He kept going back and forth, never actually committing to anything productive. Instead, he went online and started spreading propaganda, fueling a smear campaign.
What frustrated me the most was seeing a few atheists/humanists in the UK buy into this propaganda. These were people who had my contact information. I was available 24 hours a day—I was accessible during those moments, even now. They could have reached out to me or contacted HI office, but instead, they chose to spread false narratives.
It became clear that their goal was not to help but to discredit me, smear my work, and undermine everything we did. That is when I lost patience.
When I realized that there were people in the UK who called themselves humanists or atheists yet bought into this propaganda, I was deeply disappointed. These were people who had my email. I was available 24 hours a day—I had been accessible throughout those critical moments, and even now, they could still reach me.
They could have contacted the HI office as well, but instead, they chose to spread misinformation. It seemed as though they were looking for an opportunity to discredit my work—to smear me, slander me, and undermine everything I was doing. That was where I felt the most disappointment. These people knew little or nothing about the situation and did not understand the complexities we were dealing with. Yet, they went online and wrote petitions against me.
That truly hurt me. I felt deeply let down. But, of course, Humanists International handled the situation professionally, and it did not stop us from continuing our work.
Let me also add that one of the individuals involved in this smear campaign was a woman who, after we had generated a great deal of international support for Mubarak’s case, suddenly claimed that she, too, had been accused of “blasphemy”. She said she needed to relocate overseas.
Now, I understand that immigration issues are sensitive in Europe. However, we must also balance those considerations with our realities. She reached out to various groups in Europe and the U.S., trying to secure help. She attempted to further her agenda by leveraging Mubarak’s and Deborah Samuel’s cases. This was a complex case for us to assess. We asked her to provide evidence of the accusation, but she could not substantiate her claim. She stated that the police were looking for her. I asked, “Which police department?” In Nigeria, officers are assigned to specific stations, which follow a structure.
Then, at one point, she sent out an alarmist message, claiming that the police had surrounded her house. Concerned, we tried to call her, but she did not pick up. Later, she sent us a budget, saying she needed financial assistance to relocate from Borno State—where Boko Haram militants were active—to the capital, Abuja.
She initially requested $2,000 and then increased her demand to $4,000. I asked, “$4,000 for what?” She claimed she needed police protection and clearance as part of the budget. That immediately struck me as suspicious.
I told her, “The police are supposedly looking for you. They want to arrest you. You say you are accused of “blasphemy”, yet now you plan to use part of this budget to secure police protection and clearance to travel from Borno to Abuja?” It was utterly contradictory and made no sense to me.
At that point, I dismissed her case. It became clear that some people were opportunists trying to take advantage of the situation. While we were struggling to secure the release of someone who had been locked up and disappeared, there were others—completely free—who were attempting to exploit the case for their gain.
She went online. When she realized I disapproved of her claim. She launched a smear campaign against Humanists International and me. Shockingly, a few ‘humanists and atheists’ joined her in attacking us.
And these were people who were either my Facebook friends, people who knew me, had met me, or could have easily reached out to me. Yet, they never contacted me. Instead, they joined the smear campaign without understanding what was happening.
We always try to manage these situations, but this experience showed me that anyone can become embroiled in such attacks. In cases like this, when dealing with such a sensitive issue, if you know someone well and belong to the community, you reach out. Some people did that. They sent me a message asking, “Hey, what is happening?”
In response, I would forward them the correspondence I had with the woman claiming she was accused of “blasphemy”. That alone would settle the issue. When some of these people confronted her directly, she changed her stance. She said, “This is a sensitive case involving classified information.”
I told her. It was not classified. You went online to attack Humanists International and to attack me personally. You approached us seeking relocation and funding, yet you could not substantiate your case. What exactly is that?
We will always face challenges in our quest to grow and carry out high-profile advocacy campaigns. That is why we must have mechanisms to handle such issues and prevent opportunists from distracting us or derailing our efforts.
Jacobsen: Yes, exactly. That is what this is.
People should understand—I have interviewed many humanists over the years, and to be honest, it may surprise some, but there are not that many scammers. A few people might loosely claim the title and try to grift. Still, they are usually not actively involved in the community.
Most of the time, they operate as standalone individuals rather than being embedded within humanist networks. Regarding actual scammers who were successful, I can only recall one case off the top of my head. That person was quickly exposed, condemned, and effectively disappeared from humanist activism, media, and discussion.
What you describe sounds like a reflection of broader societal trends creeping into the humanist movement. Opportunism is typical in general culture, but within international humanism, it is rare to find real scammers—let alone successful ones. At least, that is what I have observed when speaking with humanists worldwide.
All right, let’s move on to the next question.
What is the process of filing petitions with the police and courts in Nigeria? Does it differ between Kaduna, Kano, Abuja, or Ibadan, or is it mostly the same throughout the country?
Igwe: The process is generally the same for cases like “blasphemy”. However, in sensitive situations like this, we must always be cautious. “Where do you file the petition? Who files it?”
The safety of those filing these cases is a significant concern, so we had to carefully decide where to file petitions with the police or bring cases to court. We chose Abuja, the capital because Islamist and jihadist influence is much weaker there than in Kano. Moving the case away from Kano was a strategic decision.
Of course, some people criticized this approach. However, our reasoning was clear—if we were to challenge them, we would not do it where they held significant power and influence. Instead, we took the case to a jurisdiction where federal and international institutions could provide support. That is why, in cases like this, it is always advisable to file legal actions in places where extremist groups have less control.
Therefore, one of the cases we filed was in Abuja instead of Kano.
Jacobsen: Were there difficulties in shifting the case from Kano to Abuja?
Igwe: Yes.
Filing a case in Abuja was not difficult. However, getting Kano authorities to honour the judgment was a different challenge. A court in Abuja could issue a ruling, but enforcing that judgment required additional effort.
This is where we leveraged diplomatic pressure. We engaged with diplomats and the UN to push for the enforcement of the ruling, which stated that he should either be tried in court or released. That was a key outcome of the Abuja judgment.
Another major challenge came after his conviction—securing his transfer from Kano to Abuja Prison. That required making a strong case because, in many ways, transferring him to Abuja was like letting him go halfway.
While in Kano, the authorities had total control over him. They could treat him however they wanted in court, without external interference. However, once he was transferred to Abuja, his situation changed significantly. He gained access to a phone, WhatsApp, and communication tools that had been ultimately denied to him in Kano.
It was a long process, but we worked to bring in the National Human Rights Commission and other friendly agencies to assist us in ensuring a smooth and secure transfer from Kano Prison to Abuja Prison.
His transfer to Abuja was the first real sign that his release was possible. Once we successfully moved him out of Kano, we felt that there was a real chance of securing his freedom.
So, while the process was extremely challenging, we relied on diplomatic channels and international support to make it happen.
Jacobsen: I mean, we’ve seen different types of disappearances—both real and faux disappearances, depending on the case. In some cases, there is no disappearance at all.
For example, take the case of Gaspár Bekes. His professional and personal life has been impacted, but as far as I know, he does not require security. That represents one category of humanist persecution, where the individual faces difficulties but remains relatively safe.
Then, moving from Western Europe to an Indian case, we have Narendra Nayak, who requires security (removed at the moment). However, his situation has not involved faux disappearance—his life is at risk, but he has remained visible.
Then there are cases like Gulalai Ismail, where an individual goes into hiding for security reasons. In her case, her entire family faced persecution—her father, Mohammad Ismail, her sister Saba, and Gulalai herself. Initially, nobody knew her whereabouts. Only a few people knew what had happened; months later, she surfaced in New York. She was eventually featured in The New York Times multiple times.
This represents a “faux disappearance,” meaning that the individual is hidden for security reasons rather than being forcibly disappeared by the state. Eventually, they reappear in a safe location.
Then, there are cases of real disappearances, where individuals vanish not for safety but due to direct persecution by state or social forces—like Mubarak Bala.
Let’s look at this as a sliding scale. We start with cases like Gaspár Bekes, which have a professional and social impact but no physical danger. Then we move to cases like Narendra Nayak, which have a security risk but no disappearance. Then, we move to cases like Gulalai Ismail, which has a strategic disappearance for safety. Finally, in the end, we have Mubarak Bala, where the persecution was severe enough to result in years of imprisonment.
Now, let me get to my question.
What measures were taken to confirm whether Mubarak was alive after he disappeared? I’m curious about this. Many people were. You were directly involved and working more actively than I was. What was being done to find out his status?
Igwe: That is an interesting question.
Like I said earlier, we did everything we could. And when I say everything, I mean that every single day, I would wake up and ask:
“Have we spoken to Mr. X?”
“Have we contacted Professor Y?”
“Have we sent an email to Z?”
We called embassies, contacted diplomats, and knocked on every possible door, asking, “Hey, what do you do? Can you help us confirm whether Mubarak is still alive?”
This man had disappeared.
We even ran advertisements in national newspapers asking for information on his whereabouts. We did everything we could to determine whether he was alive or dead.
We pursued multiple approaches. First, there was the legal approach—we took the case to court and filed a demand that the government produce him, try him, or release him. There is a technical legal term for this. Still, our court case required the authorities to confirm his whereabouts and either put him on trial or set him free.
Then, there was the advocacy approach. We wrote letters to the Governor of Kano, the President of Nigeria, and all major human rights organizations. We engaged with the UN, which issued public statements and applied diplomatic pressure on the authorities.
As I mentioned before, the UN first confirmed his existence. For months, we had been receiving no signal whatsoever that he was still alive, so we intensified our efforts. The UN used its networks to verify his status, and they confirmed that he was still being held in custody.
Our international pressure worked. After a few months, the UN confirmed that he was alive.
Jacobsen: That is a huge win.
What about the uncertainty during that period? The scrambling for weeks, even months, affected how you approached the legal strategy.
His sentence was originally 25 years, but it was reduced to five years on appeal. That is extraordinarily significant—not only for his personal life but also as a legal precedent for cases like his.
Everything about this case was illegitimate and outrageous. Still, the fact that you could appeal and reduce the sentence so dramatically is remarkable. How did you adapt your legal strategy as more information became available and his safety was secured?
Igwe: Well, in cases like this, no matter what you do, people will judge you.
Because of time differences between teams and organizations, we held constant meetings, even at midnight or 1:00 AM.
One of our biggest challenges was that some people wanted us to focus on eliminating Nigeria’s “blasphemy” laws. While that was a noble goal, it was not the most strategic approach.
Instead, we asked ourselves: What is our immediate goal? The answer was clear—get him out of prison and to safety.
There were several ways to achieve that:
- A presidential pardon
- An acquittal through the courts
- A successful appeal to reduce his sentence
Ultimately, the appeal strategy worked, reducing his 25-year sentence to five years. But our immediate goal was not to abolish “blasphemy” laws altogether but to release Mubarak.
That is why we had to bring another legal team to focus on broader “blasphemy” cases. We hope that those cases can eventually be used to challenge the constitutionality of “blasphemy” provisions. However, that is a long-term battle.
This is also part of the reason why one individual accused of “blasphemy” is still in jail today—because some legal teams prioritized challenging the law itself rather than focusing on securing the individual’s release. And let me tell you, getting rid of “blasphemy” laws in Nigeria is not something that will happen today or tomorrow.
From the beginning, we tried to avoid distractions and groups with conflicting approaches that could slow us down. Of course, there were also criticisms that our lawyer was incompetent. Still, we ignored the noise and focused on our goal.
That clarity helped us manage the uncertainty and stay on track.
When the initial sentence was handed down, we carefully analyzed the loopholes in the judgment. The legal debate centred on whether the sentences should run concurrently or cumulatively—something our lawyers could explain better. But it was through these loopholes that we built our appeal.
At the same time, we increased diplomatic pressure. We engaged with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to push the Nigerian government to clarify that Mubarak’s case seriously failed to protect freedom of religion or belief.
By clearly defining our objectives, applying international pressure, and refusing to be distracted by blackmail, slander, and infighting, we secured Mubarak’s reduced sentence and eventual release.
Jacobsen: How was the trial in Kano? What challenges did you face during the proceedings?
Igwe: The trial itself was highly problematic.
First, access to Mubarak was restricted. Our lawyers were routinely blocked from visiting him. When they did manage to see, they were told they needed additional permissions—sometimes from Abuja, sometimes from local officials. There was always an excuse to limit their time with him.
When Mubarak tried to communicate with them by phone, they would only allow calls lasting two minutes or less. These restrictions weakened his legal defence and prevented his lawyers from preparing an adequate case.
Then, during the trial, Mubarak pleaded guilty despite his lawyer’s advice.
His lawyer strongly advised him not to. The legal team believed they could not have convicted him if the case had been tried on merit. But Mubarak pleaded guilty, acting on his reasoning, which led to the harsh sentencing.
Afterward, some people blamed the lawyer for the guilty plea, which was unfair—it was Mubarak’s decision. The BBC even covered the trial, and the video clearly showed that he pleaded guilty against legal advice.
Once that happened, we regrouped and immediately started preparing an appeal, eventually reducing his sentence.
Jacobsen: What does this case reveal about the state of Nigeria’s legal system, especially across different jurisdictions?
Igwe: Well, Nigeria’s legal system does not operate like the legal systems in Canada, the U.S., or the UK.
In Nigeria, laws vary significantly depending on which part of the country you are in. In the north, where Muslims are the majority, the legal system is heavily influenced by religious establishments.
State laws do not hold the same weight there. They are often subordinate to Sharia law. Whenever there is a conflict between state and Sharia law, authorities defer to the Sharia-leaning interpretation.
One of the fundamental challenges we face is that there is no single rule of law for all Nigerians. Instead, we have multiple legal frameworks that allow religious and political establishments—both Islamic and Christian—to exploit legal loopholes and undermine the idea of one law for all.
In theory, Nigeria claims to uphold the rule of law. But in practice, we have a “rule of laws,” where different legal standards apply based on religion, location, and political power.
This is precisely why individuals like Mubarak Bala cannot fully exercise their rights or receive a fair trial when charged in court.
Jacobsen: Let’s say you’re a Muslim in Kano facing trial for violating Islamic law. How would that legal system treat you compared to an ex-Muslim accused of the same offence?
Would the treatment be equal, or would it be different?
Igwe: If you are a Muslim, the authorities will want to try you under Sharia law.
However, if you are an ex-Muslim, things are much worse. Nobody looks kindly on ex-Muslims in Northern Nigeria. Being an ex-Muslim makes you hated, ostracized, and, in many cases, a target for punishment or even elimination.
If given the opportunity, some extremists believe you should be killed simply for leaving Islam.
For that reason, they do not even want ex-Muslims to be tried under state law—because state law would be more lenient in its sentencing. Instead, they push for Sharia courts to handle these cases, ensuring harsher punishments for the accused.
Even for non-Muslims, the legal system is biased. People have told me in Northern Nigeria that if a Christian or non-Muslim is tried in a state court, they often receive longer sentences than Muslims for the same offence.
In other words, you suffer more punishment simply because you are not Muslim.
This makes the legal landscape in Northern Nigeria a perilous place for religious minorities, especially ex-Muslims, atheists, and secular activists.
Jacobsen: Beyond that, I want to emphasize that Mubarak’s original “crime” was cyber-based.
This adds another layer of complexity because cyber offences do not always fit neatly within traditional legal frameworks. Unlike physical crimes, cyber-based cases transcend national and geopolitical boundaries.
Mubarak’s case was not about “blasphemy”—it also reflected the growing conflict between digital free speech and religious censorship in authoritarian societies.
So, Mubarak’s “crime” was posting one sentence on Facebook (now Meta)—a harsh, critical statement making fun of Mohammed. For that, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Let me reiterate how draconian that is. He was kidnapped from his home in Kaduna by plainclothes officers without a warrant, dragged to Kano, and then charged under a quasi-cyber “blasphemy” law. Eventually, through intense legal efforts, his sentence was reduced to five years—which, in that context, was considered a win.
This case demonstrates the extremity of Nigeria’s legal landscape, especially when religious forces are involved. Anyone who has travelled outside their country can recognize the vast differences in legal frameworks, and Mubarak’s case is one of the most extreme examples of religious persecution through legal mechanisms.
Now, to your point about smear campaigns, in North America, podcasts are popular. YouTube channels functioning as audio-visual podcasts often discuss narcissism, relationships, interpersonal dynamics, and professional conflicts. Many of these channels frame smear campaigns as something resulting from narcissistic injury—when a narcissist feels slighted and retaliates with false accusations and character attacks.
Most of these discussions, however, are not from experts—people with strong opinions speaking confidently on social media. When they discuss smear campaigns, they usually mean personal vendettas fueled by emotional grievances.
But in your case, I think you are using a “smear campaign” in a more specific and political way—as a tool for social and political undermining rather than personal retaliation.
How do you counter systematic misinformation and smear campaigns in your context, especially from select sources with an agenda?
Igwe: Well, there is a limit to what anyone can do today regarding social media misinformation.
People can spend endless hours on Facebook, Twitter, or other platforms spreading falsehoods and distorting reality. And the truth is, we can only do so much to counter that.
We considered two different strategic approaches:
- Could you ignore it? Some people advised that responding would only escalate the problem and make the accuser feel important.
- Engage with it. Others argued that misinformation could discredit years of work, and ignoring it would allow false narratives to spread unchecked.
Meanwhile, we kept receiving emails and messages from supporters warning us: “They are smearing you! They are spreading false information! They are undermining all the work you’ve done over the years!”
Honestly, if you ask me, smear campaigns are deeply frustrating, and they can be hurtful—mainly when they stem from ignorance.
Igwe: Sometimes, people who engage in smear campaigns are dealing with trauma. When I recognize this, I find avoiding them is best.
However, if you are in a public role—serving on a board or leading an organization—you cannot always ignore them. Smear campaigns can damage the reputation of organizations you are associated with or even create distrust among your colleagues.
I was struggling with these challenges. When I saw some of these false accusations, I knew exactly who was behind them and why they were being made. My natural response was to ignore them.
But, of course, it was not that simple. I kept receiving calls, Facebook messages, emails, and even lawyers and family members were being contacted. People were asking, “What is going on? Why are they saying these things about you? You need to respond!” The pressure to react was constant.
I responded at times, and at other times, I thought it best to ignore it. Managing these situations was extremely difficult. But I will say that we did our best—myself, Humanists International, and everyone else involved.
Our primary strategy was to let the controversy fizzle out, precisely what happened.
Of course, even now, when I attend local meetings, people still ask, “What happened? I remember hearing all sorts of things about you.” And then I find myself having to retell the entire story repeatedly—even though it adds no real value to my life.
This is the reality of being a public figure. When you are visible and outspoken, there will always be moments when people spread negative or false claims about you. That is inevitable.
Sometimes, these attacks come from surprising places—from people who were once your Facebook friends or even members of the humanist community. I have learned to expect them.
Still, we are human, and we sometimes need to respond. Occasionally, I issued statements, asking people to ignore the false accusations. I also wrote articles to clarify the situation, including one on humanism and asylum-seeking, which examined how some individuals exploit legitimate human rights issues for personal gain.
Ultimately, the best approach is to provide clarification when necessary—but otherwise, ignore it.
Jacobsen: That is a healthy response. I completely agree.
Every humanist I know has gone through this in their small town or internationally. It is simply part of being a minority in a global movement.
Igwe: Yes.
As I said earlier, the crisis, challenges, and smear campaigns helped me better understand how fragile the humanist community can be.
It also showed me how easily people can get drawn into misinformation.
We had to hold emergency meetings—one after another— to address these issues. And I thought to myself, “Wow, so two or three individuals spreading misinformation on social media can throw an entire organization into panic mode?”
This is why humanists must work through institutions rather than acting on impulse. Institutions have professionals who are trained to verify facts before taking action.
Take, for example, a humanist in the UK who reads something online. Instead of contacting the relevant institutions to verify the information, they immediately write a petition and send it to an organization.
Meanwhile, they never reached out to those institutions first. They never said, “Hey, I read this—what is going on?”
Had they done so, the institution would have investigated and provided an informed position. Instead, they went online, researched in isolation, spoke only to people from one side of the issue, and then joined a campaign to discredit someone.
And what happened?
The petition reached the institutional level, was adequately investigated, and was dismissed as baseless. This kind of behaviour damages credibility and undermines the integrity of movements.
My advice is specifically for humanists in the U.S., the UK, and the West. Some of them still hold narrow-minded views of Africans. When they hear the word “Nigerian,” some immediately associate it with 419 scams and fraud—as if that defines an entire country.
People need to understand that fraud exists everywhere.
Fraudsters exist in Canada, the U.S., Europe, Asia, and beyond. Americans know this about their own country. The reality is that the world is the way it is today because of fraud—whether covertly or overtly executed by people of all races, backgrounds, and nationalities.
Yet, when it comes to Africa, some people immediately fall back on stereotypes. They assume that an African person is automatically uneducated, unintelligent, or “low-brow.” And worse, some of these same people try to “guide” Africans, even when they are entirely ignorant and prejudiced.
I have seen this firsthand. Many of our colleagues in the West—humanists included—treat Africans with condescension. They may not say it outright, but their attitudes make it evident that they see Africans as primitive, backward, or in need of paternalistic oversight.
I have witnessed this repeatedly after more than twenty years of working within the humanist movement.
Let them understand that things are changing.
As I sit here, I see that my mother is an American citizen. My siblings live in different parts of the world. We know what is going on globally. We are not the Africans of the anthropology era of 200, 400, or 500 years ago.
Yet, many still see us as “noble savages.” They may not say it outright, but when they talk about Africans, they do so with deep contempt and disrespect. And let me be clear—this approach will not work for us in the 21st century.
We use the same Internet and have the same access to information. Yet, their prejudices show in how they handle African cases and in how they interact with African activists and intellectuals.
Let me tell you something else—if only white people had handled Mubarak’s case, none of these controversies would likely not have arisen. Despite his initial objections, even Mubarak would have likely accepted the process without issue.
The truth is that many people harbour racist attitudes, but they refuse to call it racism. At the same time, many Africans and Nigerians have internalized their sense of inferiority. They panic whenever someone from the U.S. or Europe makes a statement—even when that person is wrong. And let me be clear—many times, they are wrong.
Humanists worldwide must understand that we should abandon outdated mindsets when relating to one another and treat each other respectfully. I pointed out that if the lawyers handling this case were British or Americans, even if one was incompetent or unaware of the legal trends, no one would launch a smear campaign against them. Even if people from the U.S. or the UK were involved in such a campaign, they wouldn’t, simply because he is British—he’s a white man.
However, there is an inherent tendency to look down on people when they are not white and are handling significant responsibilities. Their competence and intelligence are immediately questioned. And look, people are questioning my ability to manage a situation I understand better than they do. Scott, there’s a limit. This situation is unfolding, and who will suffer the most? I am the one at the center of it. And I’m telling people, “This is how I want to handle it.” Yet, someone in the UK or the U.S. claims that I don’t know what I’m doing, that I hired an incompetent lawyer—what an insult! What an insult!
That’s why I said humanists should work through institutions. If there are concerns, contact Humanists International: “Could you look into this? These are the reports I’m receiving.” From there, the situation can be assessed more accurately. But instead, people turn to social media, gathering fragmented information from unreliable sources. Many are traumatized, disappointed, desperate, or pursuing their agendas. They resort to smear campaigns and slander when they don’t get what they want.
Spreading misinformation and amplifying falsehoods is irresponsible. I was disappointed by this, and we must be mindful of it. Moving forward, we will grow and not remain a marginal organization.
If we are ready to grow, we should be prepared to manage this. We should have mechanisms in place and recognize that many people will come to the UK claiming to be humanists—not because they genuinely are, but because they seek residency. They declare, “I’m a humanist,” and we grant them asylum. Then they use that status, and there’s no practical way to verify their claim. We need a mechanism to address this because one of the prevailing arguments is, “Don’t challenge these asylum seekers because of immigration politics.”
By taking that stance, we inadvertently enable fraud. We allow people to fabricate claims of persecution and exploit resources. And if a white British person vouches for someone, even when evidence suggests otherwise, that claim is rarely questioned. The position taken by a British person in a case like this is often considered unquestionable, even when they know little or nothing about the legal situation on the ground.
We create these crises, but moving forward, we must emphasize the importance of mutual respect and partnership. Instead of making assumptions, call me and ask, “What does this person need? What is the actual situation?” We should also implement verification mechanisms and rely on their results rather than being swayed by sentimentality or the idea that Western perspectives must always prevail simply because they originate from the West.
That approach will alienate many genuine and committed people, and if we allow it to happen, we will remain a marginal, fringe organization.
Jacobsen: How did you engage with local communities—without patronizing them—to gain their support, whether religious or non-religious, in advocating for Mubarak Bala? You worked to reduce his sentence from 25 years to five, ultimately securing his release while keeping things low-key to ensure his safety.
Igwe: One of the things I always emphasize is that today, it’s Mubarak. Tomorrow, it could be you. It could be your relatives. Yes, you could become a victim. That is the reality I try to communicate, and it resonates with people.
“blasphemy” accusations are like a sword hanging over people—it can fall on anyone at any time. We must convey this message to prevent it from happening again. The same applies to witchcraft accusations. As I speak to you now, I could easily fall victim to witchcraft hysteria and be killed. This is not hypothetical.
In my community, a person was brutally murdered by ritualists. Their body was mutilated, and parts were taken for ritual sacrifice. I always remind people that this is not some distant, abstract threat. It can happen to anyone, anytime.
In such situations, what can we do? We must rally together. As the saying goes, “For whom the bell tolls”—tomorrow, it could toll for you. I try to help people understand that we are shaping the future for ourselves.
To grow, we must commit to a non-violent, civil approach in responding to statements, social media posts, and positions taken by others. Reacting impulsively or with hostility will not serve our cause. Instead, we must remain strategic, principled, and united.
Violence is never an appropriate response to someone’s expression, whether in speech, writing, or social media posts, even if we strongly disagree with them. We use mechanisms to broaden our support base and rally people together. We want them to understand that this is not about an individual but a collective cause.
I never saw Mubarak’s case as just about him personally. I viewed it as a symbol, an opportunity—so to speak—to advocate for a fundamental principle I have championed for years: people must be free to believe or not believe as they choose. Society risks fostering fanaticism and extremism if people cannot freely choose their beliefs.
People in any society must be free to think, believe, and express themselves. That is the only way to prevent a slide into fundamentalism. I have always emphasized that coming together to save this young man’s life is not just about him—it is about securing a better future for us and the generations to come.
Jacobsen: Many movements emerge, and specific individuals become prominent. But for every well-known leader, there are countless others whose names will never be remembered—people who work tirelessly behind the scenes and are forgotten by history.
In North America, we can name figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. In Ghana’s post-colonial context, we remember Kwame Nkrumah. These extraordinary figures emerged from particular cultural and historical circumstances that shaped them and, in turn, were shaped by them.
How do you ensure that frontline activists—those who risk their lives not for fame but for justice—are given proper recognition and respect? These individuals often remain anonymous, even as they do critical work in the legal system, community organizing, or online advocacy. How do you balance the focus on well-known figures with ensuring that the many hidden contributors receive the acknowledgment and support they deserve?
Igwe: Yes, thank you for that. Coordination is key, information is key, and regular updates are essential. For example, At midnight in Nigeria, Americans are still going about their evenings, and Australians are just starting their day. The time zones alone constantly need communication and coordination across regions.
Ensuring that all contributors—lawyers, community activists, and digital advocates—are engaged and recognized requires an ongoing effort to share updates, facilitate collaboration, and reinforce the importance of their roles. It is not just about the well-known figures but the collective effort that makes change possible.
It took a toll. Managing people from different parts of the world, with significant time differences from Nigeria, was exhausting. It also required great energy because I had to update people individually. It’s not like there was a single email list where one message could reach everyone at once.
Instead, each person received updates separately; sometimes, I had to repeat the same information again and again. If I didn’t respond quickly, some people felt ignored or even acted as if I owed them something—almost as if they had “employed”me, in a sense. Managing and coordinating all of this was incredibly tough.
But in such moments, you must ask yourself: What is the goal? We were all in this together to get Mubarak out. When I kept that bigger picture in mind, I realized that the sacrifices—providing updates, clarifying misinformation, and navigating difficult conversations—were small compared.
Managing misinformation was also a critical part of this effort. At one point, we discovered that a woman seeking asylum had conspired with some members of Mubarak’s family to spread false information that he had been killed. If you check some of our blogs, you’ll see that there was a time when people were asking whether Mubarak had been murdered. The rumour circulated that his body had been deposited in a mortuary, with alleged eyewitnesses claiming they had seen it.
But what happened? We later confirmed that it was false. The person behind the rumour was one of those seeking asylum, allegedly claiming she was accused of “blasphemy”. This exemplifies how individuals with self-serving motives and ulterior interests can undermine an entire movement.
This was a constant concern. Then, to make matters worse, some diplomats called to console me—only to later realize that the information they relied on was fake. One particular woman, an alarmist, deliberately spread misinformation, creating panic and fueling fear around the situation.
When authorities hold someone, verifying information before spreading it is crucial. People should have informed me before circulating unverified claims. We did everything possible to confirm Mubarak’s safety, yet false rumours made that task even harder.
So, what am I saying? It was tough to manage accurate information and counter the spread of falsehoods. This kind of misinformation doesn’t just threaten the campaign’s credibility—it also threatens your credibility as an individual. A lot was at stake and had to be carefully managed.
Jacobsen: What advice would you give international actors to avoid the pitfalls of “buyer beware” in advocacy? Everyone jokes about the Nigerian prince who claims to be your long-lost relative with a fortune waiting in a bank in Ibadan. And “brother” is a common word in those messages—it sounds formal, yet informal.
You get emails like:
“Dear brother, I request your help dispensing my $5 million inheritance from our late uncle, King So-and-So, who has passed away. Please help.”
For some reason, every time, these emails end up in my spam folder—at least in my old email account. It’s so strange, Leo. I should reconnect with my Nigerian royal roots. Who would have thought I had a Nigerian family? I always thought I was Dutch and Norwegian heritage!
In Canada, you get many spam calls from phone companies and scammers trying to sell you things. And, of course, they always say, “Let me know if you need any refinements or follow-ups during the process.” That’s my phone, for some reason.
But on a more serious note—when people are sifting through legitimate and illegitimate cases of those in need, how do they separate real cases from fraudulent ones? Take your case with Mubarak Bala or involve people like Gulalai Ismail, Narendra Nayak, or Gaspar Bekes. Suppose you go to Humanists International’s website. In that case, they have a list of around 40 names—people who are in serious trouble for no legitimate reason, just because of the state, their community, or other forces targeting them.
So, what are your recommendations for distinguishing genuine requests for help from fraudulent ones?
Igwe: We must invest in building strong, credible networks globally—otherwise, we will not be effective. Take it or leave it. If we don’t, we will continue facing the same challenges we’ve encountered before.
During Mubarak’s case, things were incredibly fluid and fragile. We were all vulnerable. At one point, I even questioned why I was doing this work. If someone can go on the Internet, gather information about me and my work, and then write a petition based on that, what am I even here for?
Why am I part of Humanists International if some humanists/atheists won’t trust me enough to ask me directly what is happening? Instead, they act first, and only later do they start calling and seeking clarification.
We need a robust, well-organized network. We must invest in it, or else we will be misled, misinformed, and prone to serious mistakes.
At one point, honestly, I broke down. Crooks and opportunists can manipulate us, making us believe we are dealing with something urgent and legitimate when, in reality, it is deception. We must establish proper mechanisms to verify cases before taking action.
Distractions can deter us from what matters. We must invest in strong, reliable networks to avoid that distraction. Otherwise, it will cost us dearly, and we won’t be able to build a viable global organization.
Forget it—we need competent people in different parts of the world. We must develop ways to engage with them, gather credible information, and be guided by reliable sources.
That does not mean that everything I say should be accepted blindly. No. But when issues arise, we need verification mechanisms in place. For instance, when we vote on member organizations, I sometimes object to certain groups being recognized as humanist organizations based on their actions. Sometimes, I win that argument; sometimes, I lose. But what do I do? Let’s wait and see how these organizations, which you believe to be humanist, actually conduct themselves.
I am emphasizing this: if we are satisfied with what we assume we know, then why do we even have a global network? Why do we have representatives from different parts of the world? The purpose of these networks is to help us avoid mistakes and prevent us from being misled by random individuals with questionable motives.
You might receive an email from a Nigerian prince or princess. But what should you do? Like any responsible organization, you contact relevant authorities—governments and embassies—and ask them to investigate. That is why embassies exist, and we have representatives in different regions.
Yet, despite having representatives in various places, some still rely on random, unverified sources for information. That does not reflect well on our decision-making process. It is frustrating and, frankly, demoralizing.
Let me add something else—much misinformation about Nigeria and Africa has been established as “common knowledge” in the West. I researched witchcraft accusations, and I found that most of the available literature was written by Western anthropologists who largely misrepresented the phenomenon.
This misrepresentation has made it difficult for the world to grasp the problem’s urgency or approach it with the necessary perspective shift. So, misinformation works both ways.
Many people have only a superficial understanding of Nigeria and Africa. For example, in 1999, at a humanist conference in India, someone asked me, “How is Mandela?” I was stunned.
I just stood there, unsure how to respond. I must have looked foolish before him, but I was shocked that he was asking me—a Nigerian—about Mandela. I never met Mandela, who was a six-hour flight from where I lived. Yet people assume that because I’m from Africa, I must have personal knowledge of him.
You encounter people like that all the time. But when a white person expresses ignorance or prejudice, it is often overlooked or downplayed. However, when it happens to me or someone from my background, it fits into a stereotype and gets highlighted.
What am I trying to say? Misinformation works both ways. However, we can address this by respecting each other and recognizing our competent representatives in different regions. We should listen to them, rely on their insights about their parts of the world, and use that information to guide our decisions—not our prejudices, not what we find on the Internet, and not even everything we read in academic research.
Many researchers come to Africa, stay in hotels, and never genuinely immerse themselves in the realities of the places they claim to study. Yet, they go on to become “authorities” in Africa. What they produce is often not authority—it is falsehood and misrepresentation.
So what am I saying? We need to move beyond outdated attitudes and prejudices. We live in an interconnected world where information is readily available. We must take advantage of that and ensure we engage with the truth rather than relying on stereotypes.
That is how we make real progress. We can relegate the Nigerian prince and princess email scams to the fringe while focusing on meaningful work that truly impacts the world.
Our philosophy is global. We are humanists, not Westernists, British, Canadian, or Americanists.
For goodness’ sake, we are humanists.
Jacobsen: We need a universal, effective mechanism to uphold and deliver a universal philosophical life stance. As people grow and learn more about the philosophy, the principles remain straightforward. The nuances come as they gain experience with different cultures and individuals at other times.
But the core principles hold firm. In all the cases I mentioned earlier, while the circumstances vary, the underlying struggles are the same. The same fundamental problems exist across societies—some countries have largely solved them because they’ve had more time, resources, or better governance. Others are still grappling with a full spectrum of these challenges.
Regardless, the concerns remain universal. As you said, we are humanists. These are shared human struggles.
That’s why conversations like this are essential. They present these issues in an accessible, conversational format that is easy to engage in.
Even though this interview focuses on Mubarak Bala, we’ve referenced numerous international cases, showing how interconnected these struggles are.
I’ve asked many questions. Do you want to add anything else?
Igwe: Yes, in conclusion, I want to thank everyone who has helped us in this case.
As I’ve said before, this situation was unprecedented. We were not prepared for it. It happened suddenly, and many people rallied to support us.
I want to thank humanists worldwide, especially those from Australia and New Zealand. I want to thank Iain and Gaylene Middleton, who were incredibly supportive and emailed daily to check on our progress and well-being.
I also want to thank humanists from the U.S. and the UK who saw through all the nonsense and smear campaigns and stood firmly behind us as we grappled with one of the most challenging and mentally exhausting campaigns I have ever undertaken.
Of course, I want to express my gratitude to our humanist members in Nigeria. Many of them saw through the misinformation, stood by me, encouraged me, called to check in, and supported our efforts in every possible way.
I also want to thank the legal team. I am proud to call James my friend. He brought together a dedicated legal team that helped us navigate this complex and challenging situation.
I want to thank all those who worked tirelessly in the background. I may not know all their names, but I know that many people played critical roles behind the scenes to ensure that we succeeded—that Mubarak was freed and is now a free man.
I am also profoundly grateful to the Humanists International board members. When this happened, I wasn’t on the board but eventually became a member. Even before that, they supported me and sent words of encouragement during the campaign’s most challenging moments. To them, I remain eternally grateful.
I will continue to find ways to give back—to support our movement and to ensure that we continue to grow both as a community and as a global force for good.
And yes, Scott, I also want to thank you for your time and providing a platform to share this message. We should continue to have spaces like this to amplify our voices, not just as a community but as a global movement.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much, and I hope you have a good rest of the day. I’m heading to bed now.
Igwe: Yes, and you too. Have a good night’s rest.
Jacobsen: I appreciate it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/19
Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., Ph.D., founder of Atossa Therapeutics, discussed the cancer risk of CT scans, responding to a modelling study claiming that up to 5% of U.S. cancer cases may stem from CT radiation. He emphasized the need for scientific nuance, noting the body’s natural DNA repair mechanisms and differentiating high-dose from low-dose risks. He highlighted MRI as a safer alternative, although costlier and slower. Quay criticized the overuse of CT scans—especially in children—and the legal pressures that drive excessive diagnostics. He explored AI’s potential to enhance low-dose imaging and praised hybrid technologies like PET/MRI for advancing precision medicine while calling for better science communication and a return to scientist-as-adviser roles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., Ph.D. He is a physician-scientist and the founder of Seattle-based Atossa Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ATOS), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for breast cancer and other conditions. He holds an M.D. and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, completed a postdoctoral fellowship at MIT with Nobel Laureate Har Gobind Khorana, and served on the Stanford University School of Medicine faculty. He is the author of over 300 scientific publications, holds 94 U.S. patents, and invented seven FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. His current focus is on preventing the approximately two million annual breast cancer cases worldwide.
Thank you very much for joining today—I appreciate it. So, how credible is the estimate—based on the recent NPR reporting—stating that CT scans could cause cancer in up to five percent of annual cancer cases in the United States?
Dr. Steven Quay: I studied the paper carefully and did some background research. It’s a modelling study that does not track individual cancer cases directly but makes predictions.
The cancer risk from radiation exposure in this context is partly derived from long-term studies of the Japanese population that survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These individuals have been monitored for decades, providing valuable epidemiological data on radiation-induced cancer.
The fundamental issue with radiation-induced cancer is that while high doses are known to be associated with increased cancer risk, it’s less clear how risk behaves at lower doses. The question is: Is there a threshold dose below which radiation does not cause cancer? Or does any amount of radiation carry some risk, no matter how small?
One argument against the “no safe dose” assumption is the existence of over 30 DNA repair enzymes in humans. These enzymes evolved to repair DNA damage caused by various environmental sources, including natural background radiation. If evolution favoured the development of such robust repair mechanisms, it suggests that our bodies can tolerate—and effectively repair—low levels of radiation exposure without leading to cancer.
So, I believe there is a threshold dose below which radiation damage is fully repaired, and thus, the risk of cancer is negligible. But again, this remains an open scientific debate.
Let me pause here—if I’m not careful, I could go on at length. But there’s also the point that we’re all exposed to background radiation from multiple sources—cosmic rays, radon gas, naturally radioactive materials in the Earth, even certain foods—and CT scans need to be considered in that broader context.
It’s a far more nuanced issue than the modelling study or some headlines suggest. I am concerned that alarmist interpretations discourage patients from undergoing a CT scan when it’s medically warranted. That could ultimately do more harm than good.
That’s a high-level overview. We can certainly dive deeper into the specifics.
Jacobsen: How does all of that get translated through the filter of journalism and media—even some of the most respected outlets, like public radio and NPR? How much fidelity is lost in that process?
Quay: I read the NPR interview with the paper’s authors. And, unfortunately, it missed an opportunity. It would have been a great moment to frame it as a scientific debate—because I think that’s important.
As a side note, I believe the public—both in the United States and globally—has a fundamental misconception about science, and in some ways, scientists have misrepresented science. It’s almost a bilateral obfuscation. But people must see how scientists think, talk, and work.
This idea of the “shroud of scientific truth,” so to speak, was overplayed massively during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to significant public misunderstanding and even distrust of science. So, we’re not in a good place right now.
Getting back to genuine science education and communication would be immensely helpful.
Jacobsen: What methodology—or what assumptions—underlie the projections in that study? Specifically, the claim that up to five percent of annual cancer cases in the U.S. are linked to CT scans?
Quay: Right. So, about 93 million CT scans are performed annually in the U.S. The researchers used cancer incidence data from populations exposed to radiation—particularly the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings—where cancer outcomes have been studied over decades.
They applied that data to organ-specific radiation doses seen in CT scans. Then, they scaled those numbers based on usage patterns to project how many future cancers might arise. Essentially, it’s a numerical extrapolation.
We know pretty precisely how much radiation a CT scan delivers, and we have historical data on radiation exposure levels from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were far enough from the blast to survive the initial explosion but still received significant radiation. By comparing those levels, the researchers created a risk model.
But here’s the challenge: CT doses are extremely low, so the absolute risk is also very low. This brings us back to a key question in radiobiology—does the risk line go through zero, or is there a threshold dose below which damage can be fully repaired?
We know that X-rays cause DNA damage. The question is whether that damage is repairable—and if so, whether the body’s mechanisms are sufficient to prevent cancer development at low doses. This paper is a projection based purely on modelling and assumptions. In my view, it doesn’t meet the clinical trial criteria or even a robust epidemiological study.
Jacobsen: How do you weigh the diagnostic value of CT scans against the long-term carcinogenic risks?
Quay: That’s a great question—and one I’ve been involved with for over 15 years out of a scientific career spanning four or five decades.
And full disclosure here—so there’s no perceived bias—I invented the contrast agent used in MRI imaging.
MRI is a very different modality from CT. MRI machines and scans are more expensive, so they’re used less frequently across large populations. However, MRI uses radiofrequency energy, not ionizing radiation like CT does.
As far as we can tell—and we’ve studied it for 30 to 40 years—MRI produces no long-term biological effects. So, while CT is a powerful and valuable diagnostic tool, especially in emergency or trauma settings, there are situations where alternatives like MRI can and should be considered, particularly when long-term radiation exposure is a concern.
So, MRI is an alternative to CT scanning. However, before MRI was introduced in the early 1980s, CT was already being developed and implemented. It’s particularly effective for imaging bones.
With CT, X-rays are passed through the body and absorbed at different levels depending on the composition of the tissue they pass through. Think of it like a photographic film—though CT doesn’t use literal film, the concept is similar. Denser materials stop more X-rays from reaching the detector.
Materials with a higher atomic number—those farther down and to the right on the periodic table—absorb more radiation. Most soft tissues in the body are composed of elements like carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, which do not absorb X-rays strongly. On the other hand, bones contain calcium and phosphate, which do. So, CT is excellent for evaluating bone and detecting bony lesions.
It’s not as suitable for soft tissue imaging. For example, the liver appears relatively homogenous on CT, whereas MRI can reveal detailed structures such as blood vessels and internal segmentation.
That said, CT remains the workhorse of radiology because it’s significantly less expensive—perhaps a fifth or a quarter of the cost of an MRI scan. As a result, many studies are conducted using CT.
I want to make a distinction here. The paper aggregates all age groups and all CT scans and projects approximately 100,000 cancers annually based on that combined dataset. That’s quite different from taking a more nuanced view—acknowledging that there are specific populations where CT scanning measurably increases cancer risk.
This is particularly true for pediatric populations. Children with cancer or other chronic conditions may require multiple CT scans over time. The concern is not just the repeated exposure within a short time frame but also the fact that they have a longer lifespan ahead of them in which a radiation-induced mutation might manifest as cancer.
Studies show there is about a threefold increase in brain tumours and leukemias among children who undergo multiple CT scans. That finding is very credible and well-supported.
However, the paper we’re discussing looks broadly at all diagnostic scans—many of which may be one-time exposures in adults—and draws population-wide conclusions.
Jacobsen: Are particular populations at greater risk from diagnostic radiation exposure? You already alluded to one group in your last response.
Quay: Yes, exactly—I may have gotten ahead of your question there. Children are more susceptible to the effects of CT radiation. But there’s another population I want to highlight: young girls, especially when it comes to chest X-rays.
The breast is unique in that it is not fully developed at birth. Breast tissue forms during puberty and originates from a minimal number of precursor cells—likely just a few thousand in the nipple region of a preadolescent girl. If radiation hits just one of those early cells, there’s a higher likelihood it could lead to breast cancer later on.
And I can share a personal story here. My daughter grew up in Seattle. At one point, she had a mild asthma episode, and we took her to Seattle Children’s Hospital for observation overnight.
Now, I’m an M.D., Ph.D., and my wife is a Ph.D. cancer biologist—she’s discovered major cell lines used in cancer research. Between the two of us, we’re highly trained and observant parents. We paid very close attention to decisions involving radiation exposure, especially for our daughter, precisely because of risks like the one I just described.
But the hospital was determined to do a chest X-ray because they thought our daughter might have swallowed a spoon—or something like that. But she had asthma, and it was affecting both sides of the lungs.
Now, if a child swallows a spoon or any foreign object, it would lodge in one bronchus or the other—not both. So, in that case, you’d expect asymmetrical symptoms: one lung would show signs of obstruction, and the other would be normal. This was a fundamental differential diagnosis. There were simple, non-radiative ways to confirm that it wasn’t a swallowed object.
We ended up taking her out of the hospital because we were afraid they might X-ray her in the middle of the night against our will.
There’s a phenomenon in medicine where we reflexively rely on imaging—especially X-rays—without always considering whether it’s necessary. I’ve taught many medical students, and one of the most critical questions they struggle to answer is this:
Let’s say we run this test. If the result is A, what will you do differently with the patient? If the result is B, what will you do differently? If the answer is: “Nothing will change,” then you should not do the test. The only valid reason to conduct a test is if it helps triage the patient into a different care pathway.
Jacobsen: Has medicine become overly reliant on CT imaging in diagnostic protocols?
Quay: Yes, I believe it has. And that speaks to how we’re training our medical students and clinicians.
As a medical student, I know the diagnostic process differed before CT and MRI. There was a guiding principle: imagine you’re in your office, with a long hallway leading to your door. The patient is walking down that hallway toward you. Your goal is to make the diagnosis before they reach the chair in front of your desk.
The point of that exercise is not to be showy or clever—it’s to emphasize that clinical observation, listening to the patient, and reasoned deduction are powerful diagnostic tools. In many cases, those skills are enough to arrive at a likely diagnosis or at least to rule out the most dangerous possibilities.
Unfortunately, in modern practice, we’ve become too quick to default to a battery of blood tests or a CT scan before fully engaging in patient dialogue and physical examination.
We could eliminate up to a third of CT scans currently performed I believe. And if you accept the modelling studies that suggest CT scans cause cancer, then eliminating a third of those scans would also prevent a substantial number of future cancer cases.
That would be a significant public health improvement that doesn’t require new technology, just better clinical decision-making.
The flip side of the conversation around unnecessary scans is the legal pressure physicians face. Some will argue, “If I misdiagnose something—even if I did everything right and simply chose not to order a CT scan—I could still get sued for malpractice.”
The legal environment may be contributing to overuse. Lawyers in the malpractice industry are likely responsible for increasing the number of diagnostic tests ordered. Because once you’ve done everything—X-rays, CT scans, labs—you can say, “I followed protocol. I did everything I could.” That’s more defensible in court than saying you didn’t run a particular test that, in retrospect, might have revealed a diagnosis.
Jacobsen: But those arguments, while dramatic in a courtroom—especially in American courtroom drama—often don’t reflect how diagnostics work in real clinical settings. Outside the legal concerns, what about reducing the cost of alternative scans that carry less long-term risk?
Quay: There aren’t many options. We’re working with three main technologies:
- X-ray/CT, which uses ionizing radiation;
- MRI, which uses radiofrequency and magnetic fields, and
- Ultrasound, which uses sound waves.
Each has its pros and cons. Ultrasound, for example, has limitations—it can’t penetrate bone, so you can’t use it effectively inside the chest or skull. It can scan between the ribs but not behind them. Dense materials block sound.
However, ultrasound can be beneficial for areas like the breast. There’s a condition called dense breast tissue, where the background tissue on a mammogram makes it challenging to detect cancer. In such cases, ultrasound can make the tumours more visible—they can practically “scream out” on the scan.
The issue with ultrasound is that it’s operator-dependent. The accuracy of the scan often depends on the person holding the probe. I’ve been involved in clinical trials where thousands of ultrasound studies were conducted, and when you segregated the data by technician, it became clear: one nurse was exceptional, and the rest were average or below average. That’s a fixed limitation with ultrasound.
Again, we’re mainly working with X-ray/CT, ultrasound, and MRI, which are your core modalities.
Jacobsen: What about AI integration? Is it relevant here?
Say the cost of all scans goes down—CT scans remain a third or a fifth of the cost of an MRI, but the absolute price falls to where CT used to be. Would that shift medical practice?
Quay: I think so, yes. Most people—patients and physicians—would prefer an MRI if it were cost-competitive.
But there’s a nuance to that. Time.
A CT scan can be completed in seconds. An MRI, on the other hand, can take 10 to 20 minutes, sometimes longer. That difference matters in emergency settings or even in busy hospital workflows.
When MRI machines were being priced out, we used to say that the cost—factoring in purchase, installation, staffing, and maintenance—was $20 to $40 per minute of scan time. That’s a serious economic factor.
So, even if scan prices come down, those time and infrastructure costs still weigh into clinical decision-making. But yes, if MRI becomes affordable and scalable, we’d see a shift in practice patterns toward its use.
There’s also the cost factor to consider. When you purchase an MRI machine—what we call “the magnet”—you usually take out a bank loan. You’re paying off that loan, and there’s pressure to maximize throughput.
That introduces a real-world constraint: How many patients can you scan daily? How efficiently can you get them in and out of the machine? These questions directly impact the economics of running an imaging center.
The underlying technology is nuclear magnetic resonance. When MRI machines were first introduced, they were called NMR machines. But that name scared people—”nuclear” anything tends to do that—and there was even a joke at the time: NMR stood for “No More Radiologists” because the machines produced such vivid images that some thought you no longer needed a radiologist to interpret them.
Jacobsen: We discussed the lack of many players or modalities in the imaging space. But in terms of reducing cumulative radiation exposure, what alternatives can be employed? For example, if someone needs multiple scans, could we alternate between CT and MRI, depending on availability, to reduce that cumulative risk—mainly if future, large-scale clinical trials support these cancer projections?
Quay: That’s a thoughtful idea, Scott. Let’s step back for a second and talk about why we imagine in the first place. Medical imaging generally serves two primary functions:
- Diagnosis – This is typically a one-time event. You use imaging—like mammography, for instance—to detect something, and once the diagnosis is confirmed, you move on to treatment.
- Therapy monitoring involves repeated imaging, usually to assess the effectiveness of a cancer treatment. Physicians track tumour shrinkage or growth over time using follow-up scans for inoperable tumours treated with radiation or chemotherapy.
That’s where the cumulative exposure comes in—and, notably, where the threefold increase in brain tumours and leukemias in children has been documented. These children often undergo multiple scans to monitor ongoing conditions.
Alternating between CT and MRI is creative—you’re the first person to suggest that to me. But in practical terms, it might be challenging to implement. The workflows, protocols, and data outputs are quite different. Clinicians must harmonize the imaging protocols and interpretation standards between the two modalities.
Jacobsen: How about combining CT and MRI datasets—and then using AI to integrate them for a more comprehensive image?
Quay: That is already happening, and it’s a fascinating frontier.
There’s a lot of AI innovation in imaging, especially in high-volume screening areas. Take Pap smears, for example. You collect cells from the cervix, place them under a microscope, and look for cancerous or pre-cancerous changes.
AI is now used to pre-scan those slides. It highlights areas of interest and flags them for the pathologist. A single slide may have 40,000 or 50,000 cells, but AI might identify a cluster of 15 cells that require close examination. This helps the doctor focus attention where it matters most.
The FDA has approved software that precisely guides the examiner from spot to spot with high precision.
Jacobsen: Is similar AI integration happening in mammography?
Quay: Yes. AI is also playing a growing role in mammogram interpretation. It assists radiologists by flagging suspicious regions, improving both speed and accuracy. It’s also beneficial in reducing false negatives and catching subtle findings that might be overlooked.
We’ve worked with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden on a really interesting mammography problem. One challenge with standard mammogram screening is called interval cancer. Most women receive mammograms every two years and they are both normal.
But there’s a small percentage of high-risk women who develop cancer between those scheduled screenings. That’s called an interval cancer—a cancer that arises in the interval between two mammograms. It’s incredibly frustrating, both for the women and the clinicians, because you’re doing everything by the book—getting regular scans—and yet cancer still appears in the interim.
So, we took a generative AI program and trained it on a massive dataset. We gave the AI 70,000 mammograms from women who did not develop interval cancers within two years and 7,000 mammograms from women who did. Then we asked the AI:
“Figure out what differentiates these two groups the greatest. Identify whatever diagnostic indicators you can find.”
The system ran continuously, 24/7, for a long time. When it was done, the results were impressive. While we don’t fully understand all the features the AI uses—it’s not always explainable—it was able to separate the two groups with about 90% accuracy. In other words, the algorithm can predict which women will likely develop interval cancer within the next two years.
We’re now using those findings to prepare to launch a prevention strategy using a drug I invented called Endoxifen. It blocks estrogen activity in the breast, quieting cellular behaviour in estrogen-sensitive tissues.
Estrogen is a wonderful hormone—it’s essential to what makes women—but it’s also a potent growth factor in tissues like the breast, uterus, and ovaries, which is why it’s linked to cancer development in those areas.
So that’s a case where AI has had a tangible, clinical impact. To put it into perspective, there are 39 million mammograms performed annually in the U.S., and about 10 million women have dense breast tissue. Within that group, we estimate there are 2 million women at elevated risk who could benefit from proactive treatment to prevent breast cancer.
Preventing even a fraction of the 250,000 breast cancer cases per year would be a significant public health achievement—and AI is helping us get there.
Jacobsen: When do you expect diminishing returns from a generative AI program like this? You’ve used a dataset of 70,000 non-cancer and 7,000 cancer cases. Would increasing the sample size to 350,000, for example, give you 95% or 99% predictive accuracy?
Quay: That’s an excellent question. The answer lies in the shape of the learning curve—and it’s an asymptote.
You do see diminishing returns as you increase the sample size. The early gains in accuracy are significant, but after a certain point, the improvements become more incremental despite larger and larger datasets.
Now, I have to switch hats—from scientist and physician to businessman—since I run a public company (Atossa Therapeutics, ticker symbol ATOS) focused on preventing breast cancer.
So here’s the business logic: If I can identify the top 10% of women most likely to develop breast cancer—even with just 90% predictive accuracy—and treat them with a pharmaceutical that has side effects no greater than a sugar pill, that’s a powerful intervention.
You’re getting substantial benefits with minimal downside. That makes much sense from a cost-effectiveness and public health perspective, even if you’re not hitting 99% predictive accuracy.
I’m probably comfortable with that risk-benefit ratio. Because I’m not going to harm someone who wouldn’t otherwise develop cancer—that is, the 10% of women who are flagged by the AI but wouldn’t go on to develop breast cancer.
If I can identify and treat the 90% of women who will develop cancer, even knowing that I won’t prevent all of them—because not all breast cancers are estrogen-driven—I still consider that a significant win.
When you dig into the biology, about 60% of breast cancers are estrogen-sensitive. So, if there are roughly 250,000 new breast cancer cases annually, and I can reduce that to 100,000 or 120,000 by using Endoxifen to prevent estrogen-driven instances, that means preventing well over 120,000 breast cancers a year.
That would be a big deal.
Jacobsen: I have two more questions. Are there any follow-ups to what you’ve said? For breast health, how do radiation concerns from imaging intersect with efforts in early detection?
Quay: That’s a critical point. I’ve already mentioned one high-risk population—preadolescent girls. To perform a chest X-ray on a girl in that age group, you need to have a powerful clinical justification. And parents need to ask the right questions:
- What are you expecting to see on this X-ray?
- If you see it, how will that change the treatment plan?
60% of chest X-rays in children wouldn’t hold up to that kind of scrutiny. And we should be asking those questions. There’s a reflex in medicine—without casting blame—especially in top-tier pediatric institutions, to follow set protocols.
For example, if a child presents with asthma, do A, B, C, and D, and include a chest X-ray. It’s part of a checklist, but it shouldn’t be. We need to move away from that kind of reflexive imaging.
So yes, adolescents and children are one group we should be particularly cautious about.
Mammograms are quite safe when done properly. We’ve reduced the X-ray dose in modern mammography by eight to tenfold compared to previous generations. So, women today receive only about 10% of the radiation dose used decades ago.
One of my criticisms of the study we’ve been discussing is that it relies on historical data from older, higher-dose X-rays. The field has advanced significantly since then.
Now that you’ve raised the topic, I have an idea I hadn’t fully considered before: AI might allow us to reduce radiation dose even further by enhancing the degraded image and reconstructing detail from lower-energy scans.
That’s a very promising avenue. I suspect the next generation of X-ray technology will follow suit, relying on AI-assisted reconstruction to allow for even lower radiation doses without sacrificing diagnostic quality.
And finally, we need to be highly cautious with radiation exposure in areas like the breast and the ovaries.
- The breast, especially during development, is susceptible to radiation.
- The ovaries are even more sensitive. A woman is born with all the 40,000 to 50,000 oocytes she will have in her lifetime, and any damage to those affects not just her health but potentially the next generation.
We use lead aprons during imaging to protect the reproductive organs when exposure is unavoidable.
When imaging the abdomen, it’s primarily soft tissue—few bones obstruct the view. In many cases, ultrasound is an excellent, non-radiative option for abdominal imaging.
You can use ultrasound to assess several abdominal issues. You can see if the appendix is enlarged, evaluate liver blood flow, check for splenic enlargement, or even detect a bowel obstruction. You can also get a sense of where the obstruction is. So yes, ultrasound has many diagnostic strengths—especially in soft tissue evaluation.
Now, when it comes to bone lesions, CT is still superior. By definition, CT imaging is better for bone than MRI because bones appear dark—almost black—on an MRI scan. That’s because bones don’t emit a strong signal in MRI; they’re primarily signal voids.
Jacobsen: That leads to something I mentioned in the previous question—what innovations might reduce reliance on radiation-based tools? Specifically, what if we reduce or degrade the radiation in an X-ray or CT scan and then use AI to reconstruct or enhance the image?
It reminded me of something Dr. Chen Wang presented recently—he discussed how AI can take a few pixels and predictively fill in a complete image using advanced algorithms. That kind of generative pixelation already works for entertainment and digital art. So why not apply it in clinical imaging?
Quay: That’s entirely possible, and I find it very exciting.
When you think about CTs or MRIs, you’re essentially dealing with 2D representations of 3D structures. These images are captured in cross-section, typically with about 1-millimetre in-plane resolution and about 1-centimetre thickness per slice.
So imagine these scans as a series of vertical columns—almost like looking through the body like a magician has sliced it into layers. Each image gives a thin, cross-sectional view of anatomy.
To clarify something you raised, we don’t want to take one high-resolution quarter of the image and ask AI to extrapolate the rest—that doesn’t work due to the anisotropic nature of human anatomy. In other words, knowing what’s on the right side of the body won’t let you accurately guess what’s on the left side. The human body isn’t perfectly symmetrical or predictable that way.
Instead, we’d want a low-resolution image of the whole organ or region and then use AI to enhance the resolution uniformly. That is feasible and very exciting. You’re getting diagnostic value from less data, which means less radiation in the case of X-rays or CT.
Mathematically, this is similar to the principles behind Pointillism in art. It’s like the work of Georges Seurat, the French artist who pioneered Pointillism. He painted entire scenes using tiny dots, and when you stand up close, all you see are those individual dots. But when you step back, your eye blends them into a coherent image.
Jacobsen: So you could imagine a future in which we capture only a partial-resolution image with low radiation and then use AI to “fill in the dots,” so to speak.
Like Seurat’s paintings, where the whole picture only emerges from the collection of points, a high-fidelity medical image might be reconstructed from limited data, enhancing safety and diagnostic power.
That approach—applying generative models from art and imaging science to clinical radiology—could be one of the most essential frontiers in medical imaging. And it’s not science fiction. It’s within reach.
Quay: I agree. My point is that we understand the mathematics behind how an image—when viewed at a distance—comes together to display anatomical detail. But when you zoom in to the pixel level, you can analyze how density transitions from one pixel to its neighbouring pixel occur. You see gradients and slopes in intensity values, and those transitions can be mathematically modelled.
AI can replicate those patterns with high fidelity by analyzing these local changes in density across neighbouring pixels. Thus, generative AI can enhance resolution in medical imaging very well.
It’s also true that the grayscale spectrum—the difference between black and white tones in a CT image—is directly tied to the X-ray dose. You have a curve: if the image is underexposed, it looks all white; if it’s overexposed, it looks all black. The ideal image sits in the middle of that S-shaped exposure curve—the “sweet spot.”
Most current CT systems aim to operate in that optimal range. But if we could reduce the dose—bringing us slightly down that curve toward lower radiation—we could then use AI to reconstruct or restore the detail that would otherwise be lost. That process would be quantifiable and demonstrable. You could calculate how much dose you can safely reduce and how much AI would need to compensate.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Do you also need to calibrate the radiation based on someone’s body size—a taller person with a higher BMI and more bone, muscle, or fat tissue?
Quay: Absolutely. That’s a critical part of how diagnostic radiology works.
Before a full scan, a very low-dose calibration or scout scan measures the patient’s body habitus—tissue density and size. Based on that measurement, the system automatically adjusts the radiation dose to give the image enough penetration and contrast for diagnostic clarity while still using the lowest necessary dose.
Jacobsen: Let’s say you had fewer dots—or, in our case, fewer pixels. AI could fill in the missing information using statistically reasoned interpolation, much like Seurat’s work, where the viewer’s eye blends the dots into a coherent image.
This is very similar to image enhancement techniques used in social media applications today—except we’d be applying them to clinical diagnostics, not entertainment.
Quay: If you have large pixels and abrupt differences between them, the AI makes the pixels smaller and smooths the gradient between values. That’s mathematically straightforward. We can improve diagnostic quality from a clinical imaging standpoint while potentially reducing radiation exposure. That’s a win for patient safety and diagnostic precision.
With CT imaging, we’re not dealing with colour—just a grayscale. You’re looking at 256 shades of gray, more or less.
Jacobsen: Switching gears: in the broader field of radiology and cancer diagnostics, what are some changes you’ve seen over your career that, perhaps obvious to seasoned experts, have only recently been implemented or adopted systematically?
Quay: That’s a great question—and I think we’ve touched on some of them already.
The continual improvement in both CT and MRI has been remarkable. When I first invented gadolinium-based contrast agents for MRI, it used to take about 20 minutes to capture a single image of the heart. Now, we can generate real-time videos of the heart—20 frames per second—allowing clinicians to watch the heart pump in action.
Both spatial and temporal resolution have improved dramatically, and radiology has seen one of the most significant advances over the past few decades.
But I do want to make a cautious observation here. It’s always risky to declare that we’ve hit a plateau—like claiming civilization is at its peak, and everything after is declining. But in radiology, it does feel like we’ve entered a phase of incremental improvement rather than revolutionary change.
We haven’t been back to the Moon since I was young. So, just like in space exploration, radiology may be in a stable phase now. That’s not bad—it just means we’re refining what works rather than inventing entirely new modalities. The invention of MRI was worth one, maybe two Nobel Prizes because it was such a transformational technology. But I don’t think there’s another imaging modality on the horizon of that magnitude—at least not yet.
That said, there have been innovations in hybrid imaging. Take prostate cancer, for example—not diagnosis, but staging. In this context, a blending of modalities is happening—specifically, the integration of PET—Positron Emission Tomography—with CT or MRI. PET allows you to visualize metabolic activity in tissues using radioactive tracers.
PET uniquely uses physics.
Unlike traditional radiation, which radiates outward in all directions—like an expanding sphere—positron emission involves the release of two particles travelling in opposite directions, typically at 180 degrees to each other. The scanner is programmed to only record the simultaneous events, not single events, and so is a very sensitive method.
Because of that predictable behaviour, you can detect the origin point with remarkable precision. That makes PET incredibly useful for detecting areas of active metabolism, like cancer cells, and mapping them in 3D when combined with CT or MRI data.
One of the recent innovations is fused imaging, which combines anatomical imaging (like CT or MRI) with functional imaging (like PET). That hybrid approach gives you both structure and activity, and it’s already transforming cancer staging, particularly for prostate, lung, and certain lymphomas.
So, if you put a circular detector around a person who’s been given a radioactive tracer that emits positrons and configures the system only to detect coincident particles—that is, two particles hitting opposite sides of the detector simultaneously—you drastically reduce background radiation noise.
Background radiation is a real thing. We haven’t talked about it yet, but it’s essential. For instance:
- Cosmic radiation accounts for about 20% of the dose from a chest CT.
- The Earth is radioactive, contributing about a third of a typical CT dose.
- Even foods can be radioactive—bananas are a classic example due to their high potassium content. You can get a reading on a Geiger counter if you hold it near a banana.
- Radon gas—a naturally occurring radioactive gas—can seep from the ground into homes. In certain regions, homebuyers will do a radon test, and homes may be fitted with gas-impermeable barriers to block radon exposure.
Positron emission tomography (PET) has a very low background signal because it’s rare for cosmic rays or Earth-based radiation to produce two coincident particles 180 degrees apart. That’s why PET imaging is highly sensitive.
But here’s the trade-off: PET has very high sensitivity but poor spatial resolution.
If you’ve ever seen a standalone PET scan of a patient with prostate cancer or metastatic breast cancer, the images are crude. You can barely make out a human shape like a child’s stick figure drawing. You see vague outlines: maybe two legs, some glowing clusters. Not very detailed.
So here’s the innovation in prostate cancer staging:
Researchers took an antibody that binds specifically to prostate cancer cells, attached a PET-emitting radionuclide to that antibody, and then embedded the PET scanner inside an MRI machine.
Now, that’s expensive—General Electric loves it—but it’s powerful. You get the sensitivity of PET, down to just a tiny cluster of cancer cells, and the high-resolution anatomy of MRI. With that, a surgeon can say, “Here’s exactly how I can reach that tumour cluster,” or a radiation oncologist can say, “I know precisely how to target this with external beam therapy.”
These are powerful multimodal imaging tools. And again, this isn’t theoretical. It’s already happening. So, while I wouldn’t say we’re in the sunset of innovation in radiology, the field is grounded in physics—and physics doesn’t change easily. We’re working within the laws of nature.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of something Alexis Rockman—the artist behind the original Earth Day poster—once said. He’s done the activist circuit and is incredibly talented.
He whimsically but seriously said that climate change is a physics experiment. Whether we protest or not doesn’t change the underlying laws of physics. We either act or we don’t. Nature doesn’t care about ideology.
So, in the same way, your point about radiation is similar: physics is physics. I’d love to hear your thoughts on something James Randi used to talk about: the “woo” ideas people have about radiation versus the realities. What are some common misconceptions people have about radiation?
Quay: Yes, great question. And you’re right—just like with climate science, the laws of physics don’t care whether you believe in them. They operate regardless of opinion.
There are quite a few radiation misconceptions.
Many people think all radiation is harmful or that even small exposures are deadly. But that’s not true. We’re exposed to radiation constantly—from space, the Earth, and even inside our bodies. And we’ve evolved with mechanisms to handle low levels of radiation. The problem comes with high, repeated, or unnecessary exposures.
People also tend to conflate all types of radiation—like confusing non-ionizing radiation (such as from your phone or microwave) with ionizing radiation (like X-rays or gamma rays). They’re not remotely the same in terms of biological impact.
The key is to understand context, dose, and duration. Just as a small amount of radiation from a medical imaging scan can provide life-saving information, so too can we manage radiation risks intelligently without falling into paranoia or ignoring real hazards. The general public still significantly misunderstands radiation’s risks, applications, and how it works.
Take nuclear energy, for example. It is the most viable solution if we genuinely want to replace fossil fuels. You cannot fully replace fossil fuels with wind and solar alone. The reason is simple: they’re intermittent. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. You need a reliable backup, and that’s where nuclear could come in.
Nuclear and fossil fuels—apart from the portability of fossil fuels but not nuclear—are functionally identical when it comes to producing constant, base-load power. However, due to early atomic plant designs that lacked sufficient safety measures and the catastrophic events that followed, public fear of nuclear energy skyrocketed and has not subsided.
As a result, building new nuclear plants has become politically and socially complex. Existing plants are being decommissioned, and they are unlikely to be recommissioned. That’s a huge missed opportunity. Today, we can engineer extraordinarily safe nuclear reactors, literally fail-proof. But irrational fear is standing in the way—fear rooted in radiation anxiety, not objective risk assessment.
The same principle applies to medical imaging—especially CT scans. People often overestimate the danger.
Here’s a simple comparison: if you fly over the polar routes—from Asia to North America or Asia to Europe—three times, the cosmic radiation you absorb is equivalent to one head CT scan.
If you trust that the greater than 30 DNA repair enzymes in your body are still functioning properly—no matter your age—then there’s no need to fear low-level radiation from a medically indicated CT scan. We are, quite literally, built to tolerate a reasonable amount of radiation.
Jacobsen: Last question—complete side note, but it comes up often in the news: How dangerous are cell phones?
Quay: That’s a common concern, and I’m glad you asked.
Cell phone networks transmit signals via radio frequency (RF) waves. As data demands increased over time, engineers had to increase the frequency bands to allow more users and data to pass through the same bandwidth—like widening a digital highway.
So, each generation of mobile technology—from 2G to 5G—uses higher frequencies to boost signal-carrying capacity.
The scientific literature shows that the human body has a limited biological response to these radiofrequency waves. There is no credible evidence that they cause cellular damage or increase cancer risk.
Particular frequencies do interact with the human body—the foundation of MRI. In an MRI machine, a powerful magnetic field aligns the hydrogen protons in your body (mainly from water). Then, a precisely tuned radiofrequency pulse is applied, causing the protons to flip their orientation. When the pulse is turned off, the protons return to their baseline at different rates depending on the tissue. That’s what gives you the contrast in an MRI image.
So yes—radiofrequency waves can interact with the body—but only at particular frequencies, controlled conditions, and much higher energy levels than cell phones emit.
Cell phones operate far below that threshold. They do not have the energy to disrupt electron orbitals or affect molecular bonds in human tissue. So, based on everything we know and all the best available data, cell phones are not dangerous in this context.
So, hydrogen has one electron, helium has two, carbon has six, and so on. Life as we know it is built on the interaction of electrons. That’s electron chemistry—not nuclear chemistry.
The nucleus is so powerful and tightly bound that you can’t alter it through everyday chemical processes. The only way to do nuclear chemistry is through nuclear reactions—think Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb. That’s an entirely different domain of physics.
But electron chemistry—yes, it may seem not very interesting, but it’s the foundation of all biological life. So, while radio frequencies from cell phones can theoretically cause resonance in the hydrogen protons in the nucleus of the water in your body, they don’t disrupt the nucleus or disrupt atomic structures. And as far as we know, they have no biological impact on those energy levels.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts—not necessarily about radiology specifically—but about the NPR report or the study behind it?
Quay: Yes. It’s critically important for scientists to engage in public debates on issues of broad significance. And I want to emphasize this: science is never settled.
Now, gravity has never failed us—it’s always waiting. I joke with my kids, “Gravity is always there—it’s just waiting for you to slip.” But even gravity is still described by a theoretical model. And beyond such fundamentals, most areas of science are far more fluid.
The notion that science is fixed—a belief that emerged prominently during the COVID-19 pandemic—is simply incorrect. Science evolves through iteration, refinement, and continuous questioning.
Unfortunately, during the pandemic, scientists often crossed the line between being advisers and becoming policymakers. That’s not our role.
The scientist’s job is to say, “If you implement policy X, here are the likely outcomes—positive and negative.” For example, if you put masks on children still learning to speak, a scientist might advise: “Well, their language development may be impaired because children learn by mimicking facial expressions and mouth movements.” That’s a valid, science-based point.
However, the decision to mask or not should be made by elected policymakers, not scientists acting as de facto authorities. Unfortunately, we saw too much mission creep—science dictating rather than informing policy.
We need to restore that boundary. Scientists should provide insight, not edicts. And those making laws should be the people we vote for.
Right now, governance has become lopsided. Too many decisions are made by individuals we don’t vote for rather than those we elect. Society may need to reevaluate and recalibrate this.
But at its core, science remains humanity’s greatest invention. The scientific method—designing controlled experiments, isolating variables, forming hypotheses, testing them, and iterating—has given us almost everything in modern life, including, for example, the video call we’re on right now and the network that enables it across thousands of miles.
It is, truly, the hallmark of civilization.
And the next stage, our partnership with generative artificial intelligence is upon us.
We are now enter uncharted territory where, as AI approaches or even exceeds human intelligience, the master-slave relationship between humanity and technology may actually be shifting. That’s another debate we’ll need to have as a society.
Jacobsen: Dr. Quay, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise and your willingness to explore many off-track but essential topics, as tends to happen in my interviews.
It was a pleasure to meet you.
Quay: Same here, Scott. Take care.
Jacobsen: Take care. 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): 2025/05/18
Ben Greene, a transgender advocate and educator, shares insights on the evolving landscape for trans rights in the U.S. From his early isolation in Connecticut to national advocacy through TEDx and legislative testimony, Greene emphasizes empathy and storytelling. He critiques fearmongering in politics and media, highlighting Christian nationalism’s influence on anti-trans policies. Greene stresses the importance of hope, state-level victories, and consistent engagement. Through his publication Good Queer News, he amplifies underreported progress. Despite widespread misinformation, he believes universalist ethics and human dignity prevail over reactionary forces driven by fear, control, and declining political influence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ben Greene is a transgender advocate, educator, and public speaker who fosters inclusion through empathy and storytelling. After moving to a small town in Connecticut at age 15, Ben gained national attention through a TEDx talk at Brandeis University—I believe that’s how you pronounce it.
Since then, he has spoken internationally for companies, hospitals, schools, and government institutions about what it means to be transgender and how to be an effective ally. A passionate defender of trans youth, Ben has frequently testified at the Missouri State Capitol and offers free guidance to families and support groups across the United States. His motto is, “The only question I won’t answer is the question you don’t ask.”
So, this is an “Ask Me Anything” session—a sort of TEDx after-talk. Thank you very much for joining us today.
This is an interesting one. Comparing Connecticut when you left in 2020 to its current state and the broader national context, how do the micro and macro reflect one another?
Ben Greene: I haven’t lived in Connecticut for a while. I went to school in Boston in 2017, so it’s been some time. I transitioned as a teenager. When I came out, nobody knew what that meant. It was a very unfamiliar concept to the people around me.
I was the first transgender person most people in my life had ever met. On a micro level, that experience was very isolating—and I think that’s where a lot of the country was then. We were just a couple of years past the publication of The Transgender Tipping Point. Some people have started to learn about it. We had just seen marriage equality passed by the Supreme Court here in the U.S.
So it was okay—but there were no structural supports, and culturally, it was pretty neutral. I had to build all my support systems as I realized I needed them.
Now, Connecticut has changed. There are certainly pockets of radicalization—Moms for Liberty chapters, more vocal religious nationalists—but on the whole, the state has taken a structural stance. It’s asking, “What else can we do to support our residents?”
Last year, they launched a significant initiative to attract LGBTQ travellers, essentially saying, “Hey, Florida isn’t a safe vacation destination anymore. Come here instead.” They created a whole LGBTQ travel section on the state’s website highlighting safety and tourism, and they’ve talked about expanding shield laws.
Like many states, Connecticut has found ways to plant its flag and say, “We want to show up for our trans and queer residents,” even in the face of rising national hostility.
The United States, meanwhile, is at a strange inflection point.
Jacobsen: I mean, on the one hand—not all, naturally; no group is a monolith. However, the demographics that statistically lean strongly toward being against trans-supportive policy or healthcare provisions—populations tend to be declining in the United States. At the same time, policy aggression around these issues increases.
What do you make of that sort of apparent paradox—or maybe not a paradox?
Greene: Yes. So, what I’d say is—that it’s true that more people are becoming increasingly supportive of trans and LGBTQ people, if for no other reason than that more people now personally know someone who is transgender. There’s a saying I love: “It’s hard to hate up close.” And many people are learning that truth.
Jacobsen: I like that line.
Greene: I love that line. I didn’t come up with it, but I enjoy it. I do much work with different PFLAG chapters in rural areas, and many times, it’s a farmer saying, “Well, my kid’s using they/them now. I need to learn what that means. Let me figure out how to show up.”
So, on the whole, I think people are becoming more supportive. But the far right—and particularly a network often called a “shadow network” of Christian nationalist organizations—very much wants to use this issue as a foot in the door to push for broader Christian nationalism. So they stir up much anger.
Much misinformation is designed to spark outrage: “Look at what they’re doing in schools” or “Look at what’s happening in sports.” The goal is to manufacture a fear that distracts people from noticing real, tangible issues like grocery prices going up 25% in the last few years, many people’s inability to afford their rent, or wages stagnating.
The party that’s primarily focused on attacking the trans community has so effectively galvanized its base that many of its supporters do not realize the party is doing very little to help them with the things they are struggling with.
Judith Butler’s book Who’s Afraid of Gender? Explores this. She writes about how trans people have become convenient scapegoats—stand-ins for larger anxieties around economic uncertainty, climate change, family roles, religious shifts, and identity in a rapidly changing world.
At this point, it’s almost a running joke: something terrible happens—say a plane crashes—and someone says, “Okay, how long until they blame a transgender person?” Usually, it takes about a day. Someone will say, “Oh, that crash in D.C.? I think the pilot was transgender.” It’s almost always false, often a baseless rumour, but it quickly becomes a narrative: How can we blame trans people for what’s going wrong right now?
Jacobsen: Right. And it is true, generally speaking, that with large corporate media—left, right, or centrist—the old rule still holds: if it bleeds, it leads.
Now, despite all that media coverage and public focus, what areas people may not be paying attention to—places that you might be more attuned to—where you could say, “Hey, this deserves more attention”? This was a win.
Greene: Yes. I spend much time thinking and talking about fearmongering—in all forms of media, as well as in nonprofits and advocacy organizations that love to send panicked headlines like “This emergency is happening right now! If you don’t donate and sign your name on this list, you’re the only one who can save our campaign.”
Fearmongering is everywhere. That’s why I decided to start my publication called Good Queer News, which focuses on stories of hope that people are likely not hearing. I’ll give you an example.
In the U.S., various advocacy organizations and journalists try to report on the number of anti-trans bills proposed each year. Sometimes, it feels like those organizations compete to claim the highest number.
“We’re tracking 850 anti-trans bills!”
“We’re tracking 1,000!”
They want to be cited by as many mainstream sources as possible. Then, I get many calls from parents and transgender people—because of my role in the mental health space—saying, “I’m so afraid. There are so many bills. This is horrifying.”
But those numbers do not always tell the whole story. For example, in Missouri, we had eight identical anti-trans sports bills, each proposed by different lawmakers who just wanted their names on them. Other bills were entirely performative or had no realistic path to becoming law.
This year, Missouri was reported as one of the worst states for anti-trans legislation, with numbers like “50 bills” or “70 bills” being tossed around. But here at the statehouse, we’re focused on about four that are of genuine concern. The problem is, when people hear “50,” they become so demotivated that they don’t have the energy to show up for the four that matter.
There’s good news constantly. In the past week in the U.S., we had three major court victories. For example, Governor Janet Mills of Maine—her administration sued the Trump administration after they cut USDA funding without due process, essentially as retaliation because she embarrassed him at a dinner. She refused to enforce the sports ban and said, “I’m not doing this.”
We also saw the blocking of the military ban and other discriminatory restrictions. These stories rarely make the headlines the way bad news does. But advocates have fought for so many incredible victories—every week, we see legislative and court wins. And it saddens me that people often do not hear about them.
They feel defeated, and that lack of hope keeps them from engaging and being part of the change.
Jacobsen: The older Noam Chomsky has noted that the surest way to guarantee the worst happens is to do nothing.
Greene: Nothing is guaranteed to succeed, but effort is necessary. Doing nothing certainly does not help. Yeah—it can feel like a full-time job sometimes.
Jacobsen: So, I’ll include something relevant here. I’m thinking more about its underlying logic.
The axing of Roe v. Wade in 2022 via the Dobbs decision brought us into a post-Roe, Dobbs world. That decision effectively left the issue to the states.
Now, things are arguably easier when handled at the federal level—especially in terms of legal access to abortion. Yet, there can be strengths if you’re forced to reframe your strategy toward a state-based policy setup. It’s more difficult, obviously, and in many ways heartbreaking—but it also forces creativity.
Are there issues around state autonomy that could be more challenging and present opportunities to draw strength?
Greene: We’re seeing a lot of that right now. Republicans have spent the last four years—and much longer—arguing that abortion should be a states’ rights issue. “States should have the right to choose.” But as soon as they’re in power, they’re saying, “You don’t get to make laws about gender-affirming care or abortion access.”
Now that they hold power, it is no longer about states’ rights but their ability to control. That’s why many state attorneys general are currently suing the Trump administration over its attacks on gender-affirming care and reproductive health.
The federal government is making broad, largely ego-driven attempts to dictate state policy—policy areas they previously insisted should be decided by individual states. So it’s not a consistent or principled framework they’re following. That’s the thing.
What they’re doing is deploying shadow-puppet arguments—narratives funded again by this network of Christian nationalist groups who are willing to say anything to get the public on board with their agenda.
Many people might not even realize the religious component behind it. For example, they’ll say something like, “We just need to talk about charter schools,” without mentioning that this is their best route for funnelling public funds into religious education. Or they’ll say, “We need to protect girls’ sports,” without acknowledging that the real goal is to ban trans people from public life.
So it’s a “say whatever we need to say” strategy.
It’s about states’ rights—until a state does something they do not like.
It’s about freedom—until it means a choice they disagree with.
It’s about parental rights—until a parent wants something they do not support.
It is logically inconsistent. The more time I spend at the Missouri Capitol, the more I have to accept that we are not fighting on a battlefield of logical consistency.
Jacobsen: Side question. As a foreigner, does “Missouri,” as I’m pronouncing it, accurately reflect the local dialect? Is it Missouri or Missourah?
Greene: Some people say Missourah. It depends on where you go. The more rural the area, the more you’ll hear Missourah. In the cities, most people say Missouri. You can say either and get away with it.
Jacobsen: Are there a lot of conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, and Christian nationalists in Missouri?
Greene: Yes—and I can give you a good example.
I was attending a hearing personally. It was a bill proposing a wide range of attacks on transgender people in public life—banning us from bathrooms and locker rooms, segregating prisons by so-called “biological sex,” and redefining sex as assigned at conception—which is not at all how biological sex works.
A transgender doctor was testifying and said, “Hey, I learned a lot in medical school. Here’s how biological sex works. What you’re saying is completely incorrect.”
One of the senators responded: “I don’t like how you’re speaking to me. I don’t care about what you learned in school.”
And then he said, quote: “I don’t care about doctors. I don’t care about science.”
“I care about one thing—the Word. The Word of God says that God created male and female, and that’s it.”
When the doctor pushed back, saying, “I believe in something called the separation of church and state,” the senator laughed at him, turned red, and began shouting. He said, “I need to make laws based on the morals that guide me. We have nothing as a society if I don’t have those morals. We need to follow the standard that God sets and Jesus Christ.” And he went on a five-minute rant—there is a video of it—about how he needs to govern based on the principles of his God.
Which, notably, we are not supposed to do here. We have some big old rules about that.
So yes, Christian nationalism is very much thriving—especially here in Missouri—but also the federal government and several other state governments.
Jacobsen: Wow. I mean, that certainly raises flags across the atheist community, the secular humanist community, the non-theist Satanist community, the Satanic Temple—in other words, the Unitarian Universalists, the Ethical Culturalists. I think these are all part of a kind of philosophical mosaic of groups that primarily focus on the dangers of Christian nationalism.
Even the Unitarians—who tend to get along with everyone—probably take issue with Christian nationalists.
Greene: Yeah. And they’re right to call out these movements’ lack of logical consistency.
You hear arguments like, “We want to put the Bible in schools. We want to start each day in public school with a state-mandated prayer.” And when someone says, “Okay, would we also be allowed to do a Muslim prayer? Or a Jewish prayer?” the response is immediate and dismissive: “Well, no. We can’t indoctrinate kids with that.”
It’s not about freedom of religion—it’s about the freedom to force you to follow my religion.
And that’s a very different thing.
Jacobsen: The arguments are often framed around different sets of values: transcendentalist, traditional religious ethics—as found in the Christian Bible, interpreted selectively and literally—and those that are more universalist and secular because they do not favour any one religion and often fall under the broader heading of human rights.
In simplified terms, the two guiding principles here are particularist ethics on the one hand and universalist ethics on the other. So—which one do you think is winning out in the United States? Universalist frameworks like human rights, or particularist ones, like the gentleman who gave that five-minute rant?
Greene: I think the particularist frameworks have found the ability to lie freely—because they are not trying to win on logic.
They are very open in their appeals: “If you want to be a feminist, you need to protect women with us.”
“To be a good parent, you must protect children with us.”
They have found some very sneaky ways to convince people this is not a religious call—even though it is. And I have seen plenty of examples where they refuse to protect women or children when those very groups are asking for protection.
Take Missouri, for example. We are number three in the country for domestic violence. But that is not their focus. Their focus is on protecting women from an imaginary threat.
So they are very effective at riling people up.
But I do think, at the end of the day, the universalist ethic—like the idea that every human deserves the freedom to exist safely as they are, to be respected as they are—is winning out. More people feel that way, especially if you remove some of the trigger words.
For example, if we say, “Let’s not talk about sports right now because there’s much misinformation there,” or “Can we start with the idea that everyone deserves basic respect?”—most people will agree.
So yes, there is much money, much power, and much intentional deception behind the movement trying to say transgender people should not be allowed in public life. Big flashy lights, emotional baiting. But I think they will ultimately lose.
This is the screed of a cornered animal—a dying class of people afraid of losing the power they once thought they had.
Jacobsen: Ben, it was lovely to meet you. Thank you very much for your time and expertise.
Greene: Yes, it’s great to meet you, too! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/17
Aya Chebbi, Founder and President of the Nala Feminist Collective, explains the urgent launch of a 2025 petition demanding a gender-responsive ceasefire in Sudan, led by Sudanese feminists. She describes how sexual violence is weaponized systematically by armed groups to terrorize and destabilize communities. Chebbi outlines strategies to pressure warring factions, including enforcing arms embargoes, freezing assets, and leveraging regional diplomacy. She emphasizes the need for local feminist leadership in peace negotiations, sustained international support for grassroots efforts, and parallel mechanisms for justice through hybrid tribunals and survivor-led initiatives to ensure accountability without delaying peace processes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired the Nala Feminist Collective to launch this petition in 2025?
Aya Chebbi: This petition was born out of a sense of urgent necessity and profound solidarity. As the violence in Sudan intensified, we witnessed Sudanese women from grassroots activists to global advocates, raising alarms that were tragically ignored. The devastating silence surrounding the widespread rape, abduction and brutalization of women and girls in Sudan compelled us to act.
Nalafem, as a Pan-African collective dedicated to advancing the political leadership of African women, established the Nalafem Sudan Taskforce. This platform for collective action is Sudanese feminist-led, multigenerational, coalition mobilizing political, diplomatic and international pressure for an inclusive, gender-responsive ceasefire process in Sudan and ensuring taskforce members reach critical decision-making spaces, from the African Union to the United Nations. The taskforce initiated this petition to demand an immediate ceasefire, center the experiences of survivors and insist on women’s leadership not as an afterthought to peace, but as an essential precondition for it.
Jacobsen: How is sexual violence weaponized against women and girls in Sudan?
Chebbi: Rape in Sudan is not a random occurrence, it is a deliberate tactic. Armed actors are employing sexual violence to terrorize communities, dismantle social structures and exert control. Tragically, women’s bodies have become battlegrounds in this conflict, particularly in Darfur and within displacement camps, where impunity is rampant and justice is consistently delayed or denied. The pervasive use of sexual violence as a weapon of war is one of the most pressing and horrifying realities of this crisis. Women and girls are enduring abductions, rape, starvation, displacement and systematic erasure. These are not unintended consequences, they are calculated strategies of war. The limited humanitarian access and the international community’s silence only exacerbate this climate of impunity.
Jacobsen: What strategies could persuade the Sudanese Army, RSF, and armed groups to agree to a peace deal?
Chebbi: A combination of sustained pressure and meaningful incentives is essential. This includes enforcing existing arms embargoes, freezing assets and actively denying political legitimacy to any parties that obstruct peace efforts. Simultaneously, it’s crucial to leverage the influence of regional actors and offer viable humanitarian corridors, as well as transitional justice frameworks that provide face-saving exit strategies while ensuring accountability for their actions.
Jacobsen: How do we enforce the African Union’s “Silencing the Guns” initiative and UN Security Council arms embargo?
Chebbi: Enforcement requires genuine political will, far beyond mere declarations. The AU and UN must commit to investing in independent monitoring mechanisms, imposing sanctions on violators and suspending trade and aid relationships with any states that facilitate the flow of arms. Additionally, civil society organizations must be adequately resourced to actively track and expose violations.
Jacobsen: What barriers prevent adequate aid delivery?
Chebbi: Access is severely impeded by ongoing violence, excessive bureaucratic hurdles and intentional obstruction. Warring factions are deliberately targeting aid convoys, manipulating logistical processes and restricting the issuance of humanitarian visas. These bureaucratic obstacles and security risks are stifling critical life-saving efforts.
Jacobsen: How can international donors and governments overcome these logistical hurdles?
Chebbi: International donors must prioritize funding for locally based feminist groups that are already operating on the ground and deeply embedded within their communities. It is also necessary to find ways to bypass obstructive regimes and invest in flexible, rapid response mechanisms, such as the civilian-led Emergency Response Rooms. In addition, diplomatic pressure must be consistently applied to secure ceasefires specifically in areas designated for aid delivery.
Jacobsen: Research indicates peace agreements with women’s participation are durable. How can Sudanese women and feminist leaders sit at the negotiating table?
Chebbi: Indeed peace agreements are 35% more likely to last at least 15 years when women are meaningfully involved in their creation. Ensuring the meaningful participation of women requires making their inclusion a non-negotiable condition. Quotas alone are insufficient, there must be structural guarantees and dedicated funding to support feminist delegations. The international community must move beyond token gestures of including women and instead actively resource them as lead negotiators and recognized experts on peacebuilding. We have members of the taskforce who are experts yet denied a seat at many tables and closed door meetings that can facilitate pathways to peace.
Jacobsen: What mechanisms ensure perpetrators of war crimes are held accountable without delaying the peace process?
Chebbi: Implementing hybrid tribunals and transitional justice models can allow both peace and justice to progress in parallel. Initiatives such as truth commissions, survivor-led documentation efforts and reparations programs can commence even before formal trials begin. Accountability should not be seen as an obstacle to peace, but rather as a fundamental cornerstone upon which a lasting peace can be built.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Aya.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/17
Matt Galuppo, Chair of Media Arts at the New York Film Academy in Los Angeles, discusses the evolving landscape of animation, visual effects, and game design. He emphasizes the need for passion and adaptability in a rapidly changing industry shaped by AI, shifting studio models, and a growing demand for diverse voices. Galuppo advocates for bottom-up educational leadership, values real-world experience, and sees liberal arts as essential to storytelling. The conversation explores work-life balance, career pivots, and the enduring human element in creative work—offering insights for emerging artists and professionals seeking meaning and longevity in media arts careers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Matt Galuppo. He is the Chair of Media Arts at the New York Film Academy’s Los Angeles campus. He oversees programs in 3D Animation, Visual Effects, and Game Design. His professional background spans major studios and independent projects. His credits include Inception, work for brands like Lexus and Toyota, collaborations with Riot Games and Netflix, and contributions to the Emmy Award-winning series Tab Time.
Galuppo specializes in animation, visual effects, and game development, offering students practical training rooted in current industry practices. He brings expertise in platform-specific workflows, storytelling through visual media, and emerging technologies such as AI. While many of his interviews touch on artificial intelligence, we will focus on broader topics today.
His work in education emphasizes career development, skill mastery, and preparing students to contribute meaningfully to an evolving entertainment landscape. Is all of that correct?
Matt Galuppo: Wow, that’s a great bio—I should use that for my résumé.
Jacobsen: Today’s thematic question is: How do arts professors guide young creatives in navigating the industry and amplifying diverse voices? A good first step would be understanding the concept of industry standards. In your field, how are industry standards set?
Galuppo: That depends on the context—whether you’re working in games, animation, filmmaking for theatrical releases, or immersive and experiential media. The studio or client typically sets the deliverables through a quality assurance (QA) process. That’s the nuts-and-bolts aspect: ensuring your work passes departmental reviews and meets expectations at each production stage.
The other side is more intangible. Early in your career, you constantly check whether you meet industry standards. That means asking questions—are you using the correct formats? Are your files compliant? If you’re a writer, is your copy aligned with brand and legal requirements?
You’ve probably experienced this as a writer: you compare yourself to others, ask questions, and seek feedback. Eventually, with experience, you push the envelope; over time, you may even help define new standards.
Whether you’re creative or technical, who sets the benchmarks for your work influences you.
Jacobsen: In the AI and startup spaces, there’s a prevalent “work-until-you-drop” culture where balance is often undervalued. I came across a quote today by Venki Ramakrishnan, a 2009 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, who said, “If you’re working nonstop all the time, you will burn out.” Is there any emphasis in your work culture on maintaining a healthy work-life balance?
Galuppo: Notoriously, animation and game design have a big problem with work-life balance. And there’s this added tax you’re expected to pay: you’re working on “cool” things. You’re doing stuff that everyone else wants to do—so you have to work harder to be the one doing it.
As we speak, major companies are starting to crumble. Last year, it was mostly in games; this year, it’s hitting animation and visual effects. Technicolor went under.
Technicolor—the company behind The Wizard of Oz—went under. They had tens of thousands, probably around 15,000 employees. They owned The Mill, MPC, and Mikros Animation.
They owned all these major studios working on incredible projects. And it is not controversial to say that it was probably half mismanagement and half due to a culture that has become unsustainable—especially in terms of how these projects are made and what companies value in the people making them.
Right now, I would say that for students coming up and considering work-life balance, it’s not only about what you do—it’s about who you are.
Places now aren’t just hiring the portfolio; they’re hiring the person, and that part—the person—is not fungible.
You embody this quality as a creative, and all your life experience away from the screen, away from making pixels, contributes to it. That quality is ascending right now.
We’re seeing the old-school mentality—the higher-ups saying, “I know what’s best,” dictating where the line goes and how to execute the art—start to fade.
The hope is that we’ll see the artists themselves valued as individuals. If I were a betting person, I’d place my bet on the ones holding on and adapting. There will be much more thoughtful evaluation moving forward.
Jacobsen: Right. There’s been a trend, particularly among younger Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and women, of increasing levels of education, qualifications, and work experience—alongside bringing a different set of values to the workplace.
Compared to a small percentage of men, many emphasize work-life balance more. Gen Z appears to be continuing that trend—investing in education and credentials—especially among women, who are looking not just for work but for a balanced life. Suppose you want to retain that kind of talent in the industry. What can employers do to offer meaningful enticements and incentives?
Galuppo: Oh man, it’s a buyer’s market for employers right now. They shouldn’t be too worried.
You’re catching me at an interesting moment. If you’d asked that same question two years ago, there was a shortage of people. Now, there are too many of them. And that’s not because we trained too many—studios are buying less.
The streaming wars are taking a different turn. Creative management is rethinking how it does things.
And to a lesser—but not insignificant—extent, AI is on the horizon. We’ve been using AI tools for a decade, but now it’s arriving in a way we haven’t seen before. There’s been a lot of upheaval, and for better or worse, it’s falling on the individual artist.
So, if you ask, “How can these places entice people like me or others?” The unsatisfactory answer is that they don’t need to right now.
So I’ll reframe the question: how can these places entice the artists needed for a healthy industry? And the answer starts with recognizing the artist as an individual, not just a button-pusher. That perception is beginning to fade—not that artists were ever just button-pushers, but that’s how they’ve often been seen from the top down.
These tools will empower individual artists to contribute significantly to final products. In the past, an artist might only create a few seconds of a tentpole project. Now, they can produce entire sequences, so their creative ownership needs to increase.
To support that, you need them out in the world, experiencing life—so they can bring those experiences back into their work.
It’s a bit cliché, but think of Disney and Pixar’s famous field trips. They’d say, “You’ve spent too much time staring at a screen—we need to get you out diving the Great Barrier Reef,” or “We need you visiting Colombia for Encanto.”
I hope there will be more of that—but not necessarily company-mandated. It should be culturally encouraged.
Jacobsen: You also touched on the role of education—or, more broadly, professional training. Whether someone has a degree directly relevant to the industry or something more tangential, many also build a track record of continuing education—taking edX courses, Coursera, and so on.
Galuppo: Yes, those are two different things. And I might be early with this prediction, but I think liberal arts degrees will resurface.
If you’d asked me this a while ago, I would have said it all comes down to who you are as an artist—what’s in your portfolio and reel. I’d look at your work and say, “Okay, this is who you are.”
But now, you asking me this question is making me rethink it. You mentioned my Inception credit—that’s wild. That was the first thing I ever worked on in Hollywood.
I was a carpenter on it—not a visual effects artist or anything like that. That’s how I started.
Jacobsen: These roles count. I’ve been a janitor and a stall mucker. I’ve dealt with human waste, horse waste—you name it.
Galuppo: Yes, and that counts. I loved being a carpenter. I was a set carpenter for Inception, working for a studio that no longer exists—New Deal Studios.
Jacobsen: I should be including that kind of story in all of these interviews.
Galuppo: Honestly, it’s a good idea. Those experiences matter. It’s an interesting place to start.
Jacobsen: It’d be like interviewing Jensen Huang now and thinking, “Wow, look at him.” Sure, he revolutionized computing 30 years ago, and now it’s all come to fruition—but he talks candidly about starting as a dishwasher. I was a dishwasher, too. I’m sure you were something like that at some point.
Galuppo: I wasn’t a dishwasher—no. But I was the equivalent in a shop. I was the guy who swept everything up, cleaned, organized.
Jacobsen: Right—sweeping the warehouse.
Galuppo: Yes, exactly. I started in shops pretty young.
Jacobsen: Not to say you were any good at it—it’s just that you did it. I can’t say I was great at sweeping warehouses, being a dishwasher, janitor, or shovelling horse manure, but I did it. It paid the bills.
Galuppo: It was one of those early shops where it was pretty much sweeping. They were trying to teach me to weld and do other things to make me more useful on the side, but mainly, I was cleaning up after the people doing the work.
And I swear this story has a point. The technical director of that shop graduated from Caltech with a master’s degree in liquid and thermodynamics. He was a smart guy. How did he end up in a scene shop? He said it was after the Cold War.
He told me, “Oh, they didn’t need engineers anymore. All the defence contracts dried up. There was a glut of engineers. The only place I could get a job was in the arts.” And now we’re about to hit a point where it will be, “Oh, I don’t need as many sophisticated tools, operators and craftsmen—I need people who understand the humanities and the liberal arts.”
Jacobsen: That’s a good point.
Galuppo: Yes, we can flesh that out.
Jacobsen: The first thing that comes to mind is that you can have sophisticated script-building technology based on prompts, maybe even some visual storyboarding that gets built and filled out. But you might still need the humanities to build a proper story—even with the assistance of those technologies. Is that what you’re getting at?
Galuppo: Yes, and it will go even weirder than that.
Something that wasn’t mentioned earlier—my most recent work is as an animation and visual effects supervisor for TCL, the world’s largest television manufacturer.
I work for part of their research group, and we’ve been developing many tools and AI-driven content. One thing we arrived at quickly is: if there’s not a human core, why are people watching it?
Audiences don’t care otherwise. Early on, everyone planted their flag with, “This needs to be written by a human.” The knowledge that it comes from a human core matters to viewers. Not only does it need to be written by a human—the voice, at the very least, must be fully human—hopefully more.
We’re now experiencing that we should accelerate other parts of the process, not the spontaneity of an actor’s performance.
Because what I’m connecting with is the actor—and I say this as someone with an animation background. I do feel the human hand behind animated characters.
More people work on animated characters than on one actor’s live performance.
So, we’re seeing that there are certain third rails of art that you cannot touch. You need to leave them human, or audiences will disengage.
That’s what we’ve been seeing from the AI perspective—whether it’s scriptwriting, as you mentioned, or moment-to-moment performance.
Can AI get there? I don’t know. It’s moving faster than I thought, and I’ve been 100% professionally immersed in it, leading and building teams around it.
And still, I don’t have a clear answer.
But I do think that if there’s going to be something that holds value, it’s going to be the “unapplicable” part—the study of the humanities and the liberal arts.
I could be wrong. I could be wrong.
Jacobsen: Could you imagine a near-medium future where an entire industry—not necessarily tied to any one country like Hollywood or Bollywood—is almost entirely built and operated by artificial intelligence? Like a “Robollywood” or something?
Galuppo: Oh, whoa, that’s funny. The AI part—that’s interesting. I was assuming you meant something like virtual studios. All these virtual studios are popping up, so will an “AI studio” exist? However, AI studios would be connected only by their use of generative technologies.
I might use something more specific than “AI” here. I will separate large language models from this answer because I’m not as expert in them as I am in generative tools.
Will there be—man, do tax incentives still exist in that world? If tax incentives exist, I can’t imagine studios not figuring out how to exploit them.
So, there’s a local draw using Canada, New Mexico, or Louisiana—places with these different incentives. Whatever you can do virtually, you can do better on location when there’s a tax incentive. And this has been around for decades.
So, in a strange way, governments are stopping the industry from becoming fully virtual and disconnected because it provides such a boost—sometimes up to 40%—that significantly increases production capacity.
Unless those incentives disappear, I do not see the system becoming completely virtual, decentralized, and location-agnostic.
Jacobsen: Those are less like tax incentives and more like financial subsidies.
Galuppo: Yes, financial subsidies—absolutely.
Jacobsen: For non-virtual work.
Galuppo: Yes. But you still get the subsidy if you put your workers in those regions. So you’re incentivized to move beyond virtual. Now, it is a lot to fly people out, which is what many companies still do. They fly the artists in, house them, and still make it work.
Jacobsen: Deployment and delivery.
Galuppo: Yes, exactly.
I’ll add that —this might work in reverse.
I was working with someone—we were talking about this earlier—a Belarusian by way of Poland. He made an amazing music video using generative technologies.
It was in Belarusian, which he told me is spoken natively by about 10 million people. He made it for a local artist and said, “There’s no way this would be useful or marketable in a mainstream global way.”
So, rather than this being a universal cultural product that spreads through the “Mimasphere,” I think these tools allow people to become hyper-specific with their local cultures in ways they never could before.
So that’s my non-tax incentive answer.
My tax incentive answer remains: I do not see them going away.
Jacobsen: If this landscape diversifies to the point where a lot of the basic drudgery can at least be assisted—if not done outright—by automated systems, algorithms, and the like, then it could flatten the talent landscape.
It could allow many more people to enter the field. Could there be various forms of incentive to bring in a wider palette of people from different backgrounds? Educationally, through more diverse knowledge networks—people trained in ways not traditionally recognized in the field?
Galuppo: I love the words. Well, “the specific is universal,” as the saying goes. So, being diverse and more specific helps tremendously from any artist’s point of view.
Sometimes, when a lot of people are working on something, there’s a temptation to make it universal. But lowering the barrier to entry for these tools helps.
Weirdly, lowering the barrier to entry to these tools has shown us that suddenly, yes, you don’t need to know how to roto because AI will be much better at rotoscoping.
You don’t need to know how to paint out individual objects because these AI tools—machine learning tools—are much better at that, too.
So, what’s considered valuable is shifting.
Now the question becomes: what is valuable?
Is it your worldview?
Is it your upbringing?
Is it what you identify with?
Is it all those fundamental things that make you human?
Is that what’s valuable? Or is it something else that we don’t yet recognize as valuable?
Are we heading toward a world where logistics managers become the next Scorsese because they’re so good at pipeline management that they can direct an entire team of AI creative agents?
I do not know.
I do not think managing AI agents—or having what some people call enough—I’ve heard this argument: that taste will be the new differentiator. We’ll have an ocean of AI-generated content, and someone with good taste will know which ones are worth keeping.
But it’s beyond taste.
I believe that vision still matters—the kind that comes from lived experience and learning.
If I understand your question correctly, you’re asking if there are things outside the humanities that could make someone a great storyteller.
And the answer is yes.
Using Moneyball as an example, it took someone trained in economics to uncover that story and make it compelling.
So, by lowering the threshold for participation in the visual arts, we’re allowing people with more technical backgrounds to enter the space and tell stories that they find meaningful and that others find meaningful, too.
So yes. Yes. I hadn’t thought about it that way before, but absolutely.
Jacobsen: We can frame traditional questions about diversity within the intellectual framework of the current administrative era.
So, let’s say you’re considering an applicant or a prospective colleague who is trans or who may identify as bisexual, lesbian, gay, or intersex. That is part of how they present and live—meeting or exceeding the program’s standards.
From a cultural standpoint in the workspace, what practices or leadership habits have you found helpful for colleagues or new entrants to feel more accepted and fully realize—not just optimize—their potential?
Because that is how you get the full charge of their talents and knowledge.
Galuppo: Wow, man. Great question.
I’m going to start with professors—answering from that perspective—and then circle back to applicants or students.
I would boil it down to leadership. I’m a big proponent of bottom-up leadership, empowering professors to lead.
I believe in offering everyone leadership opportunities. And sometimes, that is not always offered or expected, particularly in the groups you mentioned.
I’m thinking of one professor in particular. When we gave them a leadership opportunity, something amazing happened.
I give every professor, in various ways, leadership opportunities by asking, “Hey, if you were king of the forest, how would you do this? Is there something you want to take ownership of? Is there something there?”
And that’s important with anyone who shows a spark of something.
But in terms of how you define diversity, I’m thinking of a couple of professors in particular—if they’re given a leadership opportunity, it’s the best way to ignite a fire in them, to get the most out of them, and for them to give the most back to the students—and to everything.
It’s counterintuitive to say, “Hey, as a leader, delegate leadership, too.”
But yes—and they’ll do things in ways you never would have imagined. They’ll run meetings differently. And it’s exciting to see. So that’s what we’ve been doing.
That’s my quick answer for professors who show great merit, especially those who may come from different backgrounds. I might not be the most effective leader for every group, so let’s see how others lead, support that, and take the best ideas to roll out across the board.
It’s a typical bottom-up leadership model, but people don’t always think to apply it to diversity.
For applicants—and NYFA in general—we pride ourselves on providing value-added education.
Across my career and various shows, I’ve been a big believer in my students—not just NYFA students but students everywhere I’ve taught. I’ve brought them onto shows.
Throughout my career, I’ve hired about 20 NYFA students. On Tab Time, which you mentioned earlier, my lead animator and technical director were NYFA students.
How do you find, support, or elevate diverse voices in less diverse fields?
Visual effects certainly have issues with that.
I wish we had a better entry-point solution than saying, “Let everyone in and teach.”
But again—it’s the professors who make it work.
Early in my career, I spoke with one of the few women who was a visual effects or previsualization supervisor. This was in a prior phase of my career.
She told me how few women were in previsualization, and that’s why she took the lead position—she said, “I’m doing this to show people that women in previsualization can lead.”
So, when it comes to applicants, I believe it starts with hiring professors who match the necessary talent and reflect what students need to see—so they can see themselves in the industry’s future.
That takes much work. You have to make sure the faculty reflects the student population in terms of identity and has the skills because, at the end of the day, this is a highly competitive industry. It takes much extra work in recruiting.
And my son’s not American. In the U.S., I’ve noticed this strange push-pull between divisive and unifying language.
Jacobsen: The unifying frame is that every American is concerned about merit. How do they define it? That’s where the division lies. So—anyway, what else can I ask about?
Galuppo: If you were to look at the industry now, there are enough artists to fulfill the work needed. That wasn’t the case a couple of years ago.
So now the question is: who are the artists clinging on?
What’s the edge that allows someone to stay in? And honestly—I don’t know.
Jacobsen: I would hope it’s about who you are. That unifying versus divisive framing was interesting—I’d have to think more about that.
I know one thing that does not cling on to your staying power: being a Vulcan.
Galuppo: Ha! Yes. I was going to say—that this will be a Star Trek moment.
Jacobsen: So, to move us along, what are the trends shaping the future of animation and VFX education?
Galuppo: Oh, man. I struggle with this all the time. I’ll keep it short because AI-generated tools are the big boogeyman in the room.
And how long or interesting can I be on that since I’ve spent so much time on it already? It’s everything I said before.
But again, the great unknowns are this: pipelines are reinventing themselves.
The idea of “tentpole” projects is fading.
Some people are saying it’s going to be like the 1970s again—smaller t, with ams doing really interesting stuff.
Others say TV is dying off, especially as the streaming wars shape it.
I don’t know if TV will come back or if we’ll move more toward feature films.
Instead of seeing ten $100 million blockbusters, we might start seeing twenty or thirty $50 million or $10 million projects.
The audience decides what’s interesting. Still, studios must put work in front of audiences to make it interesting.
I’m thinking of things like ReelShorts and DramaBox—these mobile-first platforms.
They’re making billions in revenue. They’ve replaced the Hallmark Channel with romantic comedies.
They’re not what a cinephile would call “well executed,” but they’re performing incredibly well, which shows that audiences are hungry for content.
You need to pay attention, tell stories they care about, and help them see themselves reflected in those stories.
So, I’m interested to see how that evolves.
Rather than seeing emerging technologies as the enemy, maybe we can recognize that some outdated practices needed to be shaken up—and AI became the excuse.
It took these developments to trigger real change.
Jacobsen: Nevertheless, there are still places where nuance is difficult to replicate with technology. I’ve tried the show From—have you heard of it?
Galuppo: No.
Jacobsen: It won an award for best horror series or something like that. One of the actors is from the Matrix films—not one of the leads, but a notable character. Harold Perrineau. He’s 61 now—he was much younger in the Matrix days. He played Link.
Now, in From, he plays a character named Boyd. It’s a mystery-box show—you get clues and fragments but don’t know what’s going on until the end. It’s like Lost. You can try plugging in various data points, and yes, an LLM or another analytical tool could help—but they’re structured in a way where you still can’t fully decode it.
So, people can design shows that maintain that core human element of surprise, even in the face of increasingly sophisticated analytical systems. There’s still room in entertainment for awe, shock, and surprise.
Galuppo: That’s promising. It’s from MGM, of all places. As you can probably tell, I have two young kids, so I’m not allowed to watch anything other than children’s programming. But this one looks really cool. I’m going to have to check it out. I’ll get back to you about it.
Jacobsen: They’ve done three seasons, and we still don’t know what’s happening.
Galuppo: So—it’s like Lost?
Jacobsen: Yep. The creators of Lost made it. John Griffin is the main creator.
Other actors and actresses in the show include Catalina Sandino Moreno, Eion Bailey, David Alpay, Elizabeth Saunders, Shaun Majumder, Scott McCord, Ricky He, Chloe Van Landschoot, Pegah Ghafoori, Corteon Moore, Hannah Cheramy, and others. Avery Conrad is a British Columbian actor, so she’s close to our cohort—one of ours, one British Columbian. Anyway, From is a fascinating show.
So, there’s going to be a lot of guesswork, and eventually, we’ll see these little swirls—whirlpools, really—where the river of progress kind of loops in on itself. At those points, we may find highly productive areas of human activity that automated systems cannot pierce or solve. Like these mystery-box shows.
Galuppo: Yes. It’s interesting to see this done by a major studio. But this quality level is achievable independently very soon. So we could see a lot more experimentation, which is exciting. Experimentation will go through the roof soon. I’ll check that show out.
Jacobsen: Any final words on getting the next cohort of new graduates interested in this field—or those retraining from a different career, either because they’re no longer interested in what they were doing or because, frankly, they ran out of work?
Galuppo: Absolutely. I’ll tell you what I tell a lot of people interested in the field right now: It’s a great time—if you’re passionate about it.
What’s about to happen is that the people who entered this industry because they wanted a “stable job that’s kind of fun”or something halfway between two worlds—I don’t think it’s for them anymore.
You need to be extremely passionate about this. That said, if there was ever a time for a young artist to enter the field, it’s now. The rules are being rewritten. Almost nothing people said in the past still holds.
If you’re young and interested, have stories to tell, or want to be part of something, now is the time. The playing field is being levelled. You don’t have to line up behind people like we all had to for the past two decades.
So yes, it’s a little chaotic—but it’s also full of opportunity. For those considering a career pivot, it depends on where you’re coming from. Would I recommend a career change into this space? It depends.
Now is a good time if you’re young and this is your dream. You can capitalize on the moment and see things with a fresh perspective—ways that are hard to see if you’ve already been shaped by a different system. For the career pivot crowd, it depends on your background and where you want to go.
I’ve spent most of my career below the line. I’ve directed a few things—for Comedy Central, Syfy, Netflix—but that’s not where the bulk of my income or work has been. It’s been telling other people’s stories. And right now, how people help tell other people’s stories is changing—fast.
It’s exciting if you’re young and just jumping in—but it can be a bit scarier if you’re mid-career and looking to pivot. That being said, storytelling and the fundamentals of how stories are told—I do not see that changing. It hasn’t changed much in a century. Honestly, you could argue that it has not changed in centuries. I would be surprised if it changed now.
CG, visual effects, and everything related has only existed for forty—maybe thirty—years, at most. So yes, it’s more volatile. Game design has been around since the ’70s, and if you’ve been in the scene long enough, you’ve seen the full arc: team triumphs.
Jacobsen: It’s like old teen dramas to even the rare but tragic teen implosions. “Romeo, Romeo—where art thou Romeo?” But Marvel “What if…” with zombies.
Galuppo: That structure hasn’t changed much either. Honestly, even Shakespeare may have been parodying and poking fun at the tropes of his time. So, in that sense, nothing has changed.
That’s my nuance between the two worlds: it’s exciting if you’re young, but if you’re considering a career pivot, you must be more cautious about where you’re stepping. It depends on what you’re stepping into.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Matt, it was nice to meet you.
Galuppo: 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): 2025/05/16
Nandini Mazumder, Assistant Coordinator at the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP), works to advance safe, legal, and accessible abortion services across Asia. Through initiatives like the Youth Advocacy Institute and the ASAP Academy, she focuses on building rights-based education, youth leadership, and intersectional advocacy. Mazumder highlights the critical role of medical abortion pills, such as mifepristone and misoprostol, in ensuring safe procedures even where abortion is restricted. She addresses global funding inequalities, the need for grassroots initiatives, and the importance of multilingual resources. Her work emphasizes collective, community-based action to strengthen reproductive rights and ensure equitable healthcare for marginalized groups.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Nandini Mazumder, Assistant Coordinator at the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP). ASAP is a regional network committed to advancing safe, legal, and accessible abortion services across Asia. With over 16 years of experience in the development sector focusing on gender and reproductive rights, Mazumder is pivotal in coordinating advocacy efforts, capacity-building programs, and youth engagement initiatives. She is also a lead trainer at the ASAP Youth Advocacy Institute, where she empowers young advocates and professionals through rights-based education. Her work emphasizes the importance of inclusive healthcare, addressing systemic barriers, and ensuring that marginalized communities, including queer and transgender individuals, have equitable access to reproductive services. Mazumder actively critiques global anti-abortion movements, highlighting their impact on countries like India, and is dedicated to fostering healthcare systems that respect the dignity and autonomy of all individuals. Thank you for joining me today. To begin, what are some crucial points to understand about abortion access in the current context?
Nandini Mazumder: Even in countries where abortion is legally restricted, safe abortion is still possible because today, medical technologies — particularly medical abortion pills — are highly effective and widely available.
Medical abortion pills, specifically mifepristone and misoprostol, were developed in the 1980s. Mifepristone (also known as RU-486) was first approved in France in 1988 for use in abortion. Misoprostol was initially designed and marketed in the late 1970s by a U.S. company to treat gastric ulcers. In countries like Brazil, where abortion was highly restricted, women discovered that misoprostol could safely induce abortion. The increased access to misoprostol contributed to a notable decrease in maternal mortality due to unsafe abortions.
This historical experience demonstrates that legality does not necessarily determine Safety. Safety depends on access to the proper methods and information. Even where abortion is illegal, people will seek abortions — but without safe methods, the risks are higher. Therefore, we advocate for recognizing that abortion can be completely safe when done correctly, following World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
Today, no one should have to risk their life due to lack of access to safe abortion methods, even if abortion remains legally restricted in their country. However, restrictive laws make it harder to access medications like mifepristone and misoprostol or to find safe clinical services. In this sense, legality is a barrier to access, but Safety is achievable from a medical standpoint.
In my role at ASAP, I work with a small core team of about four to five people. We operate regionally across Asia and engage globally through our country networks. We have 8 Country Advocacy Networks in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, and partnerships in various other countries. As a network we focus on building movements for safe abortion rights and strengthening youth leadership across the region and globally.
We work with a lot of different communities, organizations, and movements. Our movements need to be intersectional and inclusive. Therefore, we strongly support the rights of allied movements such as the sex workers’ rights movement, the rights of women who use drugs, the rights of people with disabilities and particularly with the deaf and hard of hearing community, and, of course, the LGBTQI community — they are a vital ally for us. We work with a range of people, aiming to understand the issues they face while also exploring the intersections with safe abortion rights.
My role as Assistant Coordinator involves working very closely with our Coordinator, Dr. Suchitra Dalvie. She is a gynecologist by profession and has been working in the field of safe abortion rights for over twenty-five years. She co-founded ASAP (Asia Safe Abortion Partnership) in March 2008. I have been working with ASAP since November 2019.
We are a small core team but deeply committed, dedicated, and passionate team striving to make the safe abortion movement stronger, more intersectional, and geographically more widespread. All of us take turns training. Dr. Suchitra Dalvie is one of the lead trainers. We also have another lead trainer, Dr. Manisha Gupta, who joins us for different institutes and Academy activities from time to time. I am one of the trainers as well. My colleague Ayesha Bashir is also one of the lead trainers for the Academy and institutes. Additionally, my colleague Mahak manages the online Academy platform and supports the work to strengthen safe abortion rights advocacy and movement building.
Let me share a little more about ASAP’s work. We work extensively with young people, hosting many institutes across the region. We run programs called Youth Advocacy Institutes (YAI) and Youth Advocacy Refreshers (YAR).
In February 2024, we also hosted the only dedicated global safe abortion rights conference, called the Abortion Rights and Reproductive Justice Conference (ARJC). It was the fourth edition of ARJC. The conference was initially created through a partnership between academia and activism, and we continued in that spirit. We hosted it at Mahidol University, a significant public health university in Bangkok, Thailand, in partnership with Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health.
At ARJC 2024, we welcomed around 350 participants from 65 to 70 countries. We recognized that, as there has been an organized attack against safe abortion rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) more broadly, and civil society spaces in general, opportunities for solidarity-building, networking, learning, and sharing have been shrinking. ARJC thus served as a significant space for us.
Moreover, in 2024, we also launched the ASAP Academy, an initiative designed to create more spaces for safe abortion rights advocates to meet, learn from one another, and continue growing stronger as a movement — even amid today’s challenging political climate and the ongoing attacks on our rights.
The ASAP Academy is an online course that is quite intensive—almost like a semester-long college or university-level program. Over three months, participants go through a series of modules. Each module takes about three to four hours to engage with, and participants must complete assignments and join live calls.
The goal is to help people understand the politics of safe abortion rights. It is rooted in feminist politics but also covers technical aspects, aiming to unpack why safe abortion rights remain such a contentious issue today.
We are currently running our third cohort. In 2024, we had two batches, and in 2025, the first batch just started. We have had participants from all over the world, including the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and more remote places like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and the Cook Islands. Many participants from Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal also join us. We are creating a global community of people who can learn and grow together.
The academy’s online nature allows us to reach a wider audience without needing heavy resource investment, which we do not have. We hope that the Academy will become self-sustaining and continue to thrive over time.
My work involves ensuring this happens smoothly and supporting my team in successfully organizing, coordinating, and delivering the Academy. I do a little bit of everything, working closely with our Coordinator.
Jacobsen: What part of that work gives you the most meaning? Also, if different, what part of that work do you find, even if difficult, is, in objective terms, the most impactful?
Mazumder: I think the Academy and Institute spaces — the learning and knowledge-sharing spaces — give me the most meaning.
Let me share a bit of my background. I studied sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi, and before that, I studied sociology in Calcutta, where I am currently based.
When I entered the workforce, I realized there were many things I did not know and I had to learn on the job. Although my interests were in gender and sexuality, we did not dive deeply into those subjects during my sociology studies. There was virtually no engagement with issues like sex work, and safe abortion rights were not covered at all.
I received one of the best sociology educations available in India, yet there were significant gaps in my knowledge. I learned a lot through my work—learning while doing and filling in those gaps through experience and practice.
As I progressed to a more mid-level position, and even now, when I engage more with younger people, my peers, or even people older than me, I often realize that they know even less—because not everyone has had the sociology training that I did. I realized that knowledge is a very big gap. It is missing from many of our civil society spaces.
There is a fascinating article by Arundhati Roy — the author and political activist — where she discusses how NGOization has become a problem. She describes how what were once traditional movements, protests, and uprisings have been turned into more palatable, depoliticized entities by transforming them into NGOs. Once something becomes a paid profession, you attract all sorts of people. The question becomes: do you hire them for their skills, or do you hire them for their ideological commitment? Ideally, it should be a combination of both in civil society spaces. However, we see that this balance is often missing.
I believe knowledge-building is a crucial area that civil society must address. Safe abortion rights are not something we can discuss in a vacuum. We have learned so much from the reproductive justice (RJ) framework, thanks to Black feminists, mainly in the United States. The RJ framework highlights how access to abortion is linked to broader issues like race, class, citizenship, incarceration, and immigration status.
Access to abortion is a human rights issue — it impacts everyone, whether you are a refugee, an immigrant, a citizen, incarcerated, or free. Why should the state or your personal circumstances determine your ability to access abortion and, consequently, control the rest of your life?
Safe abortion rights should be guaranteed and accessible to everyone — yet they remain heavily controlled and debated. I think that often when we advocate for expanding access, we forget the politics underlying it. Our language can only be as sharp as our political understanding.
Therefore, the Academy and Institute spaces are vital because they build knowledge that sharpens political awareness. They help people understand what we are fighting for and what forces we are fighting against. From that clarity, we can develop more strategic and practical advocacy language.
For me, the most challenging — and the most satisfying — work is the knowledge-building and capacity-building work we do through the Institutes and the ASAP Academy.
Jacobsen: What are the main challenges coming your way internationally regarding feedback and reports? We have touched on many of these points just by considering interpretations of statistics from various countries, but I think a more explicit statement would be essential.
Mazumder: Well, you know, having been at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), one of the most interesting things — and I want to begin with this — is the funding challenge. As you know, funding has historically been decided by the Global North. They have access to a larger share and a larger pool of resources, and then they decide how those resources are distributed to countries in the Global South or the political South.
They also decide the reporting formats because they control how funds are streamed down. They determine what we should report on and what is considered worthy of reporting. So, a big challenge is that imbalance.
While we increasingly have conversations about decolonialism and post-colonial reforms, the NGO sector remains a deeply colonial space — in many layers. I am talking about the dynamic between the Global North and South and inequalities within our own countries. Often, the most privileged sections of a country head major organizations and decide how the work happens, while the wisdom, knowledge, and good practices from less privileged or indigenous sections of society are not recognized or tapped into as much as they should be.
More can be done — by all of us — to address these imbalances. I am not just talking about the Western world needing to improve; the same applies within our countries as well.
The current frameworks are not designed to accommodate a diversity of people. They tend to be exclusionary. You need a certain level of technical skill even to apply for funding. Reporting requirements and bureaucratic hurdles come afterward. So, the way we structure funding and accountability needs a rethink.
In many countries we work with, formalizing groups and networks are impossible because of restrictive legal environments. Explaining this reality to funders or policymakers in the political North is very difficult.
Of course, there is corruption — there is no denying that. Corruption exists everywhere, from the highest levels of government to the grassroots. But does that mean we should eliminate all flexibility when working in restrictive environments? That would be unfair and harmful. Without flexibility, we will never be able to form safe abortion rights advocacy networks in countries where the law remains highly restrictive.
Take Sri Lanka, for example, where abortion is only legal under minimal circumstances, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, where increasing religious extremism makes advocating for abortion rights extremely difficult. In such environments, how can we operate? Can we find ways to work more flexibly?
Honestly, a lot of the work we try to do in civil society is constrained by donor regulations that do not allow the flexibility needed on the ground. Still, we try. Sometimes, we get lucky and find donors who understand the realities we face. But most of the time, it is very, very difficult.
Another significant issue is that donors are pulling back—and Asia, in particular, is falling out of favour. I do not know if you noticed this at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), but it was stark: representation from Asia was very, very low. Asia is one of the largest regions in the world, with many countries and almost half the world’s population concentrated here.
It is alarming to see such low representation. When I joined, I was told that Southeast Asia was not a significant priority for many donors. We used to have some flexible funding to direct toward Southeast Asia, supporting work in countries like Vietnam and Indonesia.
But places like the Philippines and Indonesia have very restricted environments — particularly around abortion rights. Now, some of our funders have told us they are pulling out of Asia entirely and pulling out of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) altogether. So, we are facing a double setback: Asia and SRHR are losing donor support.
When we asked if there was any backup plan or anyone else we could contact through them, they could not help. It is concerning because the work becomes purely transactional: you do your job, fulfill your contract, and then leave. What happens to the movement afterward is no longer your concern.
But that is not how I see it. I love my work — not just because it pays my bills, but because it is something I feel deeply connected to. The sector can only remain meaningful if the people within it genuinely believe in its importance.
If we treat civil society spaces like any other professional sector — purely transactional — then I do not think we will be able to withstand the political backlash we are now facing. These are critical issues that we need to reexamine.
Another interesting thing is how people perceive our work based on our location. Because we are based in India, many people assume we only work on issues related to India or only with Indian groups. Some think our expertise is limited to this country or, at best, to the region.
But with the ASAP Academy, we are creating a truly global space. I often have to explain to people that we work globally — and that we provide leadership at the international level as well.
I find it interesting because I do not think someone based in the political North would have to do nearly as much explaining. In the global discourse, the default assumption about who a “global expert” is tends to favour people based in the North.
And who is seen as the “local expert”? Someone based here, in the Global South. That default assumption still exists. So when will that perspective shift? I find that very interesting and frustrating.
But yes, overall, we need to improve how civil society spaces function today. When it comes to medical education, there is a significant issue in delivering accurate information so that people can make informed decisions about their reproductive lives. A lot of the world does not have access to this.
There is a lot of hype right now, but there are also some reasonable conversations around artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential role in education. For example, there are discussions about whether AI could be used to deliver accurate, expert-informed education more quickly and accessibly, particularly to better inform people about issues like reproductive rights.
Jacobsen: Is it possible to use AI, with expert knowledge encoded into it, to make education about these issues more rapidly accessible?
Mazumder: We often discuss this within our group. This is more my perspective, not necessarily an official ASAP position.
I think we need to engage with AI cautiously. I have seen colleagues use AI tools, and I have also seen how the language AI generates can sometimes be factually incorrect or politically insensitive. To leave education entirely to machines without human intervention would, in my view, be catastrophic—especially for marginalized communities.
We must also recognize that the context in Asia is very different. In many Asian countries, most families share a single phone. Smartphones are not as common as we assume. Only certain sections of society or certain parts of the world see smartphones as the default.
There is only one device in many households, and the men in the family often control it. There is a real gender gap in access to digital media and resources. You and I may not face that directly, but most people in many Asian countries do.
Without addressing these fundamental inequalities — without ensuring equitable access to technology first — rushing into AI-based education will not solve the problem. It could exacerbate it. Those who already have privilege and access will benefit more, while marginalized groups will be left even further behind.
So, how do we address the gap? We address it by tackling the root causes of inequity and inequality — that is fundamental.
Secondly, as I said earlier, AI interventions alone will not help. In fact, they might make things even more problematic. Maybe a combination—using AI to aid human intervention rather than replace it—could be effective.
Having a teacher, a mentor, or someone you can interact with—someone whose face you can see or whose voice you can hear—has a more profound impact on the learning process. Learning is not just about what you read. It is about your full range of experiences and interactions while engaging with the material.
It would be unfortunate if we took that away. Instead of saying, “Let us fund public universities, public schools, and public colleges,” if the solution becomes, “Let us just give everybody AI,” that would be very problematic.
Jacobsen: What about setting minimum bars? Even if someone does not have full access to formal education or opportunities, they have access to minimal online educational resources — what, in your view, is the most basic piece of information or knowledge that people should have to make informed decisions about reproductive health?
Mazumder: Correct. Funding more grassroots initiatives and supporting local action is key. For example, at Asia Safe Abortion Partnership, we support eight country-level advocacy networks working very locally in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.
We provide them with small grants, training opportunities, and invitations to attend our Institutes so they can engage deeply with safe abortion rights politics. They then return that knowledge to their home countries and use it for local advocacy and initiatives.
It has worked well. For instance, we work with a cohort of medical students in India. These students are future service providers — or at the very least, they will play a key role in gatekeeping access to safe abortions.
Now, the medical curriculum in India is still incredibly outdated — resembling what was taught in Britain in the 1800s. It is very patriarchal and problematic. Even today, the forensic medicine chapters still mention concepts like “virginity,” which have no scientific basis.
We try to educate these students on accurate, rights-based information. They, in turn, have gone on to create their own educational toolkit—the Abortion Toolkit—to train their peers.
We train a core group within the medical students’ network called ISAY — India Safe Abortion Youth Advocates. These ISAY members then go on to train others. So far, they have trained around 500 of their classmates using what they have learned from ASAP, supplemented by the curriculum they created.
It is inspiring work and ties back directly to your earlier question about ensuring at least a minimum level of accurate, accessible information for people.
What are the challenges we face? Advocacy, as we understand it, is not always about changing the law. In fact, we have increasingly seen that changing the law often changes very little on the ground.
We need to reimagine advocacy. It should be focused on changing people’s minds, creating greater awareness, and building long-term shifts in understanding. And that is a relentless job — it will never be fully completed.
How do we do this? We must work with collectives and communities and fund grassroots initiatives. That is the only way.
To ensure people have even the basic minimum information needed to make better choices about their sexual and reproductive health and rights, we need to work at the community level — with local people by forming collectives, reaching out, and offering training.
This must happen not only online but also in person. The power of in-person meetings and training cannot be replaced. Even in the digital era, in-person engagement will remain crucial.
Perhaps that will be a form of resistance. The digital era increasingly promotes the idea that we are each isolated individuals, accessing information independently through our phones. But there is no guarantee that the information we find is accurate.
That is why human interaction—the opportunity to verify information, discuss, and connect—is essential. We need more funding to support this traditional kind of work, which has sustained social movements for decades and will continue to be necessary for as long as we exist as a species.
At ASAP, we conduct Institutes, run the Academy, and create other initiatives. However, I also do a lot of volunteer work with local NGOs. Wherever they call me—if anyone invites me—I am happy to deliver sessions on these issues.
These sessions make a real difference. Relying solely on online information has significant issues: How do you fact-check it? Second, much of the information is only available in English, making it inaccessible to most of the world’s population.
Offering digital platforms will not solve these problems. We still need very traditional, community-based, human-to-human interactions.
Jacobsen: Just one last thing — did you mention one more initiative ASAP about creating multilingual resources?
Mazumder: Yes, exactly. At ASAP, we are trying to create more resources in multiple languages. For example, we adapted the WHO protocol on medical abortion into a Medical Abortion Fact Sheet. It is available on our website, and we have translated it into several languages, including Mongolian, Mandarin, Arabic, and several others. I can share the link with you.
We are also ensuring that knowledge is accessible and inclusive of communities and in that light we worked with the deaf and hard of hearing communities across Asia and developed SRHR primer videos in sign languages. These videos are pioneering resources that address the critical gap where many basic SRHR terms do not have adequate or equivalent signs. Therefore, we developed these primer videos in sign language to explain basic SRHR terms such as, patriarchy, menstrual health, safe abortions in a simple and fun way, and you can find the videos here – https://asap-asia.org/sign-language/
Jacobsen: Well, Nandini, it was lovely meeting you.
Mazumder: This will be plenty for now.
Jacobsen: Thank you again. I appreciate your time and expertise. It was wonderful to meet you.
Mazumder: Nice to meet you, too, Scott. Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Take care!
Mazumder: Take care! Bye.
–
Sign Language Videos – https://asap-asia.org/sign-language/
MA Factsheets – https://asap-asia.org/information-booklets/
ASAP Academy – https://asap-asia-academy.org/
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/15
Rayyan Dabbous explores how media framing influences public perception and foreign policy, stressing the importance of peace-oriented discourse and diverse voices. He critiques ideological oversimplifications and highlights Naomi Klein’s Guardian US article as a standout example of effective public engagement. The conversation delves into journalistic responsibility, opinion piece dynamics, and the subtle presence of warmongering across media outlets.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Rayyan Dabbous, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto. He is a journalist, playwright, and the author of five novels. His academic and journalistic work focuses on media analysis, Middle Eastern politics, and cultural discourse. Dabbous has conducted extensive research on how Canadian opinion journalism shapes public perception and foreign policy, particularly about the Middle East. He advocates for more diverse voices in the media to promote peace and a more nuanced understanding. His work has appeared in major publications and reflects a multidisciplinary approach to literature, politics, and international affairs. So, why did you select the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post for your study?
Rayyan Dabbous: I don’t read any of them regularly, to be honest. But they pop up in the news section on my phone, which is generated either by Samsung—since I use a Samsung device—or by Apple, which offers a similar feature. These are the articles that tend to appear on my screen.
The hypothesis I developed at the time interested me, especially throughout the Olympic in 2024, about the Middle East and the amount of coverage coming from Canada about the region. I noticed that the way these articles were being framed—because I saw them almost weekly—was striking. I wasn’t just struck by how many articles were being published and how they were written. These three major outlets—the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post—are some of the most influential in Canada.
So, my hypothesis became: What trends were emerging in their coverage? How were they reporting on the Middle East? Often, I’d just read the headline or skim parts of the article. What mattered to me wasn’t always the fine-grained detail—I’ve done that kind of close reading in other media studies—but the broader patterns.
This was my first time writing a study incorporating many facts, figures, and statistics. What is the general effect? Whether we actively read the articles or passively encounter them, what kind of consensus seems to be forming in Canada about the Middle East?
This is something most people don’t think about. They either consume media actively or passively. But there’s a middle ground where you can step back and ask, “What’s going on here?” Is the coverage random? Especially since I’m analyzing opinion pieces—are these spontaneous commentaries without a deeper structure, or is there an underlying logic? That’s something I wanted to explore.
Jacobsen: And you analyzed 365 articles. That’s a substantial number, especially considering you don’t regularly read those publications. It is a one-year study. Why set that as your timeline rather than, say, doing a three-month sample and then comparing across seasons or something similar? Have you thought about comparing seasonal trends?
Dabbous: So, originally, of course, when we hear “Middle East” in Canada, we think of Israel, Palestine, and October 7. Those are usually the dates people think about.
There were many relevant articles from, say, October 7 until the end of 2023. I’ve written about some of those elsewhere. But I thought 2024 was a good choice because it gave journalists some time. Sure, world events happen, and we can get drawn into them—and especially as writers, we feel responsible and want to speak up.
However, three months was a good window for Canadian media to reassess how they report. So it gave them a fair opportunity: okay, I’m starting the analysis on January 1—with Palestine and Israel in mind and the region more broadly.
It is not isolated even when it is not directly about the conflict. For example, if we look at articles about Iran or the Gulf, there are relationships to that conflict. As for your question about seasonal comparisons, I did not see much variation. Sometimes, depending on events—cultural events around Canada or international ones—you might detect a shift.
For instance, you could notice a more cultural tone around the Olympics, even in articles related to the Middle East. Some pieces mentioned Israel in the context of the Olympics—I forget which year that was—but you could see that framing shaping the coverage.
So, I would not say seasonal differences, per se, but yes, there are cultural events in the summer, and in the winter, there is Canada’s election and political season. In those periods, you would see similarities because some articles were about things like a political meeting or a statement by a politician. So, journalists tended to follow that rhythm.
Jacobsen: Which publication—or author within a publication—leaned furthest to the right, and who was most stringent in their left-wing truisms?
Dabbous: First, in my original draft, I had not considered left, right, or center categorizations. Later, with Policy Options, this distinction was added, perhaps to clarify that there are differences between outlets—though I’m personally skeptical of those divisions.
What did I observe in terms of left versus right? It’s hard to say definitively. As I mentioned, I’m skeptical of these classifications. Take The Globe and Mail. The article says it leans slightly more right than the Toronto Star—which I’m not entirely convinced of.
The Globe and Mail’s article output was more thematic. For example, it tended to focus more on experts and think tanks. Ambassadors or former ambassadors would often weigh in as well. That is not necessarily a right- or left-wing orientation. Some political leanings may show up more in certain sectors than others, but that’s more indirect.
The Toronto Star tries to engage more with community voices so that it might include more left-leaning perspectives. But honestly, in terms of output, themes, and content—it was relatively the same across the three.
Even The National Post—although perhaps we can more confidently say it leans more to the right than the other two—I approached them all as individual human beings writing.
These were not robotic news reports. These were opinion pieces—personal voices and expressions. In that sense, the political spectrum was not relevant to the heart of the analysis.
Jacobsen: In analyzing some of this commentary on the Middle East, does the Canadian left-right spectrum match the American left-right spectrum in your experience?
Dabbous: That’s a good question, and it’s worth investigating. I have previously analyzed how the U.S. covers the Middle East. Your inclination might be right—it’s a bit more fleshed out in the U.S., that’s possible.
In Canada, maybe this is also what people tend to think, but the spectrum is much more fluid—where people stand and what they stand for are not necessarily fixed or set in stone. But I can’t give you a definitive answer because I do not know for certain.
Jacobsen: How do you define a peace-oriented op-ed?
Dabbous: Look, so: peaceful article, pacifist article—I was playing around with those terms at some point. What matters is which articles and which writers have peace in mind. Are they mentioning the word itself? Are they proposing solutions that could lead to peace?
Again, the criteria were broad, and I made them broad on purpose because not many articles explicitly mention the word “peace” or other directly related terms.
So my criteria were not limited to whether they called for peace or a ceasefire but also whether they called for tolerance, nuance, people’s calm down, practical solutions—or even if they were pointing out the lack of solutions or imagination. Those were the articles I categorized as a pacifist, calling for peace, or interested in peace.
So yes, the definition was broad. The numbers aren’t bad for The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star. Around two-thirds—Toronto Star had at least two-thirds, and The Globe and Mail came in at 71%.
Had I narrowed the definition of peace, those numbers would have been much lower, and they likely would not have been as indicative—because journalism is not necessarily meant to advocate in direct terms. And also, not all of these articles are about the Palestine-Israel case. Some address events happening elsewhere in the Middle East.
Even some articles about Syria and regime change—you could tell that some were more belligerent, maybe a bit reckless in their wording. Others were quite the opposite: they viewed these developments as opportunities for peace or positive change in the region. That would be an example of the contrast I observed—the Tupac option shifts.
Jacobsen: Why was Naomi Klein’s Guardian US piece such an effective article, particularly regarding high digital engagement? Digital engagement is not guaranteed. You can publish in the largest publications in the world and receive almost no engagement. So that kind of engagement is a key point of skill—a compliment to her.
Dabbous: Yes, absolutely. Great question. This article section was meant to show some differences outside this small Canadian media bubble while still tying it back to Canada—because Klein is, perhaps, our celebrity.
You are right that digital engagement needs to be indicative. Now, digital engagement can mean many things. It could be the comments left on an article. But for me, it was about what people were Googling. If people heard Naomi Klein wrote an article, they would likely Google her. If they read that article, they probably Googled her again. That’s different, of course, from the norm. We’re comparing her with columnists who don’t have that same reach or whose reputations do not precede them. So, there are limitations to that comparison.
Still, to answer your first question—why was it effective qualitatively, beyond the numbers?—it was a strong mix of rhetorical voice and communication strategies. She appeals to our emotions. She appeals to our logic. She situates her argument historically but carefully remains grounded in the present and proposes solutions for today.
I used that article heuristically—as an illustrative example—because Canadian articles published in the three major outlets I studied were often framed as historical or policy-based and political, cultural and divorced from politics, or sometimes humanitarian, moral, or legal in tone. And that, in itself, is a limitation—not only in terms of engagement but also in terms of the issues being explored.
For example, The Globe and Mail—perhaps a big part of its brand identity is that it claims to know the experts and will bring those voices to your phone or iPad. Sure, it is fine to build a brand identity around expert knowledge. But when we are talking about a region that does not always need expertise in political theory or negotiation strategy, sometimes it needs a human voice.
Naomi Klein’s article calls for specific changes, but it does so with a human voice—the entire point of an opinion piece. Otherwise, I have seen some op-eds that could have easily been formal reports or direct recommendations from the think tanks from which the writers come.
Jacobsen: Why were lawyers less likely to advocate for peace based on their interpretation of international law? I assume it’s similar to politicians who’ve only had a career in politics—unlike someone like Bob Rae, who has experience in politics and at the UN. He understands the adversarial nature of politics and the diplomacy and consensus-building approach of the United Nations. It seems lawyers are often trained in a more adversarial mode—because that is what pays the bills.
Dabbous: Good question. So yes, whether I was surprised or not, lawyers scored lower than other professions.
The moment I saw articles referencing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the legal cases being brought against Israel—across all three publications—I saw lawyers weighing in. Some agreed and thought it was good for international law to hold Israel accountable. Others argued that there are flaws in the process and that we should rethink these institutions.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, your inclination is correct. For example, you would expect this adversarial style of argumentation in politics, where the training favours that kind of engagement.
What I am also recommending, though, is self-awareness—that there are certain vocabularies and certain rhetorical strategies that are considered sure and effective ways to address an issue. Sometimes, you need the output of a think tank with its analytical privilege. Sometimes, you need the perspective of a lawyer who has access to laws and their history.
But again, the whole point is that these people—regardless of background—are deciding to be writers. They are deciding, “I want to write an opinion piece.” And that exercise is inherently a point of view, even though structurally, the entire op-ed format encourages a singular point of view.
You see it clearly in submission guidelines: “Submit your opinion pieces or your op-eds.” Newspapers are partially to blame for that. They encourage specificity. They say, “We’re a diverse country, filled with all these perspectives. But to sell your article, we must highlight what’s unique about you.”
Sure, that is effective in practice—because that draws readers in. But if we are serious about writing because an issue matters—we want to find collective solutions—then we start to run into problems when we think too rigidly about specialization.
Jacobsen: One last question—were there some warmongers? And if so, were they about 10%, 5%, or 1%? Warmongers will always exist, but that’s concerning if it’s 20%. If it’s 5%, okay, that’s tolerable.
Dabbous: Now, that’s maybe the most important question—it underpins the whole inquiry. Yes, there were warmongers. I could prove that qualitatively by looking at what they wrote, analyzing the strategies they used, and even quoting some of the lines in those articles. “Peace through war,” “peace through war”—that sentiment echoed. And I chose not to focus the study through that direct lens. I chose a slightly more neutral route without even creating a category for the percentage of warmongers. That would be a great addition, as you suggest.
In any case, to give you more concrete detail, no—it was not an alarming number. Sure, at the National Post, quite a few writers could be described as interventionists. But to be honest, everyone is an interventionist in some way. Even someone advocating for peace is, in a sense, calling for intervention. The difference lies in how you intervene, how far you’re willing to go, and what kind of intervention you propose.
So even at the National Post, I would not say there were significantly more warmongers than at The Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star. At Toronto Star, I can think of one writer—without naming them—whose articles were, in my view, not politically responsible. Not responsible for a writer. Because we write words, and words mean things. Whether or not those words are true is another matter, but at the very least, they carry weight and consequences.
Maybe what’s most striking about this analysis is that—even if you’re interested in how many warmongers there are—the numbers don’t differ much between the publications. And the effects don’t differ much either. One warmonger or one journalist at the Toronto Star who writes regularly—there’s a big difference between a regular columnist and a one-time contributor—that person can have just as much influence as someone at the National Post, even if Canadians already perceive the Post as aligned with a certain ideological stance and therefore might discount it.
However, when someone at The Globe and Mail or Toronto Star writes a similarly forceful piece, it can have a greater impact. We tend to believe it more, for example. That’s the real point. Being a warmonger is not that hard. It doesn’t take writing overtly violent statements. It can come through subtle framing, key sentences or a tone. It just takes the act of writing.
And this is why we are both implicated—as writers. That is a responsibility we share, especially when writing about a region that probably doesn’t need more words spoken about it. Choosing to add more words is a choice—and it’s a tricky one. More words are written about the Middle East than grains of sand in its deserts. So, yes, choosing to write about the region should be an opportunity for reflection, not exploitation.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Have fun at work.
Dabbous: Awesome. Thank you, Scott. It’s always a pleasure.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16
Marwa Dashti, Afghan advocate and co-founder of the Fahim Dashti Foundation, about the devastating state of women’s rights in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Dashti highlights systemic oppression through bans on education, employment, movement, and public expression, driven by fear of female empowerment. Despite the extreme danger, Afghan women resist through anonymous journalism and quiet defiance. She stresses that the situation is a human rights crisis and a societal collapse. International frameworks help, but change must come from continued global pressure and Afghan resilience. The Foundation stands as a beacon of advocacy, truth, and hope.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Marwa Dashti, Afghan advocate, daughter of the late journalist Fahim Dashti, and co-founder of the Fahim Dashti Foundation, which focuses on press freedom and women’s rights in Afghanistan.
The focus of today’s conversation is the condition of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan. I chose this topic because the contrast between Afghanistan and much of the world is stark, and the regression happened in such a short period. Multiple actors—nation-states and groups—bear responsibility for the current state of affairs. These were not accidents; they were conscious choices.
Yet, even setting that aside, we are left with the very real and dire conditions facing women and girls in Afghanistan today. Within that context, what metaphor, image, or symbolic portrait best captures the reality for Afghan women right now?
Marwa Dashti: For Afghan women, I think right now, many are going through what is understandably a period of deep mental and emotional distress. They have been stripped of their most basic human rights. That kind of trauma takes a toll, especially over time.
However, the most accurate and powerful portrait of Afghan women today is one of resilience. Their strength in the face of everything—the fact that they still hold on to hope, that they continue to resist, to speak out even in whispers, and to process life under this brutal regime—that courage defines them. So yes, the most honest image of Afghan women today is one of strength and defiance against all odds.
Jacobsen: What is the role of journalism in that context? Whether we’re talking about anonymous or pseudonymous guerrilla journalism—those trying to tell difficult stories from the inside—or traditional reporting focused on the Taliban’s public policies and their effects on women and girls, what does journalism look like under such conditions?
Dashti: The contrast between journalism in Afghanistan and the West is enormous. In Western societies, journalism is vital, but here, people can access information through social media and other platforms. Everyone is connected, and many people engage in journalism without realizing it. Even influencers, in their way, can contribute to public awareness—something I’ve said before in interviews. I do think that in today’s media environment, being an influencer can amount to a kind of journalism.
But in Afghanistan, it is completely different. You cannot just openly speak your mind. Freedom of speech does not exist under the Taliban. You cannot critique the government. You cannot expose injustice without risking your life.
And yet, despite the overwhelming danger, some people—especially women—still take that risk. They document what is happening. They share stories. They try to show the world the brutality of the regime: the arrests, the torture, the disappearances, the killings. And they do it anonymously, knowing they will not receive recognition or reward—only risk.
They could be caught. They could lose everything—the very little they have left. And still, they continue.
That, to me, is extraordinary. Without them, we would not know much of what we know about what is happening inside Afghanistan. Their courage is the heartbeat of resistance, and their work is vital for understanding this crisis.
Unfortunately, the news inside Afghanistan is heavily censored by the Taliban. Without independent journalists working in the country, we would receive false or manipulated information. The fact that there are journalists—men and women—fiercely committed to truth, working under constant threat, without any personal gain, and to get the real story out there is incredibly important right now.
They speak the truth about their people. Without them, the situation could have been a hundred times worse. Even the minimal global attention Afghanistan receives today is largely thanks to their efforts. Without them, we would not even have that.
Jacobsen: According to the Women, Peace, and Security Index (2023), Afghanistan ranked 177th out of 177 countries regarding women’s status, evaluating inclusion, justice, and security. Similarly, the Global Gender Gap Report (2023) placed Afghanistan 146th out of 146 countries, with only 40.5% of the gender gap closed—across areas like economic participation, education, health, and political empowerment.
Do these numbers reflect what you are seeing and experiencing in your analysis?
Dashti: Unfortunately, yes. That is not surprising at all. I do not think there is any country in the world right now where the situation for women is as dire as it is in Afghanistan.
We live in the 21st century. Elsewhere, people are talking about colonizing Mars—and yet we have an entire country where the government forbids girls from attending school beyond the second grade. It is absurd.
How can anyone justify that? How is the international community tolerating this? It’s beyond comprehension.
Half the population—women—are barred from school, from contributing to society, and from pursuing careers. They are controlled in every aspect of their lives: what they wear, how they present themselves, what they say, where they go, and even whether they can sing or hear their voices publicly.
It is oppressive beyond belief. And no, I do not think there is a worse situation for women anywhere else on Earth right now.
Jacobsen: The United Nations has described Afghanistan today as “the world’s most repressive country for women.” UN experts have stated that the situation resembles conditions before February 2002—effectively erasing twenty years of progress in education, employment, Freedom of movement, public participation, legal protections, and protection from violence.
Many people find this a sensitive subject. So, for documentation and clarity, let us go through some of these factors factually, as identified by the UN. On education: Girls are banned from secondary and university education. The Taliban has issued edicts denying access to school beyond the sixth grade, as reported by UN Women.
Why the restriction on secondary and university education? Why is the focus on cutting off access beyond sixth grade?
Dashti: From what we observed, when the Taliban first took over, there was a very brief window during which women were still allowed to work and continue their education. But that didn’t last long.
Initially, this notion was circulated—”Taliban 2.0″—the idea that they had changed, that they were no longer the same as the Taliban of the 1990s. People wanted to believe they were more modern, more moderate. I think what the Taliban tried to do was gradually restrict women’s rights so that the international community—and even local communities—would become accustomed to the changes little by little.
First, they banned secondary education. Then came the restrictions on universities. After that, they began dictating what women could wear. Then came limits on where women could go. Now, we are seeing women silenced even in public spaces—not allowed to speak or have their voices heard in public forums.
There’s no particular reason they drew the line in sixth grade. It was just the beginning of a strategy to systematically dismantle the education system for girls, slowly enough that people would not react all at once. Their end goal is to eliminate female education, but they’re doing it step by step, trying to normalize it.
Jacobsen: Are there any comparable cases in your mind—either in your travels to Albania, Pakistan, and Canada or in conversations with others—where you’ve encountered subcultures or conditions reflecting this kind of oppression? Or is this truly a uniquely severe case of women’s education?
Dashti: Simply put, women’s rights have been a global issue. This is not exclusive to Afghanistan. However, the severity of the situation in Afghanistan today is unlike anything we see anywhere else.
Yes, other countries have problems when it comes to gender equality. However, the total and deliberate rollback of women’s rights—especially education—to this extent in the 21st century is unique. Afghanistan stands out because of how systematic and ideological the oppression is.
Jacobsen: Regarding employment, Women have been prohibited from working in most non-governmental organizations since December 2022, and by April 2023, the ban was extended to include even United Nations missions. The European Parliament highlighted these restrictions. Why do you think the Taliban would even ban women from working in international organizations like the UN?
Dashti: I think it’s very simple. The Taliban are afraid of the power Afghan women possess. They are afraid of their strength, their resilience, and their ability to organize. Banning women from working with NGOs—and even from participating in UN missions—is an attempt to suppress and isolate them. The Taliban fear what women represent: education, progress, and Freedom. And so they’re trying to silence that power in any way they can.
It comes down to this: anything unknown is often perceived as dangerous. That is human nature. And the Taliban see the strength Afghan women possess. They see our potential. And because they do not understand how to coexist with that strength, they fear it. They label it as dangerous.
Their only way to deal with what they perceive as a threat is to suppress it and oppress it as much as they can. As a government, they do not want to be represented by women in any context, including domestic governance and international diplomacy. So when they extended these bans even to United Nations missions, it became clear: they are not just enforcing rules. They are enforcing a worldview in which women are deliberately excluded from visibility and power.
Whether it is because they believe they are inherently superior to women or simply because they fear what women are capable of—I think it is both—they are determined to control us through exclusion.
Jacobsen: Another factor raised by the international community is Freedom of movement. Since 2021, Afghan women have been prohibited from travelling without a mahram—a male relative. Let us explore both the physical and psychological aspects of that restriction. What does it mean in both tangible and symbolic terms?
On a physical level, it is very straightforward: women cannot go anywhere unless accompanied by a male relative. That includes necessities—going to work, visiting a doctor, or travelling between cities. It is a profound logistical barrier.
But psychologically, the restriction is even more damaging. It is a direct assault on a woman’s autonomy, on her right to exist independently.
Dashti: It sends a message that women are not full human beings—that we are incomplete without a man beside us.
This rule is part of a much broader effort to strip women of independence, piece by piece. And it overlooks a critical reality: many women do not have male relatives. There are orphans. There are single mothers, widows, and women whose families have been torn apart by decades of war. What happens to them?
Many of these women are also the sole providers for their families. If they cannot move freely, they cannot work, and their families suffer. This rule isn’t just oppressive—it is inhumane.
But again, the goal is clear: the Taliban want to condition women into believing that they cannot function without male oversight. They want to dismantle any remaining sense of independence.
Jacobsen: And that ties into public participation, perhaps the most visible aspect of rights. You have to be able to be seen in public to participate in public life.
Formal laws—published as recently as August 2024—now restrict or outright prohibit women’s voices from being heard publicly. I do not think they mean “public” in the sense of parliamentary buildings or being on the news. They mean it literally—your voice cannot be heard in the street, even in passing conversation. So, for example, if a woman is speaking and a man walks by, that is considered a violation. Is that accurate?
Dashti: Yes, that is very much accurate. The rule is meant to prevent women’s voices from being heard by any man, not just in official or professional settings but in everyday life.
So, for instance, if you are a woman shopping in a market and the shopkeeper is a man, you are no longer supposed to speak to him. This is interpreted literally—your voice cannot be audible to men in public. That is how far the restrictions have gone.
Jacobsen: And now we come to legal protection from violence, which people in the West might more readily recognize because it is an issue every country still struggles with—though reporting varies.
For example, Japan is often cited as having lower rates of reported violence, but those statistics may be shaped by how the country defines violence and how well incidents are documented.
In the case of Afghanistan, gender-based violence is high. According to UN Women, 34.7% of women aged 15 to 49 reported physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in 2018. Forced marriages are common.
Of course, data reliability becomes an issue under a theocracy that is increasingly cut off from the outside world. So, we often have to treat these statistics with caution. But based on your experience—particularly among refugees, asylum seekers, and others you’ve worked with—does this track with what you hear from women in that age range?
Dashti: Absolutely. We saw a sudden surge in these cases right after the Taliban takeover. There were credible reports of girls as young as eight being sold into forced and child marriages—for as little as a few hundred U.S. dollars. That is horrifying.
And even outside of Afghanistan—while I was in Albania, I worked with an organization that aimed to provide safe spaces for female Afghan refugees. Many of them reported experiences of domestic violence—not just back home but also in displacement.
So, while we must focus on the erasure of women’s rights inside Afghanistan, we also need to pay attention to Afghan women in exile—refugees, asylum seekers, and others—who are often still vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, even in host countries, including those in North America and Europe.
Jacobsen: Regarding political empowerment, it is effectively 0%. To round the data, women are not represented in political decision-making structures in Afghanistan today.
Are there any areas in which women in Afghanistan still have decision-making power—whether in the home, in the economy, in employment, or otherwise, regardless of whether they have children?
Dashti: No—honestly, I cannot think of a single situation where an Afghan woman holds meaningful decision-making power, especially not at the government level.
That said, I want to emphasize that while women may not currently make the decisions, they are fighting against those who do. The absence of power is not because Afghan women lack strength or capability—it is because they are being systematically oppressed.
But in terms of actual decision-making authority today, I cannot think of any context where an Afghan woman would be allowed to exercise it.
Jacobsen: In the absence of formal power, how do Afghan women realistically rebel or resist?
Dashti: I think a lot of it happens quietly—within the home, in their communities, and through subtle, daily acts of defiance. Feminism in Afghanistan is fundamentally different from feminism in Western countries.
In the West, feminism often works within the state—pushing for rights, representation, and reforms. But in Afghanistan, feminism is about challenging the very existence of the regime. It is about opposing the structure itself.
That takes strength beyond words. And the fact that so many Afghan women are risking their lives to resist is incredibly inspiring.
Jacobsen: What do people in places like Toronto or other relatively free societies take for granted?
Dashti: A normal life.
A free life where you can express your thoughts without fear, speak your truth openly, go for a walk alone, talk in public, go to school, go to work, and spend time with your family without the fear that something—or someone—will take all of that away from you.
Jacobsen: How important are international frameworks on gender parity—such as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action from September 1995—for defending Afghan women’s rights?
That document is still considered the most comprehensive global policy on gender equality, signed by nearly every UN member state. Beyond that, what other frameworks are you aware of, and how important are they—beyond the symbolic statements issued at UN events like the Commission on the Status of Women?
Dashti: These reports and frameworks influence policymaking and the international community’s reactions.
Let me rephrase that a bit. If we look at this through the lens of universal rights, the concept is simple: every human being is entitled to basic human rights, regardless of where they live.
So when organizations like the UN, UN Women, or other global bodies issue reports, declarations, or resolutions, they do more than make statements. These documents become points of pressure—tools that activists, governments, and civil society groups can use to hold nations accountable.
They set global standards, influence funding, diplomatic engagement, and policy, and while they may not immediately change conditions on the ground in places like Afghanistan, they provide the language, evidence, and international consensus needed to continue the fight.
However, when you look at the concept of universal rights in practice, they only apply within a functioning state and are only enforceable within a state framework. That is the paradox—rights are considered universal, but their application requires a state structure willing to uphold them.
The same goes for these global declarations and reports. The reports are often accurate, but the actual conditions are far more severe than what is reflected in the data.
That is partly due to the political and logistical restrictions in Afghanistan. But it is also because the international community is, to some degree, trying to normalize the situation. They do not want to admit how bad it has become or lack the will to confront it directly.
That said, I recognize the importance of these reports. They influence policymakers and lawmakers and serve as reference points for diplomacy, foreign aid, and advocacy. But they need to be more truthful—more precise. They must reflect the actual lived experience of Afghan women today.
Jacobsen: When I look at the current Taliban leadership—the men in power now—I see something tragic. They will eventually pass away, and younger generations may take over. But the ones leading now, I do not just see as oppressors, sometimes; I sometimes see them as victims of fate, chaos, and trauma.
Their extremism, both religious and political, seems to reflect something psychological—perhaps PTSD or complex post-traumatic stress disorder—the long-term effect of living in endless war.
It is heartbreaking, in a way, how this unresolved trauma gets twisted into repression and then imposed on everyone else.
I once interviewed a major Afghan journalist who said he was open to speaking with Taliban members. I found that remarkable—not because he agreed with them, but because he believed dialogue should always remain possible in a neutral space, maybe something like the Doha Debates format.
I would be interested in sitting down with them—not to endorse their ideology, obviously—but to understand, in a visceral way, what happens to men who are so deeply broken. Not their policies—we already know those—but the psychology beneath that extremism.
What do you think about that? What is your take on the psychology of people who become this repressive?
Dashti: Honestly, I believe the only emotion that could drive people to such extremes—to such complete repression—is fear. It is fear of losing control, fear of what women represent—education, progress, equality, fear of change, fear of anything they cannot dominate or contain.
They know that Afghan women are strong, educated, and capable—and they are terrified of that. So, they suppress it in every way they can. But deep down, I think you are right: it comes from a place of damage, of psychological injury. That fear becomes ideology, and then ideology becomes violence.
Jacobsen: So, the only emotion driving this is fear?
Dashti: Yes—fear is the only emotion I can think of that would produce such an extreme, controlling reaction. When we look at the psychological state of the leaders currently in power in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that their obsession with stripping away women’s rights comes from deep-seated fear.
The fact that the government is so singularly focused on erasing women’s presence from public life shows that they fear the power of Afghan women. And that fear manifests in these increasingly oppressive laws and boundaries. It is fear of what we represent—education, progress, autonomy—that drives their repression.
Jacobsen: Now, there was a third international metric I want to mention, complementing the Global Gender Gap Report 2023 and the Women, Peace, and Security Index 2023. This one is from a few years earlier—the 2019 Gender Inequality Index (GII). While the Global Gender Gap ranked Afghanistan 146 out of 146 and the WPS Index ranked 177 out of 177, the GII ranked Afghanistan 157 out of 162 in 2019.
This index focused on reproductive health, empowerment, and labour participation. More recent data would likely show an even lower ranking. And this type of change can happen fast—as we saw in the United States with the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, setting a precedent that reshaped reproductive rights nationwide.
We’re not just living in a post-Roe world but in a post-Dobbs world. That reversal was swift and far-reaching, affecting millions of women.
So when the GII refers to reproductive health, what were they specifically measuring?
Dashti: May I add one point before answering?
Jacobsen: Of course—please do.
Dashti: Most people do not realize that Afghanistan’s situation can have a ripple effect beyond our borders. It is not isolated.
Our lives were overturned in a matter of two weeks. That kind of rapid collapse could happen anywhere in the world, depending on who is in power and what ideologies they hold.
As you mentioned, we saw something similar to reproductive rights in the United States. The overturning of Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision stripped away rights from millions of women overnight. If it can happen there, that kind of rollback can happen elsewhere and in more extreme forms.
It is a stark reminder of how fragile women’s rights and human rights are globally. We cannot afford to take them for granted—not in Afghanistan, not in the West, not anywhere.
Jacobsen: What is the most sensitive or critical area regarding women’s rights? Is it political participation, economic opportunity, reproductive health, Freedom of movement, or psychological autonomy? Which of those categories stands out to you within the context of Afghanistan?
Dashti: I think they are all extremely damaging—every one of them. But if I had to choose the most damaging, I would say the ban on education.
That is why it was one of the first restrictions imposed after the Taliban regained power. Education is power. Knowledge is power. And by taking that away from half of the population, the Taliban are eliminating women’s ability to resist, grow, and lead.
So, yes—while reproductive health, empowerment, and labour market participation are all critical, the education ban is the most dangerous. It underpins everything else.
Jacobsen: Continuing with that list—reproductive health, empowerment, and labour market participation—these categories can sound vague. So let me ask more specifically: What has been the Taliban’s response to any form of resistance from Afghan women?
Dashti: Unfortunately, the backlash has been extremely severe. Most people outside Afghanistan are unaware of how serious the situation is.
The number of women leaders, advocates, and protesters who are currently in prison—being tortured, even killed—is horrifying. The forms of torture they endure are unspeakable.
Part of the reason more people do not know this is that the international community’s focus is elsewhere right now. The other part is the difficulty in getting accurate information out of Afghanistan due to the intense restrictions on journalism and the threats faced by reporters still trying to work there.
The backlash to resistance is beyond what most people can imagine.
Jacobsen: The Gender Inequality Index (2019) identified maternal mortality and adolescent birth rates as key reproductive health indicators. So, if you reduce or eliminate quality reproductive care, more women die during childbirth. Simultaneously, with rising child marriage, you see an increase in teen pregnancy.
When those conditions are coupled with the ban on education, you have the building blocks of a long-term cycle of poverty, early motherhood, and large families with low educational attainment—a dynamic most societies aim to mitigate. Do you see any way out of that cycle, which is now being explicitly constructed?
Dashti: Right now, it might seem impossible to break that cycle from the outside. The situation is too far gone.
But we have already seen that cycle broken. Afghan women have made incredible progress in the last twenty years—hard-won and transformative gains. So, while it feels like we are back at square one, I believe Afghan women have the strength to overcome this, too.
We have endured worse. We have risen before. And even in the face of this situation, I believe we will rise again, and the cycle will be broken—just as it was over the past two decades.
So yes, it might seem impossible right now—but we’ve done the impossible before, and I believe we will do it again.
Jacobsen: Another key factor is labour market participation. This one is a bit more nuanced. It is not just a drop in workforce involvement—it is, in many ways, an absolute collapse. There is now minimal to zero formal workforce participation for women.
The others compound this restriction. If women cannot speak in public, cannot sit in parliament, are limited to a sixth-grade education, and are likely to be married as teenagers or children, then even if a woman were to dodge all of those restrictions somehow and achieve the maximum education currently permitted, what employment options would exist?
Dashti: From what I can see, there are none.
There are a few exceptions. Undercover schools and organizations are operating covertly, some supported by the Afghan diaspora or Western allies. These are often run by women who fled Afghanistan and now operate remotely. A handful of women are involved in underground educational initiatives or small-scale projects that are tolerated for now because they fly under the radar.
However, outside of those, I do not see any viable employment opportunities for women. And to be completely honest, dodging all of those barriers is practically impossible under the current regime.
If a woman cannot speak in public, move freely, or pursue education, how is she supposed to work—in any capacity? So, right now, there are no real employment pathways available for women in Afghanistan.
Jacobsen: Not even allowed to enjoy One Direction.
Dashti: [Laughing] No. Not.
Jacobsen: Two additional metrics are worth mentioning. One is the Human Development Index (HDI) 2023–2024, one of the newest outside of Freedom House, which we’ll get to in a moment.
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Human Development Index 2023–2024, Afghanistan ranked 182 out of 193 countries, with an overall HDI score of 0.462.
The disparity becomes clearer when the data is gender-disaggregated: the female HDI is 0.406, while the male HDI is 0.547. That is a massive gap in an already extremely low development context.
Two of the clearest drivers behind this are the restriction on education and near-zero income levels due to the collapse in female labour force participation—which, as you’ve pointed out, aligns directly with your observations.
This brings us back to the Beijing Declaration, which repeatedly emphasizes the value of unpaid work—such as childcare, elder care, and community-building—which forms much of any society’s invisible infrastructure.
In most parts of the world, women predominantly build this kind of social capital. It is unpaid, unrecognized, and underappreciated, but it is essential.
Do these Afghan policies also damage the country’s potential to build or sustain social capital?
Dashti: Absolutely. These policies are not just harming women—they are harming the entire society.
When women are prevented from participating in education, employment, public life, and even in informal caregiving roles with autonomy, they are destroying the very Foundation of the community.
Women raise children, care for older people, build networks, and stabilize communities. Even when unpaid, their labour generates enormous social and economic value. But when you silence, isolate, and prevent them from contributing, you don’t just lose workforce participation. You also lose trust, connection, and social cohesion.
So yes, Afghanistan is not only losing the opportunity for women’s economic empowerment, but it is also losing its social capital, piece by piece.
Jacobsen: Another relevant report is the Freedom in the World 2024 by Freedom House.
As with the other data we’ve discussed, Afghanistan’s classification won’t surprise anyone. It was designated as “Not Free,” scoring 8 out of 100 overall—not a ranking, but a numerical score. Specifically, it scored 1 out of 40 for political rights and 7 out of 60 for civil liberties.
I am unsure how they arrived at the “7” for civil liberties. Given the ban on education and employment, exclusion from public participation, severe restrictions on movement, mandatory male guardianship, and public silence edicts, it is not easy to imagine what civil liberties remain.
That report encapsulates all the elements we’ve covered through the other indexes.
Then there’s the UN Women Gender Snapshot 2024, produced jointly by UN Women and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Afghanistan wasn’t assigned a numeric ranking, but it was explicitly identified as the worst performer on gender equality among 166 countries assessed.
For those unfamiliar with UN systems—such as model UN participants or those without a background in international relations—when the UN refers to “countries,” it typically means member states. These can include full member states, non-member observer states, small island developing states, and other special classifications with varying voting and veto power levels.
So even within that limited scope of 166 countries, Afghanistan was highlighted as the worst in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality.
And consistently, across these global indexes, the newer the data, the more reliably Afghanistan is positioned at the bottom in terms of gender equality—for both boys and girls, men and women.
Afghanistan is, therefore, a critical case study for discussion, analysis, and advocacy. It urgently reminds us that while every country has its gender parity challenges, there is value in calibrating outrage, contextualizing progress, and recognizing that some places—like Afghanistan—are facing an existential human rights crisis, especially for women and girls.
Looking through this data, one question stands out:
Where does the Fahim Dashti Foundation situate itself in light of this overwhelming body of evidence collected by serious international experts—statisticians, economists, and human rights monitors?
Dashti: The Fahim Dashti Foundation was born because of this crisis—it was created after the Taliban’s takeover in response to what we saw unfold in Afghanistan.
Our Foundation exists to honour my father’s legacy as a journalist, advocate for free expression, and continue his vision for a free, inclusive, and just society in Afghanistan—one where women are protected and empowered.
In the face of these reports—whether it’s the Freedom House rankings, the Human Development Index, the Gender Inequality Index, or the UN Gender Snapshot—we are grounded in reality. We know what is happening because we live it and hear it from people back home daily.
We position ourselves as a voice for truth, a platform for advocacy, and a network for resilience—especially for Afghan women, journalists, youth, and those in exile who still want to support their communities from afar.
We may not have the scale of the UN, but we have clarity of purpose, moral urgency, and a global community that is slowly but surely mobilizing.
Even without these reports, we already knew the situation was severe. We were living it and knew it was unlike anything else happening in the world.
But once again, the Afghan people—especially Afghan women—have faced hardship before. And in some ways, they have faced it even more severely. And every time, they have fought back. They have resisted.
The Dashti Foundation has always been public about the hope we carry—for a brighter Afghanistan. We are fully aware of the immense challenges our people are facing right now. But at the same time, we see their strength, their resilience, and their refusal to give up.
We wholeheartedly believe we will overcome this—but only if we continue fighting.
Jacobsen: Narges Mohammadi: What about her? She is a prominent and highly respected human rights activist. But what do you know that I might not?
Dashti: Honestly, the situation with Narges Mohammadi is very public, especially now. She is imprisoned, even though she is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
That fact alone—being a Nobel laureate and still being imprisoned—tells you everything you need to know about how authoritarian regimes view powerful, outspoken women.
And I believe what we are seeing in Iran, while it predates the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, has in some ways intensified after the fall of Kabul. When the focus of the international community shifted to Afghanistan, I think Iran’s regime saw a window to escalate its repression.
We all remember what happened a couple of years ago with the death of Mahsa Amini, which triggered the Women, Life, Freedom movement. That movement echoed far beyond Iran’s borders.
It shows that what happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan. It affects and influences neighbouring countries—and eventually the world.
When you look at someone like Narges Mohammadi, you see what these regimes fear most: a woman who leads. A woman who speaks truth to power. And because they fear women’s strength and potential, they try to suppress it by any means necessary.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marwa.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/15
Dr. Ran Anbar, a pediatric pulmonologist and clinical hypnosis expert, discusses the essential needs of children today, emphasizing emotional support, autonomy, and self-regulation over micromanagement. He explains how hypnosis helps youth manage stress and emotions and underscores the importance of validating children’s feelings. Anbar critiques the impact of social media on mental health, highlighting sleep deprivation and social comparison as significant issues. He advocates for structured routines, resilience-building through mistakes, and trusting children to foster self-confidence. His book The Life Guide for Teens provides practical tools—like positive self-talk and mindfulness—to help teens develop confidence, resilience, and emotional independence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Ran Anbar, MD, FAAP—a board-certified pediatrician and pulmonologist with extensive experience in clinical hypnosis for children and adolescents. With over 20 years of clinical practice, he has treated more than 5,000 patients. He currently practices at Center Point Medicine in La Jolla, California, and Syracuse, New York. A former SUNY Upstate Medical University faculty member, Dr. Anbar is also a Fellow and Approved Consultant of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. He authored The Life Guide for Teens, a book designed to help teenagers develop confidence, resilience, and healthier daily habits. Thank you very much for joining me today—I appreciate it. So, based on your decades of pediatric experience, what do children truly need to thrive in today’s world? And what do we often think they need, which, in reality, may not be essential at all?
Dr. Ran Anbar: Children must grow up in safe, stable environments and benefit from engaged adult involvement—ideally from two caregivers, as different perspectives enrich learning. They need opportunities to learn—not just in traditional classrooms, but in a range of environments. They also need emotional support and open communication with the people raising them. That connection helps them process challenges, test ideas, and grow with guidance. What people sometimes think kids need is constant micromanagement. Children indeed make mistakes, but overly controlling parents may feel the need to correct or prevent every error.
That’s a misjudgment. Children often learn best through experience—including making mistakes and reflecting on them. Some parents believe that punishing a child for errors is the way to teach them. But punishment often breeds resentment or the perception that the system is unfair. A better approach is to talk with the child about what went wrong, why it happened, and how they can improve. If the child feels genuine remorse, that’s usually enough. Even if a child repeats the same mistake several times, that’s not unusual. Sometimes, we must make a mistake multiple times before the lesson fully registers. The goal should be understanding, not control.
For example—and I share this with parents—when a toddler learns to walk, they fall down, get up, trip, fall again, and repeat this process for weeks. Falling is essential to development because that’s when the brain learns: You cannot walk that way. Teenagers need similar experiences to truly become resilient and gain mastery over themselves. If a parent micromanages a child, the child is not prepared to face the world independently.
Jacobsen: What about the role of emotional validation by guardians, parents, or elders in the community?
Anbar: Emotional validation is critical. It allows children to recognize and explore who they are, and it sends the message that it’s okay, for example, to disagree with adults or to think differently than others.
Many children fear being different because they fear being excluded or targeted for their uniqueness. Ironically, different people often have the most to contribute to society. They bring fresh perspectives. But because of that fear, many kids try to conform—unsure how to be. And if we do not validate their emotions, they feel even less empowered to express themselves.
So yes, validating feelings is essential. When raising a child who appears to be reacting inappropriately to something, it’s critical to approach the situation with curiosity, not judgment. Ask, “What were you thinking when you did that?”
Often, the child has a valid reason. For example, I remember an 8-year-old boy who refused to close the bathroom door. His parents kept yelling, “Close the bathroom door!”—but he would not.
When I saw him in my office, I asked him, “What’s going on?” He said, “I’m afraid of monsters in the bathroom.”
So, I gave him a monster spray.
If you want the recipe, we can talk about it later. He sprayed the bathroom, and after that, he could close the door. That was the right solution for an 8-year-old.
For a teen, I saw a 13-year-old today who refused to put on his seat belt. His mother yelled at him to wear it, but he refused. She stopped the car, and they got into a big argument.
I asked the bright-eyed teen, “What’s the purpose of a seat belt?”
He could not answer.
The adults around him had just assumed that he knew. But this kid had never been told directly.
So, I explained: “If your car stops suddenly, you could be thrown from the vehicle. You could get badly hurt—or worse.”
I shared a story. Once, I was on an airplane and got the dreaded call: “Is there a doctor on board?”
I went to help an older man with chest pain and sat next to him during the landing. I was in the aisle seat and was not wearing a seat belt. I couldn’t believe how much force I felt when the plane landed.
When you wear a seat belt, you do not realize how strong that stopping force is.
I told this story to the teen. When he said, “Okay, I’ll wear my seat belt,” there was no more argument.
So when a child seems to be acting irrationally, really listen. What appears irrational to an adult may make perfect sense to the child. Understand it, address it, and avoid repeated conflicts over things that do not need to be contentious.
Jacobsen: What about the role of hypnosis and self-regulation? Are there children for whom these tools are not necessary? And others for whom they’re essential and easy to adopt? And are there kids for whom it’s nearly impossible?
Anbar: First, hypnosis is just a way to use your imagination to help yourself. It’s not mind control, it’s not sleep, and it’s not unusual.
We experience hypnosis all the time. When you’re driving and suddenly wonder, “How did I get here?”—that’s a hypnotic state. When you’re in a boring lecture, and your mind drifts into daydreaming—that’s also a form of hypnosis.
So, hypnosis is a normal state of mind. But in that state, you can give yourself helpful suggestions—like calming your emotions, managing pain, or improving your focus. And by doing so, you can improve your life.
Anyone can benefit from hypnosis because it touches many areas of life. It can enhance athletic and academic performance, emotional regulation, and creativity—anything involving the mind can be improved through hypnosis.
I’ve found that if you offer children a way to self-regulate—and it only takes about 10 minutes to get started—they typically are not interested unless they have an immediate need.
So, who benefits? Anyone with a chronic illness—child or adult. Why? Because living with a chronic condition brings uncertainty and emotional stress. In the U.S., around 60% of adults have a chronic illness. If you have a brain, you’re going to think about it—you might feel anxious or depressed or dread going to the hospital again. That stress can make symptoms worse.
When people learn to self-regulate, primarily through hypnosis, symptoms often improve—sometimes dramatically. Sometimes, people even reduce or eliminate the need for certain medications because they manage symptoms better through the mind-body connection.
Other people who benefit are those who struggle with emotional regulation, especially anger. Many children have trouble with anger, and many parents do, too. In my book, The Life Guide for Teens, I encourage teens and parents to use hypnosis for emotional regulation.
Hypnosis can be a shortcut for changing your mindset. I often tell parents: if you’re arguing with your teen, and one of you is angry—stop. It’s not worth continuing. If you’re yelling, your teen shuts down. They are no longer listening. You’re just wasting your breath.
And if they’re angry, they’re not listening either. So, if the topic matters, take a break, cool down, and then come back and talk calmly.
Anger is hard to control. When your teen does something wrong, your impulse is to correct it immediately—sometimes by raising your voice. But if you yell, they stop hearing you. The lesson is lost. The learning opportunity is gone.
That’s why parents and children should learn emotional regulation, and hypnosis is an excellent, fast, and effective tool.
Jacobsen: Are there early warning signs of mental illness—or at least mental health struggles—in youth that differ from those in adults, or are they more or less the same?
Anbar: I think the signs of mental health challenges often show up in behaviour, so they manifest differently in children than in adults. For example, teenagers might isolate themselves from their rooms, whereas adults may start missing work. Teenagers often struggle with judgment, so poor decision-making might not stand out. However, in an adult, a sudden onset of poor decision-making may be a clear red flag for a mental health issue. In children, signs of mental illness include social withdrawal, loss of friendships, or expressions of hopelessness—things like saying, “Nothing I do matters,”or “Life isn’t worth living.” That does not necessarily mean they are suicidal, but it reflects emotional distress. If a child loses interest in activities they once enjoyed, that could be a sign of depression. If they avoid everyday tasks out of fear—because they’re overly worried about what could go wrong—that can signal anxiety, which is one of the most common mental health concerns in children.
Jacobsen: Do social media and screen time influence or contribute to mental health struggles? Or do they also, in some ways, contribute positively to mental health? Are some of the publicized concerns red herrings?
Anbar: I think the public concerns underestimate the impact of social media on youth mental health. Let’s take autism, which has been in the news recently. There’s been a dramatic increase in the diagnosis rate. I looked this up today—though please double-check the figures—but in 1989, the reported prevalence was about 4 cases per 10,000 children. It’s estimated at around 3% today, or 300 per 10,000. Why is that? I believe it’s multifactorial. There are likely environmental contributors, and I suspect screen exposure—particularly in young children—is part of the equation. For instance, when two-year-olds are placed in front of iPads, they become quiet and self-occupied. Parents often see quiet behaviour as convenient, so they’re left alone. But instead of playing in a sandbox, interacting with other kids, throwing sand (and learning that it makes another child cry and that this has consequences), those children miss vital social learning experiences. For kids who may already be borderline neurodivergent, these missed opportunities can make a big difference in their developmental trajectory. I have not yet seen definitive studies confirming this hypothesis. Still, I strongly suspect that insufficient early social interaction—due to increased screen exposure—can lead to long-term difficulties with socialization, possibly contributing to the rise in autism diagnoses.
Now, social media and internet use affect teens in multiple harmful ways. There’s already strong data indicating that the more time adolescents spend on social media, the more likely they are to experience anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. In my view, one of the main reasons for this is its negative impact on sleep.
Teens are often on their phones late at night—playing video games, texting, scrolling through Instagram or TikTok—and lose sleep. Lack of sleep contributes to anxiety, depression, suicidality, and poor academic performance, all of which are on the rise among teenagers. The average teen should sleep between 8 and 10 hours per night, but most are getting 7 hours or less. It is a real crisis. What else? Social media. Social media places the entire world at your fingertips 24/7. When I was growing up, if there was a school shooting—and yes, there were shootings in the ’70s and’ 80s—I might not have even heard about it. It might have aired briefly on the evening news if I had happened to watch it, which I usually did not. Maybe it was in the newspaper, which I didn’t read either. So I’d be oblivious. Now, if there’s a school shooting, it’s immediately on your phone. Teens are exposed to it constantly, and it starts to feel like it’s happening everywhere. Yes, school shootings have increased, but the sense of danger is amplified by algorithms that repeatedly push similar content, reinforcing the belief that the world is far more dangerous than it may statistically be. That creates heightened anxiety. It’s not like the past when kids played outside until dark and came home to sleep—without being exposed to traumatic events from all over the world. Another issue is the idealized version of life that teens see on social media. Many want to be influencers or YouTubers, but those roles are only achieved by a tiny fraction. Most teens never get there, and as a result, they feel inadequate. They think, “I’m not popular,” or “I don’t get enough likes,” and that spirals into depression—because adolescents crave being liked and accepted. These are entirely new emotional challenges brought about by the digital world. Some teens tell me, “I wish I didn’t have a smartphone.” Some have even said, “I wish nobody had smartphones,”because if you don’t have a phone, you risk being socially excluded—everything happens via text. But some teens are wise enough to see the downsides. Some countries are already regulating screen use. I do not see that happening in the United States anytime soon, so it’s up to the teens and their parents to self-regulate. I recommend that teens schedule their phone use—perhaps 30 minutes, two or three times daily—and otherwise keep it off. I encourage them to inform their friends about this plan so they don’t expect immediate replies. I have seen kids text a friend, not get a response in 10 minutes, and spiral into panic: “My friend has abandoned me,” or “They don’t like me anymore,” or “I’m an outcast”—all because the other teen was eating dinner and put the phone down.
Jacobsen: How can caregivers help their kids—or young people in general—develop emotional independence and self-trust?
Anbar: The first step is allowing the child to make choices, especially during the teen years. When you’re parenting a young child, they typically ask what to do, and you give them instructions—they follow them. However, during adolescence, kids begin to form their own opinions. Often, parents override those opinions because they believe them to be flawed or naive. But making mistakes—and learning from them—is part of growing up. It’s how young people become independent and build resilience.
In my practice, when parents come into the office with their children, they sometimes want to speak for them. I stop them and say, “No, I want to hear from your child.” That’s because when a parent tells the story, they may frame it differently than the child would. Even if the child agrees, speaking for them can send a subtle message: “You can’t speak for yourself.”
So, I ask the child directly. This sends an important signal: “I trust you.” And even if the child leaves something out or doesn’t explain things perfectly, that’s okay. If something is important, it will come up again.
The best way for caregivers to help children build self-trust is to demonstrate that they trust the child. That means letting them make decisions—even when those decisions are mistakes. When they mess up, the parent can say, “I believe in you. I’m proud that you’re learning from this.”
As children grow into teenagers, a parent’s role should shift. You go from being an enforcer who tells the child what to do to a supporter who encourages them to make good choices while still letting them make the choice.
The only time I believe a parent should pull rank—”You will do this because I’m your parent”—is in situations where the child’s choice could result in serious harm. For instance, if a child refuses to wear a seatbelt, I support the parent who pulls over and says, “We’re not going anywhere until you put that on.” That is a safety issue.
But let them fail for non-life-threatening matters—like not practicing a musical instrument and then performing poorly in a recital. Let them experience the consequences. That’s how they learn.
Jacobsen: Are the youth cohort less resilient than two or three generations ago?
Anbar: Interesting question. I think so. I think today’s youth tend to be less resilient, partly because their parents are also anxious—often for the same reasons as their children. Parents are far more vigilant than they were two or three generations ago.
As I mentioned, kids played outside independently, walked to friends’ homes, and had sleepovers without much supervision. Today, parents are often afraid to let their children out of sight—concerned about potential kidnappings, unsafe neighbours, or simply that their child might make a mistake.
So, kids are getting fewer opportunities to build independence and resilience.
We used to talk about “helicopter parents”—those who hover over their children constantly. I recently heard a new term: “bulldozer parents.” These parents clear every obstacle out of their child’s way in advance. They believe they’re helping, sparing their child from suffering. To develop resilience, caregivers need to give children opportunities to struggle independently.
In this hyper-competitive society, many parents feel that if they do not constantly push their child—ensuring top grades and college admissions—their child’s life will be ruined. But that’s parental anxiety talking. In the process, they deprive the child of valuable opportunities to become more resilient.
Jacobsen: What is the helpful role of discipline in a sleep schedule? And how do these things, counterintuitively, support creativity and the ability to engage in unstructured play? Are structured routines helpful for those areas, too?
Anbar: As I mentioned earlier, sleep is essential. For older children who may resist bedtime routines, it is important to talk with them about why sleep matters and get their buy-in.
You mentioned discipline. I am unsure if you meant self-discipline on the child’s part or discipline imposed by the parent—but either way, having a structure is essential.
Some parents take a free-range approach, letting kids do whatever they want. But that does not build resilience and does not reflect how the real world works.
It is important to provide structure, such as limiting video games on school nights or restricting smartphone use after a certain hour.
For example, set a rule that phones must be turned in by 9 p.m. Explain the reasoning. Make it clear that phones should not be taken to bed because that disrupts sleep. Younger teens especially struggle with resisting temptation. That’s developmentally normal, so help them manage it.
But also explain: “This is to help you.” When children understand the rule’s purpose, most will cooperate—not all, but most.
Self-discipline is key to living a good and successful life. However, children must be allowed to develop self-discipline. They will not learn self-discipline by being told what to do at every moment.
Again, we’ve discussed how free-range parenting, where little to no guidance, is ineffective. Helicopter parenting, where parents constantly hover and direct every move, is not effective either. It is about balance.
If I may recommend a book—not my own—there’s one called Parenting with Love and Logic for Teens by Foster Cline. It is a very straightforward, practical guide.
The core idea is this: as a parent, your job is to provide the environment where your child can thrive. But it is the child who thrives. It is not your job to do it for them. And I fully agree with that.
Jacobsen: What would you consider the core themes—as rhetorical questions—you ask and answer in The Life Guide for Teens?
Anbar: The main rhetorical question that underlies the book is: How can I help myself become happier, healthier, more confident, and more resilient? That’s the foundation. Because if you can achieve those four things, you will be in a good place.
The Life Guide for Teens’ message is that you can already do all of this within you. It’s just a matter of tapping into that inner potential, and the book focuses on how to do that.
Let me briefly share three key tools we explore.
First, positive self-talk. How you speak to yourself shapes how you see yourself—and, ultimately, what you become. If you repeatedly tell yourself, “I can’t do this” or “I’m no good,” that becomes your identity. But if you affirm, “I’m learning,” “I’m growing,” or “I can succeed,” your mind begins to align with that.
The Buddha said it well nearly 2,700 years ago: What we think, we become. That was true millennia ago, and it remains true today. So, I teach teens to shape their internal dialogue consciously.
Second, self-regulation. I teach how to calm your body and mind through simple techniques, including hypnosis. For example, you can learn to imagine a calming place and train your body to reenter that calm state in moments of stress. That’s a powerful tool.
Third, listen to your inner self—your subconscious. That starts with quieting your mind. One easy way is to take a walk in nature, ask yourself a question, and allow the answer to float into your awareness. You can do this in other settings, too, of course, but the key is learning to listen inwardly.
Your life will improve if you follow these three tools: positive self-talk, emotional self-regulation, and listening to your inner self.
The book includes 180 tools in total. It’s not meant to be read straight through. Instead, pick a chapter or a tool that speaks to you and try it out. If it works, it could make a lasting difference in your life.
Jacobsen: When I talk to psychologists—particularly those I reach out to because they specialize in narcissism, including formal Narcissistic Personality Disorder—two connected ideas frequently come up. On one hand, there’s the false self, the curated identity presented to others. You alluded to this earlier when talking about social media—the teenager who doesn’t get a reply in 10 minutes or enough likes and suddenly feels rejected or collapses emotionally.
On the other hand, there’s the authentic self—sometimes called the real or true self. To people like me, who come from different areas of expertise but encounter these terms in psychological discussions, they can sound abstract. But subjectively, I completely understand what they point to.
How can the principles you’ve shared—about self-regulation, resilience, inner calm, and subconscious awareness—help children and teens learn about their authentic selves rather than letting that self shrink while feeding the false self?
Anbar: Great question. To me, the key is the subconscious. That’s how we access the inner self.
The inner self is fascinating, and I’m writing a third book on this topic. I’ve repeatedly found that the subconscious tends to tell the truth, giving us unfiltered insight.
Let me share an example. I once asked a 16-year-old boy a question. But before I asked him, I asked the question of his subconscious. The boy had just learned to drive. I said, “You’ve been told you’re not allowed to drive other teens yet. But your friends ask you to take them to the mall. Do you do it?”
His subconscious responded, “No, he’s not a good driver. He shouldn’t do that.”
Then I asked his conscious mind the same question. He said, “I probably would because I don’t want to disappoint my friends. But if I didn’t, I’d brag to my parents about it.”
Then I asked a teenage girl the same question—she was also just learning to drive. I posed the question to her subconscious: “Should you drive your friends to the mall?” Her subconscious said, “Yes, she’s a good driver.”
When I asked her conscious mind, she said, “No, I wouldn’t—it’s against the law.”
The answers are interesting because they show a split: the subconscious responds based on self-knowledge and personal safety, while the conscious self responds according to social norms, legal expectations, or peer pressure.
The boy’s subconscious admitted he wasn’t a safe driver, while the girl’s subconscious felt confident in her driving skills. But the conscious answers were reversed—one wanted approval, the other cited the law.
This illustrates how the subconscious operates honestly, often in ways that prioritize the person’s well-being, while the conscious self is much more influenced by external rules and social dynamics.
So, if you want to help a young person connect to their authentic self, you help them access their subconscious. That part of themselves can guide them with more clarity and integrity than the performative self we present.
Jacobsen: Do you think the challenges facing kids today have substantially changed? Or have we just changed the lettering on the cake and the icing while the cake—the underlying challenges—stays the same?
Anbar: No, the challenges have substantially changed. We’ve discussed the Internet and social media—these didn’t even exist thirty years ago.
Also, societal expectations have intensified. There’s this pervasive idea that everyone needs to excel—and if you’re not at the top, you’re seen as a failure. That kind of pressure has gotten worse over time.
It’s interesting—recently, I came across an essay I wrote in college about 45 years ago. I went to the University of California, San Diego. In that essay, I argued that college should be harder. That was 35 years ago, and I still stand by that today.
I don’t think college is always the best path—especially for fields that do not require extensive mentoring, like medicine or law.
Back then, and even more so now, we’ve created this cultural expectation that everyone needs a college degree to succeed. But many degrees aren’t particularly useful in today’s job market. For example, a bachelor’s in psychology or political science won’t get you far unless you go to graduate school.
So we’re pushing kids toward higher education under the assumption that it’s essential for a good life, and in many cases, that isn’t true. That pressure is unnecessary, and it’s weighing heavily on young people.
Some of the most successful individuals we know—like Bill Gates—dropped out of college. Why? For many people, the structure of college doesn’t provide the value they need.
If I change the system today, that’s one area I would re-examine.
I’m going off-topic here. Still, I also believe our education system has not evolved with modern technology—especially given the rise of the Internet and artificial intelligence.
We still rely heavily on the lecture format, which dates back thousands of years when people couldn’t read. But we’re far past that now.
We could design much more efficient learning models—letting students read at their own pace, watch lectures online, and then use class time for deeper discussion, personalized problem-solving, and mentorship. That’s where the real value lies.
Jacobsen: Dr. Anbar, thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I genuinely appreciate your insights and expertise.
Anbar: Thank you for the opportunity.
Jacobsen: Excellent. I’ll be in touch.
Anbar: 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): 2025/05/14
Professor Stacey B. Lee of Johns Hopkins discusses a pivotal Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s authority under the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs argue the Task Force violates the Appointments Clause, potentially limiting HHS’s ability to mandate no-cost preventive care. Lee outlines the legal, policy, and public health stakes, warning of impacts on 50 million Americans and broader threats to agency authority. She emphasizes the vital role of medical experts and highlights the contrast between U.S. religious influence on healthcare policy and evidence-based approaches seen in other democracies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Stacey B. Lee, JD. She is a Professor at Johns Hopkins University, with appointments at both the Carey Business School and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Professor Lee combines academic excellence with over a decade of legal and regulatory experience. Her forthcoming book, Transforming Health Care Through Negotiation (Routledge, 2025), introduces tools for improving care delivery and health outcomes. She is also a Fulbright Specialist, a court-appointed mediator, and a TEDx speaker. Professor Lee is a frequent contributor to outlets such as CNN, NPR, and The Washington Post. Through her teaching and leadership, she is reshaping healthcare negotiations across both clinical and administrative domains. Thank you very much for joining me today. What legal argument has been presented to the Supreme Court regarding the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force?
Professor Stacey B. Lee: What’s interesting about this case is that one of the most widely supported provisions of the Affordable Care Act is the mandate for no-cost preventive services. The plaintiffs in this case argue that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which identifies which services must be covered without cost-sharing, violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The USPSTF is composed of volunteer experts—mostly physicians—who are appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), not by the President or confirmed by the Senate. Under the ACA, insurers must follow their recommendations for certain preventive services to be covered without out-of-pocket costs. The plaintiffs argue that these recommendations have the force of law but are made by individuals not constitutionally authorized to wield such authority. They claim this delegation violates the Appointments Clause because the members are neither principal nor inferior officers appointed correctly in Article II of the Constitution. Therefore, the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the mandate on this constitutional basis.
Jacobsen: How does this test the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)?
Lee: If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it would significantly constrain HHS’s ability to enforce the preventive care mandate under the ACA. HHS relies on the USPSTF to determine which services must be covered without cost-sharing. If the Court ruled that the USPSTF’s authority was unconstitutional, HHS would no longer have a valid legal mechanism to enforce these mandates through that task force. Essentially, it would put HHS in a regulatory bind. They would either need Congress to amend the ACA to provide a new mechanism for determining required preventive services or restructure the task force’s appointment process to comply with constitutional requirements. The ripple effect could extend to other bodies within HHS that are similarly structured, depending on the scope of the Court’s reasoning.
Chief Justice Roberts perhaps gave a nod to something during oral arguments that might offer a potential way out. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is an independent body, and it was specifically designed to be independent so it could remain nonpartisan—able to make informed decisions about what constitutes preventive care without political interference. However, HHS, in theory, has no authority to direct or influence those decisions.
If the Supreme Court were to strike down the part that defines the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as an independent agency—and instead place it under the authority of HHS—that could be a functional solution. HHS could then, theoretically, accept or reject the Task Force’s recommendations. Whether or not that’s a legal fiction, it would address the constitutional concern being raised. So that’s one path forward.
Absent that outcome, HHS could issue new regulations to re-establish the preventive services mandate, but given the current political and regulatory landscape, I’m not overly confident that would happen quickly, or at all. Even if it did happen, there would still be a gap in coverage. During that gap, insurers could choose whether to continue covering those services voluntarily. Some may say, “We’re going to keep covering this because it’s the right thing to do,” while others might say, “We’re not required to anymore, so we’re not going to.” Until new regulations are implemented, nothing obligates them to continue coverage. This could affect around 50 million Americans.
So, the two options are as follows: (1) HHS issues new regulations, which is uncertain and slow; or (2) the Court severs the independence of the Task Force and effectively brings it under the control of HHS. In theory, that would be a temporary fix—until the Fifth Circuit comes up with another legal attack on the Affordable Care Act.
Jacobsen: What precedent could this ruling set for administrative law?
Lee: Oh, this could upend everything. It could continue the trajectory we’re beginning to see where the Supreme Court is increasingly open to clawing back agency deference, particularly through the weakening or overturning of Chevron deference. That means it could significantly reduce the powers of federal agencies and challenge the legitimacy of the administrative state more broadly. Your question on administrative law is a serious one. This could call into question the role and authority of not only the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, but also dozens of similar advisory bodies embedded across the federal government. It would make many agencies vulnerable to similar constitutional challenges.
Jacobsen: What does this mean for public health infrastructure?
Lee: I wanted to keep the questions light today, so let’s keep the answer light. Just kidding. What’s at stake is real and personal. Imagine a dad taking his daughter to get the HPV vaccine, an African American patient trying to manage his diabetes, or a veteran staying on top of preventive care. Suddenly, those visits might come with unexpected bills. Preventive care has long enjoyed bipartisan support. We’ve spent years encouraging Americans to seek it out, and if the Court sides with the plaintiffs, we will be taking a massive step backward. By now, we’ve spent years getting Americans used to the idea that preventive services—like mammograms, colonoscopies, diabetes screenings, and statins—are routine and vital. We’ve been gradually shifting the public mindset toward early intervention, so bigger health problems do not emerge later. But if this case results in rolling back the mandate, people will suddenly find surprise medical bills in their mailboxes for those very services. That would be a real step backward in our effort to improve the health of Americans.
Jacobsen: How might this case impact future policy challenges regarding the scope of federal healthcare programs?
Lee: It should make all administrative agencies nervous. A ruling like this would signal that the Supreme Court is prepared to say: unless Congress gives you specific authority to do something, you cannot do it. That undermines the jurisdiction of agencies that were intentionally structured to be independent and nonpartisan, like expert health committees. This case could call into question the legitimacy of advisory bodies that were created to insulate evidence-based decisions from political interference. And I won’t go further down that road, but yes—it would be bad. B-A-D, all caps, exclamation point, as a tweet. Bad. All bad. Sad.
Jacobsen: What is the role of medical and public health experts in defending the preventive care mandate?
Lee: It is absolutely critical. In our current political climate, these types of expert bodies—where we rely on medical professionals—are more crucial than ever. As we begin to see a cultural and political pushback against things like vaccines and preventive care, it becomes vital that we have grounded, evidence-based institutions guiding healthcare policy. These professionals help keep the system anchored in science and public health, rather than political trends.
Jacobsen: If the decision goes against the ACA, what legal or legislative strategies may preserve access to preventive care on a national scale?
Lee: The Supreme Court could strike only the part of the statute that makes the advisory body “independent”—essentially reclassifying it under HHS. That would allow HHS to take ownership of the recommendations and issue guidance accordingly. Alternatively, Congress could enact legislation explicitly establishing the authority for preventive services. But to be honest, the Braidwood plaintiffs raised two challenges. The Supreme Court is only hearing one of them: the constitutionality of how the preventive services list is created. The other challenge—one the Court chose not to listen—argues that certain preventive services violate the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs and therefore should not be mandated.
If Congress has to develop the list of preventive services from scratch, it opens the door to competing political interests. Arguments based on religious or moral objections might find a more favourable reception. The entire reason we created an independent advisory body of doctors and scientists, rather than politicians, was to base coverage decisions on evidence and not on ideology or belief systems. That independence is what’s now at risk.
Jacobsen: So how does this situation—politically, legislatively, and legally—compare to other advanced industrial economies with cosmopolitan, pluralistic values like much of Western Europe and Canada? How does this compare to contexts like those you’ve studied in your professional assessment?
Lee: One of the unique things about the United States is that our cultural and constitutional values play a significant role in shaping medical decisions. While there is often a clear medical or scientific answer to a question, our First Amendment protections mean that religious beliefs can carry equal—or in some cases, more—weight than scientifically supported recommendations. I do not think you see that same dynamic in most other countries.
For example, there are medical answers to questions such as when life begins or ends, and yet in the U.S., those answers are regularly contested in legislatures and in the courts. What makes us particularly unique is that religious belief has a constitutionally protected status, even when it may contradict scientific consensus. In many other countries, you do not see that same tension, and their laws tend to reflect a more consistently evidence-based approach to medical policy and decision-making.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Professor Lee.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/14
Rabbi Ariel Markovitch, Director of JCC Beit Menachem and founder of Shabbat Young Professionals Kyiv, shares his journey as a Jewish leader in Kyiv, Ukraine. Formerly a business development manager in Shanghai, his experiences abroad strengthened his Jewish identity and inspired his leadership. Rabbi Markovitch emphasizes the importance of Holocaust remembrance, interfaith dialogue, and education in combating antisemitism. He reflects on the challenges of community-building during wartime, the spiritual resilience of Ukraine’s Jewish community, and the relevance of traditional teachings in modern life. He discusses how faith, trust, and community have helped many navigate the psychological toll of war. Markovitch draws wisdom from Torah and Talmud, advocating values such as selflessness, compassion, and restorative joy, primarily through life events like weddings. The conversation concludes with reflections on ethical living, the importance of rest, and gratitude for meaningful connection in uncertain times.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Ariel Markovitch, a Jewish community leader based in Kyiv, Ukraine. He serves as the Director of JCC Beit Menachem, a Chabad-affiliated Jewish community center. He is the founder and director of Shabbat Young Professionals Kyiv, an initiative to engage young Jewish adults within the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. Before this, he worked in Shanghai as a Business Development Manager at a CLOV company. Ariel received his education at a Chabad yeshiva affiliated with the Talmidei HaT’mimim network. He actively participates in Holocaust remembrance and other Jewish community events. He often appears alongside prominent figures, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to promote Jewish heritage and resilience in Ukraine. Okay, first question: What inspired you to pursue a leadership role within the Jewish community, and how has your upbringing influenced your approach to leadership?
Rabbi Ariel Markovitch: First of all, I believe this—well, it’s hard to say maybe it’s destiny—but I see it as a responsibility. We all have a role in improving the world, and I do what I can. I think, and hope, that I contribute positively by being a Jewish leader in Kyiv, Ukraine. That’s how I came to this work and what I feel called to do.
Jacobsen: What was a pivotal moment in your career that shaped your commitment to Jewish advocacy and community building?
Markovitch: It started when I was in China—specifically in Shanghai. Before that, I had studied in a Chabad yeshiva and received semicha, rabbinical ordination. I was far from my roots when I moved to Shanghai to work in business development. That distance helped me realize the importance of the Jewish community and identity. I felt a strong connection to Jewish life even more deeply from afar. I loved that feeling, and I realized that it was meaningful and fulfilling to share it with others—so I brought that energy back to Kyiv.
Jacobsen: In Shanghai, what did you learn about business development? Did you find any similarities between Chinese and Jewish cultures?
Markovitch: First of all, I hope I understood your question fully. When I arrived in Shanghai, many people told me how similar Chinese and Jewish cultures are. They noted that both ancient civilizations deeply respected tradition, family, education, and community. I loved China. There were some cultural adjustments, of course. One challenge, for example, was hospitality. In Chinese culture, offering food when welcoming someone to your customary home is impolite—it is rude if the guest does not eat.
But I keep kosher, so this creates a dilemma. What we did was simple: Before visiting someone’s home, either I or a colleague would call in advance to respectfully explain the dietary restrictions and ask if we could bring kosher food. Everyone understood, and we found a way to respect each other’s traditions. It worked well, and I still think very highly of Chinese culture—it’s beautiful and rich in values.
Jacobsen: What drew you back to Kyiv? More on an emotional level—when you look at the past three years, if not the last eleven, how do you see Jewish culture’s and people’s resilience within Ukraine?
Markovitch: Over the last eleven years, people in Ukraine—Jews and non-Jews alike—have become more Ukrainian in identity. You hear more Ukrainians being spoken in the streets. Growing up in Kyiv, I didn’t hear Ukrainian in the city. Over the past eleven or twelve years, that’s changed. You hear the language more often; people talk about it more openly.
Of course, that shift has accelerated, especially in the last two years. But one thing that hasn’t changed is that Kyiv is not only a beautiful city—it’s full of very kind and welcoming people. You can feel that.
For example, it was difficult for my wife at first. She had studied a bit of Russian before we arrived, but people in Kyiv told her, “Now you’re in Ukraine, you need to speak Ukrainian.” For me, Ukrainian is a new language, so it was challenging.
But what stood out was people’s reactions. You can see it’s not about rejecting you when you speak with someone. It’s not hostility. If anything, they accept you as you are. Maybe the right word is “respect.” So overall, the experience has been very positive. It’s made things much more manageable.
Jacobsen: As the Director of JCC Beit Menachem in Kyiv, what are the most pressing needs of the Jewish community you serve?
Markovitch: Over the past three years, the most frequent requests we’ve received have been for humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, since the war began, most of our programming has focused on distributing food, clothing, medicine—whatever we can offer. That’s been the primary focus. Before the war, we had various programs. We operated a school and a kindergarten and had many initiatives for youth and older people. But since the full-scale invasion, the urgent need has overwhelmingly been humanitarian relief.
Jacobsen: When you hear propaganda—which seems to have diminished somewhat recently—particularly in the early days of the invasion, around the narrative that President Zelensky is a neo-Nazi, what was the reaction within the Ukrainian Jewish community?
My interpretation, personally, is that it’s absurd. Zelensky was a comedian before entering politics. And now, Russia has essentially turned him into a living punchline to one of the most surreal jokes in Eastern European history—accusing a Jewish president of being a neo-Nazi during wartime.
What kind of commentary did you hear among the Jewish community in response to this propagandistic claim?
Markovitch: First of all, my personal feeling comes from family history. My father was born in Ukraine, and my grandparents were born in Uzhhorod, Ukraine. The entire family was taken to Auschwitz by the Nazis and their collaborators. Most of the family did not survive. Some did. I’m named after my great-grandfather, who was in Auschwitz.
So when people talk about Nazis, it’s not just a historical topic for me—it’s deeply personal. These are horrific stories. There are no words to describe the pain and loss. And to call someone a Nazi—it’s completely disconnected from reality. It’s a powerful word that should not be used lightly.
Frankly, there’s nothing to comment on. It’s not related to the truth in any way. And unfortunately, it’s not even something one can laugh at. It’s too painful, too serious.
Jacobsen: How do you balance traditional Jewish values with the modern, dynamic environment of Kyiv’s young professional scene?
Markovitch: That’s a good question. The younger generation in Ukraine is very dynamic and highly developed. This is reflected in the IT sector and the many international companies based here—especially in Kyiv.
Judaism here isn’t just about a Bar Mitzvah or coming to synagogue for major holidays or family events. In Kyiv, our Jewish community is like a home. We have many programs—even a soccer team, for example. People can do what they love while surrounded by good friends who respect and care for them.
Often, not just individuals connect but their families as well. It feels like a big extended family. It’s a home.
Jacobsen: How has the ongoing conflict affected antisemitism in the region?
Markovitch: I can mainly speak about Kyiv since I live here. From my perspective, I haven’t seen an increase in antisemitism. What I do see, unfortunately—including in myself—is that people are less patient. After three years of war, that’s understandable. It wears people down. However, I haven’t noticed anything that suggests an increase in antisemitism as a result of the conflict. That’s my personal experience.
Jacobsen: In your experience, what has been effective in combating antisemitism?
Markovitch: Education. Punishment is already too late. We need to prevent antisemitism before it starts—and that begins with education in schools. People need to know the facts.
We’ve discussed conspiracy theories, such as those involving the Rothschilds or others. When people are educated and know the truth, even if someone makes a joke, they recognize that it’s unreasonable and likely won’t repeat it.
Of course, we’ll never achieve 100% prevention, but education can significantly reduce the likelihood. Also, we should give voice to people who’ve suffered for their identity—not just Jewish people but anyone who has been persecuted for their faith or background. We should have lessons in schools and universities that make these experiences real and human for others. I believe that would help.
Jacobsen: What role do Holocaust education and remembrance play in your work?
Markovitch: I believe education is essential—not because people necessarily know nothing, but because we can always give people more knowledge, more depth, especially about the Holocaust.
In Kyiv, unfortunately, we have Babi Yar, the site of one of the largest massacres of Jews during the Holocaust. Many people were murdered there. Our community has a few survivors who lived through Babi Yar. They come and speak with people—especially young people—so they understand that this is not just a slogan like “Never again” without substance.
It already happened. And it did not occur a thousand years ago. It happened during the Second World War—just a few generations back. So first, we help people understand that the Holocaust was real.
Unfortunately, if we do not remain vigilant, something similar could happen again. That is why remembrance is so critical.
Jacobsen: How do you ensure that these efforts resonate with younger generations? Regardless of culture or tragedy, keeping memory alive is always a challenge—to instill a sense of history and the importance of preventing it from repeating. How do you make sure that message connects with young people?
Markovitch: First, we record videos and audio interviews with survivors. We share these stories directly with the younger generation so they can hear them firsthand.
Second, after every lecture or program, we asked the participants what they liked and didn’t. We gather feedback so we can improve future programs. We want the message to reach them truly—to enter the heart, not just the ears. And we adapt each time to make it more meaningful.
Jacobsen: Can you share a personal or family story about the Holocaust that continues to inspire your advocacy work today?
Markovitch: Yes. Probably the most challenging story for me is one my grandmother told me about her mother—my great-grandmother—who was taken by the Germans from her home in Uzhhorod, Ukraine, to Auschwitz.
Three times, they tried to kill her.
The first time, a Nazi soldier aimed and fired a gun at her—but somehow, the bullet did not go off. She was miraculously saved.
The second time, they announced they would execute a specific number of people—I don’t remember the exact number. Everyone stood in line, and she was the person just after the last one to be selected. For example, if they said they would kill ten people, she was number eleven.
The third time, something similar happened again. And each time, she survived.
She used to say, even in the darkest moments, you can see—when it is your time, it is your time. But when it is not your time, you survive, perhaps because you still have something meaningful to do.
Jacobsen: Regarding misinformation and propaganda—earlier, you mentioned that sometimes the appropriate response is no response because of how absurd such claims can be. But how else do you respond to misinformation or propaganda that distorts Jewish history or fuels antisemitism?
Markovitch: If someone wants to do something harmful, of course, that’s not acceptable. But in many cases, it’s not because we avoid the topic when we say we do not wish to comment on it.
It’s because once you begin to comment or debate something that is entirely false or absurd—like calling a Jewish leader a Nazi—you’re already legitimizing it by treating it as something reasonable enough to argue over. By entering the discussion, you open the door for someone to say, “Maybe it’s true,” or “Maybe it’s not.” And to me, that’s completely illogical.
There is no basis for it and nothing to respond to. It’s harmful, but it is so far from reality that even debating it risks giving it a false sense of legitimacy.
Jacobsen: What strategies have you found effective in fostering interfaith dialogue and cooperation in Kyiv, especially during times of crisis? You mentioned rabbinical work earlier—what has worked well in dialogue, particularly between the Jewish and Orthodox Christian communities?
Markovitch: I have several friends who are pastors and religious leaders in other communities. We’re on excellent terms—we’re friends.
I think that when someone truly believes in what they do and is a sincere and good person—someone with integrity and kindness—then dialogue becomes natural. I feel that way about them; they feel the same about me.
We may have theological differences, but we have mutual respect. That’s the key. Building bridges between communities, even during challenging times, is possible with respect and genuine goodwill.
Jacobsen: Let’s say you believe in a Creator, in God—and at the same time, there’s a long history of persecution of the Jewish people. That’s putting it mildly. Within a theological or eschatological framework—whether or not one believes in the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah)—you may still think there is purpose: a purpose for the world, a purpose for you as an individual, and a purpose for your people within the faith.
How do you make sense of that? How do you interpret such a history through a theological or humanistic lens?
Markovitch: First of all, I ask myself the same question. If you meet Him before I do—hopefully not before I turn 129!—or if you meet someone who has met Him, please ask and let me know.
I do not have a clear answer because, honestly, I don’t think there is one—not one we can truly understand.
But I believe the question of antisemitism is part of a broader question: why is there evil in the world? Why are people unkind to one another? Why do we have theft? Why do people kill? It is the same root issue. And I, like many, would love to have an answer.
There’s a well-known rabbi—Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. Someone once asked him the same question: how can evil be in the world? He responded, “I don’t know—and maybe it’s good that I don’t know.”
Because if we did know, we may begin to accept evil. If we had a logical explanation for it, maybe we would come to terms with its existence—as though it belongs. But we are not supposed to accept it. We’re supposed to question it, to oppose it, and to recognize that it’s wrong.
The fact that we don’t understand why evil exists keeps us from tolerating it.
Jacobsen: Do you find any aspects of promoting Jewish identity—or navigating its complexities—difficult?
Markovitch: Most things about Judaism, I feel, don’t need to be—I don’t know the exact word in English—maybe “sold.” There’s no need to sell it because the core message is universal.
If people were good people—not necessarily keeping every detail of Jewish law, like observing Shabbat or eating kosher—but good people who followed the basic moral teachings, the world would be much better.
If people had followed even the Seven Noahide Laws—more general ethical principles for all humanity—the world would have been much improved.
Teaching those values is not hard. Most people agree when you explain them. The challenge comes not in accepting the ideas but in implementing them. Finding someone who understands or agrees with the values is not difficult. The more complicated part is helping people live by them.
That part—not always easy.
Jacobsen: Do you have difficulties maintaining multicultural unity within the Jewish diaspora? This may be a strange question. For instance, say you’re in Kyiv and meet people of the same faith and shared background. Still, they come from France, Morocco, Canada, Portugal, Uruguay, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.
Do you encounter challenges in those multicultural contexts? For some people, it’s an issue. For others, it is not.
Markovitch: I do not see this as something related explicitly to Judaism but rather to people in general. Anyone who has lived in a place for several generations—say, Ethiopia or France—will naturally adopt aspects of the local culture.
When, for example, someone from France, someone from Belgium, and someone from another country are all in the same room—even if they all believe in one God—they will still have different jokes, manners, and ways of interacting. That is cultural, not religious.
But today, we are blessed to live in a time when we can travel, connect with people from many countries, and experience the rich diversity of Jewish life. For me, that’s a big plus.
Jacobsen: Are there different types of antisemitism that members of Reform Jewish communities face compared to those in Orthodox or Conservative communities?
Markovitch: I think that over the last year and a half—as we mentioned earlier—a lot of Jews have experienced antisemitic incidents, regardless of denomination. It has had nothing to do with what they believe.
In many cases, the individuals affected could not have cared less about religious observance. I’ve heard stories of people being targeted even though they had never been to a synagogue—and in some cases, they did not even know they were Jewish.
For example, children at school might say to them, “You have a Jewish name, so you must be bad.” That was the moment some of them realized they were seen as Jewish.
These incidents increased sharply, especially after October 7th.
Jacobsen: What lessons have you drawn from your work in Israel, and how has your engagement with international figures like Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis or Meir Ezri Han influenced your approach to leadership?
Markovitch: When we encounter people from different countries and different perspectives, it is not just that we can learn from them—we must learn from them.
The more people, cultures, and identities we engage with, the better we understand one another. You mentioned Rabbi Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi of the UK. He is a brilliant and insightful leader. Speaking with someone like him is not just a chance to learn—it also deepens your appreciation for your community and communities abroad.
In this case, we spoke specifically about the Jewish community in England, and I gained a new perspective from that. Encounters like these broaden your point of view.
Jacobsen: What lessons did you learn from leading your community through the Russian invasion in 2022?
Markovitch: “Believe in good, and it will be good.”
It’s a straightforward sentence, but living by it is incredibly difficult.
I stayed in Kyiv with my parents, wife, and three children when the war started. We stayed together as a family, and it was tough. At one point, my wife looked at me and said, “Promise me that we will not die.” We could hear bombs outside. There were gunshots.
It was not pleasant.
I do not know—maybe it was a mistake—but I told her, “I’m not God. I can’t promise you that.” She did not like that answer, understandably so.
We went through several challenging moments. It was not easy at all. But what kept me grounded was something I learned from my grandmother, a survivor of Auschwitz: If you are still here, then you must do good. You must try to change the world.
And that starts with your immediate surroundings. That’s where your impact begins.
Especially now, I believe in being good. When we focus on good things, we don’t just shape our internal mindset—we change our environment. The people who come to us, speak with us, and share our space are affected by it—and we are, too.
I learned that from the war. I should have taught it earlier. I don’t know, but this is what that moment taught me.
Jacobsen: How do you help your community cope with the spiritual and psychological toll of the conflict?
Markovitch: We work with psychologists who come to the community to support people. A few months ago, there was a rocket attack near our school—the school my parents founded 25 years ago, the school I attended as a child.
We had a rocket strike there.
Unfortunately, it’s not the first time something like this has happened. But psychologists came to the school to help the children. Talking with the kids was hard work—especially for the professionals.
Even for me, speaking with children about what’s happening is incredibly hard. But of course, we do it. We must do it.
Especially now—in 2025—we understand that helping someone is not only about providing physical needs like food or shelter. Emotional support is just as important.
Sometimes, it’s even more critical. And we see now, more than ever, how crucial that support is. The last three years have been more complicated than I imagined when I first became a rabbi in Kyiv.
Jacobsen: What passages in the Torah have you found particularly helpful—for yourself or others—when words of encouragement have been needed during the conflict?
Markovitch: One of the most potent verses is the Shema: “Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad.”
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”
This verse teaches that there is one God; we must know that. My English may not be perfect for translating this entirely, but it is a core part of our belief.
Many people have asked me, especially those outside Ukraine, “Have you seen miracles? How can you be thankful when there is so much suffering?”
Yes, it’s true—so many people are going through unimaginable hardship. But nearly every person I’ve spoken to, from Kyiv and other parts of Ukraine, has a story of how something happened in a dark moment—something small, sometimes meaningful. And they felt God’s presence. They saw how God helped them.
If you zoom out, it may look like endless chaos. But when you zoom in, you see individual stories—moments of grace and connection, moments when someone felt they were not alone.
That’s what people have shared with me.
Jacobsen: How do you explain tragedy to your children?
Markovitch: That’s a good question. There are two aspects to it.
First, there’s the broader question of why there is evil in the world—and as I mentioned earlier, I do not have an answer to that. We all continue to wrestle with it.
Second, perhaps more critical for my children to understand is that even though tragedy exists, they must be vigilant, aware, and responsible. They must do whatever is in their power to help prevent such things from happening again. That awareness is essential.
Jacobsen: How do you collaborate with Ukrainian authorities and international organizations to counter antisemitic narratives or incidents?
Markovitch: We work closely with the Ukrainian government, and I can say this not just from personal opinion—it’s something I’ve seen consistently at every level of government: the Presidency, the Prime Minister’s Office, and the municipal level, including city mayors.
Whenever we raise concerns—if there is an antisemitic incident or something questionable—the authorities respond immediately. They act quickly to address the issue, stop the person responsible, and also take steps to prevent future incidents. I’m sincerely grateful for their continued support. They do a lot.
As for international partnerships, we work with several Jewish communities and interfaith organizations worldwide. But when it comes specifically to addressing antisemitism in Ukraine, most of the coordination happens directly with the Ukrainian government.
And because the government has been so responsive, we’ve not had much need to involve large international religious organizations in these cases.
Jacobsen: Here’s a trickier one—how do you distinguish between incidents where people are reacting emotionally to something that only seems antisemitic versus cases where it is antisemitism?
Markovitch: That’s an important distinction—and yes, we’ve encountered it. Just a few months ago, we had a situation in Kyiv where someone wrote antisemitic graffiti in multiple locations.
When we discovered it in the morning, my father, the Chief Rabbi of Kyiv, contacted the authorities immediately. They investigated, checked security cameras, and soon identified the perpetrator.
It turned out to be a 14-year-old boy.
The authorities brought him in for questioning and asked my father to come as well. When they spoke with the boy, they realized that he had been influenced—someone had reached him through Telegram, or maybe TikTok, and told him to do it.
This is what we discussed earlier—often, people act out of ignorance, not hate. They don’t know who Jewish people are or what Judaism stands for.
In this case, the boy did not appear to have malicious intent. He was misguided and very young. I do not remember the final decision, but I believe the authorities planned for him to participate in some educational programming instead of facing criminal charges. The Jewish community chose not to press charges.
My father felt—and I agree—that sending this boy to prison would likely ruin his life. He’s still a child. From what we saw, he’s not inherently bad. He needs to learn.
Yes, we do make distinctions. Some cases are explicit acts of hatred, and others—like this—are acts of ignorance. We have to find different responses for different situations. I hope we can continue to do that with wisdom and compassion.
Jacobsen: Not every part of life has a clear conclusion. Much of life feels more like James Joyce’s Ulysses—you never really know what’s happening or how it ends. There’s much incompleteness in the world.
It’s almost as if life combines a Rorschach inkblot test and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems—open to interpretation, yet fundamentally unresolvable in parts.
Are there any incidents you’ve encountered that seemed like antisemitism—had all the markings—but you never got a conclusive answer? Something that left you wondering?
Markovitch: When something happens, it’s important to remember that two people can witness the same event and come away with entirely different interpretations of what happened.
Many times, if it’s not a clear-cut, harmful, or explicitly antisemitic act, then we have to ask—maybe it’s just us. Perhaps it’s how we saw it.
Of course, we cannot accuse anyone without evidence, especially if we are not even sure anything happened. So yes, there are ambiguous cases, and we’re left with maybes.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the role of Jewish cultural heritage in shaping Ukrainian national identity?
My professional example is that our mutual colleague Anna Vishnikova pointed out that some Christian communities wanted only Christian symbols to memorialize Maidan Square or Independence Square. To them, only the cross represented Ukrainian identity.
They believed there should not be menorahs. And to me, that’s not correct.
In more nuanced terms, how do you see Jewish cultural heritage being integrated into Ukrainian national heritage?
Markovitch: I don’t know the exact details of the story involving Maidan. But in general, in every country—and especially in Ukraine, which is very democratic—there is space for people to live together peacefully.
It’s essential to have interfaith meetings and dialogues so that people can get to know one another or at least understand that we are not just individuals living in one country. We are Christian Ukrainians, Muslim Ukrainians, and Jewish Ukrainians—and that’s okay.
That’s exactly how it’s supposed to be. That’s what a democratic society looks like. So I don’t just think we should have that level of integration—I believe we already do.
Jacobsen: How do you integrate Chabad’s spiritual teachings into your daily leadership?
Markovitch: Just one quick correction—it’s Chabad, not Sha-Bad.
Jacobsen: I anglicized it—I’m Canadian. I’m foreign. I don’t know any better!
Markovitch: [Laughing] I thought it was Sha-Bad before someone told me, so it’s okay. As for Chabad, the Talmud contains many stories that shape how we see leadership and relationships. For example, there’s a story about one person building a house, and then his neighbour also builds a house… There’s a story in the Talmud that initially seems simple.
Two neighbours build houses next to each other, and suddenly, one wants to make a wall between the homes—either to block the view or mark property lines. One neighbour wants the wall, and the other does not. They argue.
That’s the entire premise. And yes, it’s a long story, but that’s the situation we study today in the Talmud.
People ask, “Why should I care? This story was written over two thousand years ago. What does it have to do with me?”We might even joke about it: today, we talk about a wall between the U.S. and Mexico—why should this ancient wall matter?
But every story in the Talmud has layers. At first glance, it seems like a story about two neighbours—disconnected. But the truth is, it’s not just a story—it’s a framework for law, and it’s deeply relevant.
For example, in that story, one neighbour says: “I don’t like when my neighbour can see into my house. He opens his window and watches what I do. I want to build a wall.” But the wall would benefit both of them, so he wants shared responsibility—he does not want to pay for the entire wall himself.
The Talmud says that if the wall is one or two meters high, both neighbours must contribute financially—it’s a shared interest. But if one wants the wall to be even higher, that neighbour must pay for the additional height himself. It’s fair, proportional, and balanced.
From that single story, we derive so much modern legal wisdom.
For instance, what if someone looks at your computer screen, reads your messages, or invades your digital privacy? What if someone looks at you in a way that makes you uncomfortable? Is that a crime? What kind of boundaries should exist?
We can trace the roots of these questions back to Talmudic principles. At first, they may seem outdated, but when you understand the spirit of the law, you see how powerful and relevant it remains today.
So yes—when we reduce these stories to surface-level anecdotes, they seem unimportant. But digging deeper, we find ethical structure, legal precedent, and moral insight that still guide us today.
Jacobsen: What facets of Judaism are uniquely Jewish regarding ethics? Perhaps even the aesthetic of that ethic—its moral symmetry, the way it looks and feels in daily life.
Markovitch: Of course, we can start with someone like Moses, especially now—we’re just a few days away from Passover, the Jewish holiday of Pesach. So, of course, we can talk about Moses. He was the great figure of that time—the leader, the liberator.
But if I look at recent history or even what’s happening in the present, I think of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. He was born in Ukraine, later moved to the United States, and became the leader of the Chabad movement, which now includes Chabad Young Professionals.
He fundamentally transformed Judaism. He didn’t see it as ancient or static. He emphasized that we should live Judaism today, in 2025, just as meaningfully as it was thousands of years ago.
That’s one part of his legacy. The second is that he envisioned a Jewish community in every country—and, in many cases, in nearly every city. It’s not everywhere yet, but in so many places, you can arrive and find a community, a spiritual family waiting for you. That is a massive gift to Jewish life.
Jacobsen: What would you rank as the highest value in Judaism?
Markovitch: Not me. The highest value is not about me.
Jacobsen: So selflessness—to live for something greater than yourself. That’s what I thought. Thank you for bearing with me—I’m making this conversation more than just about antisemitism. I’m trying to explore the deeper dimensions of Jewish thought, heritage, and resilience.
So now we’ve talked about God—particularly the theological premise of divine attributes, like benevolence and all-encompassing goodness.
But antisemitism isn’t just a personal experience; it often strikes at something more profound. For Jewish people who are practicing or connected to their faith, when they’re confronted with an antisemitic slur or act of violence, it can trigger a crisis of faith.
This happens in many religions. Have you seen it happen? Do people come to you struggling with faith under these circumstances?
Markovitch: Yes, of course—it happens.
The most powerful example we have is after the Holocaust. We saw so many people respond in entirely different ways. Some people began to believe more deeply, while others moved away from belief altogether.
I’ve noticed here in Ukraine, especially over the last three years, that more and more people have started to believe more, not less.
And maybe it’s not precisely belief—perhaps something more profound. People have told me, “We’ve started to understand that we are not in control of anything,” even when we think we are.
If you look at just the last five years, we had so many plans—career plans, travel plans, business goals—and then came COVID. And with it, we realized that nothing is really in our hands.
Even now, some countries still haven’t fully recovered from the pandemic. And then came the war in Ukraine. We started again—new plans, new ideas—and once more, everything was disrupted.
So what happened? Many people began to believe, or more accurately, to trust.
There’s a big difference between belief and trust. Belief is intellectual. “Yes, I believe in God—why not?” But trust is different. Trust is knowing in your heart that there is something, someone, more significant than yourself at work in the world.
According to Judaism, trust does not mean sitting at home waiting for good things to happen. You still have to work hard, take action, and do your part. But at the same time, you come to that work with humility. You are not the king. You are not the one who decides everything.
So yes, I’ve seen this shift—especially over the last five years, but even more recently. More and more people are beginning to believe and trust.
Jacobsen: How do you comfort your children in difficult circumstances—war or hardship?
Markovitch: It depends—it depends on their age. Of course, there’s a big difference between what you can explain to a two-year-old versus a ten-year-old.
But what we do know—unfortunately—is that we don’t live in a perfect world. There’s no question about it—we’ve seen it more clearly than we ever wanted to. This is not an ideal world.\ But that realization shows how much more work we have to do. We cannot just live in our little space and do nothing for society.
This moment in history shows us that we must engage. And the truth is, it’s easier today than ever before. As you mentioned earlier, even if someone lives in a small town in Canada, they can still change the world.
With the Internet and platforms like Skype, we’re connected—it’s the same as living in a major city. Everyone has an opportunity to contribute. So yes, the world is far from perfect. But that means we must all do our part to make it better.
Jacobsen: Let’s close on a hopeful note. Do you still perform weddings during the war?
Markovitch: Yes, we do.
Jacobsen: That’s incredible. Do you try to lighten the mood during those weddings, even in the middle of a war?
Markovitch: Of course, it’s a different atmosphere. You have your mood, and then there’s the general mood around you.
But I think it’s essential for all of us to pause occasionally and work on our emotional state—to improve. It doesn’t mean we care less when in a good mood; being in a good mood helps us function better. Think about an exam—if you’re in a good state of mind, you’re more likely to remember more. It affects the brain.
I’m not talking about going to nightclubs or anything like that. But weddings—that’s a form of joyful resilience. It’s pure happiness. It brings life into the world and gives us hope for the future.
This kind of happiness? I’d gladly have it every night.
Jacobsen: To wrap up, what are some of your favourite lines from the Talmud or your favourite phrases of Jewish wisdom? Even just words of comfort—whatever you feel would be a meaningful close.
Markovitch: There are two that I love.
First: “What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to them.”
I hope that’s clear. If you don’t want something done to you, don’t do it to others. It’s a simple phrase, but it carries so much meaning.
Of course, it teaches you to be a good person, but it also pushes you to think about others—to consider how they will feel and how they might perceive your actions. Even though it’s phrased negatively, it’s deeply empathetic.
The second is from the Torah, which speaks about Shabbat. It says, “Six days you shall work, and on the seventh day, you shall rest.”
I love that the Torah doesn’t just say, “Don’t work on Shabbat.” It says, “Six days you must work.” In other words, you must do your part, contribute to the world—and then rest.
It’s a balanced ethic: work with intention and then rest with purpose.
The Torah teaches: “Six days you shall work.” That means you actually must work. You must do whatever you can to succeed in your field—whatever that may be.
If you’re a student, you must study with dedication. If you work—whatever your profession—you should give it your full effort, 100%.
But then comes the seventh day—Shabbat—and you must rest.
The idea is that we rest because God rested on the seventh day. That’s why we pause and stop our work.
And it’s not always easy. We’re often in the middle of something, and stepping away is hard. But just as we put our whole emotion, energy, and focus into our work for six days, we must also internalize that not everything depends on us.
We must understand that we need God’s help to be successful in what we do. That’s part of the balance—work hard and let go.
Jacobsen: All right. Thank you very much for your time, Ariel. It’s been a pleasure to meet you. I hope you have a meaningful and fun Passover coming up.
Markovitch: Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: We’ll be in touch.
Markovitch: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/13
Dennis Bevington is a former Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic (2006–2015) and a long-time resident and former mayor of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. In this in-depth interview, he reflects on the complex history of Fort Smith, including its role in the residential and day school systems, the evolution of Indigenous self-governance, and the rise of the Tábatsı́cha Leadership Council—a unique collaboration among local governments. Bevington discusses the town’s transformation from a portage hub to a government and education center, highlighting housing, education, and Indigenous representation improvements. He shares insights into community tensions, historical injustices, and the value of pluralistic governance. Bevington also explores Mark Carney’s Fort Smith roots and the significance of Carney’s public reflections on his birthplace. Drawing from personal and political experience, Bevington emphasizes collaboration, critical thinking, and shared leadership as essential to building resilient northern communities in the face of ongoing challenges.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Dennis Bevington, a former Member of Parliament and long-time resident of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. Dennis, what are your thoughts on how Fort Smith has been portrayed recently in major Canadian news outlets?
Dennis Bevington: Well, people in this community are undoubtedly interested that Mark Carney, now a prominent public figure and potential future political leader, was born here and lived in Fort Smith for the first six years of his life. I went to school when his father, Bob Carney, was the principal of the elementary school I attended.
I did not know Mark as a child—we had a ten-year age gap, so we did not interact. However, it is interesting. As a Member of Parliament representing the Western Arctic from 2006 to 2015, I met Mark a few times. He often expressed pride in his birthplace. Despite his high-profile roles—as Governor of the Bank of Canada and later Governor of the Bank of England—he maintained a strong identity connected to being born in the Northwest Territories.
I remember attending a significant event in Ottawa where Senator Mike Duffy, a Conservative, introduced the Members of Parliament in the room. When he got to me, he said, “Here is the second most famous person from Fort Smith, Northwest Territories.” That was back in 2008, and even then, Mark Carney’s roots here were something people noted.
In 2010, Peter Martselos, the mayor of Fort Smith at the time, invited Mark to visit. He accepted and came up—not for any financial matter, despite being the sitting Governor of the Bank of Canada at the time—but simply because it was his hometown. That visit reaffirmed his connection to Fort Smith. It is a town of about 2,500 people, located on the edge of Wood Buffalo National Park, and sits along the Slave River, which carries around 80% of the water leaving Alberta. It is a significant and mighty river.
Historically, Fort Smith developed as a portage town due to the Slave River Rapids, a 22-mile stretch of dangerous whitewater that prevented boats from travelling through directly. Anyone heading north—whether traders, explorers, or Indigenous peoples—had to portage their canoes and supplies around the rapids using overland routes. The route was physically demanding and vital for northern access, and Fort Smith grew around that transportation need.
This area has been home to Indigenous peoples for thousands of years. A friend who lives by the river found a stone knife in his garden, later identified as being between 4,000 and 7,000 years old. It is a powerful reminder of the long history of human settlement here.
Below the rapids, the river is rich in fish that migrate up from Great Slave Lake—it has always been an important fishing ground. There are still herds of wood bison in the area, which are protected within the Wood Buffalo National Park boundaries. We used to see moose and caribou pass through more frequently, though less so today.
Historically, this land was contested between different Indigenous nations. The Tłı̨chǫ (Dogrib) people once inhabited parts of this area, but they were pushed northward. Traditionally living in the forests to the south, the Cree moved into the region. The Chipewyan (Dënesųłiné) also have historical and ongoing ties to this land. These dynamics reflect the deep and complex history of the region’s Indigenous presence, trade, and conflict.
This was the western edge of the Chipewyan (Dënesųłiné) nation, which historically stretched from Hudson Bay to this region. So, it has always been a gathering point for Indigenous peoples. It was a valuable area—a natural salt source here that had likely been mined for thousands of years. People always needed salt, and this was one of the few places to get it.
This area was also significant during the fur trade. To bring furs down from the North, you had to portage around the Slave River rapids here. A community grew around that need, and until 1967, Fort Smith was expected to become the capital of the Northwest Territories. However, the Carruthers Commission, appointed under Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal government, placed the capital in Yellowknife instead.
At the same time, the rail line was extended north from Peace River to Hay River, shifting the leading freight and barge routes away from Fort Smith. Then in 1968, there was a catastrophic riverbank collapse. We’re sitting about 20 feet above the river here, and geologically, it’s quite interesting. The Canadian Shield emerges from beneath the Great Plains in this area. On one side of the river, it’s all soil; on the other side and across the river, it’s all rock.
The landslide in 1968 hit the town hard—it was like three strikes all at once: losing the capital designation, losing the shipping economy, and suffering a major geographic setback. However, the town has recovered, largely thanks to Indigenous communities’ continued growing presence, especially as they began asserting their rights in the early 1970s under Treaty 8.
Some remarkable Indigenous leaders emerged from Fort Smith, like François Paulette and Jerry Cheezie. They were instrumental in promoting the recognition that Indigenous people had rights to the land. In the early 1970s, Dene and Métis leaders across the Northwest Territories united to form what became known as the Dene-Métis claims. It was a collective political movement, including Métis voices alongside Dene First Nations.
Over the years, the federal government worked to dissolve that unified movement by creating separate agreements with individual First Nations throughout the territory. However, because the government initially recognized the Dene-Métis claim as a unified body, the Métis people now have a stronger legal position than perhaps the federal government anticipated or desired. Métis rights are still a sensitive and complex issue. Bureaucrats and federal departments are wary of establishing broad settlements with Métis communities because such settlements could have implications across the country.
So that’s a little thumbnail sketch of Fort Smith. Since the 1970s, we’ve developed as an education and government service center. In terms of housing and overall cost of living, Fort Smith is the least expensive community in the Northwest Territories, which makes it attractive to many people. It’s a comfortable town surrounded by beautiful forest, and it serves as the headquarters for Wood Buffalo National Park and several other institutions that keep the community alive.
I hope that the little diatribe covered some of Fort Smith’s details, though Fort Smith helped tell its own story.
Jacobsen: Looking at the imagery in mainstream Canadian media—and I say this as someone who hasn’t been to Fort Smith but has lived in small towns across Canada—it seems Canada’s most enormous divide is probably between rural and urban life. Small towns tend to share a similar feeling. They each have their character, but how people are tends to feel familiar. How have integration efforts, both formal and informal, played out in Fort Smith—between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and perhaps also across socioeconomic lines?
Bevington: Being an education center has made a significant difference for Indigenous people. The Indigenous population in Fort Smith—both Métis and First Nations—makes up just over 50% of the community. It’s a long-established population. Many families have lived here for generations. And as a historic portage town, the community has always been accustomed to newcomers and people coming and going. So, while it may not have that same tight-knit feel as, say, a traditional Alberta farming town, it’s open and used to change.
There are about 700 well-paying government jobs here. The Government of the Northwest Territories has long aimed to increase Indigenous representation in its workforce, and Fort Smith reflects that goal. Many Indigenous residents hold strong positions within the public service.
Some people work in the diamond mines, flying in for two-week shifts and returning home for two weeks. So, overall, the employment base is solid. That wasn’t always the case. When I was growing up, things were very different. Many Indigenous families were still closely tied to the land. Hunting and trapping were major occupations. That’s changed—it’s less central now, but still something people do to stay connected.
Back then, housing conditions were much worse. Overcrowding was a real problem in many Indigenous homes. The population of Fort Smith has stayed relatively stable, but we now have twice as many houses as we did then. That expansion in housing has been crucial to building a stronger, more equitable community. Across Canada, people now recognize how critical housing is to social development, and our housing outcomes here are pretty good.
That’s been important, but so has education. We have a college here—Aurora College—which was the first and remains the only college in the Northwest Territories. The original campus is in Fort Smith, though satellite campuses now exist in Yellowknife and Inuvik. The college has played a key role in opening up career paths for residents, particularly in natural resources and teacher education.
The most successful teacher education program for Indigenous people in the Northwest Territories was set up in Fort Smith and ran for many years. Unfortunately, over the last fifteen years, government bureaucrats have managed to dismantle much of that success.
We had many students coming from all over the North. In many small Indigenous communities—places with populations of 500 or fewer—there was a strong desire to keep children at home. But running an elementary and a high school in such small communities is a real challenge. There are not enough teachers or resources to make it sustainable. So, a lot of the work at the college involved bringing students from across the territory, including Fort Smith, up to a certain level in their education. And that, too, was successful.
When I was growing up here, we had elementary and high schools. At different points in time, there were also two residential school units. One was called Bryn Mawr Hall—though many people called it Brynnet Hall—and it was the first of the two. It operated like a traditional residential school, run by Catholic priests and nuns.
Children across the North were brought to Fort Smith, sometimes without speaking English, and placed in this residential facility. Now, Brynnet Hall does not have the same widespread reputation for abuse as some of the more notorious residential schools across Canada. It certainly was not a warm or kind place, but in retrospect, the conditions may not have been as dire as elsewhere. One possible reason is that the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese was based in Fort Smith, and the federal Department of Education, often staffed by people from southern Canada—many from Ottawa—had a presence here too. That combination may have led to greater oversight.
In the early 1960s, a more progressive bishop, Bishop Piché, established Grandin College. He wanted to create a higher-level residential school for academically strong Indigenous students across the Northwest Territories. They built an impressive facility—one of the finest in the North. Students were selected for their academic potential, often without much regard for whether they wanted to attend. The Church saw it as an opportunity to train future priests.
That specific aim did not pan out, but Grandin College became a successful and influential institution. It brought together bright, motivated Indigenous youth from many communities. As a teenager, I spent much time at Grandin, speaking with students full of energy, intelligence, and curiosity. They were always eager to discuss ideas, and those conversations were deeply formative for me. Being around them was one of the high points of my high school years.
You didn’t see the current health issues in those days. The Indigenous students from these communities were strong, active, and fit. They were also often outstanding athletes. They came from land-based lifestyles that built resilience.
They were tremendous in that regard. The kind of diet promoted by the Northern Store or Hudson’s Bay Company hadn’t yet reached the kids from the smaller communities. Their diets were still largely traditional, based on what their families had eaten for generations. They were healthy, strong, and naturally athletic.
In 1967, for Canada’s Centennial, the government launched the Canada Fitness Awards, which were conducted in every school nationwide. Our school had an unusually high number of gold medal athletes, more per capita than almost any other. That was primarily thanks to these young people who had grown up in traditional ways that aligned with their physiology. Looking back on it, it was remarkable how physically fit and capable they were.
At that time, Grandin College and Brynnet Hall operated side by side. There was a fundamental distinction between the two institutions, and unfortunately, that divide was often reinforced in the school system. It was not ideal, but it was the reality of the time.
Many of the prominent Indigenous leaders of my generation came out of Grandin College, including Ethel Blondin-Andrew, who later became a Member of Parliament; Stephen Kakfwi, who served as Premier of the Northwest Territories; and Jim Antoine, also a former Premier. Others returned to their communities and became chiefs or held other forms of leadership. The school produced a generation of influential Indigenous voices.
Jacobsen: Earlier, you mentioned how well-suited these students were to their environment, especially regarding health and athleticism, which are less common today. You also described the legacy of Grandin College and Brynnet Hall. That’s helpful context. Outside of the recent media coverage, has Fort Smith historically been politicized in the way it is now? You also mentioned its position on the edge of traditional territories. Was this region a political or cultural hub even before European contact?
Bevington: As far as we know, yes. As I mentioned earlier, there are artifacts in the area, like the ancient stone knife found near the river, that date back thousands of years. The rapids, the abundance of fish, and the geography made this a crucial gathering point. Fish provided a consistent and rich source of protein.
At one point, reportedly, 90,000 Chipewyan people lived across Northern Canada. In such a vast region, Indigenous peoples needed to use every available food source, and places like this, with concentrated resources, were especially valuable. That made this area strategically important.
There were indeed territorial conflicts. About 100 kilometres south of here, on the Peace River, is a place called Peace Point. It is historically significant because it was the site of battles between the Cree and Chipewyan. Eventually, the two groups signed a peace treaty at that location, ending the conflict over this region.
So yes, long before European contact, this area was already a place of meeting, negotiation, and strategic importance, as you suggested earlier. It was not just a place to mine salt or fish—it was a natural hub for the people of the North.
This isn’t limited to the current townsite—it spans a broader area. Interestingly, many Métis people moved to Fort Smith after the Riel Rebellion. Some can trace their ancestry back to those who fought with Louis Riel and later fled federal persecution by relocating far from the central provinces. That migration helped establish a substantial Métis population here.
Many were in seasonal freighting, transporting goods across the North during the summer. They were hunters and trappers, but their role in the northern supply chain was vital during the open-water season.
As I mentioned, the Church and the federal government established their headquarters in Fort Smith. Until 1968, this town was a major center of political and administrative activity in the North.
Jacobsen: The last question touched on the geographic and sociopolitical context of Fort Smith—how it evolved from a pre-contact gathering point to a modern administrative hub. Building on that, how has the perception of the federal government changed in Fort Smith over the decades? You’ve studied the history closely, and with your experience as a Member of Parliament. I imagine you’ve seen this shift firsthand.
Bevington: The most significant change in the perception of government here in Fort Smith—and across the Northwest Territories—has been the resurgence of Indigenous identity and self-determination. Indigenous people have reclaimed their place, their rights, and their ownership in ways that were unimaginable when I was a child.
In the early 1960s, Indigenous voices weren’t part of the public agenda. The town was run almost entirely by white settlers, most focused on development. The local Royal Canadian Legion was full of World War II veterans—every pro-Canada, pro-federal government. When I was growing up, Canada Day on July 1st was the biggest celebration in town. It still is important, but in those days, it was massive.
Indigenous people were treated as second-class citizens, socially and politically. That has changed dramatically over the last 30 to 40 years. Today, the two local First Nations and the Métis Nation have come together to form Tábatsı́cha, the traditional name for this area. It means “below the rapids.”
This partnership marks a decisive shift in community leadership and how the federal government is perceived. It used to be an external authority. Now, the community plays a far greater role in shaping its future through land claims, self-government agreements, and Indigenous-led governance.
The area’s name in Chipewyan is Tábatsı́cha, and from that has come the Tábatsı́cha Leadership Council. This is quite unique in the Northwest Territories and, in my view, one of the best developments to happen here in a long time. It represents Indigenous governments coming together to settle their own issues—something that did not always happen easily.
As Indigenous communities gained more power and influence, many internal divisions emerged. There was infighting, with different individuals and groups vying for leadership as rights and privileges were increasingly recognized. That caused much tension over the years within Indigenous organizations. But things are changing now.
The current form of the Tábatsı́cha Leadership Council is a strong and positive step forward. It reflects a shift toward collaboration: instead of turning inward, the four local governments—two First Nations, the Métis Nation, and the Town of Fort Smith—are working together. Each has a say in what happens here. It is a move toward shared governance, and I believe it serves as a model for other communities navigating the rise of strong Indigenous governments. To succeed, governments must share power and be willing to share it.
Jacobsen: What is the current style of tension between the governments in that sense? And what are culturally appropriate ways in which conflict tends to be resolved?
Bevington: I can give you some examples from my time as mayor. I served from 1988 to 1997. During that period, Indigenous organizations were still finding their footing. Initially, there was only one band, but over time, it split into two—one representing primarily Cree people and the other representing Dene (Chipewyan) people. That split along cultural and linguistic lines has since become firmly entrenched.
For a long time after that, there was very little cooperation between the two First Nations bands. Meanwhile, the Métis Nation also grew in political stature. There’s also a significant Métis population here, but they tended to operate independently. That said, they were more integrated with the municipal government. When I was mayor, several Métis individuals served on the town council.
One of the most important things we did early in my tenure was to declare four official languages in Fort Smith: Cree, Chipewyan, French, and English. You might have seen the stop signs around town—they are written in all four languages. That declaration was made in 1993, and it sent a clear message that all four linguistic and cultural groups had a place here.
Historically, the presence of the Catholic mission and the bishopric contributed to a strong French influence in Fort Smith. The Métis community also used a French-based colloquial language, so French was a natural inclusion. And there are interesting linguistic overlaps. For example, many First Nations languages, including Dene, traditionally had no specific word for “thank you.” Today, people commonly use the word marsi, derived from the French merci. It reflects a kind of cultural blending that’s part of our local identity.
The four-language policy was a meaningful step toward cultural recognition and inclusion. It worked well because it acknowledged the reality of who lives here and what languages are spoken. It helped build respect.
There was a period when the federal government pushed hard to create reserves, which divided the community. It was a difficult time, but we’ve moved past that now.
Today, the Indigenous governments in this region are well-established, and they are returning to a more collaborative approach with each other, with the Métis Nation, and with the Town of Fort Smith. The fact that the town now shares decision-making on infrastructure and other issues with the three other governments is remarkable in a Canadian context.
It is a genuinely helpful and hopeful development, and I’m proud to see it take root here. Interestingly, I now see that Inuvik, another community in the Northwest Territories, is considering a similar approach. Inuvik reminds me of Fort Smith in some ways. It is home to both Inuvialuit and Gwich’in peoples, with some Métis presence, and about half the population is non-Indigenous.
Inuvik has long experienced tension between First Nations and Inuit communities, and I’m happy to see them starting to think about shared governance. It is essential. These Indigenous governments are growing stronger. They have resources and the ability to act—but in small communities, you cannot afford to operate in four separate silos. You need integration. You need collaboration.
There are a few examples elsewhere of communities trying to do this. Duncan, B.C., comes to mind as an example of some level of government cooperation. There are others in southern Canada, though none immediately stand out.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges of managing that kind of plurality? There is strength in inclusive representation—of language, culture, and leadership—but are there difficulties regarding decision-making, differing governance styles, or visions for the future? Did your experience as mayor shed light on this?
Bevington: Absolutely. I remember one particular challenge. We had been working for several years to develop a community recreation center. We had the design, the land, and I’d secured enough funding to move forward. Then, at the final stage, the chief of the combined band raised objections.
He said the band should receive a share of the funding to pursue its goals. It was a tough moment. We used the money to build a central recreation facility for the whole community, or we split it and risked not having enough to do anything meaningful. I wanted to share, of course, but if I had divided the funds, the project would have collapsed.
That was one of those moments when you had to make a difficult leadership decision. We held a referendum, and the community supported the project by 70%. So we went ahead and built the facility. Today, it is well-used by everyone in the community—Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
It’s a large, 43,000-square-foot building. We built it for just over $4 million, which would cost about $40 million to replace today. It was a considerable achievement, and it was built entirely by local people, with an architect who worked closely and respectfully with the community. It stands as a great example of what we can do together, even when the path is difficult.
He was a good guy and very accommodating. He understood what we needed to do to get the project done. We also had a local project manager who was just starting and wanted to establish his reputation in the community. He did a fantastic job and landed many of the big building contracts in Fort Smith. That recreation center project launched his career.
We built the recreation facility at an incredibly low cost. I chaired the construction committee, so I know exactly how we did it. Much of it was due to community involvement—local people ensured the work got done well.
Nobody lost money on the project, but nobody made a fortune. It was a great project—one that brought the town together.
Here’s another example. One time, I secured half a million dollars in community development funding. A Métis contact said, “We don’t have a proper office building. We need support too.” I made a deal with them—we allocated a third of the money to the Métis, and they used it to build their office.
That was early on, before we had formalized shared planning. I went in front of the town council and explained the plan. A couple of Métis councillors were at the table, so it passed without much resistance. Since then, they’ve built other office buildings and continued doing well.
However, under a traditional town model, that funding would have been viewed strictly as “municipal money”—to be used as the town saw fit. Instead, we began building a sharing model, and that’s become essential. Without Indigenous support, you cannot get much done anymore. Their governments have become more powerful, knowledgeable, and engaged in community affairs. So, relationships and mutual respect are crucial.
Jacobsen: That brings us closer to the core of today’s interview, specifically, the Carney family’s history in Fort Smith and the implications of recent political developments. We now have Mark Carney, born in Fort Smith, as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, not merely interim but officially elected.
As we begin this portion of the conversation, I want to acknowledge that for some, these topics remain sensitive, mainly when we discuss education systems imposed on Indigenous people. But I appreciate your openness and want to treat this subject accurately and carefully.
Two important concepts are discussed here: the federal day schools and the more widely known residential school system. Both played roles in Canadian history, but how were they distinct in Fort Smith?
Bevington: The residential school system was a terrible chapter in Canadian history. It was both a bureaucratic and religious effort to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples into Euro-Canadian culture. And yes, it happened here in Fort Smith.
As I mentioned earlier, Brynnet Hall was the local residential school. However, Fort Smith also had a day school system alongside it. From the 1880s onward, this community had a significant population of non-Indigenous families living and working here, many with their children. So there was always a dual track of education, which I imagine was similar in other parts of Canada, too.
That’s why we saw these hybrid versions of the residential school model in Fort Smith. Fort Smith was probably one of the few places with a somewhat distinct arrangement in the Northwest Territories. For example, Yellowknife, which had a large residential school in the 1950s and ’60s, didn’t have that hybrid structure. Yellowknife didn’t become much of a settlement until later—it wasn’t established at the turn of the 20th century.
Fort Simpson had a residential school but lacked a significant non-Indigenous population. The same was true in Aklavik, the main settlement in the Mackenzie Delta region on the Arctic coast, before Inuvik was created in the 1950s. Inuvik later had a residential school with a very negative reputation, as did the schools in Fort Simpson and Fort Resolution. Fort Chipewyan also faced its challenges.
There were residential schools throughout the North, but Fort Smith was unique because it had a larger white population from early on. That made it different—not better, just different—and carried through the decades. When I went to school here, it was during what I call the Robert Carney era.
Carney came from southern Canada to serve as the school principal in Fort Smith. He later moved to Yellowknife when it became the capital and rose to a senior role in the Department of Education. He entered the system when there was more oversight in Fort Smith than in many other northern communities, at least over conduct in the residential schools. But it was still a residential school system, and Indigenous children here were affected just the same.
What was particularly troubling was that, even though we had a well-established and relatively high-quality public school in Fort Smith—arguably the best in the Northwest Territories at the time—Indigenous children were often sent away to residential schools in other places, especially to Yellowknife in the 1950s. Many kids I grew up with—kids I played Little League baseball with and saw around town—weren’t part of our school population. They were removed from the community for education elsewhere.
The psychological and emotional impact of that was as damaging here as anywhere else. When you attend a residential school as a child from what white society regarded as a “secondary” population, you’re not treated with dignity. You’re not valued. These were not warm or welcoming places for most Indigenous students.
I remember one boy, Henry Boulio, who had come from Yellowknife. We’ve been friends for many years. One day, at school lunch, I had this oversized lunch my mother packed—she always thought I was starving—and I shared some with him. Years later, he said, “You didn’t make a fuss. You just gave me food. You didn’t act like you were above me.”
He said that felt natural, like how Indigenous people share quietly, respectfully, without expectation or performance. It made an impression. In many First Nations languages, there’s no direct word for “thank you.” Gratitude is expressed through collective action, not formalities. That cultural framework is essential for people to understand—it reflects a different way of being, rooted in mutual responsibility, not transactional exchange.
So yes, Robert Carney was part of that system. He was a strong Catholic and wouldn’t have openly gone against the Church. But he was also well-educated, in the Canadian sense of that era. From what I could see, he was pretty liberal for the time.
His whole background was with the Liberal Party, so I imagine he aligned with Trudeau’s government and others who, at the time, promoted assimilation policies. He was in a position—running a school—where he could see what was going on, but the environment may have shaped how he interpreted it.
Fort Smith had one of the “better” examples of a residential school. That may have clouded his understanding of how damaging the broader system was. Because of the local context, he may have thought, “Well, this isn’t so bad,” and carried that view forward. From what I’ve heard, he became a defender of the system, suggesting it was not entirely harmful, which, of course, ignored the devastating reality in many other communities.
People are essentially products of their environments, especially when new to a place. You don’t always have the depth of knowledge needed to assess what’s happening around you critically. I do not think he was a strong critic of the system. Instead, he seemed to think it was helping, at least in his immediate surroundings.
That was the general atmosphere in the early 1960s. Fort Smith was still a white-dominated community, populated by individuals who held authority across the North. The RCMP inspector was based here, and many federal departments had northern offices. It was also the political base where the Liberal Party brought Bud Orange, grooming him to become the local Member of Parliament. He was elected in 1968, during the first Trudeau era.
That was the setting Mark Carney’s father entered into. He likely was not one to rock the boat too much. However, a critical development during his early years here was that the nuns stopped teaching at the local school.
I had a nun as a Grade One teacher. She was kind, but unusual—she was not there because education was her passion. Her role as a nun shaped her identity, creating a distance between her and the students. Over time, the staffing changed dramatically.
We began to have teachers from all over the world. I had an impressive teacher from Kenya and a white woman from South Africa who was outspokenly anti-apartheid. One couple came directly from Israel and taught at the school. We had a physical education teacher from Australia who was a firm believer in corporal punishment—a harsh approach, even for those days.
The teacher population here was quite diverse, and that was reflective of the North more generally. People often came up here out of a sense of adventure or to contribute to something meaningful. The man from Israel, for example, was remarkable at building school spirit. Around 1968, he organized an “Olympiata”—an Olympic-style event where the whole school was divided into three teams, and every child was involved.
The “Olympiata” lasted about a week and included various activities. It was an integrated event, and it was genuinely suitable for everyone. There wasn’t a sense of division, especially by that time. When Grandin College opened, the school’s integration level improved significantly. Those students were competent, top of their class, and often the best athletes. They naturally emerged as leaders, and that had a positive impact on the broader school community.
Jacobsen: Was there much discussion in the town during your time about Robert Carney, Mark Carney’s father?
Bevington: Not really. People here are mostly just pleased that we now have a prime minister who was born in Fort Smith and acknowledges that fact publicly. That’s something the community takes pride in.
We’ve always had strong federal connections here. Wood Buffalo National Park, for example, takes up most of the land surrounding Fort Smith. In terms of funding, about 80% of the Northwest Territories’ budget comes from the federal government. So, the relationship with Ottawa has always been essential.
Our current MP was previously the mayor of Yellowknife. Now that we have a prime minister from Fort Smith, it creates a regional balance, which many here appreciate. There’s a familiar feeling in Fort Smith that Yellowknife has become something of a black hole, drawing in resources, attention, and authority from the rest of the territory.
One of those developments is the recent push to turn the college into Polytechnic University NWT, centred in Yellowknife. People here are worried it may undermine the Fort Smith campus rather than support it.
We’ve relied on federal support for much of the town’s modern history, so people are quite aware of political dynamics and how they shape life in the North. No one here wants to see the Northwest Territories become like Yukon, where Whitehorse is growing rapidly while other communities shrink. Our region has multiple strong communities spread across a vast area, and we want to maintain that decentralization. Centralizing everything into one central hub would hurt communities like Fort Smith.
So yes, politics are deeply relevant here. But Fort Smith has strengths—a strong Indigenous presence, a well-integrated community, lower cost of living, relatively attractive weather by northern standards, and a legacy of resilience. Our goal is not necessarily growth, but stability. Just maintaining our population and services is a significant challenge, as it is in small communities across Canada. Urbanization has dominated the national story for decades, leaving many rural areas behind.
Jacobsen: Shifting back to the current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, what can be said about his reflections over time on Fort Smith? I’m less interested in the historical controversies or federal policy and more focused on his connection—any public statements he has made about the town, his father’s role as an educator here, or the meaning of Fort Smith in his life. What has he conveyed, either past or present?
Bevington: Almost every time he speaks publicly, he finds a way to mention Fort Smith. During the election debates, he brought it up. Even when he appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the U.S., he mentioned it.
He speaks with genuine warmth about Fort Smith. It’s not just a footnote in his biography—it seems part of his identity. He acknowledges it as where he spent his early childhood, and his father worked as an educator. I think that connection has given people here a sense of pride and visibility, and that matters in a small, often-overlooked community like ours.
He mentions Fort Smith often, repeatedly, and it’s clear that he sees it as part of his identity. There’s no question he feels a personal connection. When I was in Ottawa and he was Governor of the Bank of Canada, he knew I was from Fort Smith, which made him more interested in talking to me. It was something we shared, and it mattered to him.
It’s part of Mark Carney’s psychological makeup. He wants to belong to Fort Smith and claim that as part of his identity. He also has ties to Edmonton, where he played hockey in high school. But he does not talk about Edmonton nearly as often. Fort Smith comes up more. Edmonton may be his secondary hometown, but Fort Smith seems primary in how he frames his identity.
Will he act on that? I hope so. I hope he will think about small communities across Canada and how they can thrive. The urban concentration in this country is creating real challenges, especially for young people. Housing is unaffordable. The job market is precarious. Life in cities is becoming more chaotic.
My son lives in Edmonton. He’s an engineer. He has to drive over 30 minutes each way to work, and if he needs to take his kids anywhere, it takes up even more of his time. Transportation and logistics consume his life.
Here in Fort Smith, you never drive more than five minutes. You can walk almost anywhere. Time belongs to you. In cities, time is absorbed by external demands. So I hope Carney keeps that in mind—that small towns are suitable for people in many ways. We should support small-town development, not just fuel urban sprawl.
We’ll see what comes of that. He’s a wise man. I’ve been very impressed by his partner as well. She’s bright, deeply educated, and someone who provides firm support. That matters.
In Parliament, I saw examples of that kind of partnership dynamic. Jack Layton and Olivia Chow come to mind—a strong couple, politically and personally. But it did not matter what the relationship looked like—whether it was man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Having someone strong beside you, a touchstone who can help you think through complex issues, is immensely valuable. And I hope it plays out well for him.
I have hope for Mr. Carney, and I was glad he ended up with a minority government. I learned from my time in Parliament that minority governments often produce better leadership.
I watched Stephen Harper in a minority; he had to pay attention to Parliament and engage with what was happening. But once he got a majority, Parliament no longer mattered to him—it became an obstacle. And that, I think, ultimately contributed to his downfall.
Trudeau faced a similar issue when he won a significant majority in 2015. He became too powerful, too fast. In most governments, both Liberals and Conservatives tend to rely heavily on lobbyists—the people behind the scenes pulling strings. However, in a minority government, you must pay attention to Parliament, which protects against some of those private influences.
So, there you go—that’s my little political rant.
Jacobsen: How do lobbyists “pull strings” in a practical sense? What does that look like, realistically?
Bevington: Let’s say the government plans to move in one direction or another. Strong corporate interests will pay close attention to companies with much at stake. Then, you have organized lobby groups representing particular sectors of society, from energy to agriculture to telecom. These groups are well-resourced, connected, and persistent.
Meanwhile, Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents. But those constituents do not carry the same weight as Imperial Oil. Constituents cannot have 200 meetings with the prime minister or top ministers in a single parliamentary session, but lobbyists can. That’s the difference.
Over time, the Prime Minister and Cabinet become insulated from the MPS and more influenced by lobbyists. They hear from them more frequently, and lobbyists know how to speak the language of influence. That weakens the democratic process because it shifts power away from the elected members and toward unaccountable private interests.
But when a Prime Minister leads a minority government, that dynamic changes. The Prime Minister becomes the only person who can build consensus and negotiate with other parties to pass legislation. Lobbyists can’t do that. Only they can pull those levers.
So paradoxically, a minority government can make the Prime Minister stronger, not weaker, because it forces them to engage with Parliament, explain themselves, and build alliances. That restores balance to the system.
I’ll admit, my argument needs refining, but my experience in Parliament bears this out. Take Mike Pearson, for example. He led minority governments, and those were very effective governments. He got things done because he had to collaborate, not dictate.
The first Pierre Trudeau came in with a massive majority in 1968. By 1972, he’d become the least-liked man in the country. But when he returned with a minority government, working alongside David Lewis and others in Parliament, he rebounded. That forced collaboration resulted in some truly great policies.
Then, in 1975, Trudeau won a majority again, and things fell apart. The pattern is there. Majority governments often slide into arrogance, while minority governments tend to function better, more democratically and accountable.
Fortunately, Mark Carney begins with a minority government. That means he’ll be the most important person in his party, and Parliament will matter to him. He must justify his decisions, negotiate with others, and earn the support to get things passed.
That gives him power—not in the unchecked, top-down sense—but in the absolute leadership sense. When you have to explain yourself, you grow stronger. When you don’t have to explain yourself to anyone, you grow weaker, even if it feels like power.
That’s precisely what happened with Stephen Harper. When he led a minority, he was focused, sharp, and engaged. When he got a majority, he no longer needed to engage, and it eroded his leadership. That shift ultimately contributed to his defeat.
Jacobsen: So, from that pattern, is there a “healthiest pathway”? Should someone be elected with a minority and then grow into a majority? Or does the majority itself always tend to weaken accountability?
Bevington: If someone becomes aware, really aware, of the structures around them, that’s the first step toward being effective. Awareness is a step toward success. In any walk of life, many people live their daily lives. They go to work, they get things done, but they don’t necessarily have the time or training to analyze why things are the way they are.
Do they have the critical thinking skills to ask the right questions? That’s a deeper issue. When I was at university, I took a minor in philosophy; to this day, it was the most valuable part of my education. It helped me understand motivation, intent, and structures of power. That foundation has served me throughout my life. But I’m digressing a bit here.
Jacobsen: Earlier, you mentioned how many of the brightest Indigenous youth were brought to Fort Smith, sometimes regardless of their wishes. What else stood out about the school environment at that time? For instance, was corporal punishment practiced differently? Were there patterns in how discipline was administered?
Bevington: I was always a bit of a rebel, so yes—I got my share of corporal punishment. Usually, for challenging authority in some way. It might have been something small, like talking in class, but that was enough. I remember one instance in high school: the Australian phys ed teacher made me bend over the desk at the front of the class and hit me with a stick for talking to a girl during a lesson. I sat back down—and kept talking—so I got called up again and walloped a second time.
It was very much part of life back then. I don’t think it was effective—not on me or others. Indigenous kids, in particular, were extremely stoic when it came to punishment. They didn’t show emotion, and they didn’t react. But that’s not to say it was right. It was a destructive practice—one I’m glad is no longer accepted.
Sometimes, people complain today about “discipline in schools” and say, “We should get back to the old ways.” But no—we should not. Corporal punishment doesn’t work. It’s not educational, and it doesn’t foster respect.
Jacobsen: What about slurs or verbal abuse? Were there racial or cultural tensions between students and educators?
Bevington: Yes, that was there. One of the less-talked-about dynamics was the conflict between Métis and First Nations kids. That was the primary source of tension in our community. Both groups were tough, raised in challenging circumstances, and saw each other as competitors—whether for respect, resources, or recognition.
By contrast, the non-Indigenous kids weren’t really in the same competition. Many came from different backgrounds and weren’t seen as direct rivals. So the friction existed within the Indigenous and Métis populations, not so much between them and the white students.
I used to say that Métis kids had the unique ability to be prejudiced toward both groups, meaning they sometimes took a middle-ground identity that gave them license to push against both white and Indigenous peers. It created a complicated social hierarchy, and those dynamics played out in classrooms, on playgrounds, and throughout the community.
That might not be entirely fair to say, but it’s undoubtedly an observation others have made. Growing up, white kids didn’t usually make overtly racist jokes or direct insults—at least not confrontationally. If there was discrimination, it tended to come in more subtle forms, like exclusion.
For example, if one of my sisters had a friendship or even a relationship with an Indigenous kid, my mother might raise an eyebrow. It wasn’t an open scandal or anything, but there was quiet disapproval. Still, because the population balance between white, Métis, and Dene people was relatively even, those biases often stayed beneath the surface.
However, the tension was more visible between the Métis and Dene communities. There were fights, and at times even gang fights in the community, especially among the youth. Those groups were interconnected through family ties, including intermarriage, which meant their conflicts had personal and cultural dimensions.
By contrast, the white kids tended to keep to themselves. The town was somewhat segregated, with different areas clearly occupied by other groups. I was in a unique situation—my family lived on the airport compound, which was much more multi-ethnic. Many Indigenous and Métis people worked for the Department of Transport, so the social model I grew up with resembles more closely what the community looks like today, more integrated.
Jacobsen: Let’s begin to close. Just five more minutes. What is the big lesson from all of this? From the experiences of educators and pupils, from the tensions between Métis and First Nations, white and Métis, white and First Nations, the hierarchies in the community and the laity, and between the Government of Canada and the community. How does all of that evolve into this current moment, where the Prime Minister of Canada often reflects publicly on Fort Smith? How should that be understood?
Bevington: It’s been good for him to have had that early connection to Fort Smith. As I’ve said, our community was one where you couldn’t ignore the realities around you. You had to recognize them, live with them, and learn from them.
His father, Robert Carney, was part of the residential school system, not as an abuser, but as a school principal within that structure. That alone gives Mark Carney a unique opportunity to reflect on the legacy of residential schools and what that has meant for Indigenous people.
It’s a complicated inheritance. His father wasn’t part of Canada’s elite ruling class, but he was part of something we now view with deep regret, even if it was presented as a form of public service at the time.
In contrast to Justin Trudeau, who was raised in upper-middle-class privilege, with a prime minister as a father and connections to the establishment, Mark Carney comes from something different. He straddles the line between insider and outsider, between public service and its historical harms. That makes him more grounded, perhaps.
Now, he has the chance to meaningfully reflect on policy and the social reality of places like Fort Smith, and I hope he does.
Part of Mark Carney’s appeal is his humility. Even though he has had a successful career, he still has a sense of modesty about him, and that’s a good thing. It’s always admirable when someone recognizes that they are not everything to everyone.
We will have to wait and see how he handles power. Up until now, he has been a servant to power. As Governor of the Bank of Canada, and later the Bank of England, as well as in his roles within private industry, he hasn’t owned the institutions—he’s served them. He worked for big companies, not as one of the owners. He didn’t own the Bank of Canada; he worked for it.
So the real question is whether he will continue to see himself as a servant of the country, now that he has actual power. That will be the test of his leadership.
On that note, I’m running out of steam. I tend to go until I suddenly drop, like a cast-off shell at the end of the interview.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s fine. Thank you again, Dennis. I’ll be in touch soon.
Bevington: Take care, 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): 2025/05/13
Dr. Weixelbaum, a historian, writer, filmmaker, and organizer, explains his background and his work on the dramatized film “A Nazi on Wall Street,” which follows a Jewish FBI agent investigating Nazi espionage during World War II. He outlines two academic approaches to antisemitism: one that views it as a persistent, centuries-old prejudice and another as a dynamic, evolving phenomenon shaped by historical and cultural contexts. The conversation examines how conspiracy theories—from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to modern references involving Henry Ford, George Soros, and Elon Musk—fuel anti-Semitic sentiments. They also explore populist rhetoric’s role in designating “the enemy” and discuss how terms like “self-hating Jew” are used to cancel critical viewpoints. Additionally, the speaker considers generational shifts in Jewish identity, respectability politics, and the importance of solidarity, critical thinking, humour, and hope in countering hate. Both maintain a scholarly tone and stress the need for historical understanding and evidence-based analysis to address and overcome contemporary hate and division. Their conversation comprehensively examines hate, accountability, and the power of informed discourse.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Jason Weixelbaum. He is a writer, producer, musician, and organizer. He grew up in Los Angeles in a family involved in the entertainment industry. After witnessing ethical failures in the mortgage securities sector, he pursued a Ph.D. in history, focusing on American corporate involvement with Nazi Germany. In May 2020, following the passing of his father, he founded Elusive Films to bring critical historical narratives to the screen—most notably developing, as previously discussed, A Nazi on Wall Street.
I’ve encountered—not a wide range, but—a variety of orientations regarding the definition of antisemitism. That is likely a more accurate way to phrase it. Definitions tend to be relatively consistent when experts are asked directly. However, what I have found more distinctive is the framing or philosophical orientation behind these definitions.
One common approach is to treat antisemitism as a persistent phenomenon—something that has manifested over many centuries. Another sees it as dynamic and evolving, suggesting that any fixed or narrowly defined concept of antisemitism is inherently limited due to its historical and cultural fluidity.
So, how do you approach antisemitism in an academic context, and how do you define it—if you believe a precise definition is even appropriate, whether complex or simple?
Dr. Jason Weixelbaum: That’s a great question. And, as with any meaningful inquiry, I stand on the shoulders of giants—many brilliant scholars have written extensively on the subject. As I glance at my working library next to my desk, I see works by Hannah Arendt, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, and many others.
My understanding probably lies somewhere between the two orientations you mentioned. Scholars often refer to antisemitism as the oldest form of hatred or prejudice. It has existed in various forms for over two millennia. And, like all historical phenomena, it evolves. The manifestations of antisemitism during the Holocaust, for instance, are different in character and form from how it appears today.
Contemporary scholars tend to explore what aspects of antisemitism have remained consistent and what has changed over time. Today, of course, we are navigating a very complex and painful moment, particularly with the ongoing Israel–Hamas conflict that has ignited a significant global rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence. At the same time, it is a humanitarian crisis for Palestinians as well. The broader geopolitical situation is tragic and fraught.
For my work, I find it somewhat more straightforward to focus on World War II and the Holocaust, where antisemitism was systemic, codified, and genocidal. It was ideologically explicit and institutionally enforced, which makes it somewhat easier to analyze historically.
It’s also worth noting that, in the United States, during my father’s childhood—which would have been in the 1940s and 1950s—it was still legal for universities and private institutions to practice discriminatory admissions policies against Jews. Quotas limiting Jewish enrollment at prestigious schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, among others, were only formally dismantled in the following decades. That is not ancient history; it was within living memory.
As Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
We could spend much more time discussing antisemitism. Still, I want to underscore one key motivation behind A Nazi on Wall Street. I chose not to make it a documentary but rather a dramatized narrative with a strong human perspective so viewers can engage emotionally and personally.
At the story’s center is a Jewish character—an FBI agent. Historically, there were very few Jewish agents in the FBI during the early 1940s. This character is based on real individuals and is intended to bring visibility to a Jewish protagonist in a position of moral and civic leadership during a time when Jews were often portrayed as victims or outsiders.
He happened to be an authority on organized crime—specifically on prosecuting the mob. So, he had some clout, and he was tasked with tracking down a Nazi spy. That creates a fascinating dynamic.
Amazingly, this is a true story. I constantly have to pinch myself, and I remain surprised that no one else has tried to tell this story yet. So yes, it was important to me.
Although the character at the center of the story may harbour doubts—about his faith, his country, or even about democracy—this is, after all, a film noir true crime story. In such stories, all of those foundational ideals are under threat. Our protagonist—who may or may not be a traditional “hero”—must confront his values to make it to the other side. I try to draw as much from historical material as possible. However, I dramatize and fill in certain blanks regarding that specific character.
But anyway, I digress.
Jacobsen: Regarding the contemporary roots of antisemitism, how would you frame a feasible explanation or description, particularly across the 20th century and into the present, beginning with the early 2000s through 2025? Where do you locate the manifestations we are seeing today?
Weixelbaum: Yes. As I mentioned in our earlier conversation, one of the reasons I am particularly attuned to the dangers of populism is the phenomenon of the politics of outrage. This political framework is constantly constructed as “the people versus a vague elite.” The targets of this outrage shift over time. Still, the underlying mechanism is the same: a group of anxious and fearful individuals looking for enemies—people to blame, dominate, and feel powerful in the face of their insecurities.
The truly frightening aspect of populism is that the identity of the so-called “enemy”—this amorphous, shadowy elite—eventually becomes associated with Jews. This is something you can observe repeatedly throughout history.
Modern antisemitism is deeply rooted in this populist mechanism. Many scholars may disagree with my perspective—and that is fine—but based on my reading of history and my scholarly work, I would argue that this dynamic unfolds as: it is “the people” versus “the rich,” “the people” versus “the bankers,” then “the people” versus “the politicians,” and eventually, “the Jews are behind it all.”
A widely accepted historical narrative is relevant here. There was immense political upheaval in the early 20th century, particularly in Russia during the lead-up to the revolution. The ruling elites in the Russian Empire—using “elite” here in a non-populist, descriptive sense—sought to suppress the Bolsheviks, Communists, and Socialists who were rising against them.
One of the tools they used was weaponized antisemitism. During this period, a document emerged called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is a fabricated text that falsely claims a secret cabal of Jews is conspiring to control the world’s governments, financial systems, and societies for their benefit and amusement. It is, in essence, a conspiracy theory steeped in bigotry and hatred.
The problem arises when this toxic narrative intersects with people of wealth or influence who are uneducated or highly susceptible to conspiracy thinking. One prime historical example is Henry Ford. Ford, a self-made industrialist, was enormously wealthy and powerful. Still, he lacked a formal education and became one of the most prominent purveyors of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the United States. He funded the distribution of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He published anti-Semitic content in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, which had a significant impact on public opinion in the 1920s and beyond.
This pattern—the confluence of fear, populist rhetoric, conspiracy theory, and power—remains a central mechanism for understanding the persistence of antisemitism in the modern era. The people around Henry Ford played a significant role in shaping his worldview. In particular, he had a German secretary in the United States who introduced him to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And, of course, populist rhetoric always offers a simple answer to complex global problems—“obviously, it’s the Jews.”
Ford embraced this narrative. And because he possessed immense wealth and influence, he amplified the reach of the Protocols in a way that might never have occurred otherwise.
Some argue with my interpretation, but history unfolded as it did. Unfortunately, this kind of conspiracy can take on a life of its own. Even in the pre-internet era—during the age of newspapers and radio—it spread explosively.
As the old saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” And here we are. The myth of a secret Jewish cabal remains a potent instrument of antisemitism. It has evolved, but its core remains the same.
Today, instead of invoking the Protocols, many conspiracists use “George Soros” as a shorthand. Simply saying “Soros” is now enough to invoke the entire anti-Semitic trope for some—recasting the old narrative in modern terms.
Jacobsen: My take on cabals is similar to that of Pete Holmes—the comedian. He once made a great point about Conan. He said that whenever someone starts talking about “realms” in fantasy stories, he immediately checks them out.
Similarly, whenever someone starts talking seriously about “cabals,” for me, it’s usually a sign that a conspiracy theory has taken them.
Weixelbaum: This kind of medieval, fantastical language.
Jacobsen: It’s fascinating how language reveals the underlying framework of someone’s worldview. Certain ideas and biases attach themselves to specific vocabulary—often without the speaker realizing it.
I did an interview earlier today with a well-known gospel group. They’ve been performing for decades, and their father was famous before them. One thing that stood out was the concreteness of the Southern language. To a Canadian ear—particularly mine, from a small town in British Columbia—it’s striking. Maybe less so for someone from Alberta. But for me, it’s vivid and tactile: “tin can,” “brick house,” “wood fireplace,” “stove.” The language feels like what it’s describing.
So yes, when people use the word “cabal,” it sounds medieval—just like “realm” does. And I’ve realized that this language can be an early warning sign. It can raise my radar.
Weixelbaum: And for someone like you—with a heightened sensitivity to language and how people express themselves—I’m sure it resonates even more deeply.
Jacobsen: Sure, yes. It’s like the difference between “New Yawk” and “Noo Joisey”—subtle but distinct.
Weixelbaum: In A Nazi on Wall Street, the main character is from New Jersey, but he ends up running the New York office. Is there tension there? Perhaps.
Jacobsen: But please, continue with your thoughts on the concept of a “cabal.”
Weixelbaum: Yes, absolutely—it’s become a buzzword. Any time you can pack a multitude of complex ideas into a single word, it becomes a powerful rhetorical device, and antisemitism is no exception. These narratives travel well.
They spread virally, and they are then amplified by individuals who are eager to do so. Again, Henry Ford comes to mind. So does Father Charles Coughlin, who was essentially the Rush Limbaugh of his era—a populist radio host in the 1930s who reached tens of millions of listeners.
Antisemitism always could spread widely and quickly. The sad part is that today’s social media platforms are even more potent for disseminating these ideas. I am unsure how much we need to review the history again—Gamergate, the rise of Trumpism, 4chan, and the Groypers. All of it has entered the mainstream to the point where someone like Elon Musk feels comfortable amplifying conspiratorial or white nationalist rhetoric and even reportedly appearing in photos making gestures that have been interpreted as Nazi salutes.
So, that is where we are.
It is terrifying to be a Jewish person in this environment. It is deeply unsettling to see anti-Semitic ideas gaining traction both on the populist right and, increasingly, on the populist left. It’s not a great feeling.
As an American Jew, I feel confident saying that the vast majority of us are uncomfortable with the current leadership in Israel and with the war. Many of us are also troubled by how this conflict has created cover for anti-Semitic rhetoric, even within movements that are grounded in legitimate concerns—such as the Free Palestine movement.
The Free Palestine movement certainly raises important, valid arguments. Absolutely. But then we see right-wing figures wearing keffiyehs and joining protests—not out of solidarity with Palestinians but as a means of co-opting the message to promote anti-Jewish sentiment. That is extremely disturbing.
I have seen it online, too: white Christian nationalists—bad actors—aligning themselves with a movement that, on the surface, appears left-wing but which they are instrumentalizing for their hateful agendas. It is not a good time. Not for anyone.
And so, again, I feel morally obligated, as a member of the Jewish community, to tell a positive Jewish story. One is about an American FBI agent trying to stop Nazism—trying to defend democracy. He is not perfect. He is deeply uncertain whether democracy in America can endure, especially given the extent of public support for authoritarianism in the 1930s.
The “America First” movement, which we still hear about today, has its historical roots in that era. And there was a lot of debate and disagreement within the Jewish community at that time. How should we respond to Nazism? Should we fight back? Did we fight back enough?
I think about books like I Cannot Forgive by Rudolf Vrba and Legends of Our Time by Elie Wiesel. These are complex, painful reflections on Jews—then and now.
What we are facing today is overwhelming. It can be isolating.
And, of course, that isolation is precisely what anti-Semites want to see. So, it is essential that even if our voices shake, we speak out. When we talk about solidarity, it is not conditional. We do not get to decide that one group is excluded.
If we are serious about solidarity, we must advocate for Jewish people, Palestinians, and everyone in between.
Jacobsen: Group psychology can offer a helpful framework when analyzing sociopolitical dynamics.
On the far right, we often see overt forms of anti-Semitic language—explicit imagery, dog whistles, innuendo—especially on platforms like 4chan and 8chan. Things like placing names in triple parentheses, referring to “the bankers” or “the elite” as veiled stand-ins for Jews, and so forth.
When called out, these individuals often frame themselves as victims—part of some imagined, persecuted group—within a larger conspiratorial narrative, just as you mentioned earlier.
On the political left, the dynamic is different. It’s less about outright denialism and more about obfuscation or misrepresenting context. I do not know if this comes from the fact that left-leaning discourse often emerges from academic circles, where there’s a higher literacy rate. Thus, the language must be more nuanced or sophisticated to justify certain positions.
That is what I see, or at least what interview experts share with me. How do you see these things being framed today? Do you note any historical parallels in how groups on the right and the left engage with these ideas? Is there anything relevant that contributes to this line of inquiry?
Weixelbaum: Yes, I agree with your observations. On the right is this “wink and nod” approach—the classic schoolyard bully behaviour of “I’m not touching you” while causing harm. It’s a way of bullying while pretending not to, and it is very much intentional.
On the left, the issue is often buried in rhetoric. I have been disappointed by parts of the academic community. It has felt isolating as a scholar to watch post-colonial research and discourse get twisted into an older, more insidious form of discrimination.
You can criticize the Israeli government, of course. But suppose you are making the argument that Israel should not exist. In that case, you are—knowingly or not—making an argument for ethnic cleansing.
No matter how much Frantz Fanon you cite, the core of the argument becomes apparent when you ask a person plainly: “What is your plan for removing all the people who currently live there?” And, “What if they do not want to leave?”
At that point, every single time, the response is obfuscation. As you said—it’s a pivot to rhetoric, a shift to some vague ideological talking point that avoids addressing the practical, moral implications of the argument. If you are advocating for ethnic cleansing, at least own it.
On the right, it is less about obfuscation and more about trolling. Unfortunately, this tactic also has a long history.
Let me give you a historical example. In the late Weimar Republic—after the temporary ban on the Nazi Party was lifted in the late 1920s—the Nazis entered parliament alongside other parties. But when sessions were gaveled into order, the Nazis would often all stand up in unison, smile, and march out of the chamber.
Then, immediately afterward, they would hold a press conference and claim that the government was paralyzed. “See?” they would say. “This is why democracy doesn’t work. This is why we need more power.” They were the ones who deliberately paralyzed the system and then used that dysfunction as propaganda against democracy itself.
Jacobsen: How are global responses failing—from local institutions to international frameworks—in addressing the rise of antisemitism? For instance, there have been dramatic spikes in anti-Semitic incidents in places like New England. It is harder to tell in some regions because the hatred has always been virulent. In others, antisemitism remains low, likely due to a lack of historical traction.
Weixelbaum: It is incredibly disappointing, upsetting, and alienating to watch people conflate eliminationist views toward Israel with broader post-colonial liberation struggles.
This has been especially painful to witness within specific segments of the Black American community. It created real tensions during the 2020 election. Many people wanted to support Kamala Harris—a woman of colour—and Black Americans, who are the base of the Democratic Party.
But a vocal minority also framed the anti-Israel movement as inherently aligned with the Black struggle. Public intellectuals like Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, have drawn such connections. While those arguments are often made in good faith, the implications can be problematic when they collapse in nuance.
We also see something structurally similar in Ireland: the argument that Ireland’s historical struggle for independence from British rule mirrors the Palestinian cause. And that, somehow, this justifies advocating for the nonexistence of Israel. That kind of framing is alarming.
Unfortunately, antisemitism spreads virally across borders and cultures. What we are seeing now echoes the rhetoric of the 1930s—“The Jewish question.” “What are we going to do about the Jews?” “No one wants them.”
I co-edited among a few others a book with some of my mentors called FDR and the Jews. It recounts an often-overlooked historical episode: the Évian Conference of 1938. President Roosevelt sponsored the conference to persuade other countries to accept Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany.
Delegates from more than 30 nations attended—though I may be off slightly on the exact number; scholars, please do not crucify me for that. But what is essential to remember is this: almost no country agreed to take in Jewish refugees, not even the United States. Congress rejected the premise outright. The only country that volunteered to accept refugees was Cuba. That was it.
It was a heartbreaking spectacle. And the question we must ask ourselves now is: if something similar were to happen today—if Jewish refugees were once again seeking safety—would the international community respond any differently? The answer might be no. And that is a chilling thought.
Jacobsen: Let me pivot to something more reflective: among Gen Z Jewish kids, do they still anchor themselves in Holocaust memorialization the way older generations—say Boomers or even pre-Boomers—might have? Not necessarily in the “remember trauma” sense alone, but in the tradition of familial and communal remembrance—of using memory to contextualize the present and energize resistance to any resurgence of fascism or authoritarianism?
Or are they more like a Norwegian-American kid whose grandparents immigrated to Minnesota in the 1950s or 1990s, and within a generation, they no longer speak Norwegian, no longer know Danish, and identify as thoroughly American—disconnected from their ancestral past?
Weixelbaum: Yes. That’s a sore spot for me. I’m Gen X. And among my younger millennial colleagues and friends—and certainly among Gen Z—I’ve noticed a significant generational shift in how they view Israel and Jewish identity more broadly.
I am not particularly religious myself, but after Trump’s election in 2016—especially after Charlottesville—I felt the need to reconnect more intentionally with the Jewish community. It was the first time I joined a synagogue and started attending services more regularly—not just on the High Holy Days. I come from the Reform tradition—what we jokingly call the “bacon-eating Jews”—not particularly observant, but culturally and communally Jewish.
I still have my grandfather’s tallit, the prayer shawl he passed down to my father, and the prayer shawl my father passed on to me. Unsurprisingly, Jews often return to or become more involved with religious or cultural traditions as they age. That is not unique to Jews—it is a broader human pattern.
However, I have noticed that many younger Jews do not feel the same connection to Israel. Part of that may stem from growing up more secular and less rooted in religious tradition. If you go to a Shabbat service—even one happening right now on a Friday evening, just down the street from where I am—you cannot help but notice how deeply embedded the concept of Israel is in Jewish liturgy, memory, and culture.
Of course, there is a distinction between the modern political state of Israel—founded after World War II—and the idea of Israel in religious and cultural tradition. These are not identical concepts, and they sometimes overlap in contradictory ways.
But I do wonder—when I hear younger, often secular, assimilated American Jews saying things like “I’m an anti-Zionist Jew”—what does that mean in practice? How do you reconcile being observant, even loosely, with rejecting the very concept of Israel? It feels, to me, antithetical to the foundations of Jewish religious tradition.
And how much of this comes down to a lack of knowledge. Some of these individuals are highly assimilated and do not observe much. Then, some observe but seem to twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to hold their views. The Jewish faith does allow space for questioning, argument, and reinterpretation. That’s one of the things I love most about Judaism—it embraces debate.
That’s what the Talmud is: rabbis writing in the margins, disagreeing with one another, sometimes even saying, “No, that’s wrong—here’s how I see it.” That’s why so many Jews became scholars and lawyers—it’s part of the intellectual tradition. It’s a stereotype, but like many stereotypes, there’s a grain of truth.
Still, I find it alienating and disturbing. I want to share some of them and say: “Hey—come listen. When you’re at a service, actually listen.” There are Jews who violently disagree with me on this, and I understand that. But it does not make it any less painful.
I’m probably ruffling feathers by saying this—but it’s my perspective. When everyone is standing in the synagogue with their hands covering their eyes, reciting the Shema—the literal opening words are “Shema Yisrael” or “Hear, O Israel.” Those are the first three words of one of Jewish tradition’s oldest and holiest prayers.
How can someone reject the idea of Israel entirely on the one hand while fully embracing Jewish faith and ritual on the other? Of course, people do—and that is their right. But I find it very difficult to reconcile. I struggle to understand that position.
Moving from the theological back into the political, what we see today—especially in populist movements—is a departure from rational, fact-based discourse. Populism thrives in an emotional world, not a logical one. Its primary engine is sustained outrage and the relentless manufacture of enemies.
Once the identity of “the enemy” is established, everything else—facts, policy, history—must be shaped to fit that narrative. That narrative must fuel resentment and elevate a hero figure or demagogue.
People may be upset with me for saying this, but what the right wing is doing now mirrors this dynamic exactly. One day, they were championing unregulated capitalism. The next day, they are saying things like: “It’s good that the stock market is down,” “Tariffs are good,” or “Economic collapse is good—we don’t need all these material possessions.” The logic shifts to fit the political moment and supports whomever the hero of the day happens to be.
That is where this all starts to intersect with Judaism again. It is painful. And yes, eventually, these movements tend to move on to some other shiny object to be angry about. They already are. But for now, Trumpism has captured and focused the energy of so many.
It is extraordinarily frustrating to witness this, and it is heartbreaking to grieve the loss of friends along the way—friends I’ve lost because of these deep, polarizing disagreements.
Jacobsen: So—here’s the question: Zionism, in the most generic sense, refers to support for the existence of a Jewish state. But even that broad definition opens up much complexity.
It does not imply a monolithic ethnostate of 100% Jewish heritage, culture, or ethnic background. That would be a naïve assumption, especially considering that last I checked, the third-largest political party in Israel was an Arab Palestinian party.
And then there’s Christian Zionism in the United States—people like Mike Huckabee who actively support the existence of Israel, often for theological reasons tied to end-times prophecy. Some in that camp go further, rejecting the two-state solution altogether and framing Jewish sovereignty in purely religious terms.
Weixelbaum: All right—wow. That’s a big question with three major parts. I’ll start with Christian nationalism because I have some family members on my spouse’s side who believe in it. And to be precise—it does not just frustrate me; it repulses me.
They deserve to know exactly how I feel. Christian Zionism, as promoted by many evangelicals, is directly tied to an apocalyptic fantasy in which Jews burn in hellfire unless and until they abandon their faith. That is the theological underpinning of their support for Israel. It is disgusting.
We should not sugarcoat it with all the flowery rhetoric they use. That’s what it is: a belief that conflict in Israel will trigger the apocalypse, leading to the Second Coming, during which Jews will either convert to Christianity or face eternal damnation. That is the basis of their so-called support for a Jewish state.
And it disturbs me deeply that so many right-wingers and members of the Republican Party back Israel for that reason. It is not welcome support. I reject it. It is grotesque—there is no other word for it.
Essentially, they believe that everything will eventually be OK—for them—if I, as a Jew, am tortured for eternity unless I admit I was “wrong” for being Jewish. No, thank you. They can take that and shove it. You can print that. Anyway, that’s the first part.
Part two—the Zionist extremists who reject a two-state solution—are also deeply problematic. Democracy cannot coexist with an ethno-nationalist project that excludes large swaths of people. Despite some criticisms from the left, inclusion must be fundamental. If you are going to govern democratically, you must include everyone. As you mentioned, one of the largest political parties in Israel is Arab. There are at least two million Arab citizens living in Israel. That fact is routinely ignored by anti-Israel critics.
Now, it is a thorny and complex issue. More must be done to expand democratic inclusion within Israel. It is undeniably challenging to do that when you are surrounded by groups and governments that openly call for your destruction.
Let us also not forget that Jews have been ethnically cleansed from many surrounding countries. Take Yemen, for example. There were once thousands of Jews there. Today, there are virtually none. That’s not just sad—it is alarming.
I believe firmly in a two-state solution, which has long been the internationally recognized path forward. However, I am frustrated by the failures of earlier generations that left this unresolved. I am incredibly frustrated by UNRWA’s role in perpetuating the problem. In many cases, it has helped foster environments in which anti-Israel forces can thrive unchecked.
And let’s be honest—Hamas tunnels were discovered underneath UNRWA facilities. That is not a minor issue. That is a profoundly problematic breach of humanitarian neutrality. Trying to spin that as a non-event is absurd.
The institutions enabling this cycle need to go extinct so we can get back to the hard but necessary work of building two states. That is the only path forward that honours the rights and lives of both Israelis and Palestinians.
And frankly, for the sake of the Jewish people, we must pursue this. Because, as we are seeing yet again, unresolved conflict brings the old spectre of antisemitism right back to life. And on a personal level, I would love to see that spectre buried once and for all. So—those are the first two. What was the third part again? Remind me.
Jacobsen: To recap the three threads, the first involves what a theologian described as “apocalyptic Christian Zionism”—the type Mike Huckabee endorses. It differs from more moderate forms of Christian Zionism in that it is rooted in eschatological fantasy. These believers view the reclamation—not only of the occupied Palestinian territories but of all surrounding lands, including current Israeli territory—as essential to triggering the Second Coming of Christ. In this narrative, the end of days arrives, and the Jewish people must either convert, recant their Judaism (whether Orthodox, Conservative, or otherwise), or suffer eternal damnation. That is their theological framework, and it is deeply troubling.
The second thread is the rejection of the two-state solution by some of these Christian Zionists, often aligned with far-right political actors in the United States. They oppose any diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, favouring instead a maximalist, biblically justified annexationist vision. And yes, we would need several days to explore the complex history of the two-state framework—how it has been supported in theory and subverted in practice by different actors. However, since we focus on antisemitism, I will leave a deeper geopolitical analysis aside.
The third form is perhaps the most socially corrosive: a soft exclusion that emerges in progressive spaces in the West—particularly on college campuses. A clinical social worker and two clinical psychologists, all of Jewish heritage, recently raised this in a published group dialogue. They shared an example from Columbia University: a Jewish student, who may or may not have a strong stance on Israel, is asked to renounce support for Israel to join a gardening club. This is not a political debate but a condition for participation in basic student life.
It is that kind of gatekeeping—of requiring ideological alignment as a prerequisite for inclusion—that places young Jews, especially those just entering adulthood and university, in an impossible position. These students may not have sophisticated political views yet; they may be ethnically or culturally Jewish, but that alone becomes grounds for exclusion. That’s a deeply troubling trend. Of course, there are many other Zionisms—labour, political, cultural, revisionist, and post-Zionist—but the three we discuss here are the most socially visible and practically consequential today.
Weixelbaum: Yes—exactly. Why do they not just say, “No Jews allowed”? That is the subtext of so much of this. Come on. That’s what is so frustrating.
And, yes, say what you will about the tenets of national socialism—but at least it was overt about its ethos. (That’s a Big Lebowski quote, by the way, but also relevant.) What we see now, especially from the far left, is obfuscation. There’s this constant effort to bury the message under euphemisms. “We’re not anti-Jewish—we’re just anti-Israel.” But then I want to stop them and ask, “Wait—are you saying I cannot join your club or be part of your space simply because I believe the State of Israel, born in the aftermath of the Holocaust and surrounded by hostile neighbours who have repeatedly sought its destruction, has a right to exist?”
That is the prerequisite for my exclusion?
I want to quiz them. I want to ask, “What do you know about Judaism? Can you recite the Shema prayer’s first three words—one of our tradition’s most sacred prayers?” What are those first three words?
Shema Yisrael—“Hear, O Israel.”
Jacobsen: Also, gold star for the most Jewish word I’ve heard this year: Shema.
Weixelbaum: The Shema—that’s right. And for me, the level of obfuscation I hear from some people when discussing Israel and Judaism tells me they fundamentally do not understand Judaism at all. Judaism and the concept of Israel are deeply interconnected—religiously, historically, and culturally.
Some of the rhetoric today veers into outright historical revisionism. You hear people claim, absurdly, that Jews are not native to the land of Israel. But we know that’s false. The oldest Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives, contains graves that are thousands of years old. You can visit them. It is not theoretical—it’s a literal place. This is not a people who “sprang into existence in 1949.” Jewish presence in the region spans millennia.
If you applied that same revisionist logic to any other group—say, Indigenous nations in North America—and told them, “Sorry, your connection to this land is invalid,” or “Your nation should not exist,” it would be rightly recognized as ridiculous, even comically racist. But somehow, when it comes to Jews, there’s an asterisk. There’s always an exception. And that isn’t comforting.
When the solidarity movement on the left starts drawing ideological lines where Jews are excluded or uniquely scrutinized, then we are no longer talking about leftism. We are talking about populism. And that’s the problem.
For the cheap seats, let me say it clearly: populism is very good at co-opting social justice rhetoric. But its core mechanism is always the same—identifying and destroying enemies. Once Jews are designated as that enemy, populist movements will twist, adapt, and steal whatever rhetoric suits the moment. The outcome is always the same: destruction.
If I may digress for a moment—because this is personal and painful—let me tell you what leftism means.
Leftism means public health. It means people who do not spend their time posting memes on social media but are instead in hospitals, schools, and nonprofits trying to find real solutions to improve people’s lives. I work with those people every day.
Many of them have lost their jobs for the so-called “crime” of trying to protect others—people doing their best to keep communities safe and healthy. That is solidarity, and I respect that kind of moral seriousness.
It is not about saying, “This group gets extra privilege” or “That group should be excluded.” It is not about playing oppression Olympics or creating racial hierarchies. It is about making sure we do our best for everyone. We try, we fail, and we try again.
We must think carefully about the terms we use, the ideas we promote, and how they affect real people. That is what solidarity looks like: not spending all your time online finding enemies to destroy or dunking on people for clout.
That is not leftism, as far as I’m concerned.
Jacobsen: How do you build this into your writing?
Weixelbaum: Ah, great question. As a science writer, especially before the previous administration, I found it relatively easy to advocate for public health. It was meaningful work—you could go to sleep at night knowing you were helping highlight the critical efforts of hardworking scientists, often those behind the scenes, doing the essential work that now—only now, in their absence—people finally seem to recognize and care about.
My experience in public health informs a great deal of my political writing. I have written for Democratic campaigns and nonprofit initiatives, and I’ve always believed in advocating for the public good. That is an area where you can generate real buy-in. If we drill down into ideology, yes—it is often a left-wing concept, the idea of “the commons”—that solidarity has no boundaries and everyone deserves access to shared public goods.
And you know what? Even conservatives—especially in regions like rural Pennsylvania—often care about public parks, clean air, open space, and wildlife preservation. Those are shared values. I worked on a voter guide during the 2020 election. I was told that it reached over 300,000 unique voters in Pennsylvania alone. I used that kind of framing to create common ground.
That matters. That is how we can move people. We need more of that. We need to de-radicalize this culture and walk people back from the ledge. It cannot always be about what we are against—about what we hate. I know it is frustrating, and I am ranting now.
Jacobsen: We also saw similar political undercurrents and troubling spikes in Europe. Take Germany, for example—the rise of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) marks a sharp uptick in populist rhetoric and far-right sentiment within a previously more reasoned political environment. In the United States, antisemitism has manifested across nearly every sector of society. Every demographic and every political bloc has seen some level of it—there is no clear partisan divide.
Here in Canada, looking at the most recent census data and hate crime statistics, the majority of reported hate crimes are anti-Semitic. That is followed at some distance by Islamophobic or anti-Muslim crimes, and then anti-Catholic ones—which surprises some people but makes demographic sense given that roughly 40% of Canada identifies as Catholic.
What I have not seen as much attention paid to, however, is the experience of atheists, agnostics, and humanists. In Canada and the U.S., I do not believe the state data fully reflects the animus many from those communities report. However, early-stage studies suggest that non-religious individuals face widespread hostility. In the U.S., the hatred directed at secular people appears to be tri-partisan—coming from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. I am unsure how the Green or Libertarian parties factor into that, but the trend is worrying.
That’s more of a side comment. But to bring us back on track: in Europe today, what are you observing regarding the current manifestations of antisemitism? How would you compare that to what we see in the United States? After that, maybe we can touch on other regions as well.
Weixelbaum: Germany is understandably the most frightening case because of its historical legacy. I was relieved to see recent electoral results in which the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) lost ground, and cooler heads prevailed. But still, the echoes of the 1930s and the viral spread of far-right populist movements globally are alarming.
And not to sound like a broken record, these movements often emerge from a profound anxiety—a deep sense of unease about one’s place in the world. This is something that has been studied extensively. Everyone always wants to know: how did the Nazis come to power? What led an advanced society, filled with culture and learning, into such darkness?
When I taught courses on the Holocaust and Nazi Germany—both to undergraduates and graduate students—the book I consistently used was The Nazi Seizure of Power by William Sheridan Allen. Despite the generic-sounding title, it is an incredibly insightful text. It focuses on a medium-sized town—not a major city, but a large town—in Germany between the late 1920s and a year or two after the Nazis took power.
The value of the book is that it dives into the local dynamics. Who became a Nazi? Who resisted? What patterns emerged? And some of the answers are surprising. While many supporters did come from the working class and those devastated by the Great Depression, some of the most ardent Nazi loyalists were middle-class citizens—people who still had something to lose. It was precisely their sense of vulnerability, their fear of downward mobility that made them susceptible.
They had a measure of comfort and stability but were plagued by fears of losing it—about their status, identity, and place in a rapidly changing world. Those are the same underlying dynamics fueling far-right movements today. It is not always the most downtrodden who turn to extremism. Often, it is the anxious middle class.
We live through intense and accelerating change—culturally, politically, economically, and scientifically. With the advent of instant communication and real-time information, the velocity of change feels overwhelming. The only constant in history is change, which now feels turbocharged.
So it’s not surprising that amid this paradigm shift—this moment when new world order is forming—right-wing populist movements are surging. And to be fair, populism is not exclusive to the right. Left-wing populism can also emerge from the same base of anxiety. The language may differ. The targets may vary. But the emotional mechanism is strikingly similar.
What is perhaps most unsettling—and this goes back to Allen’s book—is the role of the so-called “respectable people.” These were well-educated individuals, people from liberal or centrist traditions, who you would expect to resist extremism. But they became true believers. That’s always the danger.
It reminds me of the darkly humorous line: “I voted for the leopard-eating-face party, but I didn’t think they’d eat my face.” And now, in America, we’re watching people panic as their stock portfolios suffer under the chaos they helped usher in.
At the core of all this is status fear. It is not about poverty—it is about fear of falling. That is what fuels so much of today’s radicalism.
Jacobsen: How do you see Reform Jewish communities responding to this rise in antisemitism? We can also talk about Conservative and Orthodox communities. Still, I understand your personal experience and commitments might be more grounded in the Reform tradition.
Weixelbaum: That’s a thorny one. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is one of the oldest and most visible Jewish organizations in the United States. They’ve been around for a long time and are often seen speaking for the broader Jewish community. But I want to be precise—I can not speak for the Reform Jewish community. As the saying goes, “Two Jews, three opinions,” right?
That said, there is a bifurcation happening. The ADL appears to be increasingly aligned with the political right in the United States, at least in terms of what they excuse or remain silent about. For example, I believe they downplayed Elon Musk’s very public gesture, which many interpreted as a Nazi salute. Unless I hallucinated that, they publicly suggested it was not a Nazi salute. Did that happen? Because if so, that’s extraordinarily disturbing.
Who exactly are they protecting in that scenario? It certainly is not the majority of American Jews—most of whom are deeply unsettled by the sharp rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric, attacks, and threats.
As a Holocaust scholar, I find all of this more than worrisome. I see patterns repeating. And it is paralyzing. Many of us are shocked, frozen, watching this unfold. I cannot help but think of relatives a couple of generations back—Jews living in Germany in the early 1930s, after the Nazis rose to power. What were their conversations like around the dinner table?
“What do we do?” “Do we stay? We have jobs. We have family here.” “But if we leave, where do we go?” “Is anywhere else safer?” Those same conversations—impossible calculations—are happening again around modern dinner tables. That I can tell you with confidence. And the terrifying part is that no one knows where it leads. All we know is that we are in a worsening crisis that feels familiar and unprecedented.
So yes, the Reform community has a wide range of reactions and disturbances. When I attend synagogue, almost every sermon includes some reflection on the rise of antisemitism, the sense of isolation, and the complexity of the moment—especially in light of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Many are leaning deeper into their Jewish communities for support. But even those spaces can feel isolating, particularly when everything gets tangled up in the geopolitics of the Middle East.
As for consensus? I do not think there is one yet. What we can say—based on voting patterns—is that the vast majority of American Jews supported the Democratic candidate in the last election, mainly because they hoped it would reduce the threat of antisemitism and far-right extremism. But then we hear rhetoric from Trump claiming that Jews who support Democrats “aren’t real Jews.” That isn’t comforting.
As one of my mentors joked—thank you, Dr. Lichtman—“Ah yes, noted rabbinical scholar Donald Trump is now deciding who counts as Jewish.” I’ll cite my source there. He was on my dissertation committee, and, funny enough, he still is. I don’t know what the next move is for my community. I know this: I do not feel safe right now.
Jacobsen: There was a roast once of Joan Rivers by Gilbert Gottfried. And… the guy who always talked like this and used to squint all the time. He had this entire bit, one of the funniest comedic monologues I’ve ever heard. It was at a roast of Joan Rivers, and the whole thing was wrapped around this outrageous story of them supposedly making love.
He begins with: “There’s been much talk about the much-maligned Joan Rivers’ vagina.” Then he dives in: “How old is it? How dry is it? How many men died during its construction?” And from there, it just keeps escalating.
I have always thought that kind of ribbed, ruthless humour would make brilliant advisory commentary—biting, observational, but disarming. It would also make a good framework for writing something timely.
Weixelbaum: You are touching on something vital there. Humour matters—deeply. And it is something I have been thinking about since our last conversation.
People often ask me, as someone who studies fascism and authoritarianism, “What’s going on?” “Help me understand.” So, I explain the dynamics. And then they say, “Now I’m depressed. What can I do?”
For a while, I struggled with how to respond. But I do have an answer now: humour. Humour is one of the most potent tools we have against populism, right-wing extremism, and fascism—ideologies that thrive on fear, anger, and isolation.
Populist and fascist movements feed on rage. Their ecosystem depends on sustaining grievance, amplifying resentment, and keeping people in constant outrage. But humour—especially the kind deeply rooted in Jewish culture—can deflate that. Humour says, “Why are you so angry? It could always be worse.”
That kind of wry, self-aware humour takes power out of authoritarianism. It exposes how brittle and ridiculous it is. Humour interrupts fear, and fear is what fascism feeds on.
Right now, I am looking across the room at my copy of Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism. So much of that book is about the psychological dimension of authoritarianism. How it isolates people from each other, creates internal fragmentation, and dissolves the social glue. I have felt that. I am living it. These past few months have been tough. I’ve struggled.
But I remind myself—and others—that maintaining a sense of humour is not frivolous. It is essential. Humour disarms the very forces trying to isolate us. And Jewish humour, in particular, has always had that capacity. It is both cathartic and piercing. Think about Springtime for Hitler—one of the greats. That’s Mel Brooks turning fascism into farce and, in doing so, stripping it of its menace.
Jacobsen: I was a drama student in high school. I wrote two plays and acted in a few others. I remember the feeling of trying to put complex things into words—translating emotion into performance. Humour lets you turn the angle, even just 15 degrees, maybe 40. As George Carlin once said, something has to be out of proportion for something to be funny. There must be a distortion, which creates the comedic break. He was probably right.
Now, we’ve talked about Europe. We’ve talked about America. What about the Middle East? What do you see there—in terms of literature, plays, or cultural and artistic output—that could be considered universal, cosmopolitan, or inclusive? And how does that compare to material that is explicitly or implicitly antisemitic? What’s the cultural landscape like there?
Weixelbaum: What’s coming out of the region, culturally? I wish I could point to specific examples right now. I do. But I would be dishonest if I tried to speak with authority on the current Israeli or Palestinian cultural scenes. I’ve just been too distracted lately—consumed by the immediate, by what is unfolding right in front of me.
That said, this conversation is a prompt—a reminder to pay more attention to what is happening beyond the headlines and my professional tunnel vision. What I would like to see, what I hope is happening, is that somewhere—amid all of this darkness—there are Jews, Arabs, and Palestinians using humour, art, and culture to build bridges. That is where hope lives.
As Mister Rogers used to say, “Look for the helpers.” The artists—the people who build connections through creativity—are helpers, too. That matters to me on a deep level. Even though I went into a technical, scholarly, scientific career, art is where my soul resides. It is where healing begins, where we can address even the most entrenched, painful problems.
I will not pretend to be familiar with specific plays, films, or cross-cultural artistic collaborations right now. I do not know. But I am sure they exist. And I urge anyone who sees, hears, or experiences them to amplify them. We need so much more of that. We need more beauty, courage, and humanity in this space. That is how we start to reverse this damage.
Everything that is made can be unmade—including violence, division, and hate. And it must be unmade. One of the tragic yet redemptive features of the human condition is that we do not live very long. That means that every new generation brings an opportunity for change. Every student, every curious young person, has a chance to do things differently—to break cycles of inherited trauma and violence.
We need to nurture that. We need to commit to that. And I say this while fully acknowledging that I have been caught up in the acrimony. These past months have been deeply upsetting. I’ve felt defensive and anxious—like I am under attack all the time simply for being Jewish.
That’s not a sustainable emotional state for anyone. And yet, it is the reality for many of us. That is why we need to stand together, yes, and also work together. I know it sounds trite—but it is essential.
Jacobsen: Who do you see as having the most significant influence in these cycles? Not in the conspiratorial sense—because, of course, both the far right and far left love to cast blame in ways that feed their narratives. On the far right, the MAGA crowd is obsessed with George Soros. On the far left, it is often white nationalists or Christian nationalists who are scapegoated.
But not through that lens—through a sober lens. Who do you think is most emotionally invested in perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes? Who are the real influencers of this?
Weixelbaum: Unfortunately, it is becoming an increasingly familiar roster. Elon Musk is now at the top of that list. I wish more of my friends had been skeptical ten years ago when so many had stars in their eyes about Mars missions and underground tunnels and electric cars. I remember telling people, “I saw him make a crude ejaculation joke at a sitting senator on social media—are we sure this is the visionary you think he is?”
That was a decade ago. And now we’re seeing the consequences. It does not surprise me. Musk has become a central figure in this disconcerting space—one that combines right-wing bullying, antisemitism, racism, and the broader aesthetic of fascism. It is not just rhetoric anymore—power, influence, and cultural permission to hate.
And then, of course, there’s Steve Bannon. He is deliberately trying to build an international network of far-right—and frequently antisemitic—organizations and parties. He is not subtle about it. He’s a strategist for global extremism.
Of course, there is the elephant in the room: Donald Trump. Ever since he said, “wonderful people on both sides” after Charlottesville, he has empowered and emboldened a movement that had long been lurking in the shadows. He mainstreamed it. He gave permission.
And the result has been a disturbing rise of far-right, fascist-adjacent sentiment—not just in America but globally.
And in practice, of course, the consequences are devastating. Look at what happened in Oklahoma City—evacuating buildings rebuilt after earlier bombings by far-right racists. It is hard not to see the throughline—the ideological connections—between the present and the violent past. And we cannot ignore the other elephant in the room that we should have talked about much earlier: Vladimir Putin.
Putin has been deliberately amplifying antisemitic groups and narratives, stoking division in Western societies for years—mainly through disinformation and social media manipulation. This is not speculation; this is well documented. Peer-reviewed research papers, intelligence briefings, and journalistic investigations all point to the same conclusion.
Jacobsen: Regarding President Vladimir Putin and the leadership around him in the Kremlin—this is not theoretical to me. I’ve been to the region twice. The first time, I stayed for two or so weeks; the second time, it was just shy of a month. I was initially doing war journalism alongside a Romanian journalist and then with two journalists the second time. I returned in mid-September last year.
The second book of those conversations will be out either this weekend or next week. I have all the materials ready now.
One Ukrainian Jewish researcher I spoke to—someone I trust—explained that there’s significant antisemitism being spread online within Ukraine. But—and this is key—it is not organically Ukrainian. It is generated by bots or external forms of influence operating within Ukrainian digital spaces.
So, what we are looking at is not simply internal cultural bigotry but an externally imposed disinformation campaign. It is a very different kind of front—psychological and cultural.
A lot of this weaponized antisemitism ties back to disinformation campaigns that distort historical memory, particularly around sensitive topics like the Maidan protests and Independence Square commemorations—for example, debates about which symbols should be allowed during national remembrance ceremonies. Christian crosses were broadly accepted—seen as representing “real” Ukrainian history—while Jewish symbols like the menorah were rejected, with the implicit message that Jewish history is somehow foreign or lesser.
This kind of symbolic exclusion is powerful. It says: your history doesn’t count here.
And that is just one layer. There are more profound, more academic forms of distortion—historical revisionism, outright denialism, and tropes echoing longstanding antisemitic slurs. Some of the antisemitic language in Ukrainian is either metaphorical or explicitly refers to antisemitic archetypes.
So yes, this is an ongoing and growing phenomenon. The real questions become: How widespread is it? Who are the sources? What networks are responsible—bots, trolls, foreign agents, or localized enablers? And most importantly, how do you deal with it? How do you respond meaningfully?
There’s also the matter of broader propaganda systems operating in the region, which we can reevaluate momentarily. I’ll let you respond first—and if I remember the other thread I was thinking of, I’ll gently nudge us back to it.
Weixelbaum: Yes. There is an undeniable irony here—because Ukraine has a profound Jewish history. The city of Odessa, for example, had one of the most vibrant and vital Jewish communities in Eastern Europe. Then came the devastation of the Holocaust during World War II. And after that, the repression under Stalin. These communities were deeply wounded—historically, demographically, and spiritually.
And yet, Ukraine now has a Jewish president. That is extraordinary. It complicates every lazy narrative about antisemitism being innate or immutable in Eastern Europe.
Still, I had some difficult conversations with friends at the beginning of this horrific war Putin has launched against Ukraine. Many of the online attacks that emerged in those early months were not even focused on Ukrainians themselves—but were broader attempts to muddy the waters, sow confusion, fracture alliances, and revive ancient hatreds under the guise of nationalism.
Putin has used antisemitism not just as a domestic tool—but as a geopolitical weapon. These disinformation campaigns—especially antisemitic ones—have not remained confined to Eastern Europe. They are percolating into the West. And it isn’t comforting. I have friends—ostensibly left-wing, progressive friends—who are now parroting Kremlin propaganda, insisting that “Ukraine is full of Nazis.”
One of the tactics antisemitic trolls love to use is calling Jews “Nazis.” They know exactly how hurtful that is: Holocaust inversion, which is an academic subfield specifically devoted to studying this They do it precisely because it is emotionally brutal for us. And now we are seeing the left-wing version of it as well—people saying that “Jews are committing a Holocaust in Gaza” or that “Israel is a Nazi state.”
I have had to bite my tongue at family gatherings—hearing distant relatives or friends say this to my face. I have had to sit there and… breathe because it is not just an intellectual insult but a deep personal wound.
Anyway, circling back to Russia and Ukraine—there is a longstanding connection between trolling and fascism. They go hand in hand. Nazi rhetoric always had that element of winking, nodding plausible deniability. “What? I’m not bullying you—I’m just asking questions.” It is trolling in its most dangerous form. And online, that style of communication has been supercharged.
Putin and his massive troll infrastructure have taken this model and run with it. Over the past decade, they have waged not only a physical war in Ukraine but a sustained psychological war across Western societies—using antisemitism as one of their most effective wedge tools.
As we noted earlier, some call antisemitism the oldest form of racism. And in terms of weaponization, it is undoubtedly one of the most enduring and effective ways to fracture liberal coalitions. So, no—it does not surprise me that this is happening in Ukraine. I only hope that my Ukrainian brethren—especially those resisting both invasion and ideological pollution—stay strong.
I say this personally. I am half Ukrainian—on my maternal side, ironically, the non-Jewish side of my family. And with both the war in Ukraine and the escalating crisis in Israel and Gaza, this past year has been incredibly difficult for me. I care deeply about both conflicts. I follow developments on both fronts daily.
To answer your question—what can we do to combat this?—we need to use every tool available to fight trolls and disinformation. That means humour, blocking, and zero-tolerance policies. It means well-designed moderation tools in digital spaces. These are not optional anymore. They are necessities.
Above all, teaching critical thinking. My spouse is a university librarian, and this is what they do—teach media literacy, especially to young people immersed in online spaces. It is one of the reasons I married them. The front line in this battle is teaching people to analyze, evaluate, and contextualize.
Interestingly, New Jersey—the same state we joked about earlier—is the first state in the U.S. to mandate media literacy instruction in high schools. That is huge and incredibly important. So yes, these are our tools: humour, education, moderation, and community standards. And we have to use them. because what we are up against is not just offensive—it is corrosive.
And I remembered the other point I wanted to raise: the irony that the culture which sacrificed the most soldiers and civilians in the fight against Nazism—namely the Soviet Union, and in particular, Russians—is now one of the largest global exporters of neo-Nazi rhetoric and antisemitic propaganda.
It is stunning. And it has brought me to a rather bleak thought. You know how the old saying goes: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”? Lately, I have started to feel like… maybe it bends toward irony.
Jacobsen: The arc of the moral universe may lead toward irony. Maybe not toward justice but toward irony. Not necessarily in the cosmic sense but in the rhetorical and moral one. That feels about right. Perhaps the larger arc is justice, but the subtext—its lived texture—is irony. There’s a kind of tragic subset of moral physics where irony is inescapable.
And it reminds me—there was a famous director, brilliant in his craft but less so in his personal life. He did some awful things involving his stepdaughter—Woody Allen. I remember an interview he gave maybe five or ten years ago. He said, “The longer you live, you stick around, and you start to see that about every hundred years, everything gets flushed again.” There’s this sense that no matter how much progress we think we’ve made, it cycles back.
That’s why irony feels so present. We can have these elevated conversations about moral arcs and cycles, but the reality—the texture of it—feels more ironic than linear. Even though lifespans have doubled, and we have access to medicine, infrastructure, and relative safety, we still carry the existential dread our ancestors had.
Shakespeare wrote about the brevity of life when people were dying at 30 from cholera or dysentery. Today, we say the same things in a world where we can live into our eighties, albeit often at the cost of financial ruin due to medical debt. So yes, there’s an irony in that, too: I have so much and still feel like it’s never enough.
All of this folds back into a broader loss—not just of ethics but of what I’d call the aesthetic of ethics—the performative veneer of moral seriousness without its substance.
Weixelbaum: You asked earlier what informs my writing and communication. The more I reflect on it, the more I realize that when I advocate for hope, resilience, and humour in the face of terrible things, I’m not just writing for others.
I’m writing to myself. I’m saying: Jay, don’t lose hope. Don’t become hardened. Don’t become cynical. Stay human. If I can convince myself, I can convince one other person, too.
I once wrote a piece called Observation on Hope about my Holocaust research. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but it explores how people found hope even in the absolute darkest circumstances. That’s important right now because, without hope, there is no resilience. Without resilience, there is no humour. And humour, as we’ve discussed, is a powerful antidote to despair.
And hope—real hope—is not dependent on facts. It is not about optimism. It’s about maintaining agency over our attitudes when the external world is spinning out of control. And I’ll admit: I need to work on that myself.
Jacobsen: Which playwrights or authors do you think are most insightful—most nuanced—about antisemitism? Who manages to poke at it pointedly and profoundly?
Weixelbaum: Oh man, that’s a tough one. There are so many, and I should have done some homework before this conversation. I can point to plenty of scholars who’ve shaped me. We already mentioned Hannah Arendt, of course.
But I will have what the French call l’esprit de l’escalier—staircase wit. I’ll think of the best answer after we finish talking.
The name that comes to mind right now is Rudolf Vrba and the book I Escaped from Auschwitz. It’s not a work of fiction or a play, but it reads with literature’s intensity and moral clarity. It’s a true story.
Vrba was a young man when the Nazis captured him and sent him to Auschwitz. The way the camp was structured, the Nazis needed inmates to serve as a skeleton crew to help run operations—while the rest of the Jews were murdered wholesale. Vrba arrived with a small group of other young men. Slowly, one by one, he watched each of them lose hope.
And the conditions were beyond inhumane. The electric fences were nearly complete. The Nazi army was winning battles in the East. Death was constant—gas chambers operating continuously, corpses piling up, no apparent escape.
There was absolutely no rational reason for hope.
And yet, Rudy held onto something—a spark, a conviction that if he could escape and tell the world, it might change something. It might matter.
That’s why the story stayed with me. It’s not just a tale of survival—it’s a story of moral defiance. A refusal to surrender to nihilism, even in a world designed to erase you.
And so, Rudolf Vrba’s companions lost hope individually. Auschwitz was not only emotionally and spiritually devastating—it was physically excruciating. People died constantly. It was easy to catch cholera. As you said earlier, death by diarrhea was very real. If you were assigned to corpse duty—handling the dead—you were essentially given a death sentence. The bodies were diseased, the work was degrading, and the conditions were impossible.
Sometimes, a guard might simply decide to shoot you. There was no logic. No justice. It was terror by design.
Vrba, against all odds, ended up being one of the last surviving members of his cohort. But as he watched his companions fade—one by one—he made a decision. He would not lose hope. And what’s remarkable is that his hope wasn’t rooted in optimism or evidence. It was, in my reading, an act of defiance—a conscious refusal to let the Nazis strip him of his humanity.
He chose to keep hope out of spite for the horror surrounding him.
Once he took that stance—once he reclaimed his attitude—it unlocked a kind of clarity. He began to observe his surroundings with fresh purpose. He started asking: What can I learn here? What information can I gather? How can I escape? How can I warn the world about what’s happening?
Eventually, he secured a job near an office—close enough to overhear guards and staff talking. He began collecting fragments of information. In Auschwitz, information was more valuable than food. And over time, through small acts of connection and trust, he formed a plan. He learned that a portion of the electric fence was not yet complete. He pieced together a disguise—a costume he could use in the countryside—and managed to obtain forged papers, money, and supplies.
His escape plan was to hide in a trash pile near the unfinished section of the fence, wait until the timing was right, and then slip out undetected.
And he did it.
He hid while the Nazis searched for days—with dogs, with patrols. But they never found him. Vrba became one of the few people ever to escape from Auschwitz and live to tell the world what was happening inside.
The lesson I take from that is simple but profound: Hope is not based on data. It’s not “I have hope because X, Y, and Z factors line up.” Hope, in its most accurate form, is an act of will. It’s a decision—an act of resistance in despair.
And if you can hold on to hope under those conditions—when the world is on fire around you—it is one of the most powerful things you can do.
Because here’s the other insight: Attitudes are viral.
We have spent so much time in this conversation talking about the virality of grievance—how anger spreads online, how trolling works, how authoritarianism capitalizes on emotional contagion.
However, negative emotions are not the only thing that spreads.
Hope is also viral.
When one person holds onto hope and refuses to break, that resilience inspires others, building courage, community, and friendship.
Yes, the online world is designed for rage clicks and hostile engagement. But we can counteract that, saying, “No, I will not give into despair. I am going to stand for connection, for decency, for hope.”
That’s what I take from Vrba’s story.
There are many other examples—many other brilliant Jewish figures, especially comedians, who have used humour to fight antisemitism. But this is the story I wanted to share today because it reminds us that even in the most horrifying circumstances imaginable, a spark of human dignity can survive. And sometimes, that spark is enough to change everything.
You mentioned Elon Musk earlier in connection with all of this.
Jacobsen: I recently heard a joke that made me laugh, albeit darkly: Elon Musk is the first person in history to be radicalized by his algorithm. It’s funny—and also devastatingly accurate.
Weixelbaum: This is no longer the premise of a speculative film—it is not probable, perhaps, but entirely plausible. It is no longer science fiction. What we are seeing now is a highly targeted reality, facilitated by rapid technological advancement and openly encouraged by political operators who have a well-documented history of stoking disinformation campaigns—especially those built on antisemitic conspiracy theories. One of the most prominent figures in this regard is Steve Bannon. His sociopolitical and cultural influence, though perhaps more subdued in recent months, remains ever-present, particularly in the advancement of antisemitic and white nationalist rhetoric masked beneath the thin veil of right-wing populism.
Bannon is the perfect case study for my argument throughout this conversation about populism. Ironically, he began his political journey aligned with left-wing populist movements. And if you trace his ideological trajectory, it is no surprise that he ended up on the other side of what some call the “horseshoe”—where the extreme ends of the political spectrum begin to resemble one another. What’s deeply troubling is that Bannon sees the potential of transnational right-wing alliances and actively works to cultivate them. His alignment with Viktor Orbán in Hungary, his sympathies toward Putin’s regime, and his likely connections to similar elements in Germany and elsewhere illustrate a more significant, chilling truth: this is an international movement. This is not an American problem—it is a global one.
And that fact has clear historical parallels. One of the core themes of the Nazi on Wall Street project I’ve been developing is the international nature of Nazism itself—how it crossed borders, how financial and ideological alliances supported its rise. The protagonist in that story—though maybe not a hero—is tasked with confronting this exact ideological export. Bannon, in many ways, is today’s equivalent. He understands and exploits the mechanisms that make populist movements dangerous: rhetorical subversion, half-truths, conspiracies mutating into antisemitic beliefs, and, critically, the addictive emotional thrill of trolling and dominance. He leverages all of these to expand his reach and strengthen his networks.
What makes Bannon especially dangerous is his precision. He knows exactly how these movements feed on emotional energy. He’s aware that populism thrives not on policy but on grievance. He exploits the mechanisms of conspiracy, engages in the “wink-and-nod” language of plausible deniability, and rewards people for their cruelty. This little endorphin rush comes from trolling others online. It is dominated by design, and Bannon is its engineer.
The most disturbing aspect, perhaps, is how the legal system—despite occasional action—has failed to stop him. Individuals like Bannon are often rebuked or penalized but rarely neutralized. They’re usually empowered once they’ve gone through the system and come out the other side. They have a martyr complex and a renewed sense of purpose. They double down. They go harder. And that terrifies me.
Many felt relieved when they heard rumours that Bannon and Elon Musk were at odds. But even that is not necessarily reassuring. What we are witnessing might be what I call “competing authoritarianism”—where influential individuals vie to out-fascist one another, not because of ideological differences but because of egotism and rivalry. And that, too, is rooted in history.
This dynamic reminds me of the Führerprinzip—the “leader principle” from Nazi Germany. The concept holds that there can be only one ultimate authority. These kinds of leaders do not believe in succession planning. They believe in dominance, not continuity. They see themselves as indispensable. And once the “load-bearing villain,” as I sometimes call them, begins to falter—physically, politically, or otherwise—everything beneath them starts to collapse.
Trump is a perfect example of this. His influence, while immense, is tied to his persona. If he declines—as it seems he might—that entire structure destabilizes. And while that may cause hope, it also opens up dangerous power vacuums. The Bannons of the world are not gone. They are waiting in the wings.
This is why I often draw comparisons between scientific progress and political authoritarianism. There’s an old saying in science: progress happens one funeral at a time. Because people do not change their minds about fundamental truths, they hold onto them—desperately, irrationally—until they die. And in politics, particularly in these authoritarian and antisemitic circles, we see the same principle. These figures will not relinquish their grip voluntarily. They will not evolve. They are fossilized in their ideologies. They are not just individuals but outcrops—manifestations—of a system and worldview. And when they are gone, their structures often go with them.
And maybe that’s what gives me some hope: not that things will improve naturally, but that history moves—sometimes with terrible cost—but always with movement. And in that movement, in those moments of rupture, there’s a chance for something better to emerge.
Jacobsen: Because you mentioned that these are “load-bearing villains,” and they tend to be terrible at succession, the natural question is whether we can find some hope in that fact—that they do tremendous damage but rarely pass on their legacy in any formalized, robust way.
Weixelbaum: And that is exactly right. It might be a good way to emphasize this conversation and yesterday’s one. Populism and fascism, by their very nature, contain the seeds of their destruction. These movements flourish in liberal societies. That’s the paradox. It is precisely the openness, the pluralism, and the tolerance of liberal systems that allow them the space to emerge and grow.
It is easy to be seduced by the politics of grievance by emotionally charged movements built on outrage and fantastical, irrational thinking. You get drawn into this world where nothing matters except what you are mad about and how you can further your divisive cause through rhetoric. But these movements cannot sustain themselves on that anger alone. They spring from liberal societies because they have to. You cannot get a populist or fascist uprising in a political vacuum. They require institutions to target. They need freedom to exploit. And ultimately, they are corrosive. They destroy the very institutions that allowed them to exist in the first place.
Populism thrives on division. It is anti-coalition by nature. It is my way or the highway, and it escalates through dominance. And on a long enough timeline, the hero of a populist movement almost always becomes its next enemy. That is the entire function of populism: to create enemies to destroy. So, these movements eventually kill themselves. In the process, they cause catastrophic damage to the liberal societies from which they sprang. But they cannot last forever. Because, in the end, you cannot eat anger. You cannot be sheltered by rage. Anger cannot quench your thirst or fill your stomach. Outrage and grievance are powerful mobilizers but do not build stable societies.
People need the basics. People need clean water, safety, jobs, and public services. That is why we created governments in the first place. That is why civilizations exist. So, it is not a question of if the populist movement will implode. It will. The real question is: how many people will suffer before that happens? That’s the tragedy. Hitler envisioned a thousand-year Reich. He got twelve. He and his inner circle were far more disciplined, organized, and ideologically coherent than the band of opportunists and tech demagogues currently circling Trump, Musk, Bannon, and others. So yes, they, too, will burn out. But the concern—the fear—is that they will take many people down with them before they do.
Are there acute examples of this dynamic in American culture? Absolutely. One of the clearest examples is the Populist Party of the late 19th century. It was born out of a legitimate crisis. There was widespread anxiety, especially among farmers suffering from unregulated capitalism. There were few protections against the boom-bust cycles of the economy. These farmers lacked access to credit. A restrictive monetary system punished them. And so they formed a movement—the Populist Party—one of American history’s most dramatic grassroots movements.
It rose quickly. There was genuine energy behind it. The arguments were valid—about the elites and economic injustice. But as with most populist movements, they turned to demagogues. The most famous was William Jennings Bryan, a fiery evangelical preacher who fused religious revivalism with political rhetoric. Ultimately, the movement collapsed. It burned out fast. It could not hold its coalitions together. The internal contradictions were too great.
There’s even a cultural artifact of this moment that most people don’t realize is tied to that political era: The Wizard of Oz. It’s often read as a populist allegory. The Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard. The Emerald City is Washington, D.C. The Scarecrow symbolizes the American farmer. The Tin Man represents industrial workers. The Cowardly Lion as Bryan himself—loud, blustering, but ultimately ineffective. It’s a brilliant metaphor for how populist movements often begin with legitimate grievances but collapse under the weight of their mythology and internal contradictions.
So yes, they implode. But we should never assume that their implosion is without cost. The Wizard of Oz, yes. L. Frank Baum was a political commentator of his time and wrote The Wizard of Oz, a parable about the populist movements. Dorothy is in Kansas, the symbolic heartland of the American farmer and populist base. Along the way, she travels on the Yellow Brick Road, which is widely interpreted to represent the gold-based monetary system of the time. She’s heading to the Emerald City—green, of course—symbolizing the idea of flexible money, or “greenbacks” as they were called in those days. In Baum’s original story, Dorothy doesn’t have ruby slippers; she has silver slippers—another reference to the silver standard advocated by populists as a more forgiving and inclusive economic model than gold.
And who does she need to convince along the way? First, she meets the Tin Man, who represents industrial workers. The issue is that he has no heart—cold, machine-like, and dehumanized by the industrial economy. Then there’s the Scarecrow, who represents farmers. He’s portrayed as lacking a brain—not because he is unintelligent, but because farmers were often viewed as uneducated or politically naive. Then there’s the Cowardly Lion—widely accepted as a caricature of William Jennings Bryan himself: all thunder and roaring rhetoric, but ultimately a coward who falters when real courage is required.
And, of course, they discover the man behind the curtain once they reach the Emerald City—the so-called elite. It’s all smoke and mirrors. It’s a performance, a trick. There’s no wizard, no magical solution. That’s the final blow of Baum’s allegory: populism often revolves around spectacle, but it’s all illusion behind the curtain. So yes, we have a deep tradition of political metaphor embedded in our cultural texts—texts like The Wizard of Oz—that many Americans and people worldwide do not realize are coded critiques of political movements like populism.
Many historians will likely bristle at this interpretation. I can feel their hackles rising already. This is my read. My expertise is more focused on the far-right and Nazi variants of these movements. Some may argue it’s only “populism” if it originates with the 19th-century American farmers’ movement. But we need to expand our definitions if we are going to understand what is happening before our eyes today.
Jacobsen: Do “load-bearing heroes” in positive movements suffer from similar issues in terms of legacy, sustainability, and passing along institutional wisdom? Or do they tend to be more successful than their authoritarian counterparts?
Weixelbaum: That’s a great question—and yes, it’s a serious problem. Historians have a term for this: the “Great Man Theory.” It’s the idea that singular, towering individuals drive historical progress. And that is a problematic lens because it oversimplifies how real, lasting change happens. While people certainly gravitate toward figures like Lincoln or FDR here in the United States, we too often forget that their successes came from legions of people working behind the scenes—drafting legislation, managing logistics, creating new bureaucracies like the Social Security Administration, or organizing massive efforts like the Allied invasion of Normandy.
These aren’t one man’s achievements—they’re many’s achievements. There’s an essential place for individual inspiration, no doubt. But the danger—especially with populism—is the temptation to attach the movement’s identity to one charismatic person. And once that person is gone, the whole thing often collapses. Populism loves a demagogue. It loves a figurehead who personifies grievance and rage. Maybe it’s just human nature—we want a hero to show up with a cape. But we keep making the same mistake: hoping someone will save us.
We need leaders who understand that solidarity is not a one-person show. We need heroes who are humble enough to empower others, decentralize their influence, build sustainable institutions, and show—by example—that real change takes everyone. Leadership should be about lifting others, not consolidating power. The more people involved in shaping that future, the more resilient it becomes.
Jacobsen: That’s a compelling point. Thanks for the insight. Now, I heard a trope—the first time I heard it, it was thrown at Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the independent political scientist. Depending on one’s point of view, he’s had a mixed career because he tends to divide people—often due to his stances or barbed commentary.
Weixelbaum: Yes.
Jacobsen: Or barbed—or I guess you could say—cutting humour, often used as punctuation to his historical work. So, I’ve done some interviews with him. He took part in my first book between 2019 and 2021, along with many others: Gideon Levy from Haaretz and Omar Shakir from Human Rights Watch. We did ten long-form interviews—many citations and very academic-leaning coverage. John Dugard, Michael Lynk, S. Michael Lynk was the UN Special Rapporteur at the time, before the current one. In between, while based in Malaysia, another interim rapporteur quit and became the executive director of ASEAN—the organization, not the political union. That was an interesting contextual detail.
So, those were some of the great center— and left-wing voices. International organizations like the UN—non-political bodies—were also included. I had a group discussion with all three of those special rapporteurs. Since they’re all legal minds, the conversation revolved around one technicality: Is the annexation of Palestinian territory de jure or de facto?
That ended up being the only distinction that the entire conversation focused on. We did not have much time, but we still discussed that issue long.
So, when I first heard the phrase “self-hating Jew” used about Norman—Norm—it was used derisively or as a term of contempt. That term raises a lot of questions and emotions. So, on first take—in an academic sense—what is the meaning behind the term politically, and what is the purpose of such a term when it is not used purely as a descriptor? Then, we can touch on the deeper aspects also at play.
Weixelbaum: Yes. I’ve known that term since I was a kid in the early ’80s. I know it’s been around even longer than I have. It doesn’t originate with the current conflict or crisis in Israel and Gaza.
At least from an academic perspective, this is a subset—a mechanism or phenomenon that I’ve encountered with other minority groups as well. It falls under what’s called respectability politics. That term comes from the Black American experience I’ve learned about and encountered. It describes the way individuals within marginalized communities may try to curry favour with groups that are oppressing them, which in turn creates division within the leading minority group—whether it is Jewish people, Black people, or others.
We’ve seen this, too, with some immigrants who voted for Trump and then later found themselves being deported. It’s quite something to witness.
There are many great scholarly works on this. The main factor I’ve observed in scholarly discussions is a negotiation between the oppressor and the oppressed. Historians have used “agency” to emphasize that oppressed people still maintain some power in shaping their reality. But what can be disturbing is how that negotiation sometimes plays out—with members of minority groups identifying with their oppressors and attempting to emulate them.
You also see this dynamic in women’s history scholarship. Some of the most virulent supporters of anti-feminist movements can be women who view their status through the lens of, “If I become the best enforcer of this patriarchal system, I’ll gain special favour.” If they push other women down, they might believe they’ll gain acceptance or status within that anti-feminist framework.
So, this is not unique to Jews—it’s a phenomenon that appears across different historically marginalized groups. It stems from that negotiation mechanism, and it is divisive and difficult. Particularly malign actors—those who know precisely how divisive such dynamics can be—are adept at weaponizing these respectability politics.
Think about the example of Black Republicans. Take Herman Cain, for instance. He seemed so invested in Trump that he attended a Trump rally and contracted COVID, which ultimately led to his death. Talk about making the ultimate sacrifice for a group that had, at that point, shown considerable hostility toward the Black community—especially amid the Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions against the Black Lives Matter movement.
I could go on about this, but that gives a solid picture.
Jacobsen: Outside of that term’s political or academic analysis, there are deeper aspects to its usage—especially geopolitically. In Norman’s case—disregarding where someone stands politically, whether on the left, right, or center—the term “self-hating Jew” was not being used purely as a descriptor. It was deployed in a very particular way. When I saw it being used, it seemed to be a term of convenience. It was being employed to immediately discredit or cancel his line of reasoning in political science about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Now, on cancel culture—I’ve seen this happen across the political spectrum, so I do not think it is a culture so much a tactic. Then, some bad actors in specific political orientations use it, which can be mistaken for an entire culture. So how are you seeing this term—”self-hating Jew”—used? And how do you see people describe how it feels to be called that?
Weixelbaum: Yes. The irony is—and this connects to our earlier discussion—through my encounters and the loss of friendships since October 2023, some of those people have been Jewish. And ironically, someone else might call them self-hating Jews. I never have—because, yes, it’s a trope. It’s a way of shutting down conversation.
My response, of course, is to ask questions. “What do you know about Judaism?” “Let’s talk about the historical connection between the idea of Israel and Judaism.” Let’s unpack that instead of using a term like “self-hating Jew” to end a discussion.
Typically, though, that moment of shutdown happens when I start asking those questions—because I’m the one who gets shut down. I am not the one using that label to cancel someone. Instead, the cancellation often comes toward me.
Now, I know of Norman Finkelstein and understand the criticisms. He leans heavily into genocide rhetoric, and many who use the term “self-hating Jew,” in his case, believe that is a line he has crossed. However, that rhetorical framing is often a perversion of more rigorous discourse. Genocide scholars, in general, are much more careful about using that term. It’s specific. It’s weighty.
So, yes, it’s easier for someone to shut him down with, “Oh, you’re just a self-hating Jew,” rather than interrogate the argument. But what does genocide mean? That’s the question. Then, we would have to talk about Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term and wrote the UN Convention on Genocide.
But does anyone want to go there when they are scoring points on the internet?
Jacobsen: Their first question would be, “Who?”
Weixelbaum: Yes, exactly. That’s the point. So, this becomes a teachable moment. But then, also—what? What comes after that? If you are going to open that genocide door, then follow me. Let me put on my historian hat and take you by the hand. We will explore the problematic conversations among international lawyers about what genocide is and what it is not.
They knew the term could become continuously expansive—used to describe every instance of mass violence. And unfortunately, war continues to exist. Those legal scholars and human rights advocates at the time were concerned about misuse, which is why they were so specific when defining the term in the Genocide Convention.
There’s also a companion document—the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A great book that discusses this is No Enchanted Palace. The author is Mark Mazower. It dives into the early days of the UN and the foundational debates. We need to demystify these types of things—the terms we use.
So, yes, to go back to “self-hating Jew,” it is, in a way, our community’s particular flavour of cancellation. Our version of “pull up your pants” was the language used in the 1990s as a form of internalized respectability politics.
When we talk about respectability politics within the Black community, it was that old line: “You’re sagging, you’re listening to gangster rap, and you’re making us all look bad.” It is the same thing today—except, instead of listening and interrogating arguments that might have some validity, there is this instinct to shut them down entirely.
I disagree profoundly with Norman Finkelstein’s definition of genocide. What is happening with Israel and Gaza is a terrible war—I do not think it is genocide. However, who am I to argue against the masses who feel otherwise? There is a scholarly debate to be had, of course.
But yes, it is a way of cancelling someone, as you noted. On a personal level, how does it feel when someone uses that label? If someone were to call me a “self-hating Jew,” yes—it would be shocking and frankly absurd. Which Jews are we even talking about? I certainly do not identify with the small minority of right-wing Jews.
Wait—I have been called that. I was called a self-hating Jew by a childhood friend who is now a far-right-wing Jew. His argument was basically: if you vote for Democrats, obviously you hate Israel because a subset of American Democrats are highly critical of Israel or anti-Israel. Therefore, I must be a self-hating Jew.
How does that feel? It feels ridiculous that we even had this conversation. I worked as a researcher at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. It seems ridiculous to me that someone would throw that at me.
Especially throughout this conversation, I hope you’ve seen that I feel more protective than ever of my Jewish community in the face of growing antisemitism. I think this reflexive urge to circle the wagons, to protect. At the same time, what the state of Israel is doing under Netanyahu is horrendous. He should not be in power. He should be in jail.
He is another politician we’ve talked about whose only reason for seeking and holding power is that he’s running from the law. We have a big problem with that. Someone—I forget who, but a Jewish leader—once said, “Netanyahu is probably the worst leader for Jews since the Bronze Age.” Some terrible Bronze Age kings made us look quite bad, so I do not know.
To be called a self-hating Jew—especially by a non-Jew—is incredibly divisive. These are internecine conflicts: who deserves to be in the in-group or the out-group? It is not good. It is corrosive. We should stay away from it.
Jacobsen: Jay, thank you very much for speaking with me today. I appreciate it. This was a substantive conversation.
Weixelbaum: I look forward to reading your writing, and I appreciate your listening. Thank you so much.
Jacobsen: Thanks. I appreciate it, Jay.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/12
Christine Abely, Assistant Professor at New England Law | Boston and licensed customs broker, explains that Trump-era tariffs, especially those implemented during his second term, introduced significant uncertainty into global trade. U.S. companies faced unpredictable tariff changes, particularly with China, complicating import planning and compliance. Legal challenges have arisen over the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify tariffs, raising questions under domestic and WTO law. Abely notes multilateral negotiations could have been more effective, and warns importers against illegal tariff avoidance. The 90-day tariff pause spurred import surges, though port activity is expected to decline soon.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have Trump-era tariffs reshaped U.S. import and export dynamics?
Christine Abely: The tariffs of the second Trump administration have injected an unparalleled level of uncertainty into global trading relations. There has also been an extreme amount of change since the beginning of April.
Jacobsen: What legal or regulatory challenges have American companies faced because of the fluctuating tariffs?
Abely: American companies importing products or components from outside of the United States have had to deal with this uncertainty and try to predict what might be coming next in terms of trade. The reciprocal tariffs were announced at the beginning of April for imports from all nations except Canada and Mexico. (Some imports from Canada and Mexico were made subject to additional tariffs earlier in President Trump’s second term.) Since that time, the reciprocal tariff on imports from China have skyrocketed, due to rounds of retaliatory tariffs imposed on both sides. Imports of products from China now face a staggering duty rate.
The reciprocal tariff rate consists of two components: a blanket 10% tariff, plus a rate which varies between countries. President Trump suspended the rate which varied between countries for 90 days as of April 10, but left in place the blanket 10% tariff. This is in addition to the tariffs which are regularly imposed as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). American companies have had to try to guess whether the 90-day pause will end in a trade deal or trade deals with the country/countries they import from that will eliminate the blanket 10% tariff, or whether they will face increased tariffs at the end of the 90 days if no trade deal is reached and the higher rates go back into effect. It’s therefore hard for American companies to be able to plan to reduce their import bill to the greatest extent possible.
Jacobsen: Are the tariffs effective as a tool for economic leverage?
Abely: Generally speaking, the imposition of tariffs by the United States is governed by the United States’ obligations towards the World Trade Organization (WTO) and so tariffs are not meant to be used unchecked as tools of economic leverage against other nations in a departure from already-negotiated tariff rates. There are specific exceptions for tariffs which can be allowed to offset dumping (selling in a foreign market for a lower price than domestically) and government subsidies. So too do WTO obligations have a national security exception. However, President Trump is justifying as based on national security reasons tariffs which are being imposed with respect to all foreign countries, for all sorts of products. The national security exemption was clearly not intended to be used in ways that would subsume the WTO’s international trade framework as a whole.
With respect to domestic law, lawsuits have been filed which argue that the reciprocal tariffs imposed by President Trump are unlawful. President Trump justified the reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, that statute does not explicitly authorize the president to impose tariffs, nor has the statute been used to do so in the past. Instead, there are trade statutes with specific procedures which the lawsuits argue should have been followed instead in order to impose tariffs. Those lawsuits are currently pending.
Jacobsen: Even if agreeing with American policy, could other maneuvers have been more effective? How do tariff policies intersect with broader geopolitical strategies?
Abely: Multilateral negotiation was another strategy that could have been used to a greater extent to deal with issues of Chinese overproduction.
Jacobsen: What should importers and multinational companies prioritize when navigating U.S. measures?
Abely: Importers should be careful not to violate international trade laws in an attempt to reduce their tariff bill. Importers should be mindful of rules prohibiting circumvention, and not attempt to illegally avoid tariffs through transshipping products through third countries. Nor should importers improperly reduce the valuation of their imports in an attempt to reduce the amount of tariffs they pay to the government.
Jacobsen: Are there any WTO implications from the use of national security justifications for tariffs (as invoked under Section 232 during the Trump administration)?
Abely: China has requested WTO dispute consultations and claims that the United States has violated its WTO obligations.
Jacobsen: As a licensed customs broker, what practical changes have U.S. businesses made to supply chains?
Abely: There was a large surge in imports as companies sought to avoid the highest tariffs during the 90-day tariff pause. Port traffic appears set to decline in the near future.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Christine.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/12
Rethink Food addresses food insecurity by transforming excess restaurant food into nutritious meals for underserved communities. Drawing on experience at Eleven Madison Park, Matt Jozwiak applies fine dining standards to social service meals, improving quality and efficiency. The organization partners with top chefs and community centers, creatively using consistent surplus ingredients and supplementing with purchased items for nutrition. Rooted in addressing wealth inequality, Rethink Food promotes community-focused growth over risky scaling. Advocating for federal tax credits and leveraging AI for food waste tracking, the nonprofit sustains jobs and deepens local impact through respectful partnerships and mission-driven innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Under the leadership of Matt Jozwiak, a former chef at Eleven Madison Park and Noma, Rethink Food partners with top culinary talent to address food insecurity. Matt contributes to impactful initiatives like celebrity chef dinners, most recently featuring Andrew Zimmern, Michael Schwartz, and Marc Vetri. We hope that Levin continues to support the mission. Passionate about sustainability and social good, Josh plays a vital role in expanding Rethink Food’s reach and deepening its impact across vulnerable populations, helping to build a more equitable and resilient food system. Thank you so much for joining me today—I appreciate it. I’m glad you’re warmer than I am! So, what inspired you to get involved with Rethink Food?
Matt Jozwiak: The main thing that inspired me to start Rethink Food was my background in high-end fine dining. I also volunteered from time to time at community centers. I saw the operational challenge of running a free restaurant in a community center in East Harlem. We could make a real impact if we could leverage fine dining expertise.
Jacobsen: How about the partnership with Eleven Madison Park? How did that influence operations and visibility at Rethink Food?
Jozwiak: The partnership with Eleven Madison Park is in my blood from working there. The way we work, attention to detail and quality are not commonly found in food from social services. People in social services are focused on simply getting meals out the door, not necessarily on how good the food is. So, that experience helped us speed up operations and improve the food quality.
Regarding visibility, Daniel Humm, who cofounded Rethink Food, has been instrumental in sharing our message and mentoring me.
Jacobsen: What is the process of transforming excess food into meals for underserved communities? Your focus isn’t on speed or bulk production but rather on detail while ensuring that you use the food properly.
Jozwiak: Yes. I don’t know how to explain this easily, Scott, because when people hear “excess food,” they tend to picture wilted lettuce or a bruised apple. But that’s not what we’re talking about. I once worked at four restaurants simultaneously—so I know how different restaurants can be regarding food quality and efficiency.
It’s really about connecting great restaurateurs with supply chain opportunities. Sometimes, we pay restaurants to use their excess food to prepare meals. Then, distribute those meals to community centers.
At our Sustainable Community Kitchen in Greenwich Village, we receive donations and excess ingredients. A good example is Eleven Madison Park’s famous mushroom dish. They use the core of the trumpet mushroom. We take the sides they don’t use, grind them up into a mushroom ragù, cool it down, stir in some pasta, and distribute it. There’s creativity involved, but surprisingly, the excess food in the supply chain is quite consistent.
Jacobsen: Is that consistency due to the techniques chefs use during food prep? Or does it have more to do with seasonality?
Jozwiak: Seasonality plays a significant role, yes.
So, in the springtime, you’ll see many mushrooms. In the fall, you’ll see a lot of squash, apples, and things like that. That’s just how the seasons flow. So, the excess type you’ll see is pretty consistent.
We also purchase much food. Our commitment is to the community centers—ensuring they have the best food possible. We buy a lot of starches and proteins, and then we leverage a lot of excess vegetables. For example, a weird-shaped eggplant that does not meet the visual standard for a dish might get donated. Or, if Trader Joe’s orders way too many red peppers, we’ll take those peppers and use them.
Jacobsen: Now, the big question—foundational to the entire concept of Rethink Food—is: why is there sufficient food insecurity in the United States to warrant organizations like yours? Why is food insecurity still so prevalent in a country where one might assume there’s enough to go around?
Jozwiak: Yes, absolutely. The core issue behind food insecurity is wealth inequality. That remains the main structural problem, particularly in cities like New York. Living costs here are astronomical, and wages have not kept up.
Whether minimum or subminimum, wages haven’t risen significantly since the 1990s. In New York, the minimum wage has increased to $16.50 an hour. But even if you’re earning $20 an hour, it’s still almost impossible to afford a one-bedroom apartment in the city.
We won’t pay your rent or cover your childcare. But if we can take care of lunch occasionally, we might save someone $30 or $40 a week, which can make a real difference.
Jacobsen: Are there any logistical challenges in sourcing and redistributing surplus food? You mentioned some of the technical issues earlier.
Jozwiak: Yes—absolutely. It’s a logistical and communications challenge at its core.
The main challenges include communicating what types of food can be donated, clarifying whether donating food is legal and safe, and ensuring that people actually let us know when they have food available. It’s an ongoing issue of inventory management and communication.
Jacobsen: How have high-profile chefs helped with visibility and raising awareness around food insecurity?
Jozwiak: They’ve done a great job. Daniel Humm has been the most impactful. What I appreciate about Daniel is that he’s truly taken the time to understand the issue. Before getting involved, he wanted to know the details.
Sometimes, when a high-profile chef posts on Instagram, “Everyone’s starving,” the issue can be exaggerated in ways that miss the deeper context. That kind of messaging can miss the forest for the trees.
But Daniel and Michael Schwartz in Miami also took the time to learn. For example, they found that approximately 40% of students at community colleges are food insecure. That’s the population we’re serving. So, their next question was: “All right, how do we address that, and why is that the case?”
Jozwiak: People often think about the bread lines of the Great Depression—but that’s not what’s happening. That image is outdated. The reality of food insecurity today is more hidden and nuanced.
Jacobsen: Are there any issues with maintaining the nutritional value of repurposed meals?
Jozwiak: Yes, absolutely. We adhere to pretty strict nutritional guidelines when preparing meals. To meet those standards, we often need to supplement with purchased food, especially to ensure proper amounts of protein, fibre, and micronutrients.
Jacobsen: What metrics do you use to measure your social and environmental impact?
Jozwiak: Oh, that’s a great question. We measure several things: carbon offsets, water savings—a big one for us—and our social impact.
Socially, we track the number of jobs we help support. Last year alone, we distributed about $51 million in direct payments to restaurants so they could prepare meals for local community centers. On average, every $20,000 helps support one job. It may not cover a full salary, but it does help create or sustain a hire.
Again, a lot of the challenge ties back to food insecurity and wealth inequality. Restaurant jobs are often frowned upon or overlooked. But I’ve only ever worked in restaurants, and I can tell you: if you need a job from 4 to 10 PM, you can get one. If you need a shift from 6 PM to 1 AM, you can find one. That’s the beauty of the industry—it offers flexibility.
It helps people juggle other things, like gig work or small businesses, find some consistency. You might be driving Uber in the morning, running an Amazon store, or doing freelance work. A restaurant job gives you structure and a steady income.
Another key thing we look at is family meals. If you’ve worked in restaurants, you remember family meals—those communal meals shared by staff before service. But in our context, Family Meal is also the name of New York City’s largest food nonprofit that no one talks about. It feeds more low—and middle-income New Yorkers than all the other nonprofits combined—by a factor of five.
Jacobsen: How do you see expanding your impact—not just in terms of doing more of what you’re doing, but also through deeper partnerships with local community organizations?
Jozwiak: Great question. Internally, we say we don’t scale; we grow. There’s a big difference.
Scaling is risky. You can unintentionally do harm if you try to apply one idea uniformly across vastly different communities—whether in New York, Miami, or elsewhere. Growth, on the other hand, means listening, learning, and adapting. We spend much time meeting with community leaders, asking questions like: “Do you need iftar meals at 9 PM during Ramadan?” If the answer is yes, we figure out how to make that happen—what food to provide, who to partner with, and how to do it respectfully.
Passover is coming up. We’re working with the Jewish community to provide kosher-for-Passover meals to older, homebound adults. That’s what growth looks like.
Jacobsen: And what would enable that kind of growth nationally?
Jozwiak: A tax credit. Right now, restaurants get a deduction for donating food—but that’s not helpful for a small LLC pulling in $1.6 million in revenue with just $4,000 in taxable income. A deduction barely moves the needle.
We need a tax credit—something with real value that incentivizes participation across the industry and supports small businesses that want to do the right thing.
Jozwiak: But if you get a tax deduction, even for a hundred thousand dollars, the actual financial benefit is minimal—especially for small businesses. But if you get a tax credit, that’s more or less a dollar-for-dollar value back. That’s a real incentive. So, we’re currently lobbying for a federal food donation tax credit to be included in the next Farm Bill.
Jacobsen: What about new technology? I’ve interviewed some people focused on using AI and automation to handle repetitive or mundane restaurant tasks—things like prep tracking or inventory sorting. The idea is to boost productivity. Can you envision incorporating something like that at Rethink Food to expand your current growth?
Jozwiak: Yes, for sure. We’re actively exploring several AI-driven solutions. As mentioned earlier, inventory management is a major challenge in our space. We’re working with a company that’s developed a system involving cameras placed over trash cans, which are also on scales. It tracks what gets thrown away and measures weight in real-time. That data helps us optimize ordering and reduce waste.
Inventory, ordering, and production efficiency are extremely difficult in restaurants—because so much is variable. If it suddenly starts raining, no one shows up. You could be over-prepared or under-resourced in a matter of hours. So AI has real potential to help smooth that unpredictability.
Also, communication is huge. It’s about saying, “Hey, we have this product available,” or “We’re out of that.” We run a lean operation. We’re one of the larger food nonprofits on the East Coast, and we get by with just 19 staff members. A traditional nonprofit of our size requires at least 50. We rely heavily on technology and tools to make that happen.
Jacobsen: What advice would you give someone looking to launch a similarly mission-driven initiative in the food space?
Jozwiak: My advice for anyone, regardless of age, would be this: focus on solving an actual problem. Don’t be a hammer in search of a nail. If there’s already an existing solution out there, support that. But if you see a gap, and you’ve done the research and confirmed that the problem is real and underserved, go all in.
When I started Rethink, nobody was picking up excess prepared meals or doing anything with them. So there was a nail, and I became the hammer. But make sure you’re addressing a real need. Be hard-headed and persistent.
And don’t go into this kind of work—especially in the restaurant or nonprofit world—to make yourself feel better. People sometimes get into philanthropy thinking, “I have a hole in my heart, and if I do good things, I’ll feel fulfilled.” That’s not enough. If you’re getting paid by a nonprofit, it’s a blessing and comes with responsibility. You must be mission-focused, vigilant, and hard-working—not just emotionally driven.
Jacobsen: What about public perception? Are there barriers you face, personally or as an organization—especially from people who might feel threatened or misunderstand what you’re doing?
Jozwiak: Absolutely. There are many challenges, some of them weird and frustrating. I work from 8 AM to 11 PM, five or six days a week. I’m married, and my wife is usually a little mad at me, to be honest. So yeah, there’s a personal toll. You could call it “married luck,” I guess.
On a broader level, it’s a communications challenge. People have this outdated idea that food insecurity is just about the guy on the corner holding a sign. But that’s often a mental health issue, not a food access issue. The people we’re trying to serve are working two jobs, attending school, or supporting families. They can’t afford basic, quality meals. That nuance is often lost in the public conversation.
Jozwiak: Most students cannot afford lunch on Saturdays—that’s our issue. The biggest challenges are related to communication and education. Once people understand the real nature of food insecurity, funding streams tend to open up, and people become excited to help. But the communications piece—the comms behind it—is often the hardest part.
Jacobsen: What’s your favourite chef quote?
Jozwiak: When I was cooking in France, I heard a quote from a chef that stuck with me—and I still believe in it. It’s a little long, but here it is:
“Be the last guy to leave the kitchen with the sous chef. The sous chef usually closes the kitchen. In the beginning, he’ll ask you to turn off the gas. The next day, he’ll ask you to check the walk-in and ensure it’s running. The next day, he’ll ask you to turn off all the electricity. And on the fourth day—he’ll get lazy. That’s the day you take his job.”
Jacobsen: That was a dry bar comedy moment with Matt Jozwiak. Thank you so much—I appreciate it. Nice to meet you.
Jozwiak: Yes, thanks so much, Scott. I appreciate the time. Enjoy your trip. It looks beautiful out there. I’m jealous—it’s gorgeous. Super gorgeous.
Jacobsen: It’s a little chilly, but it’ll warm up. Thank you, man.
Jozwiak: Thanks. 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): 2025/05/10
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 campaigns for criminalizing enablers, arguing that religious, educational, or athletic institutions often protect perpetrators rather than victims. Guiora draws a direct line from the Holocaust to contemporary abuse cases, highlighting the recurring failure of institutions to act. He emphasizes that through silence or action, enablers perpetuate harm and must be held accountable under the law. His tireless work seeks systemic reform through legislative change, education, and survivor-centered justice. “All hands on deck,” he says, summarizing his approach.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D. He is an Israeli-American legal scholar, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and a Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. He is a global authority on institutional complicity and bystander accountability. He authored The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust, Armies of Enablers: Survivor Stories of Complicity and Betrayal in Sexual Assaults, and The Complicity of Silence: Confronting Ecosystems of Child Sexual Abuse in Schools. His work, shaped by his family’s Holocaust legacy and decades of counterterrorism legal experience, helped inspire Utah’s 2021 bystander criminalization law—one of the first of its kind in the United States.
He previously chaired Gymnastics Canada’s Task Force on Abuse and is an advisor to S.E.S.A.M.E. (Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct & Exploitation). His academic roles include Distinguished Fellowships at the Consortium for the Research and Study of Holocaust and the Law (Chicago-Kent College of Law) and the International Center for Conflict Resolution (University of Pittsburgh). He directs the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah. He is a widely cited advocate for confronting institutional ecosystems that enable abuse in schools and other settings. That will be our focus today. So, how did your personal background and military legal career shape your focus on clergy abuse and institutional complicity?
Dr. Amos N. Guiora: Those last two topics may converge: When I retired from the IDF 21 years ago and entered American academia, my early scholarship focused on what I had done during my two decades in the IDF—mainly counterterrorism and national security law. But around twelve years ago, while training for the Salt Lake City Marathon, my running partner—who is not Jewish—asked me, “How did this happen?” This means the Holocaust. I gave what I thought was a smart academic answer: “I don’t know.”
Both of my parents—now deceased—were Holocaust survivors. I’m an only child. I was raised in a home where the Holocaust was never discussed. When I was twelve, my father took me canoeing—why canoeing, I still do not know—and he said, “In one minute, I’ll tell you my story. In one minute, I’ll tell you your mother’s story. And this will be the first and last time we discuss it.” The word Holocaust was never mentioned in the house. There were no books on the subject at home.
When my running partner asked me that question, I realized I didn’t know. I decided to become an autodidact on the Holocaust. Of course, you can’t read everything—there are thousands of books—but it became clear to me that one issue had never been analyzed through the law’s lens: the bystander’s legal culpability.
There were two notable books on the bystander—one by historian Raul Hilberg and another by sociologist Victoria Barnett. But no one had addressed it from a legal standpoint.
When I first met with Dr. Barnett, a senior scholar at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington at the time, I told her I was thinking of writing about bystanders and the law. I was admittedly nervous. She told me, “You’ll be the first to do it. You’ll set the bar.” I thought, “Okay, here we go.”
I went on to write The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust, which has been translated into Dutch and Chinese. I’ve lectured worldwide on the book. I was done with this topic. I had written about the Holocaust, about my parents, and the bystander—I finally thought I understood my parents’ story. I was right about my dad.
I thought I understood my mom’s story, too, but not fully—I’ll get to that moment.
Then, I was having dinner with my editors at the American Bar Association in Chicago, and the editor—a great guy, Brian K.—asked me, “What’s next?”
I said, “I’m done. Going back to counterterrorism. Thank you very much.”
He said, “Yes, but you’ve heard about the Catholic Church?”
I said, “Well, Brian, even though I’m Jewish, yes—I have.”
He replied, “You’re a huge sports fan.” And it’s true. I used to have a radio show in Israel about American sports.
Then he said, “Well, there’s your next book.”
Like a dummy, I said, “Okay.”
That book became Armies—plural—of Enablers. I interviewed survivors from USA Gymnastics, Michigan State, football athletes and students from Ohio State. I couldn’t get to the boys from Penn State. That book changed my life in many ways. Since then, I’ve written articles on the topic.
Then, about three years ago, I came across a complicated story—the murder of a 12-year-old boy named Jeremy Bell. He was murdered in West Virginia in 1997 by a teacher who was a known pedophile. Everyone knew—and enablers surrounded him. It was all about enablers.
That case has become a focal point for me. I still occasionally write about counterterrorism—especially after October 7and what happened in Israel—but my primary focus now is enablers and bystanders.
You referenced the Bystander Initiative at the S.J. Quinney College of Law. I’ve just finished a new book that looks at societal enablers during the Holocaust and modern-day enablers in Israel—specifically, those who enable Prime Minister Netanyahu. For me, all of these issues are connected.
In plain English, I’m focused on the bystander and the enabler. And if we’re being honest, I’m probably obsessive about it—because all roads run through the enabler and the bystander.
Jacobsen: How would you describe the bystander effect within the context of clergy-related abuse?
Guiora: The bystander is the person who is physically present—they see the abuse occur. That’s distinct from the enabler, who either knows of the harm or should know of the harm based on their role, position, or institutional status.
Three or four legislative sessions ago, in Utah, mandatory reporting laws were expanded to include bystanders, thanks to Representative Brian King and Senator Curtis Bramble. That was a critical step. As for the enabler, we haven’t had legislative success yet—not in Utah. We came close in the Netherlands, but it didn’t pass.
In the context of priest abuse—whether the bystander is another priest in the room or a church official nearby—most of the cases I’ve examined don’t involve someone physically present during the abuse.
But in general—particularly with the Catholic Church—the institutional response, as highlighted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Spotlight reporting and film, has been to move the priest to another parish. That’s what’s often called “passing the trash.” I don’t love the term, but the label is stuck.
And the result is that the priest—the abusive priest—is just shuffled off to another parish and becomes someone else’s problem. But these guys are not one-and-done. It’s repeat behavior. So, if they did it in Parish A, they can do it in Parish B. That same behaviour repeats itself, frankly, regardless of denomination. There was a rabbi in Israel who was convicted either last week or two weeks ago.
Same story. When you hear the boys’ accounts—he abused boys—when you listen to their accounts, you could just as easily be hearing about the Catholic Church. Or this church, or that church—whatever the denomination. In all of them, nothing is more important than the institution. And—pardon my English—the victim be damned. That is what enablers do.
Jacobsen: So, you got your story about the Holocaust quickly while canoeing. By the way, what you were told was accurate. What was the misinformation from your dad?
Guiora: My father and both my parents were from Hungary. My father was in a work camp in Yugoslavia called Bor. He told me in that one-minute story that nothing bad ever happened there. That was 100% not accurate. I met with a Hungarian scholar, Professor Czapádi. It took him nineteen years to write the history of that camp. White Holocaust historians have defined it as the single most brutal work camp there was.
My mother was the Hungarian version of Anne Frank—in the attic with my grandmother. She was twice taken to be shot. I know how she was saved the first time—when she was already lined up against the wall. I figured out how she was saved the second time.
What I did not know when I wrote The Crime of Complicity—what I only learned after my mother died three years ago during the shiva—were additional facts about her life after the Holocaust: how she escaped and how she was imprisoned in Czechoslovakia. None of that I knew.
When I was writing the book, my father was dying. I wanted to finish it before he passed. When I met with Professor Czapádi, he told me how my father had survived two death marches. When I asked my mom, “How did he survive?” she told me word for word what he had told me when I was 12. And I said, “That’s not the story. That’s not it.”
She was surprised. “Why didn’t he ever tell me?” And I asked, “Why didn’t you guys ever tell me?” They had made a decision when they got married that they would never share their Holocaust stories with their children. I’m an only child, and they had promised each other never to tell me their story.
There’s a long discussion in Holocaust literature about how survivors choose whether—or how—to educate or share their stories with their children. But my parents decided not to discuss it at all.
Jacobsen: In conversations with other children of Holocaust survivors throughout your life, is that a common theme?
Guiora: Yes. It’s a mixed bag. I have friends who, at dinner, the main conversation—not the only one, but a central piece—was the Holocaust. I have other friends who knew more than I did but less than those others. It’s a mixed bag. Like me, I also have friends in Israel who knew nothing about their parents’ stories.
Recently, I’ve spoken to about a thousand sixth, seventh, and eighth graders in Salt Lake City about this. Sixth graders—beautifully unfiltered—asked me if I was mad at my parents for not sharing their stories with me. Not at all. I’m not judgmental in the least. It was their decision, and I respect that. But I am glad I now know their story, and I’m in a position to write about it.
Jacobsen: Do you think this significantly influenced the trajectory of your academic and research interests?
Guiora: If you had asked me fifteen years ago, I would have said no. But after training for the marathon and the life-changing question asked by my running partner, there’s no doubt about it. It changed everything. For me, all roads—when I examine the enabler—run through the role of the enabler during the Holocaust.
So yes, to your question: 100%, it frames—consciously or unconsciously—how I view the enabler. Without a doubt, that lens is the Holocaust.
What is also important to note—and we can talk about this more—my grandfather, who was murdered in Auschwitz in May of 1944, took four books with him. That’s what he had. He took them because, as they were told, “You’re going to be resettled in the East.” Those four books somehow made their way from Auschwitz—we don’t know how—to the private library of Julius Streicher, who was the editor of Der Stürmer and one of the chief Nazi ideologues.
It’s an extraordinary story, which we could talk about at length. But those books, eighty years later, are now in my possession. It’s an incredible, full-circle story. There have been articles written about it. To your excellent question—yes, the issue of enablers and bystanders for me is completely framed by the Holocaust and my parents’ experiences.
Jacobsen: How much do the books cost?
Guiora: Which books?
Jacobsen: The ones from the editor are from Streicher.
Guiora: So it’s interesting—Streicher, I’ve read a lot about him recently. He viewed himself as an expert on Judaism, particularly the Talmud or Jewish scripture. Those are the four books my grandfather took with him.
My father grew up in abject poverty. So when my grandparents—on May 12, 1944—were deported from their town in Hungary to Auschwitz, they were told to bring their belongings. What my grandfather had were books. That’s what he took with him. Those were his belongings.
I now have them—not with me where I am currently, but at home—and they’re the only thing I have of my grandfather. I don’t have any photos, and I don’t have anything from my grandmother. I have one picture. Now I have, in my possession, what my grandfather took with him to Auschwitz. My grandparents were gassed—murdered—we believe on May 26, 1944.
Streicher, by contrast, was hanged after the Nuremberg Trials. So my grandfather was gassed, and Streicher was eventually sent to the gallows. And now, I have the books. And those four books—for me, it’s full circle.
Jacobsen: Why is there this weakness in traditionalist religious structures, where a percentage of highly trained academicians or clergy commit crimes—primarily against two categories: young boys and adult women? In one quadrant, you have pedophilia; in the other, you have sexual assault.
Guiora: I’m not an expert on perpetrators or pedophiles. A significant body of literature about their needs, cravings, attractions, etc. But the larger question—which is the one you’re asking—is why the institution enters institutional protection mode.
There are a variety of reasons for that. No institution wants its name splashed across a New York Times headline—”Another Priest,” “Another Rabbi,” “Another Abuser.” So, the instinctive response of any institution, including faith-based ones, is institutional protection mode.
The enabler within a religious institution—or in sports teams or elsewhere—directly protects the institution. They’re indirectly protecting the perpetrator. The perpetrator benefits from the institution being protected. However, the result is the continued vulnerability of the victim. I hate the phrase, but it’s pretty literally like leading sheep to slaughter—because the institution must be protected, and the consequences be damned.
It’s a pattern that repeats itself repeatedly. Unfortunately, the enabler is never held accountable. Now, again, I’m a law professor. I’m not a moralist. I’m not an anthropologist. I’m not a psychologist. For me, it’s all about accountability—through the lens of the law. That’s where the Bystander Initiative comes in. The effort is to convince legislators to enact laws that hold enablers criminally accountable. Because otherwise—nothing will change.
Jacobsen: Does the shuffling of clergy over decades inadvertently create the perception that abuse is more prevalent than it is? Say, three out of a hundred clergy are offenders—but if you shuffle those three between multiple parishes, it can appear as if twelve out of a hundred are offenders. These recidivists are not held accountable and keep getting moved.
Guiora: I understand the question. But the point is that the recidivist starts in Parish A, is shuffled to Parish B, and then again to Parish C. Along the way, you have enablers in A, B, and C. The enablers don’t care how many priests are perpetrating the crime. That’s not the metric. The real question—the only question—is: How many children are in harm’s way?
It doesn’t matter whether there are three, six, or nine priests. What matters is the number of children who are being exposed to harm. The same is true for teachers, who are also shuffled. This only continues to place vulnerable children at risk—that’s the cost of enabling.
If you think about Edgar Fredericks—the teacher and principal who murdered Jeremy Bell after over thirty years of abuse—he moved from place to place, from school to school. And who knows how many boys he attacked? It’s a lot. He knew that wherever he went, he would be protected by enablers. That protection—sorry for repeating “enable”—allowed him to act with impunity and immunity because he knew he would be shielded. No school administrator or district official wants a banner headline screaming: “Pedophile Teacher, Perpetrator in Our Midst.” Nobody wants that.
So, what do they do? They shuffle him off, or they ignore the complaints. That is precisely what happened in his case, and it ultimately resulted in the murder of a child. What kinds of theological excuses are given? What types of standard social excuses are offered? And are those excuses sufficiently distinct to be considered different categories? No. When it comes to the perpetrator, no.
The priest assaulted the Catholic church survivors whom I interviewed. One of the women I interviewed was in high school when the priest attacked her, and she was laughing about it. She’s a little bit younger than me. She was laughing about it. She said, “I felt for the oldest line in the world, which was, to know the Lord, you must know my body.” She asks, “Can you believe I felt for that?” And she was on this camping trip with her friend.
She says, “My friend, dumb as me, also fell for the same line. Today, we laugh.” I don’t know if they laugh, but we’ll go with a laugh. That’s an old line. When I told other church survivors, they said, “Yep.”
That line works. “Lord, to know the lord, you must know my body. “One of the women who I interviewed was assaulted by the family priest from the age of seven till 14. He was a master groomer. He knew that the family had issues. He locked in on her.
And when it was brought to the mother’s attention that the priest was abusing her daughter, the mom said, “Oh, he loves her.” That’s what groomers do: They do the child and the parent. Another person, a guy who was 12 when he was assaulted. He had a great relationship. This is positive from his perspective. Had a great relationship with the priest.
The priest took advantage of that and was quietly shuffled off. However, the victim I spent significant time with had a great relationship with him. The priest was an important figure in his life and took complete—nefarious would be the polite word—nefarious advantage of that. One interviewee even framed it as having “two fathers,” a poignant play on words.
Yes. And, basically, not even with much reluctance. The person who committed the abuse was also someone the victim loved. That was part of the abuse. He was a paternal figure in the victim’s life—a platonic, paternalistic form of love.
The two victims I’ve spent significant time with both saw the priest as a genuinely important person in their lives. Absolutely. And that probably makes it more devastating—when they realize that the priest was taking full advantage of what I suppose you could call affection or even adoration.
I don’t know. But whether it’s a seven-year-old or a twelve-year-old, the last thing in the world a priest should be doing is engaging with them sexually. And when they’re simply shuffled off, it means the next victim is just around the corner—which is precisely what happened with the boy, Jeremy Bell. It’s clear that the killer, Friedrichs, should never have been in contact with that little boy. That child should never have even seen that teacher.
Friedrichs should have been in jail years earlier. In the same way that, in sports, you have these systems—these armies of enablers—I wrote about this in connection with the girls who were assaulted by Dr. Larry Nassar, who was exalted for his work with USA Gymnastics. Or Dr. Richard Strauss at Ohio State: if you wanted to play, you had to see him. Or Dr. Robert Anderson at the University of Michigan—same thing. If you wanted to play, you had to go through Anderson.
These individuals often take full advantage of their positions of authority and are frequently enabled—actively or passively—by the institutions in which they operate. That is why I say that whether it is a school, a church, or a faith-based institution, there tends to be a recurring pattern of behaviour. The perpetrator often feels confident and protected, which emboldens continued abuse.
Perpetrators act with the assurance that they will be shielded from consequences. That is the core issue. While I understand that the media, prosecutors, and the courts focus heavily on the perpetrator—and I have met with many in those systems—the systemic failure often lies in the protection offered by the institution itself.
We must hold the enablers accountable if we are genuinely committed to meaningful change in churches, schools, or any environment. Without that, no real progress can occur.
I was recently asked whether I have seen examples of small church communities or other institutions where the internal culture has changed enough to create safe ecosystems without relying on external oversight or security. The truth is, I have not. That does not mean such communities do not exist. Still, the people who contact me are almost always victims or survivors—not representatives of successful reforms.
Jacobsen: So, do you have positive examples to point to?
Guiora: No. But again, that may be because individuals in healthy environments are not the ones reaching out. I hear from those who have been harmed.
Jacobsen: Are there differences between religious institutions and other settings, such as sports organizations or schools, when perpetrators are protected?
Guiora: Structurally, no. The pattern remains the same: institutions prioritize their reputation over accountability. However, in faith-based settings, the justification may sometimes involve religious language or spiritual rationalizations—phrases like “know your body, know the Lord.” That kind of rhetoric is typically absent from schools or sports environments.
But language aside, the effects are comparable. In all contexts, the harm increases vulnerability for children or other individuals under institutional care. Whether in faith, education, or athletics, the core issue is institutional protection of offenders, not protection of the vulnerable.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Canadian gymnastics.
Guiora: Yes. I was chair of the federal government’s Working Group on Gender Equity in Sport, which produced recommendations in 2019. Across the board, we saw the same pattern: harm, denial, and institutional self-preservation.
In religious contexts, the behaviour may be obscured with theological framing. However, regardless of how it is presented, the outcomes are consistent, and to call them merely “damaging” would be an understatement.
What becomes clear when speaking with survivors is the profound injustice they realize in hindsight: they never should have come into contact with the perpetrator in the first place. In many cases, the offender had prior allegations or investigations and remained in their role.
That retrospective awareness is a form of revictimization. Survivors often say, “I never should have met that person,” once they understand that the perpetrator could—and should—have been removed long ago. Yet institutional protection kept them in place.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of physicist Richard Feynman’s idea of the “paths forward for science.” In these institutional cases, we can also imagine paths forward—at least three: faith, sport, and education. However, we remain stuck in repeating the cycle unless we confront the enabling systems.
Regarding survivors’ healing arc, I see three general paths. Of course, there’s more nuance, but broadly speaking, one path is the most tragic: suicide, self-injury, stagnation—surviving but still very much suffering from the incidents. The second is a state of suspended harm, where people function but remain deeply affected. The third path is thriving. These individuals have integrated the trauma into their narrative and gone on to build fulfilling lives for themselves and often with others. In your experience, what is more likely in these instances?
Guiora: From the people I have interviewed—someone once tried to keep count—I have interacted in one way or another with sexual assault survivors from over 30 countries. I do not have the statistics to break down the proportions of those who remain suffering, those who stagnate, or those who move forward and thrive.
The easy answer is that I would never want to be in their shoes. Some have become powerful advocates, and they deserve every ounce of praise for that.
But people reach out to me—across all three domains, whether faith, sport, or school—as I have been told repeatedly because I focus almost exclusively on the legal culpability of the enabler. I am not saying I am the only one doing it, but I’ve been told I’m most actively engaged on that issue.
Some survivors have had a tough time. In at least two cases I know personally, family members did not believe them when they came forward, and they took their own lives. Yes, there is anger—but what stands out is how that anger is directed.
When I interviewed the women—who refer to themselves as “girls”—who were assaulted by Larry Nassar, the doctor affiliated with Michigan State and USA Gymnastics, they were not focused on him. Yes, he did terrible things, and he was a predator. But their most profound anger was directed at the enablers. When they begin to reverse engineer what happened and start to articulate it—this is the word survivors often use: articulate—it is a turning point.
It is a form of healing, I believe, to understand that as evil as Nassar was—and he was—the broader, more insidious issue was the people who protected him: the coaches, doctors, and trainers who, whether out of self-interest or institutional loyalty, kept him shielded. Those individuals directly or indirectly protected him, whether at Michigan State or within USA Gymnastics. He was the beneficiary of their inaction.
Jacobsen: That same pattern seems to occur in religious contexts as well. The same institutional dynamics exist in church abuse cases. When trying to codify legal frameworks and consequences for enablers, how do we distinguish between degrees of culpability—between those with apparent, intentional complicity and those without?
Guiora: Context is essential to creating a legally sound and morally reasonable framework. When I testified four or five years before the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, I made a mistake—one I now publicly acknowledge. I initially defined the enabler’s role as a “crime of omission.” But that was incorrect. It is a crime of commission because the enabler has decided not to act. That choice is itself an act.
For that decision, the enabler must be held criminally accountable. The challenge, from both a jurisprudential and legislative perspective, is that enablers are often not physically present at the scene of the abuse. So, to hold them accountable, you must legally prove that they were aware of the abuse or the risk of abuse and prove intent under the standard of mens rea, or guilty mind. This is what makes enabler accountability legally complex but no less necessary.
I understand because I have been repeatedly told that pursuing enablers is challenging. I accept that challenge. On the other hand, I am fully aware of the harm enablers cause and the consequences of their actions.
To say that this work is hard does not deter me from pushing forward. When you spend as much time with survivors as I do, you understand the depth of the harm inflicted by enablers. So yes, it is hard—absolutely. But so what? In case after case, I can document instances where the enabler knew what was happening and deliberately chose not to act on behalf of the vulnerable. Instead, they decided to protect the institution. For that, they must be held accountable. That is not a crime of omission; that is a crime of commission.
This is the same reasoning I used in my recent book, where I examined societal enablers in Hungary, focusing on the period leading up to and during the Holocaust—something I wrote about because of my parents’ experiences. I see parallels today in Israel with those enabling Prime Minister Netanyahu. They know the harm he is causing in the same way people knew what was happening eighty years ago.
To hide behind a claim of “lack of knowledge” does not stand up to scrutiny—because I can prove that they did know.
Jacobsen: Does this become more complicated when dealing with adult survivors who were abused as children?
Guiora: Absolutely. The people I work with are now adults, but they were harmed when they were children. I applaud them for coming forward—it takes immense courage.
Think about the Michigan State, Penn State, and Ohio State survivors. These were student-athletes. Or consider the survivors of religious institutions or children abused by teachers in schools. Some of them had a tough time moving forward. Not everyone welcomes or supports them.
One woman I spent time with wasn’t even sure she was assaulted—she believed she had been in a consensual relationship. It is, sadly, the same old story. She faced, in polite terms, hostile social media attacks from people she went to school with.
Another woman who came forward about Larry Nassar told me—pardon my language; I am quoting her directly—she was “slut-shamed.” And only after others came forward confirming her account did they apologize. But the damage was done. There is always a price for speaking out.
Some survivors become emotionally exhausted from being seen as “professional victims.” They want to move on with their lives—which I completely understand. One woman said speaking publicly so her children would know her whole story was vital. That is incredibly courageous, and it is not easy by any means.
Some survivors feel strongly that the public should see a name and face attached to the experience—not just “victim.”They want to claim their identity and their agency. On the other hand, some prefer anonymity—Jane Doe or John Doe—because they want to protect themselves, their families, and their children. And I fully respect that.
Anyone who comes forward deserves to be applauded and supported—not physically embraced—many do not want that—but embraced in spirit, acknowledged, and believed. That is the least we can do.
Jacobsen: Now, the image we have in our minds, which is statistically substantiated, is men who abuse boys and adult women. So pedophilia in the first instance, as you’re noting in, sex results in sex results in the latter. A few cases are not that, and it goes against the stereotypes you have about these things with generalizations. Those are important to cover in case there are any differences. So, for instance, in Canadian media, there was some news about nuns who were in there, I believe, eighties or even nineties, who were going to court because people had come forward against them for abuse.
There might be physical imposition differences in terms of the amount of damage that can be done if there’s physical abuse involved. But, when it comes to the stuff in terms of its psychology and, more to your point, more of your expertise around its ecosystem, are there big, small, or no differences? Is it even a reasonable question?
Guiora: No. It’s a reasonable question, but for anybody who abuses a child knowing that the institution protects them, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the church context, whether it’s a priest or a nun. I have heard of cases of nuns abusing in the same way that I don’t know about in Canada, but there have been several instances here. One of the guys who I interviewed, a little bit older than me, when he was in seventh grade, had sex daily with his female teacher, k, in her house with her husband in the house.
When they met later in life, he asked her, “Do you understand how much harm you caused me?” Her response was, “We have to understand.” I hate that line. “You have to understand. You have to understand what a difficult time I was going through.”
If you’re going through it, you’re an adult.
He was 12. However, there are cases of female teachers having sex with high school boys. I don’t think it’s in the exact numbers as with male teachers, female or female students, or male students, but that’s also out there. And when we met, when we talked, sure, there was, “This, maybe, is uncomfortable,” but when you were in seventh and eighth grade, there was a cool factor in having sex with your teacher. On the other hand, the harm caused him was significant.
Jacobsen: In your interviews, what words describe the experience? If not specific words, what emotional tones do you use?
Guiora: Well, the best example I can give you is her name. I’ve written that we’ve spent many hours together and about her. Her name is Tiffany Thomas.
She was a softball player at Michigan State University. She was violated by Larry Nassar somewhere 50 times, and we were on Skype. I was home in Israel. It’s not important where she lives. She starts grabbing her throat.
I’m screaming at her because she’s choking.
I’m thinking, “Well, here’s the irony of ironies. I’m the bystander guy.”
I’m picking up my cell phone. I said, “Who the hell do I call?”
“Barbara, she lives here.”
I say, “What the hell do I do?” Screaming at her.
“Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.” She finally stopped.
And I said, “What was that?” She calls me “Mister G.”
She said, “Mister G, that’s how I wake up every morning.”
“What do you mean that’s how you wake up every morning?”
She said, “I wake up every morning like that.”
I said, “What was that?”
She said, “Well, they’re choking me.”
I said, “Who’s choking you?”
And her answer was one word: “enablers.” Not Nassar.
In Tiffany’s case, what happened on one Thursday was especially telling when she played softball at Michigan State. She went to the female trainer of the women’s softball team. But instead of telling her what Larry Nassar had been doing, she demonstrated it—she did to the trainer what Nassar had done to her.
The trainer’s reaction was, “Oh my God. Oh my God. This is bad.” Well—yes, it wasn’t good. The trainer told her, “You need to talk to the head female trainer for all women’s sports at Michigan State.”
So she did—all by herself, without the first trainer’s accompaniment. And that’s what enablers do. The head trainer and the coach then conspired and manipulated the situation to frame Tiffany in a way that led to her removal from the team. She left school the very next day and never returned to college.
That choking incident I described earlier happened roughly five years ago. It was twenty years after what happened at Michigan State. And yet, she was still waking up every morning with that choking sensation.
When she reverse-engineered it—and we’ve spent much time together—she had what you might call an “Oh shit”moment. She realized Nassar wasn’t just the predator—he was protected. She had gone to that trainer and demonstrated, on her own body, precisely what he had done. But instead of saying, “We need to protect Tiffany,” the trainer passed her off to someone who ultimately had her removed from the team.
That is what enablers do. And for that, they must be held accountable.
Jacobsen: My impression—based on what you’re saying—is that people who have been abused in this way are often in a kind of suspended state. It is not static but almost disassociated, and that dissociation can reemerge at seemingly random moments in the day or throughout the year. To me, the choking phenomenon you described feels like a reenactment.
Guiora: I don’t know—I’m not a psychologist. My late father was a psychologist, so it’s too late to ask him. But I leave that to those who specialize in it. At my age, I know what I don’t know.
What I do know—and what I’ve learned from Tiffany and other survivors—is that the harm caused by enablers is real. That motivates all of my work. It’s the foundation of the Bystander Initiative. It’s also what drives my research on the Holocaust and my other projects: making the case to the public that this is real, actionable harm for which people must be held accountable.
Jacobsen: Are there any legal models in place that address this?
Guiora: I’ve testified in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In the Netherlands, the process is different. First, they pass the bill, and then they draft the law. So, yes—a law was passed that criminalized the role of the enabler. But unfortunately, the government fell shortly afterward. And politics being politics—much like in Canada this week—it is unclear whether the current Dutch parliament will reenact that law anytime soon.
That was the closest we came, however.
Jacobsen: When assigning punishment—considering both the direct perpetrator and the enabler as culpable—how would you approach the balance? What kind of ratio or weight would you assign?
Guiora: In Utah, where a bill criminalizing enablers was introduced, we did not have success. If I recall correctly, it would have created a Class D misdemeanour—punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,500 fine. The proposed bystander legislation used the same classification: Class D misdemeanour, six months, and/or $1,500.
I’ve given hundreds of talks over the years, and at one of them—though I cannot recall exactly where—a young person, younger than you even, asked me a thoughtful question:
“If you’re an enabler to a serious crime, shouldn’t you receive a greater punishment than an enabler to a less serious crime? Shouldn’t there be a differentiation based on the severity of the offence?”
I shared that question with Representative King in Utah. Ultimately, the decision was made not to differentiate between levels of severity. Under the bill, all enabler offences would be treated equally, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the underlying crime or harm to the victim.
But it’s a compelling point. I thought, “That kid’s going to be a future law student.”
Jacobsen: Can silence—or failure to report—be ethically distinguished in court from a cover-up?
Guiora: That’s a critical question. The title of one of my books is either Complicity of Silence or The Silence of Complicity—I can never remember which, and I apologize for that.
But my position is clear: If your silence enables harm, you must be held accountable as someone actively participating. However, you protected the perpetrator—whether through omission or commission—and helped them. That should not require legal or moral differentiation.
Let me add this: I occasionally read criticisms of my work online. It’s essential to engage with dissent. Someone once wrote that I am “victim-centric.” They meant it as a critique, but I took it as a compliment.
Jacobsen: Are there survivors who defend or excuse enablers? And do enablers themselves offer any other justification beyond “I was just doing my job” or “I was following orders”?
Guiora: No. Sometimes, there are different dynamics, and I have studied a few other cases. But generally, in most of my interactions, survivors—when they do the reverse engineering—realize that, if not for the enabler, the perpetrator could not have acted.
Just the other day, a woman contacted me. I asked her to create a scorecard categorizing enablers, bystanders, and perpetrators. She told me the list of critical enablers in her case was incredibly long.
As for what enablers say, especially during trials: yes, you hear excuses like, “I was just following orders,” or “I was a cog in the wheel.”
Unfortunately, that echoes Hannah Arendt’s treatment of Adolf Eichmann in Eichmann in Jerusalem, where she referred to the “banality of evil.” Interpretation gave him a free pass. That was a terrible, unforgivable mistake.
That defence—you were doing your job—does not hold water. It may be used, yes, but it should not be tolerated.
Especially in the era of mandatory reporting, saying “I didn’t understand,” “I didn’t realize,” or “I was just doing my job”is entirely insufficient. Your obligation is to the vulnerable individual.
So, to return to your earlier question, we must hold enablers accountable, both legally and morally.
Again, for me, all roads lead through the Holocaust. That line—”I was just following orders”—must never be tolerated, especially given the harm it ultimately enables. You are right to call it out.
Jacobsen: Do survivors feel more emotionally harmed by the abuser, the enabler, or those who ignored them?
Guiora: Yes. By the second group—those who ignored them. One survivor I interviewed at length, Maddie Larson, was sexually violated by Larry Nassar 750 times. You can watch her victim impact statement on YouTube. During her testimony, she looked Nassar in the eye and said, “Do you know how much I fucking hate you?”
And that makes perfect sense. The judge allowed the survivors to speak however they needed to. But from that moment on, Maddie’s focus shifted not to Nassar but to the enablers.
I completely understand that. Jamie Dantzscher, an Olympic bronze medalist, also gave a powerful statement. When Nassar began what sounded like an apology, she responded, “How dare you fucking apologize to me?” Then, she moved beyond him and turned her focus to the broader ecosystem of abuse.
I applaud them for speaking their truth. That is not easy.
For context, the last time anyone touched me was in seventh grade—during floor hockey. I have been fortunate never to experience that kind of harm.
Jacobsen: The last time someone laid a hand on me seriously was during a Melchizedek priesthood ceremony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints—but I’m joking, of course.
Religion still commands respect in most societies—even in North America, where religious authority is declining. There’s still legal deference. Financially, too—tax-exempt status, access to grants, and benefits unavailable per capita to secular or humanist institutions. Groups like The Satanic Temple, with their protest-oriented messaging—as in the documentary Hail Satan?—highlight those double standards.
So, if we shift our focus away from individual clergy or laity and look instead at institutional structures, do religious institutions have a special legal or cultural protection compared to institutions like USA Gymnastics or Hollywood?
Guiora: Yes—and no. Regarding cultural deference, religious institutions often enjoy a shield of legitimacy, even privilege. But from the survivor’s perspective—from those harmed—I have not seen a difference in the magnitude of trauma based on the type of institution.
Whether the abuse occurred in a church, a school, or a sports environment, the psychological damage is profound. The harm itself is the overwhelming constant. I have not observed that survivors measure their suffering based on whether it came from a religious figure, a coach, or a teacher.
Jacobsen: There have been various atheist movements over the years—New Atheism, for example, with Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett; then more militant, online-based versions; and finally, Firebrand Atheism, which was more confrontational. Some of those groups weaponized institutional abuse scandals to attack religion as a whole.
But that seems like an overreach. It is a broad brushstroke—unfair and unhelpful here—especially given that many members of the clergy and laity alike genuinely want reform and accountability.
Guiora: I agree.
Jacobsen: Painting all religious institutions or individuals with the same brush is unfair and counterproductive. Many spiritual leaders have been at the forefront of reform efforts. The conversation must focus on accountability and systemic change, not a blanket condemnation.
In most faith-based institutions, the laity typically does not possess the same formal education or institutional authority as the clergy. That imbalance often creates power dynamics that can be exploited, and sweeping condemnations of all religious participants can be both inappropriate and unhelpful.
So, on a more constructive note, what is helpful? How do we move from identifying the flaws to working with communities and institutions for reform, accountability, and justice at the relevant levels—especially concerning these crimes?
Guiora: I do not know if you follow sports, but very often, when misconduct is brought to a coach’s attention, the response is: “We’ll take care of it internally.” I’ve heard that line a lot. “It’s a team problem. We’ll handle it.”
But that is a huge red flag.
That language—whether intentional or not—protects the institution. It ensures the problem stays quiet and ultimately enhances the vulnerability of the individual victim.
There is one case I know of involving a major American university’s football team. Some players were engaging in serious misconduct, and one player came forward, calling out what he described as a rape culture. Instead of being supported, the coach gathered the entire team and publicly singled out the whistleblower.
The results were predictable. The player who spoke out was socially shunned, marked with a giant X. As you gestured, it was the code of silence—everyone becoming a “gangster rapper,” as you said, embracing silence as loyalty.
That is a textbook case of complicity of silence or silence of complicity. The fact that the coach led that meeting and shamed the player who dared to speak up—is, to put it politely, damning beyond damning.
Jacobsen: What about external communities? How should they respond? Or do people outside these institutions usually take a “not my backyard” approach—NIMBY?
Guiora: Exactly. That’s the attitude many take—unless it is in the headlines or unless it involves a high-profile team or organization. Otherwise, most people look the other way.
But again, I am not an anthropologist, psychologist, or sociologist. I’m just a modest law professor. It comes down to one thing: criminalizing the actions of the enabler.
I genuinely believe this: until we do that, nothing will change. The perpetrator knows they are protected. And when they know they are protected, they have no reason to change. They feel untouchable. Larry Nassar was untouchable—until he wasn’t.
Jacobsen: Let me offer a legal framing. If we assume that laws and policies shape the institutional “ecosystem,” is there an even higher-order source—something upstream from law and policy that informs the entire system? For example, the philosophical argument: What comes first—the law or the moral code of a society?
Guiora: That’s a great question, but I leave it to others. I’m not a philosopher.
I’m efficient. The straightforward way to stop this is to criminalize the enablers’ conduct and hold them accountable. I respect the larger moral and philosophical questions and understand their importance, but they’re outside my purview. What I know is this: real accountability, codified in law, is what stops the cycle of abuse.
Jacobsen: Is that an admission that, to a carpenter, everything looks like a nail—and to a lawyer, everything looks like the Code of Hammurabi?
Guiora: [Laughing] That’s the classic line: “If I had a hammer, I’d have a nail—and I’d call it Simon’s son.”
But it’s a fair question: How do you hold people accountable?
Again—not to repeat myself—but while I understand the value of moral and philosophical questions and respect them deeply, my focus is shaped by the lived experiences of people like Tiffany, Maddie, Jamie Dantzscher, and many others. For them, what matters most is this: hold the enablers accountable in a court of law.
That is what grounds my approach. And again, much of my thinking stems from my understanding of the Holocaust.
Jacobsen: There’s a conceptual merger between what these survivors have experienced and how I interpret historical accountability—particularly around the Holocaust. For me, it’s a practical, grounded analysis.
Let us consider two cases. One on the global-historical scale and one more parochial.
After World War II, we developed new legal codes and held the Nuremberg Trials. These served as a preventive mechanism against future atrocities—on the scale of genocide and crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, at the more local level, corporal punishment—justified through “spare the rod, spoil the child” interpretations—was once widespread. Legal reform and social shifts have challenged that. In both cases, has the law reduced the incidence of harm in the long run?
Guiora: Nuremberg was of supreme importance. It was the first real opportunity for a post-conflict society to demonstrate vigorous justice—and to hold individuals criminally accountable for their roles in war and genocide.
Did Robert Jackson and others envision the long-term, historical impact of the trials? That, I do not know. I do not know enough to say.
But did they recognize the immediate necessity of accountability? Absolutely.
Did the Nuremberg Trials hold the Nazis accountable? Yes.
Was the denazification process—especially in the 1950s and 1960s—flawed? Certainly, but Justice Jackson’s focus was clear: those responsible for the Holocaust and for Nazi crimes must be held accountable. That was the priority.
I don’t know if there was also a broader historical vision. But from a legal perspective, this was one-plus-one-equals-two: you commit the crimes, you are held accountable.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Now—playing the hypothetical New York politician here for a moment—let us say we imagine a large-scale, long-term educational initiative. One focused not on punishment but on prevention.
Let us say that one U.S. state allocates $10 million toward a multi-year program. Schools dedicate one or two days each year to teaching students how to recognize abuse, identify enabling behaviour, and avoid becoming passive bystanders.
Would that be worthwhile? Could that work?
Guiora: That would be enormously valuable.
Jacobsen: In the Canadian Armed Forces under the Royal Canadian Navy, there are significant efforts towards culture change—similar to efforts underway in Japan, the U.K., Australia, Canada, and other countries—focused on how to address sexual assault in military contexts.
The challenge is that military personnel are technically subject to military and civilian law. So, theoretically, the disincentives should be doubled compared to the civilian population—but the outcomes do not always reflect that.
Let me focus on education—in hierarchical structures like the military or more lateral ones like public education systems. Do you think educational interventions could work in these environments? Are there examples of successful models?
Guiora: I would say that education and engagement—legitimate and unquestionably necessary—have a place. But they should never come instead of accountability.
As someone who served in the military for 20 years—in Israel and the United States—I know firsthand that military law is distinct from civilian law. I served as a JAG officer, so I lived it.
You can lecture, train, educate—I have done that many times. But at the end of the day—and maybe this is my legal background speaking—accountability is essential.
That does not mean education is unimportant. It is. But it is complementary, not a substitute. Training is helpful; it can reinforce values and awareness. However, it is not sufficient to change institutional behaviour.
In criminal law, which I teach, we emphasize deterrence. Punishment is not just about penalizing an individual—it is about sending a message to others.
That is why I believe, without reservation, that if we want to change enabling behaviour, we need to hold enablers accountable—and publicize it. Please put it on the front page of The Globe and Mail, metaphorically speaking. Otherwise, nothing will change.
Jacobsen: A follow-up on deterrence. The real question is not whether it works but how much deterrence works. For example, a 200-year sentence versus a 20-year sentence: beyond a point, the deterrent effect diminishes.
Guiora: Of course. I will leave Old and New Testament discussions to those better versed in scripture. I hang my hat on what I’ve seen proposed in Utah: a Class D misdemeanour—six months in jail and/or a $1,500 fine. That is enough to send a clear message. If we were talking about Methuselah, sure—then maybe we would need different deterrents. But for the average person, this kind of consequence is serious.
Jacobsen: Let’s say you implement that Class D misdemeanour. Add the $1,500 fine, which—especially in Canadian dollars—would be significant. Add six months of jail time. Then, supplement it with educational programs—not as a primary tool, but as a supportive one. That seems solid. What else do you consider helpful? You’re approaching this from a legal deterrence, public education, and engagement standpoint. What complements those efforts?
Guiora: Public exposure. The brighter the light we shine on enablers and the consequences of their actions, the better.
When I speak with people about enablers, it is often the first time they have considered the issue that way. Their reaction is often, “Oh—wow.” That realization is powerful. I can make a modest contribution by working with legislators and engaging with media, podcasters, and people like you.
I have done this in Israel, and more recently, my work has been cited in public demonstrations and on social media. Visibility matters, but it is a constant effort. You are right—there is a critical need to educate. I view that as a modest use of my platform as a law professor. That is what I do with it. So when I get up at 4:00 in the morning and go to bed late at night, this is what I do—day in and day out.
Jacobsen: With all these media interactions, many assumptions are inevitably floating around, but there are also taboos. What topics remain off-limits, even in a subject area already so sensitive? It feels like walking into a media room full of bear traps hidden on the floor and meat behind the walls. Earlier today, someone told me I was addressing issues they didn’t quite call taboo, but they used verboten.
Guiora: Yes, that resonates. I am sixty-eight years old—as of thirty days ago. This is what I do now. This is what I consider my modest contribution.
At my age, you stop caring whether someone gets upset. If, through my efforts—or through the extraordinary work of the 20+ students who have worked with me over the past three years—we can move the needle, even slightly, it has been worthwhile.
As we say in Yiddish, it cannot get better than that. But yes, it isn’t easy. It is hard work. And I am deeply, deeply grateful to the students who have worked on this with me. I raised funds to support them, and I have a dean who is incredibly supportive of this initiative.
It is a process.
Jacobsen: What about the high-profile cases that dominate the headlines—cases that shape public understanding more than anything else—but then, a few years later, the consequences are significantly reduced?
Take Bill Cosby, for instance. In 2023, he was released. That case could be considered Tier One—hugely public and predatory.
Guiora: If I recall correctly—and here I’m speaking cautiously because I don’t want to overstate anything—I did not interact directly with any of the Cosby victims. I believe one may have contacted me, but I am not certain.
I understand that his release came about because of a procedural or technical issue related to due process or a jury-related matter. But I honestly don’t know the details. And at my age, if you don’t know, you say so.
Jacobsen: What about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell?
Guiora: Maxwell—was she an enabler? Perhaps both?
Either way, jail is the right place for her. As for Epstein—was it suicide or murder? We could sit here until your hair looks like mine and still not get to the bottom of that. But yes, the Epstein case is classic—a classic example of institutional protection, elite silence, and systemic failure.
Jacobsen: I have a couple of friends in the Mega Society in the United States, and one case that came up in my discussions with them was Keith Raniere—known as “Vanguard” in the NXIVM cult. There’s a documentary about him called The Vow.
It was interesting to watch what unfolded while working on these interviews. Raniere surrounded himself with a group of women who revered him almost worshipfully. One of the inner circles was called DOS—which stood for a Latin phrase meaning “master over slave” or something along those lines.
The women were branded like cattle with his initials near their groins. Many of them had sexual relationships with him. One of them was actress Allison Mack, known from the Superman TV series Smallville. She became one of the central figures in that inner circle.
Jacobsen: I was also going to ask you about that particular case, but we can set it aside. Let’s get more specific. Outside of the national or federal level, are any U.S. states significantly better at effectively punishing enablers or enforcing deterrence? Do enablers in certain jurisdictions know there will be consequences?
Guiora: No. No state has yet criminalized the enabler. This is new ground. We’ll see where it leads. A bill was introduced in Utah, but it did not succeed. I am currently in direct and indirect contact with legislators in four other states, exploring similar legislation. It is a process, and we will see where it goes.
Again, not to repeat myself, but this is what I do. The fact that there is more engagement on this issue—more willingness from legislators or their staff to have the conversation—is encouraging. It does not guarantee success, but it shows progress.
I respect the process. I understand it. Before I went to law school, I worked for two years in the U.S. Congress as a representative from Michigan, so I know how legislation works. Still, because I focus on victims, I believe this is the best use of my time—modest though it may be.
Jacobsen: What are the counterarguments you regularly face when making the case for punitive legislation against enablers?
Guiora: The typical legal objections focus on proving intent and knowledge. That is, distinguishing between a crime of omission and commission. The question is: How do you prove that someone knew? How do you prove they intended to shield the perpetrator?
These are classic prosecutorial challenges. Five main objections are also commonly raised against bystander legislation—although we’ve made some progress in overcoming those. However, the central objection to enabler legislation is always about proof of knowledge and intent.
Take, for example, the case of Jeremy Bell—a young boy who was killed. I wrote a book and an article about that case. The detective who broke it was extraordinary. He entrusted me with 15,000 pages of documents.
My research assistant at the time worked through all of it and developed an appendix with detailed flowcharts. We could demonstrate, step by step, exactly when the enablers knew. That kind of documentation helps overcome the “lack of knowledge” defence.
But make no mistake—15,000 pages is a massive undertaking. Turning that into charts, timelines, and legal diagrams requires time, people, and resources. I am so profoundly grateful to the students who have worked with me. It is a big project, but it is essential.
Jacobsen: Is there a strange feedback loop in which perpetrators might defend their enablers to reduce their culpability—or at least weaken the case’s legitimacy overall?
Guiora: In the sense that the perpetrator might say, “They knew and did nothing”? Yes, that’s possible. But no, I have not personally seen perpetrators trying to defend enablers as a way of downplaying their guilt. That may exist, but it has not come up in the cases I have worked on.
I am not saying it does not happen; I have not seen it personally. So, I am not saying no; I have not heard it. You also rightly noticed that we have used the word enablers in the plural far more than the singular during this conversation.
Jacobsen: That is right. So, apart from a perpetrator protecting an enabler, do enablers protect one another?
Guiora: If Detective Barber—the man who broke the Jeremy Bell case—were here, he would tell you yes—one hundred percent. He would say they are part of the same club. But, to put on my legal hat for a moment—if I cannot prove it, I cannot prove it.
Mr. Barber, who worked on the case for three years and broke it after local law enforcement had covered it up, has said clearly that enablers protect one another. They are part of the same professional or institutional milieu, the same scheme, if you will.
In The Crime of Complicity, I wrote that this was Mr. Barber’s view. While I cannot independently prove it, I included it in the book to reflect his perspective. Readers need to understand that this view is grounded in deep investigative experience.
Jacobsen: When enablers get a whiff of potential punishment, do they ever quit or try to disappear?
Guiora: Yes—but here is the point: no enabler has ever been punished. So yes, you’re right—that instinct to flee or vanish may be real, but we have no legal or judicial structure to test it. That is the core of this entire effort: to change that paradigm.
Jacobsen: If you were to set a realistic timeline—under decent circumstances—how long until such legislation passes in at least one state, county, province, or territory?
Guiora: Where are we now, 2025? I want to think next year.
Jacobsen: If people begin pursuing the broader circle around the perpetrator—those enabling or shielding them—is there a risk that those same enablers will retaliate by attacking the victim or isolating the survivor’s support system?
Guiora: Absolutely. That dynamic is very real.
Let me give you a concrete example. I just finished a book about the enablers of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I do not know how closely you follow current events, but as of now, 59 hostages are being held in Gaza. Of those, 24 are believed to be still alive.
Netanyahu, in my view, has no interest in pursuing a ceasefire or an agreement with Hamas—because doing so would require releasing those hostages. His enablers—those around him—protect him from the political consequences of not securing their release. As a result, they are complicit.
They are enabling the continued captivity of those hostages. From my perspective, they have blood on their hands. That is the central theme of the book. And yes, I am involved in the protest movement. I attend demonstrations regularly. I am active. Have the police harassed me? Yes. Have Netanyahu supporters harassed me? Yes. Have I been named in social media campaigns? Absolutely.
At a recent demonstration in Haifa, one of the speakers even mentioned me by name. But again, I stay focused because the priority is the hostages. Your question is timely. When you go after enablers, especially those who protect influential individuals, there is always a risk of backlash. But that does not change the need to hold them accountable. In Israel, I am calling for legislation that would criminally prosecute those enablers—just as I am doing in the United States.
For me, there is a direct and unmistakable link between the Holocaust, the hostages, and the enablers. One hundred percent. That connection is central to my work. And part of that is this project—criminalizing enablers—whether in one of the three core paradigms we’ve discussed (faith, sport, education) or now, even more urgently, in national and political contexts like Israel. I am serious about this. I start my day at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. This is what I do. It is an all-hands-on-deckeffort.
Jacobsen: Where does the media miss the boat?
Guiora: I would not say the media ‘misses the boat.’ I think the attention has historically focused on the perpetrator, and I understand why. That is what makes headlines. However, I am grateful that there is growing interest in the role of enablers.
I was recently featured on a podcast in Israel—actually, two: one major show in February or March and another just last week. I’m interviewed regularly here as well. I understand this is a process. I respect that.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Mao had his long march. Gandhi had his. I get it. That’s why we created the Bystander Initiative. I’ve tapped into donors and raised money for this work. The media is part of that process. I do not know if “teaching” the press is correct, but I believe in engaging and working with them.
And I enjoy it. In addition to writing my articles and books, I genuinely enjoy talking to the media. It matters. Whether people agree with me or not is less important at my age. The point is to be heard, make the argument, and push the conversation forward.
Jacobsen: A typical dynamic in these systems is “power over”—where someone in a position of authority abuses someone of lesser power. Think of coach to gymnast, priest to parishioner, rabbi to follower, etc. But are there situations where that dynamic is reversed—where the subordinate has control or influence, but the relationship still appears legitimate?
Guiora: Yes, absolutely, I understand what you’re asking.
In the cases I have worked on, survivors were often directed to people like Larry Nassar. They were told to go to him. Sometimes, they even wanted to go to him because he was loved. That’s an important point to remember. Larry Nassar was trusted and beloved by many.
Take Dr. Robert Anderson at the University of Michigan. He sexually assaulted somewhere between 5,000 to 6,000 student-athletes. If you were a football player at Michigan, you had to go through Anderson. There was no choice. You weren’t invited—you were instructed.
The same goes for Dr. Richard Strauss at Ohio State. You had to go through Strauss to wrestle or swim competitively. That’s just how it was. Was there a power dynamic? Yes. And even among the football players, there was an expression among the football players at the University of Michigan. There was a saying: “If you’re in the tub, you’re not in the club.”
It meant that if you were in physical therapy, you were off the field—and everyone wanted to be on the field. These were guys who dreamed of going to the NFL. But to play on Saturday, you had to be cleared as healthy. And to be removed, you had to see Dr. Anderson. And if Anderson touched you inappropriately—grabbed you this way or that way—that was just the cost. It wasn’t perfect. Larry Nassar? Maddie Larson said he sexually violated her 750 times. That is not a typo. That is reality.
Jacobsen: I worked at a horse farm for 27 months as part of another project. Seven days a week—shovelling horse manure, scrubbing stall fronts, filling water buckets, breaking ice in the Canadian winter, feeding hay—Timothy, alfalfa, or local hay, depending on each horse’s digestion. Driving tractors, landscaping, gardening. It was a great experience. I interviewed many people—up to and including two members of Team Canada in show jumping.
Out of that came a book project involving extended conversations with equestrians. One relevant thing I learned is that the show-jumping community implemented a program called SafeSport.
Guiora: Yes, absolutely—SafeSport.
Jacobsen: Is SafeSport effective?
Guiora: I have interacted with SafeSport. Anything that pushes this issue out into the public sphere is essential. Effectiveness can be measured in different ways—short-term and long-term, by who is impacted and who is not. But I want to give a shout-out to SafeSport for elevating the conversation.
They deserve credit. They’ve had me participate in some of their sessions or internal engagements—I do not recall all the specifics—but I’ve been involved. This work is essential.
Jacobsen: Could similar programs be applied outside of sports—perhaps in education, faith settings, or elsewhere—as complementary measures?
Guiora: As part of a broader public awareness effort? Absolutely. But not as a replacement for legislation. That is the key. Programs like SafeSport are complementary, not substitutes. SafeSport is an excellent example of a helpful model, but it cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by legal mechanisms that hold people accountable.
Jacobsen: Let’s go back to legislation. Hypothetically, what would be an example of going too far? In other words, what kind of law would be inappropriately punitive to these crimes?
Guiora: Great question. I believe the line would be crossed if a prosecutor—using discretion—brought charges against someone who did not know.
That would be casting the net too broadly. It would not be, and the courts would view that with disfavour. It would also risk negative, unintended consequences—like chilling legitimate professional behaviour or overburdening the justice system.
We must be precise. Look at the article we published on the Jeremy Bell case—we carefully delineated exactly who knew what and when. That specificity matters.
Jacobsen: Would such prosecutorial overreach happen often—or would it be rare?
Guiora: It is scarce. And again, that is where prosecutorial discretion becomes critical.
The prosecutor ultimately decides once legislation exists and a case is brought forward. I completely respect that role. It is essential.
Guiora: I was a prosecutor in a former life. So I’ll tell you this: if you have the legislation, and if I, as a prosecutor, can show knowledge, intent, mens rea—all of it—then there’s no reason not to go forward with prosecution.
But go back to what I told you earlier. In X years, you’ll have this conversation with someone else, and nothing will have changed.
And in the meantime, there will be countless additional victims—entirely preventable. That’s why I’ve been accused of being “victim-centric.” I can live with that.
Here’s how I see it: I am the only child of two Holocaust survivors. And now that I know what I know—if I weren’t doing this, I would be nothing more than a bystander. An enabler. And that’s not going to work. That does not sit right with me.
This is not about me. But I also can not be involved. Every time someone reaches out to me—and it happens a lot—they get my full, undivided attention. That’s the reason.
Jacobsen: It may not be about you, but every aperture has a narrative source. Let me ask: where is prosecutorial discretion typically the most difficult to parse?
Guiora: Knowledge. Without question. And prosecutors—look, I get it. I’ve been one. The decision involves more than just the facts. It’s about time, resources, and cost-benefit analysis. Can you win the case?
I’ve met with prosecutors and spoken with them at length and understand their thinking. I used to think that way myself. But again, it comes down to whether you can establish knowledge and intent. The Bell case is a classic example. But that kind of framework can also be built in other cases—just as rigorously.
Jacobsen: “Armies of Enablers”—tell me about the title.
Guiora: Lindsey Lemke, the women’s gymnastics team captain at Michigan State University, coined the term “armies.” I kept using the word “army”—singular—and she got frustrated. She said, “Jesus, it’s armies. How fucking stupid are you?”
And she was right. Everywhere she turned, someone was protecting Nassar. Everyone fell in line with the coach, trainer, administrator—tuck, tuck. That’s how I came to view it: the book’s title, Armies of Enablers, honours Lindsey. From the victims’ perspective, it was never one person. It was always plural. Always an army.
Jacobsen: For prosecutors, that’s a high bar.
Guiora: Sure, and I get that. However, my focus remains squarely on the present victim and preventing future victims. And just so it’s clear—though I know I’ve said this fourteen times—the Holocaust plays a foundational role in my understanding of all this. I know what happens when society chooses not to act.
Jacobsen: People engaged in this work often face an emotional and moral toll. Does that happen to you?
Guiora: No. Honestly, no. I feel fortunate to be involved in this work. I don’t experience it as a toll. When I’m done for the day, I will watch the NBA and have dinner. That’s it.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s good. Let’s do that. Final question—do you have a favourite quote?
Guiora: It isn’t very easy. My favourite quote is a play on a quote from a complicated person. But for this conversation?
All hands on deck. There you have it.
Jacobsen: There you go. Thanks for joining me.
Guiora: Thank you for having me. That was fun.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/11
History as a bridge-builder with a centrist social-justice activism and doctrinal conservatism. He has an Augustinian communitarian ethos. His platforms: synodality, Christocentric evangelization over abstraction, and inclusion, with traditionalism on life, marriage, and ordained ministry. He uses pastoral anti-clericalism against isolationist leadership, while advocating interreligious dialogue and big tent-ism focused on humanitarianism over culture wars. He champions broad participation with secular‑religious cooperation and compassionate outreach. The Test: Translation of ideals into transparent, effective governance with accountability following from rhetorical closeness.
2012
“Sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel,” e.g., “[the] homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”
2019
“We reject cover-up and secrecy, it does a lot of harm, because we have to help the people who have suffered from wrongdoing.”
2019
“I think they should do it, if there is abuse against a minor by a priest… On behalf of the Church, we want to tell people that if there was any offense, if they suffered or are victims of a priest’s wrongdoing, they should come and report it, to act for the good of the Church, the person, and the community.”
~2015–2023
“The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist.”
2023
“We are often worried about teaching doctrine, but we risk forgetting that our first duty is to communicate the beauty and joy of knowing Jesus.”
2023
“A fundamental element of the portrait of a bishop is being a pastor, capable of being close to the members of the community.”
2023
“Silence is not an answer. Silence is not the solution. We must be transparent and honest, we must accompany and assist the victims, because otherwise their wounds will never heal.”
2023
“The fundamental thing for every disciple of Christ is humility.”
2023
“Being a synodal Church that knows how to listen to everyone is the way not only to live the faith personally, but also to grow in true Christian brotherhood.”
2023
“Above all, a bishop must proclaim Jesus Christ and live the faith so that the faithful see in his witness an incentive to them to want to be an ever more active part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded.”
2023
“Something that needs to be said also is that ordaining women — and there’s been some women that have said this interestingly enough — ‘clericalizing women’ doesn’t necessarily solve a problem, it might make a new problem.”
2024
“The bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom.”
2024
“Called authentically to be humble, to be close to the people he serves, to walk with them, to suffer with them.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/10
Robert Felder, CEO of Bearbottom, outlined the short-term challenges of tariff uncertainty, including disrupted supply chains and rising costs, especially for goods sourced from China. To adapt, Bearbottom is shifting production to India and increasing inventory. Felder noted the continued dominance of Chinese fabric supply, despite relocating final manufacturing. He predicts higher prices and changing consumer expectations, particularly with the end of de minimis imports. Felder believes stable policy is crucial for encouraging U.S.-based production. Overall, tariffs are forcing strategic shifts in sourcing, pricing, and investment, with limited relief currently available to businesses.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have the new tariffs affected supply chains and pricing strategies in the short term?
Robert Felder: In the short term, there has been a lot of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses are unable to confidently forecast demand and are also struggling with what to do with their supply chains, as tariffs and their impacts are so rapidly changing. In the short term, it seems that some brands will be raising prices based on the available information and potential policy. A lot of companies are, however, waiting as long as possible, hoping for a clearer path of what will happen so they can make a more long-term strategy. For products from China, there is basically no choice but to raise prices in the short term, though.
Jacobsen: How are you managing inventory planning and forecasting potential shortages?
Felder: We are pushing to increase inventory levels as we source primarily from India. Products that in the past have come from China, we are planning to move the production to India. Our mindset is to take advantage of the known and not get in trouble facing the unknown. We know the product costs we will face now, so we are going to take advantage of the situation while we can.
Jacobsen: What realistic alternatives to Chinese manufacturing exist in the near term?
Felder: In the near term, the most realistic alternative for Chinese manufacturing in apparel is other Asian countries. The fabric supply chain from China is so specialized and dominant that the best thing to do currently is to ship fabric from China to other countries for production. The manufacturing base for the specialized fabrics doesn’t exist in most of these countries, so in the near term, that is the best solution to avoid product disruptions.
Jacobsen: From an e-commerce perspective, how might tariffs reshape consumer expectations around pricing and delivery?
Felder: Goods that were shipped directly from China under the de minimis policy, which allowed for orders under $800 to be imported duty-free, have ended. This will cause an immediate increase in price for products from companies like Shein and Temu. I think in the medium to long term, this is a good thing for our market. It prevents foreign companies from avoiding taxes that US-based companies have to pay. Higher prices in the short term will hurt customers. Hopefully, a positive aspect of this will be that there will be more demand for higher quality goods and less need for fast fashion and the high consumption attitude these cheap goods have created.
Jacobsen: What would be a practical and sustainable path to domestic production for the US?
Felder: High-value goods would be the first type of product to be domestically produced in the US. Investors will invest in things that create the highest return. The capital required for a manufacturing facility is extremely high and investors will demand a return on that investment. If there is a stable policy in place ,it will give investors more confidence to make that investment. With the current uncertainty, very few people or businesses will be incentivized to make these large, long-term investments because there is little confidence that the policy won’t change making the investment a poor decision.
Jacobsen: How are the tariffs influencing decisions in the retail and apparel sectors?
Felder: Tariffs are impacting where companies are planning and sourcing their goods from. Apparel is such a price-sensitive industry and companies will be forced to move production based on tariffs impacts on cost.
Jacobsen: How are policymakers or industry groups effectuating changes or relief measures?
Felder: There has been little to no relief for companies. The 90-day pause gave companies some time to plan and adjust but the uncertainty of what is going to happen in the future is making it difficult for definitive decisions to be made.
Jacobsen: Are the tariffs in retail and fashion going to be here for the short term or the long term?
Felder: It seems like the Trump administration is signaling tariffs will be here for the long term but they claim to be open to negotiated trade deals. Their objective isn’t clear on what they want out of these deals but there is hope that the tariffs will be lowered. It does seem that we will be at a higher level than prior to the tariff increase but it might be less impactful than what has been discussed over the past month.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Robert.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/10
Doug Williams and Melvin Williams are iconic gospel musicians from the legendary Williams family. They reflect on the enduring legacy of their late brother Huey Williams, lead singer of the Jackson Southernaires, and their father Leon “Pop” Williams, a strict but visionary manager and booking agent. The Williams Brothers’ music journey began humbly in Smithdale, Mississippi, evolving into six decades of faith-driven performances worldwide, including appearances at the White House and collaborations with legends like Stevie Wonder and Aretha Franklin. Emphasizing authenticity, spiritual purpose, and family unity, Doug and Melvin discuss the feel and power of gospel music, their deep roots in traditional sound, and balancing cultural preservation with modern relevance. They highlight the transformative nature of gospel music and its power to uplift in troubled times. Their message: stay true to your gift, honour your legacy, and use music to heal and inspire others.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Doug Williams and Melvin Williams of the famed Huey Williams, Paul Williams, Doug Williams, and Melvin Williams family.
Leon “Pop” Williams was the founding patriarch of the Williams gospel music legacy. A farmer, bricklayer, and visionary gospel manager from Smithdale, Mississippi, he formed and managed several groups, including The Big Four Gospel Singers and the Southern Gospel Singers, laying the foundation for what would become the Jackson Southernaires and the Williams Brothers. Known for his disciplined leadership, keen musical sensibility, and unwavering commitment to spiritual authenticity, Leon was instrumental in discovering, mentoring, and managing his children’s musical careers. He booked legendary gospel acts across Mississippi and the broader South and maintained the family’s touring and recording schedules through handwritten ledgers, long before digital systems existed. His influence shaped not only the Williams family but also the trajectory of traditional gospel music. Leon “Pop” Williams is now recognized as a pivotal figure in gospel history and is memorialized through exhibits in the Mississippi Grammy Museum.
Frank Williams was a founding member of the Jackson Southernaires and a key figure in shaping modern gospel music alongside his brothers. Known for his distinctive voice and musical leadership, Frank was instrumental in bridging traditional quartet styles with contemporary gospel sounds. He co-founded the Mississippi Mass Choir in 1988, one of the most influential gospel choirs in the United States. Until his passing in 1993, Frank remained a spiritual and creative force, helping to guide the next generation of gospel musicians while honoring the deep-rooted traditions of Southern gospel.
Huey Williams was the legendary lead vocalist of the Jackson Southernaires, a gospel quartet that played a key role in shaping traditional gospel music for over five decades. Known for his powerful voice, heartfelt delivery, and unwavering faith, Huey became a pillar of the genre. His dedication and influence extended across generations of gospel musicians until his passing in 2025. Under his leadership, the Jackson Southerners rose to national prominence. His legacy is now carried forward musically by his son, Paul Williams.
Doug Williams is a seasoned gospel singer, songwriter, and music executive, best known as a member of the legendary Williams Brothers. He is also the founder of DLW Music Group and a former president of Blackberry Records. Doug has been instrumental in evolving gospel music for contemporary audiences while staying true to its spiritual core. In 2023, he released an album inspired by deep spiritual reflection during the pandemic. His work continues to inspire through both music and mentorship.
Melvin Williams, a Grammy-nominated gospel vocalist and co-founder of the Williams Brothers, is celebrated for his rich baritone voice and deeply moving performances. A tireless ambassador for gospel music, Melvin has dedicated his life to preserving and promoting traditional gospel. He has performed internationally and, in 2024, released a single titled “What Are You Thankful For?” Melvin remains vital in gospel music and faith communities through touring, recording, and ministry outreach.
Paul Williams is a gospel singer rooted in the traditions of the Jackson Southernaires. Paul has embraced his family’s legacy with dedication, continuing to sing and serve as a bearer of the Southernaires’ message. He honours his father’s legacy through music and forges his voice within the gospel tradition.
Thank you, Doug and Melvin, for joining me today. I appreciate it—whether you’re mowing the lawn or just relaxing.
Doug Williams: Thanks for having us.
Melvin Williams: Thank you for inviting us.
Jacobsen: So, the big question, coming from such a rich lineage of gospel music and ministry: What does a legacy spanning decades—as a family, working in the community, and being ambassadors for gospel music—mean to you?
Doug Williams: It means an awful lot because this legacy started before we were born. My father, Leon “Pop” Williams, was a gospel singer. The late Leon “Pop” Williams had a group called The Big Four Gospel Singers, even before Melvin and I were born.
Then, he formed another group called the Southern Gospel Singers, including my brothers Frank Williams and Huey Williams, my sisters Josie and Marie Ortiz, and two of my cousins, M.A. Spell and Herbert Bell. So, after that, it evolved. And of course—of course—Huey was there. He was part of the Southern Gospel Singers. Then, the Williams Brothers got started.
It was funny how we got started. Melvin and I were the younger kids in the Williams family, along with our brother Leonard and our sister Marilyn. We were out in the front yard one day, just playing, singing, and making up songs, and we came up with this little song called “Hobbit, Dibi, Dovi, Dae.”
To this day, I have no idea what that means, but we started singing “Hobbit, Dibi, Dovi, Dae,” and we began harmonizing right there in the front yard. Then my father walked out on the front porch, heard us singing, and thought we sounded good. So he asked us to come inside and sing some more—and that’s how the Williams Brothers group started.
So it’s a family tradition. We’ve been doing this for over sixty years. The Williams Brothers have been performing for over six decades. We started in the country. We’re from a very small place—Smithdale, Mississippi—where we raised cotton and had cows, chickens, hogs—you name it, we had it. We raised everything we ate right there on the farm. We had a big, big farm. My dad was a farmer and a bricklayer, among other things.
Thinking about the journey—from starting in Smithdale to performing at the White House for President Obama—it’s incredible. As young boys, we never dreamed something like that could happen. But God saw fit to allow us to do something meaningful, to the point where we could perform for the President of the United States. It’s amazing. This means an awful lot because it’s a legacy we want to continue.
Melvin Williams: That legacy and that journey with the Williams Brothers would not have happened without the Jackson Southernaires, Huey Williams and my brother Frank Williams. Once my dad thought we were good enough to record, he contacted my brothers based in Houston, Texas, who were on Peacock/Song Bird, the big label back then.
It had artists like B.B. King, Bobby Bland, Johnny Taylor, the Mighty Clouds of Joy, the legendary Pilgrim Jubilees, the Nightingales—the list goes on. So the Jackson Southernaires went to the President and owner of the label and said, “We’ve got some little brothers, man. They’re really good. You might want to give them a listen.” And he said, “If you think they’re good, bring them on. Tell them to come in, and we’ll put them in the studio and see what they’ve got.”
And so we did. We recorded our first record in 1973, which came out in 1974. And the rest is history. We were just happy to be there and to record.
We knew nothing about contracts, money, publishing, or songwriting rights—none of that. But we could write, we could sing a little bit, and we could play a little bit. We got this big contract from Sunbird/Peacock Records, and basically, what we received for that first record was… well, we went across the street and got cheeseburgers, French fries, hot dogs.
Doug Williams: That was our pay. That was it.
Melvin Williams: But the crazy thing about that first record is that, at the time, Jet Magazine was still publishing gospel music charts—and we reached the Top 10. We thought we were on top of the world, man. And we didn’t even know what that meant in the grand scheme of the gospel music world or industry. But we soon found out.
From that, our brothers—Huey and Frank—took us on the road. Yes, Huey and Frank. That was our first tour. I do not remember who organized the second one, but we did a round with them and the Pilgrim Jubilees at one point. And from there, it just grew. We later toured with the Gospel Keynotes and many others.
So that’s the journey. That’s how we came to be known as the Williams Brothers—through Huey Williams, the Jackson Southernaires, and our brother Frank Williams. The legacy he left behind is untouchable, unmatched, and unimaginable. He was one of a kind—a one-of-a-kind lead singer, a one-of-a-kind voice.
When his vocals came on the radio, you knew it was Huey Williams. When it was Frank Williams, their voices were unique, distinct, and authentic. We were blessed to follow in the footsteps of such a legendary group as the Jackson Southernaires.
Jacobsen: As a small side question, what changed in the industry caused Jet Magazine to no longer list gospel charts?
Doug Williams: The format of the entire magazine changed. They stopped putting charts in the magazine altogether. They used to feature gospel, R&B, and jazz charts. But they do not even list any charts anymore.
Melvin Williams: Yes, Jet had three main charts at that time—gospel, R&B, and jazz. They did not have a dedicated blues chart because back then, they folded blues artists like Johnny Taylor and B.B. King into the R&B category.
Doug Williams: R&B and blues—yes.
Melvin Williams: So from there, we flourished as the Williams Brothers, man.
Jacobsen: What do you consider some of your most cherished memories of working with your father, either on or off the road?
Doug Williams: My father, Leon “Pop” Williams, was our manager. He organized the group. He managed us. He travelled with us. And let me tell you—he was strict. My dad was very strict. He did not play around when it came to doing what he expected you to do.
Jacobsen: As the saying goes—”You’re gonna learn today.”
Melvin Williams: Yes [Laughing].
Doug Williams: [Laughing]. People say Joe Jackson was tough on Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five, but our dad was tough on us. Maybe not quite as tough as Joe, but still very firm.
We had this little place he built outside his home for us to rehearse. We called it the “music house.” It’s still standing today. It didn’t have air conditioning—none. There was very little heat in the winter and no air conditioning in the summer. So, in the summertime, we’d raise the windows, put fans in them, and deal with the heat while we rehearsed. We would rehearse for hours and hours, day and night.
My dad would come and stand in the doorway and listen. Even as young kids, we did most of the writing and arranging ourselves. God had given us that talent. But if my daddy heard something he didn’t like, he would tell us right then and there: “Look, I can’t feel that.” For him, it was all about feeling. He didn’t want anything to do with the song if he could feel the song.
He’d say, “Y’all take that one back where it came from. Come back with something else.” So we had to go back and develop something he could feel was good. He was very strict with us, and he laid down the foundation. He laid down the rules—and he was strict about those rules. We had to abide by what he wanted us to do. That helped shape us into the men we are today.
For years, he was our manager, our booking manager, and the overall manager of the Williams Brothers until he eventually retired.
Melvin Williams: A few years ago, when they were building the Grammy Museum, Mississippi, we were looking for artifacts—photos, articles, uniforms, and other items—to go in the exhibit. I found my dad’s old address book and notebooks, where he had been booking concerts and programs. It had people’s names and phone numbers written down. I still have it somewhere down here, even though they didn’t use that part for the Grammy Museum.
But they did use a poster of him booking gospel groups—he booked nearly every major group you can think of right here in McComb, Mississippi, just a few miles from Smithdale, where we were raised. They also used a handwritten version of lyrics I wrote on a yellow pad for the song “I’m Just a Nobody, Trying to Tell Everybody.” Those items are in the museum today. So yes, our father—Leon “Pop” Williams—is now a part of the Mississippi Grammy Museum.
Doug Williams: The amazing thing about my father was that there were no computers back then and no contracts. He didn’t sign contracts with promoters or anything like that, even though he was the booking agent. There were no digital systems, no emails—none of that. Everything was written down by hand in his ledger. Whatever agreement he made with a promoter, he would jot it down in his book. We used to call it his booking book—or his booking ledger. He would write how much the group was booked for, the city, the promoter’s name, their phone number—everything was lined out in that book. That’s how he handled things.
Melvin Williams: Sometimes he would even have the promoter write a letter to confirm the details—how much they would pay us, the date, all of that. He used those letters to back up the dates. But most of the time, like you said, it was word-of-mouth.
Doug Williams: Your agreement was your word. Your word was your bond.
Melvin Williams: Yes—and many folks didn’t keep their word. Pop sometimes struggled to get our money or ensure they honoured their promises when we got to those cities. But that’s how he operated. He was strict about that, too.
He wanted us to sound right, dress right, carry ourselves right in public—the whole nine yards. That’s one of the things I remember most about him. Like I said, he was very strict, man. He was.
Doug Williams: Yes. One funny story to lighten the mood a bit—I remember we were somewhere on the East Coast. I think it was Wilmington, Delaware. We sang in a church, and the microphones weren’t loud enough. The band played loud, and you could barely hear what we were singing.
My father was standing in the back of the church. Right in the middle of the song, he walked up the aisle, stopped the song, and said, “The mics are too low, and the music is too loud.” Then he turned around and walked back to the back of the church.
Melvin Williams: We were so embarrassed. We were numb, like, “What just happened? Did he do that?” Right in front of everybody. You could hear the people whispering, like, “Whoa… what was that?” It was wild.
Doug Williams: It’s funny now—but it wasn’t back then.
Jacobsen: Especially in church. My gosh. Now, you’ve mentioned how your father was very focused on the feel of a song. If it felt wrong, he would send you back to practice it again. He would tell you to do more of that if it felt right.
Doug Williams: That’s it—keep practicing until it feels right. That was the standard.
Jacobsen: So—to the point of your father stopping you in the middle of a church performance or making a correction mid-song.
Melvin Williams: That kind of thing—Pop stepping in to correct in the middle of a performance—came from his background. He grew up listening to legendary gospel groups like the Five Blind Boys of Alabama, the Five Blind Boys of Mississippi, the Sensational Nightingales, and Sam Cooke with the Soul Stirrers, which also had Johnny Taylor in the group for a while. He listened to artists and groups like that, returning to Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
Believe it or not, my father booked Sister Rosetta Tharpe in McComb, Mississippi. He booked nearly every major gospel artist of that era to come through McComb, whether it was the Mighty Clouds of Joy, Willie Banks and the Messengers, the Jackson Southernaires, the Pilgrim Jubilees, Shirley Caesar and the Caesar Singers—the list goes on and on.
What would happen if the word got out: Pop could pack a house. Two or three groups could fill a school auditorium with 1,500 to 2,000 people. McComb, Mississippi, was a great stop between Jackson, Mississippi, and New Orleans so that these gospel artists would call him—or another promoter named Ellis Miller—and book a date in McComb before heading to the major cities. They might sing in McComb on Saturday, perform in New Orleans on Sunday, and maybe go to Baton Rouge afterward.
Pop even booked Sister Edna Gallmon Cooke—and one of my favourites, the Dixie Hummingbirds. That was one of my all-time favourite gospel groups. They went on to record with major national and international artists like Stevie Wonder and Paul Simon. They did “Love Me Like a Rock” and “Jesus Children of America” with Stevie Wonder. The list goes on.
Pop became famous for his booking—more than managing the Williams Brothers. Many people in the area didn’t understand what managing a gospel group involved, but they knew Pop could bring in the biggest artists in gospel music. That was his reputation.
Doug Williams: Yes, man. He was that guy. Quite the guy.
Jacobsen: The other question I had has to do with feel. You’ve talked about how important feeling was to your dad. So, if you had to ask him or reflect on yourselves, what is the feel of proper gospel music? How would you describe that?
Melvin Williams: Doug, would you like to go first?
Doug Williams: You can go ahead.
Melvin Williams: For me—and my dad always said this too—it starts with judging the audience. You can tell when a song is resonating and when people can feel it based on the response you get from the audience. Whether in a church, a school, or an auditorium, you’ll see them stand up, clap their hands, shout, and praise God. And from that, there’s this energy that you send out—and it comes right back to you. It’s the spirit, man.
That’s how you know when something has feelings. That’s how you know when the spirit is moving and whether a song connects with people. If you’re up there singing and nobody’s clapping, they’re just looking around, not responding—you can cut that one short. You know it’s not hitting.
Doug Williams: But also, it’s a feeling that’s hard to explain. Something deep inside—down in your gut—makes the hair stand up on your arms or the back of your neck. You feel a kind of warmth, that rush of energy. It’s hard to explain, but when it feels good, you know it’s right. Yes, that’s the anointing. That’s the Holy Spirit taking over on the inside.
Melvin Williams: The anointing. My mom used to say that when she heard Mahalia Jackson sing, it made the hair stand up on her arms. That’s what gospel music does—it gives you those goosebumps. Man, it’s amazing. And that’s something that still amazes me to this day—I’m always in awe of the power of a song.
A song can speak when preachers cannot. It can get through when a sermon or even a movie can’t. A song can penetrate the heart, the soul, and the mind. It can change things. Think about it—some songs make you cry, songs that make you laugh, songs that make you reflect, and songs that make you change your way of living or thinking. It’s powerful. That’s been the most amazing thing to me. So whenever I write a song, I ask myself—“Will this change somebody’s mind? Will it make someone feel, live, or shift their mindset?” If I can write something that touches someone somehow and get a response, I know my writing is not in vain. I know it came from within.
And another thing—writing and singing, that’s a gift from God. It’s a gift. Many people can sing, but they can’t write. A lot can write, but they can’t sing. Some can play an instrument but not sing. And some can do both. It’s a divine gift.
So it’s a gift, man. And you have to seek God to know your gift. Everybody has a gift—it may not be in music, but God gave everyone a gift. You must seek Him and use that gift to your knowledge and ability.
I tell people all the time—I talk about basketball. Everybody debates MJ, LeBron, Kobe, and all of them. But I look at each one of those players as having a different gift. Each one has a unique gift.
Jacobsen: That brings us to the topic of gifts—that’s a big subject. It can branch off in many directions. One important aspect you mentioned earlier is being able to write, sing, play an instrument–and even overcome stage fright. That’s a huge part of it, too.
Even if your famed father is stopping you mid-song in church—what do those gifts mean to you? What do you attribute them to? You touched on it earlier, but I’d like to hear more. And what about being in a family where siblings and others work together with those integrated gifts?
Doug Williams: Actually, we believe the gift comes from God. God gave us the ability to do what we do. Even as children, we started writing songs and singing—it was a God-given talent, a God-given gift. And we don’t take it lightly or for granted because many people wish they could do what we do.
Many people would love to be able to sing, write, and produce music. So, we truly give God all the honour and praise for the gifts He’s given us.
Of course, there’s some sibling rivalry. That’s part of it. We’ve had that happen along the way. As a family, we don’t always agree, and we don’t always get along the way we probably should. But at the end of the day, we’re still family. We love each other. We’re always going to come back together and make it work.
Doug Williams: Melvin and I have had knock-down, drag-out disagreements. But you have to have that competition, man. You need that.
Melvin Williams: Absolutely. But it’s good competition. It helps sharpen you. It makes you better in the long run. That’s what it’s all about.
Jacobsen: Now, let’s talk about legacy. For example, I’ve worked in the equestrian industry with a family with a long business and equine legacy—one well-known, at least within British Columbia, maybe even across Canada.
So, for yourselves, coming from a rich musical tradition, how do you honour that legacy properly? How do you defend it when it needs defending? How do you integrate it into culture, such as by preserving it in museums or other public-facing ways?
Doug Williams: It goes back to what we said earlier about gifts. When God gives you a gift and blesses you to succeed, you have a responsibility to stand firm—especially with the changes happening in the music, radio, and television industry.
If you’ve been blessed, God has opened doors for that gift, and you’ve seen success, then you’ve got to stand up for it. You must protect the legacy, represent it well, and ensure it continues forward.
Melvin Williams: You have to believe in yourself and your gift. The industry cannot try to change your gift, especially when that gift was given to you by God.
Protecting that gift means staying true to what you’ve been called to do. If your music, songs, or whatever you’re doing in the gospel industry has been effective, you protect it by not changing just because everything else around you changes. That’s how you stay authentic. That’s how your talent and your gift stand out.
If you look at the Jackson Southernaires from the time they started, their style, their music, their writing—the success they had through the years—they didn’t change. They remained the Jackson Southernaires. That’s what Huey did, and that’s what we do.
That’s what makes an artist a true artist. That’s what makes a legacy so powerful in the industry. You don’t need to change when God gives you something unique. You have to be who you are.
Look at artists like Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, and Aretha Franklin—they were always themselves. Their music and voices didn’t try to change to be like someone else. As I said earlier, Huey’s voice was authentic. It was different. You don’t have to try to be anybody else when you have a real gift like that.
And I’ve always put Huey in that category, just as any other iconic artist. You do what you do when you’ve got that kind of gift—authentic vocals, the ability to write.
We stay grounded. We make it do what it does.
Doug Williams: What’s very important to me when it comes to legacy is that, as we continue doing what we’re doing, we’re careful not to do anything that would discredit or embarrass the family legacy. We want to be upstanding. We want to carry ourselves professionally, with integrity and dignity.
We never want to do anything that would tarnish the Williams family or the Jackson Southernaires’ legacy. As we carry on, we’re holding that torch high. We want to ensure we honour everything built over a lifetime and not bring anything negative to it.
Jacobsen: Can you speak to any recent performances, albums, or singles from the Williams Brothers that are particularly noteworthy?
Doug Williams: From the Williams Brothers? Yes, absolutely. We’ve had some great songs God gave us—and they’ve done well.
Melvin wrote a song called “Cooling Water,” which he performed with Lee Williams of the Spiritual QCs. That was a huge song. Then there’s “I’m Just a Nobody,” “Sweep Around Your Front Door,” “I’m Still Here,” and “Living Testimony,” big songs that have powerfully impacted people’s lives over the course of our careers.
And I’m truly grateful and humbled by that. God gave us a talent that can reach people where they are and positively touch their lives—well, that’s everything. Through our music ministry, people have been blessed, healed, set free, and delivered. That’s what it’s really about, man.
Doug Williams: So those are just some of the songs. There are so many more, but those are a few that have been a blessing—to the Williams Brothers and fans worldwide.
Jacobsen: What about the perception of change over time? Some say the only thing that ever changes is the weather. How much has traditional gospel music stayed true to its roots—and how much has it not?
Doug Williams: Mostly, traditional gospel music has stayed in its place and kept to its roots. Sure, there have been artists who’ve tried to redefine or present it differently, and the radio and music industry have tried to label it in different ways, but traditional gospel is still traditional.
You can’t make contemporary music traditional—and you can’t make traditional music into something contemporary. It’s like trying to mix oil and water. It just doesn’t work.
Here’s a good example: if someone sings a song that’s called traditional gospel, but then someone else gets up and sings true traditional gospel music right after them, you’ll hear the difference instantly. It’s like night and day.
So, I think traditional gospel music exists in a category all its own. It’s defined. It hasn’t changed. The industry has tried to shift things—TV shows, charts, and even Billboard—but ultimately, it’s authentic. It’s legendary.
You can’t make Mahalia Jackson’s music into the same thing as, say, a gospel track by Beyoncé or CeCe Winans. It’s just different. Both have their place—but the traditional gospel is the traditional gospel. I’ll always keep that music in its category.
There’s still an audience out there who grew up listening to that kind of music. And I’m one who’s committed to keeping traditional gospel music going, to keeping it alive.
Jacobsen: My sense of the Southern United States—and I say this as a foreigner, as a Canadian—is that the language people speak is unadorned, descriptive, and concrete. You hear words like “tin can,” “brick house,” “wood fireplace.” They’re straightforward and tangible—like in Richard Pryor’s Mudbone sketches, where he’d say, “See, I lived through hard times before, people talkin’ ’bout, ‘These are hard times.’ Hard times were way back. They didn’t even have a year for it; just called it ‘Hard Times.'”
That kind of speech is clear; you can read the words and know exactly what someone means. But when you hear it—when someone says “brick,” “guitar,” or “gospel”—you don’t just understand it; you almost feel it in a sensory way. How would you describe that kind of concrete, heartfelt language layered into gospel themes, performances, and presence—especially in the context of a church or a performance venue?
Doug Williams: You said it—it’s very concrete. The language, the music, the delivery—it’s all very descriptive, and it’s heartfelt. It’s hard to do this—do gospel music—and not be sincere about it.
That sincerity comes through whether you’re on a big stage in a coliseum or arena or standing in a small country church. That authentic feeling always comes across, and your audience can sense it. They feel it. They can feed off the energy, emotion, and truth in it.
It’s country, yes—but it’s also real. And that’s what makes it resonate. It’s something that’s very, very real. There’s nothing fake about it. Nothing phony. It’s not Hollywood. It’s not Showtime at the Apollo or anything like that. It comes from the depths of your soul, and you’re pouring it out with everything you have—just so you can reach the hearts, souls, and minds of the people there, hearing what you’re delivering. That’s what it’s all about.
Jacobsen: Within theology, a major theme is purpose—people discover purpose in their lives and then live it out. So, for yourselves, how do you see your music and your ministry as a way of giving yourselves to others and living with purpose? How does that shape how you see your lives?
Doug Williams: Go ahead, Melvin. I know you’ve got your thoughts.
Melvin Williams: All right. When we were coming up, we were young. We wanted to sing. We wanted to be out there. We looked up to our big brothers—we were following behind them. But somewhere along the way, we realized that God had given us this gift, and with it came a purpose.
From that point on, everything changed. Our perspective shifted. We stopped seeing singing as something to do for attention or applause. We saw it as a ministry. We realized that we weren’t just out there to be entertainers but to change lives through our ministry and music.
So we began seeing what we did as both a ministry and, yes, a business—but the ministry came first. As we travelled, we could see that our songs were touching people. That realization lifted everything to a whole new level—a new dimension. It became more than just performance. It was calling. For me, the moment I truly understood that my gift was from God—that it had a purpose—that changed the entire direction of my career.
Doug Williams: There’s definitely a purpose in it. When people hear our songs—whether on the radio, streaming online, or wherever—and that song touches them meaningfully, they have fulfilled a purpose in their lives.
When we perform in a town, and someone buys a ticket with their hard-earned money to hear us live, they’re not just showing up for fun. They’re coming with a purpose. They’re hoping to receive something—to be uplifted, inspired, or moved spiritually.
And we understand that. So we also come with a purpose—to give them our best. To give them what God has given us. And to share that with sincerity, excellence, and love.
And that’s part of the purpose—to create an atmosphere of hope and uplift the spirits of those feeling down. Many people are going through difficult times. We’re living in a season where there’s just so much going on—politically, socially—there’s much negativity out there.
Melvin Williams: Yes. There’s so much hatred, bigotry, division—people are surrounded by it every day. And what they’re looking for is something positive. Something to lift them spiritually. Something to give them hope.
Doug Williams: Exactly. Gospel music has a way of doing that. That’s the purpose behind it—giving people hope. Giving them something they can hold on to. Letting them know that God is still in charge and there is hope.
Never give up. Never give in. Never give out. Keep pressing. Keep fighting. Because at the end of the day, something good can come out of your struggle. That’s the hope—and that’s the purpose.
Jacobsen: What innovations in music—streaming, for instance—have been acceptable in keeping the core of gospel music alive without diluting its purpose?
Melvin Williams: It’s hard. Honestly, it’s been diluted.
Doug Williams: Back in the day, when we started, it was all vinyl—vinyl records, 45s, AM and FM radio. Everything had a certain purity to it. It felt more real. The process, the sound, and the way people connected to music differed. Of course, we moved on to CDs, which were very good for a long time. But now, CDs are almost nonexistent. We’ve moved on to digital—streaming and downloading.
And sure, the good part is that many young people can access music instantly from their phones. They can stream and download anything they want. That’s a great thing. But the negative side is that many older people—especially those who love gospel music—aren’t as tech-savvy. They don’t always know how to download or stream. So it’s become harder for them to access the music they love. There are pros and cons. That’s just how I see it.
Jacobsen: How much do you prepare before a performance?
Melvin Williams: For me, it depends. It depends on how my vocals are feeling at the time. But I get as much rest as I can before a concert. And I have a few things I do vocally to help warm up. I’ll use ginger mints, honey, tea—that kind of thing. I also do some vocal exercises to open things up a bit. But I usually do all of that quietly before we go on stage. But sometimes, you have to jump into it on the spot. If you’re at a concert or an event and someone calls you up unexpectedly, you’ve just got to go for it. You’ve got to be ready.
Jacobsen: Doug, how about you?
Doug Williams: You must also be mentally prepared before you go on stage. There’s a lot of pressure—especially when three, four, five thousand people sit in the audience. When you walk out, you feel that pressure because you want to give them your best. And sometimes, your voice might not be exactly where it needs to be.
So yes, it’s a mental as well as a spiritual one. I always try to find a quiet space to get by myself before we go on stage. I pray. I test my voice a little bit. I try to get myself mentally prepared for anything because not everything goes smoothly on stage.
That’s true. Some crazy stuff can happen. I remember we were on stage in Chicago once, and one of the big stage lights fell behind us. It hit the floor and shattered. Smoke went everywhere, right in the middle of our concert. And another time, in Atlanta, the amplifier caught on fire.
Melvin Williams: Back then, those amps had tubes, and it was wild when they overheated—man. Things like that remind you that you’ve got to be mentally prepared for anything.
For me, another thing I like to do is go and look at the audience from the side of the stage before we go on. To get a feel for the room, see how big the stage is, check out the musicians, and look at the crowd. That helps calm the nerves.
Doug Williams: Yeah, and the thing is—it doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing this. You always have a little bit of nervousness before going on stage. It’s just part of it. I’ve heard many artists say the same thing. We’ve been doing this for over sixty years, and every time—right before we go on stage—there’s a little bit of anxiety and nervousness. Just before you hit the stage.
It usually goes away once you get out there and get the microphone in your hand. But before that moment, there’s that nervous energy because you want to make sure everything is right so badly. Once you start singing, it disappears. But right before you go out, you feel those jitters—that little stuff going on inside your stomach, your nervous system. It’s real.
Jacobsen: Has anyone ever made you feel starstruck?
Doug Williams: Of course.
Melvin Williams: Of course, man.
Doug Williams: Yes. We had the opportunity to record with Stevie Wonder. He visited our studio in Jackson and spent two or three days with us. We were in awe.
Just being in the studio with Stevie and watching him work was unbelievable. Here’s a man who’s blind, and yet he was doing everything on the keyboard, handling the whole session. We were watching him in the hotel room. He had set up everything in his suite. He laid down all the music tracks for the song we were recording.
He played everything. Every instrument you hear on that track, that’s him. And most of it was done right there in the hotel room. It was like magic—just sitting there watching him put the whole thing together. Yes, we were completely starstruck. Hanging with Stevie? That was amazing.
Melvin Williams: Another one is being on stage and doing concerts with Aretha Franklin. Oh my God.
Doug Williams: Unbelievable. YShe’s the one who invited us to perform at the White House with her. That’s how we sang at the White House. Aretha called and said, “I’m getting ready to go sing for the President,”—which was President Barack Obama at the time—” and I asked my brother Bill if you all could come sing with me.” We asked, “Do you even have to ask that question?” We said, “The answer is YES.”
Melvin Williams: Oh man, it was. And I remember another time—this was another unforgettable moment—when we were nominated for our Still Here album at the Soul Train Awards. We were leaving the limousine, walking the red carpet. There were interviewers and radio folks lined up—John Salley was one of them—asking questions about the nomination. Beyoncé’s group was right ahead of us on the carpet.
We were in awe when Destiny’s Child was ahead of us on the red carpet. Starstruck. Then I turned around—and Angela Bassett was right behind us. I was like, “Oh my God.” She’s one of my all-time favourite actresses. I had no idea she had left the limousine and was walking the red carpet behind the Williams Brothers. I turned around and looked right at her. I don’t even remember if I spoke. I was that starstruck. I was thinking, “Angela Bassett is behind us, man!”
Melvin Williams: Yes—and Toni Braxton was there too.
Doug Williams: Yes! Toni Braxton, for sure.
Melvin Williams: It was wild. Crazy. We’ve been starstruck a few times over the years, no doubt about it.
Jacobsen: What about the reverse? Do any moments stand out to you—when someone else told you that a particular song or album impacted their life?
Doug Williams: We’ve had a lot of those. I’ll give you a few. Johnny Gill—a member of New Edition—called me just yesterday, and we had a long conversation. Our music has touched his life over the years. He’s been a huge fan of the Williams Brothers. He even asked us to come and sing at his mother’s funeral service in D.C. That meant a lot. And then Snoop Dogg—he’s a big fan of the Williams Brothers, too. He and his mother both loved the song “Cooling Water.” That’s one of his favourites. “I’m Just a Nobody,” “Pray for Me.” He’s really into it.
He even invited us to sing at both his mother’s and brother’s. So we’ve had the opportunity to touch the lives of many well-known people. And when someone comes up and tells you, “This song blessed me,” it means so much. It reminds us that what we’re doing is not in vain. Not only are we reaching people in the gospel realm, but we’re also reaching people outside of it—in the secular world.
Melvin Williams: Yes. It’s amazing. And Doug, do you remember that time at the Grammys? We were sitting right in front of Smokey Robinson.
Doug Williams: Yes! He was sitting right behind us.
Melvin Williams: He leaned forward and said, “Man, the Williams Brothers—I love you guys’ music. I love you all, man.”And we were like, “Oh my God, that’s Smokey!“
Doug Williams: Another story—we were in Macon, Georgia. We had just performed there and checked into the hotel. We were hanging around the lobby, just relaxing for a bit. Then, this long, white limousine pulled up, and we asked, “Who’s that?” Out steps James Brown. He entered the lobby and said, “Williams Brothers! Williams Brothers! This is a badgroup. This right here is the group, you all!” He was telling everybody in the lobby. And then he started singing! Right there in the hotel lobby. Yes! People gathered around, watching James Brown sing with the Williams Brothers in the hotel lobby. It was incredible.
Jacobsen: That’s a James Brown story we’ll never forget. It was so much fun.
Doug Williams: But having that opportunity to sing in the hotel lobby with James Brown was wild. But it was fun.
Melvin Williams: Oh man, yes. And he was a big Williams Brothers fan. He was. He loved gospel music. So did Al Green, man.
Doug Williams: No doubt. He was a big fan, too.
Jacobsen: What are you looking forward to regarding the evolution of gospel music, especially in terms of how it can keep its roots while still growing? This is a broad question, but it’s relevant for cultural preservation while acknowledging that cultures evolve.
Doug Williams: Yes. It’s a fine line you have to walk. You want to maintain the authenticity of gospel music, but you also have to recognize that the whole genre is changing. The culture is changing.
So, you have to walk that line. You want your music to stay relevant. You want your presence—your presentation—to remain relevant. But you don’t want to lose the heart of what gospel music is really about.
It’s very important that we hold on to the roots—to where we came from. That’s where the realness comes from. That’s what it’s all about. But at the same time, the world is evolving. Music is evolving.
And we don’t want to get lost in that evolution or left behind. So even though our music is still traditional gospel, we keep it fresh. Sometimes, we put a little edge on it—adjust the production, tweak the arrangement—to stay current with today’s sound. The production has to be current. The sound has to feel fresh. But the base—the foundation—you don’t lose that.
It’s like making a good gumbo, as they say in New Orleans. You’ve got to mix it all just right—keep the richness of what you had, but bring in something new to attract new listeners. You want to keep your long-time fans and gain new ones.
Melvin Williams: And you’ve got to be true to yourself. True to your gift. True to what God has done for you and the path He’s put you on. That’s what made you the artist you are today—even with all the new labels, companies, and technology.
And remember, for many of the younger audience today, what we’re doing might be brand new to them. Because they’ve never heard it before. They don’t. So when younger people hear a song like Cooling Water or Still Here, they’re like, “Wow, this sounds good.” They feel it—but they don’t always know the significance of where it came from. But it’s authentic, real music—like the blues.
And there’s only so far you can go with the blues before losing authenticity and realness. The same thing goes for traditional gospel music. It is the same for soul music and R&B. Those genres have lasted for generations—because they’re authentic. They’re real. People can feel it. And it doesn’t change.
If you put on something by Louis Armstrong—”What a Wonderful World”—that’s timeless. That song will never change. It’s a classic. And gospel music has anthems just like that. So does blues. So does the soul. So does R&B. You can’t get around what we’ve done—or what the Jackson Southernaires have done—because it’s history. It’s already made. And it was good. To me, what was good then is still good now.
I still listen to Motown. Philadelphia International. That sound. That music. That feeling.
Doug Williams: And you can tell it’s still good because so many young and new artists today are sampling old music. They’re either doing a remake or sampling it. That tells you—it’s still relevant. It’s still powerful.
Jacobsen: We’ve got one minute left. Let’s end with a quick round of favourite quotes. Go.
Doug Williams: My favourite quote has always been from my dad: “Always treat people the way you want to be treated.”
Melvin Williams: That’s my favourite, too. I can say ditto on that one.
Jacobsen: All right, everyone. Thank you very much for your time today. It was lovely to meet you both.
Melvin Williams: I appreciate you, man.
Doug Williams: Thanks so much, Scott. Thanks for having us.
Melvin Williams: Yes, man. We appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Cheers. Take care.
Doug Williams: All right.
Melvin Williams: 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): 2025/05/09
Leah Levi, psychologist, sex and dating expert at first explorationships app Flure. With over six years in the dating app industry, she provides expert insights on relationships, intimacy, and self-confidence. Through her personal experience with breast reduction surgery, Leah advocates for body positivity and self-care, empowering individuals to build healthier relationships. She frequently explores topics like relationship patterns, digital-age breakups, and the psychological impact of body image on intimacy. Leah’s work has been featured in leading media outlets, where she shares evidence-based advice on love, dating, and modern relationship dynamics.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did the 4B movement become something of note, in general, and for you?
Leah Levi: The 4B movement started gaining momentum around 2019. It started as a reaction to gender inequality in South Korea, gaining momentum after several major cases of violence and discrimination against women. For me, it became impossible to ignore when it started resonating beyond South Korea—women everywhere are rethinking traditional gender roles, especially when it comes to dating, marriage, and motherhood.
Jacobsen: What does the 4B movement mean in its stances, but also its derivatives?
Levi: The 4B movement—short for “Four No’s” (from four Korean words beginning with “bi”) – means no dating, no sex, no marriage, and no childbirth. Women in the movement see these expectations as unfair pressures limiting their independence and life opportunities.
Jacobsen: The 4B movement is a South Korean cultural response. One grounded in the facets of gender inequality and misogyny. What other national movements outside of South Korea reflect this movement?
Japan’s “Parasite Singles” – Women choosing not to marry due to financial and social pressures.
China’s “Leftover Women” (Sheng Nu) Rebellion – Educated, unmarried women rejecting societal pressure to marry.
Western Feminist Movements: In the U.S., following political events like the 2024 presidential election, there’s been a surge of interest in the 4B movement.
Jacobsen: What have been the counter-movements to the 4B Movement?
Levi: In South Korea, the 4B movement has faced backlash, especially from men’s rights activists and anti-feminist groups who see it as an extreme and threatening tradition.
Similar reactions have happened globally, for example, from groups like Red Pill (a controversial online community) and MGTOW (Men Going Their Way). These movements don’t just tell men to avoid relationships – they claim feminism has “ruined” society, spreading conspiracy theories fueled by misogyny and anger toward independent women.
Jacobsen: Trump-era politics is primarily economically motivated, with various derivatives, including co-equal restrictions on public provisions for women, e.g., reproductive rights, etc. How have these contributed to other countries’ women adopting the 4B movement-like activist principles?
Levi: For many, the new administration’s policies feel like a direct attack on women’s autonomy, from attempts to defund Planned Parenthood to the rollback of reproductive healthcare protections. This has pushed some women toward more radical forms of protest, like the 4B movement. When rights feel under threat, women are more likely to reject traditional expectations, including marriage and motherhood, as a way to reclaim control over their lives.
Jacobsen: Some South Korean women cite safety concerns and misogyny as reasons for the adoption of 4B principles. Do these motivations apply more so in the U.S.?
Levi: Yes and no. In the U.S., issues like domestic violence, workplace harassment, and restrictions on reproductive rights are big concerns. Still, they play out differently due to cultural and legal differences.
Jacobsen: High-profile cases reinforced discussions about misogyny. Do these serve as further catalysts for feminist action?
Levi: The 4B Movement began in South Korea, inspired by a tragic 2016 murder in Gangnam, where a man killed a woman out of resentment. Women, there were tired of feeling unsafe and unseen, and 4B became a way to reject those constraints and reclaim their lives.
Pop culture events add fuel to the sentiment. High-profile cases like the recent allegations against P. Diddy remind us that toxic power dynamics still go unchecked, even at the highest levels. Women feel this impact in their everyday lives, and 4B offers a way to stand against these norms.
Jacobsen: What will be the likely long-term consequences of the 4B movement as it expands and evolves, breaks into other smaller movements, and so on, in South Korea?
Levi: The potential 4B movement’s long-term consequences in South Korea could include:
- Policy Changes – The government might introduce new policies to address gender inequality and make marriage and parenting more appealing.
- Shifting Social Norms – Ideas about gender roles, relationships, and family structures could continue evolving, leading to a more independent and self-focused approach to life for many women.
- Lower Birth Rates – South Korea’s declining birth rate could drop even further. A smaller future workforce could impact productivity and slow down economic growth.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leah.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/09
Dr. Neal Baer is a physician, producer, writer, and public health advocate who bridges the worlds of medicine and entertainment. A former showrunner for Law & Order: SVU and ER, he has used television to drive public conversations on critical health topics like HIV, vaccines, and genetic editing. He has taught at UCLA, Yale, and Harvard, where he co-directs a program on the intersection of medicine and entertainment. Dr. Baer authored The Promise and Peril of CRISPR and speaks widely at national scientific conferences. GLAAD, the AMA, and the Writers Guild of America have recognized his work.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Neal Baer. He is a physician, producer, writer, and public health advocate. He has worked across the fields of medicine and entertainment. A former showrunner for Law & Order: SVU and ER, he has used television to spark conversations on critical public health issues like HIV, vaccines, and genetic editing. Dr. Baer has taught at UCLA, Yale, and Harvard, where he now co-directs a program on the intersection of medicine and entertainment. He is the author and editor of The Promise and Peril of CRISPR and a frequent speaker at national scientific conferences. GLAAD, the American Medical Association, and the Writers Guild of America have recognized his contributions. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Dr. Neal Baer: Sure, my pleasure.
Jacobsen: Let us start with the basics. What do you think are a child’s most foundational needs today? Has that changed with social media and the Internet?
Baer: Big question. Foundationally, the most significant need is conversation. Taking care of children in terms of food, housing, and healthcare is critical, and many of these needs are still not being met. With recent policy changes pulling back support for food assistance, free lunches, and healthcare, these issues have become even more pressing. Beyond material needs, having honest conversations with children is essential. We have evolved over millions of years to communicate face-to-face. In the last few decades, particularly with the rise of digital communication, we have moved away from that natural form of interaction. This shift has had a profound impact on mental health and even on physical health by reducing outdoor activity and play. These are issues children face today that earlier generations, including yours and mine, did not experience in the same way.
Jacobsen: With this infusion of technology, we see physical activity and mental health changes. What areas are the most acute pain points where children are impacted the most?
Baer: Research shows that social media use negatively affects children’s self-esteem. Kids often compare themselves to others online, leading to feelings of inadequacy and depression. Cyberbullying is another major issue, along with a loss of the nurturing support that comes from real-world friendships and family interactions. Spending extensive time on video games or platforms like TikTok reduces opportunities for healthy, in-person socialization. Although attention on these issues grew after shows like 13 Reasons Why sparked widespread conversation, concerns about youth mental health existed long before. Today’s major pressure points involve helping children reconnect through in-person play, genuine face-to-face interaction with friends and family, and minimizing endless scrolling through media content.
We cannot adapt that quickly. It would take tens of thousands of years. The jump was so fast, and now it is accelerating with AI. What is next? Will we not need to do research anymore? I talk to my students about AI; we use it across different platforms. One could now conduct literature reviews without reading the literature, as was necessary in the past. Many of these shortcuts may be detrimental to our cognition simply because that is not how we evolved. We evolved to talk to each other. We are talking to each other now in a way that was not conceivable 30 or even 25 years ago. I remember when we did not have answering machines, and then we did voicemail, and so on. This incredibly rapid movement of technology causes fundamental dissonance in our physical and emotional health.
Jacobsen: There is much hype about neuroplasticity, but neuroplasticity exists throughout the lifespan. Suppose these changes happen during the earliest stages of development. Do we have any indication of what to expect longitudinally over the lifespan, especially if children are immersed in technology and are missing the face-to-face interactions that were far more common a quarter century ago?
Baer: We cannot predict that until we see kids who have lived through it into old age. Yes, we have neuroplasticity, but what does that mean? Yes, our brains can make new neural connections, but does that mean it satisfies our nervous system, given the tens of thousands of years of evolution? We evolved to look at each other in the face, be there in person, hear voices, observe the subtleties of facial expressions, and touch one another. Gestures are part of that, and we are doing that less now. What does that mean? I do not know. What does that mean for the brain? I am sure researchers are studying it. But does neuroplasticity compensate for that loss? I am not so sure. We will not know the answer until we have studied cohorts that have experienced different levels and types of social media exposure over a lifetime.
Jacobsen: What about a constructive orientation? What could parents do individually within their families to curb some of these adverse effects?
Baer: Draw the line on social media. Please do not allow it, or at least limit it significantly. Say no. Create opportunities for children to play outside, play games, read, and have in-person conversations. It is a challenge because parents are overwhelmed, working hard, and often caught up in their social media habits. It takes much intention to unplug, or at least to unplug for one day a week. I know families that do that, and they seem pretty happy—being able to talk to each other, to share meals, and to have those conversations that are otherwise difficult, if not impossible, when everyone is glued to their iPhone.
Jacobsen: What about having a scheduled time to get outside more and engage in more social activity, aside from simply restricting social media and Internet use? Also, do we have any objective metrics about the possible shrinking of children’s social circles? Has that been measured as well?
Baer: I don’t know for sure, but I imagine children’s social circles have shrunk, particularly for those who are homeschooled. Homeschooling is problematic because public schools allow all children to be seen. If a child is attending school and there are signs of physical or emotional abuse or neglect, a teacher or school staff member might notice and intervene. I was an elementary school teacher outside Denver, Colorado, for several years. If a child is homeschooled, however, it is possible that no one outside the family ever sees that child. That concern is separate from the dangers of being immersed in social media. Homeschooling can isolate a child from society altogether. More and more children are being homeschooled, and I am very concerned about that trend.
We hear much about “parental rights” but not enough about the child’s rights. Children have rights, too. For example, there is much discussion today about parents wanting to know if their child has changed their pronouns at school. But if a child does not feel safe telling their parents that they are transgender or non-binary, what does that suggest? It suggests the child has good reason to be afraid. Speaking as a pediatrician, a child who feels supported by their parents would not hesitate to share something so personal. We now see a troubling dynamic where some parents view their children almost as property rather than as individuals with their own needs and identities. That is harmful. Parents are there to provide and care for children, but children have their own lives, too.
I worry deeply about the current administration and the parental rights movement, which often overshadows what is genuinely in the best interest of the child. Children usually do know what is right for them, especially in cases where non-binary and transgender kids choose not to inform their parents. You can easily imagine why. If they are afraid, it says something profound about their home environment.
Jacobsen: What does this kind of secrecy do to the mental health of children when they feel they have to hide parts of themselves?
Baer: Exactly, exactly. And what pressure does it put on teachers now to act as monitors or tattletales in certain states, where they must inform parents about what is happening with their children? We see real conflict in places like Florida, where parents have the right to know if their children are changing their pronouns. But at the same time, they are also considering, or have already passed, child labour laws that allow kids to work at younger ages. Why is that? It is partly because of efforts to remove undocumented workers, who often perform labour that is essential but goes unacknowledged. Instead of addressing that issue, we see proposals to have children work in dangerous environments, using hazardous machinery in the Midwest or Florida. It makes no sense if your goal is truly to protect children. It raises the question: do you want to protect them, or do you want to own them?
Jacobsen: In that sense, do you encounter conversations where the implication is that parents view children as a form of property?
Baer: Parents may not consciously think that, but their actions suggest it, especially if they support changes to child labour laws or assert the right to control fully what their child can and cannot read or do. This diminishes the autonomy of the developing child and stifles their ability to come into their own. For example, if a child cannot go to a library and select a book they are interested in—say, a children’s book about a gay penguin—and the parent intervenes to block it, it suggests that the parent sees themselves as having ownership over the child’s mind. At what age does the child gain the ability to make independent choices—only at 18? This kind of indoctrination is deeply concerning. Children are often very accepting of one another and capable of making decisions that help them become active participants in their communities and the political sphere.
Jacobsen: You have held space for conversations about science and the medical industry. I also see some relation to this subject, particularly when these issues become politically charged by using the American phrase. What is a tactful way to hold space for a conversation with people who prioritize parental rights over parental responsibility, seemingly overlooking the international consensus reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child? How do you create room for that dialogue? Also, what kinds of misunderstandings do you commonly see beyond the general misconception that parents have a property right to their children or that parental rights outweigh parental responsibilities? I am unaware of any significant international conventions prioritizing parental rights over the child’s rights.
Baer: First, I do not believe the United States has ever ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is still an ongoing situation. It used to be the United States and Somalia that had not ratified it; I don’t know if Somalia has since signed, but we can look that up. There has always been a fear of offending certain groups by adopting international agreements like that. So, holding space for these conversations is essential.
For instance, I addressed this on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. If a parent decides not to vaccinate their child for measles, and that five-year-old child goes to a public park while contagious, even if the parent does not realize how serious it is, that child can expose others. In the episode we created, a vaccinated child was too young—under one year old—to have received the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. That younger child contracted measles and died. So, whose responsibility is that? Is it the parent’s responsibility only to their child to do what they believe is best? Or is it also their responsibility to the broader community of children?
We were among the first shows to press that ethical question: If your actions with your child cause harm to another child, are you responsible? Through storytelling, we encouraged audiences to think about what is best for their child and the impact their actions can have on other children. We saw this again during COVID-19—people refusing vaccination and becoming sick or refusing to vaccinate children who then became ill. What is our responsibility to the community, not just our immediate loved ones?
Science supports this. For example, infants cannot receive the MMR vaccine until they are at least one year old because of immune system development. Was the mother who chose not to vaccinate her child responsible for the death of the infant who contracted measles? We argued yes—because she knowingly brought her unvaccinated child into a public space, leading to another child’s exposure and death. Alternatively, should the infant’s mother have isolated the baby until vaccination was possible? These are the complex questions we raise through storytelling.
It also involves data. We have solid data on measles: it is highly contagious, and often, people do not know they are infectious until it is too late. We must acknowledge that science operates through a process—it accrues knowledge over time. It is not always immediately definitive. Many people struggle with that uncertainty. They want clear, unchanging answers about things like COVID or measles, but science evolves. Even today, we cannot definitively predict the long-term effects of long COVID. We are still learning.
We did not understand why some children died from measles until fairly recently when researchers at Harvard showed that measles could destroy a child’s memory of their antibodies. That might be one of the reasons they succumb to complications like pneumonia, as happened with at least one little girl in Texas. So we have excellent data. Whether or not people believe it—that is the big challenge now. This connects back to social media because it is very powerful in telling stories, often laced with misinformation, that are emotionally scary. We tend to remember what frightens us. We must begin in childhood by helping kids understand the scientific method—what it means to conduct experiments, what it means to accrue knowledge through experimentation, and how we build on that knowledge. I am not sure homeschooled children necessarily get that kind of education. Hopefully, they do, but it is not guaranteed.
Jacobsen: As a fact-check for the transcript, as of April 2025, 2015, Somalia signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are now about a decade into their ratification. The United States signed the CRC on February 16, 1995, indicating an intention to consider ratification. As of February 16 this year, it has been thirty years without ratification. The United States remains the only UN member state that has not ratified the treaty. The CRC is the most widely signed human rights convention in UN history. So there you go. What does that say about what we are talking about? It says America has many child marriages.
Baer: We covered that on Designated Survivor. We did an episode where Kiefer Sutherland’s character, the president, meets with a Saudi businessperson who is travelling with a very young woman. Kiefer’s character says, “Do you travel often with your father?” and the young woman replies, “He’s not my father; he’s my husband.” She is 14 years old. All the cameras click, click, click, click. The initial reaction is outrage: “Look what Saudi Arabia does to their children—child marriage!” But the story gets more interesting. Who has a higher rate of child marriage, the U.S. or Saudi Arabia? The answer is the United States. We designed that episode to challenge assumptions and reveal the uncomfortable data-backed truth.
Only a few states—maybe five, though it could be slightly more now—completely ban marriage under 18. The data show that young women, often pressured to marry because their boyfriends are much older and could be prosecuted for statutory rape, suffer worse outcomes economically and educationally. In our episode, we integrated real documentary footage of a young woman from Kentucky whose parents forced her to marry at 13 after she became pregnant by her 40-year-old boyfriend—a situation that caused enormous calamity in her life. Missouri, for example, is considered the child marriage capital because it only requires one parent’s consent to marry under 18. A mother could take her daughter to marry without the father’s knowledge, or vice versa. We have many issues in the United States that we do not necessarily talk about, write about, or show on television. We often assume the worst problems are elsewhere, but that is untrue.
Jacobsen: What are your favourite quotes from any shows you have worked on, specifically from episodes where you were the major contributor or a key contributor? What are your favourite quotes?
Baer: My favourite quote is from the measles episode, where the mother is on trial for involuntary manslaughter. Hillary Duff played the party mother, and the other mother—the so-called “good” mother—fed her child organic food and did everything right except for one thing: she did not vaccinate her child. Her child ended up giving Hillary Duff’s character’s child measles. That child died because she was too young to have been vaccinated. Stephanie March’s character, the assistant district attorney, says to the mother, “If doctors think that children should be vaccinated, and you are of a different opinion, how do you explain that?” The mother replies with my favourite line of any show I have ever done: “Science is just another opinion.”
You asked for my favourite line. That is it. And I still see that mentality today—this idea that facts are elitist. It is as if observing, counting, and measuring have become suspect. That, to me, is one of the most trenchant problems we face today. Facts are not elitist. They are the result of accumulated data and careful analysis. They are foundational to understanding reality.
Jacobsen: We have about two minutes left. What is the most heartbreaking thing you have encountered while writing, teaching, or studying, particularly in pediatrics?
Baer: Heartbreaking? I would say recently, it was my conflict with Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. They stopped treating transgender kids after Trump signed an executive order prohibiting it. I challenged them. First, I pointed out that they forced doctors to break their Hippocratic oath. Second, I asked them what message they were sending to these kids: that they were not worth protecting because the hospital was afraid of losing funding. Third, I criticized their cowardice for not standing up to Trump, especially given the overwhelming data supporting the benefits of gender-affirming care.
I can cite studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and Pediatrics that show how puberty blockers significantly promote mental health in transgender and non-binary youth. When I confronted them, they said, “It is not that we do not care—we are afraid.” And I said, “It is understandable to be afraid, but you are breaking your oaths and heading down a dangerous path.” Perhaps if institutions had stood up and said, “We will continue treating these children,” it would have helped push back against the administration’s policies.
Baer: NYU Langone and other hospitals stopped providing care during that period. Thankfully, the attorney general of California and a court case in Maryland forced hospitals like Children’s Hospital Los Angeles to resume care. However, the fact that they backed down so quickly shows how real the problem of fear is today—fear of consequences, even when harm to children is the immediate result.
Jacobsen: Any favorite quotes on resilience?
Baer: Yes. I gave a talk at Harvard Medical School’s commencement in 2018, where I said, “Curiosity is the gateway to empathy.” If we are curious about other people, that is how we develop empathy. But I would change that quote now. I would say, “Curiosity is the gateway to compassion” because I think the word empathy has become overused. People use it, but I am not sure we always understand what it means. Can we truly walk in someone else’s shoes? No, of course not. We can only walk in our shoes. But we can imagine another person’s life through storytelling, movies, poetry, music, fiction, and dance. That is why I prefer the word compassion. It opens our hearts and minds to the struggles of others. So today, I would say, “Curiosity is the gateway to compassion.”
That connects to what we discussed initially—how do we nurture curiosity? Is it through social media and endless flipping through content? Or is it through reading books, having conversations, going outside to catch tadpoles or butterflies, or watching a cocoon being made? It is one thing to see it in a video; it is entirely different to experience it firsthand. One of the most important things we can do—getting back to what you asked at the start—is to nurture genuine curiosity in children.
Jacobsen: Dr. Baer, thank you for your time and expertise. It was very nice to meet you.
Baer: Likewise. Thank you. Cheers. Take care.
Jacobsen: Bye.
Baer: 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): 2025/05/09
Neil Sahota, an IBM Master Inventor and AI expert, discusses AI’s rapid evolution, applications, and ethical challenges. He explains AI as a “high-energy intern” that learns from data rather than following rigid programming, differentiating it from traditional software. AI’s ability to process natural language enables contextual understanding. Still, there are many misconceptions, including fears of AI replacing jobs when, in reality, humans using AI will replace those who do not. Sahota highlights the global AI race, particularly between China and the U.S., and the importance of proactive AI governance in addressing these concerns. He emphasizes the role of hybrid intelligence, where AI complements human strengths, as seen in law, healthcare, and education. Countries like the UAE and Singapore are leveraging AI for workforce transformation. Sahota warns of AI’s dangers, including the lack of explainability in decision-making, and stresses the need for ethical frameworks to ensure responsible innovation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’re here with Neil Sahota. He is an IBM Master Inventor, AI advisor, AI expert, and co-author of Own the AI Revolution. He is also a faculty member at UC Irvine. I’ve done three years of fellowships at UC Irvine, so go Anteaters.
He has over twenty years of experience driving innovation across healthcare, legal services, and telecommunications industries. He has advised startups, venture capital funds, and investment groups such as Tech Coast Angels and Passion for Social Impact. He also supports nonprofits like the Zero Abuse Project and Planet Home, which are organizations leveraging AI and emerging technologies to drive business growth and sustainability. His work bridges technology, entrepreneurship, and social impact, making him a recognized leader in AI innovation. So, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate you taking the time.
My first question is about AI. We have science fiction representations of it and popularizers discussing concepts like the law of accelerating returns, exponentials, and scaling laws. We see public tensions between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, primarily with Musk criticizing Altman. We also observe global competition for AI dominance, particularly between China and the United States.
It’s a complex landscape, but many discussions make broad assumptions. Can you unpack what we mean when we say “AI”? What are some common myths, and what is the reality?
Neil Sahota: That’s a great place to start.
First, there is no universally accepted definition of AI, which is part of the challenge. The United Nations and many AI experts generally define AI as a system that can perform tasks requiring cognition without direct human supervision.
So, when we talk about AI, I like to call it a high-energy intern.
You don’t program AI in the traditional sense. Unlike conventional software, AI doesn’t follow a rigid set of pre-defined instructions. Instead, we teach AI—this is where machine learning comes into play.
We provide AI with something called ground truth—guidelines on how to make decisions, but not the decisions themselves. We give it vast amounts of data and human feedback, and that’s how it learns—and it learns fast.
The second key point is that AI understands natural language. Most people don’t speak in perfectly structured sentences—we use slang, idioms, and jargon. AI is different from traditional search engines, which rely primarily on keywords.
For example, if you type into Google, Show me restaurants, but not pizza, it might still show you pizza places.
AI, on the other hand, has contextual understanding. It processes grammar, syntax, and meaning, recognizing that not pizza means it should exclude pizza-related results.
So it understands how we speak. Then there’s the conversational aspect, which is more of a back-and-forth. It’s almost like I’m talking to a human. I can have a persistent conversation, whereas more traditional software search engines don’t remember the last command that we put in. So, that’s what we call AI.
Now, there is much hype regarding reality versus hype. There is no one mega ChatGPT, for example, that knows what a billion users are doing. There are several hundred billion instances of ChatGPT. You pay for ChatGPT to have your private instance.
There are multiple versions of it with different knowledge and capabilities. There isn’t one uber version. That’s the biggest misconception people have, which is ironic, given data privacy and security concerns. People expect that AI already knows how to do things, but that’s not the truth. Unless you’ve taught the AI how to do it and trained it on your processes and data, it doesn’t know how to do that work.
That’s why I always say it’s a high-energy intern. It’s ready to do whatever you want, but you must teach it. That’s the key thing. AI can only do what we can teach it. That’s why it’s good at reading through documents, detecting money laundering, helping plan vacations, or analyzing symptoms a person is showing—or not showing—to assist doctors and nurses with diagnoses.
But we can’t do things like reading brain waves. We don’t fully understand how that works as humans, so we can’t teach AI. That’s the line between hype and reality.
Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to the United Nations and AI ethics, how does AI ethics build into international frameworks? How can we guide the development of this technology when we strip away the myths and deal primarily with reality?
Sahota: I’ve been a big proponent of the idea that bad actors do bad things, but good actors need a nudge.
Historically, there has been much investment in AI, and businesses naturally think about the return on that investment, which makes sense. But from a societal standpoint, there’s often been this divide—profit versus nonprofit—not recognizing the intersection between the two: social enterprise.
That’s one of the reasons I worked with the United Nations to co-found the AI for Good initiative.
First, it’s about creating that nudge for good actors. Second, we don’t set guidelines or establish frameworks for AI ethics. In that case, people won’t consider these issues.
Historically, there has been an assumption that smart technologists—software engineers and roboticists—consider these ethical implications. But often, they don’t. They focus on what we call nonfunctional requirements (NFRs)—things like security, performance, and privacy. They build to technical requirements and design to specifications, but these NFRs often get overlooked unless they are explicitly addressed.
So, as a result, what tends to happen is that they build designs to achieve specific outcomes, but they don’t think about other possible uses or misuses.
Take drones, for example. When they first came out, the idea was that they could be used for land surveying, inspecting dams for damage, or performing other efficiency-related tasks in difficult-to-access areas. No one initially considered the potential risks—like someone flying a drone near an airport or into someone’s backyard to take a video of their child playing.
That’s the challenge we face—as a society, we’ve always been reactive.
When something bad happens, we analyze it, regulators step in, and we try to put safeguards in place so it doesn’t happen again. But AI has triggered the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and things are moving at a pace we call hypercharge.
We’re experiencing a hundred years of change in just ten years.
We don’t have time to be reactive anymore. By the time something bad happens, it could have already affected tens—if not hundreds—of millions of people. So, we must improve our proactive thinking. That’s one of the things we’re working on at the United Nations—fostering a mindset that encourages anticipating risks before they happen.
With AI governance, one of the ongoing discussions involves creating a consortium and a database to track potential uses and misuse of AI. But AI itself has a unique superpower that helps us in this effort.
First, AI is great at scenario planning.
Second, AI is the only tool that allows us to ask it:
“How can we use you better?” or “How might others misuse you?”
Our ability to think proactively is assisted by AI itself.
It’s a double-edged sword—depending on the intent of the person using it, technology can be used for good or harm.
However, the ultimate goal is to create that nudge for good actors and drive more positive innovation, particularly around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Jacobsen: Regarding AI and ethics, the UAE, particularly Dubai, is one of the leading technology hubs in the world, especially within the MENA region.
This is something we see worldwide. For example, Dubai is developing flying taxis and integrating technology into snowboarding, skiing, and other recreational industries. Despite stereotypes, the UAE is a very tech-friendly place.
So, when we look at regions with huge capital flows that are not traditionally associated with AI, how do international AI ethics frameworks fit?
Are there specific governmental institutions, demographic considerations, or conflict dynamics within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region that make applying AI ethics easier or more difficult?
Sahota: That’s a great question, Scott, and the answer is—it’s both easier and more difficult. It’s a weird dichotomy, to be honest.
It makes things easier because so many people are now using AI technology—even in the first wave of adoption—that they’ve at least been exposed to both the good and the bad. They’ve seen the potential for great benefits and the risk of great harm. That has led more member nations, government agencies, and private companies to discuss where to draw the boundaries.
From that perspective, it has become easier to have these conversations.
When new technologies emerge, there has always been tension between innovation and regulation. But now, more people recognize that we must invest in these discussions and figure things out before it’s too late.
Where it becomes difficult is agreeing on what is right.
What does right use even mean?
Take China, for example. There, police officers wear AI-powered smart glasses—ironically made by Google—that allow them to scan a person’s face and immediately see their name, home address, workplace, and location history for the last two hours.
On the one hand, this is incredibly effective for law enforcement—it helps locate criminals and missing children much faster.
But then, of course, you have to think about the nefarious possibilities of such surveillance.
From a Chinese cultural perspective, they may view this as a positive tool for public safety.
Meanwhile, in many Western countries, people would call this too much like Big Brother—an extreme invasion of privacy.
And that’s the real challenge in the digital age—no borders.
Nothing prevents people from using the same technology in completely different ways in different parts of the world.
So when we talk about “right use,” the real question becomes:
Do we need a global standard or baseline for morals and ethics?
That’s a visceral issue because it’s deeply personal to people.
I remember speaking at the Global Symposium for Regulators back in 2018. They asked me to give a speech, and that was one of the key points I raised.
I said:
“If we’re trying to establish the right guidelines and guardrails—not just for AI, but for all emerging technologies—we must agree on what ‘right use’ means.”
I threw a hand grenade into the conversation.
Everyone knew it needed to be addressed, but no one wanted to talk about it.
When I finished my speech, no one applauded. No one looked happy.
One of the Deputy Secretary-Generals (DSGs) walked up to the stage and said:
“Neil, that was a brave thing to say. It was the right thing. But you didn’t make any friends. You should leave now.
So, I did.
But what surprised me?
They invited me back the next year.
But then you start seeing these hallway conversations about it. Ironically, I was asked to come back last year at GSR, and they started calling me Firestarter. They didn’t understand at first, but then Doreen Bogdan-Martin, the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told me, “A lot of this year’s GSR agenda is based on that speech you gave.”
So, just having those hallway conversations helped spark something—they made people realize the need for these discussions about how we define right use and misuse. It’s easy to say, “If it helps people, it’s beneficial. If it harms people, it’s bad.” But in reality, there’s a lot more nuance.
Take the China example—that’s the kind of struggle we see. We recognize that different cultural perspectives must be brought to the table. Seeing more engagement from the EMEA region—the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe—is encouraging because they’re bringing their own priorities and insights. We’re seeing strong participation from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kenya, and Uganda.
And they’re raising a critical issue: If this is another kind of digital race, it’s exacerbating the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots.
This AI race isn’t just about who develops the best models—it has ripple effects. We’re now seeing a global scramble for rare earth metals to build the next generation of AI hardware, and even space exploration is being driven by the search for more of these resources. That’s creating a new divide between nations with strong R&D capabilities and those without.
So now, the discussion isn’t just about the ethical use of AI—it’s about the infrastructure needed to support it. Think about GPUs (graphics processing units), 5G, and soon-to-be 6G speeds—these are essential for AI to function. But they also introduce economic and geopolitical tensions. So, AI ethics must include discussions about who controls the infrastructure.
Jacobsen: So even if AI is doing 99% of the computational analysis, what are the things that will still require human input?
Sahota: A lot. People forget that while machines excel in certain areas, there are still many things humans are fundamentally better at.
AI struggles with first-of-a-kind tasks requiring imagination, creativity, or drawing completely new insights. Those are human strengths—and machines cannot replicate them. And the goal here isn’t to replace people. I know that’s a big fear, but the truth is: It’s not AI replacing people—it’s the person using AI who is replacing the person not using AI.
I’ve worked with dozens of institutions, companies, and government agencies that hoped AI would reduce headcount. But 95% of the time, that didn’t happen. They found that automating some of the administrative grunt work freed people to focus on higher-value, complex tasks.
Let’s take the legal industry as an example—since it plays a central role in government regulations and is the second slowest-moving industry I’ve ever seen.
Three lawyers founded a company called Legalmation. They weren’t technical experts but wanted to build a tool for their firm. They asked themselves: What’s something standardized and simple we can automate? Since they were defence litigators, they created an AI associate lawyer to handle complaints—the initial legal filings when someone is sued.
They built an AI system to read the complaint, fill out the corresponding court documents, generate a counter-complaint, draft deposition questions, and conduct initial case research. What previously took a human associate lawyer with three years of experience, about 10 to 12 hours, now takes just two minutes.
A human lawyer still reviews the AI’s work, spending 30 to 45 minutes fixing gaps or errors. But instead of eliminating jobs, they found that they could repurpose their associate lawyers to focus on more valuable work:
- Jury selection
- Spending more time with clients
- Practicing legal arguments
- Collaborating with co-counsel
- Developing case strategies
- Building business relationships earlier in their careers
These are all far more valuable to a law firm than spending hours on administrative tasks.
And that’s what we’re seeing across the board.
This is one of the biggest reasons we’re witnessing explosive AI growth in the UAE, Middle East, and Africa. AI is giving these regions a leapfrog moment, allowing them to radically upskill their workforce and reshape industries.
When discussing AI in the workplace, it’s not about humans versus machines. It’s about humans using machines—what we call hybrid intelligence. That’s the real future of work—leveraging human strengths while augmenting them with AI capabilities. That’s what’s amplifying innovation right now.
Jacobsen: What do you think is the real promise of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for AI? And how have communities, demographics, and governments decided to organize themselves locally, nationally, and regionally?
Sahota: Well, one of the other things I always say is: Local problems have global solutions. And the work happening in MENA reflects that. For example, the UAE developed the Falcon platform because it needed AI tools that could understand Arabic, a language spoken by hundreds of millions of people.
They built their own AI models—including an Arabic version of ChatGPT—to address local linguistic and cultural needs. That’s exactly the kind of innovation we need. It’s a great example of how we can build AI solutions tailored to different languages, regions, and specific needs.
The second major area where AI impacts the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is health care and education, particularly through AI-driven tutors. However, one issue many people don’t realize is that some parts of the Middle East have high unemployment rates, especially among young people.
There’s a cultural and economic push for young people to pursue master’s degrees and Ph.D.s—and many do—but there still aren’t enough high-quality jobs for all of them.
By investing in AI, EMEA countries are not only diversifying away from oil but also creating entirely new job sectors. This enables highly educated individuals to apply their skills in AI-related fields and industries that didn’t previously exist in the region.
It’s another great model for future work that embraces hybrid intelligence and provides a template for other member nations and regions to follow.
This is important because we tend to focus on big tech companies and superpower countries when discussing AI. However, EMEA proves that with enough investment and support—from other member nations or the UN—almost any country can build its own AI ecosystem.
And that’s the baseline we need to get every country to—a place where they have the foundation to develop AI solutions for themselves and their communities.
Jacobsen: What are the perils of AI?
Sahota: Well, there are a few. Let me talk about some of the biggest ones.
One of the most fundamental challenges is human nature—and the reality is that an AI arms race is happening right now.
Just like we’ve had tech arms races in the past, nations and corporations are now competing for AI dominance. And as much as we’d like to believe that everyone is working for the greater good, there are always casualties in a competition like this.
The mistake is thinking of AI as a winner-takes-all game—as if there’s a fixed pie where one group has to take less so another can take more. But that mindset is creeping in, so the things we prioritize are not always the best choices. Sometimes, we sacrifice ethical considerations or rush developments to stay ahead in the race.
The second major peril, and honestly, the one that freaks me out the most, is that we are reaching a point where many people working on AI don’t fully understand what they’re building anymore.
The most successful AI solutions come from domain experts—for example:
- Legal AI should be developed by lawyers, paralegals, and legal professionals.
- Health AI should involve doctors, nurses, and clinical researchers.
- Marketers and data analysts should guide marketing AI.
However, too many people still believe technologists should dictate how AI is built and applied. As a result, we see a flood of tech startups led by engineers and developers trying to solve problems they don’t fully understand—problems they assume exist but often don’t.
And as a result, you end up with AI systems that don’t do what they’re supposed to do.
Take Facebook’s AI advertising system, for example. About a year and a half ago, they rolled out an AI-driven ad placement system and got busted for redlining.
Now, redlining refers to an illegal practice where certain demographics are excluded from opportunities—typically housing or financial services—based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. In the U.S., the Fair Housing Act explicitly prohibits this kind of discrimination.
But here’s what happened: People listing housing ads through Facebook trusted the AI to find the right audience. Instead of marketing to everyone, the AI intentionally excluded certain demographics based on its own learned associations.
So when Facebook was caught and fined, it returned to its engineers and asked, “Why didn’t you account for redlining when training the AI?” And the engineers said, “What’s redlining?” That’s exactly the kind of thing that worries me the most.
People build AI models without fully understanding the industries or social systems they affect. We see similar issues in generative AI (GenAI), especially in business applications. People write prompts but don’t understand all the parameters that influence the model’s outputs.
It used to be good enough to get a roughly accurate result, but now, “good enough” is no longer good enough. For example, my friend LJ Rich, a musician, has used AI for years to help compose music. She uses custom-built AI for melody generation, and her prompts are 500 words long.
She considers every detail—which notes to use, in what order, what harmonies to apply, rhythm, style, and other musical parameters.
We’ve discovered that even people who have worked in their fields for decades don’t always know all the parameters involved.
So, if experts in their industries don’t know the depth of AI models, how can technologies do it?
This leads to two major technical challenges in AI:
- Interpretability—Business leaders don’t use AI to arrive at certain decisions. Still, as long as it seems to work, they use it.
- Interoperability—Even technologists are now reaching a point where they fully understand how AI arrives at certain results.
And unfortunately, most companies aren’t parenting transparency.
Some of this could be solved by using explainable AI, which we did with IBM Watson. We made sure that Watson could explain every conclusion it arrived at.
But the problem is, most AI companies don’t bud on this. They see it as extra work, administrative overhead, and something that reduces ROI.
So, those are two of the biggest AI perils that must be addressed.
Jacobsen: We always hear about Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Eric Schmidt—the figures who dominate the news cycle about AI. But in your opinion, who are the real AI leaders internationally— particularly in the Middle East?
Sahota: That’s an interesting question because it depends on which part of AI you’re talking about.
There are many different flavors of AI, including visual recognition, natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs), small language models (SLMs), and more. Different leaders and organizations are excelling in different areas. No leader is necessarily better than the others, but there are key figures in different areas of AI development.
For example, you have Geoffrey Hinton, often called one of the godfathers of AI, and Fei-Fei Li, considered one of AI’s godmothers—both played pioneering roles in shaping modern AI.
Then, major AI initiatives in China have brought in new power players. I remember being at the groundbreaking ceremony in 2016 for what they called “Future “ci-Tech City.” It was “designed to be a hub for emerging technologies, with dedicated AI and blockchain zones and massive investments in startup companies from around the world.
As a result, many influential AI figures don’t have names, but they’re the future of AI nonetheless. When we talk about power players, here are a few people who often fly under the radar:
- Omar Sultan Al Olama – Minister of AI, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications for the UAE. He’s one of the few government officials worldwide with AI as a direct portfolio.
- Madeline Bell is the CEO of ChildrenChildren’sl of Philadelphia (CHOP). She has been a major force in using AI for medical intelligence, particularly in pediatrics.
- Tara Lyons – Global Head of AI Policy at JPMorgan. Unlike the U.S.-centric approach to AI regulation, she focuses on international AI policy and how financial systems interact with AI globally.
- Kenichiro Yoshida is Sony’s CEO. He’s not only integrating AI across Sony’s lines but also rethinking how AI transforms the consumer experience.
Then you have governments making bold moves in AI:
- Singapore – They started major AI investments in 2016 after realizing how transformational AI would be.
- They launched workforce retraining programs for both current and future workers.
- They even set up public education initiatives to help consumers distinguish real AI from hype and make smarter decisions about buying AI-driven products and services.
And, of course, China has made AI a national priority:
- Xi Jinping—As President of China, he has embedded AI into the “Made in China 2025” strategy.
- He has directed massive investments into AI at provincial and national levels.
- The government has funded AI research hubs, infrastructure, and startup ecosystems, positioning China as a global AI superpower.
A lot is happening in AI, and while Altman, Musk, and Schmidt dominate the headlines, many other leaders worldwide are shaping the future of AI in meaningful ways.
Sahota: There’s HarshThere’ sn, the Minister of Health in India, and they’ve been working on raising the quality of rural hospitals to match urban hospitals. They have an incredible amount of data—over half a billion people—which they use to improve healthcare outcomes nationwide.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts based on our conversation today?
Sahota: It’s an interesting time, Scott. I wouldn’t dispute that.
It’s one of the tIt’s moments where, to borrow from Stan Lee and Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” One of the “things I always emphasize is the three pillars of change: people, process, and technology.
When you change one, it triggers a shift in the other two. People are starting to realize that when they introduce AI tools into their workflows, they must also change their processes. This isn’t about it. It’s a new way of doing things. That’s the deThat’son of innovation.
However, the part where many people struggle is the people aspect. It’s not just training or retraining workers—it’s about changing our mindsets about how we think about and use these tools. A simple example is education.
We still teach using 19th-century techniques because they work well enough. But we now know there are better ways to wire our brains—through learning algorithms, cognitive science, and AI-driven teaching methods.
The problem is that we don’t leverage innovations because people think, “Why fix some thing that isn’t broken? Isn’t this “about isn’t something is broken? ” The real question is: Is there a better way of doing it? You can’t continue to improve a candle and expect to arrive at a light bulb.
To make that next leap, we must shift from reactive to proactive thinking. We need to anticipate uses and misuses before they happen—that’s why there are general concerns about AI and emerging technologies.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today.
Sahota: I hope it’s useful. I’m looking forward to seeing what you write. If I can ever help in the future, please let me know.
Jacobsen: I appreciate it, man. Thank you so much.
Sahota: You take care. Bye.
Jacobsen: All right. Have a good one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/08
WalletHub’s 2025 study analyzed the best and worst states for working moms based on childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance, using 17 metrics from reputable sources like the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island topped the list, offering high-quality childcare and supportive environments despite high costs. In contrast, states like Mississippi and Louisiana ranked low due to poor daycare quality and limited opportunities. The study highlights how structural supports like childcare are more impactful for working mothers than professional metrics alone, especially for single moms facing distinct challenges in balancing work and caregiving.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, this is Chip from WalletHub again.
Women now represent nearly half the U.S. workforce—about 47% as of 2025. That marks a dramatic shift from a century ago when their participation was significantly lower.
In 2024, 74% of mothers with children under 18 were active in the labour force. Despite this progress, working moms continue to face notable challenges. For instance, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned in 2024. Additionally, women held only 7.8% of CEO positions in S&P 500 companies as of 2024.
Many are familiar with Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In movement, which gained prominence during her tenure at Facebook (now Meta). The movement encouraged women to pursue leadership roles and sparked widespread conversations about workplace equity.
Given these dynamics, WalletHub conducted a study to identify the best and worst states for working moms in 2025. We analyzed all 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance. Within these categories, we applied 17 metrics, including daycare quality, cost of childcare, women’s median salary, and the ratio of female to male executives. What’s the deal?
Chip Lupo: Our findings revealed a notable regional trend: New England states dominated the top rankings. Massachusetts secured the number one spot, followed by Connecticut at number two and Rhode Island at number three. These states stood out due to their high-quality childcare services, supportive parental leave policies, and strong professional opportunities for women.
Interestingly, while Rhode Island ranked third overall, it placed 19th in the professional opportunities category. This was primarily due to a lower median salary for women and a significant gender representation gap in various economic sectors.
Other top-performing regions included Maine, at number five, and the District of Columbia, at number four. These areas also excelled at providing supportive environments for working mothers.
The concentration of top-ranked states in the Northeast suggests that progressive policies and a focus on gender equity contribute significantly to better outcomes for working moms. This is a compelling insight into how regional approaches can impact the professional and personal lives of mothers across the country.
Jacobsen: Work-life balance is tied to critical professional opportunities. However, Massachusetts ranked number one in both work-life balance and childcare—two closely related areas. So, even though Massachusetts did not top the list of professional opportunities, it excelled in the other two categories.
Professional opportunities include factors like the gender pay gap, the ratio of female to male executives, and median women’s salaries. In contrast, work-life balance and childcare cover metrics such as daycare quality, childcare costs, pediatricians per capita, school system quality, parental leave policies, and women’s average commute time. In many ways, those two—work-life balance and childcare—are more directly connected to the daily well-being of working mothers than raw professional metrics.
It is almost as if those two categories act as structural supports—buttresses, if you will—for the overall health of working mothers, more so than just having access to a job or the nature and quality of that job. It also makes sense that childcare is weighted more heavily in the analysis. If a mother knows her children are in good hands, that is a significant stress reliever—probably one of the biggest.
Lupo: What I found interesting in the data is that among the top three states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—Massachusetts ranked first, Rhode Island third, and Connecticut sixth in terms of daycare quality. However, all three states were also among the highest in terms of childcare costs.
Of course, these are states with a high cost of living and relatively high median household incomes, which may help offset some of the costs. Still, it’s notable: the best quality childcare comes at a price. But then again, many parents may be willing to pay more for better quality care if they know it will be a safe, enriching environment for their children. That peace of mind reduces stress significantly.
Another point worth discussing is that the data reflects the experience of working moms in general—not just single working mothers. So, when considering the additional burdens of single motherhood, there are likely differences that are not fully captured by this study. For example, in two-parent households, the partner’s support level varies: some are absent, others are present but uninvolved, and others are active participants in childcare and housework. Those differences matter but are difficult to quantify without a more targeted attitudinal survey.
Jacobsen: That nuance between single and partnered working mothers is crucial. The situation for a single mother—who may not have any support—is very different from that of a mother in a household with an actively engaged co-parent.
Lupo: I also reviewed the methodology and looked at the metric regarding the share of families living in poverty. That metric is likely impacted by household structure, but it is not broken down by marital or partnership status in this study. So, while it adds insight, it does not fully reflect the different layers of difficulty single moms may face.
Jacobsen: Now, when we refer to “families,” that does include single mothers with children aged 0 to 17. So, in the study context, that demographic is included.
: So then we expect significant differences among those four categories: single working moms, married working moms with a supportive partner, married working moms without a supportive partner and married working moms with a partner who is present but not contributing. That last one becomes a baseline for comparison.
Lupo: Depending on the situation, the priorities for each group would differ. For instance, if you’re a single working mom, work-life balance might be the top priority—ensuring you have enough time and flexibility to spend with your children.
After that, professional opportunities would also be critical. Equal pay becomes even more important when you’re the sole breadwinner. In fact, in some cases, single working moms may even require higher compensation just to maintain stability since there’s no second income to fall back on.
Jacobsen: That makes a lot of sense. Are there any areas we have not covered yet?
Lupo: Yes, Scott. I also wanted to examine the study’s bottom half of the rankings.
So, some of the lowest-ranked states for working moms in our analysis were New Mexico, Mississippi, Nevada, Alabama, and Louisiana. It is not that these are “bad” states in general, but in terms of support and conditions for working mothers, they ranked among the worst.
A key issue is the very low quality of daycare in several of these states. Many of them are located in the Deep South, with the exception of Nevada. These are predominantly lower-income states, which often translates into limited public funding for childcare infrastructure. That affects both access and quality.
On top of that, these states tend to be economically depressed overall, so even beyond childcare, there are fewer job opportunities—and even fewer paths to career advancement, especially for women.
Many of these states ranked in the 40s across nearly all three dimensions: childcare, professional opportunities, and work-life balance. For example, My home state of South Carolina came in at 46, sliding all the way down to 51 in some categories.
That’s consistent with broader social and economic patterns in the Deep South. Many of these states still hold on to more traditional gender roles, reflective of the nuclear family model standard in the 1950s and early 1960s. Cultural and structural changes still need to take root in those regions.
Jacobsen: How quickly do states move on to that kind of cultural change?
Lupo: Some move more quickly than others. However, this study clearly illustrates the disparity in progress. States that have invested in policy innovation, infrastructure, and gender equity are seeing better outcomes. Others are still catching up.
I mean, your blue states—especially many of the Northeastern states—tend to be more proactive regarding societal change. They are generally high-tax states, but in many cases, when it comes to childcare and the public school system—which was a key factor in evaluating childcare quality—those higher taxes may translate into stronger public services.
So, even though the cost of living is higher, many families see it as a worthwhile trade-off if the overall experience for their children is positive.
Jacobsen: Your data sources for this study included a broad range of institutions from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Child Care Aware of America, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Council for Community and Economic Research, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the NEE Regulatory Research Center. WalletHub also conducted an analysis to synthesize the findings.
That is quite comprehensive. Could you give us a little more insight into the research methodology—mainly how you selected those sources and ensured the accuracy and reliability of the data?
Lupo: Sure. We try to place more weight on government-sourced data—like the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the EEOC—because they’re generally more consistent and publicly accountable. I do not personally compile the data, but I know there’s a vetting process involved when it comes to nonprofit sources, particularly when we evaluate their credibility and relevance.
The organizations we pull from are reputable and widely used in research and policy analysis.
Jacobsen: What about the weightings in the study? How much weight is each category given? Are there any parts you found particularly noteworthy in terms of their inclusion or influence on the final rankings?
Lupo: The weightings are pretty reasonable. Obviously, I’m not a working mom, but if I had to guess what matters most, I’d say childcare comes first. If a mother knows her child is in good hands during the workday, that peace of mind goes a long way.
The other categories—professional opportunities and work-life balance—are certainly important, but they tend to work themselves out once the major stressor of childcare is removed. Children do not need childcare forever, so over time, families can start placing greater focus on career growth and overall balance.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. And your top three states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—seem to strike that balance pretty effectively.
Lupo: No pun intended, but they manage to juggle all those priorities well. They’re providing quality childcare, a strong support infrastructure, and professional opportunities all at once.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else we should add before wrapping up?
Lupo: No, that covers it for today.
Jacobsen: Great.
Lupo: Fantastic. All right, Scott. Have a good weekend.
Jacobsen: All right. You take care. Thank you.
Lupo: Be 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/08
Gary Zed is the Founder & CEO of Canada’s Forests Trust Corporation. Canada’s Forest Trust Corporation (CFTC) is a social enterprise focused on planting and managing forests to combat climate change and protect biodiversity. Partnering with organizations and youth groups, CFTC creates Smart Forests™, integrating traditional forest management with modern technology for carbon sequestration and ecological benefits. Their National Advisory Board includes experts in biodiversity, forestry, and education. CFTC’s climate and biodiversity goals emphasize long-term ecosystem sustainability and public engagement. Over the next five years, they plan to expand Smart Forests across Canada using a six-step process to plant, preserve, and protect millions of trees, fostering environmental stewardship nationwide.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is Canada’s Forest Trust Corporation (CFTC) and its mission?
Gary Zed: We are a social enterprise whose mission is planting forests in Canada, because it is good for nature and climate.
We work with leading Canadian organizations — from leading companies to national youth groups — to plant forests with their support. We work with these partners because we know that many Canadians, including employees and young people, want to play a part in taking action to protect nature and fight climate change.
Planting and managing forests brings many benefits, from sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, to habitat for animals to economic benefits to human well-being. Honestly, this has never mattered more than it does now.
Jacobsen: Why did the CFTC establish a National Advisory Board?
Zed: Well, no one can solve climate change or protect biodiversity alone. As CFTC has grown, it became clear to me that we need the best and brightest minds to advise us on a host of areas of expertise, including biodiversity, forestry, education, youth engagement, Indigenous partnerships, data, business, and climate adaptation. What’s more, trust and integrity are very important to us, and we make sure we always have leading experts advising us, especially in a world of greenwashing. We also want to expand our collective experience in various industries from insurance to retail to the auto sector.
We chose our advisors from all of these walks of life because we work at a crossroads between climate, nature, tech, youth, and business, and we are better able to work effectively when we have perspectives and talents from various sectors. I’m really honoured at the incredible group of advisors that have stepped up and joined us in our new National Advisory Board. Already they’ve rolled up their sleeves. As we look at these massive problems in front of us, there is a lot of work to get done.
Jacobsen: What are tech-enhanced nature-based solutions regarding forest planting and protection?
Zed: We take an innovative approach, by combining tried and true forest management techniques with modern technologies that provide in-depth data. We call this a Smart Forest™. A Smart Forest brings together nature’s wisdom and advanced technology.
We recognized that a forest is inherently smart and sophisticated, and they have evolved ways to renew and sustain themselves over millennia. The benefits of a healthy forest include a habitat for life and species to thrive, and many benefits for economic, environmental, and social well-being.
But we also have smart tools at our disposal in this day and age. Here’s where the tech enhanced part comes in: The effectiveness of a Smart Forest is shared with clients through cutting-edge digital dashboards, ensuring transparency and accountability for its impact, as well as reporting centres that provide on-demand access to downloadable forest impact reports.
Smart Forest is designed to store large carbon footprints, utilizing forest management techniques to maximize its ecological and climate impact.
We also collaborate with others, from Indigenous communities to experts in nature-based solutions, like the advisors on the National Advisory Board that I mentioned. This combination of nature’s wisdom, modern technology, and collaboration helps ensure the health of our forests — now and into the future.
Jacobsen: How will you involve youth groups in sustainability goals?
Zed: We have a history of working with youth across Canada through groups like Eco Schools. On our new National Advisory Board, we have experts in education like Michèle Andrews and Tam Matthews, who we lean on for expertise about engaging youth in climate and nature action. A number of our partners are national youth groups, who commit to planting trees. The youth who are involved with those groups can then feel a sense of connection to those forests through the digital dashboard.
One example I’m particularly proud of is our first Smart Forest location in New Brunswick’s endangered Acadian forest region. Through the support of School Smart Forest Stewards, we will restore 95 acres of previously devastated land, bring back biodiversity, clean air and water, and support the local economy. A big part of this project is community involvement. Schools across Canada are coming together to help reach the goal of 100,000 seedlings to fully restore this forest back to health. Participating in this can help young people learn more about the importance of biodiversity, climate change, and environmental stewardship.
Youth are so important to our philosophy that we are actually about to launch a new brand entirely dedicated to engaging Gen Z and Gen Alphas in Canada. We’re excited to share more about that soon.
Jacobsen: What are the climate and biodiversity objectives of the CFTC?
Zed: We see climate and biodiversity goals as intertwined, and forests as a powerful solution to multiple problems, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Nature and climate action are deeply interconnected, and planting forests can help with biodiversity, the well-being of species, and climate mitigation and adaptation.
One of our objectives is to sequester carbon. It is well-established that forests are proven to be effective at sequestering carbon.
The focus in environmental action has been on carbon, which is of course important, but we also know that climate and nature come hand-in-hand. That’s where our next objective comes in: supporting flourishing biodiversity while also fostering a host of biodiversity benefits, such as increased habitat for species.
A third objective is to prioritize the long-term health and sustainability of a forest for ecosystem health, habitat creation, the various benefits that come from climate change mitigation, and carbon storage — not just a flash in the pan, but for the indefinite future.
We also aim to support the democratization of nature. This means nature should be accessible to all, and we focus on connecting Canadians with information about how to help invest in and take care of nature.
Jacobsen: How will the CFTC grow millions of trees in healthy ecosystems in the next 5 years?
Zed: We are growing quickly, and our next step is to plant, preserve and protect Smart Forest ecosystems in regions across Canada. Over the next year, we will be in almost every province, and new projects will be stewarded in the next planting season.
As we set out to grow millions of trees in Canada over the next five years, we will use our 6-step approach to our Smart Forests.
The first step is to procure land. The second step is to prepare the land for planting. Step three is to plant the forest, including a diverse mix of native species. The fourth step is to preserve the trees that are planted. Step five is to protect the forest and the land. Finally, the sixth step is to promote nature-based solutions like planting forests, through education and inspiration.
We are proud to be at a point in our evolution when this approach is tried and tested, and that we can expand our impact. We are proud to plant and care for forests here in Canada, and we know that companies and organizations value our at-home approach, because they want to make a positive difference here.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gary.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/07
The 2025 Canadian Tulip Festival blooms in Ottawa’s Commissioners Park from May 9–19, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Liberation of the Netherlands. Co‑hosted by the Canadian Army, the free event showcases more than 300,000 tulips, themed walking tours, outdoor films, family activities, and Canada’s first hybrid drone‑and‑fireworks finale. The Official Opening Ceremony on Saturday, May 10 at 10:30 a.m. honours Second World War veterans, notably Honourary Lieutenant‑General Richard Rohmer, with military bands, a Remembrance Torch and a CF‑18 flypast. Princess Margriet’s envoy, Her Excellency Margriet Vonno, represents the Netherlands, underscoring the enduring Dutch‑Canadian friendship symbolized by the annual tulip gift.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we will discuss the 2025 Canadian Tulip Festival, which runs until May 19 in Ottawa. This year’s Festival commemorates 80 years since the Liberation of the Netherlands during the Second World War and is co-hosted by the Canadian Army.
The festival honours Second World War veterans, including Canada’s most decorated living veteran, Honourary Lieutenant-General Richard Rohmer. Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, born in Ottawa during the war, had to cancel her visit due to health reasons, but Her Excellency Margriet Vonno, the new Dutch Ambassador to Canada, will represent the Netherlands. Highlights include over 300,000 blooming tulips, a Victory Party, Canada’s first hybrid drone and fireworks show, themed tours, outdoor films, and family-friendly activities. Admission is free, and guided tours are available for $20 per person. The full Festival is May 9–19, but the Opening Ceremony is on Saturday, May 10, at 10:30 a.m. at Commissioners Park.
What does the Canadian Tulip Festival mean for Canadians for the 80th anniversary of the Liberation of the Netherlands? And what do the liberation and the tulip symbolize for Dutch Canadians?
Jo Riding: What we like to say is: what the poppy is to autumn and the First World War, the tulip is to spring and the Second World War. It’s very much a symbol of the sacrifice of over 7,600 Canadian soldiers, many of them young men, who gave their lives in the liberation of the Netherlands between 1944 and 1945.
Princess Juliana of the Netherlands sent the original tulip gift in the fall of 1945, shortly after her return from exile in Canada. She had lived in Ottawa from 1940 to 1945 with her two daughters—and later gave birth to a third, Princess Margriet, in January 1943 at the Civic Hospital in Ottawa. Canada temporarily declared the hospital room extraterritorial to ensure her child had only Dutch citizenship.
As an expression of gratitude, Princess Juliana sent 100,000 tulip bulbs to Canada and promised an annual gift. This has continued every year since—10,000 bulbs from the Dutch royal family and 20,000 from the Dutch Bulb Growers Association, totalling 30,000 bulbs annually to this day. That annual gesture is such a powerful symbol of friendship.
Canada and the Netherlands have developed a deep, enduring friendship rooted in these wartime ties. There are about 1 million people of Dutch descent in Canada, many descendants of Dutch war brides who fell in love with Canadian soldiers during the liberation and immigrated to Canada after the war, often landing in Halifax and then travelling across the country by train.
And the stories go both ways, right? Canada left a legacy in the Netherlands, too? It’s estimated that between 4,000 and 7,000 “liberation children”—children fathered by Canadian soldiers—were born in the Netherlands after the war. Many were raised by single Dutch mothers in postwar Europe, often under challenging circumstances. So when Canada liberated the Netherlands, our soldiers became heroes of a nation and symbols of hope and new beginnings. For many Dutch women, Canada represented a future free from war and hardship—a land where they could start over, raise families, and build lives with the men who helped liberate their homeland.
Jacobsen: The story has many layers, including mixed reactions from those who lived it. On the other hand, after about a year of Canadian presence, the Dutchmen said things like, “Please liberate us from our liberators.” It was difficult for them to compete with the young, healthy Canadians from the West, especially compared to the war-weary and undernourished Dutch population at the time.
Canada played a very special role—not only in the liberation but in the post-war rebuilding. We stayed on longer than any other Allied force to help with reconstruction. We were also key players in the Battle of the Scheldt, a major offensive that cleared access to the Port of Antwerp, critical for moving supplies inland to Allied forces.
To this day, I meet people in the park who are connected to every facet of the story. Some are children who received food from Canadian air drops during Operation Manna—the most significant humanitarian effort of the war. Others are descendants of the Dutch resistance or, like myself, descendants of Canadian liberators.
My grandfather, George Riding, fought in the Battle of the Scheldt. I’ve met war brides, veterans, and families from all sides of this history. What is truly remarkable is that the Dutch do not forget.
In the Netherlands, people know the names of our soldiers. They name parks, schools, and streets after them. Here in Canada, we often struggle to recall their names. That’s why our work is essential—especially as the generations change—to remember these stories and sacrifices.
This Festival is about more than tulips. It’s a commemorative celebration of sacrifice, friendship, and the enduring importance of international cooperation.
Jacobsen: How is the coordination with the Canadian Army going this year as co-hosts?
Riding: We’re thrilled to be co-hosting with the Canadian Army. Major-General J.W. Errington will join me as co-host for the opening ceremony. The Canadian Armed Forces Central Band will lead our parade, and we will open with the Canadian Remembrance Torch, carried by Army Cadets. That symbolic passing of the torch from one generation to the next is very powerful.
We will also have a cannon salute and anticipate a CF-18 flypast to open the Festival with honour and energy. The Army will have an information booth onsite, where visitors can learn about the modern Canadian Armed Forces, career opportunities, and community engagement.
They will also be part of our grand finale, which features Canada’s first hybrid drone and a fireworks show centred on liberation.
Last year, we partnered with the Royal Canadian Air Force to celebrate their 100th anniversary and tell the story of Operation Manna, where Canadian bombers dropped food to starving Dutch civilians.
The year before that, we marked 100 years of the Naval Reserve—Canada’s citizen sailors—and told the story of the Battle of the Atlantic, the most extended continuous battle of any war, not just WWII. It ran from the first day of the war to the last.
This year, we are highlighting the stories of several Second World War veterans, focusing on Honorary Lieutenant-General Richard Rohmer, Canada’s most decorated living veteran. We’ve adapted his memoirs into a script for our Tulip Legacy Walking Tour, which adds a personal and theatrical dimension to our storytelling.
Jacobsen: And you’ll also meet a few other characters—folks who returned from the war and one who lived right beside the festival site but, sadly, did not make it back. Why are those individual stories important to the Festival’s message?
Riding: We tell these poignant stories because we want people to see the tulips the way we do—as a living tribute. Each bloom represents someone’s brother, father, husband, or son. It’s essential to frame remembrance that way—to give the numbers a human face.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate a little on the Tulip Legacy Walking Tour?
Riding: We typically run the Tulip Legacy Walking Tour each year, but we’ve created a special Liberation 80 Edition this time. It’s a theatrical experience. The tour is set in 1946, the first spring after the war, when the tulips bloomed in Commissioners Park for the very first time.
Your guide, dressed in period clothing, will explain the location’s historical significance and provide details about the varieties of tulips in the gardens. Along the way, you will meet characters based on real people.
One is a young Pilot Officer, Richard Rohmer, who was only 22 years old at the war’s end. At that point, he was already talking about retirement—though clearly, that didn’t stick. His postwar service is legendary.
The next character is my grandfather, George Riding, who fought in the Battle of the Scheldt and at the Leopold Canal. He served in the Royal Montreal Regiment’s machine gun unit. Grandpa George made it home, but he suffered from what was then called shell shock—what we now understand as PTSD—until he passed in 1980. He used to say it was his life’s best and worst times.
Finally, visitors meet Thomas Emmett Clark, a young man who lives beside the festival site. He grew up on Matapaska Avenue—you can see his childhood home from one tour stop. We read a letter from him. He was part of the First Canadian Army and died on April 16, 1945, just two weeks before the war ended.
This is very much grounded in the geography and memory of the neighbourhood itself. These stories come from a project called “A Neighbourhood Sacrifice,” which is still available on our website. It’s a digital mapping of The Glebe, the neighbourhood beside the Festival. Are you familiar with Ottawa?
So, to Torontonians—where I’m from—I compare it to The Annex. It’s one of those older residential neighbourhoods with century-old houses, tree-lined streets, and deep community roots.
In The Glebe alone, 473 young men enlisted and didn’t come back. Can you imagine the emotional tension in a neighbourhood like that? If someone received mail, you didn’t even want to ask what it was. People were walking on eggshells—not knowing who had just lost someone or who was about to. And if that happened in just one neighbourhood, imagine what the rest of the country felt.
That kind of granular storytelling relieves the historical sacrifice—that’s the goal. When you say, “7,600 Canadians died liberating the Netherlands,” it’s abstract. But when you say, “Thomas Emmett Clark, from that house right there, died two weeks before the war ended,” it becomes intensely personal. It brings humanity and immediacy to remembrance—and that’s essential.
Jacobsen: On the media side as well, it’s powerful. Giving someone a name and a face changes the narrative from statistics to story.
Riding: That’s the whole point. These are big numbers we talk about. It’s easy to let it roll off the tongue—”Oh, we lost a thousand here and a thousand there.” But when you stop to think about it, each one of those people left behind families, friends, and communities. The ripple effect—the circle of grief—widens dramatically.
There isn’t any one of us who doesn’t feel the impact, even now, nearly eighty years later, of what the Nazis inflicted on the world. And yet, in the broader sweep of history, eighty years of largely sustained peace—especially in Europe—is extremely rare.
Jacobsen: That’s true. The only historical comparison that comes to mind is Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. But of course, that was only because Rome conquered and controlled everything, so there wasn’t anyone left to fight. The last time the world had such a universal cease in major conflict—at least in recorded history—was around 50 BC, during the height of Roman power. But that was more of a peace through domination than anything else.
That raises interesting questions about how we frame Peace. People often talk about the just war theory, which is valid and, by extension, unjust war as well. But very few talk about just Peace or unjust Peace. A peace imposed by an empire—like Rome’s—can be seen as unfair because it lacked freedom or autonomy.
Canada, on the other hand, doesn’t dominate the world. We’re a nation in good standing, trying to uphold peace and partnership on the world stage. That makes our current peace just as it gets—not through conquest but cooperation.
Riding: That’s a great way to frame it. And the Dutch-Canadian relationship is a perfect example of that respectful, reciprocal peace. The Dutch have shown their gratitude in incredible ways over the years.
Jacobsen: Especially on the West Coast, you’ll notice many agricultural and horticultural businesses with names like “Van Something.” Many Dutch immigrants brought their skills and innovation with them after the war. They made enormous contributions to Canada’s farming and greenhouse sectors.
Riding: Yes, they did. The Netherlands is one of the most agriculturally efficient countries on Earth. They feed a considerable portion of Europe and do it with just 3% of Canada’s land. They pioneered vertical farming, and their accomplishments in sustainable agriculture are astonishing.
When you compare that to what we’re doing here, you realize how much land we’re underutilizing or wasting. So, those transatlantic partnerships—they’re not just symbolic. They’re still economically and technologically relevant. We do make excellent partners, both historically and today.
Jacobsen: I’m smiling hearing all this—it’s music to my ears. I’m Dutch-Canadian, so it hits home for me.
Riding: That’s wonderful to hear. It’s so meaningful to meet people with that shared heritage on both sides. I visited the Netherlands this past October for the World Tulip Summit. It’s where all the tulip festivals from around the world come together to share ideas and celebrate our shared floral history.
Jacobsen: You recently visited the Netherlands. Were you able to explore any of the commemorative sites while there?
Riding: I did, yes. I visited Princess Margriet in the royal city of Apeldoorn while there because how often do I get to go over it? And in Ottawa, there’s a statue called “The Man with Two Hats.” Many people don’t know that in Apeldoorn, there’s an identical statue—also called “The Man with Two Hats.”
They face each other across the ocean. Our version is in Ottawa, and theirs is in Apeldoorn. The statues are symbolic, representing friendship, gratitude, and shared history.
Before I left Apeldoorn, I told my driver, “I want to go see the statue here before we leave.” When we arrived, flowers covered the ground—within 10 feet all around the monument. Still, after all these years, it gave me chills.
And while I was standing there asking my driver to take a photo, an older man came over—he was 95 years old. He had been there when the Canadians liberated the city. He asked my driver what I was doing, and when he found out who I was and that I was Canadian, he burst into tears. He came up to hug me and said how grateful he was to finally thank a Canadian in person for freeing his city. He told me he visits the statue every single day.
Jacobsen: That’s incredibly moving. And here in Ottawa?
Riding: Most people don’t even know the statue exists in Ottawa. In the Netherlands, it’s adorned with flowers and daily visitors. It’s a different experience. Canadians were never occupied. We don’t know what it’s like to have bloodshed in our streets the way they did.
While I was there, I also visited the Anne Frank House. The house itself was emotional, of course. But what struck me even more was outside, looking at the pavement stones—realizing those are the same stones that were there during the occupation. That’s where people walked. That’s where some were asked to kneel before being shot. That’s where people died.
It’s no wonder the Dutch have a profound reverence for what Canada did. Their feeling toward us is rooted in lived experience and national trauma. Canadians, by contrast, are often self-effacing, modest, and unaware of the full extent of our role.
Jacobsen: Much of the global media focuses on the American narrative, right?
Riding: Yes. The Americans did a far better publicizing their efforts, primarily through Hollywood. That has shaped public consciousness. Many Canadians still don’t know what we did for the Dutch.
Even when The Forgotten Battle movie came out, I was excited. I thought, “Finally, a film about us!”—about Canadian soldiers at the Battle of the Scheldt. But it was still told through a very American lens. So, our veterans and national efforts often remain underappreciated at home and abroad.
Jacobsen: Let’s switch gears a bit—what do you think about the hybrid drone-fireworks show? That’s a significant innovation this year.
Riding: I am so stoked! Seriously. This is my seventh edition of the Festival, and we’ve experimented with many different things.
In my first year, we had traditional fireworks tied to our Victoria Day celebrations. Then came COVID, and we spent two years doing everything virtually. That meant no outdoor shows, but we had much fun with online storytelling, digital exhibits, and virtual tulip experiences. Still, nothing beats that in-person moment of communal awe.
Now, with this year’s hybrid drone and fireworks show, we’re stepping into the future of commemorative celebration. It’s modern, more environmentally friendly, and thematically rich. The show tells a story of liberation through coordinated lights, sound, and sky choreography.
Jacobsen: In 2022, fireworks returned at the Festival after COVID but weren’t without criticism. What changes have you made since then?
Riding: Yes, in 2022, we brought back traditional fireworks and received a fair bit of pushback from the community. Concerns were raised about ecological impact and noise pollution, especially for people with PTSD—and animals too. I mean, I had to go home and apologize to my dog! She was hiding in the basement when I got back from the show.
So, in 2024, we paused and did a complete drone show. The response was mixed. Some people loved it—they appreciated the quiet, the storytelling, and the lower environmental impact. Others felt it was just a light in the sky—they missed the drama and the big boom of fireworks.
Drone shows also have limitations. To get the full visual effect, you must be within about 80 degrees of the viewing angle. Fireworks, by contrast, can be seen 360 degrees—look up.
So, this year, we worked with our pyrotechnics and drone suppliers to find a solution. We’ve come up with a hybrid show. This format allows us to keep the drama of fireworks while limiting the volume and duration to reduce noise and ecological pollution. The drone portion will enable us to tell a story—in this case, the story of the Liberation of the Netherlands—through coordinated lights and choreography.
We know we can’t please everyone, but we’re hopeful this hybrid solution will strike the right balance. It starts with fireworks, moves into a narrative-driven drone show, and finishes with a final fireworks celebration.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a thoughtful solution. Now, I heard there’s something called Pilates in Petals.
Riding: Yes! We’ve got Pilates in Petals and also a Fun Run. We know the mental health benefits of being in a garden are huge. Combine that with physical movement in a wide-open space, and you have a recipe for real stress relief.
A little guided stretching or a light-hearted jog can do wonders in these anxious times. That’s what this is about—joyful, accessible well-being in the middle of natural beauty. We see tens of thousands of smiling faces in the park each year, so it made sense to deepen that connection.
Jacobsen: What else is new this year?
Riding: We’ve got our brand new Big Bug Boardwalk!
Jacobsen: What is that?
Riding: It is a whimsical evolution of a project we first did in 2022 called the Blacklight Boardwalk. Here’s how it started: We were photographing tulips one evening, and I happened to have some blacklight gear with me. We noticed that pollen inside a tulip glows under UV light. That led us down a rabbit hole—pollinators like bees and butterflies see in the UV spectrum, and the glowing pollen is how they find their way from flower to flower.
Jacobsen: That is genuinely fascinating.
Riding: Right? So we thought—why not let humans see that, too? We installed UV blacklights along an 800-meter Dow’s Lake boardwalk stretch beside Commissioners Park. We raised about 2,000–3,000 tulips, illuminated them, and added educational signage about pollinators, bee safety, and why we should all be nicer to the bees. They’re just trying to do their jobs!
The boardwalk experience became incredibly popular, and we ran it in 2022, 2023, and 2024. But I like to refresh installations every three years, and we’re introducing the Big Bug Board this year. It keeps the glowing garden concept but adds more whimsy and interactivity—especially for families.
You can expect giant bees, butterflies, ladybugs, and interactive leaves along the Big Bug Boardwalk. And once again, we’ll have a bilingual soundtrack that explains what you’re seeing and why pollinators matter.
We believe in passive education through entertainment—you’re having a great time, enjoying a beautiful visual experience, and leaving having learned something. That’s the goal.
This is essentially a ramped-up, whimsical version of our Blacklight Boardwalk—with big, glowing bugs! It’s going to be a lot of fun. It got a great reception at the World Tulip Summit. It was very popular. I had several countries ask if they could borrow or replicate the idea. And I said, Of course you can! I suspect we’ll see UV gardens popping up in festivals worldwide. That’s always exciting—to see something you created become a global trend.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else you’d like to include? A favourite quote or key message you return to?
Riding: Definitely. One quote I always return to comes from Malak Karsh, the renowned photographer and founder of the Festival. He said, “The tulips brought colour back to a very grey world after the war.” That is still relevant. We deeply understood that message when we took over the Festival during the COVID year. No matter what’s happening—a pandemic, a trade war, hyperinflation, or worse—the tulips still come. They reliably and beautifully bring colour and joy to the world.
I often say there are three things you can count on: death, taxes, and tulips.
They are incredibly resilient flowers. They originated as wildflowers in the Himalayan Mountains, so they know adversity. They survive harsh Canadian winters and thrive through humid summers, which is what makes them such powerful symbols.
You plant them in the fall. You hope for the best. And then, come spring, no matter the weather—they rise. Nothing stops a tulip from doing what it was meant to: bloom. People worry every late spring, early spring, warm or cold spell. But you don’t have to. Tulips always come back.
Jacobsen: That’s a beautiful metaphor—and a comforting one.
Riding: Thank you. One of the messages we try to get across is that we’re not the city, the National Capital Commission, or Canadian Heritage. We’re none of those. We are a small charity doing a tremendous job. The National Capital Commission (NCC) plants the tulips. We celebrate them.
The Festival’s role is to provide the commemoration, storytelling, and infrastructure to safely welcome nearly half a million visitors. The NCC has been planting and maintaining these tulips for 80 years.
There’s even a great story: when the first tulips arrived, the NCC wanted to plant them on Parliament Hill. But Prime Minister Mackenzie King objected. He felt tulips wouldn’t suit the Gothic architecture and the Victorian garden style of the Hill.
The NCC went ahead and planted them anyway. And when they bloomed? He loved them. He was so taken with their beauty, he ordered they be planted every year thereafter.
We thank the NCC for maintaining this incredible legacy and are proud to work so closely with them to present this national story of sacrifice, friendship, and renewal every year.
Jacobsen: Jo, thank you very much for your time today. It was an absolute pleasure to discuss the Festival with you.
Riding: The pleasure was all mine—thank you! Now I’m off back to Merchandiseville.
Jacobsen: Enjoy your next thousand tulips!
Riding: [Laughing] Keep counting!
Jacobsen: Okay. Thank you. 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): 2025/05/07
Dr. Javad Sajan is a Seattle-based plastic surgeon specializing in cosmetic and reconstructive procedures for the face and body. He is the founder of Allure Esthetic, where he offers services including breast augmentation, tummy tucks, rhinoplasty, and gender-affirming surgeries such as FTM top surgery and facial feminization. Sajan highlighted several challenges transgender patients face in accessing gender-affirming healthcare. Key issues include limited insurance coverage and a scarcity of experienced providers. Additionally, not all surgeons offer the full spectrum of gender-affirming surgeries, necessitating patients to seek multiple specialists. Regional disparities significantly impact access; for instance, while Washington mandates insurance coverage for such procedures, other states lack comprehensive policies, leading to potential travel burdens for patients.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the primary challenges transgender patients face in trying to get gender-affirming healthcare?
Dr. Javad Sajan: Insurance coverage and finding providers with adequate experience. Also, not all surgeons who perform gender-affirming procedures perform all gender affirming surgeries (for example, someone may only perform top surgery or only bottom surgery).
Jacobsen: Do these challenges differ by region?
Sajan: Absolutely, especially in today’s political climate. Even though gender affirming care for adults is technically accessible in all states, it may still involve significant travel, and patients deserve to have the choice between providers. While Washington (where I practice) requires insurance to cover gender-affirming procedures, this is not always full encompassing, and not everyone who needs gender-affirming surgery will qualify. Several other states do not have any requirements or procedures concerning insurance coverage for gender affirmation.
Jacobsen: What legal protections exist–and do not and need to exist–for transgender individuals to access reasonable levels of gender-affirming procedures?
Sajan: It varies widely by state. However, the process should be led by the patient and their medical team without legal or major financial barriers.
Jacobsen: What are the typical arguments against provisions of gender-affirming procedures of varying levels of evidence and reasonableness?
Sajan: Many argue that people may regret their gender affirming surgery or that they actually just need mental health treatment. All surgeries have some level of regret associated with them, and gender-affirming surgeries notably have a low regret rate among all surgeries. Additionally, many providers do require a letter of support from a mental health professional, and most surgeons will do their own evaluations of the patient’s mental stability.
Jacobsen: How have healthcare policies met the needs of transgender patients?
Sajan: In states where gender affirming care must be at least partially covered by insurance, this has helped many patients access care. However, there is still a long way to go.
Jacobsen: Do insurance coverage and healthcare funding impact patients’ odds of attaining gender-affirming surgeries?
Sajan: Yes, significantly.
Jacobsen: What are the immediate direct effects of the current social and political climate on gender-affirming care, i.e., equitability, accessibility, quality of care, etc.?
Sajan: Many patients feel more hesitant to seek care that would improve their quality of life (and in some cases, save their life). It also leads to unqualified providers or non-medical professionals offering treatments that can increase complications and make what are safe, well-tolerated procedures much riskier.
Jacobsen: What technical innovations or policy changes could enhance the quality and accessibility of transgender healthcare?
Sajan: Insurance coverage seems like the natural first step. Education for providers on gender affirming care and how best to support patients would also help improve this. Finding ways to reduce scarring, especially after FTM top surgery, would also improve the quality of the results and likely make the procedure less invasive. Most patients do not qualify for the current scar reduction surgical techniques regularly performed.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Sajan.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/06
Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based human rights and national security attorney, examines how age-old antisemitic tropes are repurposed into modern conspiracy theories, blending medieval myths with contemporary fears of technology and global control. She discusses a range of absurd claims—from the notion of “Jewish space lasers” allegedly used to trigger wildfires to theories that the Rothschild family secretly owns the moon or that Jewish elites control the Internet, AI, and even reincarnation to maintain eternal power. These narratives explain, recycle and distort historical conspiracies, such as the blood libel and secret societies like the Illuminati and Freemasons, repackaging them with sci-fi elements like reptilian shapeshifters and occult mysteries. The speakers note that such theories rely on psychological projection—a tactic historically employed by Soviet and Nazi regimes to deflect blame—and have been amplified by social media and state-sponsored disinformation. They also highlight how far-right Christian and New Age conspiracies merge religious eschatology with pseudoscience to depict Jews as malevolent orchestrators of global events despite overwhelming evidence that modern technologies, including cryptocurrencies and blockchain, are decentralized and untraceable. While acknowledging the inherent absurdity and lack of evidence in these claims, Jacobsen and Tsukerman stress that the normalization of such narratives is dangerous because it fuels hatred radicalizes vulnerable individuals and undermines genuine public discourse. Ultimately, they warn that repackaged antisemitic myths not only distort Jewish identity and history but also contribute to a polarized society prone to real-world violence and systemic discrimination.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based human rights and national security attorney specializing in international law, media strategy, and information warfare. She is the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, providing insights on global affairs and advocating for human rights. Her expertise spans the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. She is also a board member of the Washington Outsider Center for Information Warfare, which aims to educate the public about information warfare and build resilience against foreign malign influence.
As you may recall, there’s a comedian and comedic actor named Mike Myers who had a series of movies called Austin Powers, featuring the character Austin Danger Powers. His nemesis in the movie was Dr. Evil, who wanted sharks with laser beams on their heads. Eventually, this was going to lead to a space laser. A common trope in some conspiracy theories about Jewish people involves space lasers and so on. But how did this even become a theory?
Irina Tsukerman: The phrase “Jewish space lasers” was popularized in 2021 due to a widely criticized social media post by U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who suggested that wildfires in California were started by a space-based laser linked to Jewish banking interests. However, humorous references to space lasers existed before, with figures like Mel Brooks using exaggerated science-fiction tropes in comedy. The idea always meant satire, but some people clearly don’t understand the difference between humour, satire, parody, and reality.
Jacobsen: Now, let’s see. What about cases we haven’t discussed? This is funny. This is a much deeper well than I ever thought. How about intra-ethnic feuding? Some Sephardim are prejudiced toward Ashkenazim, some Ashkenazim are prejudiced toward Mizrahim, and so on.
Does that happen? What issues are brought up?
Tsukerman: There are many different issues. First of all, there are religious divides between super-secular, Reconstructionist, or Reform Jews and more religious elements, such as Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities. People on opposite ends of the religious spectrum sometimes look down on each other.
There is also an attitude where anyone more religious than me is a fanatic, and anyone less religious than me is an apostate or heretic. This dynamic is not unique to Judaism, but it does exist.
Another issue is that, yes, there have been prejudices and ethnocentric attitudes among different Jewish communities. There isn’t a broad standoff between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Still, historically, in places where Ashkenazim have been the majority, they have sometimes viewed their traditions as normative. At the same time, those of Sephardim and Mizrahim have been marginalized.
For example, during the Holocaust, Greek, Romaniote, and Sephardic Jews were deported to Nazi concentration camps. Some Ashkenazi Jews initially did not recognize them as Jewish because they did not speak Yiddish and had different cultural practices.
Similarly, in Israel’s early years, Ashkenazi Jews, particularly those from socialist backgrounds in Eastern Europe, dominated the government and institutions, leading to systemic discrimination against Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews in areas such as housing, education, and employment. Over time, these divisions have diminished, but tensions and disparities still exist in some aspects of society.
And when waves of Sephardic Jews from the Arab world and other regions arrived, they were often sent to peripheral towns that were underdeveloped or placed in poorly equipped refugee camps until those towns were built. They were treated as second-class citizens due to prevalent racism and cultural chauvinism.
Many Moroccan Jews who immigrated were highly educated and cultured, and they took offence to this treatment because they did not consider themselves any less educated than the European Jews. It became a cultural clash. Unfortunately, many Western and Eastern European Jews absorbed the stereotypes that were already prevalent in their respective societies. This dynamic was less about Jewish identity and the cultural environments in which these groups had been raised.
First, anyone who is different is often viewed through the lens of cultural otherness. The Sephardic Jews, for instance, did not particularly care for Ashkenazi food. There was a reason for this—much of Ashkenazi cuisine developed in impoverished areas where Jews were forced to live in ghettos and the Pale of Settlement, making do with whatever scraps were available. In contrast, many Sephardic Jews lived in elite societies and developed sophisticated culinary traditions.
This resulted in a reverse cultural standoff, some of which persists today, though to a much lesser extent. Israel has become significantly more integrated. Sephardic culture has gained mainstream acceptance and is now considered fashionable. Many modern social trends, particularly those influenced by intersectionality, have embraced elements of Sephardic identity.
Cultural breakthroughs have helped dismantle many of these barriers, but there was also a history of cultural isolation. For instance, Syrian Jews traditionally refused to marry outside their community and often did not accept converts to Judaism despite Jewish law prohibiting discrimination against converts. In some cases, they would even avoid marrying fellow Syrian Jews if they were from a different city. This intense insularity shaped marital and social trends.
However, that did not mean they were completely isolated. They conducted business with Jews from other backgrounds and with non-Jews throughout history. Still, these social divisions had lasting effects on relationships and integration.
Many of these cultural divisions have existed, and some still persist. There are remnants of Ashkenazi dominance in certain Jewish organizations and parts of Israeli society and infrastructure. However, with increased cultural fusion and integration, these divisions have significantly lessened over time. More Jews are migrating between the U.S. and Israel, further blending traditions and identities.
As Jews are now living together in shared spaces, they are naturally adapting and mixing. In Israel, they serve together in the military, work side by side, and intermarry more frequently. They are learning from each other’s cultures, sometimes in creative ways, while also striving to preserve their unique traditions.
Many of these historical tensions are fading. While efforts are still needed to overcome them fully, the situation has improved considerably.
Jacobsen: What about intersectionality? This is typically a concept based on feminist analysis and theorization. That framework is used to identify cross-points between two or more social identities or forms of oppression.
So, what about cases where the issue is not intra-ethnic but rather related to feminist or so-called woke movements? In some instances, these movements propose something that appears benevolent but, in practice, leads to regressive and even antisemitic outcomes.
Tsukerman: Essentially, the intersectional Jewish feminist movement was quite prominent toward the end of the 20th century. However, with the rise of the BDS movement and the resurgence of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist narratives in academia, the movement’s trajectory changed. Whatever its original intent, the movement, in its final iteration, became structured around a hierarchy of victimhood.
Within this structure, Jewish and pro-Israel participants—regardless of their feminist identities or other affiliations—found themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy. Many Jewish feminists were frozen out of the movement, ignored, or dismissed—particularly in the aftermath of the October 7th attacks. At that moment, many felt deeply dehumanized by their peers, who refused to condemn the mass rapes, massacres, abductions, and torture that had occurred.
The justification given was that the victims were Israeli women. Some activists viewed their suffering as secondary due to their opposition to the Israeli government or because they had come to accept the narrative that Israel is an apartheid state. But even if that were true, does that justify dehumanizing innocent civilians? Even if one assumes that the Israeli government is authoritarian, would the same logic apply to victims of sexual violence or murder in China, Iran, or Russia? Would people refuse to have compassion for them simply because they lived under an oppressive regime?
This attitude created a deep rift within the movement. The Jewish women who remained within the intersectional feminist structure had to suppress their Jewish identity—and certainly any pro-Israel views—to stay accepted. Others either formed their separate movements, which were more inclusive of Jewish identity, or abandoned intersectionality altogether to focus on their identity as Jewish women or pro-Israel advocates rather than feminists.
The mainstream of these intersectional feminist movements failed to step up when it mattered most. I’m not sure what the future holds for these movements. Still, unless they critically examine how political biases and stereotypes have overtaken their original mission of empowering women, they cannot remain successful. If they do not give voice to victims of international terrorism, authoritarianism, and patriarchy—regardless of nationality—their credibility is at risk.
Jacobsen: The rise of antisemitism in Canada is evident in the hate crime statistics. If you look at the data from Statistics Canada, it is clear. Among reported and verified hate crimes, the three most common are antisemitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-Muslim incidents. However, by far, the number one category—without comparison—is antisemitic hate crime. Atheists and secular types seem to take it on a chin or don’t have a report category.
In the United States, I assume the situation is similar. As far as I know, antisemitism is also rising in other countries. In some places, it remains at persistently high levels. What is your take on this?
Tsukerman: In some European countries, antisemitism has been a longstanding issue due to poor social integration. However, the contributing factors in the United States are slightly different, and multiple elements have fueled the increase.
I’ve mentioned some of them, such as the amplification of conspiracy theories through social media and the role of foreign state influence. Another factor is the rise of discourse theory and extreme identity politics, which began in academia with the oppressor-oppressed framework and has since permeated soft power institutions, shaping media coverage, educational policies, and public discourse.
You also have embedded organizations, such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and others, that have shifted their messaging to push narratives that include antisemitic elements. Even within governance, you see this influence—for example, the California ethnic studies curriculum, which was put on pause due to lawsuits over its antisemitic content.
Foreign state funding has also played a role in public K-12 education, not just in higher academia. For instance, Qatar has been involved in spreading educational materials in American public schools that exclude Israel from maps, essentially erasing its existence.
Another issue is that many teachers are either not well-educated on these topics or are hesitant to take clear positions for fear of jeopardizing their careers. This has allowed antisemitic narratives to spread through teachers’ unions, administrators, and within the broader education system. Many educators have been miseducated with the same extreme oppressor-oppressed ideology, which has taken precedence over critical thinking, rigorous academic pedagogy, and balanced historical perspectives.
The combination of all these factors has created an institutional foundation for antisemitism to persist and spread. People who are less educated and more inclined toward conspiracy theories tend to embrace antisemitic stereotypes as an anti-establishment stance. Meanwhile, those who align more with institutional authority often adopt these same stereotypes because they are reinforced by the authoritative sources they trust.
Because they tend not to question authority, both sides—those who trust establishment narratives and those who rely on alternative sources—often adopt positions they might not have reached independently. Instead, they accept what someone they view as an authority tells them, even if that authority is not part of the traditional establishment.
This ultimately results in a deterioration of critical thinking, humanistic values, and individual agency. Instead of judging people as individuals, there is an increasing tendency to generalize entire groups.
There is also a growing stigma surrounding the exploitation of political conflicts—such as those between Israel and Hamas—when these conflicts are imported into the United States and other Western societies. These tensions are being fought on local grounds, and Jewish and pro-Jewish students are often less prepared to respond. In contrast, antisemitic groups tend to be better organized.
This disparity in preparedness includes differences in emotional resilience, resources, organizational structure, and willingness to challenge the status quo without fear of consequences, such as expulsion, career setbacks, or legal repercussions. There is also a significant attitude gap between these groups.
Another issue is the false dichotomy that one must be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. The pro-Palestinian position is often framed as aligned with governance and mainstream culture rather than as a general wish for peaceful coexistence. This framing ignores the possibility that addressing the extreme levels of aggression in society might require dismantling certain political structures that perpetuate conflict.
The complexity of the discourse has been lost due to a broader trend toward oversimplification, not just on this issue but in political discussions overall. People are increasingly forced into rigid ideological categories—socially, politically, religiously, and ethnically—without room for nuance.
What about people from multi-religious households? What about those who practice multiple philosophies or are multi-ethnic and have diverse backgrounds? What about individuals who reject such categorizations entirely? Even they are forced into binary ideological positions because of extreme polarization.
Despite the clear increase in antisemitic incidents, there remains a tendency not to take antisemitism seriously. Some groups actively downplay its significance, arguing that Jews are exaggerating the issue. Others attempt to minimize Holocaust denial or dismiss extreme levels of antisemitism as something other than antisemitism itself.
There are also divisions within Jewish communities regarding how to address antisemitism. Some groups ignore antisemitism when it comes from political factions they support, creating a politically polarized and fragmented approach to recognizing and combating it.
This polarization undermines efforts to form a unified stance on what antisemitism is, how to recognize it, and how to respond.
Additionally, there is a tendency—driven by political correctness and the assumption that Jewish communities are generally law-abiding and non-disruptive—not to prioritize antisemitism as a serious issue. Since Jews are less likely to engage in violent protests or disruptive actions against authorities or other social groups, there is often less pressure on institutions to address their concerns.
Meanwhile, if antisemitic groups act aggressively, there is a widespread reluctance to confront them. No one wants to take the risk of pushing back against these movements’ more radical and confrontational elements.
There is a tendency to overlook the Jewish community because, ultimately, what are they going to do about it? They might go to their representatives in Congress and lobby, hold a peaceful demonstration, or write about it in a newspaper. But they are not going to break windows, fight with the police, or engage in violent protests.
This perception of Jews as a law-abiding community is, paradoxically, doing them a disservice. It leads to them being taken less seriously, and, in some cases, it creates an impetus to put more pressure on the more reasonable side.
That is yet another factor at play. Still, another issue is that society does not know how to handle antisemites once they have reached their peak influence. People struggle to differentiate between freedom of speech as an individual right and the issue of providing platforms for hate speech.
There has been an intense internal political debate over when to de-platform individuals and when to allow them space to speak. Many are ill-prepared to engage in fact-based debates on these topics. Instead, public discourse has become more emotionally driven, with people favouring arguments that align with their preconceived beliefs rather than engaging with logic, evidence, and reasoned discussion.
This has also resulted in antisemitic figures being given a pass if they seem reasonable or correct on unrelated issues. For instance, figures like Tucker Carlson have been excused in broader political discourse because they presented what some perceived as a constructive framework on certain topics. As a result, they were able to push antisemitic narratives further, testing boundaries and growing bolder in their rhetoric. The less pushback they received, the more brazen their antisemitic and other bigoted statements became.
That is another contributing factor. We can also discuss figures like Candace Owens and the bizarre conspiracy theories she has been promoting, which go far beyond typical antisemitic narratives. She has been pushing ideas related to Frankism, a historical religious movement associated with Jacob Frank.
Jacob Frank was a Jewish mystic and self-proclaimed messianic figure who led a controversial sect that rejected traditional Judaism in favour of radical theological and social ideas. His movement, known as Frankism, was marked by antinomian beliefs, secrecy, and conversions to Christianity.
Some fringe conspiracy theories attempt to link modern political figures to Frankism, promoting the idea that secretive and subversive elites are wielding hidden influence over global affairs. These theories play into longstanding antisemitic tropes about dual loyalties and fifth-columnist infiltration.
Frankism is frequently invoked in conspiratorial narratives claiming that secret elites manipulate politics. It aligns closely with a hardcore populist vision embraced by the far right. These theories are often tied to Illuminati-style claims, suggesting that hidden Jewish elites are orchestrating global power struggles.
This is similar to QAnon but less focused on accusations of sex crimes and more centred on the idea of a covert globalist Jewish elite engaging in deception. Figures like Candace Owens and other far-right conspiracy theorists have deliberately misused Frankism to push baseless claims about a supposed Jewish-controlled world order. There is absolutely no foundation for these theories, yet they continue to be amplified in far-right circles.
The idea of globalist Jewish elites and Jews as globalists or ruthless cosmopolitans has a clear historical lineage. You can trace a neo-Marxist link here because the Soviet Union used to label certain Jews as rootless cosmopolitans—a term used to justify antisemitic purges. Today, that rhetoric has evolved, with cosmopolitans and globalists used as veiled pejoratives.
We have seen this narrative persist for years, even being embraced by some right-wing Jews who attempt to align with these movements by focusing solely on the economic aspects of globalism. However, history has shown that no matter how much they try to fit in, this rhetoric inevitably turns against them. The broader and more far-reaching application of this idea now means that anyone with a particular set of ideas—especially those advocating for international cooperation or liberal democracy—can be accused of globalism.
This Jewish aspect plays into it in a deeply antisemitic way. For example, Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which was once associated with Reaganism but is now aligned with Viktor Orbán, the New Institute, and Russian nationalist ideology, has demonstrated this dynamic.
At one point, Roberts attacked someone simply for mentioning Leo Strauss, a conservative Jewish thinker, dismissing him as a neocon and globalist. It was a visceral reaction rather than a substantive political disagreement. The association of certain Jewish intellectuals with globalism is not based on ideological critique but rather on a deeply ingrained antisemitic reflex.
This kind of rhetoric is far-fetched and transparently antisemitic, as the discussion itself had nothing to do with globalism or neoconservatism. Yet, the perception that many Jews are Democrats and part of elite institutions has fueled these stereotypes and will likely continue to do so.
Jacobsen: A lot of these conversations—especially ones involving figures like Candace Owens—whether or not they are deliberate in intent, function to expand the Overton window for antisemitic discourse. The details of what they bring up may not even be coherent or historically accurate, but they serve to normalize these narratives.
If there is any conscious ideological push, this seems to be its main effect: shifting what is acceptable to say in public discourse. That is probably the most dangerous aspect of the increasing use of antisemitic language and ideas in mainstream discussions.
What about left-wing versions of religious antisemitism?
We often see Jesus portrayed in Western media as a blond-haired, blue-eyed man of European descent—almost as if he were from Mississippi or the American Midwest. This version of Jesus is so ingrained in certain Christian communities that it has led to humorous memes, where people mistakenly put up images of Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars as depictions of Jesus.
However, beyond this, there are sectarian religious movements, particularly within certain African American religious groups and other identity-based theologies, that promote the idea of a Black Jesus. There is also a broader, more problematic trend where some left-wing religious movements deny that Jesus was Jewish at all.
What do you make of these left-wing religious narratives and their versions of antisemitism, particularly those that attempt to erase Jesus’ Jewish identity?
Tsukerman: First of all, the idea that Jesus was anything other than a Jewish individual living in that historical time frame is outright false. While accounts differ regarding what happened next, there is no serious academic dispute about his Jewish identity. The fact that some people feel the need to assign Jesus a specific ethnic or racial identity beyond that is troubling. If you are a Christian, then Jesus’ ethnicity should not be of primary concern, as Christianity is centred on his teachings rather than his background. If you are an academic scholar, you should acknowledge historical realities rather than attempt to reshape them for ideological reasons.
Even more concerning is the recent push to identify Jesus as a so-called “Palestinian,” a term he would never have used to describe himself. The Romans, who imposed the name Palestina on the region, were colonizers. Modern post-colonial movements should recognize this fact and, if they are consistent in their principles, should not be aligned with the terminology of the Roman colonial framework. Instead, they should acknowledge that the people living in that region at the time—including Jesus—identified as Israelites or Judeans, not Palestinians. They certainly did not call themselves Romans, as they lived under Roman rule as second-class citizens, at best, without full rights.
The historical use of the term “Palestinian” evolved much later. When it first became commonly used under the British Mandate, it was a descriptor for Jews living in the region before the establishment of Israel. The Arabs of the time did not identify as Palestinians; they referred to themselves based on their tribal names and Arab ancestry. It was not until the 1960s, when the Soviet Union played a role in fostering a national movement, that the term “Palestinian” began to be widely used as an Arab national identity. This anachronistic historical revisionism is ideological in nature, serving to erase Jewish historical identity, delegitimize Jewish ties to the land, and reframe religious narratives through a contemporary political lens.
This type of historical distortion is deeply troubling because it not only denies Jewish history but also introduces an unnecessary and divisive political element into religion. Religion is meant to unify people, promote healing, and provide a framework for coexistence. It is not supposed to be used to manufacture ethnic or religious division. When religion becomes a battleground for power struggles, it ceases to function as a religious institution and instead becomes a political tool. This is not a religious issue—it is a manipulation of history to serve a political agenda. What we see now has nothing to do with Christianity, Jesus, or genuine religious beliefs. It is an effort to impose contemporary political ideologies onto historical narratives to fit a specific agenda.
This approach closely resembles the KGB’s tactics in Soviet Russia, where they sought to infiltrate and manipulate the Russian Orthodox Church, turning it into a state-controlled ideological entity rather than an independent religious institution. Instead of adhering to its spiritual traditions, the Church under Soviet control became an instrument of official narratives. Similarly, what we are witnessing today is an attempt to redefine religious history—not to promote faith but to weaponize it for political purposes.
Jacobsen: We previously touched on woke ideology and its antisemitic elements. This is one of those complex issues where progressivism sometimes overlaps with conservative or centrist positions in certain evidence-based areas. However, it takes on a different nature when it abandons evidence and becomes purely ideological. It warrants a distinct title that separates it from its original intent. In this case, woke antisemitism falls into that category.
Where do you think the overstretch occurs beyond what we have already discussed regarding left-wing religious antisemitism, historical revisionism, and religious narrative distortion? Specifically, how do you see the intersectional framework—originally developed in feminist analysis—used as a tool for this kind of ideological expansion?
Tsukerman: I would call it regressive liberalism rather than progressivism. It is regressive in the sense that it returns to tribalist politics, and it is illiberal because it fails to recognize individual rights, personal autonomy, and the moral agency of individuals. Instead of acknowledging that every person has their capacity for reason, conscience, and human rights—whether understood as natural rights or, for the religious, as divinely endowed—it judges people solely based on group identity.
That is not to say that group identity cannot be an influencing factor in one’s worldview or experiences, but people still have the ability to make their own moral choices. The core values of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal tradition are the capacity for moral reasoning and individual responsibility. This principle is not merely a product of modernity—it can be traced back to Aristotle, who emphasized character over status despite living in a different historical context. If you look at his Nicomachean Ethics, particularly his treatise on friendship, he argued that true friendship is defined by virtue and character rather than by social position or external circumstances. That was an extraordinary idea in his time and remains fundamental today.
Similarly, in religious traditions, moral choice is considered one of the few things human beings have control over. Everything else—circumstances, fate, divine will—may be outside of our control, but moral autonomy is central to human dignity. Identity politics, in contrast, undermines this principle by reducing individuals to the circumstances of their birth rather than recognizing their ability to rise above them. Psychological factors, mental health, and environmental challenges can influence moral choices. Still, they are ultimately the defining aspect of a person’s character.
When society shifts away from moral autonomy and instead judges people based on external categories—whether race, gender, ethnicity, or class—it erodes the very foundation of justice and individual dignity. Instead of allowing people to define themselves through their actions and values, identity politics forces them into predefined boxes, stripping them of the capacity for individual moral accountability. Unless we focus on a person’s choices rather than external attributes, we lose sight of what it means to be human.
Jacobsen: What about sociocultural and psychological antisemitism? Sociocultural antisemitism is somewhat more obvious—it manifests within governance systems, cultural norms, or ethnic groups that adhere to ideological frameworks that contain antipathy toward Jewish people. These systems may institutionalize antisemitism in policies, education, or legal structures, making it a deeply ingrained societal problem.
However, psychological antisemitism is a bit trickier to analyze. What do you make of the psychology of an antisemitic individual? You referenced earlier how difficult it is to know what to do with someone who has already adopted antisemitic beliefs, particularly when those beliefs have become deeply embedded in their worldview. Is there a way to truly deradicalize such individuals?
When I spoke with a counter-extremism and counter-terrorism expert who worked for CSIS (Canada’s intelligence agency) for 30 years, he was quite cynical about the prospect of fully rehabilitating former extremists. He expressed skepticism toward those who go on public speaking tours as reformed extremists, questioning whether any of them have truly abandoned their ideologies or if they change the way they present their beliefs.
Suppose antisemitism operates under a similar psychological framework as religious or political extremism. In that case, those who embrace it may never fully lose it. They might suppress it under social pressure or shift its form, but the underlying mentality could remain intact. What are your thoughts on whether antisemitism, once deeply ingrained, can ever be completely unlearned?
Tsukerman: I will start with the first element—sociocultural antisemitism—because culture plays a crucial role in shaping societal attitudes. Culture is more than just food, language, or identity; it influences social norms, governance, and how people perceive others. To take an extreme example, consider Gaza and the deep-rooted antisemitism that has developed over the decades. The issue is not whether every individual there supports Hamas—many people in Gaza disagree with Hamas, viewing it as corrupt and responsible for their suffering. However, this does not negate the fact that antisemitism has been systematically ingrained into the society. For decades, through media, education, and political propaganda, an ideology has been cultivated that promotes not just anti-Israel sentiment but outright hatred of Jews.
This indoctrination begins at a young age, with children being raised to view Jews not as individuals but as enemies. This kind of conditioning creates a deeply ingrained belief system that requires extensive and systematic effort to undo. It is not simply a matter of changing political leadership; it requires long-term psychological and cultural rehabilitation. We saw the effects of this indoctrination after October 7th, when masses of civilians voluntarily participated in attacks, following Hamas operatives into Israel and assisting in the abduction of civilians. Nobody forced them to do this, and they were not acting under direct coercion at that moment. Yet, they engaged in violence, cooperated with Hamas, and, in some cases, even took hostages into their own homes. Some went so far as to kill children from the Bibas family, demonstrating the extent of dehumanization that has taken hold.
Furthermore, when Israel issued reward offers for those willing to provide information on hostages or help them escape, not a single person came forward. This was shocking because even during Nazi Germany, there were non-Jewish civilians—righteous gentiles—who risked their lives to hide Jews or help them escape. Even in countries where collaborationism and antisemitism were widespread, individuals made moral choices to stand against injustice. Yet, in this case, there is no clear evidence that anyone in Gaza attempted to do the same. At best, some may not have directly participated in the violence, but they did not intervene. This reflects a severe moral breakdown—a level of societal dehumanization where war crimes and human rights abuses are not only normalized but celebrated. Such a collapse of basic human empathy indicates a deeply ingrained cultural problem that must be addressed for that society to function properly.
This leads directly to psychological antisemitism, which is even more difficult to counteract. Many individuals who harbour antisemitic beliefs may have never even met a Jewish person. They know they hate Jews, but they cannot articulate why. The hatred becomes instinctual, detached from reality, and embedded into their identity. At that point, it is no longer a rational belief but a deeply ingrained psychological disturbance. When an individual cannot separate their worldview from their hatred, they lose the ability to examine their own biases critically.
However, antisemitism does not always manifest in such extreme forms. Some individuals are simply ignorant—they have been fed misinformation or stereotypes without actively engaging in hateful behaviour. These people can sometimes be reached through education and exposure to accurate information. They may begin to question their biases if they encounter logical arguments or meet individuals who contradict their preconceived stereotypes. Over time, seeds of doubt can be planted, and they may shift their perspectives with the right exposure.
But once antisemitism reaches the level of fanaticism—when a person’s entire identity is built around that hatred—it becomes significantly harder to undo. If someone defines themselves primarily by their opposition to Jews, Israel, or Zionism, rational arguments alone may not be enough to break through that indoctrination. I cannot say such individuals can’t change; there are cases of people who have recognized the destructiveness of their beliefs and have worked to undo them. However, the deeper the indoctrination, the harder the path to deradicalization. It requires not just education but a fundamental transformation of worldview—something that many people may never fully achieve.
What would it take to undo antisemitic radicalization? I do not specialize in deradicalization, but it would require dismantling a person’s deeply ingrained identity—something that has likely been reinforced since childhood or embraced so fully later in life that it has become their primary lens for understanding the world. To truly reverse such an extreme worldview, the person would need to be psychologically broken down and forced to confront the realization that their foundational beliefs were entirely wrong. Only then could they rebuild their identity around something positive as a substitute. This kind of transformation is not merely an intellectual shift; it is a complete reorganization of mindset, especially when antisemitism has become a core part of someone’s identity.
There is, of course, a range of psychological engagement with antisemitism, just as there is with other belief systems. Someone who has been misinformed but has never internalized hatred may be able to change their perspective simply through education and exposure to different viewpoints. But someone whose entire identity is built on antisemitic ideology—whether due to upbringing or deliberate radicalization—requires a much deeper psychological shift. It is similar to mental health conditions: a person experiencing mild situational depression may recover with time and support, whereas someone with a clinically diagnosed condition may need intensive intervention. Similarly, some individuals may have been raised with the wrong ideas and never had proper exposure to alternative perspectives. In contrast, others have fully structured their identities around an antisemitic worldview. The latter group is far more difficult to reach and requires significant intervention to break down their ingrained biases.
Jacobsen: Soviet propaganda has been revised and rebranded over time. How has this happened in the current context? Was it done as a formal process, or has it evolved organically among ideological actors working in those spaces? How have narratives that closely mirror past Soviet propaganda emerged independently yet still align with the same conclusions and rhetoric?
Tsukerman: I would not say that these narratives emerged separately because Soviet intelligence agencies never truly disappeared, and neither did the tradition of information warfare they developed. Russian intelligence and propaganda operations have a five-hundred-year continuity, transitioning from the Tsarist era to the Soviet Union and now to contemporary Russian security agencies. Many of the narratives we see today are not new; they have been recycled, sometimes with slight modifications, but maintaining an unbroken ideological continuity.
A clear example of this rebranded propaganda is the blood libel, one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracies. In medieval times, the blood libel was the accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children for occult rituals. While this idea had largely faded in Western societies, it resurfaced in the Middle East thanks to Soviet intervention. The Soviets deliberately spread these narratives as part of their broader effort to destabilize the region and turn Arab nations against Israel. The modern iteration of the blood libel takes many forms: false claims that Jews poison Palestinian wells, that they target children specifically for violence, or that they carry out hidden acts of mass murder. Some of these accusations have even included reports of dead children who later turn out to be alive, showing the sheer fabrication involved in these claims.
Another modern rebranding of this concept involves Ukraine. A widely circulated antisemitic conspiracy theory alleges that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, is actively destroying Christian Orthodox churches or establishing “fake” religious institutions. The implication is that he is doing so because he is not Christian. Therefore, as a Jew, he is inherently hostile to Christianity.
However, the reality is entirely different. The actual issue in Ukraine is that Russia has used the Russian Orthodox Church as an instrument of intelligence and political influence. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not recognize these Russian-controlled churches, which Russian intelligence agencies have long infiltrated. Many ethnic Russians living in Ukraine also do not recognize these institutions as legitimate. As a result, Ukrainian authorities have treated them not as religious institutions but as fronts for security operations.
Despite the real security concerns at play, the antisemitic component of this propaganda seeks to frame Zelensky as an outsider, an imposter at the helm of the country, working to erase Christian tradition and target Christians. This rhetoric echoes centuries-old antisemitic tropes, now repackaged to fit contemporary geopolitical narratives. What we are witnessing is not new antisemitism but rather a continuous, evolving cycle of old conspiracy theories being adapted to new political contexts.
Tucker Carlson was one of the prominent figures amplifying these narratives using his large media platforms. His ability to inject these conspiratorial and antisemitic tropes into mainstream discourse has played a key role in their continued spread.
Jacobsen: Okay, so aside from one of the oldest and strangest antisemitic myths—the blood libel and ritual sacrifice—there’s also the claim that these ideas have somehow been linked to modern organ trafficking and underground cabals. It feels like stepping into a conversation that suddenly shifts into discussing realms, as if we’ve left reality and entered the world of J.R.R. Tolkien. It’s a strange thing. It’s so completely abnormal.
These theories exist in extremely closed-off informational bubbles, where people consume and reinforce the same extreme ideas. To fully buy into them, one has to be disconnected from reality and entrenched in these insulated ideological communities. One of the more bizarre ones you brought to my attention was about shapeshifting reptilian hybrids.
People have likely seen clips on conspiracy websites, particularly in the Alex Jones ecosystem or from David Icke himself. These clips often feature low-quality graphics where someone’s eyes momentarily appear reptilian—before returning to normal. It’s always minor, a digital artifact or a compression glitch, but the conspiratorial mindset takes it as proof. They look away, look back, and suddenly, Oh my God!—the person is back to normal.
But the deeper conspiracy, according to Icke and his followers, is that reptilian-human hybrids secretly control the world. In particular, conspiracists influenced by Icke claim that Jewish elites—most often the Rothschilds—are shapeshifting reptilian overlords. Their “evidence” includes completely mundane things, like someone licking their lips or blinking in a way they consider weird. Somehow, these minor actions become proof of an elaborate extraterrestrial conspiracy.
This theory merges elements of sci-fi, occultism, and classic antisemitic stereotypes, portraying Jews not just as scheming globalists but as literal non-human entities with supernatural abilities. It’s one of the strangest iterations of antisemitism—a tripartite fusion of xenophobia, fantasy, and age-old conspiracy theories.
This is different from traditional antisemitic tropes, like depicting Jews as money-hoarders as if dragons (à la Smaug) or using racist caricatures with exaggerated features like big noses and scheming hands. Instead, this version takes it even further, arguing that Jews are an entirely different species, controlling world events from the shadows.
What do you make of how David Icke’s ideas have been incorporated into these other conspiracy theories, creating this surreal blend of sci-fi occult antisemitism?
Tsukerman: The occult element in conspiracy theories is fascinating because it has been a recurring theme in both Soviet and early Russian propaganda, as well as in Nazi propaganda. Both ideologies had an unusual obsession with the occult. If you trace it back historically, during the Middle Ages, there was a widespread conspiracy theory that specifically accused Jews of being in league with the devil, practicing dark magic, and engaging in sinister rituals.
The blood libel was a major part of this, as demonic rituals were often believed to require blood sacrifices or the use of human blood to summon supernatural entities. While the premise is completely irrational, this madness has an internal logic. It builds on the portrayal of Jews as outsiders who do not fit into society but instead act as chameleons—blending in while secretly working toward global domination. This theme is closely tied to other so-called traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as those about Jewish elites hoarding money and power.
Then there is the third element, which claims that Jews, particularly wealthy or influential ones, are shapeshifting—both metaphorically and literally. The metaphorical version argues that Jewish elites manipulate society by adapting to different roles and disguising their true intentions to deceive the public. The more extreme and bizarre version of this is the reptilian conspiracy theory, which has been folded into modern conspiratorial subcultures, particularly among followers of QAnon, pseudoscience, and conspiracy fiction. Some argue that David Icke’s reptilian theory was inherently antisemitic from the beginning, as it aligns with these older tropes about Jewish deception, global control, and non-human status.
You may have heard the common joke about Mark Zuckerberg being a lizard person. It became a meme, especially after his congressional hearings related to Meta and Facebook. I assumed it was just a joke about his somewhat robotic demeanour when I first heard it. But when I connected it back to Icke’s reptilian theory, I realized that these ideas had started infiltrating mainstream discourse. What began as a fringe, bizarre conspiracy theory started affecting certain individuals’ perceptions.
This phenomenon has gained a significant cult following. Many people are deeply engaged in these conspiracy circles—not just JFK conspiracy theorists but those involved in much weirder, more outlandish theories. The reptilian myth has influenced a wide range of online conspiracy subcultures, including QAnon and UFO enthusiasts. Interestingly, despite being commonly associated with those circles, QAnon is not strictly a right-wing movement—it has cross-sectional political appeal. Meanwhile, the UFO subculture has transformed from being a niche sci-fi fascination, once dismissed as nerds in their parent’s basements, into something the Pentagon and other government agencies have officially discussed over the past few years.
In the UK, an entire division is now focused on analyzing whether some of these claims have merit. This shift into official discussions has fueled more speculation. Intelligence agencies have conducted bizarre experiments in the past—take Project MKUltra in the 1960s, for example—and the Soviet Union had its equivalent programs. Many conspiracy theories today harken back to an anti-intelligence agency mindset, drawing from real historical operations while incorporating wildly exaggerated and fictional elements.
All of this ultimately ties back into the shapeshifting global elite myth. David Icke is not just seen as an eccentric conspiracy theorist making up bizarre stories for a living—many see him as a tool, possibly being used by foreign powers to push these narratives into mainstream discourse deliberately. Whether intentionally or not, his ideas have contributed to the spread of antisemitic, anti-establishment, and deeply conspiratorial thinking on a global scale.
There is strong evidence that conspiracy theories, particularly those with antisemitic undertones, have a high degree of acceptance in Russia. This is an important factor to consider because it ties into a broader history of racial and eugenics-based antisemitism that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period, pseudoscientific racial theories falsely claimed that Jews had genetic traits that made them inherently deceptive or subversive. Nazi ideology took this to its extreme, using fabricated biological classifications to label Jews and other groups as genetically inferior, contributing directly to the Holocaust.
This same thread of pseudoscience has continued to evolve in modern conspiracy circles. One of the strange mutations of these theories involves the claim that Jewish elites are involved in genetic experiments aimed at altering human DNA. This is often linked to transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and the biotech industry. It is also tied into anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, with accusations that Jewish scientists or financiers are manipulating human genetics for nefarious purposes. These ideas are completely unfounded but persist in various subcultures that view scientific advancement through a paranoid, conspiratorial lens.
And who frequently comes up in these transhumanist conspiracy theories? Elon Musk, alongside a few other high-profile tech billionaires. While I am not suggesting that Musk himself subscribes to QAnon, occult accusations, or theories about a so-called satanic cabal, there are certainly people within these ideological circles who try to connect him to these narratives. Different subcultures—ranging from QAnon supporters to transhumanist skeptics—intersect unexpectedly. The transhumanist billionaires and the QAnon crowd are not necessarily the same people, but their beliefs overlap in certain areas.
For instance, former General Mike Flynn, a prominent QAnon figure, is not a transhumanist. Still, he aligns closely with figures like Musk, Tucker Carlson, and current and former Trump officials. Despite their ideological differences, all of these conspiracy narratives seem to converge on antisemitic tropes, whether through overt accusations or more subtle dog whistles. Even when these theories have different angles—whether they focus on global finance, artificial intelligence, or biotech—they all somehow end up reinforcing the same core antisemitic narratives.
Jacobsen: Now, here is something I did not know before. The only time I have heard the term golem was in Star Trek: Picard, in one of the later seasons, maybe season two. In that storyline, Picard dies, but his consciousness is transferred into an artificial golem body, allowing him to live on despite his degenerative illness.
A conspiracy theory centred around the golem, twisting its origins in Jewish legend. In traditional Jewish folklore, a golem was a mystical creature made from clay to protect Jewish communities from danger. However, modern conspiracy theorists have warped this legend into something sinister, claiming that Jews possess the ability to create artificial, soulless beings that they use to control the masses.
What the hell is going on?
Tsukerman: This is yet another iteration of the same conspiratorial framework—one that takes elements of Jewish mysticism, particularly from Kabbalah, and weaponizes them against Jews. These conspiracies mix religious esotericism with occult paranoia, reinforcing the narrative that Jews are secretive manipulators of dark forces.
I am not going to comment on whether Kabbalah has any legitimacy as a mystical or spiritual tradition, but what is clear is that antisemitic conspiracy theorists have used it to fuel fears about hidden Jewish power. This is part of a broader historical pattern of distorting Jewish religious and cultural concepts to fit an antisemitic agenda.
At its core, this fearmongering is about othering—taking something poorly understood and turning it into a source of suspicion and paranoia. These conspiracies deny the moral foundations of Jewish traditions and instead try to project some form of Jewish supremacism onto them. The idea that Jews see themselves as a chosen people is deliberately twisted to suggest that they view non-Jews as inferior or disposable.
Ultimately, all of these narratives—from medieval blood libel myths to modern golem conspiracies—stem from the same fundamental antisemitic fear: the belief that Jews possess secret knowledge or power that they use to manipulate the world. It is the same myth, recycled repeatedly and adapted to different historical and cultural contexts.
There is an underlying oppressor-oppressed narrative woven through all of these conspiracy theories, but at this point, it is not necessarily confined to a left-wing ideological framework. It is a broader pattern of scaffolding—where an entire group is falsely vilified—because acknowledging that a group of people follows a moral tradition based on enlightened principles would undermine the dehumanization that fuels these conspiratorial movements.
This is not just a political issue but a deeply rooted ethical, moral, and philosophical struggle. The projection of Jews as demonic is not new; it is simply another way to carry out smear campaigns and character assassination against an entire people and their traditions. This narrative has morphed, adapting to different historical and cultural moments. Still, ultimately, it has always been about power.
One could argue that people who fall for these conspiracy theories have something inherently wrong with them—that they are mentally unstable or overly prone to fantastical thinking. But those who actively push these narratives into the mainstream are not deluded. They know exactly what they are doing. They deliberately inject these bizarre elements—references to dark forces, magic, demons, elite manipulation—because they are effective tools for fear-mongering. Their goal is to manipulate the uneducated masses, fueling paranoia to serve a larger ideological or political agenda.
Today, we still see people rejecting modern science in favour of pseudoscience. Some individuals, instead of seeking proper cancer treatment, turn to crystals and spiritual healing—not because they are enlightened, but because they lack a scientific education. Suppose people in the 21st century can still fall for such obvious misinformation. In that case, it is no surprise that they also fall for these mishmash conspiracy theories about Jewish control.
One of the strangest developments is how the golem—originally a protective figure in Jewish folklore—has been distorted in modern antisemitic narratives. In these conspiracy circles, the golem has been recast as a symbol of non-Jews—the so-called goyim nations—being manipulated by Jewish elites. Jews, according to this narrative, are shaping non-Jews into puppets and controlling them from behind the scenes. This theme connects back to classic antisemitic myths about Jews orchestrating global events, from the stock market crash to 9/11 to the Russian Revolution. It is just another repackaging of the same old accusation—that Jews secretly pull the strings of world affairs.
But here is where it takes an even more bizarre turn. The golem myth has now been linked to AI technology and media influence. Conspiracists claim that Jews are using machines and social structures as modern-day golems to control society. They link this to AI development, singularity, and transhumanism—specifically, implanting neural chips in human brains. The claim is that Jewish elites are leading these advancements as part of a grand plan to manipulate and dominate the world.
It is beyond absurd. But what makes it even more ironic is that many of the same people who accuse Jews of promoting transhumanist agendas are also the ones actively participating in those same movements. The biggest globalists—the tech billionaires pushing transhumanism—are, in a sense, globalists by definition. Yet, they tend to align with the very people who blame Jews for being globalists. It is a contradiction that reveals the fundamentally incoherent nature of these conspiracy theories.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about the claims regarding Jewish people or Israel, particularly the accusations about Jewish control of the weather.
This sounds eerily similar to the earlier conspiracy theories about space lasers. Still, in this case, it includes claims that Jews can cause earthquakes, trigger hurricanes, and even manipulate weather patterns for political or financial gain. It would be hilarious if it weren’t for the underlying real antisemitism and racism behind it.
One of the most well-known proponents of this theory was Louis Farrakhan, who suggested that Israel had the power to create hurricanes. That’s a recent precedent for this nonsense within our collective memory. When a prominent figure within the Nation of Islam makes such claims, it influences his community. It lends a dangerous level of credibility to something that should be dismissed outright.
What are your thoughts on this?
Tsukerman: Like many antisemitic myths, this one originated in medieval Europe. Jewish communities were often accused of causing natural disasters, plagues, and famines, usually as a pretext for persecution.
One of the more ironic aspects of this history is that during the Black Plague, Jews had lower death rates than the general population. But the reason was not supernatural—it was hygienic. Jewish laws and rituals included regular hand washing, which was uncommon in Europe then. Because of this, their mortality rates were sometimes lower, which led to wild accusations of witchcraft and sorcery. People could not comprehend why Jews weren’t dying at the same rates, so instead of thinking logically, they resorted to conspiracy theories.
Additionally, Jewish dietary laws contributed to higher survival rates. Rats, which were the primary carriers of the plague, were not kosher, and Jewish households generally avoided contact with them. Kosher food laws also required strict cleanliness to avoid contamination by insects or diseases. These factors likely played a role in reducing plague deaths among Jewish communities. But rather than investigating the practical reasons behind this, people blamed the Jews. They used it as an excuse for further persecution.
Another factor contributed to the weather-related myths. Jewish prayers often include requests for rain, particularly because Judaism originated in arid climates where rain was crucial for survival. When Jews migrated to other regions, these prayers remained part of their tradition. However, in deeply superstitious societies, some people likely believed that these prayers had an actual effect on the weather, leading to myths about Jewish control over nature.
Fast-forward to today and these ridiculous myths have never disappeared—they have just been updated for a modern audience. Instead of medieval superstition, they have been repackaged into pseudoscientific and technological narratives about climate change.
Of course, Louis Farrakhan remains one of the most vocal modern figures spreading this nonsense. Whether he believes his claims or finds it convenient to push these ideas for political and ideological reasons is unclear, but the impact is undeniable.
Another example of these weather-control conspiracies involves the Rothschild family, who have long been central figures in antisemitic myths about Jewish control of banking and global finance. Even after many Rothschild descendants ceased to be Jewish—because of intermarriage with non-Jewish families—the conspiracy theories persisted. In reality, the Rothschilds were just one of many prominent banking families. Still, because they were Jewish, they became the primary target of these myths.
One particularly bizarre claim suggests that the Rothschilds funded secret weather control programs. The supposed program, HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is a real government research project that studies the ionosphere. Still, conspiracy theorists have turned it into a Jewish-led initiative for controlling the weather. The name itself sounds like something out of Ghostbusters, which only adds to the absurdity of the theory.
Then, of course, we have the infamous Jewish space lasers. U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene promoted the idea that Jewish-funded space lasers were responsible for wildfires in California. It is yet another modern iteration of these age-old conspiracies—just repackaged with science-fiction aesthetics to appeal to contemporary conspiracy theorists.
At the core of all these narratives—whether about plague, weather, financial control, or space lasers—is the same underlying antisemitic trope: the idea that Jews possess secret, supernatural, or technological power that they use to manipulate world events. It’s the same myth, repeated over and over again, just dressed up in a new language to fit the fears of the time.
It was in 2021, years before the latest wildfires. I’m afraid to think what conspiracy theorists will come up with next if even fewer wildfires were blamed on Jewish space lasers. U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene implied that elite Jewish bankers—continuing the longstanding trope about the Rothschilds—were involved in using directed energy weapons to cause environmental disruption for profit. This follows a pattern of antisemitic conspiracy theories that frame Jewish individuals or entities as secret global manipulators.
Some people have taken these ideas even further, not just blaming Jews broadly—whatever that means—but specifically accusing Israel of possessing secret technology to manipulate the weather for strategic advantage.
For example, in 2018, Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, an Iranian general, accused Israel of “stealing rain clouds” to cause droughts despite scientific evidence refuting such claims. In reality, Iran’s droughts are caused by climate change and severe environmental mismanagement, including the overuse of water resources, inefficient irrigation practices, deforestation, and the construction of dams that disrupt natural river systems. Rather than any external interference, these factors have significantly contributed to water shortages.
Cloud seeding is a scientifically studied technique to enhance precipitation. However, it is not a secret or exclusive to any one country. Ironically, the United Arab Emirates has been one of the leading nations in cloud seeding research, alongside China, the United States, and Russia. There is no credible evidence linking Israel—or Jewish organizations—to covert global weather manipulation. Cloud seeding involves dispersing silver iodide or sodium chloride into clouds to encourage rainfall. However, it is not a form of weather control like conspiracy theorists claim; it cannot cause droughts, hurricanes, or other major climate phenomena.
The practice remains controversial, with ongoing debates about its effectiveness and potential long-term climatic impacts. However, it is linked to multiple governments and scientific institutions operating within the framework of regulated meteorological research. While having greater control over weather patterns could theoretically be advantageous, humanity is nowhere near developing precise, large-scale weather control technologies. Some cloud seeding attempts have even produced unintended consequences, including excessive rainfall or failure to produce significant precipitation.
Despite the scientific facts, conspiracy theories persist. Why do such ideas persist, even when there is clear evidence that they are either entirely false or grossly misrepresented?
Several key factors drive their persistence:
- Mistrust of Science and Government – Many conspiracy theorists distrust anything related to climate science, dismissing it as politically motivated or controlled by hidden elites.
- Skepticism toward scientific explanations—Some people gravitate toward more fantastical, emotionally compelling explanations rather than accepting evidence-based reasoning.
- Antisemitic Tropes – There is a long history of antisemitic narratives depicting Jews as secretive global orchestrators of political and financial power. The Rothschild family, in particular, has been falsely accused for centuries of manipulating world events despite clear historical evidence debunking such claims.
- Social Media and Disinformation – The rise of social media algorithms has allowed misinformation to spread at unprecedented speeds, pushing extremist narratives into mainstream discourse. What once existed in fringe communities is now amplified worldwide, reinforcing existing biases and paranoia.
Jacobsen: I am shocked by how much nonsense is still being spread. Some conspiracy theorists go as far as to claim that the Rothschild family is connected to space-based weaponry or energy beams supposedly used for global Jewish domination. These claims are frequently intertwined with Illuminati, Freemason, and mind-control conspiracies, often targeting Ashkenazi Jews in particular.
Why is this subgroup singled out? Likely because Ashkenazi Jews make up the largest Jewish population worldwide and have historically been prominent in intellectual, scientific, and cultural achievements. This visibility makes them frequent targets for those who believe in secret global power structures.
These conspiracy theories often involve symbols, numerology, and coded gestures, claiming that these elements are evidence of covert world manipulation. However, such ideas are nothing more than modern iterations of centuries-old antisemitic myths repackaged for the digital age.
They claim that there are mind control techniques used to influence societies—whether through messaging in media, entertainment, or education. This is a more complex issue. I’m sure there are Freemasons out there who would probably find these claims hilarious. Let it be because there aren’t that many Freemasons in the world.
There are Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, and other Freemasons. The primary requirements for joining the Freemasons are to be part of the brotherhood and believe in God. Those are the two main conditions. Ironically, for a long time, Freemasons were mostly Christian and did not have much Jewish representation.
Tsukerman: The reason Freemasonry is often linked to conspiracy theories is that there is a longstanding tradition of combining antisemitism with myths about secret societies, claiming that shadowy elites manipulate world events.
It is a classic conspiracy theory that there is a “shadow state” or “deep state,” or some secret cabal of globalist leaders pulling the strings. One of the biggest contributing factors to this narrative is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This fabricated text incorporated Masonic symbolism and themes, falsely linking Jews and Freemasons as co-conspirators in a global plot.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a significant wave of anti-Masonic hysteria. Freemasons were accused—separately from Jews—of being a secretive, subversive force simply because they were an exclusive group that the general public didn’t understand. It was easier to blame mysterious societies for societal upheavals than to analyze the realcauses—such as wars waged by European monarchs, economic crises, and political turmoil.
Ironically, European monarchies and the Catholic Church were particularly suspicious of Masonic groups and often linked them to Jewish financiers.
Why? Because they couldn’t control them. Ironically, Jewish financiers were major contributors to European monarchies—funding wars, infrastructure, and economic ventures. However, monarchs who owed them money found it convenient to demonize them, blaming them for secretive plots rather than repaying their debts. This also prevented Jewish financiers from gaining too much political influence.
Another major conspiracy theory revolves around the Illuminati, a relatively short-lived Bavarian secret society. Over time, it was folded into larger conspiracy theories, often connected to Jews, Masons, and world domination.
In the 20th century, Nazi propaganda amplified these theories. The Nazis promoted the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, falsely blaming Jews and Freemasons for both capitalism and communism, as well as for Germany’s economic struggles.
Why? Because it was easy and convenient. The theory played into existing antisemitic Nazi imagery, which was obsessed with the occult, secret societies, and hidden power structures. Additionally, because the Nazis were National Socialists, they shared some of the same conspiracy theories that had circulated elsewhere.
It’s easier to repeat past tropes than to come up with something original. Once a conspiracy theory is established and gains traction in the public consciousness, it doesn’t need to be reinvented. Instead, it can be recycled and rebranded for new audiences, reigniting old fears and prejudices.
Francisco Franco in Spain and Benito Mussolini also made similar claims to justify political repression. However, while they promoted authoritarian control, they were not as obsessed with the destruction of world Jewry as the Nazis were. Nevertheless, they leveraged antisemitic rhetoric to rally public support, even when it was not always necessary against actual Jewish communities.
In the 20th century and today, far-right and other online conspiracy theorists continue to make similar claims, suggesting that Jews, Freemasons, the Illuminati, Lizard People, and other shadowy groups control governments, banks, and the media. These theories often ignore basic contradictions—such as the fact that many of the world’s largest banks are not controlled by Jews.
For instance, some of the biggest financial backers of Western institutions today are not Jewish financiers but the government of Qatar, which has made massive investments in Western banks, media organizations, and real estate. However, this fact is not convenient for conspiracy theorists, so they ignore it.
Jacobsen: Now, here’s one I hadn’t heard of before, but it seems relevant—the claim that Jews possess time travel technology. According to this bizarre theory, Jewish people allegedly have ancient knowledge or have discovered ways to bend time using advanced physics to control world history. Some versions of this claim even involve manipulating quantum mechanics to shift historical events in their favour. I have no words for how absurd this is. But what are your thoughts?
Tsukerman: These theories fold into broader antisemitic myths that portray Jews as having hidden power over society, science, and technology. Ironically, the same people who most aggressively accuse Jews of such control are often the ones obsessed with acquiring these powers for themselves.
For example, this idea of Jewish control over time sometimes takes a metaphorical form. Essentially, Jews control history through media, education, and cultural influence. Holocaust denial is one of the biggest examples of this, with conspiracy theorists claiming that historical narratives are manipulated to serve Jewish interests. More recently, Inquisition denial has emerged in similar circles, claiming that persecution of Jews in medieval Europe is exaggerated.
For obvious reasons, this is such an enormous stretch that it has not gained mainstream traction. Instead, it mostly appears in far-right and esoteric conspiracy circles, where people peddle claims of Jewish manipulation of reality. These ideas draw on science fiction themes, blending into conspiracy theories about Lizard People, interdimensional beings, and other fringe beliefs.
Another variation is the idea of Jewish control over global travel and borders. You can imagine how this conspiracy theory exploded during COVID-19 when global travel restrictions were imposed. Some conspiracy theorists claimed that Jews controlled airports, visa systems, and international travel regulations as part of a global dominance strategy. What people can invent and how little evidence they need to persuade others to buy into their nonsense is astonishing.
Some of the same people who push these theories also claim that Jewish-owned banks and organizations dictate global migration patterns and engineer geopolitical crises for financial gain. This theory resurfaced around major financial crises, such as the 2008 financial collapse.
During the Occupy Wall Street movement, some people within those circles were influenced by these ideas—not all, but certain segments. The 9/11 financial conspiracy theories also played into this, with claims that Jews benefited financially from the attacks. This claim is both false and rooted in classic antisemitic tropes.
Those patterns—essentially, the same old antisemitic narratives repackaged in different forms. The connection between space and time and Jewish mysticism is interesting because it blends Kabbalah, the Golem legend, and pseudoscientific claims about time and space manipulation.
Some stem from pop culture adaptations and misinterpretations of Jewish mystical traditions. The Zohar and other Kabbalistic texts discuss divine time and spiritual dimensions. Still, conspiracy theorists twist these ideas to claim evidence of real-world time control.
These people, of course, don’t know what they’re talking about. They misinterpret Jewish religious and philosophical texts, bending them to fit conspiratorial narratives while ignoring historical reality. Instead of studying these traditions properly, they favour pseudoscience, sci-fi speculation, outrageous claims, and outright fabrications.
This also ties into the broader conspiracy that Jewish elites are supposedly infiltrating and taking over secret societies. The claim is not that Jews exist in these spaces but rather that they are infiltrating, dominating, and controlling them from within.
Part of this stems from a tendency to look for scapegoats to explain economic and political instability. Elites—especially Jewish elites—become the most convenient targets for such blame.
Jacobsen: Conspiracies in this space tend to be split into two broad categories:
- Scientific or pseudoscientific theories
- Pseudospiritual theories
Both are tied to antisemitic racism and are rooted in longstanding prejudices. On the pseudoscientific side, one of the most prominent conspiracy theories is about sinister genetic experiments aimed at creating a super-race or altering vaccines, food, and pharmaceuticals to control populations.
This theory often merges with anti-vaccine movements, falsely claiming that Jewish billionaires, such as George Soros or executives at Pfizer, are engineering biological control mechanisms.
That’s the pseudoscientific side. The pseudospiritual side involves concepts like energy vampirism and demonic possession.
- The energy vampirism claim suggests that Jews drain the life force or energy of others, either physically or metaphorically, by controlling economies, spreading despair through mass media, or influencing global events.
- The demonic possession claim is pushed by religious extremists, who allege that Jews possess demons, are possessed by demons, or work with Satanic forces to corrupt the world.
- Some evangelical circles even claim that Jews secretly control the Antichrist or that the Devil uses them as his agents on Earth.
What are your thoughts on these two categories—the pseudoscientific theories and the pseudospiritual ones?
Tsukerman: The genetic conspiracy theories are particularly interesting because they project onto Jews the very things that the Nazis and Soviets themselves did.
One of the biggest false claims is that Jews engaged in selective breeding or genetic manipulation to strengthen their influence or purity. But let’s be clear:
- Jews did not do this.
- Who did? The Germans and the Soviets.
The people who accused Jews of engaging in eugenics and genetic manipulation were the very ones doing it themselves.
Yes, some Jewish communities have historically been insular and did not marry outside their faith for cultural and religious reasons. However, they never engaged in eugenic breeding programs or genetic experiments—aside from medical testing for genetic illnesses, which is common in any population with a long history of close-knit communities.
As is often the case with antisemitic conspiracy theories, these claims blame the victims while projecting the real actions of others onto them.
- Under the Nazis, Jews were falsely labelled genetically inferior and subjected to eugenics programs, forced sterilizations, and medical experiments in concentration camps.
- After Hitler came to power, Jews became victims of racial purity laws that sought to eliminate them.
Yet, conspiracy theorists, today twist history to make it seem as if Jews were the one’s engineering eugenics programs when, in reality, they were the primary victims of such policies.
We are seeing a lot of Russian conspiracy theories, particularly those rooted in Soviet disinformation tactics, which continue to shape narratives today. These aren’t just about Jews, but about how the Soviet Union—and now contemporary Russia—accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing first. This is partly because they believe everyone operates the way they do—that if they engage in certain actions, so must their adversaries. It is also a deliberate propaganda tactic, allowing them to deflect criticism by accusing others preemptively. Other authoritarian regimes and political groups have now adopted the same approach worldwide.
One prominent example of this is the claim that Jews are involved in genetic engineering projects to manipulate global populations or to create biological advantages exclusive to Jewish people. This surfaced heavily during COVID-19 when conspiracy theorists falsely claimed that the virus somehow spared Ashkenazi Jews. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., despite positioning himself as pro-Israel, was among those spreading this baseless theory. The irony is that he now holds influence over public health discussions despite having peddled such unscientific and antisemitic narratives.
Jacobsen: I often discuss these issues with Muslim, Jewish, and secular friends, many of whom are highly qualified in geopolitics, Jewish affairs, and related fields. These individuals possess deep knowledge in their respective fields. Yet, despite their expertise, we all arrive at the same frustrating conclusion: the sheer stupidity of it all. Every day brings new exasperating conspiracies; no matter how absurd they get, they keep spreading.
And if you think it stops there, it doesn’t. Some conspiracy theorists take it even further, claiming that Jews were not just immune to COVID-19 but actively created bioweapons targeting non-Jewish populations. This is an escalation of the earlier claim—suggesting that Israel has developed bioweapons specifically designed to target certain ethnic groups.
Tsukerman: This theory is directly linked to Soviet disinformation and follows the classic KGB playbook. This particular bioweapon conspiracy theory is a Soviet creation, which has been actively disseminated across the Muslim and Arab world, as well as other regions where the Soviet Union once had substantial ideological influence. It has resurfaced in different forms but follows the same core structure—a fabricated accusation used to delegitimize and vilify Jewish communities.
Another longstanding genetic conspiracy theory is the Khazar theory. This false claim, which is extremely common in the Arab and Muslim world, alleges that Ashkenazi Jews are not “real Jews” but rather descendants of the Turkic Khazars. Some extremists use this theory to argue that modern Jews have no legitimate claim to Jewish ancestry or Israel.
While it is true that a small group of Khazars converted to Judaism in the medieval period, this has no connection to the mainstream Jewish population. Jewish law permits converts from any ethnic background. Once someone converts, they are fully Jewish—just like those born into Jewish families. The Khazar theory is a deliberate attempt to delegitimize Jewish identity and their historical connection to the Middle East. It is also an attempt to undermine the argument for Jewish indigeneity in Israel despite overwhelming genetic and historical evidence showing that even Ashkenazi Jews share deep Middle Eastern ancestry.
Then there is the particularly bizarre claim that Jews have genetically modified their DNA for intelligence, longevity, or financial success. This conspiracy suggests that Jewish success is not due to cultural or historical factors but instead to deliberate genetic manipulation—implying sinister, unnatural motives behind Jewish achievements.
At its core, this conspiracy theory is driven by envy. It echoes classic antisemitic stereotypes, portraying Jews as hyper-intelligent, manipulative, and controlling. It is far from a benign narrative—it is actively harmful and promotes dangerous misconceptions.
Fortunately, not many people take this idea seriously—at least, not yet. But in today’s digital age, anything can be amplified. The risk is that such conspiracies fuel hate crimes, violence, and targeted attacks against Jewish communities. These theories are actively promoted by neo-Nazi groups, white supremacists, extremist online forums, and, of course, Russian state-run media.
Some Russian-backed media outlets have specifically spread the false claim that Jewish genetic manipulation is tied to political control. This follows a familiar pattern, where Russia amplifies and exports antisemitic conspiracy theories to destabilize societies and sow distrust. These fabrications serve political agendas but can have real-world consequences, especially when they inspire violence and systemic discrimination.
The “Jewish energy vampire” conspiracy theory is yet another variation of longstanding antisemitic myths, which portray Jews as parasitic, exploitative, and draining the resources of others. This concept has been recycled repeatedly, and guess who loved this version of it? Hitler. He described Jews as vermin and framed them as exploitative parasites. However, in his case, he meant it literally, not just metaphorically.
The energy vampire narrative takes this further, diving into occult conspiracies found in both Nazi ideology and Soviet-era disinformation. Some extremists and conspiracy theorists believe in the literal concept of an energy vampire—someone who drains life force or spiritual energy from others. This belief has deep roots in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the USSR, these ideas reemerged in Russia’s post-Soviet instability.
After the Soviet Union broke apart, there was an explosion of pseudoscience and frauds posing as spiritual healers. A prime example is Anatoly Kashpirovsky, a psychic healer who claimed to energize water by staring at it. People were encouraged to drink this “charged” water to heal illnesses. This sounds absurd, but I saw these people in action—it was a real phenomenon.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, if some charged water with good energy, there had to be energy vampires—people who drained energy with bad mojo. These ideas morphed into broader conspiracy culture, blending with occult narratives and modern internet-driven myths that thrive in conspiracy forums and social media spaces.
The roots of this conspiracy go back to the medieval blood libel—one of the oldest antisemitic myths in history. Jews were falsely accused of kidnapping and draining the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes. The “energy vampire” claim is simply a modernized version of this lie, arguing that Jews metaphorically drain the life force of non-Jews.
Today, antisemitic conspiracy theorists claim that Jews drain nations through financial manipulation, banking control, or globalist agendas. These accusations are often directed at figures like the Rothschilds or professions with significant Jewish representation, such as lawyers, psychologists, and doctors.
Some conspiracy theorists merge occult symbolism with antisemitism, creating paranormal adaptations of old myths. They claim that Jews are not only energy vampires in a metaphorical sense but also spiritually or psychically draining the life force of others. And, of course, we have David Icke, who popularized the reptilian shapeshifter conspiracy—another wild antisemitic claim.
According to Icke, much of the Jewish elite and their allies possess supernatural energy-draining abilities. Honestly, where was this guy all my life? He should be making Hollywood horror films, not spewing nonsense conspiracy theories.
Many people think QAnon is just about child sex trafficking and Pizzagate, but in reality, it has absorbed and adapted antisemitic myths into New Age spiritual frameworks.
QAnon followers believe in a vast network of global elites, and their ideas go far beyond claims about pedophiles in Hollywood and Washington. Some insist that Hollywood bankers and media moguls are part of a life-force-draining elite, echoing classic antisemitic propaganda repackaged for the digital age.
This is no longer just about accusing people of sex crimes—now it’s about accusing them of being energy vampires. This claim is completely dehumanizing, reinforcing the ignorance, conspiracy thinking, and paranoia that fuels radicalization.
Historically, these types of accusations have led to pogroms, expulsions, and genocides. What’s particularly dangerous now is how these ideas have merged with occult and paranormal themes, making them more appealing to broader audiences—not just traditional hate groups and far-right extremists but also New Age spiritualists, UFO believers, and conspiracy enthusiasts.
These narratives mainstream antisemitism beyond the usual hate groups, drawing in people who may not initially hold antisemitic beliefs but become indoctrinated through exposure to these conspiracy-driven subcultures.
And that’s the real danger: once antisemitic myths enter alternative communities, they gain legitimacy among people who don’t see themselves as racists or extremists. This allows old hate to be repackaged for new audiences, keeping antisemitic conspiracies alive for yet another generation.
Jacobsen: The first time I heard this was as a joke—a risky joke, nonetheless—in a recent Dave Chappelle comedy special on Netflix. He mentioned “space Jews” as part of a routine. Where does this come from?
Tsukerman: Chappelle used the phrase “space Jews” as a joke, making a sideways commentary about Israel and Palestine. It was a play on words, referencing Jews and space travel, but with an underlying political message. Some took it as a lighthearted jab, while others saw coded language reinforcing antisemitic stereotypes.
Regarding the concept behind the joke, Chappelle references a sci-fi movie trope—one where an oppressed group leaves their homeland, gains advanced technology, and returns to reclaim it. He applied this idea to Jewish history and Israel’s establishment, making the argument that Jews “left,” modernized, and then returned and took over everything.
The problem with this analogy is that it reinforces classic antisemitic stereotypes—depicting Jews as secretive, powerful, controlling, and manipulative. The Israel-Palestinian parallel in the joke played into the common misconception that Israel was an all-powerful military force crushing an underdog when, in reality, Israel’s early survival was far from assured.
The historical context matters. At the time of Israel’s establishment, multiple Arab armies attacked from all sides. The Arab states actively opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, not because they supported Palestinians, but because they did not want Israel to exist at all.
Meanwhile, Israel received little outside help. The Czechoslovak government provided some weapons, later France became an ally, and only much later did the United States become Israel’s strongest supporter. Israel was militarily outnumbered at its founding but benefited from better strategy and organization. At the same time, the Arab forces were highly disorganized.
So, the idea that Israel was an overwhelming force from the start is historically inaccurate. That’s why some Jewish groups found Chappelle’s joke misleading, if not outright harmful.
Chappelle later claimed he was not being antisemitic, but the joke sparked controversy because many saw it as dog-whistling—using coded language to convey antisemitic stereotypes without stating them outright.
This led to a broader debate about intent versus impact. Was Chappelle actively spreading antisemitic ideas, or was he provoking discussion through satire? Even if he didn’t mean harm, did his words reinforce dangerous conspiracy theories?
Jewish organizations largely viewed the joke as, at best, distasteful and insensitive and, at worst, perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Meanwhile, free speech advocates defended him, arguing that comedians should be able to challenge societal issues.
Netflix stood by Chappelle, continuing to support his specials, but the free speech argument here is not about whether he had the right to say it—of course, he did. The real question is whether he used stereotypes instead of thoughtful critique to discuss a real conflict.
Was he helping free speech or promoting misinformation and reinforcing negative stereotypes? That was the bigger issue.
That’s why “space Jews” became a flashpoint in debates about antisemitism, free speech, and the role of comedy in social critique. It raised questions about which jokes are appropriate, which are antisemitic, and which are harmless ribbing based on cultural archetypes.
Some argued that the joke was provocative but valid, while others believed it was dangerous and contributed to antisemitism.
What would be most interesting, though, is if anyone has measured the impact of that joke on public attitudes toward Jews and Israel. Did it increase antisemitic beliefs? Did it reinforce stereotypes? Without hard data, it isn’t easy to gauge the real-world consequences beyond immediate backlash and commentary from advocacy groups.
Shortly after the “space Jews” controversy, Chappelle hosted Saturday Night Live in November 2022 and addressed Kanye West’s antisemitic comments. Kanye West is unquestionably antisemitic—his statements about Jews align directly with classic antisemitic tropes. The only people who downplayed his remarks were his staunchest supporters, like Candace Owens.
During his SNL monologue, Chappelle referenced Kanye’s antisemitic rants, which included accusations about Jewish control of media and finance. These ideas aren’t new—they are deeply rooted in centuries-old antisemitic propaganda. And yet, rather than directly condemning Kanye, Chappelle’s monologue walked a fine line, making light of Jewish influence in media while mocking how openly Kanye said it. This divided public opinion again. Some saw it as calling out antisemitism, while others believed he was normalizing it by laughing it off.
This remains a key example of how comedy can blur the line between critique and harmful reinforcement. Whether Chappelle intended it or not, his remarks became part of a larger conversation about how antisemitic narratives spread, evolve, and become mainstreamed through cultural discourse.
These are mainstream examples of classic antisemitism. Chappelle mocked Kanye’s approach, opening his monologue by acknowledging antisemitism in all its forms before saying, “And that, Kanye, is how you buy yourself some time.”
He then joked that Kanye had broken the rules of show business, implying that openly criticizing Jewish influence leads to consequences. Some viewed this as a satirical critique of antisemitic conspiracies, while others believed he was reinforcing and endorsing them.
There was also a broader debate about how Hollywood handles antisemitism compared to other forms of bigotry. Some critics argued that Hollywood is more permissive toward antisemitism, citing how figures like Mel Gibson—who made overtly antisemitic remarks—were eventually allowed to return. At the same time, those accused of racism against Black or other marginalized groups often faced permanent ostracization.
Many Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), criticized Chappelle for normalizing the idea that Jews control industries. Others argued that Chappelle was provocative, not hateful, using comedy to expose contradictions.
Regardless, Netflix continued to support Chappelle, as we know. But figures like Simon Howard saw his remarks as part of a growing normalization of antisemitic rhetoric. As for Kanye West, I don’t think I need to recite the full litany of pro-Hitler, anti-Jewish threats, and conspiracy-laden rants he has made in recent years.
He has gone on multiple antisemitic tirades, both in person and online. On Twitter (now X), he infamously threatened to go “DEFCON 3” on Jewish people and repeated banking and media conspiracies. He praised Hitler and the Nazis during an interview with Alex Jones. This is another example of the thin line between satire, comedy, entertainment, and conspiracy theories.
As we know, Alex Jones lost a massive lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families after he spread conspiracy theories denying the shooting. The consequences for West, however, were mixed.
Yes, there were major financial and industry repercussions—many companies cut ties with him, including Adidas, Balenciaga, and talent agencies. However, some argued that these actions were not taken as a moral stance against antisemitism but rather as a business risk response to his controversial and indefensible hate speech.
Meanwhile, West remained popular, continued to do business, and was renormalized by Elon Musk, who allowed him back on Twitter/X after initially banning him. Despite the fallout, he eventually returned to the public sphere, making similar remarks again.
This suggests that the consequences were not as severe as Chappelle had implied in his monologue.
Jacobsen: Okay, so, what about Hollow Earth theory and the claim that Jews have subterranean secret underground cities where they hoard treasure? That’s what I’m talking about—pure sci-fi nonsense repackaged as antisemitic conspiracy. Some versions of the Hollow Earth theory go even further, claiming that Jews are the descendants of an ancient underground race that secretly controls human civilization from beneath the Earth’s surface. There are various Hollow Earth conspiracies, some blending metaphysical and occult beliefs.
Tsukerman: Certain theories involve reincarnation, artificial birth, and genetic manipulation, tying into pagan and neo-pagan mythology. Others merge these ideas with modern fears about cloning, artificial wombs, and DNA hacking, claiming that Jews are behind these technologies—much like conspiracy theories about genetic modification for intelligence or financial success.
So essentially, the same antisemitic tropes keep getting recycled, but with a sci-fi, paranormal, or New Age twist.
Alternative history and hidden civilizations—basically, Jews are woven into almost every conspiracy theory, no matter how absurd. The subterranean conspiracy theory is one of the more widespread ones, claiming that Jews operate in hidden underground networks to control global events.
This idea traces back to Hitler’s propaganda, where he compared Jews to vermin, portraying them as creatures that live in tunnels, scurry underground, and hide from daylight—a dehumanizing stereotype designed to justify persecution. Over time, this evolved into myths about Jews secretly hoarding wealth and conducting sinister activities below the surface.
In medieval Europe, Jews were falsely accused of living in underground tunnels to carry out secretive financial manipulations and blood libel rituals. The image of Jews sitting in basements counting gold coins became a widespread stereotype, reinforcing the idea that they operated outside public view while exerting secret influence.
During the Nazi era, propaganda expanded this narrative, portraying Jews as a hidden force controlling governments and economies. Nazis even claimed that Jews had secret underground bunkers or bases, using this to fuel wartime propaganda. But guess who had underground bunkers?
Jacobsen: Hitler himself.
Tsukerman: His underground bunker system spanned across Europe, and he spent his final days hiding in one in Berlin.
Today, QAnon and far-right extremists claim that Jewish elites use underground tunnels for trafficking, wealth hoarding, and secret societies. But guess who has been involved in human trafficking?
Figures like Andrew Tate and those associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is important to note that Epstein’s network wasn’t politically one-sided—his visitors included Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and others from across the political spectrum. These people were well-known public figures, not hidden elites.
Yes, Epstein was Jewish, and some conspiracy theorists tried to link him to Mossad. Still, in reality, his operation appears to have been a self-serving blackmail scheme targeting wealthy individuals—not part of any grand Jewish conspiracy.
Jacobsen: Now we move to the reptilian shapeshifter story, which blends Jews, their so-called allies, and reptilian overlords controlling subterranean bases and secret underground cities.
What baffles me is how much of this originates from one man—David Icke. He has somehow absorbed the strangest conspiracy theories from history and combined them into one overarching narrative. It’s almost as if he researched every bizarre accusation ever made against Jews or secret societies and decided to compile them into a single unified myth.
Tsukerman: At this point, I’m starting to wonder if David Icke is even a real person. His name appears behind almost every outlandish conspiracy theory of the modern era.
In the Middle East, propaganda has accused Jews of digging underground tunnels for espionage or sinister religious purposes. But guess who builds underground tunnels?
Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. They actively use underground tunnels for smuggling weapons, transporting militants, and carrying out attacks—exactly the kind of activity they accuse Jews of doing.
Jacobsen: Now, coming back to Hollow Earth and occult theories, there is a myth claiming that Jews are part of an ancient subterranean race or that they maintain secret underground societies.
These theories blend sci-fi, New Age mysticism, and antisemitism, making them popular in conspiracy forums. While they aren’t yet mainstream, they are growing—and given how quickly online extremism spreads, it’s only a matter of time before they gain wider traction.
Tsukerman: The problem is that these myths do more than sound ridiculous. They reinforce the usual stereotypes about Jewish secrecy and manipulation, feeding into far-right extremism and terrorist radicalization.
Jacobsen: And that’s where the real danger lies—these theories aren’t just harmless internet nonsense. They have inspired real-world violence. Some have even been cited in manifestos of extremists who believe in a global Jewish cabal. Now, here’s an interesting linguistic question—why do the words “sinister” and “cabal” keep appearing in these conspiracies?
Tsukerman: The word “sinister” appears because these conspiracies are designed to sound shadowy, vague, and ominous. It’s not just about something being illegal—it’s about implying ulterior motives that can’t be easily proven or disproven. That’s what makes them so powerful for conspiracy theorists.
Jacobsen: And “cabal”?
Tsukerman: “cabal” comes from the Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism. Over time, it was co-opted by conspiracy theorists, who use it to describe a secretive, all-powerful Jewish group running the world. It’s deliberately vague, which is what makes it so enduring. No evidence is required because the accusation is built on secrecy and ambiguity.
It’s all about creating an enemy that is both invisible and everywhere at once—a boogeyman people can blame for anything. A cabal is a small group that controls large swaths of powerful institutions. Conspiracy theorists obsess over secretive groups, particularly tight-knit ones because they imply an extreme concentration of power in the hands of a few conspirators.
A lot of these theories are just re-adaptations of classic antisemitic tropes, but conspiracy theorists keep inventing more creative interpretations. Some have even claimed that the dwarves in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings are a coded Jewish stereotype due to their focus on craftsmanship, gold, and isolation from other societies. I don’t find that argument convincing, but it’s interesting how deeply people read into these things.
Jacobsen: The New Messiah and the Anti-Messiah. The theory goes like this: Jews are supposedly plotting to install a false messiah to deceive the world or are secretly working with the Antichrist to bring about the end times. In other words—they can’t win either way.
Tsukerman: That’s right. No matter what, they’re framed as the villains. The “Jewish Antichrist” and “Jewish Anti-Messiah” myths take Christian eschatology and apocalyptic literature and twist them with antisemitic conspiracy theories.
There’s a huge difference between Jewish and Christian beliefs about the Messiah and the end times. Still, conspiracy theorists weaponize these differences to cast Jews as agents of deception or demonic forces. Essentially, they position Jews as the opposition to the “true” Messiah, preventing Jesus’ return.
Historically, these claims were used to justify discrimination and violence. The original Christian idea of the Antichrist described him as a false messiah who deceives humanity before the Second Coming of Christ. Some medieval Christian interpretations falsely linked the Antichrist with Jews, claiming he would be a Jewish religious or political leader who misleads the world.
From a Jewish perspective, the Messiah is not Jesus or a supernatural figure. Instead, he is a human leader, a Jewish king from the Davidic dynasty, expected to restore the Jewish monarchy in Israel.
In Jewish tradition, when the Messiah arrives, Jews worldwide will return to Israel. After wars and turmoil, the world will enter an era of peace under this leader’s reign. There is no supernatural component—just a restoration of monarchy with a benevolent ruler.
This completely differs from the Christian concept, which portrays the Messiah as divine and ushering in the world’s end.
Medieval Christian texts accused Jews of rejecting Jesus and “preparing” a false messiah, an idea that Christian theologians like Martin Luther later obsessed over. Luther wrote extensively about Jews aligning with the Antichrist and helping to prepare for his arrival.
This shows how old these ideas are. Throughout history, they were used to justify pogroms, expulsions, and forced conversions.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion further reinforced these ideas, portraying Jewish elites as working toward world domination under a false messianic figure. This book blended multiple antisemitic myths into one, creating a bizarre mix of medieval theology, secret societies, and political conspiracy theories.
And now, far-right Christian nationalist movements have recycled these ideas, claiming that Jewish leaders and movements are preparing for Antichrist rule. Of course, nobody can define exactly what this would look like. They say, “Jews are aligned with Satan,” and leave it at that.
In Jewish tradition, there is no “Antichrist” in the Christian sense, but there is a parallel concept in Jewish apocalyptic texts—a figure known as Armilus.
Armilus is a false messiah who opposes the true Jewish messiah, Mashiach ben David. “Mashiach” is a title, not a name—the name given in later rabbinic texts is Menachem.
In some versions, Armilus is depicted as a corrupt ruler or a deceiver who gains power before being overthrown by the Jewish messiah. However, in Christian depictions, the Antichrist is almost always tied to Jewish identity—while in Jewish sources, he is not. Jewish texts often depict him as a foreign leader or supernatural figure who misleads people under pretenses.
So, once again, we see Christian theology repurposed as an antisemitic weapon rather than understanding Jewish traditions on their terms. The current wave of far-right Christian conspiracies, particularly among evangelical fundamentalist groups, claims that a future Jewish leader will be the Antichrist. They point to false interpretations of Israel’s role in prophecy, repackaging old religious antisemitism for the modern era.
And, of course—David Icke. Let’s remember that name. He is everywhere in these conspiracy theories. Whether it’s religious antisemitism, sci-fi narratives, or globalist conspiracies, his name keeps surfacing.
Other conspiracy theorists take this even further, claiming that Jewish politicians, bankers, and elites are advancing the Antichrist’s agenda. According to them, all Jewish influence is secretly working toward this goal.
How do they reconcile Christian eschatology with sci-fi conspiracies? That’s a good question. Maybe we should ask David Icke himself—I bet that would be an interesting interview.
But it’s not just Christian fundamentalists pushing this. QAnon and other conspiracy groups have latched onto these ideas, blending Christian end-times prophecies with their theories.
I initially thought QAnon was just about Pizzagate and sex trafficking conspiracies, but it turns out it’s so much bigger than that. They claim that Jewish globalists are preparing the way for an Antichrist figure, merging far-right Christian narratives with their own New World Order, Illuminati, and banking conspiracies. This creates an entirely new framework of paranoia.
The problem with these narratives is that they completely distort both Judaism and Christianity, turning them into tools for fearmongering and extremism. Instead of promoting genuine religious understanding, these conspiracies fuel persecution, spread antisemitic tropes, and incite hatred. There is no upside to any of this.
Jacobsen: And now, we reach one of the weirdest claims yet—that Jewish people control reincarnation. According to this bizarre theory, Jews decide who gets to return to Earth in new forms. They reincarnate in new forms to retain power while at the same time stealing or hijacking non-Jewish souls to prevent non-Jews from achieving spiritual enlightenment.
In this sinister plot, Jews supposedly trap souls in an endless cycle to maintain their dominance over the world. This is a wild combination of New Age mysticism, antisemitism, and science fiction.
Tsukerman: Believe it or not, it’s still rooted in classic antisemitic myths—just with a New Age twist instead of a Christian theological one. The claim is that Jews steal the identities or souls of non-Jews to further their secretive political agenda. Reincarnation, in this narrative, becomes a tool of control—a way for Jews to return in new forms while remembering their past lives, ensuring they stay in power across multiple lifetimes.
This ties into other tropes about alleged Jewish immortality, such as the legend of the Wandering Jew—a figure supposedly cursed to walk the Earth for thousands of years.
In conspiracy circles, Jews are often depicted as a secretive, unyielding group that stays in control for centuries, almost like Jewish vampires—or worse.
Jacobsen: And then there’s the “soul hijacking” claim. In this version of the conspiracy, non-Jews are reincarnated into Jewish bodies as part of a master plan for Jewish world domination. Essentially, Jews are depicted as supernatural parasites, using mystical and occult powers to manipulate human reincarnation. So once again, we see the same antisemitic themes repackaged in a different form—Jews as manipulative, parasitic, and controlling supernatural forces to retain power.
Tsukerman: There is also the cultural and spiritual hijacking conspiracy, which claims that Jews use reincarnation to infiltrate other cultures and steal the essence of other religions. This distorts traditional Jewish teachings, particularly Jewish mystical traditions such as Kabbalah, which do have concepts of reincarnation but in very specific ways.
In Jewish tradition, reincarnation is not about power or control but about free will and moral improvement. Jews do not remember their past lifetimes because doing so would negate their ability to make independent moral choices in their current lives. The purpose of reincarnation is to elevate the soul through moral refinement—correcting past transgressions, making better choices, and spiritually advancing.
In this view, people may reincarnate to achieve personal growth and repair past mistakes. However, the key element is that they do not remember their previous lives, which ensures they can make independent moral choices without being influenced by past identities.
As you can see, this is completely different from the twisted narratives found in conspiracy theories. These false ideas merge New Age mysticism and pagan beliefs with conspiracy culture, blending spiritual and mystical elements with political paranoia.
Some conspiracy theories combine and compound multiple supernatural ideas—including soul-switching, shape-shifting, and soul-trapping. These ideas are central to David Icke’s reptilian conspiracies, but now they are being specifically applied to Jews.
Needless to say, this is dehumanizing, bizarre, and perpetuates dangerous stereotypes. It fits within extremist ideologies, further radicalizing those prone to believing in conspiracy theories and increasing the risk of real-world violence.
Beyond that, it distorts spiritual understanding and misleads people about actual Jewish beliefs. It takes reincarnation—a concept found in multiple religious traditions—and weaponizes it for hate, division, and fanaticism, transforming it into a paranoid and absurd narrative.
Jacobsen: Now, onto one of the strangest claims yet—that the Rothschild family secretly owns the moon. The theory alleges that the Rothschilds hold secret elite meetings on the moon, using hidden technology and a global surveillance system to control humanity. Some even claim this is connected to Israel’s lunar space missions, which are supposedly an attempt to reclaim an ancient Jewish colony on the moon.
Tsukerman: This is complete nonsense, but you can see how it evolved from existing Rothschild conspiracy theories.
The Rothschild family has long been falsely accused of controlling global wealth, politics, and media, even though their influence today is nowhere near what it was centuries ago. Most members of the Rothschild family are not even Jewish anymore. Yet, conspiracy theorists continue to depict them as puppet masters secretly controlling the world.
The idea behind the “moon ownership” theory is that the Rothschilds have extended their global wealth and influence beyond Earth.
But guess who is trying to expand their off-world real estate? Not the Rothschilds—but Elon Musk. I do not see the Rothschilds in the space business, but Elon Musk is. This entire conspiracy ties into space-related paranoia, climate conspiracies, and extraterrestrial myths. Some claim that the Rothschilds secretly colonized the moon to expand their wealth and influence despite zero evidence of any human existence on the moon beyond the Apollo missions.
And, of course, this conspiracy also intersects with moon landing denialism. Some of the same people who believe the U.S. never landed on the moon now claim that the Rothschilds were the first to colonize it.
It even blends into SpaceX and moon colonization fantasies, particularly those surrounding Elon Musk, where wealthy elites are imagined to have exclusive access to outer space resources for personal gain.
The pattern is clear—these conspiracies continually recycle old antisemitic tropes, mix them with modern fears about technology, space exploration, and global control, and create elaborate fictions to justify their paranoia.
Is there someone else who fits these descriptions? Because, once again, it’s not the Jews or the Rothschilds. So, in many of these cases—though not all—there is a deep element of psychological projection. This is a deliberate reversal of reality, similar to what we’ve seen in Soviet and even some Nazi conspiracy theories.
Soviet intelligence literally and deliberately projected their actions onto their adversaries, accusing them of doing the things they were guilty of. But they aren’t the only ones.
They exported this tactic around the world. It’s so widely adopted that it’s hard to say whether Russian intelligence is still driving these narratives or has become common practice because it works so well. Regardless, the result is the same—deflect attention from those engaging in manipulation while fabricating wild stories about Jews.
Yes, exactly. But let’s be clear—no Jewish real estate is on the moon. There are satellite images, photographs, and extensive lunar research, but none convinces conspiracy theorists. They continue to claim that Jews secretly own the moon and control hidden lunar resources.
All right, now onto another absurd theory—that Jews control the Internet itself and are working on uploading their consciousness into machines, creating eternal digital rulers who will dominate the world forever.
This conspiracy merges science fiction with supernaturalism and recycles antisemitic myths in a technological context.
Guess who is trying to create the Singularity?
Hint: It’s not the Jews.
Yet, the idea of Jews controlling the Internet persists. Conspiracy theorists claim that elite families in the tech industry secretly control the Internet’s infrastructure, content, and the flow of information.
Yes, Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish, but he’s among the few Jewish figures in tech leadership. Most of the top leaders in Silicon Valley are not Jewish at all, so it’s unclear who these conspiracy theorists even think they’re talking about.
One of their most ridiculous claims is that Jews engineered the World Wide Web itself to gain invisible control over global communication.
If that’s the case, maybe they should take it up with Al Gore since he famously claimed to have “invented the Internet.” I’d love to see those two groups debate each other. Of course, historical facts completely contradict this narrative. The Internet development involved a diverse group of engineers, researchers, and institutions, none of whom were part of any secret globalist conspiracy.
Now, let’s talk about the AI and mind-uploading conspiracies. Various scientists and theorists have explored the concept of merging human consciousness with technology, but no one has made more progress in this area than Elon Musk—once again, a non-Jewish figure.
His company, Neuralink, is developing brain-computer interface technology. It aims to help disabled individuals regain movement and potentially enhance human cognitive abilities.
But let’s be clear—Neuralink is not unique. Several competing projects are working toward similar goals, including non-invasive brain-computer interfaces. None of these projects are anywhere near achieving “mind-uploading” or digital immortality.
Yes, some researchers have speculated about the possibility of preserving consciousness through AI, but nothing remotely close to this exists. And yet, conspiracy theorists claim that Jews are trying to upload their consciousness into machines, ensuring perpetual control over the world. The idea of mind control through technology is far-fetched, especially considering that AI is nowhere near as intelligent as many assume.
Merging human consciousness with machines is an incredibly complex challenge, far beyond the capabilities of current AI models.
Jacobsen: And now, we move to another conspiracy theory involving cryptocurrencies. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Jews created Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies as a global trap. Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, might be a Jewish figure working within a secret cabal to undermine the global economy. Of course, this theory makes no sense, considering that Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity remains unknown and that cryptocurrency was designed as a decentralized system free from traditional financial controls.
Tsukerman: Ironically, cryptocurrency is often promoted by libertarians and anti-establishment groups—many of whom are the same people spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The idea that Jews are behind cryptocurrencies contradicts itself because conspiracy theorists also claim that Jews control traditional banking. If true, why would they deliberately create an alternative financial system that weakens their grip on global finance?
This proves that these conspiracy theories are not logically consistent—they exist purely to justify antisemitic narratives.
So, to summarize:
- Jews do not control the Internet.
- Jews are not behind the Singularity.
- Jews are not secretly uploading their consciousness into machines.
- Jews did not create Bitcoin to undermine the global economy.
These conspiracies are nothing more than modern adaptations of centuries-old antisemitic tropes, repackaged with science fiction, AI paranoia, and financial fearmongering.
This is a newfangled conspiracy theory since Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are relatively recent inventions. But like every other modern conspiracy, it recycles old antisemitic stereotypes and adapts them for technological advancements.
It’s hilarious—and honestly, predictable—to see how medieval antisemitic myths are being repurposed for the digital age, used to explain away complex technological developments, while still carrying an antisemitic aftertaste.
One of the more absurd claims is that Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, is secretly Jewish. There is zero evidence to support this, but, of course, when has a lack of evidence ever stopped conspiracy theorists?
Jacobsen: And the claim that Jewish elites are using cryptocurrency to dismantle traditional financial systems in order to seize global economic control is self-contradictory for one very simple reason.
These same conspiracy theorists also accuse Jews of controlling traditional banking and financial systems—which generally oppose cryptocurrency due to its disruptive potential.
So, let’s get this straight:
- Jews allegedly control the banks.
- Jews also allegedly created cryptocurrency to destroy the banks.
- But Jews are also accused of wanting to accumulate power by controlling banks.
- And somehow, they’re sabotaging themselves to take over the system they already control?
Now tell me—does that make any sense?
Tsukerman: No, of course not. But conspiracy theories don’t have to be logical.
One of the defining traits of antisemitic conspiracy theories is that they do not need internal consistency—they only need to affirm the general narrative that Jews seek power at all costs, even if it means contradicting themselves along the way.
According to this theory, decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin were specifically designed to operate outside traditional banking systems, allowing Jewish elites to control global financial transactions secretly.
This is stupid and wrong on multiple levels. The whole point of Bitcoin and other disruptive technologies is that they are decentralized and untraceable, making it nearly impossible for any centralized group—including the so-called “Jewish elites”—to control them.
Jacobsen: They also claim that cryptocurrencies bypass government regulations and undermine traditional economic structures, but guess who benefits most from that?
Not Jews—but human rights activists in authoritarian countries, tech entrepreneurs, and, yes, criminal organizations and terrorists, most of whom are not Jewish at all. And yet, cryptocurrency is still framed as part of a Jewish-led globalist agenda. The irony is that cryptocurrency is the ultimate anti-globalist tool.
Tsukerman: Let’s not forget the bizarre contradiction within these conspiracy circles.
The same people who accuse Jews of accumulating power through traditional banks are often the same people who support cryptocurrencies. Many of the loudest pro-crypto advocates, including the tech libertarian crowd, are not Jewish at all.
So, what we’re seeing is two opposing conspiracy theories coexisting—one claiming that Jews control global banking and the other claiming that Jews created cryptocurrency to disrupt global banking.
That’s exactly why this entire theory is so bizarre and illogical. It also ties into the larger New World Order conspiracy, which claims that Jewish financiers are orchestrating a global economy under their control. But this completely ignores how blockchain technology works—decentralized, anonymous, and resistant to centralized control.
If anything, blockchain technology makes it harder for any single group—including Jewish elites, banks, or governments—to control global financial transactions.
This is one of the worst-designed conspiracy theories because it fails its logic test. There is zero evidence for it, and it exploits distrust in financial institutions and new technologies, attempting to merge two opposite fears into one narrative.
At the core, some people are more afraid of technological innovation than they are of traditional financial elites. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pushing both of these contradictory ideas simultaneously.
That’s why I’d love to see the two groups of conspiracy theorists—the pro-banking and pro-crypto—debate each other and see who wins. If we’re lucky, they’ll cancel each other out.
Naturally, this fuels extremism, hatred, and confusion. But so far, the cryptocurrency conspiracy crowd is relatively small because, as I mentioned earlier, many of these people benefit from Bitcoin and embrace it for its decentralized nature.
Quite frankly, this may even be a fabricated conspiracy theory manufactured by certain elites who want to weaponize fear and create an artificial controversy to control the cryptocurrency narrative.
There are so many layers to this that I wouldn’t be surprised if some conspiracy theorists work against each other, feeding different versions of events to create paranoia and division.
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): 2025/05/05
Cordell Grant is a pioneering aerospace engineer, cryptography enthusiast, and well’s CEO and co-founder of QEYnet. With over 20 years of experience leading low-cost, high-performance satellite programs—including BRITE-Constellation, CanX-4&-5, and GHGSat-D—he has been at the forefront of innovative space technology. Cordell’s academic background spans a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Cape Breton University, a Bachelor of Engineering from Dalhousie, and a Master of Applied Science from the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies, Space Flight Laboratory. His passion for space exploration and secure communications fuels his pioneering satellite-based quantum key distribution work. Renowned for merging space and cryptography. Quantum key distribution (QKD) is a cryptographic method that uses quantum mechanics to exchange encryption keys securely. Unlike classical encryption, QKD transmits individual photons, making interception detectable. Ground-based QKD relies on fibre optics, which introduces signal loss, limiting its range. Space-based QKD, using satellites, enables global encryption key exchange without intermediaries. The Canadian Space Agency invests in QEYNet to counteract threats from quantum computing, which could break classical encryption. QKD secures long-term satellite communications by allowing in-orbit re-keying. This technology reduces costs, enhances security, and facilitates the development of scalable global quantum networks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is quantum key distribution?
Cordell Grant: Quantum key distribution (QKD) is a cryptographic technology that has been in development for about 40 years, first proposed in the early 1980s. At its core, QKD enables the secure exchange of encryption keys using quantum mechanics.
Unlike classical key exchange methods, QKD transmits individual photons—quantum particles of light—from one party to another. Each photon is polarized in a specific but randomly chosen way.
Fundamental quantum principles ensure that any attempt to intercept these photons disturbs their state, making eavesdropping detectable. This property guarantees the security of the exchanged encryption keys, as unauthorized interception cannot go undetected.
QKD’s reliance on the laws of physics rather than computational complexity makes it exceptionally secure. However, a key challenge has been reliably transmitting single photons over long distances. This is where advancements in QKD technology, including space-based systems, play a crucial role.
Jacobsen: How does QKD technology enhance data security in space compared to ground-based methodologies? Is there a significant difference?
Grant: There is a significant difference between ground-based and space-based QKD. On the ground, photons are typically transmitted through fibre optic cables. While fibre optics are widely used for data transmission, they introduce signal loss. At the single-photon level, this loss becomes significant, limiting the effective range of QKD to about 100–150 kilometres without using trusted relay nodes.
If we attempt to scale QKD globally using fibre optics alone, we would require numerous intermediate stations to receive, store, and retransmit the encryption keys, which introduces security vulnerabilities.
Space-based QKD offers a more efficient solution. Instead of relying on fibre optics, photons are transmitted directly between ground stations and satellites. In space, there is no medium to absorb or scatter the photons, significantly reducing transmission loss over long distances.
A QKD-enabled satellite in orbit can establish secure key exchanges with multiple ground stations worldwide. By acting as a trusted intermediary, the satellite allows distant locations on Earth to securely share encryption keys without relying on fibre optic infrastructure or multiple ground-based relays.
This approach enhances global cybersecurity and enables highly secure communications for governments, financial institutions, and critical infrastructure.
Jacobsen: Why is the Canadian Space Agency investing $1.4 million in QEYnet?
Grant: The Canadian Space Agency has invested in this technology, specifically space-based quantum key distribution, for about 15 years. Canada has determined that this technology is valuable for various reasons.
The primary reason often cited for the importance of QKD, particularly space-based QKD, is the looming quantum threat posed by quantum computers. The basic premise is that quantum computers are advancing rapidly and becoming increasingly powerful. Once they reach a certain level of computational capability, they can break many encryption methodologies widely used worldwide.
A key example is public key encryption, which is used when logging into your bank’s website. This type of encryption relies on mathematical complexity, but that complexity applies only to classical computers. Quantum computers, however, are exceptionally efficient at solving the mathematical problems that underlie this encryption.
As a result, the encryption technologies we currently rely on are vulnerable to the advent of quantum computing. Since encryption is embedded in nearly every aspect of digital security, replacing existing systems with quantum-secure alternatives will take time.
QKD is one of the technologies being explored as a potential replacement. It ensures secure communication in preparation for what is sometimes called “Y2Q”—when quantum computers become powerful enough to break conventional encryption.
Jacobsen: Are we suggesting that Y2K wasn’t a real issue?
Grant: It was a real issue but wasn’t a major crisis because we prepared for it in advance. The hope with Y2Q is that the outcome will be similar—we will have taken proactive measures, preventing a catastrophic failure of banking systems or any other critical infrastructure by having quantum-secure systems in place ahead of time.
That’s the typical rationale for QKD. However, at QEYNet, our perspective is slightly different. Numerous applications already do not rely on the types of encryption at risk from quantum computers.
When you examine these applications, many employ surprising methods to distribute encryption keys—often involving the physical transport of key material. In the military, for example, encryption keys are frequently distributed using physical hardware, with large cryptographic devices transported globally to support troop deployments.
Similarly, diplomatic missions often carry physical encryption keys. A diplomat, for instance, might transport new key material to an embassy in a diplomatic pouch, which is protected from search and seizure at customs.
For our immediate use case—specifically, the one funded by the Canadian Space Agency—we are focused on securing communications for spacecraft.
Most people aren’t aware that, much like a spacecraft launches with all the fuel it will ever have, it also launches with all the encryption keys it will ever use. This is simply because transmitting new keys to an orbiting satellite is extremely difficult—and expensive.
Because satellite missions can last for decades, relying on conventional encryption methods, like those used in banking, may not be viable over the entire mission duration. The security of these encryption methods cannot be guaranteed indefinitely.
With QKD, we enable spacecraft to be re-keyed, making them more secure and fundamentally shifting the paradigm in the space industry. By offering QKD technology to other spacecraft providers, we help ensure their satellites remain protected throughout their operational lifespan.
Jacobsen: What are the benefits of successfully demonstrating space-based QKD technology?
Grant: Ultimately, we hope to prove that QKD works in space with this demonstration. Designing this hardware, testing it in a lab, or conducting field trials are just a few things. It’s entirely different to successfully execute QKD between Earth and an orbiting satellite 600 kilometres above.
We aim to demonstrate that all the analysis, mathematics, and testing done so far hold up in a real operational environment. It’s time to combine the pieces and prove we can achieve this in a compact system. The hardware that will be placed on the spacecraft is about the size of a two-litre milk carton. Yet, it will detect individual photons from 600 kilometres away.
Jacobsen: What cost challenges may arise with QKD technology in space? Any new technology tends to be more expensive than well-established alternatives with lower performance or efficiency.
Grant: Yes, there’s no doubt that launching anything into space is costly. One of the key differentiators of QEYNet is that we have deliberately worked to minimize these costs.
Many existing space-based QKD solutions are highly complex, driving up costs. We’ve taken two key steps to make our system more affordable, particularly for spacecraft manufacturers looking to secure their satellites.
First, we have placed the receiver in space rather than the transmitter. In QKD, the receiver is generally the more straightforward component. In contrast, generating individual, polarized photons is technically complex and requires significant data processing. Performing this photon generation onboard a spacecraft would be incredibly challenging due to limited resources such as power, processing capability, and weight constraints. Keeping the receiver in space significantly reduces the system’s complexity and cost.
Second, we have designed our system to eliminate many highly complex and resource-intensive components typically in QKD technology. Traditional QKD systems require highly sensitive detectors to measure individual photons. The most advanced detectors are designed for maximum efficiency, but they add to the overall cost and complexity of the system.
They need to be cooled to about minus 80 degrees Celsius, which requires extensive thermal control technology onboard the spacecraft and large radiators to dissipate excess heat. Instead, we use less efficient detectors that operate at room temperature. This allows us to eliminate all the additional hardware and complexity associated with cooling systems.
Another challenge with these so-called “better” detectors is that they are fibre-fed. This means they require a fibre optic cable in front of them and all the light collected from 600 kilometres away must be precisely focused by a large telescope onto the tiny tip of the fibre. This process must be executed in a highly dynamic thermal environment with constant changes, adding to the system’s complexity.
By contrast, the detectors we use do not require fibre feeding. They have a larger detection area, allowing us to shine the light directly onto them, eliminating the need for fine-pointing mechanisms and complex optical alignment.
These design choices reduce the cost of the satellites we will ultimately deploy by at least an order of magnitude, making the technology significantly more affordable and accessible.
At the very least, our solution is much more efficient than the existing methods of encryption key distribution—such as physically transporting hardware and personnel worldwide. Traditional methods are not only expensive but also pose security risks. Given these factors, we are confident that our approach will remain cost-competitive.
Jacobsen: What might be the broader benefits of QEYNet’s demonstration for quantum networks?
Grant: As I’ve described, the immediate application is spacecraft security. Once we successfully demonstrate this capability, we will validate the first half of our initial vision, where a satellite performs QKD exchanges with two separate locations and acts as an intermediary between them.
In this trial, we aim to demonstrate the ability to facilitate key exchanges between Earth and an orbiting satellite and between two separate locations on Earth via the satellite. If we achieve that, it opens up a wide range of possibilities.
One of the longstanding challenges with quantum networks is the chicken-and-egg problem. The technology already exists to build quantum networks for localized areas, such as an urban region. In any given city, for instance, you could leverage existing fibre optic infrastructure to create a functional quantum network.
However, the real challenge is that a local quantum network has limited value if it cannot connect to other regions. If it remains isolated, communications are restricted only within that local area.
That’s where satellites come in. But simultaneously, those seeking funding for quantum satellites face a dilemma. They can only connect point to point, and there aren’t yet established networks to expand the user base.
So, who goes first? Do we build the satellites, hoping the networks will follow? Or do we build the networks, hoping the satellites will be developed? Nothing will move forward until we demonstrate that the satellite technology is viable.
That’s why proving this technology in space—showing that it is affordable, reliable, and secure—is the first step toward making quantum networks more common and enabling their growth.
QKD technology is not something every person worldwide will use anytime soon. However, if it becomes readily available over the existing fibre optic infrastructure, many applications could benefit from it.
Jacobsen: Cordell, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Grant: It was fun.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye.
Grant: 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/
A seasoned Musician (Vocals, Guitar and Piano), Filmmaker, and Actor, J.D. Mata has composed 100 songs and performed 100 shows and venues throughout. He has been a regular at the legendary “Whisky a Go Go,” where he has wooed audiences with his original shamanistic musical performances. He has written and directed nerous feature films, web series, and music videos. J.D. has also appeared in various national T.V. commercials and shows. Memorable appearances are TRUE BLOOD (HBO) as Tio Luca, THE UPS Store National television commercial, and the lead in the Lil Wayne music video, HOW TO LOVE, with over 129 million views. As a MOHAWK MEDICINE MAN, J.D. also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. J.D. co-starred, performed and wrote the music for the original world premiere play, AN ENEMY of the PUEBLO — by one of today’s preeminent Chicana writers, Josefina Lopez! This is J.D.’s third Fringe; last year, he wrote, directed and starred in the Fringe Encore Performance award-winning “A Night at the Chicano Rock Opera.” He is in season 2 of his NEW YouTube series, ROCK god! J.D. is a native of McAllen, Texas and resides in North Hollywood, California. Tejano music shaped Mata’s artistic identity, influencing his career in music, acting, and filmmaking. As a founding figure, he dedicated himself to the genre, writing original music and pioneering the synthesizer sound that defined Tejano. He emphasizes its authenticity, contrasting it with inauthentic artists. Mata highlights Tejano’s broad reach, from weddings to festivals, and the emotional depth in its lyrics. He reflects on Tejano’s role in his journey, from early performances to navigating Hollywood, using intuition honed in the music industry. Despite challenges, he sees Tejano as an enduring legacy that inspires artists and audiences alike.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, it’s been a while. I want to discuss incorporating various elements to form a perspective on contemporary Tejano music. We discussed some of the major figures and families in Tejano music and the German and Mexican influences.
We also talked about being in Texas, making your way to California, and the difficulties there. People may know that you have a dual career in acting and music. Additionally, we discussed your long history of choir conducting.
How do these various elements—acting, choir conducting, directing, and producing with Lance and Rick in their long-standing Republican-Democrat debates—come together to influence Tejano? You have diverse skills in many areas, but your main focus has not always been Tejano music. Instead, your career has evolved, with Tejano music emerging as a central element.
J.D. Mata: Tejano music was like a birth in terms of my career. Learning to play the piano and guitar could be considered the “sperm,” while my first stage production in sixth grade could be the “egg.” I auditioned for the lead role in Funky Christmas, a musical Christmas program at Seguin Elementary in McAllen, and got the part. That was the moment where, metaphorically speaking, the sperm met the egg—where my journey as an entertainer truly began. But the “baby” was born when I started playing Tejano music professionally.
That experience informed everything. It was when I had to apply my musical skills—skills my dad taught me on the guitar, my piano abilities from the band, and my natural singing talent. I also had to incorporate my stage presence and acting experience because, as the frontman of a band, you are not just a musician—you are a performer.
It’s a production. There has to be charisma, animation, and energy. You must engage the audience, keep them excited, and make the performance come alive. Stagecraft is an essential part of that.
Beyond that, Tejano music is also a business. As the founder and leader of my Tejano band, I had to learn the business aspects—determining fair rates and managing finances. For example, what goes into setting the rate if we are hired to play a wedding? We must consider factors such as how much to pay the musicians, travel expenses, equipment costs, and venue requirements.
Obviously, any company CEO earns more than the employees because they assume more risk and have more at stake.
For me, it was about ownership and responsibility. I owned all the equipment—I had to buy it myself. I was the founder of the band and the writer of all the music. I assumed all the risk. It was my name on the business and on the music itself. It was my van that transported all the equipment. I was the one setting up everything before each show.
So, there’s that aspect of it. How much do the musicians get? What percentage do I get as the founder, lead singer, and band leader? Then, you also have to factor in gas expenses—how far are we travelling? That needs to be accounted for as well. How many hours are we playing? Many people think, “Oh, you’re only playing for two hours,” or, “We’re just hiring you for a one-hour performance.”
But they don’t consider the time it takes to drive to the venue, unload and set up the equipment, do the sound check, perform, break everything down, and then load everything back up. That’s where the rate comes from. These are principles I learned from my experience in Tejano music. Being an entertainer shaped everything I do now—as a filmmaker, actor, musician, and even as my publicist. I had to promote the band. I was often my own manager.
And through those experiences, I developed a strong intuition for spotting people who are not genuine—what I call “bullshit artists.” Whether it’s within the band or in the business side of the industry, there’s always one person who disrupts the harmony. It could be envy, entitlement, or just being disgruntled, but there’s always one person who ruins the synchronicity of the group. I’ve learned to recognize those patterns quickly.
All of this—my time as a Tejano artist, band leader, entrepreneur, and performer—has shaped me. It has guided my ability to navigate Los Angeles as an actor, filmmaker, choir director, and even dancer.
Most recently, I played at an Oscar afterparty in Beverly Hills. This guy came up to me and said, “Hey man, I love your look. Are you signed with anyone?” Because of my experience, I’ve developed an intuition for who is legit and who isn’t—something I honed in my Tejano days and continue to sharpen. This guy seemed legit. Sure enough, today, I met with him. He’s a film director, and he cast me in his movie.
Of course, it took effort. I had to drive all the way to Beverly Hills from North Hollywood. Before that, I had just played in Simi Valley. But that’s part of the hustle, and it’s all informed by my journey in Tejano music.
I played at an assisted living facility. I’m the ‘rock god of assisted living homes.’ Then, I drove to Beverly Hills and met with the director. I spent about three to four hours on the road, and I used a lot of gas, but I knew it would be worth it.
I could tell this guy was legit, and it played out that way. It’s interesting to analyze my Tejano experience and dissect how it has influenced everything I do. I’m still the same entertainer I was back in my Tejano roots. But now, I also recognize that there is a business aspect to what we do as artists.
As I told you earlier, when I started, Tejano music didn’t exist in the way we know it today. My first band was one of the pioneers of Tejano music. The name “Tejano” first became associated with our type of band, which featured a keyboard, synthesizer, and bass guitar. These instruments replaced the traditional horn section and accordion, which had previously defined the sound.
Different phases of my career incorporated various elements. At times, we included horns and trumpets. Still, for the most part, we were a genuine, bona fide Tejano band because we embraced the synthesizer sound as a key element of our music.
Jacobsen: Who were your influences as a pianist?
Mata: We didn’t have influences—we were the influencers. I was one of the first to form a Tejano band in 1981, and the genre itself didn’t gain recognition until around 1983 or 1985. When I was a senior in high school, the term “Tejano” still wasn’t widely used to define our style of music.
People ask what kind of music we played. The truth is we wrote our own material. We performed all original songs and adapted traditional standards—accordion-driven conjunto music, mariachi songs, and other regional influences—into Tejano music.
For example, if a melody was originally played on a trumpet or accordion, we translated it into a synthesizer line, which became a defining characteristic of Tejano music. Just as the accordion is synonymous with conjunto, and the trumpet is essential in orchestral or mariachi genres, the synthesizer became the signature sound of Tejano.
Because I developed that creative muscle early—starting in junior high, high school, and college—when I came to Los Angeles and couldn’t immediately find work as an actor, I instinctively created my own opportunities. It felt natural. I started making my own films just like we had created a genre from scratch.
I had already been a writer—first for music—so transitioning into filmmaking was a natural extension of what I had done since my early years.
That’s what I’ve been doing my whole life. I didn’t discover The Beatles until I was in college. I became a huge Beatles fan, but it wasn’t until college because I was playing Tejano music, man. I was doing my own thing. I was my own Beatles. I was Billy Joel.
I was rock, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, and Tejano music. That genre has had a huge impact on me and shaped who I am. I am one of the most interesting Mexican American entertainers and artists in the world.
Jacobsen: Your efforts in co-developing Tejano in its early days weren’t just about blending Mexican and German influences. They were about contributing to American music culture.
Mata: 100%. That’s interesting you say that, Scott. In the 1980s, when Tejano music was emerging, there was no Internet. There were small digital rumblings—bulletin board systems, early forms of online communication—but nothing like social media.
I remember my friend, Juan Mejia, who is now a dean at a university, telling me, “Man, you can talk to people around the world or in the U.S.” I was like, “What?” This was in 1985. But there was no widespread Internet, no way to instantly share music beyond local radio stations and word of mouth.
And where we lived in South Texas—Texas is huge. I grew up five miles from the Mexican border, way down south. The nearest big city was San Antonio or Austin, a five-hour drive. Corpus Christi was closer, but there was a lot of nothing between South Texas and the rest of Texas, let alone the rest of the U.S. And then you had Mexico.
So, we were our own country. We weren’t fully Mexican, but we weren’t fully American either. We were true Mexican Americanos—American Mexican Americans. And that was beautiful because it allowed us to create our own identity.
As you said, that identity has become authentic—a recognized and beautiful strand of American culture. I’d say I’m a part of that because I’m now sharing my movies and my music with a broader American audience.
And, of course, Selena.
She was the queen of Tejano music. The beauty that she brought from Mexican-American Tejano culture—the music, the melodies, the lyrics, the emotions—are intangibles that, when you listen to her, create feelings of euphoria. She is now woven into American culture. She was a real artist—a key figure, a peak voice in the development of Tejano.
Jacobsen: One other mission—you’ve talked about being able to identify not just the real ones but also the real ones by proxy. That is, identifying the bullshit artists. So, the nonreal ones—in more polite terms. When you sense bullshittery in artists, even in full Tejano presentation—people who think they have the right stuff but aren’t truly playing Tejano—what do you look for? What are your indicators?
Mata: That’s a good question. First of all, the instrumentation. I’m a purist. I’m a textualist.
I’m one of the founding fathers, baby, so you can’t bullshit me. If you’re going to play Tejano in its pure form, I don’t want to see a band consisting of just an accordion, bass, and guitar. That’s not a Tejano band. That’s panto music.
You cannot call yourself a Tejano artist if you have a big horn section without keyboards or synthesizers. I’m sorry—that’s not Tejano music. Authentic Tejano music must have a keyboard playing synthesizer lines in a jazzy, syncopated, harmonic way. That’s bona fide Tejano music. If you don’t have that, you’re not playing Tejano.
Now, I’m painting with broad strokes here, but I’ll say this: if you’re not from Texas, you’re not playing Tejano music. That being said, if you are from Texas and you’re Caucasian but play authentic Tejano music, then you are a Tejano artist.
Jacobsen: So, that’s your standard—Tejano music, exactly. It’s a big discussion—kind of like in the rap community, where people debate who should be accepted as a great artist or not. I’m not deeply involved in that world, so I can’t comment much. But I do know that hip-hop’s originators were DJ Kool Herc, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Afrika Bambaataa and the Soulsonic Force, and the Sugarhill Gang. So, in a way, you’re talking about yourself in those terms—vis-à-vis Tejano music.
Mata: Right.
Tejano music has experienced highs and lows. It has gone through a rough period over the last fifteen to twenty years.
And going back to spotting bullshittery—this is the real deal I’m giving you. These are thoughts and analyses I’ve never seen written anywhere. But I’m telling you now because it’s authentic.
One of the things about a true Tejano artist is that they will play anywhere. A real Tejano artist will play weddings, quinceañeras, church festivals, concerts—you name it. You’ll even see a Tejano artist performing at the freaking market.
Catholic War Veteran halls.
We play everywhere.
That’s what’s fascinating about Tejano artists—we can adapt. Meanwhile, a punk rocker or a thrash artist? They’re limited in where they can play. Tejano music is freaking homogeneous, man.
Tejano music can be played anywhere because of its danceable vibe. It’s not like rap, where some of the lyrics can be explicit. I don’t want to say raunchy, but they can be more aggressive.
Tejano music is different. It’s about emotions—wanting your girl back, but she doesn’t want to take you back. That’s authentic Tejano music.
It’s pure. It’s pure in its form. That’s why Selena brought it back to the forefront. One of the key ingredients of a genuineTejano artist is the lyrics.
Tejano’s lyrics carry a sense of wholesomeness. It’s not necessarily as poetic or verbose as a Bob Dylan song, but in terms of the message—it’s heartfelt and authentic. If you’re out here rapping about f**ing someone and claiming to be a Tejano artist, then you aren’t one.
Jacobsen: It’s like the difference between Slick Rick telling a story, Coolio’s Gangsta’s Paradise, or DMX narrating his experiences—versus modern rappers who pretend to be gangsters. They don’t live necessarily what they’re talking about. A lot of them are putting on an act.
I dated a Bolivian-Japanese person who had a deep appreciation for Karol G. She described Karol G’s music in a way that sounded similar to how you’re describing Tejano’s music. It wasn’t just quite romantic or sentimental—it carried a deep longing without being forlorn. It’s about evoking emotions without necessarily saying them directly.
Mata: Exactly—100%.
Jacobsen: That’s the poetic nature of it.
Mata: There’s an ethos to it, right? Ethos is tied to Tejano culture itself. It’s deeply Roman Catholic. That background informs the music, the values, and the way emotions are expressed. And Tejano music has impacted me to this day. I’m 59 years old now, and I started when I was 13. It’s been with me my entire life.
Jacobsen: How would you describe what Tejano means to you and what you mean to Tejano?
Mata: Tejano is part of my identity.
In terms of what’s important to me, my higher power—whom I call God—comes first. Then, my family. Then, my career.
And the birth of that career was Tejano music.
To me, Tejano is part of my existence.
Tejano music is part of everything I do. If it weren’t for Tejano music—if it wasn’t in my metaphorical genetic makeup as an artist—I wouldn’t be here in Los Angeles. That’s why I speak so affectionately about it and why I try to be as authentic as I can in this series. Tejano music isn’t just something I do—it’s in me. It’s in my blood. It’s part of me like an extra limb, an extra eye—an artistic eye that I was born with, that I grew into, that I helped shape. I was one of its founders, and that means something. It means love. It means passion. It even means hate—not hate in the literal sense, but in the sense that Tejano music has brought me pain. It has brought me anguish. Maybe that’s another discussion for another time, but Tejano has been the source of everything—joy, pain, struggle, success.
To answer the second part of your question—what Tejano means to me and what I mean to Tejano—I would say this: Tejano gave me everything, and I gave everything to Tejano. I was one of the founding fathers. Of course, there were many founding fathers, but I was there at the beginning. My music was on the radio. We played countless concerts, festivals, church events, and weddings. We played everywhere. And who knows who was in those audiences? Maybe some kid saw us and got inspired. Maybe my music influenced a young musician watching in the crowd. Maybe my piano band—my music—sparked something in someone. I don’t know. But I do know that I gave everything I had to it. Every dollar I made went back into the band. Every ounce of creativity I had was poured into my music.
I was so dedicated to Tejano music that I didn’t even listen to The Beatles until college. I was too busy creating Tejano music. I wasn’t just influenced by something—I was creating something. And what did I give back to it? Well, it’s not just me—we, the early pioneers of Tejano, gave everything. And the proof is in the fact that Tejano music still exists. It’s still here. It’s still thriving. The genre didn’t fade away—it grew. And I’m not saying this to be arrogant or grandiose. It’s just the truth. We were the founders. We played all over South Texas, from the Rio Grande Valley to San Antonio. I don’t know exactly who we impacted, but I know we did. Maybe one person. Maybe a hundred. Maybe a thousand. Maybe even performers who went on to have their own careers. Maybe fans who became lifelong lovers of the music.
And then, of course, there’s the other side of it—the struggles, the setbacks. We were so close to making it big. But, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes all it takes is one person to ruin the chemistry of a band. And that happened to us. One dimwit ruined what could have been something even bigger. That’s just how it goes sometimes. But the truth is, we were the seed that sprouted Tejano into something more. And we didn’t just grow—we pollinated. We spread our sound. We influenced future Tejano artists. We reached people who fell in love with the genre.
Jacobsen: Pollination.
Mata: Right. That’s a good way to put it. That’s a good way to end this. That’s enough for me. How about you?
Jacobsen: I agree.
Mata: I’ll see you then. Take care.
Jacobsen: See you then. 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/04
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, is the Founding Partner and Chief Investment Officer (CIO) of Running Point Capital Advisors, a multifamily office overseeing global macro strategy, investment management, and impact assessments across public and private markets. Schulman highlights the MENA region’s shift toward sports investment as a key diversification strategy under Vision 2030 initiatives. With a 16.5% CAGR through 2030, investments in stadiums, esports, and global partnerships aim to boost tourism, media, and sponsorship revenues. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman lead with privatization efforts, grassroots programs, and high-profile club stakes. While market immaturity and asset bubbles pose risks, community-driven initiatives and youth training programs enhance long-term growth. The region’s modernized sports landscape offers premium spectator experiences but faces over-commercialization, infrastructure concerns, and cultural tensions amid rapid transformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is important to know about the MENA region regarding economic diversification?
Michael Ashley Schulman: I’ve commented a few times in the past about MENA and GCC development, though usually about U.S. markets. Vision 2030 is specifically a Saudi initiative begun nearly nine years ago in April 2016; but oil still accounts for nearly 3/4s of Saudi fiscal revenue To me, one of the most interesting diversification angles is the investment-cultural approach, especially with sports.
The MENA region is rapidly transforming its sports landscape—from high-profile events like the Qatar World Cup to strategic investments in premier clubs and leagues around the world—positioning itself as a powerhouse in global sports. With a projected CAGR of 16.5% through 2030, investors can look beyond the immediate glamour of marquee deals to the underlying drivers of economic diversification, tourism enhancement, and broader media and sponsorship opportunities, i.e., in ancillary sectors such as hospitality, technology, and consumer brands tied to sports experiences.
As long as valuations don’t outpace realistic projections there is a long runway here for growth, especially in the areas of aspirational youth-sports training camps for developed and emerging market parents that want their children to have the best physical and developmental opportunities in a world that is paradoxically getting glued to their smartphone and computer screens.
Jacobsen: How are MENA countries investing?
Schulman: Middle Eastern countries (notably Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman) are channeling massive investments into sports as part of broader economic diversification strategies (e.g., Qatar National Vision 2030, Saudi Vision 2030, Oman Vision 2040). These initiatives aim to transform the region into global sports hubs, with projected market values (such as Qatar’s sports market reaching an estimated $3.7 billion by 2025) that signal strong growth potential.
State-of-the-art stadiums, training centers (like Aspire Zone in Qatar), sustainable sports facilities, and hosting landmark events (e.g., the FIFA World Cup 2022, upcoming FIFA World Cup 2034 bids, major international tournaments) enhances international visibility and offers investors a platform to tap into a global audience.
With substantial investments in digital technologies and esports ecosystems—ranging from broadcasting deals to purpose-built gaming arenas—the region is not only modernizing traditional sports but also capturing the interest of younger, tech-savvy audiences, which creates new revenue streams and opportunities for innovation-driven investments.
Initiatives like the privatization of sports clubs in Saudi Arabia and strategic partnerships (for example, Qatar’s stake in top European football clubs) provide a framework for sustainable revenue generation and risk sharing where such collaborations are designed to integrate global expertise and boost the competitiveness of domestic sports markets.
Investments that are coupled with community-driven initiatives (like the Generation Amazing Foundation and grassroots sports programs) promise not only financial returns but also measurable social impact which can be appealing to impact investors looking for sustainable, legacy-building projects.
Jacobsen: What about immaturity of the market?
Schulman: Market maturity is a concern—sports sectors in these regions are still developing, which can lead to volatility, lower liquidity, and limited historical performance data to inform valuations. There’s also the risk that overinvestment in sports could lead to asset bubbles if enthusiasm outpaces fundamental growth, especially if global sports media rights and sponsorship revenues do not materialize as projected.
Jacobsen: What about the ecosystem of provisions for sports fans there with this?
Schulman: For sports fans, the region’s transformation offers a comprehensive ecosystem of benefits including world-class venues hosting major events, enhanced digital and esports engagement platforms, robust youth development programs producing local talent, and community-focused initiatives that blend cultural heritage with global sports. This investment fueled integrated approach delivers both premium spectator experiences and deeper community connection, particularly resonating with younger audiences through modern facilities and digital innovation.
On the other hand, fans may face significant challenges including inconsistent infrastructure quality, over-commercialization threatening local sporting identity, logistical issues at major events, and social tensions arising from rapid cultural changes. These factors can impact the fan experience through overcrowding, safety concerns, and cultural conflicts, particularly when progressive initiatives clash with traditional values.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/04
The Making of Ross Rosenberg
Ross Rosenberg, a psychotherapist and author, redefines codependency as Self-Love Deficit Disorder (SLDD), framing it because of unresolved childhood attachment trauma. Merging personal experience with clinical expertise, he reveals how individuals with SLDD unconsciously gravitate toward narcissistic partners—a repetition of relational dynamics stemming from early emotional neglect.
Rosenberg’s “dance” metaphor powerfully encapsulates this cycle: the codependent, guided by survival instincts, mindlessly mirrors the narcissist’s movements, eroding their own identity. He delineates specific codependent personality subtypes and advocates for trauma-informed psychotherapy—a deeper, more nuanced approach than conventional codependency treatments—to address core wounds like shame and self-abandonment.
Through his books, educational content, and therapeutic practice, Rosenberg equips clients to dismantle destructive cycles, challenge ingrained shame, and nurture self-compassion. His groundbreaking self-love recovery framework reimagines painful relational patterns as catalysts for transformation, fostering resilience, and authentic self-love to ignite enduring healing, growth, and empowerment.
Ross is also known for his YouTube channel, where his educational videos have garnered over 33 million views and amassed over 310,000 followers. Additionally, his podcast, Self-Love Recovery, is ranked among the top two percent of the most downloaded podcasts globally.
The interview with Ross Rosenberg centers on his insights and theories on codependency, which he redefines as Self-Love Deficit Disorder (SLDD). He delves into the origins, dynamics, and impact of SLDD, particularly in relationships with narcissists. Additionally, the discussion outlines the evolution of Rosenberg’s knowledge and expertise in this field.
Ross Rosenberg: How are you, Scott?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’m doing very well. Today, I had a wonderful small-town Canadian experience and moved some plants; otherwise, it’s been a regular day. So, today, I want to start with the basics and build from there. That’s a good starting point because it will contribute to the series. Let’s start with the earliest influences of your professional contributions.
Ross Rosenberg: I was born in 1961 in Chicago, Illinois. My dad was what you’d call a covert narcissist—controlling but subtle about it—and my mom she, a codependent, just bent around him, always trying to keep the peace. By the time I was six, I already felt like I barely existed. Nobody really saw me. I was constantly picked on, always hungry for some kind of attention that never came. When I hit 14, I started using drugs—just trying to dull everything. Selling and using them gave me this fake sense of being part of something. Like, suddenly, I had friends. But even then, deep down, I still felt utterly alone, numb, and honestly disgusted with myself.
It all came crashing down when I was 17. The dean at Hersey High, along with the school cop, caught me. I got expelled. That moment—it shattered what little was left of me. But things didn’t stop there. Just three months later, still 17, my parents had me committed to a psychiatric hospital that dealt with addiction and mental health issues. At the time, it felt like the end of the road…I had bottomed out completely.
But strangely, it was also the start of something else. Those dark, awful days ended up pulling me into a place where I was supported enough so that I could bravely look inside the shattered pieces of my life and understand what my life had become. The shame, the emptiness—I stopped running from it and finally understood where it all came from.
But weirdly, that place—dark as it was—was where something finally shifted. For the first time, maybe ever, I was in a space where I wasn’t running or hiding. People actually listened. I had just enough room, just enough safety, to stop numbing, and I began to look at the wreckage I’d been dragging behind me. The shame, the loneliness—I could finally see them, not just feel them. And for once, I didn’t look away.
The moment I stopped denying all of it—who I was, what I’d done, how much I was hurting, and how much I just wanted to be loved and safe—came through this poem I wrote. It was about loneliness. First one I ever wrote. And it hit me. That was it. That poem cracked something open. It was the moment everything turned, just a little, toward healing.
Jacobsen: How did your military and academic years prepare you for this work?
Rosenberg: The Army gave me structure as a Morse code interceptor in Japan. Later, studying psychology at Towson State and Boston University, I learned resilience. My early career in Iowa, working with at-risk youth and addiction, was a baptism by fire. These experiences taught me that trauma isn’t a life sentence—it’s a catalyst.
Jacobsen: Take me through the trajectory of your career.
Rosenberg: After earning my master’s degree from Boston University, I began my career in 1988 as a psychotherapist at Youth and Shelter Services in Boone, Iowa. It was a baptism by fire—I worked with at-risk youth, mothers of sexually abused children, and individuals struggling with addiction.
Over the years, I held various roles, including foster care supervisor and program director. In 2003, I returned to my roots as a psychotherapist at Arbor Counseling Center, where I built a thriving practice. By 2010, I founded Clinical Care Consultants, a counseling center that expanded to two locations.
Jacobsen: How did the Self-Love Recovery Institute come to be?
Rosenberg: In 2012, I partnered with PESI, a leading mental health training company, to present my seminar, “Codependents and Emotional Manipulators: Understanding the Attraction.” Its success led to the publication of my first book, The Human Magnet Syndrome: Why We Love People Who Hurt Us, in 2013. The book became an Amazon bestseller and has remained popular for over a decade. My passion for helping others heal from codependency and narcissistic abuse led me to create the Self-Love Recovery Institute in 2016. This platform grew out of my work as a professional trainer and author.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What recognition have you received for your work?
Rosenberg: I’ve been honored with the Excellence in Mental Health/Distinguished Service Award from the Illinois Mental Health Counselors Association and the Outstanding Professional Counseling Publication Award from the Illinois Counseling Association. My YouTube channel has over 308,000 subscribers, and my podcast ranks in the top 2% globally.
My books, including The Human Magnet Syndrome and Codependency Revolution, have sold over 200,000 copies and been translated into 12 languages. These accomplishments are a testament to the impact of my work.
Jacobsen: How did your experiences shape you as a parent?
Rosenberg: Growing up without unconditional love from my father left a lasting impact. As a parent, I was determined to give you the love, respect, and protection I never had. Healing my own wounds allowed me to be the father you deserved.
Jacobsen: When looking at codependency from both personal experience and a professional, educated perspective, how would you describe the subjective experience without that knowledge? And how would you frame it from an expert’s point of view?
Rosenberg: That’s an enormous question, and I’ll try to condense it. Everything I know about codependency—or what I call self-love deficit disorder—comes from my history of falling in love with narcissists without realizing it at first. Once fully involved in a relationship, I experienced the inherent harm that arises between someone with a personality disorder, like narcissistic personality disorder, and another who is a caretaker.
After my second marriage ended in divorce, I was grappling with the pain of yet another dysfunctional relationship, and I couldn’t find a therapist who could explain why this kept happening. Why did I initially fall for someone who seemed so beautiful and fascinating, but so harmful? Through my journey, I developed the idea that codependents are unconsciously attracted to what is familiar and that codependents are caretakers. They are altruistic, patient, selfless, and, without realizing it, they are drawn to someone who is their opposite—selfish, self-centered, grandiose, and entitled.
During this harrowing and tumultuous time, I came up with a metaphor that changed my life and, apparently, the lives of many people globally who have read my book or been exposed to my ideas. That metaphor is that the codependent-narcissist relationship is like a dancing couple. The codependent effortlessly allows themselves to move in whatever direction the narcissist leads. The narcissist dictates the dance, and the codependent follows.
The leader needs the follower in any dancing couple, particularly one dancing the tango. This idea of opposite but matched personality types led me to understand that, because of the trauma codependents experience during childhood, especially in the attachment phase with their parents, nearly every codependent has a narcissistic parent. The impact of this on their development creates trauma that later manifests as adult codependency. So, the shortest answer to your question is: I came to understand codependency, and here is my definition.
It is a person who is attracted to a selfish, self-centered, entitled narcissist who always gives love, respect, care, protection, and trust, hoping it will be reciprocated, wanting it to be mutual, but it can’t be. It doesn’t happen, and they stay. The short version is that it’s a person who gives love, respect, caring, trust, and protection, wanting it to be mutual. It’s not, and yet they stay in the relationship. So, I created a straightforward explanation that would later resonate with people through the opposite dance concept of leader and follower, but also because it happens unconsciously.
We are repeating what we learned as children. Because of attachment trauma, we learned to be invisible, to be a trophy child, to be moldable. That’s how we received whatever love was available from the narcissist.
That attachment trauma is relegated to a part of our brain that’s offline, dissociated. I will wrap up this definition because I didn’t intend it to last this long. It’s an issue with the disparity of giving and receiving love, respect, caring, trust (L-R-C-T), protection, staying in that relationship, and following this inner compulsion, feeling of familiarity and safety with someone harmful to you. That is what I learned about codependency from my personal life. Then, I expanded upon it by developing more details and explanations with concepts and theories to explain to others what codependency truly is.
Unfortunately, I can’t give you a simple answer. That’s the best I can do for a brief response. People in this toxic dance, seeking love, care, trust, and safety, experience a form of self-erasure. What’s the word? Self-erasure.
Jacobsen: So, the metaphor of the dance. I’m imagining someone over time—depending on the individual—gradually turning into a kind of wraith or ghost, disappearing as they cater more and more to a self-absorbed person, not just in the normal sense that everyone has some degree of self-absorption, but in a pathological way. So what you’re saying is, you imagine that someone would progressively become dissociative.
Rosenberg: In other words, they disassociate from their emotions and, using your words, become ghosts. One thing I’ve explained in my Human Magnet Syndrome books, especially my most recent one, The Codependency Revolution: Fixing What Always Was Broken, is the very simple definition of codependency. And I’ll get to your answer in a second. The problem with the world’s understanding of codependency is that it takes a long time to explain and varies depending on who is presenting it.
So it’s giving all the love, respect, caring, trust, and protection, wanting it to be mutual, but it’s not, and staying in the relationship. What I learned, again through my personal life and then through my clinical practice, is that the personality type is independent. You can have the salt-of-the-earth dissociative kind of person who will be codependent.
You can also have an angry, controlling person. I call one the passive codependent, and I call the other the active codependent, who argues, tries to control the narcissist, and takes things personally. I’ve identified eight other codependency personality types. The reason this information is so essential is that many codependents are gaslit—the narcissist manipulates them into believing there’s something wrong with them.
For example, if someone is an active codependent, like I was, who argues and tries to get the narcissist to change, and the narcissist said, “Quit controlling me,” and you end up believing it, well, that’s gaslighting. I wanted people to understand that there are different types of codependence and other personality profiles so that you can identify with the disorder and not get lost in the personality type. I should also add that things like honesty, anger, drug and alcohol use, and marital or relationship infidelity are independent of the definition of codependency.
When you go to a doctor who wants to see if you have a specific medical condition, you need to have the right symptoms to be diagnosed and then receive the proper treatment. Well, I wanted to create something similar for codependency—a simple definition and an understanding of the different variations of what it might look like. These people are attracted to narcissists in this specific way. How bad can it get? I’m assuming this is a rated-G interview, so it can get bleeping terrible.
Pathological narcissists, as I explain in my books, have one of three personality disorders: narcissistic, borderline, or antisocial (what people often call sociopaths). They’re all different personality disorders, but they share a central narcissistic core. All narcissists will have an emotional reaction—a narcissistic injury—such as rage, contempt, or anger when someone gives them feedback, corrects them, or calls them out.
So, suppose a codependent is in a relationship and tries to stand up for themselves. In that case, there will always be a powerful reaction from the narcissist, designed to put the codependent down and stop them from wanting to take care of themselves while seeing the narcissist as more worthy than them.
That reaction can range from physical abuse to emotional abuse. It can include gaslighting, triangulating with other people, poisoning the minds of their children—there are countless variations of harm that a narcissist can inflict.
Jacobsen: Is this a conscious process or more of a reactive one from the narcissists themselves?
Rosenberg: The essential similarity between all personality disorders is that the problem is so integral to the person’s overall personality that they don’t experience it as a problem. They don’t have the discomfort or what someone would call cognitive dissonance. It doesn’t feel like, “Hey, something’s wrong with me. I should get help.” They can’t see something wrong with them, so they blame the other person. Therefore, a very low percentage of people with these disorders seek help, as they don’t see themselves as the problem and instead blame others.
That makes them chronically and historically harmful, but they can only harm those who stay in relationships with them. This brings us to the human magnet syndrome. The codependent and the narcissist have this unconscious attraction—like a dance. It fits, and it feels like love to both of them.
The codependent, of course, is the one who is hurt the most and can’t escape, not necessarily because of what the narcissist is doing or not doing, but because they are terrified of loneliness, or what I call pathological loneliness. The pain and suffering are horrible, and they stem from the type and degree of codependency, or what I’ve named self-love deficit disorder, and the type of narcissism. Narcissism can range from sociopathy to levels of sadistic traits. You can have narcissistic personality disorder with varying degrees of grandiosity and entitlement. No matter the specifics, it’s incredibly painful and emotionally traumatic.
Jacobsen: What about practical tools? Things people can develop, like boundaries? How do you help clients realize boundaries are possible and give them tools they can take home to work on developing boundaries themselves in mild ways?
Rosenberg: Yes. Well, first, let me clarify something. The problem isn’t about boundaries. You can teach an SLD (someone who is self-love deficient and codependent) boundaries all day, and they can be a psychotherapist like me, a recovering codependent. No matter how brilliant you are at discussing and teaching boundaries, the deeper, unconscious elements of codependency—the parts guided by dissociated parts of ourselves—are still in control.
To understand codependency, you need to look deeper. Imagine a pyramid, which I call the codependency pyramid, or the self-love deficit disorder pyramid. At the bottom is the attachment trauma we talked about earlier. From that comes core shame, which is a fundamental belief—a belief that you are inherently unlovable or broken. From core shame comes pathological loneliness.
It’s this bone-aching, pervasive pain of feeling alone in the world, so much so that it’s physically painful. Then, from there comes this addictive compulsion to be in a relationship—an addiction. So, if we’re going to solve codependency, we can’t just address the symptoms at the top of the pyramid, which is what most books focus on. We have to go all the way to the bottom and address the attachment trauma, which isn’t accessible through talk therapy.
What I’ve done is create a 10-stage treatment program called the Self-Love Recovery Treatment Program that addresses the trauma, core shame, loneliness, SLDD (Self-Love Deficit Disorder) addiction, and all the associated traits and characteristics. This process takes anywhere from 8 months to about a year and a half because we’re not just teaching someone or handing them a book on boundaries. It’s about getting to that part of them that, no matter what, will sabotage their mental health and their children’s safety—something they can’t feel or know because it’s unconscious. So, in my counseling sessions with people in the treatment program, we talk about boundaries, which is an important subject.
But that discussion only comes when they’re ready and capable of understanding what they can do, fully aware of the countervailing forces that come with it. Setting a boundary with a personality-disordered partner will always result in a storm. There’s a lot more to it, but I’ll leave it at that because I know you have more questions.
Jacobsen: When you’re in a session with someone stuck in these relationship patterns, how do you engage in that treatment program even while they’re still in the relationship?
Rosenberg: Great question. I’ll never forget the time a friend of mine, who was an attorney owning several offices, came up to me—this was 14 years ago—and said, “Ross, Google’ bankruptcy attorneys Chicago.'” I did, and his practice was listed. I said, “Wow, how did you do that?” He replied, “Well, Google bought YouTube. I don’t know if you’ve heard about YouTube.” I said, “I have. It’s new.” (I’m dating myself here.)
He told me, “If you post YouTube videos, you’ll be out there on the Internet and rank high in SEO.” So, before I even wrote a book, around the time I was traveling the U.S. training therapists on codependency and narcissism, I started posting on YouTube. Long story short, my YouTube channel now has over 35 million views and 330,000 subscribers. I also have a podcast called The Self-Love Recovery Podcast, which ranks in the top 2% globally (250,000 downloads).
People find my content through YouTube, podcasts, and other social media platforms where I have a presence. When they discover a video or article, they come to my website because they hear me talking about codependency in a way no one else has before. I not only explain it, but I also explain it in a way that makes sense and helps them understand why they’ve spent their whole lives trying to get better but couldn’t.
If people can afford my rates, I encourage them to work with me in my treatment program. If they can’t, I have other educational and support products and services to help them. But it all starts with someone Googling codependency or narcissism and finding me. I thank my friend Dave for turning me on YouTube all those years ago because I don’t know what would have happened if I had never found YouTube.
Jacobsen: Do you think codependency, say, from the middle of the last century to now, if you put a line of best fit (ignoring any bumps that might appear in particular studies or meta-analyses), has been increasing, decreasing, or more or less stable among North American populations?
Rosenberg: Many people say narcissism is the worst it’s ever been. Others said—and this annoys me, though I try not to show it—”Everyone’s a narcissist,” which renders the term meaningless. In a book I wrote, I created a continuum that specifically defines what makes up a pathological narcissist and what defines a codependent. I explain that if you don’t meet that criterion, you’re just selfish and entitled, not a pathological narcissist.
Similarly, if you don’t meet the criteria for being codependent, it doesn’t mean you’re too selfless or giving. The idea was to encourage people not to overuse labels. While it hasn’t changed the world as I had hoped, the issue of codependency and narcissism has been relatively stable throughout modern history. Our understanding of these conditions and our ability to identify them have evolved.
Now, with the proliferation of information on narcissism, the world has been talking about it more. On the one hand, that’s a blessing, but on the other, there’s been a backlash. You can go on YouTube or listen to podcasts, and everyone has something to say—everyone claims to be an expert. With so much information out there, people often aren’t getting the definitive explanation, which is probably why my book, The Human Magnet Syndrome, has resonated. Those watching the video can see its cover here.
The book has sold 200,000 copies and has been published in 12 languages. I’m lucky; I never thought it would reach this level, but it’s done so well because it’s the book therapists give their clients to help them understand these concepts. It’s also the book that people who don’t have a therapist read to grasp these dynamics. So, codependency and narcissism have remained stable. Our understanding and sensitivity to it have made it seem more prevalent.
Jacobsen: Ross, your journey from therapist to author fascinates me. You’d never written professionally before 2012, yet you’ve now expanded The Human Magnet Syndrome through three editions – each one growing substantially. Walk us through how that happened organically. Was there a moment when you realized, “Okay, I’m actually an author now”?
Rosenberg: Everything I’m involved with now sprouted from this chaotic yet meaningful blend of personal experiences and professional development. The journey has been unexpected, but it’s unfolded in ways I couldn’t have predicted.
Back in 2012, I was running a popular training session called “Codependents and Narcissists: Understanding the Attraction.” It was the most-attended course at our company. Then, out of the blue, the training company I worked for bought a small publishing house and suggested, “This is our biggest hit. You should turn it into a book.”
Me, a writer? I had never written a book before. But I figured, why not give it a shot? That first book, “The Human Magnet Syndrome,” was basically my PowerPoint presentation expanded into 160 pages. It wasn’t exactly polished, but it was a beginning. Five years later, in 2017, the second edition expanded to 250 pages. By 2024, the third version reached 350 pages—we even had to adjust the layout to fit everything in.
The funny thing? I never planned any of this. It just sort of happened. That’s how life goes, I guess. Nothing stays the same. It all just keeps evolving.
Jacobsen: How has your definition refined and evolved since you started entering the field?
Rosenberg: Not only do I figure things out through my experience (with me as my number one test subject), but I’m working with clients daily—well, Monday through Wednesday—and learning from them. That’s how ideas come to me. Many clients know this—I’ll stop mid-session, write a note down, and said, “Thank you, this is going to be a YouTube video.” They laughed and always feel good when they see the video because they feel connected to it.
So, it’s always evolving. This is a complex topic. It’s a landscape of information comprising many different realms of study—neurological, psychological, behavioral, environmental, and cognitive. I am growing and will probably keep developing until I stop, which is great because that’s how science works. Hopefully, someone will see my work and take it to the next level, and that’s exactly what I want. That’s how I know people are getting what they most need—through the evolution and growth of our understanding.
Jacobsen: What has surprised you about your findings in SLDD over time? What nuances have come up through evidence and realizations about personal experience?
Rosenberg: The nuances, yes. What surprises me are the subtleties that emerge in the evidence and the realizations that align with personal experiences.
I wish I were a psychologist. I have a master’s degree and a license, but I’m not a psychologist. Even if I were, I’m not prone to research. So the evidence I have—and its strong and profound evidence—is based on my 37 years as a mental health practitioner, my recovery as a recovering self-love deficient or codependent, and the feedback I get from other therapists. No one is telling me I’m full of crap or that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Trust me, if you’re talking about theory and diagnosis and making things up, other therapists are going to push back.
What has surprised me is that I keep learning—the evolution of understanding will probably never be complete, but should it be? I’m as much a scientist as I am an artist. In other words, I’m intuitive. I have this whole thing about art, which has nothing to do with this interview, but the intuitive part is that I’m always keeping myself open to new ways of understanding things. Plus, my ideas change. If there’s enough evidence—and evidence for me is what I see in the world, with my clients, and in the literature I read—I shift, I move forward.
I have had no major shifts in my thinking on this – and I don’t say this lightly, but the Human Magnet Syndrome isn’t just a theory, it’s an observable reality. Ask any codependent person: nearly every single one will admit they’re drawn to narcissists because of unconscious drives rooted in childhood wounds. The pattern is clear and demonstrable. My work hasn’t changed this fundamental truth; I’ve simply
For example, in my book The Codependency Revolution, I discussed four codependency personality types. I didn’t know personality types when I first wrote The Human Magnet Syndrome. I remember thinking of someone in my family who was selfish, a pathological liar, and a manipulator—a narcissist. But she married people with personality disorders. I thought to myself, “Uh-oh, maybe my theory is wrong because how can she be a narcissist, and he also is a narcissist?”
That’s when the idea of personality types came up. This woman, despite being a pathological liar and manipulator, was always in relationships—primarily marriages—with pathological narcissists. So, she wasn’t a narcissist herself. That’s when I developed the idea of the active codependent, and it changed everything—active and passive codependents.
Passive is like my grandpa Chuck, the salt of the earth. Then I came up with the idea of “anorexic,” which is when people said, “After my horrible relationship with a narcissist five years ago, I stopped dating, and I’ve been fine since.” But they’re not fine because they dissociated from the romantic part of themselves, which is a fundamental part of humanity. They removed themselves from any potential for romance, love, or intimacy. And then, other personality types emerged. That’s an example of how the concept keeps growing and expanding as I learn more and try to help the world understand.
It’s no coincidence that my book’s title is The Codependency Revolution: Fixing What Always Was Broken. The world needs an explanation for this problem because a solution cannot exist without one.
Jacobsen: When you’re helping people frame this part of their life or helping them come to more profound realizations—about core shame, for instance, that they might harbor—what is some of the feedback you receive many years or even months later when they’ve been using your advice?
Jacobsen: That’s a great question. You remind me how damn lucky I am—how I’m living a dream. Over a decade later, I developed this idea and created my first presentation for other therapists. From then until now, I have been satisfied because I was able to turn my problems into something useful. By the way, I’m in therapy often, and I don’t plan to stop because that’s part of my understanding of both the problem and the solution.
However, that the world now has this information, and even though I may not be as “popular” or widely viewed as I was during my peak, I consistently get positive feedback. People across my work almost always said the same thing: “Thank you. Until I saw your video, heard your podcast, or read your book, I had no idea what the problem was. Now I know I’m not crazy.” And then they’ll joke about it. So, I’m blessed in that respect—to keep impacting the world and, hopefully, eventually create what will become standard knowledge.
I’m not there yet, but I’d like to get to a place where everyone knows that The Human Magnet Syndrome and The Codependency Cure best explain codependency. But I’m not retired yet, so there’s still more time.
Rosenberg: Ross, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Oh, it’s my pleasure. Thank you. Those were very good questions, and I hope they help you, your readers, and the community at The Good Men Project.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/04
Forrest Webber is an entrepreneur and digital marketing expert, specializing in SEO, PPC, and home services. As the owner of Bear Brothers Cleaning, Fireplace Distributor, and SEO for Hotel, he builds and scales brands under Brother Brands. A former Tulane baseball player, he transitioned into business leadership and digital strategy. Skateboarding’s high-stakes nature and individuality set it apart from traditional sports. Its distinct culture, viral potential, and Olympic inclusion have expanded its reach. Webber notes that skateboarders should leverage social media to build personal brands, similar to YouTube golfers. Underground media and viral clips continue to shape public perception.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the initial appeal of skateboarding culture?
Forrest Webber: Maybe not the culture, but the sport itself is what intrigued me. They’re putting their body on the line each run, it’s very high stake. In that level of flow state, you can pull off crazy feats, like they were in the Olympics.
Jacobsen: Since not deeply involved in skateboard culture, but with an interest in it,what aspects of the sport seem unique to you?
Webber: Their clothing choices is different than pretty much any other sport besides being similar to snowboarding. It really stands out when you’re used to watching other sports that have organized uniforms.
Jacobsen: How do you view skateboarding as evolving from a niche hobby to something in the Olympics?
Webber: People like to be entertained; if you provide value, people will watch.
Jacobsen: What makes skateboarding different than more traditional sports?
Webber: It doesn’t appear as organized as traditional sports because there aren’t teams (at least not popular ones notable by outsiders of the sport).
There don’t appear to be as many rules which fit the culture of skateboarding.
Jacobsen: What values does this sport inculcate and bring out in youth?
Webber: Any outside activity is good for kids. I ripsticked a lot as a teenager with my friends and had a great time doing it and challenging each other to go down taller and taller mountains.
Jacobsen: Are there any parallels between digital marketing in the hotel industry and the skateboarding world?
Webber: Skateboarders and hotels each have their own unique personality.
Jacobsen: What has been the role of underground and alternative marketing and media in the spread of different public perceptions of skateboarding?
Webber: I feel like my opinion has been shaped by what goes viral and, of course Tony Hawk.
Jacobsen: What digital marketing strategies should skateboarders use to make themselves the brand and maintain interest in the subculture and alternative sport?
Webber: They should be trying to go viral on social media every day. It seems like they could make more money from sponsorships and ad revenue than from the sport itself. This is similar to the rise in popularity of YouTube golfers.
Skateboarding is a very clippable sport which makes it easy (if you’re good) to make clips and push volume.
Jacobsen: What digital marketing strategies should skateboarders use to make themselves the brand and maintain interest in the subculture and alternative sport interesting to hundreds of thousands of people?
Webber: It was definitely interesting to watch in the Olympics, I am not sure if it’d have the same appeal if it was on ESPN2, for example. But that’s similar to almost all of the Olympic sports; it’s just a different feeling.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Forrest.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/03
Paul Rice is the founder of Fair Trade USA. He discusses the transformative impact of fair trade on global supply chains, environmental sustainability, and consumer empowerment. Drawing from his experience in Nicaragua, where he founded the country’s first fair trade coffee cooperative, Rice highlights how fair trade boosts farmer income, supports education, and fosters transparency. He explains the business case for ethical sourcing—risk mitigation, supply chain resilience, and consumer demand—and addresses the need for independent certification amid rising greenwashing. His new book, Every Purchase Matters, emphasizes that consumers can shape a better world through everyday choices at the checkout.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Paul Rice. He is the founder and former CEO of Fair Trade USA. He established the organization in 1998 after spending over a decade working with smallholder farmers in Nicaragua. Under his leadership, Fair Trade USA has become the leading certifier of Fair Trade products in the United States, partnering with more than 1,700 companies and retailers. Rice is also the author of Every Purchase Matters: How Fair Trade Farmers, Companies, and Consumers Are Changing the World. His work has been recognized with numerous honours. Paul, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Paul Rice: Scott, thank you so much: Happy to be here.
Jacobsen: So, what is the outline of the evolution of the Fair Trade movement?
Rice: I’m glad you called it a movement, because Fair Trade is not simply a market. It’s a movement, too. Essentially, it is about great products improving lives and protecting the planet. Fair Trade is a rigorous certification system with a comprehensive set of social, labour, and environmental standards for farms and factories around the world. When they meet those standards and pass an independent audit, they get certified.
They can sell their products with the Fair Trade Certified™ label. Our market partners, the companies we work with in North America, agree to pay a premium. That’s the secret sauce of Fair Trade. We’re not asking producers worldwide to be sustainable without a reward. We’ve created a model in which the market rewards more responsible and sustainable practices. Fair Trade is a way for you and me, as consumers, to choose products enabling extraordinary social and environmental impact around the world.
When I started in the Fair Trade movement over 35 years ago, few companies cared about the struggles of farmers and workers in the developing world. Not too many companies thought consumers cared either. So, it was a nascent movement. One of many efforts to engage companies and consumers around more responsible products. Over time, we’ve seen companies embrace Fair Trade and other forms of ethical sourcing, primarily, because consumers are asking for it. There’s a strong business case for Fair Trade. I’m eager to discuss this. Ultimately, if Fair Trade doesn’t work for businesses, it won’t work for farmers.
Jacobsen: What is the business case for Fair Trade?
Rice: Companies acquire three kinds of value when tapping Fair Trade supply chains or getting suppliers certified Fair Trade.
Number one: there is reputational risk mitigation. Every farmer and worker worldwide has a phone now, so there are no more secrets in the global supply chain. We’ve seen exposés on child labor in the cocoa fields of West Africa, child labour in chocolate, and slave labour in the shrimp industry in Thailand. That has exposed retailers and brands in North America.
One way to address that is to create a more transparent supply chain in which Costco or Whole Foods know where the shrimp, tomatoes, coffee, and chocolate are sourced. Through that supply chain transparency, you can ensure that the producers on the other side of the world are producing in a more sustainable, responsible way, verified through a third-party audit. Reputational risk mitigation is avoiding getting caught in a scandal in the supply chain. That’s value number one.
Value number two: there is supply chain resilience, security, and reliability. If companies ever realized supply chains were intimately linked with success as a business, it was during COVID. We saw supply chain disruptions and companies stocked out of products because supply chains were disrupted. Fair Trade and other expressions of ethical sourcing allow companies to ensure suppliers are getting enough money to stay in business and produce reliably with quality.
I’ll give you an example. We work with a lot of coffee companies. We don’t work with Folgers, Maxwell House, or lower-quality brands. We work with higher-quality brands who depend on high quality beans. So, how does a company like Starbucks, Green Mountain Coffee, or Nespresso ensure a reliable supply of high quality coffee beans? If a coffee farmer is starving or struggling to put food on the table. They don’t have the bandwidth or resources to care about quality.
So, it’s in Nespresso’s interest to ensure enough money gets back to that farmer so that the farmer can then be a reliable supplier of high-quality beans. That’s what I mean by supply chain reliability—supply chain security. The brand and the farmer share an interest. Companies securing access to the raw materials drive business.
Third element: you and me, man. It’s the customer. The data and research is clear. The market in terms of the dramatic sales of sustainable products, too. Consumers are increasingly reading the label. Increasingly, we want to know: Is this product healthy? Is it safe? Also, is it sustainable? Is it environmentally responsible? Is it socially responsible? No one wants to feel as if supporting child labour, deforestation, or other bad stuff through purchases.
So, do no harm is an ethos growing among consumers. There’s more forward-leaning, proactive growth in conscious consumerism. Millennials and Gen Z indices are even higher than those of the Boomers regarding expectations of companies and the companies’ impact on the world. Gen Z and Millennials leave brands that don’t care. Many brand leaders and business leaders see sustainability as a means for stable success in the future.
So, the business case for Fair Trade includes brands and retailers tapping into this growing consumer segment looking for more sustainable products. It’s an opportunity for growth and profitability and brand differentiation. Different companies find different sources of value in Fair Trade. By the way, fair trade is one expression of ethical sourcing. Other examples include organics, Marine Stewardship Council certification, Non-GMO Project certification, and many different ethical sourcing communities.
If you look at the last 10, 20, 30 years of growth in ethical sourcing and Fair Trade, it’s clear that we are moving from niche to norm. More responsible businesses are moving from niche to norm. It gives incredible hope.
Jacobsen: When you talk to business leaders, you can discuss the theory and the praxis of the business case for Fair Trade. What do business leaders say have been their lessons when entering and evolving with the industry?
Rice: Yes, it’s a great question. I work with so many amazing, visionary leaders in the business community, who are testing and experimenting with this new chapter of capitalism: Conscious Capitalism. Michael Porter, a famous Harvard professor, wrote about the theory of shared value. This theory states: Through sustainable business, you can create value different stakeholders share. It’s the heart of Fair Trade.
We’re not asking Whole Foods or Walmart to reduce profits to pay farmers and workers more money. Rather, we’re asking them to participate in a model allowing them to succeed, farmers to earn more, ecosystems to be protected, and consumers to be delighted with a great product. So, I would call them luminaries creating a new chapter of capitalism. I hear directly how Fair Trade is creating more transparent supply chains.
We work with Hershey, a chocolate company. Hershey wanted more transparency about its suppliers in West Africa. They wanted to address issues like child labour in West Africa and respond proactively. One of the problems in West Africa is not schools in many rural communities. So, what will you do if you’re a cocoa farmer with a six-year-old child? When you go to the fields, there’s no school in your village. Are you going to leave your six-year-old home alone all day? No—the kid’s coming with you.
So, one of the first things our cocoa farmers in West Africa (in the Ivory Coast) started doing was building schools. Hershey, as part of their Fair Trade program, paid a premium back to those villages. Those villages built schoolhouses. In the first two years, we built 30 schoolhouses in those communities. By the way, the communities went to the government and said, “If we build the school, will you pay for the teachers?” It was a cool example of a community finding its ability to negotiate with the government, a public-private partnership model, where the farmers built the schoolhouses.
I’m talking about two-room schoolhouses, simple structures. The government paid for the teachers. We put thousands of kids into schools in those first two years as a concrete way to address the issue and the risk of child labour. So, you see Hershey concretely talking about Fair Trade to enable education and mitigate the industry’s child labour risk. We have a great program with Fair Trade tomatoes and Walmart. Walmart came to us and said, “We want to ensure that our suppliers are strong and capable. Capable of producing the right quality, delivering reliably, offering the right price, and taking care of the land and their workers.”
They wanted to enter Fair Trade with those goals in mind. My initial response was, “Why do you care? You don’t own those tomato farms. If they fail, you can buy them from another tomato farm.” They said, “It’s true. We find engaging over the long term more efficient and effective to form long-term relationships with our suppliers, because we’re projecting demand into the future. We will have more and more demand for tomatoes and other products. So we want to ensure that the supply will be there and the supply will be loyal to us. So, we care about our growers, because we understand the long-term importance of the supply chain.”
So then, we did this program with Walmart, which at the time represented only 10% of all U.S. Walmart tomato sales. Overnight, they became the largest seller of Fair Trade tomatoes in the world. They were sourced from farms in Mexico, including snacking tomatoes from an amazing company called NatureSweet. With Walmart and the growers, we created a dashboard and started tracking key indicators—worker well-being, how the premium was spent, and farm-level indicators like productivity and worker retention.
We found worker retention—workers going home at the end of the season for their break and then returning to the same farm—jumped to eight times the industry average. Why is that important? Ask any farmer in the U.S. or any country worldwide what their number one concern is today: It’s labour. Gone are the days of an abundant supply of cheap labour. Farmers are worried about not having enough people to harvest crops.
So, if you can retain workers, if you can keep workers coming back year after year, if you can maintain a stable workforce, then you have a competitive advantage. As a business, you have more stability. NatureSweet reported eight times higher worker retention on farms than the industry average. When workers stay, the company has lower recruitment costs. It doesn’t have to spend as much money recruiting labour from around Mexico.
You have lower training costs, i.e., training workers who have never worked with tomatoes. You’ve got to train them to work with tomatoes, right? So your training costs go down, and your productivity goes up because you have a more experienced, skilled workforce—people who have been working in tomatoes for years. There’s value for the supplier and for that farm owner. Walmart has a more secure and reliable supply chain that can deliver the right quality and the right volume year after year.
So, I spoke about the business case of the reliable supply chain. That’s a great example. And I’ll share—in the same program, if I may—the Walmart tomato program: when Walmart put the Fair Trade Certified label on the tomatoes at Walmart, sales jumped 3%. It may not sound like a lot—3% volume growth. To Walmart, it’s a big number. Who knew a Walmart shopper would gravitate toward a Fair Trade Certified product and buy more? It exploded assumptions about who the Fair Trade consumer is. It revealed conscious consumers shop everywhere. They shop at Whole Foods, Costco, and Walmart.
Jacobsen: Now we have the Fairtrade International label, and Fair Trade Certified from Fair Trade USA. However, there have been cases of self-declared claims to ‘Fair Trade.’ So, the Fair Trade logo was used without third-party certification. What can people do, using their judgment, to differentiate between misleading claims and actual Fair Trade practices and labels?
Rice: Yes, it’s a great question. So, there are two Fair Trade labels in North America—two auditing bodies: Fair Trade USA and Fairtrade International. Fair Trade USA certifies about 93% of all Fair Trade products in the U.S. market. This figure fluctuates slightly by year and product category, but Fair Trade USA is the dominant certifier in the U.S. market. Our relationship with the U.S. market goes back 26 years to when I founded the organization in 1998. Fairtrade International is a collection of Fair Trade groups in England, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada—as well as other countries. It’s primarily a European-based organization.
They have a single Fair Trade label that just says “Fairtrade.” Ours says, “Fair Trade Certified.” So, in Canada and Europe, you’ll see the “Fairtrade” label predominantly. You won’t see much of the Fairtrade International label in the U.S. market. Fairtrade International and Fair Trade USA subscribe to the same ideals—the same general philosophy that business can and must be a force for good and that consumers will step up and reward companies for meeting a standard. We believe in the same mix of social and environmental standards.
What’s different about Fair Trade USA versus Fairtrade International is that Fair Trade USA has tried to expand the number of products, geographies, and types of producers allowed into Fair Trade. So we very much do what Fairtrade International does. We stand on their shoulders. We honour their work and support it.
However, their work tends to be more focused on small farmer cooperatives. Under our vision of Fair Trade for All, which we declared in 2011, Fair Trade USA seeks to go beyond small farmer co-ops. Also, we work with factory workers, fisheries, dairy farms, and apparel. So we’re in several product categories that Fairtrade International isn’t. We also started certifying farms in North America and Europe, whereas Fairtrade International is focused exclusively on the Global South—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
So there are a few differences. I would argue that our vision—Fair Trade USA’s vision—is perhaps more inclusive. We believe any producer anywhere in the world, in any product category, should be allowed access to Fair Trade certification. But we stand shoulder to shoulder with Fairtrade International regarding the bigger movement. You referenced false claims. Companies saying they’re Fair Trade when they’re not. That’s a rare occurrence. As you might imagine, we monitor the airwaves. We monitor brands. Some brands say their products are “fairly traded”and don’t carry a label.
It’s not a threat to the movement. When we see a company using that terminology, we reach out to them and say, “Hey, we appreciate what you’re doing. Wouldn’t you love to join the movement and have the credibility that comes with being independently audited?”
Most consumers are skeptical of companies claiming to do good without any oversight. The larger the company, the more skeptical the consumer. We worked with Starbucks for a number of years. Then they dropped Fair Trade and moved toward their in-house program. It’s called C.A.F.E. Practices. On every Starbucks coffee package, it says “Ethically Sourced.” It doesn’t say Fair Trade. The National Consumers League recently brought a class action lawsuit against Starbucks because it found bad labour practices on farms supplying coffee to Starbucks.
Starbucks promotes “Ethically Sourced” coffee, but this claim has not been independently audited or verified. It just brought home the value of having independent oversight—like Fair Trade—to ensure the claim is legitimate. So, it will be interesting to see what Starbucks does with that suit and their in-house program. I don’t lose sleep over the few companies out there who claim to be Fair Trade, but aren’t certified. Greenwashing in the sustainability movement is hazardous.
Two final thoughts that I’d love to share: The first one—Fair Trade works. Fair Trade improves lives. It protects the environment. I know this, because I lived it. At the tender age of 22, I bought a one-way ticket to Nicaragua. I worked with coffee farmers for 11 years deep in the highlands. While there, I had the chance to start the first Fair Trade coffee co-op in Nicaragua. I started in 1990 and ran it for four years. So, I had a front-row seat on this journey of empowerment. 3,000 families came together to pool their coffee, add value through processing, and then export directly to Fair Trade buyers worldwide.
As a result of that participation in the Fair Trade market, those farmers received more money for coffee, so they could stay on the land, keep their kids in school, and run healthcare programs. We ran reforestation programs. We dug wells and brought clean drinking water into villages for the first time. All of this amazing progress, not thanks to the government or some well-intentioned charitable organization, but thanks to this simple notion of a fair price for a great product. That’s what opened my eyes to the impact of Fair Trade and how transformative it can be in improving the lives of farmers and workers worldwide. I moved back to the States and started Fair Trade USA. I felt a calling, because Fair Trade works.
The second message is why I wrote Every Purchase Matters. The news is full of billionaires and presidents who seemingly have much more power. My message to everyone else is that you, too, are powerful. You and I can vote with our dollars every day for a better, more socially responsible, and environmentally sustainable world. When we go to the store, we have the chance to vote. We can choose sustainable products because corporate America is listening. When we choose sustainable products, corporate America does more of them. I’ve seen this clearly in the Fair Trade movement over the last thirty years. When consumers buy Fair Trade products, companies come in and do more, and other companies join them.
It’s part of the mainstreaming of ethical sourcing and sustainable products—consumers are voting with their dollars. That’s why my book is a book of hope and a call to action. You don’t have to wait four years to vote for change. You can vote for change today—by going to the store and choosing a product more consistent with your values.
Jacobsen: Paul, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Rice: Scott, thank you for helping to get the word out and for your journalism. We need journalists right now. We desperately need journalists right now to tell the world what’s happening. And I appreciate the chance to talk to you 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/02
Sam McKeown is the Prostate Cancer Research Director at Movember, where she leads global initiatives to improve outcomes for men with advanced prostate cancer. With a strong background in oncology research, she has played a pivotal role in advancing personalized medicine, including the groundbreaking ENZA-p trial combining Lu-PSMA and enzalutamide. McKeown advocates for adaptive dosing strategies to tailor treatments and enhance patient quality of life. She has also contributed to testicular cancer research through international collaborations like the TIGER trial. McKeown’s leadership continues to drive innovative, life-extending therapies and meaningful change in men’s health through evidence-based, patient-centered research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)?
Sam McKeown: This is prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (outside of the prostate) like bones, lungs, liver or lymph nodes and the cancer can no longer be slowed down by low testosterone levels (from using hormone therapy). It’s usually defined by a rising PSA level, worsening symptoms (like increased pelvic and back pain and feeling very tired) and scans showing growing cancer.
Jacobsen: Why is mCRPC incurable?
McKeown: There are currently no treatments available that will cure prostate cancer that has metastasised (spread to other parts of the body) and are no longer responding to hormone therapy.
Jacobsen: What does this mean for men?
McKeown: This means that the focus of treatment for men with a diagnosis of mCRPC is to slow down the progression (rate of spread) of the cancer, and improve the length of survival and quality of life.
Jacobsen: What did the ENZA-p study test drug combination show? (What were those medications?)
McKeown: ENZA-p tested a combination treatment (a radioactive therapy called Lu-PSMA plus a hormone therapy called enzalutamide) compared to enzalutamide alone. The study involved 162 participants, with half receiving the combination treatment and the other half receiving the standalone hormone therapy treatment.
Jacobsen: How does adaptive dosing approach personalize treatment for patients?
McKeown: The trial also tested an innovative world-first personalised treatment approach called ‘adaptive dosing,’ which uses imaging and blood results to identify patients who are responding to the treatment and determine those patients who were most likely to benefit from continued treatment, tailoring the treatment approach for each patient.
Jacobsen: What were the regarding survival rates and quality of life from the study?
McKeown: Participants who received the new treatment combination experienced longer and better lives in terms of increased overall survival and improved pain and fatigue than those who received the hormone therapy (enzalutamide) alone
Jacobsen: How might the ENZA-p study influence future treatment of metastatic prostate cancer?
McKeown: Studies such as this one allow this combination of treatments and adaptive dosing to be investigated earlier in a mCRPC diagnosis. The results of this trial may lead to further clinical trials in this space and allows for a personalised approach to medicine
Jacobsen: How has Movember helped with the development of Lu-PSMA and enzalutamide treatments?
McKeown: Movember is proud to have supported the development of Lu-PSMA and enzalutamide as standalone treatments since 2009 via funding of grants directly to clinical researchers and groups.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sam.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Edited by Richard Dowsett, Humanist Association of Toronto Coordinator and Treasurer)
Publication (Outlet/Website): Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky (Humanist Association of Toronto)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/09/05 (Submission Date)
The humanist ethos seems akin to an empirical ethics, where the discoveries of the sciences lead to particular insights about the human condition with some reflection. A certain mulling over the realities of the world in light of human limitations.
There is in this the basic notion of a world or a cosmos “out there,” which leads to a separation between the external processes of the world and the internal psychological dynamic of the mind – and, in some sense, an amorphous unified theory in their transactional status.
One, in a way, assumed as a passive, objective system in operation as the universe; another, in one other way, asserted in doctrines including Freedom of the Will, as an active system embedded within the passive system.
In this way, the long-term future of the universe becomes implicated in the actions of every human being in every here-and-now. If one wants a formal non-religious spirituality, then this constructs a modest basis for it.
All decisions in the here-and-now matter, in a concrete sense, for the long-term there-and-then. Then in our own short futures, we harbor even greater potential and, as a result, responsibility for actions in our lifetimes. North American Indigenous spirituality with responsibility to future generations remains non-trivial in this view, too.
Science emerges from natural philosophy, and went by the title in former generations, and exists inextricably linked to philosophy in this way – by history and definition. The naturalistic perspective of the sciences provided to humanism and then fed through compassion-based, utilitarian ethics seen in John Stuart (and Harriet Taylor) Mill gives a viable option in a reason-based approach to ethics.
We can see this in the evidence from the psychological and zoological sciences about the ability to cogitate and feel in other animal species, not simply human beings. In this, other beings matter, not as much but enough. A certain sufficient threshold of feeling and thinking for decent levels of moral consideration within human systems and life.
Regarding the human animal, the same applies and extends to the less fortunate, the destitute, the penurious, the houseless, the workless, the loveless, the parentless, and those living with disabilities or greater prejudice thrust against them, and so on.
Peter Singer has been a pioneer in the effort to realize the work of utilitarianism of Mill with an expanded ethical universe with the inclusion of non-human animals. The do as you would be done by and love your neighbour as yourself in most mainstream religions exhibit the ethics of Mill and vice versa. The only difference in contrast to the time of Mill remains the increase in the moral sphere or a fuller realization of the Golden Rule’s intention in the consideration of other beings.
Remembering, of course, women, for a long time, were seen, and in many cases still get regarded as, non-persons or unequal to men. The Mills with women’s equality pioneered the expanded ethical circle for the entirety of the human species. Singer to non-human animals with Effective Altruism.
The Mills in Utilitarianism: Chapter 2 What Utilitarianism Is (1863) states:
I must again repeat, what the assailants of utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.
The ratiocinated consideration of the thoughts and feelings of others tied to the empirical findings of science helps build the better world envisioned by humanist philosophy. Mill, Singer, apparently the Nazarene, and others appear to agree, in principle, with the ethic; while, now, we have the greater capability to know which directions to take given the modern findings of science. Our knowledge grants greater responsibility to work within a wider moral universe.
—
P.S. To the transhumanists, this makes transhumanism a speculative empirical moral philosophy, akin to the difference between science and science fiction, where, as with discussions of the Three Laws of Robotics, the Asilomar AI Guidelines, Artificial Moral Agents, so on, human-crafted agents may deserve and garner rights, i.e., “robot rights.” This may become the frontier post-animal rights.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen (Edited by Richard Dowsett, Humanist Association of Toronto Coordinator and Treasurer)
Publication (Outlet/Website): Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky (Humanist Association of Toronto)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/07/21 (Submission Date)
Electronic media can facilitate the future of humanist communities. Most Canadians use communications technologies. That is, many humanists across Canada could garner greater opportunities for community building compared to any prior time with the flexibility afforded by electronic media.
The Computer Age characterizes the late 20th and early 21st century as much as vacuum tubes and the transistor in the middle of the 20thcentury, or the fossil fuels throughout the 20th.
With this Computer Age, this Information Technology Era, we work within the patterns of the old media. However, these processes become more efficient with asynchronous and geographical possibilities – time and place are not problems.
The old form of organizing during the height, while alive, of Paul Kurtz, Bertrand Russell, Niels Bohr, John Dewey, R. Buckminster Fuller, Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, and other humanist luminaries; the world of the eary and middle 20th century seemed more difficult to organize in, to humanize – so to speak.
The nature of community organizing was harder. The founding of organizations, coalitions, and groups was more difficult. The reasons are numerous, but some are the limitations in travel and the cost of the both one’s self and simple information too, especially compare to the modern era. Others are the limits in outspoken formal non-religion.
Things go “viral” now. The Internet makes for the greater possibilities of online communities of mind to build. Humanists amount to such a group. If I survey some of the landscape in the nation, Canada contains a variety of organizations, which seem to organically grow and evolve with online communities.
As the digital technology progresses and becomes better, the communities become more robust at-a-distance and at different times. People can post articles, comments, host Facebook chats, host groups online, debate and discussions through fora, create multimedia presentations and promotional videos for a variety of humanist causes.
The benefit from these electronic media comes from the basis for a more robust and inclusive environment for those humanists from more remote areas; those tacitly humanistic Canadians who could not come into the fold. Why? Technology limitations of the time; financial limitations to purchase technology, recently.
However, technology becomes cheaper and the platforms for engagement become cheaper or free. If humanists on a campus want to organize, they can form a secular student alliance or a formal humanist group on campus. Then they function electronically.
The online environment can provide the similar communal experience as in person communities. Take, for example, the university environment and the communities built with student groups.
It is important to incorporate the in-person meetings and debates and hosting tables in campus areas to let people know about the group. At the same time, we can rest assured the online community building is as or more important now.
This gives a solid basis to join and contribute at any stage of life. For example, an individual can respond to a forum post of an online group within minutes or months.
Also, the online community provides a particular filtration for the debates and discussions on some issues as comments can be screened according to previously set codes of conduct and standards of behavior set by the humanist organization for their online group.
Screening can provide potentially interested humanists with a more inclusive environment and an appropriate safe, respectful state of mind when they first approach the community from the outside.
Humanists are a disparate group. They are minorities within a minority of the non-religious. There is a negative perception of the non-religious. However, this perspective is changing over time. The need for a safe, respectful space is important in the light of the negative public perception of humanists.
Back to the university example, we can see the Secular Student Alliance working for the furtherance of a secular space for students. These efforts mean a lot to individual students. In a similar manner, spaces for other adults – humanists – could perform the same function in a similar way.
The modern period provides a firmer foundation with better and more ubiquitous technology, greater use of the technology, and ergonomic appeal (its ease of use for people). Why not take advantage of it?
With these powerful tools for community building at their fingertips, who knows what the humanist geniuses of today can accomplish?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/05/01
New Hampshire’s unemployment rate stands at 2.6%, reflecting a 0.6% monthly increase but a 42.1% decrease since December 2020. Chip Lupo notes that New Hampshire’s job market is thriving, with low poverty, strong private-sector absorption of federal job losses, and high job availability. While states like California face systemic employment challenges, New Hampshire ranks third nationally in job opportunities per capita. However, tariff impacts and federal job cuts could affect future trends. Kentucky, by contrast, ranks last, with unemployment claims surging over 270% year-over-year. Policy shifts, particularly around work requirements and training, are shaping employment landscapes across the U.S.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Chip Lupo to discuss New Hampshire’s unemployment rate. According to recent data from WalletHub, the rate is currently 2.6%, which reflects an increase of 0.6% from the previous month but a significant 42.1% decrease compared to December 2020.
Unemployment insurance claims have also seen a substantial drop. For the week ending March 24, 2025, New Hampshire posted one of the largest reductions in initial claims compared to the prior week and the same week in 2024.
So, when comparing this week to the previous week and to last year, what is happening with unemployment in New Hampshire? It is ranked among the top states, according to your analysis. What are some of the key findings?
Chip Lupo: We found that New Hampshire has performed exceptionally well across the board—both in the short term and compared to a year ago. These improvements show a job market that is not just stable but dynamic and evolving positively.
It’s interesting—I recently spoke with someone in San Francisco about California’s employment situation. While they’ve progressed since last year, they continue contending with deeper employment issues. By contrast, New Hampshire is showing strength both immediately and over time. The current figures indicate that its economy is robust. Not only is the unemployment rate low, but the underemployment rate has improved, and New Hampshire also ranks third nationally in job opportunities per capita, according to WalletHub.
New Hampshire also has the lowest percentage of its workforce living in poverty, which says much about the state’s ability to provide sustainable and inclusive employment.
More than 30 states recently saw decreased unemployment insurance claims, but 14 states—including Kentucky, Iowa, California, and Pennsylvania—experienced increases.
Jacobsen: So, what are some of the factors driving these mixed outcomes across the country?
Lupo: A major factor is the downsizing of federal government jobs. Federal jobs exist in every state, and when there are reductions, it affects state-level unemployment rates. That’s why it’s so important for states to cultivate strong private-sector economies. States that can absorb these displaced federal workers—like New Hampshire—show the strongest employment figures.
For example, Utah has a very healthy tech sector, which makes it an attractive destination for transitioning workers. When federal employees are laid off, those states with adaptable industries and job openings are best positioned to weather the changes.
But transitioning from federal employment to the private sector isn’t always simple. It raises a key question: do these workers typically find equivalent jobs immediately or need retraining?
Lupo: That’s the real challenge. The current focus is on reskilling and upskilling. I spoke with someone recently who emphasized this—especially for federal workers in tech or administration. Many individuals can transition, but shifting to a results-oriented private sector, where performance and profits are key, can be a culture shock. In government, performance expectations differ, and there’s often more job security.
In the private sector, you operate with company capital, which requires a more aggressive focus on outcomes. Adjusting to that environment is tough for some but necessary.
Jacobsen: As unemployment drops, are there any side effects or economic shocks to be aware of? Do we see other sectors reacting?
Lupo: Yes, when unemployment improves quickly, it can lead to fluctuations in other metrics, such as underemployment or wage pressure. However, in New Hampshire’s case, the consistent and widespread strength across different indicators—like job availability and low poverty levels—suggests a solid economic foundation. Still, watching broader trends is important, as economic ripples can take time to materialize fully.
Jacobsen: We see a clear downward trend in New Hampshire’s unemployment rate. But are there any other ripple effects or “wobbles” in the data that you’re noticing alongside that? What is your day-to-day analysis showing?
Lupo: Yes, great question. Beyond the unemployment rate itself, we’re seeing a few key developments. One thing to watch is the impact of tariffs—particularly the new or expanded tariffs raising the cost of goods for manufacturers and import-heavy businesses. If those costs continue to climb, companies may be forced to make tough decisions, including potential layoffs. Whether or not that’s already priced into their forecasts is something we’re closely monitoring.
Jacobsen: And in terms of the numbers, you noted something interesting. The difference between the most recent weekly data and last year’s point is about 6%.
Lupo: Exactly. It’s about a 6% difference, a fairly moderate shift when comparing those two distinct points in time—roughly fifty-one to fifty-three weeks apart. That suggests that while the short-term changes look dramatic—say, week-over-week or even month-over-month—when you zoom out over the year, we’re seeing a stabilization in unemployment levels. That consistency can signify resilience, especially when paired with sustained low levels, like in New Hampshire.
Jacobsen: So that speaks to policy as well?
Lupo: Definitely. Kudos to the policymakers in New Hampshire who have fostered a more job-friendly environment. Another important factor is how states react to anticipated changes at the federal level, especially concerning work requirements for public assistance. Several states are tightening eligibility, particularly for non-disabled adults, requiring them to seek employment in order to receive certain benefits. That policy shift is nudging more people back into the workforce, another reason we see improved employment numbers in states like New Hampshire.
Jacobsen: Are other states following suit?
Lupo: Yes, expect to see more states adjust their public assistance policies, specifically by adding or enforcing work requirements. That move can directly reduce the number of people drawing unemployment benefits and increase workforce participation—though, of course, it must be balanced with access to job training and reskilling programs.
Jacobsen: On the flip side, which state is at the bottom of the list right now?
Lupo: Statistically speaking, that would be Kentucky.
Jacobsen: Kentucky? Really?
Lupo: Yes—Kentucky is currently ranked dead last. The state has shown a nearly 15% increase in unemployment claims from just one week ago and over a 270% increase compared to the same week last year. Those are staggering figures. Something is happening locally in their economy—whether it’s a policy shift, a regional economic downturn, or a combination of both.
Jacobsen: That is surprising, especially given that parts of Kentucky, like Louisville and Lexington, have strong metro job markets.
Lupo: True, but rural Kentucky still represents a significant portion of the state, and that’s where we often see higher unemployment. Sectors like coal mining, which still play a role in parts of Kentucky, have been declining or are unstable. The result is a divided economic landscape—urban areas are doing relatively well, while rural regions are struggling.
According to WalletHub’s latest data, Kentucky is last in both week-over-week improvements and initial claims per 100,000 workforce. So yes, it is very much the polar opposite of New Hampshire right now.
Jacobsen: That puts things in perspective. Maybe Kentucky could benefit from studying what New Hampshire, Maryland, and the rest of the top-performing states are doing to strengthen their job markets.
Lupo: Absolutely. Each state’s situation is unique, but learning from best practices—whether it’s in job creation, private-sector incentives, or workforce development—can go a long way in turning things around.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/29
Ben Johnston joined Kapitus in 2014 as Chief Strategy Officer and became COO in January 2017. Prior to joining Kapitus, Ben was a Principal of Pine Brook Partners, a New York-based private equity firm, a Senior Associate at Lightyear Capital and an Analyst in the Office of the Chairman at PaineWebber. He holds a BA from Colby College and an MBA from the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. David McMenomey is a digital marketing expert and Redemit1 founder, specializing in scalable online advertising for small businesses. His $30M+ sales strategy helps e-commerce brands, coaches, and course creators profitably scale on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Collin Plume is the Founder and CEO of Noble Gold Investments, a precious metals IRA broker he founded in 2016 and My Digital Money, a crypto trading platform founded in 2021. He is the co-owner and CEO of Guardian-HR, an online HR service. Windy Pierre is the founder of Windy Pierre Dot Com, specializing in eCommerce and digital marketing. He develops strategies to optimize SEO, content marketing, and growth for businesses, ensuring targeted success. Chat Joglekar is CEO of Baton and former Zillow exec, offering expert insights on SMB valuations, acquisitions, and navigating economic shifts under evolving 2025 policy changes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is new with the Trump Administration?
Ben Johnston: The Trump Administration is focused on lower taxes, less regulation of business and the environment, less immigration and the expulsion of the undocumented from the United States, higher tariffs on goods manufactured abroad, and a more efficient federal government.
The key question for small businesses is how the political and economic changes that have been promised by the Trump Administration will impact inflation, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, and tariffs.
We expect the economy to grow in 2025 but also expect inflation to accelerate. Small businesses will have a difficult balancing act of capturing economic growth, while weathering accelerating costs.
Jacobsen: How is the political environment affecting things?
Johnston: The political environment: The Trump Administration entered office having won a clear mandate for change. Exactly what this change entails is still an open question, but it is safe to assume that it will include lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government, higher tariffs on imported goods, tighter immigration standards, and a reduction in the undocumented population. Lower taxes and less regulation will clearly be embraced by the business community while the long-term popularity of the other initiatives is debatable. What is clear is that business owners will be watching these developments closely as they will impact inflation, the cost of capital, the cost of goods sourced overseas, and overall economic demand.
Jacobsen: What is the nature and impact of these tariffs?
Johnston: Tariffs: President Trump has proposed various tariff plans at various times on the import of foreign goods, including from China, Mexico and Canada. Tariffs of this significance could over time make manufacturing in the U.S. more economic relative to importing goods from abroad, which could be good for some industries, but in the short to medium term, these tariffs are likely to drive inflation significantly higher and cause significant disruption to the global supply chain, threatening many U.S. jobs at manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers who rely on the global supply chain to source the components, raw materials, and finished products they sell. Higher tariffs will certainly cause prices to rise for U.S. consumers, as tariffs drive up the cost of the product being imported and these costs must be passed on to the customer. This will not only spur inflation but will lower overall consumption, slowing the economy. However, in the long run, higher tariffs may help protect the viability of certain U.S. manufacturers and could incent greater investment in U.S. manufacturing. While this would be a positive for some sectors of the economy, the impact of tariffs is difficult to predict as we can expect U.S. exports to impacted nations to be struck by retaliatory tariffs, reducing demand for goods produced in the U.S. and sold abroad.
Jacobsen: What about the contexts of rising inflationary and efforts to drop it?
Johnston: Inflation: The Federal Reserve has succeeded in bringing inflation under control without causing a recession, a feat many of us viewed as unlikely when inflation peaked at 9% in June of 2022. Unemployment remained low throughout the tightening cycle and wage growth is helping consumer purchasing power catch up to prices which today are rising more slowly. We expect inflation to drift lower throughout 2025, barring a major policy intervention or significant changes to Fed policy the remainder of the year. However, we view many of the stated policy goals of the administration as inflationary. Specifically tax cuts, tariffs and expulsion of the undocumented. Were these policies to be enacted in their proposed form, the U.S. economy would almost certainly experience another inflation shock. Fortunately, many of these proposals appear to be starting points in a negotiation rather than settled policy. The business community, fresh on the heels of the last inflation shock, will be watching these policy changes closely and are prepared to act quickly should inflation return.
Jacobsen: How is the global supply chain functioning?
Johnston: The Global Supply Chain: The global supply chain today is functioning better than it was several years ago as we emerged from the pandemic. However, critical issues continue to challenge small businesses sourcing materials and selling overseas. During 2024, persistent disruptions in the global supply chain stemming from wars, pirating, strikes, infrastructure failures, and inclement weather combined to disrupt the global flow of trade. Now, the threat of significant tariffs on large U.S. trading partners are forcing wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers, and many other business owners to reexamine their supply chains and develop sourcing strategies that reduce the cost of tariffs while still ensuring the timely delivery of goods.
Small businesses have learned from previous disruptions the benefits of shorter supply chains and greater onshore production, and today with the added threat of large tariffs, these benefits are amplified. As a result, we expect to see continued growth in domestic manufacturing and the integration of new technologies that promote automated production. While we expect the growth in U.S. manufacturing and automation to be net positives for the U.S. economy, we are very worried that the pace of this change will be highly disruptive to the global supply chain, and we hope that whatever changes are made are implemented in a gradual and deliberate manner.
Jacobsen: What about the resiliency of the manufacturing?
Johnston: Manufacturing: The U.S. manufacturing sector proved resilient in 2024 as it faced persistent disruptions in the global supply chain from attacks on shipping by the Houthis in the Red Sea, to a drought that limited traffic through the Panama Canal, to a bridge collapse that closed the Port of Baltimore, and a Port Strike on the Eastern Seaboard. We expect 2025 to present an even greater challenge for manufacturers as they navigate the potential impact of new tariffs on their ability to source raw materials and components from abroad. However, we also see tremendous upside for U.S. manufacturers who are poised to benefit from U.S. tariffs that protect them from foreign competition and provide incentives to expand domestic production.
As a result, we expect to see continued repatriation of manufacturing to the U.S. in 2025 as businesses seek shorter and more reliable supply chains and work to avoid the cost of new tariffs. However, because so many manufacturing components are sourced overseas, domestic manufacturers will need to explore vertical integration strategies or locate components closer to home if they are to avoid the impact of these tariffs on their expense base. Growing manufacturers will also need to contend with the challenges of staffing in a tight labor market, given new immigration restrictions and the potential expulsion of undocumented workers. It is estimated that approximately 5% of U.S. manufacturing labor is undocumented.
Jacobsen: What are we seeing in growth and the commerce world?
David McMenomey: In the e-commerce world as well as the local land development world, we have seen an increase in product launches in Q1 so far. Q4 was filled with uncertainty and fear from many offer owners, causing online advertising budgets to shrink and new offers to sit on the shelf for a few months.
Since President Trump has come into office for his second term, we have seen new offers being released for testing and new projects coming across our desk for review.
One company I was in talks with back in September about testing their new men’s hair growth offer through Meta Ads delayed their launch until after the election results were confirmed. We successfully launched in mid-November.
I was working with the economic development director for a local city in Idaho, and she echoed what I saw. She told me her phone started ringing off the hook the day after elections were finalized, with green lights on projects from land developers waiting to see how the election would go.
There is a renewed growth mindset to start 2025 that went dormant over the last half of 2024.
Jacobsen: What seems to be the goal for the administration here?
Collin Plume: Short-term pain for long-term gain. That’s what we are looking at. When it comes to business, however, short-term means 4-5 years and that could be fatal to a small business. Very few small businesses have the cushion of multiple bank loans or government rescue. A few bad months can totally annihilate a small business.
Trump’s end goal is to bring manufacturing back to the US, stop giving aids and control our national debt. That’s essentially undoing decades of policies and practice. Naturally, relationships are getting tested and the US will suffer some casualties but there really is no other way. This is not a 5-year project. This is more like 10, maybe 20. Companies can’t just uproot their operations from China.
If he succeeds, it will benefit small businesses and consumers too. Big companies mean more jobs and more needs that small businesses can provide. That also means more dispensable income.
A reprieve can come sooner. If DOGE manages to save trillions of dollars, Trump is considering giving some to Americans. That’s more money in the economy and more spending power for Americans. That’s always good for businesses. If he also manages to pay off a significant amount of our debt, we might not have to print as much money which translates to lower inflation.
Those are short-term reprieve though. It doesn’t change the fact that businesses will have to strategize, change their marketing and message, look for new vendors and even redesign their operations to accommodate policy changes. It’s quite literally the only way to survive.
Jacobsen: What are the effects of these policy and economic shifts on small businesses?
Windy Pierre: From my experience working with small businesses, one core challenge is maintaining healthy profit margins amid fluctuating tax policies and potential import/export regulations changes. Since President Trump began his second term, I’ve seen a 5–10% increase in operational costs for some of the small businesses I advise, mainly due to shifts in trade policies. Despite these pressures, those who monitor KPIs like customer acquisition cost (CAC) and inventory turnover weekly can make more proactive decisions, mitigating potential losses by 5–8%. I also recommend building a robust contingency budget, aiming for 10–15% of monthly revenue set aside to handle unexpected regulatory or supply chain disruptions. Ultimately, keeping a close eye on short-term cash flow and long-term strategic KPIs ensures that small businesses remain agile and better prepared for policy-related uncertainties.
Jacobsen: What are your general thoughts, Chat?
Chat Joglekar: With the current unpredictable tariff situation under Trump’s aggressive approach, SMBs would be wise to hold off on major strategy changes until we have more clarity. The economic landscape remains too uncertain to make informed long-term decisions. Keep a watchful stance, gather information, and preserve flexibility rather than making reactive moves based on incomplete information. Trump’s confrontational trade policies may cause significant market disruptions and fear or a new Great Depression, but right now, patience and careful monitoring will serve most small and medium businesses better than premature pivots.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/29
Dr. Marouane Temimi, an Associate Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, specializes in hydrometeorology, remote sensing, and water resource management. He discusses water scarcity in the MENA region, emphasizing climate change, population growth, and poor governance as key factors. He highlights desalination, cloud seeding, and aquifer recharge as solutions, particularly in the UAE. Addressing regional conflicts, he cites the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam as a major dispute affecting Egypt and Sudan. He suggests North America could improve water infrastructure by redistributing resources to drought-prone areas. Policy and engineering innovations are essential for global water sustainability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Dr. Marouane Temimi.
He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Ocean Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. I have conducted at least one interview with someone from that institute before. Dr. Temimi leads the Coastal Environmental Sensing and Modeling Lab and specializes in hydrometeorology, remote sensing, and numerical modeling, with a focus on natural hazards and water resource management.
Dr. Temimi earned his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Quebec in February 2006. He previously worked at the Masdar Institute (a collaboration with MIT) and NOAA-CREST at the City University of New York.
A recipient of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Fellowship, he is also a member of AGU and AWRA. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.
Dr. Marouane Temimi: Thank you. I’m happy to be here.
Jacobsen: First question: How have anthropogenic climate change and population growth worsened water scarcity in the Middle East and Africa?
Temimi: There are multiple factors at play when it comes to water scarcity in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. One of the primary drivers is population growth, which increases demand for water. Many parts of the MENA region already experience extreme water stress, meaning demand far exceeds available supply. As populations grow, this stress intensifies, especially in urban centers and agricultural zones. Unlike some other regions that benefit from renewable freshwater sources, many countries in MENA rely on non-renewable groundwater from deep aquifers. These aquifers are being depleted faster than they can naturally recharge, making water scarcity a growing crisis.
Climate change has also worsened this problem. Rising global temperatures lead to increased evaporation rates, reducing the overall availability of surface water in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. Additionally, changing precipitation patterns mean that some areas receive less rainfall, while others experience extreme flooding that can damage infrastructure and pollute existing water sources. In arid regions like North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, climate change has made droughts more frequent and severe. This not only reduces available freshwater but also disrupts agriculture, food security, and livelihoods for millions of people.
Another major challenge is pollution and water quality deterioration. As industries and urban populations expand, so does wastewater discharge into lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. In the Gulf region, desalination plays a crucial role in providing freshwater, but this process has negative environmental impacts. Desalination plants extract seawater and remove the salt, but they also discharge highly concentrated brine back into the ocean. This increases seawater salinity, making future desalination more difficult and costly. In areas where evaporation rates are already high—such as the Persian Gulf—this cycle of rising salinity creates long-term sustainability challenges for water management.
Beyond natural factors, there are also policy and governance challenges. Many MENA countries rely on outdated water management strategies that do not account for the reality of climate change and rapid urbanization. Some regions still prioritize water-intensive agriculture, growing crops that require large amounts of irrigation despite water scarcity. There is also a lack of coordination on transboundary water resources, meaning countries that share rivers or underground aquifers struggle to agree on sustainable usage. Political conflicts in the region have further strained water infrastructure, making it harder for governments to implement long-term solutions.
Ultimately, the combination of population growth, climate change, pollution, poor water governance, and regional conflicts has made water scarcity one of the most pressing issues in the Middle East and North Africa. To address these challenges, countries in the region must invest in sustainable water management solutions, including water recycling, improved irrigation efficiency, better governance, and regional cooperation. Without immediate action, the region faces a growing water crisis that will impact not only drinking water supplies but also agriculture, energy production, and economic stability.
So it’s a vicious cycle that we get caught in.
Jacobsen: What about factors like increased rainfall variability? With climate change effects, we’re seeing localized weather events that fluctuate dramatically from season to season. For instance, one year, there may be heavy rainfall, and the next, prolonged dry spells.
Temimi: In the first part of my answer, I focused on anthropogenic factors—things that humans are causing, which, in turn, put more stress on water resources. However, as you mentioned, there are also natural climate factors—especially shifts in rainfall distribution—that affect water availability in the MENA region.
One key issue is that climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent. For example, in the UAE, 2024 saw an exceptional rainfall event. This was only a few years after another major event in 2016. Given that the UAE’s annual precipitation averages around 100 millimeters, receiving multiples of that amount in just a few hours is highly significant.
What we’re observing isn’t necessarily an increase in overall annual rainfall but rather a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events. This means that while some years experience torrential downpours, they are often followed by long periods of drought. This pattern is part of the broader climate shift—where the highest percentile of rare weather events is increasing.
Jacobsen: Let’s go into desalination, which is often mentioned as a solution to water scarcity. When we talk about industrial-scale desalination, what exactly does the process involve?
Temimi: In many countries within the Gulf region, desalination provides nearly 90% of freshwater for the population. This means it’s being conducted at an unprecedented scale. To meet such a high demand, large-scale desalination plants operate continuously.
The process begins with seawater intakes, which are positioned deep in the ocean to minimize issues like turbidity and pollution. The seawater is then pumped through high-pressure membranes, a process known as reverse osmosis. These membranes filter out salts and impurities, allowing freshwater to emerge on the other side. After that, the water undergoes additional treatment to remineralize it, ensuring it is safe for consumption.
To address energy consumption concerns, some Gulf nations are now experimenting with solar-powered desalination. In the UAE, for instance, solar energy is being used to power desalination plants, making the process more sustainable. Since the region has abundant sunlight and an unlimited supply of seawater, this approach significantly reduces the carbon footprint of desalination.
Additionally, some countries store excess desalinated water in underground aquifers for long-term use. This is part of their strategic water reserves, ensuring a backup supply during drought periods or water emergencies.
Jacobsen: How much energy does it take to provide freshwater for 90% of a country’s population through desalination? Also, what is the cost per liter or per gallon for this process?
Temimi: The energy requirement for desalination varies depending on the technology used. Traditional thermal desalination (which boils seawater to separate salt) is extremely energy-intensive, requiring 10–15 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter of water. In contrast, reverse osmosis—which is now the dominant method—uses around 3–4 kWh per cubic meter.
To put that in perspective, a large desalination plant can consume hundreds of megawatts of electricity daily. In Saudi Arabia, where desalination is a major water source, the energy used for desalination accounts for about 20% of total electricity consumption.
As for cost, the price of desalinated water depends on energy costs, plant efficiency, and location. As renewable energy (such as solar power) becomes more widespread, we expect desalination costs to decrease, making it more sustainable in the long run.
To be honest, Scott, I don’t have the exact number, so I don’t want to speculate. But I know that desalination is costly. However, in the MENA region, especially in the Middle East, many countries have an abundance of oil and gas, so energy costs are relatively low.
In addition, some countries, particularly the UAE, are diversifying their energy sources. I mention the UAE frequently because I worked there for a few years, so I am familiar with some of the details. Besides oil and gas, they also invest heavily in solar energy—using concentrated solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) technology—as well as nuclear energy. The Barakah Nuclear Plant, for instance, generates significant power, some of which can support the desalination plants and ease the energy burden.
Another factor that affects desalination costs is government subsidies. In many Gulf countries, the cost of water is partially or fully subsidized, making it more affordable for consumers. However, the true cost of desalination is much higher when considering the energy input, infrastructure, and maintenance.
Additionally, the geography of water distribution increases costs. Desalination plants are typically located on the coast, at the lowest elevation, since they rely on seawater intake. However, most of the water demand is inland, at higher elevations, meaning the water must be pumped over long distances. This adds a significant energy cost to the overall process, in addition to the desalination costs themselves.
Jacobsen: What are the consequences of over-extracting groundwater?
Temimi: The immediate consequence of groundwater over-extraction is land subsidence, which happens when aquifers lose too much water too quickly. This is a problem not just in the MENA region but also in places like California, where excessive groundwater pumping has caused entire regions to sink.
Land subsidence occurs because groundwater helps support the weight of the soil. When that water is removed, the land above it collapses, leading to sinking terrain, cracked foundations, and infrastructure damage. In some cases, it can also lead to the formation of sinkholes, though subsidence is the more common issue.
Another major problem is that most aquifers in the MENA region are non-renewable. For example, in North Africa, there is a massive aquifer beneath the Sahara Desert that countries like Libya have tapped into for large-scale water projects. A well-known example is the Great Man-Made River, a huge artificial water system that pumps water from deep aquifers in southern Libya to coastal cities.
The problem with projects like this is that the water in these deep aquifers has been there for millions of years and does not naturally replenish. If extraction continues at the current rate, Libya could deplete these water reserves in just 50 years. This is an irreversible loss because once the aquifer is emptied, it cannot easily be refilled.
In coastal areas, groundwater over-extraction has another serious consequence: seawater intrusion. Normally, underground freshwater creates a natural barrier that prevents seawater from entering inland water supplies. However, when too much groundwater is pumped out, seawater seeps in, contaminating freshwater aquifers.
Once seawater intrusion occurs, reversing the damage is extremely difficult. Even if the water table rises again due to rainfall, the salts and minerals from the seawater remain in the soil and groundwater. It can take decades or even centuries for the natural balance to be restored. This issue has already affected regions in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of South Asia.
Jacobsen: What about the socioeconomic impact? So, not looking at the geotechnical side, the amount of water extracted, or the process of extraction, but rather how it impacts ordinary people—how does water scarcity in the MENA region affect governance and society? In other words, how does the leadership of these countries respond when there is variability in water supply? Is this a major socioeconomic factor?
Temimi: Yes, water scarcity is absolutely a major socioeconomic issue. Many industrial sectors, economic activities, and daily life necessities depend heavily on water resources.
Take Tunisia, for example. The country relies significantly on tourism, particularly during the summer season, when demand is highest. However, summer also happens to be the driest time of the year. If the country does not receive sufficient rainfall in the fall and spring, people already know they are in for a difficult tourism season. This leads to water rationing, restrictions, and economic losses for hotels, resorts, and other businesses in the hospitality sector.
Beyond tourism, agriculture is among the most immediately affected sectors. When water is scarce, it directly reduces crop yields, which in turn impacts food security and export revenues. This becomes an even bigger issue when external factors compound the problem. For instance, in North Africa, when the war in Ukraine began, many countries in the region faced a shortage of wheat because they had relied heavily on Ukrainian imports. At the same time, North Africa was also experiencing a drought. The combination of these two crises exacerbated food shortages, increased inflation, and triggered public unrest.
So yes, the impact of water scarcity goes beyond just the environment—it has multi-faceted consequences for politics, economy, food security, and social stability across the region.
Jacobsen: What about regulatory changes? Are there factors related to deregulation or increased regulation that could help mitigate the effects of water scarcity, even if infrastructure is already in place? In other words, can governments implement policy solutions that make countries more resilient to fluctuating water availability?
Temimi: When facing water scarcity—especially in North Africa and the MENA region—the key factor is not just policy, but the condition of existing infrastructure. In my opinion, the most effective way to mitigate the impact of water shortages is ensuring that water infrastructure is reliable and efficient.
For example, a country needs:
- A robust water supply and distribution system that can efficiently transport water where it is needed.
- Leak-proof pipelines to minimize water loss due to evaporation or seepage into groundwater.
- Dams and reservoirs that capture and store as much rainfall and runoff as possible.
- Smart water management systems that can allocate and distribute water strategically based on need.
One key challenge is regional water transfer. If a country experiences heavy rainfall in the north but drought conditions in the south, it must have the infrastructure to move water efficiently from one region to another. This applies to east-west water distribution as well. Without flexibility in moving water across regions, shortages become far more severe.
Policies and regulations play a role, but without the proper engineering solutions, laws alone cannot fix water scarcity. Governments must invest in infrastructure development and technological advancements in water conservation, desalination, and efficiency. Otherwise, the impact of regulation will always remain limited.
And then, these policies and regulations impact different sectors of the economy, including agriculture, industry, and domestic water use. However, the effects vary depending on the country and region.
In most cases, agriculture is the largest consumer of water, often using more than industrial or domestic sectors. However, in some regions, industry can surpass agriculture in water demand, depending on economic activities. While governments can implement policies to regulate water use, demand cannot always be easily controlled.
In my opinion, good policies alone are not enough—they only work effectively if the country has the infrastructure to mitigate water shortages and scarcity. Without strong infrastructure, even well-designed water conservation policies will have limited impact.
Jacobsen: Which countries do you think are the furthest ahead in infrastructure development and technological adoption? Are there nations that, despite climate change and rainfall variability, are well-prepared for most water scarcity scenarios?
Temimi: I would say the UAE again.
The UAE is a country with very little precipitation, yet it has taken major steps to capture and store as much rainfall as possible. In addition to rainwater harvesting, the country has developed a cloud seeding program—one of the most advanced and operational in the MENA region.
For over a decade, the UAE’s cloud seeding program has deployed aircraft equipped with flares to stimulate rainfall when conditions are favorable. These pilots and meteorologists actively monitor weather forecasts, and when they detect suitable cloud formations, they fly out to seed the clouds and enhance precipitation. This program is not just experimental—it is fully operational, with dedicated teams and resources. In my opinion, this is one of the most forward-looking water management initiatives in the region.
Beyond cloud seeding, the UAE has also built a strategic water distribution network for aquifer recharge. When the country desalinates more water than it immediately needs, it pumps the excess into underground aquifers in the Western region. This provides long-term water storage, ensuring reserves are available during future droughts.
Another major infrastructure project is in Abu Dhabi, where the country has constructed a Strategic Tunnel Enhancement Program (STEP). Many major cities worldwide have wastewater treatment plants located near coastal areas. The UAE’s system is designed so that wastewater flows by gravity toward these treatment plants, where it is processed before being discharged into the sea.
Overall, the UAE has integrated a mix of advanced technologies, sustainable water management strategies, and infrastructure projects to reduce dependence on rainfall and secure water supplies for the long term. In the MENA region, they are among the most proactive in preparing for future water challenges.
In Abu Dhabi, wastewater follows a gravity-driven system, flowing toward the lowest point. However, once it reaches the city of Abu Dhabi, the water is directed back into the desert via a large underground tunnel that transports it deep into the interior. At the end of this system, there is a massive wastewater treatment plant, where the water is collected in a deep well with high-capacity pumps. These pumps bring the water back to the surface, where it undergoes treatment.
Once treated, the water is repurposed for large-scale irrigation and afforestation projects. This initiative aims to transform desert landscapes into green areas, fundamentally altering land cover. If you change the land’s color, it has wide-reaching environmental impacts, including modifying local climate conditions, reducing dust storms, and improving air quality. This strategy is a long-term effort to introduce sustainable greenery into a region that is naturally arid.
Jacobsen: What factors should North Americans consider when analyzing water scarcity in the MENA region? Some resources that are scarce in MENA may be abundant in North America, so what are the key differences they should understand?
Temimi: The reality in North America is completely different. In the MENA region, water is an extremely limited resource, but in North America, there is far greater availability. For example, the Great Lakes alone, which straddle Canada and the U.S., contain enough freshwater to sustain generations.
However, North America does face challenges that could benefit from infrastructure improvements. In the U.S., one major issue is regional water distribution. While the central U.S. has significant water availability, the western U.S.—especially California, Nevada, and Arizona—frequently experiences droughts. Instead of just building more dams, investment in large-scale water transport infrastructure could be a viable solution.
A comparison with Libya provides an interesting case study. Libya’s Great Man-Made River transports water from deep desert aquifers in the south to northern coastal cities over a 1,000-kilometer distance. The project includes man-made reservoirs in the desert to regulate water flow and break the slope of the channels.
A similar water transfer system could be considered in North America, but at an even larger scale. Indonesia offers another example—there, rainwater from the north is transported through a massive artificial canal to the southern regions. Along the way, this low-salinity rainwater mixes with high-temperature, high-salinity geothermal water, creating a natural desalination effect.
These types of regional water management projects—whether in MENA, Indonesia, or North America—offer innovative solutions that could help balance water resources between different regions.
Jacobsen: In North America, intra-regional issues such as trade tariffs have significant effects on production, resource delivery systems, and cross-border infrastructure projects. These barriers can impact how resources are distributed across Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, making large-scale developments more complex.
What are some similar intra-regional issues in the MENA region? There are more countries involved than in North America, but broadly speaking, what challenges help or hinder major infrastructure projects that could benefit all populations in the region rather than just a single country?
And while we’re at it, go ahead and solve the Israel-Palestine conflict for me.
Temimi: In the MENA region, one major intra-regional water dispute right now is the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Ethiopia is building this massive dam on the Blue Nile, which is one of the major tributaries of the Nile River. This is a major concern for Sudan and Egypt because it will significantly reduce the amount of water flowing downstream into those countries.
There is an intergovernmental committee that includes representatives from Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt to discuss the impact of the dam, but once GERD is fully operational, it will inevitably have long-term consequences on Egypt’s and Sudan’s water supply. Given how much Egypt relies on the Nile for agriculture, drinking water, and economic activity, this remains a highly sensitive geopolitical issue.
When it comes to water, it’s a matter of survival. Even if neighboring countries share a common culture, religion, or historical ties, water disputes often override these connections. For example, many countries in the MENA region are Arab and Muslim, with similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds. But when it comes to water security, national interests always take precedence.
One of the biggest challenges is that political borders do not align with hydrological borders. Many major rivers and aquifers in the MENA region cross multiple countries, leading to transboundary water disputes. Each country wants to capture and control as much of its water resources as possible, which makes it difficult to establish cooperative agreements.
Jacobsen: Good evening. Thank you for your time—I appreciate it.
Temimi: Sure. Thank you, Scott. It was a pleasure talking to you.
Jacobsen: I hope your son is doing well.
Temimi: Very good. Take care. 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): 2025/04/28
Diego Garcia Blum and Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy are leaders of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center. The program trains activists worldwide, promotes movement-building, and integrates LGBTQI+ issues into global policy. Garcia Blum, a former nuclear engineer, and McCarthy, a longtime scholar-activist, emphasize the importance of community, education, and institutional support in advancing LGBTQI+ rights. They highlight ongoing legal, cultural, and political challenges—including violent global backlash—but remain hopeful through their collaborative, activist-centered model. The program draws strength from grassroots connections, academic knowledge, and the transformative power of shared learning and solidarity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by Diego Garcia Blum, the Program Director for the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
A former nuclear engineer, Diego transitioned into human rights advocacy, focusing on the safety and dignity of LGBTQI+ communities worldwide. He has served as a Social Change Fellow at the Center for Public Leadership under Governor Deval Patrick and co-teaches the course “Queer Nation: LGBTQ Protest, Politics, and Policy in the United States” alongside Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy at Harvard. Garcia Blum holds a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School, where he served as Student Body President and dual bachelor’s degrees in nuclear engineering and political science from the University of Florida. His work combines policy, education, and activism to drive meaningful change in human rights globally.
To start, please define the mission of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program and discuss the challenges you face and the opportunities you offer.
Diego Garcia Blum: At Harvard Kennedy School, we recognize the immense value in leveraging the resources that the university has developed over the past three decades. These resources focus on organizing, movement building, narrative change, communication, and nonviolent resistance. We aim to make these tools accessible to activists worldwide who have tirelessly advocated for LGBTQI+ rights in their respective countries.
We aim to create a community where these brave individuals feel connected to a global movement. They engage in our online webinars and intensive workshops hosted on platforms like Canvas.
Beyond connecting activists, we strive to collaborate with academics and practitioners to enhance coordination on major issues facing LGBTQI+ individuals. Additionally, we work to integrate LGBTQI+ concerns into broader disciplines, such as foreign policy and national security, where these issues are often overlooked. For instance, understanding how LGBTQI+ politics are manipulated to destabilize regions or how LGBTQI+ populations are disproportionately affected by climate change is crucial.
Our approach is multifaceted: connecting people, providing global training, and mainstreaming LGBTQI+ issues across various domains.
Jacobsen: We are also honoured to have Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy with us today. Dr. McCarthy is an award-winning scholar, educator, and human rights activist with joint faculty appointments at Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He serves as Faculty Chair of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Carr Center and is a core faculty member in Harvard’s Equity and Opportunity Foundations curriculum. A historian of social movements and politics, Dr. McCarthy has authored and edited several acclaimed books. He was a founding member of Barack Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council and currently chairs the board of Free the Slaves. He holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University.
So, when looking at programs like this from a historical and social lens, what stands out about it? And for historical context, how does this differ from trying to found such a program, say, thirty, fifty, or even sixty years ago?
Dr. Timothy Patrick McCarthy: Let me take the last part of the question first, and then I’ll return to the first part.
Why now, as opposed to fifty years ago—what would have been different in founding a program like this?
This program would have been unfathomable fifty years ago. Even though there were, certainly in the United States and other parts of the world, expressions of LGBTQ movement work—what we then called gay and lesbian liberation—taking place globally, an institution like Harvard or higher education in general, which is not a radical space by any stretch of the imagination, would not have been hospitable even to the study of LGBTQ history. This is a relatively recent and modern development at Harvard and many other universities.
The timing of this program now has to do with the fact that we had to build it within the university setting. That required context, support, resources, and a coalition of people willing to greenlight, support, and sustain it—which is the work we’re doing now.
At this moment, universities must bridge theory and practice, connecting research with organizing. Universities are uniquely positioned to convene people—diverse people across disciplines, perspectives, and knowledge bases—to come together for conversations, debates, discussions, and shared learning that can lead to meaningful collaboration and collective action.
That’s what we’re trying to do: claim that universities have a role—a lane—in the broader movement ecosystem. And more than just the capacity to contribute, we believe universities are now responsible for doing so.
That’s the energy that animates our program.
And we’re at a moment, as Diego mentioned, where the Kennedy School and the Carr Center at Harvard now have a critical mass of scholars and practitioners doing this kind of work—all of the things Diego noted. Entire fields of knowledge have been developed that help us understand how social movements work and how organizing is practiced. So we’re at a point where we finally have enough information, resources, knowledge, people, and institutional support to be able to launch something like this—and to do it responsibly and effectively.
So that’s the “why now.” It took a while to get here, but we’re here now—and it’s wonderful.
To the first part of your question—how does a historical, movement-based perspective help us understand what’s going on globally?
I began by studying social movements within the context of the United States, which remains my primary area of expertise. However, I’ve become increasingly interested in comparative social movements, radicalism, and related global frameworks over time.
One thing we understand about social movements is that they almost always start locally. They are typically centred in specific places with local people and rooted in local struggles. And that’s important to keep in mind because it may sound counterintuitive when we speak about a global movement. After all, our program has “global” in its name. It is lofty, expansive, and inclusive in vision.
But what we see, particularly through our work with activists on the ground, is exactly what Diego said: many work alone or in small groups. They may exist in relatively safer contexts, but they’re often engaged in precarious, under-resourced, or even underground efforts, especially in countries where LGBTQI+ is criminalized or violently repressed.
Depending on each country’s legal, cultural, and political conditions, there is an incredibly wide range of lived experiences. Doing this work—no matter the context—is always hard, but it is also isolating in many cases.
One of the great advantages of a university’s convening power is that we can bring people together—physically, in person, and increasingly, virtually. We can connect individuals who might never otherwise meet—people who may live in adjacent countries but have never interacted, even while doing remarkably similar kinds of work.
We are working to create a space that allows these local actors to connect across cultural, national, and contextual boundaries. The idea is to strengthen their local work by helping build relationships, coalitions, and solidarity across regions—so that what might begin as scattered local efforts can form the foundation of an emerging global movement.
But creating and sustaining a global movement is no small task. You need strong relationships, trust, coalition-building, resources, and organizational infrastructure at the grassroots level. That’s what we’re trying to support—and it’s working quite well so far because people are eager to come together.
And I’ll end with this: social movements are always context-specific. There’s no one-size-fits-all model, and no single framework works everywhere. That’s something we have to remember, especially when doing this work at a global scale. We know that. And that’s exactly why I study history—comparative movement history—because there are so many examples, case studies, and models of how to do this work.
Even within a single movement, there’s tremendous diversity in tactics, strategies, aspirations, and leadership. Take the Black Civil Rights Movement in the United States, for example. Right? Many different things were happening within that movement, in many different places, with many different people and goals.
What happened during the Freedom Rides differed from Freedom Summer in Mississippi. That, in turn, was different from the Greensboro sit-ins, which were different from the Montgomery Bus Boycott. These were all distinct expressions of the larger movement—rooted in local context, local work, and local leadership.
We have a rich archive of movement-building knowledge to study, learn, and adapt to current needs. And that’s exactlywhat we’re doing in this program.
We’re spending much time discussing theories of change. We’re talking about mapping communities and understanding the ecosystem within which people work: who the allies are, the adversaries or opposition are, and who can be persuaded or mobilized.
We also spend significant time on culture change and the power of storytelling—how narrative is a form of organizing and power-building. We look at tactics and strategies: what works, what does not, and more importantly, what works in one context versus another.
We’re also deeply interested in translating imagination into action—how to take movement ideas and aspirations and turn them into practical political practice. That might mean litigation or legal strategies in some countries. In others, it might mean direct political advocacy—lobbying elected officials or mobilizing public pressure. In others, it could mean launching a social media campaign or door-to-door grassroots organizing—meeting people where they are.
We’re talking about all of that, but we also recognize that every participant in our programmes comes from a unique context. So, a big part of our work is adapting strategies to their specific environments.
Right now—and Diego could give you the exact figures—we’re working with thousands of activists in over 100 countries worldwide. We’re supporting work in nearly every region of the globe, creating spaces for people to connect, share, and build together.
Crucially, much of the direction of this program comes from the participants themselves—from what they bring to the table and what they want to gain from it. This is not just a course designed at Harvard imposed on people. We’ve done our due diligence, but our teaching and movement-building model is fundamentally reciprocal. It is grounded in co-creation, mutual learning, and shared purpose.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges people face? How do they overcome those challenges?
McCarthy: Well, I’ll start briefly. The biggest challenge, undeniably, is the fierce and violent global backlash against LGBTQI+ people.
This has always been an uphill battle. Queer people have never had it easy. To my mind, there’s never been a society completely free of prejudice toward LGBTQI+ individuals. In every country, in every culture, there are deep-rooted histories of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, and more—prejudices that people in our community must face every day to live, work, and exist.
That’s the longstanding challenge.
But we’re seeing now—especially in recent decades—that alongside this adversity, there have also been important, even transformative, wins in many parts of the world. Over the last twenty years, we’ve seen real progress in human rights for LGBTQI+ people: legal reforms, social recognition, expanded freedoms, and global visibility. It’s a contested story but also hopeful—marked by victories, greater equality, and hard-won rights.
However, that progress has triggered a powerful backlash.
We’re now facing a well-funded, coordinated international effort to roll back those gains. This backlash is not only targeting LGBTQI+ people themselves—it is also going after allies, coalition partners, educators, and even individuals who merely speak publicly about LGBTQI+ rights.
In some places, we see more draconian laws than before, and no progress has been made. These new laws criminalize not just LGBTQI+ identities and relationships but also advocacy, discussion, and support. So, the challenge has expanded beyond our immediate community to everyone connected to the movement for equality.
That’s the central issue: the backlash to progress. It’s broad, aggressive, and growing. And we need to stay laser-focused on how to respond to it—strategically, collaboratively, and urgently.
Blum: Yes, maybe, to bring it back to basics—The most immediate challenge is legal. LGBTQI+ people are criminalized in approximately 64 countries around the world. In these places, it is illegal to engage in same-sex relationships—something that, for heterosexual people, is a basic, taken-for-granted aspect of teenage or adult life. In some of those countries, these laws carry the death penalty.
Even in countries where same-sex relationships are not criminalized, LGBTQI+ individuals often face complete legal invisibility. There is no recognition of partnerships or marriage, no acknowledgment of diverse gender identities, and no protections against discrimination. The legal system, in effect, pretends LGBTQI+ people do not exist.
This lack of legal recognition and protection extends to health care, education, employment, housing—every aspect of life.
So, when discussing how people overcome these challenges, we have to start from this incredibly precarious baseline. People are doing this work in places where it is not just difficult—it’s dangerous. And yet, they continue. They organize. They build. They imagine better futures and often do so with incredible courage in the face of tremendous risk.
Jacobsen: So, these are all legal challenges that people face—and want to change. They are incredibly difficult to change, but for so many LGBTQI+ individuals around the world, this is the entry point. Legal recognition and protection are often the first steps toward broader equality.
And that brings us to the next piece: how do you change this reality?
You’re doing this work in countries where there are deeply entrenched religious and socio-cultural beliefs that have, for centuries, treated being LGBTQI+ as a personal failing—something to be fixed or cured—instead of understanding it as part of natural human diversity.
McCarthy: It’s like this: there are tall and short people. People with different hair colours and different eye colours. And there are people with diverse gender identities, sexual orientations, and biological sex characteristics—including intersex people.
But instead of embracing that diversity, these identities have been framed for thousands of years as problems—seen as sinful, unnatural, or pathological. That stigma—cultural, religious, political—has done enormous psychological damage, especially to young people.
I can speak from personal experience. I grew up closeted, deeply depressed, and trying to “fix” myself. And I was in the United States. Now imagine a young LGBTQI+ person growing up in a place where not only do they internalize that shame, but where their identity could lead to imprisonment—or even the death penalty.
Simply trying to live with yourself becomes an overwhelming challenge.
That is the lived reality for millions. We are trying to remind people—especially young people—that they are not alone. That there are millions of others around the world silently enduring the same fear, shame, and isolation. That silence is a crisis—and it’s a crisis that is too often forgotten.
And to make matters worse, that crisis is being exploited. These ancient stigmas get activated—weaponized—by dictators and populists who want to rally political support, often aligning with conservative religious factions to marginalize LGBTQI+ communities further.
It becomes a political tool to scapegoat, divide, and consolidate power.
That brings up even more challenges—healthcare challenges and economic challenges. Many LGBTQI+ people, especially trans individuals, struggle to find employment if they’re living authentically. They face discrimination in hiring, in schools, and housing.
Bullying in schools is pervasive. Many can’t get a proper education. And even when people find the strength to come out, they might face homelessness—kicked out of their homes and cut off from family support. Yes, the challenges are profound. Because this has been the status quo in many places, we often forget how vast, complex, and urgent the struggle is.
Jacobsen: So, aside from the challenges you may or may not have faced in your own lives, you’ve been communicating with many people—through correspondence and in person. That ongoing engagement can have a transference effect, as we all know—unless someone is completely socially detached. So, what gives you hope and keeps you going for both of you?
McCarthy: I’d say there are two things—one institutional, the other personal, and maybe a little pedagogical. On the institutional side, I’ve been teaching at Harvard for 25 years, and this is my 30th year teaching overall.
Jacobsen: Congratulations.
McCarthy: Thank you. And I was the first openly gay and queer faculty member at the Harvard Kennedy School. I was also, for a while, the only one. And that experience was quite lonely. I encountered my share of prejudice and resistance in that context. It wasn’t easy.
But I had my student, and that relationship has always been a source of purpose and strength for me. In fact, Diego was one of my students. Now, we’re colleagues co-directing this program.
The relationships I’ve built with students over the years—many of whom have gone on to lead change in the world and help institutionalize our work—are one of the reasons this program exists today. The program is Diego’s brainchild, but we have been trying to lay the groundwork for something like this for many years. And it was hard.
Now, things are different. There are multiple queer faculty members—many of whom are working on social movements, leadership, and change. We have a Carr Center that has always supported this kind of work. I’ve been affiliated with the Carr Center for my entire career at the Kennedy School, and it has consistently been a home for scholars committed to human rights and justice.
But now there’s a more robust network. We’ve built something. We took an organizing approach. Our alums and funders are stepping up to support and mobilize resources. We have faculty in conversation and collaboration with each other. We have a large, growing number of students—not just from the Kennedy School but across the entire university—engaging with us and caring about this work.
For the first time, the Kennedy School administration genuinely supports this mission and shows serious institutional commitment to LGBTQI+ rights and programming.
This convergence of forces—the people, the institutional will, the funding, the scholarship, the energy—gives me tremendous hope.
Because I’ll be honest: this program wouldn’t have happened 50 years ago and probably wouldn’t have happened even 10 years ago. But today, we’re seeing something different.
There is now an LGBTQ Law Clinic at Harvard Law School and a Center of Excellence on LGBTQ Public Health at the School of Public Health. Multiple emerging efforts across Harvard are focused on LGBTQI+ research, advocacy, and education.
And that gives me hope—not just because we’ve built something but also because we’re now in a position to sustain it.
And then, of course, the hope comes from working with the activists.
I’ve spent most of my career in the academy—Harvard has been my base. But to be in a community with activists who are doing this work on the ground, often at great personal risk, and to support and learn from them has been one of the greatest honours of my life. Their courage, imagination, and persistence are what keep me going.
But I’m also a movement person. I’m a community organizer. I’ve done a lot of movement work and organizing in my life. So, I’ve always worn the activist-scholar-teacher hats and do my best to juggle them meaningfully and integrated.
It feels good to be in this context. I teach, and I care deeply about teaching. I love learning as part of that process. One of the things that’s been amazing about working with these activists is witnessing the moments of hope that emerge in our conversations—those moments of revelation where someone learns something new or gains language for something they’ve always known but never had words for.
That kind of connection—the dot-connecting—not just with ideas, frameworks, or theories but also with practices, strategies, and each other, is incredibly powerful.
There was a recent moment in one of the sessions of our online curriculum—our Foundations Curriculum—when someone said, “This work can be so lonely. It feels so good to be in a space where other people are experiencing the same things. They have the same dreams. They face the same struggles. But it feels better knowing we’re together.”
I responded by saying that social movements are political and moral work formations. They connect individuals—our isolated “I’s” and “I’s”—and transform them into bigger, collective “we are.” We’re trying to hold and create space in this program to arrive at that larger “we.”
Because many of us—myself included—have felt isolated or lonely in this work. And I don’t think anyone in our program has experienced that in some form. But in these collective spaces—whether in academia, a church basement, a community center, a drag show, or a club—wherever the “we” exists, hope lives for me.
I’m always searching for those places and trying to figure out how I can help create and sustain them.
Blum: I’ll add quickly that it’s a hard time. The backlash is real and global, and it’s easy to think things are not going well. But it’s the opposite.
When legislators and leaders push forward wave after wave of anti-LGBTQ bills, what they’re doing is acknowledging that something fundamental has shifted. That’s what we’ve been doing, and it’s working. And they’re scared—scared of this liberation, scared of the equality and visibility that LGBTQI+ people have been claiming and experiencing.
So, for me, that backlash is both hope and fuel. It’s evidence that we’ve made meaningful progress. And if we can meet that backlash with equal tenacity and courage, we’ll push through and reach the next level—where we win rights and secure and protect them for the long run, just as so many other social movements have.
I see the backlash as a testament—a sign that we’re on the right path. We just have to endure the hard parts of change, which always include resistance.
Jacobsen: Diego and Timothy, thank you both for your time today.
McCarthy: Awesome. Thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: I appreciate it, too. Take care.
Blum: Bye.
McCarthy: 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): 2025/04/26
Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative, discusses the unique hazards of electric vehicle (EV) fires. Unlike conventional fires, EV fires release toxic metals from battery combustion, posing long-term health risks to firefighters. His research examines exposure levels through environmental and biological sampling, including toenail analysis. He emphasizes the need for improved decontamination protocols, PPE, and long-term tracking of occupational cancer risks. Future studies will leverage AI for predictive modeling to assess cumulative exposure risks. With increasing EV adoption, understanding these hazards is crucial for firefighter safety and public health policies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez. He is the Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. He holds a Ph.D., D.O., M.P.H., C.H.P., F.C.R., and F.A.C.E., specializing in occupational and environmental health, focusing on firefighter cancer research. His work aims to assess and mitigate cancer risks associated with occupational exposures, particularly in high-risk professions like firefighting. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.
Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez: Yes, no problem.
Jacobsen: What unique chemical hazards are present in electric vehicle fires compared to conventional gas vehicle fires? This topic has only come up in one other interview, and that discussion was highly critical of a prominent EV figure, focusing on how hot these vehicles can get. However, this conversation is different—it’s about the chemical hazards that arise from those fires.
Martinez: Yes, that is the focus of the research we’re conducting at Sylvester—to understand how electric vehicle fires differ from traditional combustion engine fires. Our primary interest is metals, as they are present in all vehicles, whether they have a combustion engine or an electric powertrain. The key questions are: Are there different types of metals? Do they release in different quantities when a battery fire occurs?
From our firefighter colleagues, we’ve learned that EV battery fires can take a long time to suppress once ignited. So, are the smoke plume and the effluent from an electric vehicle fire different? That’s what we’re investigating—analyzing what firefighters are exposed to and the effects on soil, water, and the broader environment in the areas where these fires occur.
Jacobsen: Something I recently learned—relevant here, trust me—is that Coolio, the rapper behind Gangsta’s Paradise, trained as a firefighter in his youth. Before his music career, he worked trained as a firefighter in San Jose, California. He passed away in 2022 from an accidental fentanyl overdose. He also had a history of asthma.
Martinez: I had no idea.
Jacobsen: Yes. The shift over time has been interesting. It used to be that gangsters pretended to be rappers. Now, it’s the other way around—rappers pretending to be gangsters.
He passed away in 2022. He trained as a firefighter. I, however, am not a firefighter. I have never taken part in firefighting outside of a live simulation. That said, I would assume that firefighters experience significantly more exposure to fires than I do.
With that increased exposure, are firefighters at greater risk for cancer due to prolonged exposure to effluents and fumes from electric vehicle fires?
Martinez: You bring up an important point for your readers: The fire service is comprised largely of volunteer firefighters. Many think firefighters are full-time first responders working in major metropolitan areas. However, about 65 percent of firefighters are volunteers in the United States.
These volunteers have primary jobs outside of firefighting. Some might be musicians, some work in trade professions, and others have entirely different careers. This dynamic makes studying firefighter cancer risk particularly interesting from a research perspective.
Examine and determine what people are exposed to in their primary and secondary jobs. Even in rural settings, electric vehicles are present, and firefighters are exposed to them.
What’s interesting, Scott is that there are many different types of firefighters. In the press, we often see wildland firefighters on TV, especially when wildfires rage across the West Coast of the United States. That situation isn’t much different from an entire community being exposed to a fire because the air pollution from large-scale brush fires affects the general population’s air quality.
In the firefighting world, though, firefighters are on the front lines, getting a first-row seat to those fires and experiencing intense exposure. The personal protective equipment (PPE) used by firefighters varies. Wildland firefighters, for instance, often use a gaiter—a cloth or sock-like covering over their face—rather than an air tank. This is because they work in the field for hours or even days and can’t refill an air tank every 30 minutes.
One positive outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the general public is now more familiar with PPE. However, it’s important to note that the broader community is also exposed to these fire-related contaminants.
Regarding electric vehicle fires, we recently conducted a case study in July here at Sylvester that provided insights into the specific hazards associated with these fires. This study focused on a single electric vehicle fire involving a Nissan LEAF. We examined the presence of metals before and after the fire in different environmental samples—water, soil, ambient air—and the biological samples of the firefighters involved.
We are learning that the metals found in EV batteries, as well as those from other burning materials inside the vehicle—such as electronics, tire rims, and structural components—are released into the environment. The challenge with EV battery fires is that they involve thousands of small cells, akin to 8,000 AA batteries igniting in a chain reaction. This domino effect leads to prolonged burning, potentially increasing the concentration and types of metals released.
We know that some metals are essential for human health—calcium is critical for bones and nails, while zinc plays a key role in metabolism. However, other metals are harmful and can be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identifies certain metals as hazardous when exposure exceeds specific concentrations.
We aim to support first responders by understanding what they are exposed to. This research helps determine whether their current PPE is adequate or needs to be modified for EV fire responses, considering the potentially higher concentrations of toxic metals and other hazardous substances.
Jacobsen: Do you notice a difference between short-term acute exposure and long-term cumulative exposure?
Martinez: That’s the million-dollar question right now, right? Research is just beginning on the health effects and environmental impacts of these hazards, so the long-term effects are still uncertain. At Sylvester, one innovative way we track long-term heavy metal exposure is by collecting firefighters’ toenail clippings. I know it sounds gross—that’s why we have graduate students helping with these research projects. But if you think about the nails on our fingers and toes, they resemble the rings on a tree. When you cut a tree stump, you can see rings that indicate the tree’s age and environmental conditions. The same applies to fingernails and toenails—when they form at the base, whatever is circulating in the blood then gets incorporated into the nail. As the nail grows to the tip, it captures approximately six to nine months of exposure history.
One of our ongoing studies involves systematically collecting toenails from firefighters responding to electric vehicle fires, hazardous material incidents, and explosions. This allows us to analyze how heavy metals accumulate and change in the human body over time. The nails act as a “frozen-in-time” biological matrix, helping us assess long-term exposure. However, scientific research takes time, and that’s a challenge when working with first responders who want immediate results. The reality is that science moves much slower than operational demands. But in the future, studies like this will help answer your key question: Are there significant differences between acute, short-term exposure and long-term cumulative exposure to the metals and toxins released in EV fires?
Jacobsen: Based on early indications, what safety protocols and protective equipment can reduce firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens known to be released from EV fires?
Martinez: Yes, we know that decontamination procedures are highly effective. In fact, our colleagues at NIOSH have shown that using basic soap and water—despite what commercial cleaning product ads may suggest—is one of the most effective ways to remove a variety of toxins encountered during fire suppression. The key is to start decontamination immediately at the fire scene, right after the fire is suppressed. This helps prevent the transfer of toxic residues from the fire site into fire trucks and back to the fire station, where secondary exposure could occur. It’s similar to how a surgeon wouldn’t leave the operating room covered in blood—you don’t want to bring contaminants from the fire scene into clean spaces. Implementing preliminary decontamination procedures at the fire site is critical.
Another important safety measure is the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), even for those who are not directly entering a fire. Firefighters establish hazmat zones, which are colour-coded to indicate levels of risk. The red zone is the immediate area where the fire is burning. A certain distance away is the yellow zone, where fire service leaders typically stand to evaluate fire suppression efforts. Beyond that is the green zone, where community observers, including people like you and me, might be standing. Our research has shown that toxic particles travel beyond the red zone, reaching the yellow and green zones.
A common misconception is that open air provides adequate protection from harmful substances, but low-dose particle exposure still occurs. This is similar to what happens in wildland firefighting—when large areas of land burn, people in surrounding areas still inhale harmful particulates. This means that firefighters who are not directly inside a burning structure but positioned in the yellow zone should still be equipped with PPE to minimize exposure.
Jacobsen: Do you think that with wider EV adoption, this research will become increasingly relevant?
Martinez: I do. The reason is that renewable energy sources and rechargeable batteries are now integrated into many aspects of our daily lives. Think about where we use them—scooters, mopeds, micro-mobility devices, and cell phones. We hear warnings about carrying lithium-ion batteries every time we board a plane. As these batteries become more prevalent, so does the need to study their risks.
Urban planning also plays a role. Many buildings now have parking garages with EV charging stations underneath residential spaces. If a fire occurs in an underground parking garage, the resulting smoke plume can become trapped in that confined space, making it even more hazardous. This means we must be thoughtful in designing urban environments and public spaces to ensure first responders have proper access to mitigate fires involving high-energy rechargeable sources.
There is also a significant public education component to this issue, Scott. People must know how to use the correct chargers for their electronic devices. I don’t know about you, but I often see people buying cheap $2 chargers at gas stations because they lost their original ones. These low-quality chargers may not be properly manufactured, and when used, they can cause overheating and even battery fires. First responders are now emphasizing public awareness campaigns about proper charging practices, avoiding overcharging devices, and recognizing potential risks associated with battery misuse.
This is why our research at Sylvester is critical. We are working to understand the environmental and health hazards associated with exposure to high concentrations of metals and other toxins released during EV fires, particularly regarding long-term cancer risks for firefighters.
Jacobsen: Are there any legislative or policy initiatives to address the health risks associated with EV fires for first responders?
Martinez: Yes, thankfully, here in Florida, we have strong legislative support for firefighter cancer research. Our state legislature has provided funding to study cancer risks within the fire service. What makes me especially proud is that our research follows a community-based participatory approach—meaning that firefighters themselves nominate the research topics that are most important to them from a practical, real-world perspective.
For example, the study on EV fires occurred because firefighters asked us to investigate their exposure risks. About three months ago, they said, “We want to know what we’re exposed to during EV fires and how it impacts the environment, including the ground contamination.” Because of their input, we launched this research in response to their concerns.
This process is essential because, as you know, scientific research often takes a long time—usually three to five years of planning. However, by focusing on firefighter-nominated topics, we can apply research more nimbly and responsively. The findings from our studies don’t just stay in academic journals; they directly inform policies and best practices for fire departments and public health officials.
Let me give you an example that I’m particularly proud, I was telling you that someone could work for 30 years as a scientist and only contribute to a small piece of a much larger puzzle. But with the Firefighter Cancer Initiative (FCI), because we are a translational research group, we bridge the gap between basic science—what we learn in the lab—and real-world applications at fire stations. This approach has allowed us to influence policy at both small and large scales.
On the small “p” policy level, we’ve impacted Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) within fire stations. Our research has demonstrated that decontamination (DECON) procedures are highly effective, especially when implemented early. We’ve shown that proper DECON significantly reduces firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens. This has led to SOP changes at fire departments to improve firefighter safety.
On the big “P” policy level, at the state level, we’ve influenced cancer presumption laws. We track which cancers firefighters develop through our Cancer Epidemiology (Cancer Epi) Program. While this may sound simple, it requires complex legislative coordination, statistical modelling, and extensive data matching to identify cancer cases among firefighters accurately. This research allows us to generate firefighter-specific cancer rates, meaning we can determine which types of cancer occur at higher rates among firefighters compared to the general population.
Our findings confirm that firefighters experience elevated risks for specific cancers, which means something in their work environment is increasing their risk. This has been a humbling yet impactful experience—being able to contribute to state-level policy changes that recognize and address occupational cancer risks for firefighters.
There is still much work to be done. Cancer isn’t caused solely by exposure to hazardous materials like metals; it results from workplace exposures, diet, nutrition, genetics, and lifestyle factors. That’s why we have multiple ongoing research projects at FCI to understand these different risk factors. Our goal is twofold: prevent cancer before it develops and reduce exposure to carcinogens in the hazardous environments firefighters encounter.
Jacobsen: Lithium-ion batteries, as far as I understand, are the most commonly used type of battery in electric vehicles. Given their widespread adoption, does this present a unique national test case for studying the health effects of a specific type of battery? Since most EV-related fires involve lithium-ion batteries, does this provide researchers with a broad dataset to analyze their impact on firefighter health?
Martinez: Yes. Let me start by saying that I am not a battery expert. I am trained as a physician and an epidemiologist, so we would need to consult some of my colleagues from the College of Engineering for a deeper understanding of battery composition. However, battery technology is constantly evolving. Even as you and I speak, new vehicles are rolling off assembly lines with battery compositions that differ from those used five years ago.
This presents a significant challenge for firefighters. They often ask us, “Is this exposure normal? Is this what we should expect at an EV fire?” I always explain that in medicine, we determine normal ranges—such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure—by measuring them in the general population. But what is “normal” exposure at an EV fire? That depends on many factors: What kind of car is burning? Is it a large SUV? Is it a hybrid? What type of battery does it have?
The global firefighting community is still working to characterize EV fires, analyzing the composition of these batteries and identifying the emissions they release during combustion. Right now, even the basics of EV fire suppression remain inconsistent. Some first responders here in Florida have told me they sometimes don’t even know where the battery is located in a burning vehicle because every manufacturer places it differently. When firefighters arrive at a fire scene, they first see a massive smoke plume. Before effectively suppressing the fire, they need to identify the vehicle type and the battery.
For example, in some city buses, the batteries are mounted on the roof, while in others, they are located under the chassis—the fire suppression strategy changes depending on battery placement. Firefighters are still working to refine best practices for EV fire response—understanding how to contain fires, protect human life, and minimize toxic exposure.
As scientists, we enter this space and characterize the carcinogens firefighters are exposed to. However, the challenge is that exposure levels vary widely, and we do not yet have clear reference points for what is considered “normal” exposure at an EV fire. That is why we are researching to establish these benchmarks.
At Sylvester, we use silicone-based wristbands—similar to the Lance Armstrong Livestrong bracelets—as an innovative tool for measuring environmental exposure. Traditionally, exposure monitoring involved using bulky, vacuum-powered air samplers attached to firefighters. These old-school methods are impractical in real-world firefighting conditions because they are heavy, noisy, and cumbersome. Instead, we’ve found that silicone wristbands can passively capture airborne toxins.
When firefighters wear these wristbands during a real-life fire response, the chemicals and carcinogens in their environment adhere to the silicone. Afterward, we analyze the wristbands to comprehensively overview the firefighter’s exposure—a “37,000-foot view” of what hazardous substances they encountered. Right now, we are in the phase of determining what firefighters are exposed to specifically in EV fires. The goal is to provide clear guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE) and long-term health risks, especially for firefighters who develop symptoms after suppressing an EV fire.
Jacobsen: Let’s imagine this is a paper presentation—where do you see the greatest need for future research?
Martinez: Oh, gosh. You hit the nail on the head—it’s all about long-term tracking. When you consider the career of a first responder, they may work for 30 years, responding to a wide variety of fires every week—a kitchen fire one day, a car fire the next, then a large residential or commercial fire. If you aggregate all those exposures over three decades, you begin to develop a risk profile for cancer and other occupational health concerns.
The long-term focus of our research needs to be on tracking these first responders throughout their careers. Our studies focus on a single fire event, collecting data from that scene. However, as technology advances, we will have greater opportunities to track exposures over time, allowing us to study cumulative exposure risks, which we are not yet fully capable of. We’re still piecing together insights from various individual case studies, but the future of firefighter health research must emphasize longitudinal exposure tracking.
Jacobsen: Could AI and big data sets from all these individual studies be used to develop something like a Firefighter Cancer Risk Index, mapping exposure patterns over time?
Martinez: You should be a scientist on our team! That is exactly where the field is heading. AI and predictive modelling have huge potential to create personalized risk profiles for firefighters. In my field, we use Job Exposure Matrices (JEMs)—which essentially map workers’ exposure histories to various hazards and predict associated risks.
AI can enhance our ability to model and forecast risks by analyzing large datasets from multiple fire events. This can help us predict which firefighters may be at higher risk for certain health conditions based on their cumulative exposure history. We are currently applying generative AI to risk-based modelling, and I believe that in the coming years, AI will play an even bigger role in assessing, mitigating, and responding to occupational cancer risks for first responders.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Alberto, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great to meet you.
Martinez: Same, Scott. Thank you for your work and for helping us share these findings. You can reach me if you ever need anything.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye! Have a great day.
Martinez: Stay warm. 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): 2025/04/27
In a wide-ranging interview, Irina Tsukerman, Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, outlines a systematic reshuffling within the National Security Council during Trump’s second term. Unlike his first term, the dismissals are deliberate, driven by loyalty tests and distrust of experts. Seasoned professionals are being replaced by underqualified loyalists, leading to leadership gaps, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and intelligence leaks. Figures like Laura Loomer, though fringe, gained influence, further destabilizing national security. The erosion of trust extends to international allies, threatening the integrity of intelligence-sharing frameworks. Tsukerman warns this ideological purge could cause long-term damage to U.S. global standing and operational coherence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Irina Tsukerman. She’s the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider. So, yes, I wanted to talk about key National Security Council officials in the second Trump administration.
Many dismissals have been in this second term, especially within the first hundred days. It’s always strange to count time like that—first hundred days, sixty, or ninety—it feels a bit arbitrary, like counting half-years as an adult. But what is the strategic rationale for dismissing National Security Council officials so far in this term?
Irina Tsukerman: This second term differs significantly from the first because what’s happening now isn’t random. It’s very systematic. Outside sources are prompting events—I’ll get to that moment—but overall, the approach is planned and strategic, unlike the more chaotic, reactive shuffling of personalities we saw in the first term.
In the first term, Trump didn’t fire many people who weren’t his own personal appointees. He chose not to fill many appointed positions, especially in diplomacy, but he didn’t mass-fire entire categories of personnel.
Now, however, he’s systematically targeting intelligence agencies. He’s calling them out directly. This process is both distinct and interconnected. First, there’s the broader emptying of personnel from general intelligence agencies. This included a buyout plan, which offered eight months’ worth of back pay to anyone willing to leave voluntarily. Those who stayed and fell into specific categories identified by the administration were then subject to unceremonious dismissal.
That aspect was framed as an efficiency measure and included administrative staff, technical personnel, and intelligence officers. So, it was a combination of things: first, a claim of improving efficiency by eliminating duplicative roles across major agencies; second, an attempt to purge what they consider the entrenched “deep state” within intelligence services.
That’s one major component. The NSC shake-up is slightly different but tied to another long-standing trend: loyalty tests. Trump and his close circle have applied these tests since he took office. What we’re seeing now is an extension of this approach—expanding the expectation of personal loyalty across the federal government, effectively redefining national security policy around it.
Unlike in the first term, where we saw more dramatic firings of high-profile figures like John Bolton and Rex Tillerson, this term is about building a structure where personal loyalty to Trump, rather than institutional or constitutional loyalty, becomes the foundation of U.S. national security.
The reshuffling in the second term is more insidious. It systematically sidelines qualified experts—not necessarily the top names you hear about in the news but the actual subject matter experts. These people do the core work.
We’re seeing the rise of political appointees with little to no national security experience. And that lack of knowledge has, disturbingly, become almost a qualification. The underlying logic in these circles—driven by a paranoid worldview—is that individuals who do have expertise may have been “hijacked” by the so-called deep state or maybe disloyal because they have institutional knowledge and competence.
By contrast, someone with no skills or experience owes their entire position to the Trump administration. They must remain loyal because, without Trump, they would not be there. That’s literally the rationale behind some of these staffing decisions.
This shift has raised serious alarms about the future of U.S. diplomacy and national security, both domestically and internationally.
Jacobsen: And what about the broader implications for cybersecurity and intelligence?
Tsukerman: The most concerning impact is the growing vulnerability of U.S. intelligence systems, cybersecurity protocols, and global influence. Multiple concerning trends compound this. First, efforts have been made to extract vast amounts of data for unclear purposes. Second, unsafe cybersecurity practices are emerging, even at the highest levels.
For instance, just last week, there was a reported case in which Elon Musk reportedly modified a cybersecurity protocol that allowed a Russian-linked entity access to sensitive systems, resulting in what could be a massive security breach.
We still do not know how that story will unfold. Still, we know widespread concern about how sensitive data is handled and how cybersecurity protocols are being weakened under current leadership.
Jacobsen: So when it comes to well-known figures, who stands out?
Tsukerman: One notable case is Timothy Haugh. He’s a U.S. Air Force general recently appointed by President Biden as the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command. He has been dismissed. There is speculation and concern about the political targeting of career professionals like him. His distinguished service in intelligence and counterterrorism has earned him respect across the aisle, including from many Republicans in Congress.
The fear is that there is a growing pattern—an administration preference for personal loyalty over expertise.
His career exemplifies professionalism and meticulous intelligence work, which some perceive as “too establishment” or out of sync with the populist, anti-establishment rhetoric from certain corners of the administration.
His hypothetical removal would not be an isolated event—it would be part of a broader trend in which highly experienced professionals, particularly in intelligence and security roles, are replaced by those who echo the administration’s messaging.
To prove their loyalty, it is no longer enough for officials to avoid leaks and perform competently. Increasingly, they are expected to parrot the rhetoric and mirror the ideological tone set by the administration’s top—even if it is not formally part of their role. Unless someone operates entirely in the background, they must actively demonstrate their alignment.
The official in question had served in various roles at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. He was known for his commitment to intelligence, integrity, and protecting U.S. national security from foreign threats. However, he was also a pragmatist—and that pragmatic approach increasingly clashed with the internal atmosphere at the White House, which had become marked by growing paranoia and distrust of traditional expertise.
This wasn’t just limited to the national security sector. Similar patterns could be seen in agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. It was part of a broader trend. Individuals who were once respected, experienced professionals became casualties of what I would call a political purge—one that prioritized loyalty and ideology above competence and experience.
That particular dismissal and the firing of six National Security Council staffers—all considered competent, pragmatic, and level-headed—did not happen accidentally, randomly, or in isolation.
It stemmed from a bizarre and frankly alarming incident involving Laura Loomer, a well-known 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
Laura Loomer never held an official position with the National Security Council, thankfully. She is a fringe writer and political activist who calls herself a journalist. However, “social media personality” would be a more accurate description. She has a long history of promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and, by her own accounts, has struggled with mental health issues.
Jacobsen: And she gained influence during the second term?
Tsukerman: Surprisingly, yes. She emerged as a bizarre but increasingly visible figure during Trump’s second presidential campaign and continued gaining proximity to key figures. She began appearing at campaign events and became a symbolic voice for a particular ideological faction.
She is now 32 years old and rose from the margins of the internet as an online provocateur. She often promoted extremely outlandish and baseless conspiracy theories—some so fringe that, under normal circumstances, they would have rendered her persona non grata in any serious media or political circles.
But that’s no longer the case. Platforms like Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) and other pro-Trump media ecosystems have given her a new stage. Her unhinged rhetoric—centred on accusations of government corruption and the so-called “deep state”—was entirely devoid of substantiated evidence.
To be clear, legitimate government corruption does exist, and we should address it through proper investigative and legal means. But Loomer promotes a world of fiction—an alternate reality fueled by paranoia and misinformation.
Her growing influence in Trump’s inner circle is disturbing. Sometimes, I wonder if her presence was truly influential or was being used as a cover—a mouthpiece for ideologies already brewing within the administration. Either way, the fact that her rhetoric helped shape or justify real staffing decisions is deeply troubling.
But Loomer’s vocal support for Trump’s populist agenda and her penchant for spreading disinformation made her a frequent and convenient ally for those in the administration who viewed professional national security experts with disdain. That contempt resulted in the unceremonious dismissal of several qualified staffers.
The rise of figures like Loomer has been deeply problematic. It encourages an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility toward intelligence agencies, diplomatic services, and other professional institutions—rather than fostering dialogue, reform, or strategic reorientation.
Of course, any administration will have individuals whose views conflict with the president’s agenda, and replacements are sometimes necessary. That is a regular part of governance. But what we are seeing here is categorically different. This is not about political disagreements—it’s about eroding the foundations of evidence-based governance.
Loomer’s presence exacerbated Trump’s growing distrust of experts and analysts, driving the administration further from fact-based decision-making. The more Trump embraced voices like hers, the less he relied on the extensive networks of national security experts—including many loyal conservatives who supported his policy goals.
That left the United States more vulnerable to global threats and internal instability. In one alarming incident, Loomer reportedly arrived uninvited at the White House and met with Trump. After that meeting, she allegedly voiced concerns about disloyalty within the National Security Council. Soon afterward, six NSC staffers were dismissed.
When asked about the decision, Trump gave a vague response—saying things like, “Well, I listen to everyone… I respect people’s opinions.” This rhetoric aligned with his broader pattern of valuing personal impressions and emotional loyalty over institutional integrity.
Jacobsen: So, was she driving policy?
Tsukerman: That’s the question. I don’t believe she has real policymaking power. She could have been used as a stand-in or proxy by far more influential individuals within or adjacent to the administration. Trump appears to trust her—or perhaps she reinforces his instincts—which makes her a useful intermediary for advancing ideological goals.
What matters just as much as actual power is the optics. Her visibility shifts the Overton window—acceptable discourse on issues like national security. Even if she isn’t the one pulling the strings, her influence alters the political climate to facilitate dangerous decisions.
And if anyone wanted to weaken U.S. national security—whether a hostile foreign actor or someone with malign intentions—this would be a very effective way to undermine professionals, elevate loyalists, and reduce critical oversight.
Jacobsen: What is the impact of all this in the long term?
Tsukerman: At the end of the day, it puts national security at serious risk. The mass departure of seasoned professionals—including many people of colour—is not just the result of differing policy views. It reflects a broader trend of decision-making driven by ideology and personal loyalty rather than merit or national interest.
That is incredibly dangerous. The system becomes more vulnerable when a leader surrounds himself with yes-men, afraid to challenge flawed decisions, push back on incorrect information, or question poorly implemented policies.
The persecution—or prosecution, metaphorically—of experts stems from Trump’s belief that many institutions, including the national security apparatus, are inherently opposed to him. There is no evidence that General Timothy Haugh or the other dismissed NSC staffers acted in a way that undermined Trump’s goals. But they were removed nonetheless, caught in the tide of a loyalty-driven purge.
He accused them anyway. Trump is increasingly alienating himself from traditional sources of expertise by choice, which means that key positions are either left completely unfilled or are staffed with individuals lacking the requisite knowledge and experience to address critical issues. That creates a serious vulnerability that any adversary could easily exploit.
This trend is weakening the United States’ ability to respond to growing threats from adversarial state actors like China and Russia. It is also fracturing the coherence of U.S. foreign policy. As the White House becomes increasingly consumed by internal loyalty tests and political infighting—among individuals vying for power and Trump’s approval—national security practices, which once functioned as somewhat bureaucratic but effective machinery for maintaining global stability, are becoming fragmented and inefficient.
Ironically, decision-making is slowing down, not because of excessive bureaucracy but because no one is left with the authority, backing, or expertise to make critical decisions and act swiftly. That vacuum creates a system that is highly susceptible to manipulation—by outside actors like foreign adversaries or even by internal operatives with their own agendas.
The ideological shift away from professionalism toward political loyalty has made U.S. systems more vulnerable to cyber espionage by China, disinformation campaigns from Russia, and other forms of political and financial exploitation. The internal fragmentation creates openings for the exploitation of internal divisions, weakening the country’s defence infrastructure from within.
And here’s the ultimate irony: all these internal loyalty tests helped create the conditions that led to the Signal Leaks Scandal, often referred to as Signalgate. This reshuffling—the removal of competent staff and replacement with ideologically loyal but unqualified individuals—laid the groundwork for one of the most serious breaches of classified intelligence in recent history.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on the leak and what happened?
Tsukerman: Trump had long accused his staff of leaking information returning to his first term. But in this most recent case, he alleged that intelligence about internal communications—signals intelligence—was revealed through a chat group that an Atlantic journalist infiltrated.
Trump claimed the journalist had been invited inadvertently and that it was the fault of several staffers with ties to HECSES—a loosely affiliated internal group. Ultimately, three NSC staffers were arrested in connection with this incident. One was a deputy chief of staff who was quietly reassigned to another agency. The other two remain under investigation.
However, there’s no public evidence that they leaked classified information beyond what eventually surfaced in the media due to infighting between journalists and national security officials. Despite this, those three individuals became scapegoats.
Meanwhile, others—including figures like Waltz, Hegseth, Gabbard, & Ratcliffe who were reportedly responsible for serious breaches of security protocols—have not faced any consequences. They retained their positions, were not publicly reprimanded, and avoided accountability. They could even shift the blame to others, protecting themselves at the expense of those without involvement.
This left the Office of the Secretary of Defense with virtually no senior staff to implement or execute policy, adding to an already chaotic atmosphere inside the Pentagon and the broader national security apparatus.
So now, we find ourselves in a situation where the very administration that has long been accused of undermining national security is operating in an environment where leaks—both real and fabricated—are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. The structures that once maintained order and security are now in disarray.
In the case of the signal leaks, that incident became a public story. However, in other situations, we deal with leaks that point to serious internal security failings that are not adequately addressed through official channels.
Some of these are quasi-official leaks, meaning people within the system leak information not out of malice but out of desperation. They are unable to get the attention of their superiors to implement the correct protocols or address significant security concerns. So, ironically, they turn to the media—not because they want to undermine national security but because they are trying to protect it.
These individuals are, in effect, acting as whistleblowers. They are revealing the administration’s failures because there is no functional internal process to report and resolve those issues discreetly. If proper oversight mechanisms were in place—and if senior officials were competent, experienced, or even open to fixing problems—these leaks would not be happening.
Jacobsen: So it’s a breakdown of internal systems?
Tsukerman: This is the environment that has been created. Trump has been paranoid about leaks since his first term. At that time, he viewed them as evidence of a so-called deep state conspiracy to undermine his agenda. But the reality is more nuanced.
Yes, there were leaks under Trump. However, there were also leaks under Biden—from individuals who were not Trump supporters but who opposed Biden’s policies for being too centrist or insufficiently progressive. These people were often far to the left of Biden himself. That historical context fuels Trump’s paranoia: He sees leaks as proof that the government is inherently disloyal or corrupt.
While that view is not entirely irrational—leaks can indicate dysfunction—the way he chooses to address the issue is counterproductive. Instead of reforming internal processes or improving oversight, he replaces experienced professionals with loyalists, which worsens the situation.
The irony is striking: his actions to prevent leaks are contributing to the security failures that lead to more leaks. This self-reinforcing cycle further destabilizes the administration and damages the United States’ global credibility.
Jacobsen: How does this impact national security?
Tsukerman: These leaks—whether officially sanctioned, unauthorized, or somewhere in between—not only embarrass the administration but also harm the U.S.’s standing on the world stage. Foreign intelligence services, particularly Russia and China, exploit the situation.
The structural vulnerabilities created by this breakdown in process, trust, and professionalism have led to significant consequences. Chinese cyber operations, in particular, have capitalized on this dysfunction. China has leveraged its cyber capabilities to infiltrate U.S. government systems and private corporations.
They view U.S. cybersecurity infrastructure as significantly weakened—an unfortunately inaccurate assessment. The erosion of influence and authority among seasoned national security professionals has left significant gaps in defence, and these gaps have been exploited by both formal and informal Chinese actors, including hackers and intelligence operatives.
As a result, China can carry out cyber espionage campaigns with relative impunity. The combination of internal disarray and external threats is dangerous, and it is undermining U.S. resilience at a time when we can least afford it.
Just last week, in a tit-for-tat maneuver, China openly retaliated against the United States following a reported National Security Agency (NSA) operation that allegedly infiltrated secure Chinese government systems during the Asian Games—a regional equivalent of the Olympics for Asian countries.
In response, China publicly “burned” three NSA officers, naming them and accusing the U.S. of undermining China’s cybersecurity. This was particularly notable given that China’s cyber operations regularly target U.S. systems. Their retaliation, while framed as defensive, was part of the ongoing cyber warfare dynamics between both countries.
That is just one aspect of the broader China–U.S. cyber hostility. But another equally concerning aspect is the systematic dismantling of anti-Russian cybersecurity protocols within the U.S. government. This is not happening by accident, it is not a bureaucratic oversight, and it is a deliberate, high-level policy decision.
Jacobsen: They’re dismantling those protocols formally?
Tsukerman: Yes. Officially and formally, anti-Russian cybersecurity operations are being scaled back or dissolved across the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. It is another disastrous consequence of the recent reshuffles in national security leadership.
This raises a critical question: What does all of this say about the current integrity of the U.S. security apparatus, and where is it heading?
It is difficult to fully assess the extent of the damage without a comprehensive review. Unfortunately, no one seems to be in a position—or willing—to make that assessment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), for example, has been more focused on budgetary issues than operational capability, and even then, it lacks the specialized expertise to evaluate strategic security breakdowns properly.
But judging by observable outcomes, the impact is already quite severe. The mass firings and resignations of key staff—including those responsible for executing complex intelligence and defence operations—are taking their toll. We do not yet know the exact number or nature of the personnel losses, but what we can see from the top-level dysfunction is deeply troubling.
We have a Secretary of Defense operating without a whole staff. Top national security officials are making questionable and, at times, damaging decisions, ignoring basic safety and intelligence protocols. Meanwhile, highly competent and dedicated professionals are either leaving or being forced out—many have yet to be replaced.
Jacobsen: So, who’s running the show?
Tsukerman: That’s the terrifying part. In many cases, no one knows. We are seeing leadership gaps in critical areas like the NSA, where no director is in place. These positions are left vacant or filled with temporary acting officials who may not remain in place long.
This creates a massive vulnerability. Foreign intelligence agencies—especially those from adversarial countries—track these developments closely. Personnel monitoring is a significant part of their job. They look at who is in, who is out, and who holds what position. It is fundamental to their infiltration strategy through social engineering or direct hacking efforts.
When they see key U.S. positions left vacant or handed over to underqualified loyalists, it sends a signal: the system is unstable. The United States appears to be operating without sufficient staffing, subject-matter expertise, and robust security protocols or frameworks to manage the threats we face.
Jacobsen: So, from a foreign intelligence perspective, is it open season?
Tsukerman: In many ways, yes. We are dealing with a combination of political purges, loyalty tests, and leadership gaps compromising national security at a structural level. It is a dangerous situation—one that is already being exploited. The impact of these developments extends beyond adversaries—it also affects our allies, particularly within the Five Eyes alliance. This is the core intelligence-sharing network between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It has long been regarded as one of the most effective and trusted cooperative frameworks in the world, especially in counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and global surveillance.
Now, that trust is eroding. There have already been public and private complaints from allies, including unusual remarks from UK intelligence about specific U.S. officials. One name mentioned is Tulsi Gabbard. However, it’s important to clarify that she was confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). So, there may be confusion or misreporting on that front. Still, the broader point stands: U.S. allies are voicing concerns about the competence and reliability of current leadership within American intelligence.
When top-level officials are reckless, inexperienced, and lack the judgment or background to manage complex operations—and when they are not supported by skilled, experienced personnel beneath them—the result is a weakened national security apparatus. That instability puts U.S. intelligence at risk and the sensitive, shared intelligence entrusted to us by our allies.
Jacobsen: So it’s not just about America—about global trust and cooperation?
Tsukerman: It creates a ripple effect. Shared intelligence operations become vulnerable. Protocols get broken. Operations get exposed. These structural weaknesses cannot be fully understood unless you’re working inside those agencies and witnessing the deterioration firsthand.
Among our closest allies, there is a growing concern that the United States can no longer be considered a reliable partner. And it is not just ideological discomfort—it is practical and operational. If your senior staff consists primarily of political loyalists with no relevant qualifications, the actual quality of intelligence will decline. Oversight becomes nonexistent or is conducted by individuals who do not understand what they oversee.
This damages the integrity of U.S. intelligence and frays the trust our partners once had in us. I am not just talking about the formal frameworks of cooperation—I’m talking about the intelligence itself: its reliability, sourcing, and handling. Partners will begin withholding critical information if you cannot guarantee that sensitive material will be handled appropriately. And who could blame them?
There’s also increasing concern that, with U.S. leadership becoming more unpredictable, intelligence shared with us might be misused, mishandled, or even inadvertently exposed. These chaotic, ideology-driven reshuffles raise the risk that U.S. agencies could become a weak link, endangering not just our operations but also our allies—such as undercover agents and field officers embedded in high-risk environments.
Jacobsen: Here’s my final question. Given the current trajectory, what will the standing of the United States be at the end of this administration’s four-year term? Is there any historical precedent for countries rebuilding trust with their allies after such a significant breakdown—not just in intelligence but also in trade, economics, and diplomacy?
Tsukerman: That’s a profound and essential question. Trust is one of the most challenging things to build, straightforward to break, and exponentially harder to repair. That said, there’s so much strategic interdependency between the U.S. and its closest allies that some degree of cooperation will persist—especially at the professional and operational levels—even through political upheaval.
However, long-term damage will need to be repaired. When this administration ends, a thorough reassessment will be essential. That includes rebuilding not just personnel but frameworks, protocols, and confidence.
We will need to offer strong guarantees and structural reforms to show that a breakdown of this scale cannot happen again. Only then can we regain our allies’ trust and reposition the United States as a dependable leader in global security.
The United States has made comebacks before—and so have other countries. Take the Edward Snowden scandal, for example. That leak exposed highly sensitive intelligence operations, not just from the U.S. but also involving its closest allies. It caused a public backlash, diplomatic strain, and internal reassessments of intelligence-sharing protocols.
There was much grumbling, international criticism, and calls for reform. But eventually, the dust settled. The Five Eyes alliance and other security partnerships resumed their cooperative roles—more or less back to business as usual. Yes, there were adjustments. Some trust was lost. However, the underlying infrastructure of cooperation survived because it had long proven its value.
What makes the current situation under Trump so different—so much more destabilizing—is that this is not a scandal caused by an individual leak or a rogue actor. What Trump is attempting is a comprehensive dismantling of the post–World War II security framework that has governed intelligence relationships between the U.S., Europe, Canada, and other allied nations for the past seventy-five years.
Jacobsen: So it’s not just disruption—it’s redefinition?
Tsukerman: Exactly. He is not just disrupting it—he is trying to redefine it from the ground up. He’s attempting to reframe and rebuild the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States based not on institutional integrity or operational excellence but on loyalty to him personally.
This is a seismic shake-up—far more sweeping than even major historical intelligence crises, such as the Church Committee investigations in the 1970s. That was a monumental moment of oversight and reform, but it was ultimately about accountability within the existing framework. It did not aim to destroy or purge the intelligence community itself.
What we are witnessing now is different. This is a deliberate attempt to purge and replace—not through a careful process of reform or transition, but through chaotic, politically motivated upheaval. And the replacements are not necessarily qualified. In many cases, they are chosen for loyalty over competence, which leaves critical security gaps and undermines institutional knowledge that has taken decades to build.
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): 2025/04/27
Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler, a pastor and peace activist, speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about her faith-based advocacy for Palestinian rights and opposition to Christian Zionism. Rooted in Christian liberation theology and nonviolent resistance, she critiques Mike Huckabee’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Israel due to his support for annexation, illegal settlements, and harmful theology. She highlights her presence as a prayerful witness at his confirmation hearing protest, emphasizing solidarity with Palestinian Christians. Hosler distinguishes between Christian Zionism forms, challenges biblical justifications for occupation, and calls for justice through responsible theology, peacemaking, and recognition of Palestinian self-determination.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler. Rev. Jenn is a Christian pastor and peace activist rooted in the prophetic tradition of nonviolent resistance. She is a member of Christians for a Free Palestine. She has been a vocal critic of Christian Zionism and its role in enabling human rights violations against Palestinians. With a pastoral ministry and liberation theology background, Reverend Jenn is committed to solidarity with local and global communities. She was present at the disruption of Mike Huckabee’s Senate confirmation hearing to oppose his nomination and to advocate for justice, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian people.
Rev. Dr. Jennifer Hosler: And by “participate,” I just want to clarify that my role was accompaniment and prayerful witness and observation. I was not one of the official disruptors, but I was part of the group involved in the disruption.
Jacobsen: So, what motivated your presence at the disruption of Mike Huckabee’s confirmation hearing? What about his stances, in particular, justified this form of protest?
Hosler: Yes. I believe that Mike Huckabee is unfit to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel because he promotes Christian Zionist theology, which is extremely harmful. This theology attempts to erase the Palestinian people and disregards the realities of modern-day Israel-Palestine. Huckabee has openly supported the unilateral annexation of the West Bank and claimed there is no such thing as a Palestinian—a claim that is both historically inaccurate and deeply offensive, especially to Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem and elsewhere.
He also supports illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are considered violations of international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. These settlements contribute to the ongoing displacement of Palestinians—a process many human rights organizations describe as ethnic cleansing. Huckabee has participated in events supporting these settlements and has appeared at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for settler-run tourism centers, including in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem.
I have seen the impact of this firsthand. Last year, I joined a Christian solidarity delegation to the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the invitation of Palestinian Christian leaders. We visited places like Hebron, where I witnessed the apartheid-like conditions imposed by Israeli military authorities and settlers. These include checkpoints, segregated roads, and the constant threat of violence and displacement against Palestinian families.
Recently, we’ve seen renewed violent displacement, including during Ramadan, when Palestinian communities have been attacked and homes demolished. This includes areas like Masafer Yatta, Bethlehem, and Silwan. Huckabee’s rhetoric—such as calling the West Bank by its biblical names, “Judea and Samaria”—serves to legitimize these actions and ignore the legal and humanitarian rights of the people living there.
At the disruption, you may have seen shirts we were wearing that said “All Eyes on Palestine,” along with an image of a pair of eyes. This image comes from a mural in the neighbourhood of Silwan—painted to depict the eyes of the blind man from the Gospel of John, chapter 9, where Jesus heals him and tells him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. That very site is located in Silwan, and the Israeli government, together with settler organizations like Elad, has been turning it into a tourist attraction while displacing the Palestinian residents living there—some of whom have been there for centuries.
Our goal was to bear witness to the harm caused by the Christian Zionist ideology Huckabee promotes and to call U.S. Senators to oppose his nomination. We cannot afford to put someone in a diplomatic position who advocates for violent theology and policies that perpetuate injustice.
And so Huckabee is committed to this—there is erasure of Palestinians happening in Silwan, and Huckabee has been there. People are being pushed out, homes are being destroyed, and Huckabee, as the U.S. ambassador nominee, approves of this. Rather than being a friend who holds others accountable—because the U.S. and Israel have very strong ties—Huckabee is not at all interested in accountability.
He is just interested in greenlighting whatever actions support his Christian Zionist theology, which is a warped view advocating for complete Israeli control of everything in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, all for apocalyptic purposes. So I say—and many other Christians are saying—we need to open our eyes, and we need to stop Mike Huckabee from becoming the U.S. ambassador to Israel.
Jacobsen: Now, for those who hear the term “Zionism” and hear it mixed in with “Christian Zionism,” is the general premise of Christian Zionism support for the State of Israel primarily for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and end-times events? Is that their core eschatology, grounded in superficial geopolitics?
Hosler: When I talk about Christian Zionism, I try to distinguish between what I call “Christian Zionism light” and “apocalyptic Christian Zionism.” I’ve been asked to explain this to different groups, and I came out of a Christian Zionist theology myself.
“Christian Zionism light” is a certain interpretation of Scripture. It conflates any mention of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament with the modern nation-state of Israel, which declared independence in 1948. It treats those references as synonymous, automatically assuming that the biblical “Israel” equals today’s Israel and that this modern political entity is divinely ordained.
This interpretation lacks rigorous biblical theology. For example, one might see in Genesis that Abraham was promised land and blessing. Still, later in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in the prophetic books, there are clear conditions tied to God’scovenant with ancient Israel—justice, righteousness, right worship, and ethical behaviour. The Babylonian exile demonstrated that the covenant was broken, showing that land possession was not unconditional.
To claim that the present nation-state of Israel is the exact continuation of biblical Israel ignores the complexities of covenant theology and the injustices being committed today. Simply fast-forwarding to say “it’s the same” is misleading and deeply flawed theology.
Then, there’s the apocalyptic version—what some call dispensational premillennialism. This includes beliefs about the Rapture, a very new theology, only about 150 years old. According to this view, Jesus will return and take up the saved, and the rest of the world will endure a time of great tribulation.
A key part of this eschatology is the idea that all Jews must be in the land of Israel and that the entire land must be under Jewish control to trigger the Second Coming. So there’s this dangerous motivation to ensure Jewish dominance over the land—not because of support for Jews as a people, but because their presence is seen as necessary to achieve the “end times.”
This is deeply troubling. Many of my Jewish allies see this for what it is: treating Jews as pawns in someone else’s theological game. They find this perspective offensive and anti-Semitic.
This apocalyptic Christian Zionism is utilizing modern geopolitics and the untold suffering of millions to serve its theology. It is particularly egregious in that it denies the personhood of Palestinian Christians—Christians who have lived in the Holy Land since the time of Jesus—and who are now saying, “This is hurting us.”
These policies against Palestinians affect both Muslims and Christians. They are destroying lives. One of the greatest factors driving Christians out of Palestine is that life under occupation is unbearably difficult. It is not due to Islamophobia. It is not, as some fundamentalist Christians claim, that “Muslims are kicking out the Christians.” That is not true. It is the Israeli occupation that is damaging the Christian community in Palestine.
Jacobsen: Why was Silwan chosen as a focal point for the protest? You alluded to some of this earlier.
Hosler: Silwan was chosen as a focal point because it is a powerful example of how Israel is using archaeology and biblical tourism as tools against Palestinians. This neighbourhood, which is sacred to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike, is being transformed through weaponized heritage projects.
The excavation in Silwan and the Pool of Siloam is adjacent to the so-called “City of David,” which functions essentially as a biblical theme park. Under the guise of creating green space for biblical tourism, Palestinian homes are being slated for demolition, rezoned, and actively destroyed.
I have witnessed this in Silwan. Many groups have worked to raise awareness about it, including by painting eyes all over the neighbourhood—symbolizing that the world is watching. We thought this was particularly poignant: God sees what is happening.
In John 9, Jesus opened the eyes of the blind man at the Pool of Siloam. We are praying, hoping, and acting so that the world’s eyes may also be opened to the injustices taking place in Silwan, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and certainly Gaza.
Jacobsen: Protests are often ripe for misinterpretation—both in benign ways and by bad actors. How has this protest been misunderstood either innocently or malevolently?
Hosler: That’s a great question.
Jacobsen: Because I think—even within the context of what we were discussing—there are multiple interpretations of terms like “Zionism.” You referenced “Christian Zionism light” and the more apocalyptic eschatology of Christian Zionism, which many Jewish allies view as anti-Semitic. Then there’s a separate layer: regular geopolitical Zionism going back to the 1940s, like the idea of a two-state solution.
So when people hear “Zionism,” whether in a theological or political context, many are misinterpreting what you’re saying. And that leads to blowback and forces you to explain yourself repeatedly.
Hosler: I think some of the misunderstanding—maybe in a benign or even benevolent way—comes from people assuming that we’re attacking someone’s theology. I saw something suggesting we were attacking Mike Huckabee’s specific theology. I think it’s more helpful to illustrate that what we’re trying to show is the danger of when a radical theology with geopolitical implications gains power—power that impacts the lives of thousands, even millions.
If someone wants to hold beliefs aligned with “Christian Zionism light” or even apocalyptic Christian Zionism, that’s their personal choice. I would even be open to having conversations about what drew me out of Christian Zionism. However, the real issue is when those beliefs are combined with institutional power. That’s what’s most problematic.
So the misunderstanding is less that we are attacking theology itself and more that we are challenging the permission to wield great power with that theology—especially the power of the United States. That kind of power, when aligned with this theological worldview, effectively greenlights human rights abuses, greenlights the complete annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and pushes people from their homes.
In his hearing, Huckabee said something along the lines that full Israeli control would be acceptable because “things are okay right now.” I’m paraphrasing, of course, but things are not okay right now. That’s why we’re raising warning flags.
Some people may label that as “attacking.” Still, we are trying to do this through nonviolent means to demonstrate the problems of empowering a theological worldview through American diplomatic and political power. That is very troubling to us.
As for malevolent misinterpretations, I haven’t encountered many. I suppose some people could say that we’re “anti-Israel.” But I am not anti-Israel. I want justice, well-being, and wholeness for all Israelis and all Palestinians.
So, a reasonable interpretation would be that I care about the well-being of all people. I am working for justice and to end systemic causes of violence—for everyone. I have little to say about malevolent misinterpretations because I haven’t seen them arise from this particular action or others.
Jacobsen: What is the significance of the eyes of the blind man?
Hosler: Thanks. Yes, I spoke about this a little earlier. In the Gospel of John, chapter 9, a man comes to Jesus for healing, and Jesus tells him to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam. He does, and the religious leaders become upset because it is the Sabbath.
Jesus had put mud on the man’s eyes and told him to wash, and when he did, he was healed. But the religious authorities say that Jesus could not have been from God because he “didn’t keep the Sabbath.” They attack both Jesus and the man who was healed.
The significance of the eyes from the Pool of Siloam—the eyes of the blind man—is to highlight both the sacredness of the land and the need to open the eyes of the world to the injustices happening there. It is a call to bring healing to a place that is wounded and under daily assault.
I was in Silwan in February 2024. On Valentine’s Day, the home of a community leader—who had been meeting with U.S. State Department officials and diplomats from around the world—was targeted for demolition. He was given the choice: demolish it himself or be charged by the Israeli government for its destruction.
Fakhri Abu-Diab, the chairman of the Al-Bustan Residents Committee of Silwan, had his home unilaterally rezoned by Israeli authorities as “green space.” It was then forcibly demolished.
So, our goal with this symbolism—the eyes—is to connect people with the biblical story and the present reality. We need our eyes to be opened. We cannot pretend everything is well in Israel. There are serious injustices taking place, and too many people gloss over them by saying, “Oh, it’s the Holy Land” or “The land of the Bible.”
And it is the land of the Bible. But tragically, people are using that biblical connection to displace, evict, and destroy the lives of others. We want to raise awareness about that.
Jacobsen: How did your church community respond to your involvement in the protests?
Hosler: My church community has been very supportive. I pastor in the Church of the Brethren, a historic peace church tradition. Our theology and practice are deeply rooted in peacemaking.
We understand nonviolent direct action—including civil disobedience—as one of the tools we can use to bring about justice and positive change, so there’s no theological tension for us. My specific role is as Minister of Christian Social Justice and Peacemaking. That role includes a mandate to engage in active peacemaking, which can take many forms, including protest.
My congregation supports this work. We also look back to the origins of our tradition. The Church of the Brethren was founded in 1708 in Germany. At that time, members began baptizing one another as adults—even though they had already been baptized as infants. That act of adult baptism was itself a form of civil disobedience. It was considered treason against the state, which did not recognize adult baptism as legitimate.
Jacobsen: Did any critics say that the protest was disruptive or disrespectful?
Hosler: I didn’t see any particular phrasing that described it as disrespectful. It was disruptive—we interrupted his hearing and spoke out during his remarks. That was the point: to raise attention to the issue. Unfortunately, our elected leaders are not seriously pushing back or truly listening to constituents.
There has been a significant amount of public concern. I know of multiple Christian and Jewish groups—and others—raising serious objections to Mike Huckabee’s nomination. So yes, the action was disruptive. Disrespectful? I haven’t personally heard that interpretation.
Jacobsen: Is there anything that you agree with Mike Huckabee on? I know it’s not always black and white, so I want to offer space for nuance.
Hosler: I appreciate the question, but I can’t answer that meaningfully right now. I’ve mostly been exposed to their beliefs and policies that I find deeply problematic. We must agree on something, but I haven’t done the research to say for sure. I’ll respectfully decline to answer that at the moment.
Jacobsen: How does your faith inform your activism for the Palestinian right to self-determination, particularly in light of Israeli self-determination? So, the question is more about the universal ethic underlying this. The idea is that Israelis have their self-determination—something they are actively practicing—while Palestinians have been struggling for decades, due to state and other policy barriers, to realize that same right.
Hosler: I would say that my faith, especially having once identified as a Christian Zionist, really began to shift when I learned about Palestinian Christians. As Christians, we are called to care for all people—everyone is made in the image of God. However, New Testament scriptures also speak specifically about caring for fellow believers.
After college, I learned about the existence of Arab Christians—and specifically Palestinian Christians. I also learned about the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” the term Palestinians used to describe the mass displacement and violence in 1948. I came to understand the pogroms and military campaigns that occurred before, during, and after that year—attacks that violently uprooted Palestinian communities.
As followers of Jesus, we are called to stand with those who suffer and seek justice. That realization made me deeply concerned with the rights, dignity, and well-being of Palestinians.
In Luke 4, when Jesus gives his first sermon, he reads from the scroll of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor… freedom for the prisoners… and to set the oppressed free.” That message is both spiritual and social—it directly ties faith to justice in the present world.
So, my Christian faith tells me I must care for Palestinians. As they work for recognition, justice, and restitution, I stand with them—particularly my Palestinian Christian siblings, but also with the broader Palestinian community seeking to right the wrongs done to them.
At the same time, as a Christian, I am deeply committed to confronting and lamenting the long legacy of antisemitism perpetuated by Christians over centuries. I work closely with Jewish congregations in Washington, D.C., and Jewish activists who advocate for justice in Palestine.
I am committed to addressing injustice wherever it appears—whether against Palestinians or Israelis. I believe that Palestinian safety is tied to Israeli safety. Working for the dignity, safety, and justice of Palestinians will help bring about security and peace for all people in the land.
Hosler: My faith gives me value and care for all people because all people are made in God’s image.
Jacobsen: Mike Huckabee in his stand for U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He is opposed to a two-state solution and supports Israeli settlements. He also favours using biblical terminology instead of long-standing geographical names—referring to areas like the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.” As someone with more expertise in this area than I have, what is the central theological problem with applying terms like “Judea” and “Samaria” to contemporary geopolitical contexts?
In what ways is this explicitly problematic—not just in terms of contradicting international norms around the two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination—but also in terms of what seems, from the outside, like a misuse of biblical hermeneutics to force-fit a political agenda?
Hosler: Thank you. I think using language like “Judea and Samaria” is deeply problematic for several reasons.
In addition to contradicting the long-standing international recognition of the occupied Palestinian territories—West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—the terminology itself is deliberately weaponized. Israeli far-right ministers use these biblical terms because they want to assert ownership over the land and erase Palestinians from the narrative entirely. It is part of an ethnic cleansing framework framed in theological language.
When Mike Huckabee uses that same terminology, he’s effectively sugarcoating ethnic cleansing with biblical vocabulary. Just like in “Christian Zionism light,” where people read “Israel” in the Bible and assume that it automatically endorses modern political Israel, the use of “Judea and Samaria” plays a similar role. People hear those names and think, “Oh, that’s in the Bible—therefore, it belongs to Israel.” It subtly encourages people to ask, “What are Palestinians even doing here? Are there even people here?” That erasure is the goal.
One example of this dynamic is on Bethlehem’s outskirts, at the Tent of Nations. The Nassar family has owned that land for generations. They have legal documentation proving ownership and have been in court for decades defending their right to stay. It is one of the last remaining Palestinian hilltops in that area—Israeli settlements have taken over all the others.
Since October 7, the pressure has intensified. Settlements and outposts have crept closer and closer, and roads have been carved through the land. The Nassar family cannot improve their home—there is no water or electricity. Meanwhile, the surrounding settlements have full infrastructure. People have blocked and destroyed roads leading to the Tent of Nations farm.
This is part of a decades-long effort to displace Palestinians and expand Israeli settlements. If the U.S. ambassador—the top diplomat—uses the same language as far-right Israeli officials like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, it legitimizes their goals. These officials are not subtle; they openly declare their intention to remove Palestinians.
So if the U.S. appoints someone who uses their language and shares their theology, it’s one more piece in a very dangerous puzzle—one that accelerates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land.
I dramatically object to Huckabee using that language—not only because it contradicts the long-standing terminology used by the international community—but because it uses my faith as a tool to harm people, including Christians like the Nassar family.
Jacobsen: I’ve done many interviews on this topic—with experts and everyday people—and I’m also working on a series about antisemitism. One example came up that I’d like to get your perspective on.
Let’s say you’re a 19-year-old Jewish student. You go to class, maybe join a gardening club at a university like Columbia. The campus environment is highly politicized around the Israel-Palestine issue. You identify as a Zionist, but in a general, cultural sense—you’re Jewish, you support Israel in some loose way. Still, you don’t necessarily support war or violence.
Still, you face backlash for simply being Jewish and expressing support for Israel in that basic way. A clinical psychologist I spoke with said that young people in that situation are approaching them in distress. They’re not political actors, but they’re being treated as stand-ins for an entire geopolitical crisis.
So this isn’t necessarily about left vs. right or a theological dispute—it’s more about how broad geopolitical waves ripple into individual lives. Would you have any message for someone like that—a young Jewish person facing personal antisemitic blowback for something far removed from their individual beliefs or actions? I don’t know if I am doing that justice, but I am describing what is coming my way.
Hosler: I hear what you’re saying. You mentioned “antisemitic blowback,” and for me, that phrase is unfortunately too vague to comment on meaningfully, especially in such a charged context.
You said the student isn’t necessarily involved in or supportive of specific actions. Still, when the term “antisemitic blowback” is used broadly, it becomes hard to discern what’s happening. Right now, there’s a troubling pattern of weaponizing the term “antisemitism” to conflate legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with hatred toward Jewish people. That’s dangerous because it dilutes the meaning of actual antisemitism.
I’m hesitant to respond without more detail because I can’t responsibly comment on the nuances of that student’s experience.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement aims to apply pressure on businesses and institutions complicit in the Israeli occupation and the violence perpetrated against Palestinians. That said, BDS does not endorse the targeting of individuals on a personal level.
If someone, at a personal and interpersonal level, chooses not to associate with someone who strongly supports a government actively committing atrocities, that’s their choice. I don’t think that, in and of itself, is antisemitic. But again, I want to be cautious. Targeting someone because they are Jewish, regardless of their political views—that is antisemitism. That is a serious and terrifying reality; we must name and oppose it.
So yes, antisemitism is real and dangerous. But conflating Jewish identity with the policies of a state—any state—is not only misleading, it’s harmful to everyone involved, especially young people just trying to live and learn in peace.
It’s too hazy to comment on that in full detail.
Jacobsen: How do you think the message from the protest was received—both by the Senate and the broader public?
Hosler: I saw definite media interest, particularly around our Jewish allies who first protested and disrupted the hearing. They blew a shofar as part of their action, which was powerful and symbolic. Various media outlets picked up the Jewish-led disruption and the following Christian-led protest.
It was especially important for the media to see that Jewish voices were standing against Huckabee—not necessarily identifying as anti-Zionist, but speaking out because of the antisemitism they recognized in his theology and because of the injustice his ambassadorship would perpetuate. That nuance is important, and I want to be clear: one of the Jewish leaders, IfNotNow, does not identify as anti-Zionist, so I want to be accurate in naming that.
I think it was also significant that some outlets picked up on the Christian presence and message—that Christians were saying, “This form of Christianity is radical.” The theology Huckabee promotes—though it may not look radical in a small congregation or on a television program—has dangerous implications when it gains political power. When it can lead to the displacement of communities or approval of state violence, it becomes radical in a very real and dangerous way.
So yes, I’m encouraged that the media picked up on some of those aspects. I hope it continues to shape how the public understands the stakes of this nomination.
Jacobsen: Is there anything I haven’t sufficiently covered?
Hosler: I think you captured a lot—thank you.
Jacobsen: Is the Betarmovement even facing off with the ADL?
Hosler: Yes, and it was surprising to see that. The Anti-Defamation League—which, to be honest, many of my Jewish allies have criticized for not consistently living up to its mission—did call the Betargroup a hate group. That’s significant. Some say the ADL has misidentified or downplayed actual antisemitic threats while labelling legitimate criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. So, for them to call out the Betar group suggests that even they view it as a serious threat. It’s a wild moment.
Hosler: Great! Sounds good.
Jacobsen: All right. Thanks, Jenn.
Hosler: Take care, Scott.
Jacobsen: Bye.
Hosler: 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): 2025/04/26
Venny Ala-Siurua, Executive Director of Women on Web, discusses the organization’s expansion into the U.S. in 2024 due to increasing abortion restrictions. Women on the Web, a Canadian nonprofit, provides telemedicine abortion services and combats digital censorship globally. Ala-Siurua highlights the challenges of online suppression, political hostility, and misinformation. She also addresses rising demand from countries like the U.S., Poland, and the Philippines. The discussion covers reproductive rights, the role of digital activism, and strategies for countering disinformation. The interview underscores the intersection of abortion access, digital rights, and human rights in an evolving global landscape.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Venny Ala-Siurua. She is the Executive Director of Women on Web, a Canadian nonprofit that provides online abortion services and directs global health information. With over a decade in the nonprofit sector, she specializes in health, social protection, and digital rights. Holding a master’s degree in international development, she has worked with international NGOs, grassroots organizations, and multilateral entities. Under her leadership, Women on Web has navigated online censorship and expanded access to safe abortion information.
She has expertise in digital rights and reproductive health, ensuring access to accurate medical resources while addressing restrictions through technology. Thank you for joining me on this delightful CSW69, Beijing+30, Resolution 1325 25th day.
Venny Ala-Siurua: Thank you for having us.
Jacobsen: Let’s start. So, how did Women on Web expand its services in the U.S. in 2024? Everyone is generally aware that things have become more challenging since 2022. How did you expand?
Ala-Siurua: Women on Web has been around for nearly twenty years. For the first fifteen or sixteen years, we never considered working in the U.S. At any given moment, our service has been available in nearly 180 countries.
We’ve always had a global mission, covering a broad range of geographies. The U.S. was not originally a focus. At the same time, we knew that similar organizations, such as Aid Access, launched its service in 2018. So, we initially believed there was no urgent need for our presence there. We remained focused on our global mission and the other 180 countries.
However, as you mentioned, the situation in the U.S. has become increasingly restrictive since 2022. In early 2024, we began evaluating whether we should expand our service to the U.S. in response to mounting legal and logistical barriers.
We have almost twenty years of experience operating in legally and politically hostile environments. We already had a well-established help desk infrastructure, the necessary technology, and the operational readiness to expand. So, we decided that July 1, 2024, would be the official launch of our service in the U.S. We recognized that, despite other telemedicine services and community-based support networks, there remained significant unmet needs.
With that in mind, we decided to bring our expertise, team, and services to the U.S. We officially launched less than a year ago.
Jacobsen: Now, Venny, with the increasing restrictions on access to a broad range of reproductive health services, there is a common but subtle misconception. When people discuss reproductive rights or similar services, they often focus on one aspect. However, the reality is that these restrictions impact a much broader spectrum of care.
When discussing these restrictions—especially in the past few years—could you break down what that means in practical terms? How should we understand the evolving landscape of reproductive healthcare access?
Ala-Siurua: What we saw at Women on Web is that, while we had never been open in the U.S. before July 1, 2024, we always had significant traffic coming from the U.S. regardless.
We noticed a spike in traffic and inquiries every time a legislative change occurred. For example, when Texas SB8 was introduced in 2021, we immediately saw a surge in visitors and people reaching out to us. However, at that time, we had to inform them that we were not serving the U.S. and direct them to organizations like Plan C or Aid Access. The same pattern occurred when the Dobbs decision was leaked and again when it was finalized. We have always seen people coming to us in moments of crisis, and we have deeply sensed the stress and panic they were experiencing.
We’ve had steady traffic from the U.S. for years, but we didn’t always know where those people ended up. We knew where we referred them, but we couldn’t track whether they could access safe services—or if they got lost in search engines that often provide misleading or inaccurate information. Many people searching for abortion care are misdirected to crisis pregnancy centers, which are not actual healthcare providers and often exist to dissuade people from seeking abortion.
Expanding to the U.S. was partly about being able to directly help the people who were already reaching out to us in moments of crisis. While we still refer people to other trusted services, we aim to ensure that those in need immediately receive the right information and support. We’re not always in the best position to help in every case, and other telemedicine services and community networks can provide support.
Jacobsen: The pain of losing something one already had is often much greater than the satisfaction of gaining it in the first place. The loss of reproductive rights and access to these services feels particularly painful because they were once available. What emotions do people express when they come to you, saying that these services are being restricted or eliminated where they live?
Ala-Siurua: First, I want to say how heartbreaking it is to witness, in real-time, people losing their fundamental rights. It has been devastating.
I’m based in Canada, so this issue feels very close to us. We are watching our neighbours lose access to essential healthcare, and the emotions people share with us are overwhelming.
As I said, many people are panicking. We saw our last major surge in inquiries after the 2024 election. Nothing had immediately changed in terms of laws, but people assumed the worst after the election results. There’s always a lot of fear and stress when people contact us during political uncertainty.
But not everyone is reaching out out of panic. Some people contact us because they are angry.
For example, we now offer advance provision of abortion pills—meaning people can order the pills before they need them. The demographic using this service differs from our standard clientele because these people have the financial means to purchase the pills in advance. Some are doing it as a form of resistance—they see it as a way to fight back against abortion restrictions. Others are preparing for themselves and their communities, ensuring that their friends, family members, and daughters will still have access if restrictions worsen.
So, while we see fear and disempowerment, we also see people reaching out from a place of empowerment—taking control of the situation and saying, “That’s enough.”
Jacobsen: What were the key factors behind the 30% increase in abortion seekers supported by Women compared to 2023?
Ala-Siurua: when our service grows, it tells a story about where abortion restrictions are headed and in what direction. A major increase was due to our expansion into the U.S. However, the U.S. wasn’t open for the entire year, and its growth has been gradual.
It wasn’t until after the 2024 elections that we saw a sharp increase in requests. But where else is this increase coming from?
There are countries in Europe, such as Poland and Malta, that have practically banned abortion and continue to restrict access. Poland has not fulfilled its promises to liberalize its abortion laws, and we still receive a significant number of requests from there. Additionally, we have seen a rise in requests from the Philippines, where access remains extremely limited.
These countries—the U.S., Poland, and the Philippines—have significantly contributed to the increase. Another factor is that Women on Web relies heavily on people finding us through search engines. We’ve had challenges with search visibility in the past. There have been times when we lost significant website traffic, leading to declining requests.
Of course, we know that the demand for abortion pills does not change overnight. The same number of people likely needed them yesterday as they do today. But search engines can quickly suppress our visibility, directly affecting how many people can reach us.
In that respect, 2024 was better. We were able to maintain our search rankings, which meant we were there when people needed us. Interestingly, we’ve also noticed that many people aren’t just searching for “abortion pills”—they are specifically searching for Women on Web. That’s key.
Search engine don’t rank us well for key-words like abortion pills but thankfully people also just search for “Women on Web” so they know our name (thanks to outreach) and know what they are looking for.
Jacobsen: One of the most significant pioneers of abortion access in Canada was Dr. Henry Morgentaler. He founded Humanist Canada and, as a secular humanist, was involved in various organizations locally and internationally.
One interesting approach is reading hate mail as a comedy—turning negativity into something humorous. Have you ever thought about doing the same? What kind of hate mail do you receive?
Ala-Siurua: Dr. Morgentaler was one of our first board members when we set up Women on Web nearly twenty years ago. Still, he was a huge part of our foundation and one of the reasons we exist today.
As for hate mail—no, I’ve never really considered making comedy out of it. But one email still makes me chuckle a little. The subject line just said:
“Burn in Hell.”
That was it—nothing else.
I don’t remember if there was any actual content in the email, but seeing that in my inbox alongside the usual subject lines like “Meeting Request” or “Follow-Up” was surreal. So, yes, I did get a laugh out of it. But I never really thought about sharing them more widely… until now. Thanks for the idea!
Jacobsen: You could make YouTube clips about this. Essentially, you’d be using humour to reduce the impact of the nonsense you have to deal with. People who send these messages aren’t necessarily bad, but they have unhelpful ideas. So, they send things that can be hurtful, but if turning it into humour gives them a second thought, that’s a win.
Ala-Siurua: That’s a great idea.
Jacobsen: What are the challenges in reaching subgroups of people, particularly navigating digital censorship and ensuring they receive accurate information from Women on Web?
Ala-Siurua: Oh, I love this question—thank you for asking.
There are very different situations in different places. Our website is censored in both Spain and South Korea, but for different reasons and under different legal frameworks.
In Spain, we received a positive ruling in 2022. The court decided that our website should be partially unblocked, meaning people could access it. However, the consultation page—where people seek help—would remain blocked. It was not the victory we had hoped for, but it was still a surprising step forward. The ruling even acknowledged the important role that organizations like ours play in society.
At first, we were excited about the ruling—until we realized that it is technically impossible to partially unblock a website without compromising user privacy. The only way for anyone to enforce this ruling would be to undermine the privacy of both our website and the people who visit it. That, of course, is unacceptable.
As a result, the website remains fully blocked. This situation highlights a larger problem: people who don’t understand technology or abortion access are the ones making legal decisions about both. The ruling may have been groundbreaking, but in practice, it is unenforceable. So, we continue to fight. We have exhausted all domestic legal avenues and are still appealing, but Women on Web remains blocked in Spain.
The situation is even more challenging in South Korea where are our appeals have been rejected and medical abortion medicines are not even registered in the country.
However, strategic litigation is not only about restoring access to our website. At this point, I don’t expect that South Korea will reverse its decision. Instead, we use this legal battle to raise awareness about the absurdity.
It is outrageous that people in South Korea cannot even access information about abortion. Even if we don’t win the legal case, we can bring attention to the issue and push for change in the long run.
The censorship of Women on Web is a fundamental human rights violation—it restricts people’s right to access information and their freedom of expression.
One of the more recent challenges we’ve faced—one that I hope we can turn into an impactful campaign—is that South Korea censored us again. This happened just over a month ago.
A mirror website that had been helping South Korean abortion seekers since the last round of censorship was discovered by the government—and promptly blocked. This is now our fifth website that they have censored.
The question remains: Does it even make sense for them to keep doing this? We have clear evidence that there is a demand for our services. Suppose people keep finding us and using our platform. Shouldn’t that force the government to reflect on whether it is providing timely, affordable, and accessible abortion services itself?
Instead of addressing the real issue, they keep playing this censorship game. But every time they block us, we launch a new mirror site. We’re on our fifth or sixth mirror and will continue serving people in South Korea until they block us again.
At this point, it feels like a cat-and-mouse game, but we feel stronger than ever. Every time they block us, we immediately launch another site. It’s no problem for us. And thanks to technological advancements and digital activism, people keep finding us.
This movement isn’t just about Women on Web—it’s about the solidarity of those who refuse to let governments dictate who gets access to reproductive healthcare. Despite everything, people continue to help each other, giving us hope.
Jacobsen: As a follow-up, many individuals and groups are passionate advocates for free speech. In U.S. terms, they talk about free speech; in EU, UN, and Canadian terms, they frame it as freedom of expression. People in libertarian and conservative circles tend to emphasize these rights the most. Have any of them ever reached out to you?
Ala-Siurua: No. Never.
Jacobsen: Not at all?
Ala-Siurua: No. It doesn’t happen.
Jacobsen: If any of them read this, they should reconsider.
Ala-Siurua: Maybe.
Jacobsen: If they looked at the principles behind their stance, they could see this as a free speech issue and offer support.
Ala-Siurua: This is 100% a free speech issue. But at the same time, we see that many so-called free speech advocates are perfectly fine with restricting certain words—like abortion—and finding all kinds of ways to regulate women’s health on the Internet. So, yes, they talk about free speech, but in practice, they apply it selectively.
Jacobsen: I don’t want to generalize too much. Still, within these circles, there will always be some exceptions—people who genuinely believe in protecting free expression across the board. If anyone like that wants to support us, they are more than welcome to reach out. Send us a friendly email—we’d be happy to have that conversation. What is the role of the MISO MISO Alliance? How does it strengthen workers’ rights movements in East and Southeast Asia—including some of the world’s most geographically and demographically dense regions?
Ala-Siurua: I would love for my colleague—our outreach coordinator from Malaysia—to answer this question. She would do a much better job than I would.
Miso Miso Alliance was founded in 2024 to unite safe abortion groups in East and Southeast Asia. The founding organizations provide and advocate for safe abortion care in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.
“MISOMISO” refers to misoprostol, which is used for medication abortion. In some contexts, misoprostol alone remains more accessible due to legal and regulatory restrictions on mifepristone, which is often more politically contentious despite being part of the standard regimen for medication abortion.
The alliance’s main goal is to improve coordination among groups working on reproductive rights. Right now, global funding for reproductive healthcare is being cut, making collaboration even more crucial. This is the time for organizations to unite, break out of isolated efforts, and consolidate expertise and knowledge.
Women on Web hopes to contribute its research experience and programmatic knowledge as one of many members. A key strategy for change is documentation—conducting research, collecting data, and presenting evidence to demonstrate impact. This has been crucial in supporting local groups when advocating to policymakers.
Our role in the coalition is to provide support, but Asian organizations must lead the initiative. As an international entity with a global mission, Women on Web believes leadership should remain with the local teams and groups that best understand their contexts.
Discussions around reproductive rights have existed for decades, but progress is often slow due to persistent cultural and political barriers.
Jacobsen: Even now, mainstream discourse still frames abortion primarily as a “women’s issue.” However, this broader conversation about reproductive rights should also involve men. On one hand, men have a direct role in pregnancies, so reproductive rights should concern them, too. On the other hand, discussions often exclude male contraception, even though vasectomy is a highly effective and reversible option. Not everyone wants children. Not everyone sees a family in the traditional sense.
So, in the same way, marriage is not for everyone. It is, obviously, an intimate, personal, and individual choice. However, these other options should be part of a broader conversation. What have you noted in your professional discussions—with experts, including yourself—about expanding this conversation beyond its traditional, singular focus? That focus is legitimate because it centers on the person who carries the pregnancy, but what have you observed in terms of widening the discussion to include men in these two areas?
Ala-Siurua: As for male contraception, the studies have not advanced much because for example the side-effects of using male contraception have been considered inacceptable. These are the same side-effects that women have accepted as part of using contraception.
Male contraception is possible and double-standards here are glaring.
It’s the same as censoring ads for menopause and abortion but having no problem whatsoever to advertise Viagra that is actually a lot less safer to use than abortion pills.
Jacobsen: Following from the last question, what about abortion or the Turnaway Study?
Ala-Siurua: All the stories and circumstances that lead someone to need an abortion—the ones you were referring to earlier. There are many situations, and it is not just about women being careless. Abortion decisions are often made within families and relationships, shaped by economic and personal circumstances. Contraception can fail. Some people do not want more children. Others do not have the financial stability to support another child. There are as many reasons as there are abortions, and all of them are valid.
The Turnaway Study, it is a long-term study examining women who were denied abortions and comparing them to those who were able to access the procedure. The research followed these individuals for ten years, tracking their economic and personal well-being. It showed that the reasons women initially sought abortions—such as financial insecurity or domestic abuse—were often exacerbated when they were denied the procedure. Those who could not access abortion were more likely to experience worse economic conditions than those who were able to decide for themselves and their families.
I highly recommend reading the book based on the study. It is a difficult but important read. It highlights the experiences of those who had relatively straightforward abortion decisions—where they accessed the procedure easily and moved on with their lives, only being reminded of it when researchers followed up periodically. But it also presents many stories of women who were denied abortions and how that decision altered their lives and the lives of their families. Many could not achieve their aspirations or secure the future they had hoped for.
Jacobsen: One recurring theme—perhaps a takeaway from discussions at CSW, even in informal conversations at cafés—is the global backlash against reproductive rights. It varies by region, but the trend is unmistakable.
Whatever the major problem was before, it has only worsened. If we look beyond the United States, for example, some countries are not considered free. In some regions, political representation is declining. Others, femicide is rising. These trends indicate a regionally targeted, reactionary backlash.
We are probably only seeing the first wave of this backlash. It does not appear as focused as expected, considering that many of these groups have been very open about their plans and objectives. That is just one observation.
I also pulled up the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) fact sheet:
The Turnaway Study examined the long-term effects of being denied an abortion. It found that women who were turned away from obtaining an abortion faced economic hardship and insecurity lasting at least three years. Many of them remained in relationships with partners who were abusive or unsupportive. They were also more likely to raise their children alone, negatively impacting their well-being and development. In many cases, those denied abortions faced serious health risks as well.
So, from what I gather, when reactionary groups begin to focus even more directly on reproductive rights, global coalitions will be crucial.
Ala-Siurua: Yes.
Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on that? Is my assessment inaccurate, partially right, or completely wrong?
Ala-Siurua: You are right. Every time I hear about legislative attacks or changes that restrict reproductive rights, it feels deeply concerning. It makes me feel like some people do hate women—or, at the very least, show a deep disregard for our rights.
For example, even our newly appointed Canadian PM dismantled the cabinet for women and gender equality on his first day in office, it is quite scary. I have a seven-year-old daughter, and I often think about how she will feel as she grows up and starts understanding what is happening around her. I want to empower her, but at the same time, I do not want her to be afraid—because the reality is frightening. That is a difficult balance to strike.
These policies do show hostility toward women and our reproductive rights. But at the same time, I am eternally inspired by the reproductive justice and abortion rights movements. The coalitions already exist, and they are strong.
The current situation in the U.S., for example, is devastating. But we are not starting from scratch. The movement is resilient, creative, and defiant. People are taking huge risks to protect and advance reproductive rights.
I am not taking a major risk because I am in Canada, where my location relatively protects me. I can engage in this work in a way different from many activists in the U.S., who are facing much greater threats. I also feel inspired. People are more vocal, they are angrier, and they are becoming braver in expressing their feelings.
This has happened in other places as well—places where abortion was not a public topic of discussion, where it was only talked about when someone needed it, and often not even then because of stigma. But now, abortion has become a symbol of freedom. Even people not deeply involved in this work are starting to connect it to human rights, which is inspiring.
Ironically, this is not what those restricting reproductive rights intended. In attempting to curtail and strip away these rights, they have led more people to recognize that abortion is freedom—a basic, fundamental human right. Without abortion access, there can be no gender equality. It is the baseline for ensuring autonomy, and that realization is something we can build on once this current storm, hopefully, begins to settle.
Jacobsen: What would be your recommendations at the individual level? Institutional change is important—we can set policies, create initiatives that improve access to education and economic opportunities, and form organizations and coalitions, whether structured or loosely connected.
However, individuals also need to develop resilience. Whether they like it or not, they will face pushback. If someone lives in a small, hyper-religious town, for example, they will need strength to endure the hostility that comes their way:Good luck. That is just how it is. So, on a personal level, what strategies or protective measures—what “umbrellas” or “shelters”—can people weather this backlash? In some countries, people frequently use VPNs as a basic security measure.
Ala-Siurua: That is a great point. It makes me think about this from a slightly different perspective.
Of course, if someone comes from a small religious community, I would not necessarily suggest that they start openly debating these issues at the dinner table to see what happens. But I do recommend engaging in these conversations where possible.
I always do this with my family—to the point of exhaustion. They often react with, “Oh gosh, here she goes again.” But I keep talking because these discussions matter.
At the same time, people are getting savvier and smarter about protecting themselves. As you mentioned, VPNs are an important tool. We are seeing more and more people figuring out how to access information safely and securely. So, let’s start again from there.
Abortion pills are unstoppable. They have been made available to us once, and we will not give them up again. Fortunately, information is still spreading, and more and more people are becoming aware of their rights.
Rights are not privileges. They are ours, and we are going to reclaim them.
People are helping each other, and we see it happening daily—on subreddits, for example, where there are 30,000 messages a month. People share recommendations, advice, tips, and resources in real-time. This is an ongoing, active movement, and there is huge power in the community.
Thankfully, we also have the Internet, which connects us worldwide. There is a sense of global solidarity, where we can learn from each other. While your question was about individuals, movements also benefit from this interconnectedness. The Internet has made it easier for activists, advocates, and everyday people to share strategies and support.
At Women on Web, our message has been clear: We will not stop helping each other. There will always be someone ready to provide support. This is a community, and we will not allow politicians or courts to dictate what happens to us.
I feel this every day now.
Jacobsen: How do Women on Web support Ukrainian refugees in Poland?
Ala-Siurua: When the war broke out, we started seeing requests through our service.
Many people had fled to Poland, and we acted immediately.
We scaled up, ensured we were there, and were ready.
Abortion pills are unstoppable. They have been made available to us once, and we will not give them up again. Fortunately, information is still spreading, and more and more people are becoming aware of their rights.
Rights are not privileges. They are ours, and we are going to reclaim them.
People are helping each other, and we see it happening daily—on subreddits, for example, where there are 30,000 messages a month. People are sharing recommendations, advice, tips, and resources in real-time. This is an ongoing, active movement, and there is huge power in the community.
Thankfully, we also have the Internet, which connects us worldwide. There is a sense of global solidarity, where we can learn from each other. While your question was about individuals, movements also benefit from this interconnectedness. The Internet has made it easier for activists, advocates, and everyday people to share strategies and support.
At Women on Web, our message has been clear: We will not stop helping each other. There will always be someone ready to provide support. This is a community, and we will not allow politicians or courts to dictate what happens to us.
I feel this every day now.
People speak to each other, find us online, and share information. Last year, search engines and the Internet worked in our favour, allowing people to discover our services. But I believe a significant part of this comes down to chatter—people privately exchanging information, especially in places like the Philippines, where abortion is rarely discussed openly. Platforms like Reddit, which offer anonymity, provide a safer space for these conversations than Facebook, where people must log in with their real names and faces.
This has proven to be an effective way to raise awareness. In Malaysia, for instance, someone posted a testimonial about using our service in a Malaysian subreddit. It ended up being the most upvoted post of the year, with thousands of clicks. As a result, we saw a direct increase in people using our service. This kind of organic peer-to-peer sharing is powerful, and it demonstrates how people feel safer discussing these issues in certain online spaces.
Jacobsen: Martha brought something I was unaware of to my attention. Please clarify. There are reports that big tech companies—like Meta (Facebook and Instagram)—have been involved in censorship, shadow banning, or reducing the searchability and ranking of abortion-related content. Is that accurate? Have you observed this affecting abortion services or adjacent content?
Ala-Siurua: Yes, it is systemic and widespread. It impacts anyone working online to provide abortion services, disseminate information, or advocate for reproductive rights.
Last year, within a week, we had three accounts suspended—our South Korean, Latin American, and U.S. accounts. Thanks to Repro Uncensored and the protocols we built to handle these situations, we managed to recover them. But much content gets suppressed daily—content we cannot always intervene to restore.
People often think of technology as something that operates autonomously, but that is untrue. These platforms are designed and manipulated by people, and those people can alter how systems function. For example, last year, we discovered that if you searched for abortion-related terms with a typo on Bing, you would get the expected resources—Aid Access, the M+A Hotline, Women on Web, and others. But if you typed the search term correctly, you would get entirely different results—often leading with crisis pregnancy centers.
We raised this issue with Bing, and within a few days, the search results changed. Now, if you type “abortion,” Aid Access appears. Someone had applied a filter, and someone else removed it once it was brought to their attention. This kind of search result manipulation is happening in real-time, and it is affecting not just abortion-related searches but many sexual and reproductive health keywords as well.
Abortion is not classified as healthcare on many social media platforms. Instead, it is treated as a political issue, which is inaccurate and further restricts our ability to provide services and information. Digital suppression has now become an integral part of our work. You cannot have abortion access without digital rights. They are completely interconnected.
The Internet has become a crucial resource, especially in places like the U.S.—where abortion laws are rapidly changing—and the Philippines, where access is severely restricted or nonexistent. People rely on online networks to navigate these barriers.
I could rant about this all day, too.
Jacobsen: Big tech is tech bro-adjacent. Meanwhile, organizations and individual work like ours operate on shoestring budgets, whether we write stories, conduct interviews, or run advocacy efforts. Astonishingly, companies will invest hundreds of millions of dollars to suppress legitimate coverage while reproductive rights organizations struggle for funding. Another issue has come up, but we do not have time to explore it today fully.
This is relevant because, even in freer societies like the United States, we see a shift—not necessarily in a conservative direction, but in cultural emphasis. Powerful figures, often wealthy men, are increasingly vocal about the birth rate as a societal concern.
Maintaining sustainable population levels is a valid topic. Demographers and organizations like the UN have been studying this for years. Even a well-known expert, like the late Hans Rosling, has spoken about sustainable demographic trends, the premise is not inherently problematic.
The issue is how the conversation is framed. Discussions tend to focus on the meta-analytic, statistical output—the birth rate number—rather than addressing the complex web of factors that contribute to it. They overlook that real people are making these choices, which are deeply personal and life-altering decisions.
Instead of obsessing over a declining birth rate, the focus should be on why people make these choices. Under what economic, social, and political conditions are these decisions happening? It is the same argument when discussing abortion. Instead of just counting the number of procedures, we should ask why people are seeking abortions in the first place.
Those pushing restrictions should also examine their motivations. Why do they feel so strongly about controlling this particular choice? Why do they want to limit it now, in a contemporary context where we understand reproductive autonomy better than ever before?
So, what are your thoughts? What kind of feedback do you get from the community when they hear these overly simplistic arguments about such a deeply complex issue—one that is, at its core, about individual and family decisions?
Ala-Siurua: It is frustrating. It isn’t very pleasant. I remember hearing about a U.S. state—I cannot recall which one—where lawmakers suggested they could receive more federal funding if they increased their birth rate. It was so comically bad that it was almost unbelievable.
What makes it worse is that the people making these policy decisions—which have lifelong consequences for individuals and families—do not seem to understand why people seek abortions in the first place.
In The Turnaway Study, researchers asked a governor about this issue. They went to him and said, “Why do you think people have abortions? And his response? Oh, I never really thought about that.”
Imagine that. A person with political power over reproductive rights had never even considered the fundamental question of why people make these choices. Then, when pressed, he mumbled something vague about the economy and moved on. That was it. And I just thought, “Wow.”
It is a complex topic and should not be regulated or decided by courts or politicians. So far, things are relatively stable in Canada, where abortion is treated like any other medical procedure—similar to having hip surgery.
In Canada, abortion is regulated as healthcare, with no separate laws governing it, as it should be. We are talking about basic medical care, which should be the standard everywhere. Abortion is healthcare. It is far safer than many over-the-counter medications and procedures that are freely promoted on social media platforms—take Viagra, for example, which carries more risks than abortion pills.
And yet, abortion pills remain heavily restricted in many places. Even discussing them online is suppressed. It is deeply frustrating and humiliating that some policymakers—who lack medical expertise—get to control access to life-saving services.
Jacobsen: That should be a self-evident conclusion. Human Rights Watch has been clear on this issue. Even their old web pages on abortion have stated the same thing: “…equitable access to safe and legal abortion services is first and foremost a human right.” The data is equally clear—when abortion is criminalized, tens of thousands of women die every year.
Ala-Siurua: And that is just one consequence. In addition to unsafe abortions, maternal mortality rates have risen. The reality is that taking abortion pills is far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, especially in places like the U.S., where maternal health outcomes are worsening. Many people do not realize this but are often shocked when they hear the facts. So, what is happening here? And why is this reality ignored in public discourse?
Jacobsen: This is exactly why even those who identify as pro-life should support pro-choice policies. Let me break it down in 30 seconds:
When abortion is outlawed, three things happen—maternal mortality increases, abortion rates increase, and injuries and deaths from unsafe procedures skyrocket. If the goal is to reduce abortions, the evidence-based way to do that is to legalize and regulate them. In countries where abortion is legal, the number of abortions gradually declines, maternal survival rates improve, and abortion-related injuries decrease because the procedures take place in safe, sanitary conditions. So, if you genuinely want to reduce abortions, pro-choice policies are the most effective solution. That is what the evidence shows.
Jacobsen: Do you want to add any other points before we wrap up the chat?
Ala-Siurua: This was a great conversation, and you asked thoughtful questions. If you haven’t already, check out the r/abortion subreddit. It is one of the most active spaces where people share experiences, resources, and support.
Women, many organizations, and other abortion services rely on this community. When we cannot answer a question—especially for people from the Philippines, who are often quick to seek help—they turn to the subreddit. Digital communities like sub-reddit are supporting several other services out there who are not open and available 24/7.
People go to Reddit to ask questions and seek guidance from the community. It has become a crucial piece of the larger movement.
Jacobsen: It is good that they moderate it well. You do not see ads for pills or sketchy services popping up.
Ala-Siurua: The moderators keep it clean. If something inappropriate appears, it is removed immediately. They are online all the time. They run a small but incredibly effective operation.
Jacobsen: Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the types of queries posted? That would be interesting.
Ala-Siurua: Possibly. The Executive Director, Ariel, might know more but is very busy. She has an incredible amount of knowledge—it’s next—level. She has seen everything. When people have nowhere else to turn, they go there.
Ala-Siurua: Thanks for the great interview.
Jacobsen: You are welcome. Thank you for the compliment—I appreciate it.
Ala-Siurua: 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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26
Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative, discusses the unique hazards of electric vehicle (EV) fires. Unlike conventional fires, EV fires release toxic metals from battery combustion, posing long-term health risks to firefighters. His research examines exposure levels through environmental and biological sampling, including toenail analysis. He emphasizes the need for improved decontamination protocols, PPE, and long-term tracking of occupational cancer risks. Future studies will leverage AI for predictive modeling to assess cumulative exposure risks. With increasing EV adoption, understanding these hazards is crucial for firefighter safety and public health policies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez. He is the Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. He holds a Ph.D., D.O., M.P.H., C.H.P., F.C.R., and F.A.C.E., specializing in occupational and environmental health, focusing on firefighter cancer research. His work aims to assess and mitigate cancer risks associated with occupational exposures, particularly in high-risk professions like firefighting. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.
Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez: Yes, no problem.
Jacobsen: What unique chemical hazards are present in electric vehicle fires compared to conventional gas vehicle fires? This topic has only come up in one other interview, and that discussion was highly critical of a prominent EV figure, focusing on how hot these vehicles can get. However, this conversation is different—it’s about the chemical hazards that arise from those fires.
Martinez: Yes, that is the focus of the research we’re conducting at Sylvester—to understand how electric vehicle fires differ from traditional combustion engine fires. Our primary interest is metals, as they are present in all vehicles, whether they have a combustion engine or an electric powertrain. The key questions are: Are there different types of metals? Do they release in different quantities when a battery fire occurs?
From our firefighter colleagues, we’ve learned that EV battery fires can take a long time to suppress once ignited. So, are the smoke plume and the effluent from an electric vehicle fire different? That’s what we’re investigating—analyzing what firefighters are exposed to and the effects on soil, water, and the broader environment in the areas where these fires occur.
Jacobsen: Something I recently learned—relevant here, trust me—is that Coolio, the rapper behind Gangsta’s Paradise, trained as a firefighter in his youth. Before his music career, he worked trained as a firefighter in San Jose, California. He passed away in 2022 from an accidental fentanyl overdose. He also had a history of asthma.
Martinez: I had no idea.
Jacobsen: Yes. The shift over time has been interesting. It used to be that gangsters pretended to be rappers. Now, it’s the other way around—rappers pretending to be gangsters.
He passed away in 2022. He trained as a firefighter. I, however, am not a firefighter. I have never taken part in firefighting outside of a live simulation. That said, I would assume that firefighters experience significantly more exposure to fires than I do.
With that increased exposure, are firefighters at greater risk for cancer due to prolonged exposure to effluents and fumes from electric vehicle fires?
Martinez: You bring up an important point for your readers: The fire service is comprised largely of volunteer firefighters. Many think firefighters are full-time first responders working in major metropolitan areas. However, about 65 percent of firefighters are volunteers in the United States.
These volunteers have primary jobs outside of firefighting. Some might be musicians, some work in trade professions, and others have entirely different careers. This dynamic makes studying firefighter cancer risk particularly interesting from a research perspective.
Examine and determine what people are exposed to in their primary and secondary jobs. Even in rural settings, electric vehicles are present, and firefighters are exposed to them.
What’s interesting, Scott is that there are many different types of firefighters. In the press, we often see wildland firefighters on TV, especially when wildfires rage across the West Coast of the United States. That situation isn’t much different from an entire community being exposed to a fire because the air pollution from large-scale brush fires affects the general population’s air quality.
In the firefighting world, though, firefighters are on the front lines, getting a first-row seat to those fires and experiencing intense exposure. The personal protective equipment (PPE) used by firefighters varies. Wildland firefighters, for instance, often use a gaiter—a cloth or sock-like covering over their face—rather than an air tank. This is because they work in the field for hours or even days and can’t refill an air tank every 30 minutes.
One positive outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the general public is now more familiar with PPE. However, it’s important to note that the broader community is also exposed to these fire-related contaminants.
Regarding electric vehicle fires, we recently conducted a case study in July here at Sylvester that provided insights into the specific hazards associated with these fires. This study focused on a single electric vehicle fire involving a Nissan LEAF. We examined the presence of metals before and after the fire in different environmental samples—water, soil, ambient air—and the biological samples of the firefighters involved.
We are learning that the metals found in EV batteries, as well as those from other burning materials inside the vehicle—such as electronics, tire rims, and structural components—are released into the environment. The challenge with EV battery fires is that they involve thousands of small cells, akin to 8,000 AA batteries igniting in a chain reaction. This domino effect leads to prolonged burning, potentially increasing the concentration and types of metals released.
We know that some metals are essential for human health—calcium is critical for bones and nails, while zinc plays a key role in metabolism. However, other metals are harmful and can be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identifies certain metals as hazardous when exposure exceeds specific concentrations.
We aim to support first responders by understanding what they are exposed to. This research helps determine whether their current PPE is adequate or needs to be modified for EV fire responses, considering the potentially higher concentrations of toxic metals and other hazardous substances.
Jacobsen: Do you notice a difference between short-term acute exposure and long-term cumulative exposure?
Martinez: That’s the million-dollar question right now, right? Research is just beginning on the health effects and environmental impacts of these hazards, so the long-term effects are still uncertain. At Sylvester, one innovative way we track long-term heavy metal exposure is by collecting firefighters’ toenail clippings. I know it sounds gross—that’s why we have graduate students helping with these research projects. But if you think about the nails on our fingers and toes, they resemble the rings on a tree. When you cut a tree stump, you can see rings that indicate the tree’s age and environmental conditions. The same applies to fingernails and toenails—when they form at the base, whatever is circulating in the blood then gets incorporated into the nail. As the nail grows to the tip, it captures approximately six to nine months of exposure history.
One of our ongoing studies involves systematically collecting toenails from firefighters responding to electric vehicle fires, hazardous material incidents, and explosions. This allows us to analyze how heavy metals accumulate and change in the human body over time. The nails act as a “frozen-in-time” biological matrix, helping us assess long-term exposure. However, scientific research takes time, and that’s a challenge when working with first responders who want immediate results. The reality is that science moves much slower than operational demands. But in the future, studies like this will help answer your key question: Are there significant differences between acute, short-term exposure and long-term cumulative exposure to the metals and toxins released in EV fires?
Jacobsen: Based on early indications, what safety protocols and protective equipment can reduce firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens known to be released from EV fires?
Martinez: Yes, we know that decontamination procedures are highly effective. In fact, our colleagues at NIOSH have shown that using basic soap and water—despite what commercial cleaning product ads may suggest—is one of the most effective ways to remove a variety of toxins encountered during fire suppression. The key is to start decontamination immediately at the fire scene, right after the fire is suppressed. This helps prevent the transfer of toxic residues from the fire site into fire trucks and back to the fire station, where secondary exposure could occur. It’s similar to how a surgeon wouldn’t leave the operating room covered in blood—you don’t want to bring contaminants from the fire scene into clean spaces. Implementing preliminary decontamination procedures at the fire site is critical.
Another important safety measure is the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), even for those who are not directly entering a fire. Firefighters establish hazmat zones, which are colour-coded to indicate levels of risk. The red zone is the immediate area where the fire is burning. A certain distance away is the yellow zone, where fire service leaders typically stand to evaluate fire suppression efforts. Beyond that is the green zone, where community observers, including people like you and me, might be standing. Our research has shown that toxic particles travel beyond the red zone, reaching the yellow and green zones.
A common misconception is that open air provides adequate protection from harmful substances, but low-dose particle exposure still occurs. This is similar to what happens in wildland firefighting—when large areas of land burn, people in surrounding areas still inhale harmful particulates. This means that firefighters who are not directly inside a burning structure but positioned in the yellow zone should still be equipped with PPE to minimize exposure.
Jacobsen: Do you think that with wider EV adoption, this research will become increasingly relevant?
Martinez: I do. The reason is that renewable energy sources and rechargeable batteries are now integrated into many aspects of our daily lives. Think about where we use them—scooters, mopeds, micro-mobility devices, and cell phones. We hear warnings about carrying lithium-ion batteries every time we board a plane. As these batteries become more prevalent, so does the need to study their risks.
Urban planning also plays a role. Many buildings now have parking garages with EV charging stations underneath residential spaces. If a fire occurs in an underground parking garage, the resulting smoke plume can become trapped in that confined space, making it even more hazardous. This means we must be thoughtful in designing urban environments and public spaces to ensure first responders have proper access to mitigate fires involving high-energy rechargeable sources.
There is also a significant public education component to this issue, Scott. People must know how to use the correct chargers for their electronic devices. I don’t know about you, but I often see people buying cheap $2 chargers at gas stations because they lost their original ones. These low-quality chargers may not be properly manufactured, and when used, they can cause overheating and even battery fires. First responders are now emphasizing public awareness campaigns about proper charging practices, avoiding overcharging devices, and recognizing potential risks associated with battery misuse.
This is why our research at Sylvester is critical. We are working to understand the environmental and health hazards associated with exposure to high concentrations of metals and other toxins released during EV fires, particularly regarding long-term cancer risks for firefighters.
Jacobsen: Are there any legislative or policy initiatives to address the health risks associated with EV fires for first responders?
Martinez: Yes, thankfully, here in Florida, we have strong legislative support for firefighter cancer research. Our state legislature has provided funding to study cancer risks within the fire service. What makes me especially proud is that our research follows a community-based participatory approach—meaning that firefighters themselves nominate the research topics that are most important to them from a practical, real-world perspective.
For example, the study on EV fires occurred because firefighters asked us to investigate their exposure risks. About three months ago, they said, “We want to know what we’re exposed to during EV fires and how it impacts the environment, including the ground contamination.” Because of their input, we launched this research in response to their concerns.
This process is essential because, as you know, scientific research often takes a long time—usually three to five years of planning. However, by focusing on firefighter-nominated topics, we can apply research more nimbly and responsively. The findings from our studies don’t just stay in academic journals; they directly inform policies and best practices for fire departments and public health officials.
Let me give you an example that I’m particularly proud, I was telling you that someone could work for 30 years as a scientist and only contribute to a small piece of a much larger puzzle. But with the Firefighter Cancer Initiative (FCI), because we are a translational research group, we bridge the gap between basic science—what we learn in the lab—and real-world applications at fire stations. This approach has allowed us to influence policy at both small and large scales.
On the small “p” policy level, we’ve impacted Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) within fire stations. Our research has demonstrated that decontamination (DECON) procedures are highly effective, especially when implemented early. We’ve shown that proper DECON significantly reduces firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens. This has led to SOP changes at fire departments to improve firefighter safety.
On the big “P” policy level, at the state level, we’ve influenced cancer presumption laws. We track which cancers firefighters develop through our Cancer Epidemiology (Cancer Epi) Program. While this may sound simple, it requires complex legislative coordination, statistical modelling, and extensive data matching to identify cancer cases among firefighters accurately. This research allows us to generate firefighter-specific cancer rates, meaning we can determine which types of cancer occur at higher rates among firefighters compared to the general population.
Our findings confirm that firefighters experience elevated risks for specific cancers, which means something in their work environment is increasing their risk. This has been a humbling yet impactful experience—being able to contribute to state-level policy changes that recognize and address occupational cancer risks for firefighters.
There is still much work to be done. Cancer isn’t caused solely by exposure to hazardous materials like metals; it results from workplace exposures, diet, nutrition, genetics, and lifestyle factors. That’s why we have multiple ongoing research projects at FCI to understand these different risk factors. Our goal is twofold: prevent cancer before it develops and reduce exposure to carcinogens in the hazardous environments firefighters encounter.
Jacobsen: Lithium-ion batteries, as far as I understand, are the most commonly used type of battery in electric vehicles. Given their widespread adoption, does this present a unique national test case for studying the health effects of a specific type of battery? Since most EV-related fires involve lithium-ion batteries, does this provide researchers with a broad dataset to analyze their impact on firefighter health?
Martinez: Yes. Let me start by saying that I am not a battery expert. I am trained as a physician and an epidemiologist, so we would need to consult some of my colleagues from the College of Engineering for a deeper understanding of battery composition. However, battery technology is constantly evolving. Even as you and I speak, new vehicles are rolling off assembly lines with battery compositions that differ from those used five years ago.
This presents a significant challenge for firefighters. They often ask us, “Is this exposure normal? Is this what we should expect at an EV fire?” I always explain that in medicine, we determine normal ranges—such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure—by measuring them in the general population. But what is “normal” exposure at an EV fire? That depends on many factors: What kind of car is burning? Is it a large SUV? Is it a hybrid? What type of battery does it have?
The global firefighting community is still working to characterize EV fires, analyzing the composition of these batteries and identifying the emissions they release during combustion. Right now, even the basics of EV fire suppression remain inconsistent. Some first responders here in Florida have told me they sometimes don’t even know where the battery is located in a burning vehicle because every manufacturer places it differently. When firefighters arrive at a fire scene, they first see a massive smoke plume. Before effectively suppressing the fire, they need to identify the vehicle type and the battery.
For example, in some city buses, the batteries are mounted on the roof, while in others, they are located under the chassis—the fire suppression strategy changes depending on battery placement. Firefighters are still working to refine best practices for EV fire response—understanding how to contain fires, protect human life, and minimize toxic exposure.
As scientists, we enter this space and characterize the carcinogens firefighters are exposed to. However, the challenge is that exposure levels vary widely, and we do not yet have clear reference points for what is considered “normal” exposure at an EV fire. That is why we are researching to establish these benchmarks.
At Sylvester, we use silicone-based wristbands—similar to the Lance Armstrong Livestrong bracelets—as an innovative tool for measuring environmental exposure. Traditionally, exposure monitoring involved using bulky, vacuum-powered air samplers attached to firefighters. These old-school methods are impractical in real-world firefighting conditions because they are heavy, noisy, and cumbersome. Instead, we’ve found that silicone wristbands can passively capture airborne toxins.
When firefighters wear these wristbands during a real-life fire response, the chemicals and carcinogens in their environment adhere to the silicone. Afterward, we analyze the wristbands to comprehensively overview the firefighter’s exposure—a “37,000-foot view” of what hazardous substances they encountered. Right now, we are in the phase of determining what firefighters are exposed to specifically in EV fires. The goal is to provide clear guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE) and long-term health risks, especially for firefighters who develop symptoms after suppressing an EV fire.
Jacobsen: Let’s imagine this is a paper presentation—where do you see the greatest need for future research?
Martinez: Oh, gosh. You hit the nail on the head—it’s all about long-term tracking. When you consider the career of a first responder, they may work for 30 years, responding to a wide variety of fires every week—a kitchen fire one day, a car fire the next, then a large residential or commercial fire. If you aggregate all those exposures over three decades, you begin to develop a risk profile for cancer and other occupational health concerns.
The long-term focus of our research needs to be on tracking these first responders throughout their careers. Our studies focus on a single fire event, collecting data from that scene. However, as technology advances, we will have greater opportunities to track exposures over time, allowing us to study cumulative exposure risks, which we are not yet fully capable of. We’re still piecing together insights from various individual case studies, but the future of firefighter health research must emphasize longitudinal exposure tracking.
Jacobsen: Could AI and big data sets from all these individual studies be used to develop something like a Firefighter Cancer Risk Index, mapping exposure patterns over time?
Martinez: You should be a scientist on our team! That is exactly where the field is heading. AI and predictive modelling have huge potential to create personalized risk profiles for firefighters. In my field, we use Job Exposure Matrices (JEMs)—which essentially map workers’ exposure histories to various hazards and predict associated risks.
AI can enhance our ability to model and forecast risks by analyzing large datasets from multiple fire events. This can help us predict which firefighters may be at higher risk for certain health conditions based on their cumulative exposure history. We are currently applying generative AI to risk-based modelling, and I believe that in the coming years, AI will play an even bigger role in assessing, mitigating, and responding to occupational cancer risks for first responders.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Alberto, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great to meet you.
Martinez: Same, Scott. Thank you for your work and for helping us share these findings. You can reach me if you ever need anything.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye! Have a great day.
Martinez: Stay warm. 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): 2025/04/25
Vanessa Frazier, Malta’s Permanent Representative to the UN since 2020, is a trailblazing diplomat. The first woman in her role, she has served in Washington, London, and Rome. Fraser champions gender parity in AI and credits Malta’s UN initiative, the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, for promoting women in STEM. She advances Malta’s priorities on equality and ethics.
Christian Veske serves as Estonia’s Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner, driving policies to advance equity across member states. Veske highlights ethical AI through transparency and accountability. Veske emphasizes its relevance to gender parity, advocating for inclusive technology governance. Veske represents Estonia’s commitment to fairness and innovation in various fora.
Rebecca Buttigieg is Malta’s Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality, shaping policies to promote social justice under the Prime Minister’s Minister’s Office. In 2025, she urges proactive digital safety measures for women, warning that AI risks regressing gender equality without intentional design. Buttigieg highlights threats to global equality gains since the Beijing Platform, advocating for robust advocacy spaces. She represents Malta as a G20 guest, pushing for inclusive, human-centered AI and equality frameworks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One the topic of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. So, what is the framework that the European Union has developed? Specifically, could you describe the ethical framework guiding AI development?
Christian Veske: I serve as Estonia’s Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner.
Yes, it is a comprehensive policy framework designed to promote the development and use of ethical AI systems. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is based on a risk-based approach. AI systems are classified according to their risk level—from minimal to limited, high, and unacceptable risk. Depending on the category, there are corresponding regulatory requirements. For example, high-risk AI systems are subject to strict obligations around transparency, data governance, human oversight, and accountability. Each EU member state is also required to establish a national supervisory authority to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the Act. That is the framework’s core—though I should mention I am not a specialist in the AI Act itself—but it is undoubtedly relevant in discussions about ethics, equality, and emerging technologies.
Vanessa Frazier: I am the Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations.
Jacobsen: Regarding artificial intelligence and gender parity, specifically in this session, what were your main take-home messages from the panel and the audience’s responses?
Frazier: The key takeaway is that we need more women involved in AI. One of the panelists made the critical point that AI’s answers are generated from often biased datasets. For example, if you ask ChatGPT to describe what it dreamed of last night, and you first identify yourself as either a man or a woman, you will likely get a different response. That is because the programming and training data reflect pre-existing gender biases. The solution is to include more women’s experiences in AI development and programming processes. Malta anticipated this need over a decade ago. We introduced the International Day of Women and Girls in Science at the United Nations, which is now celebrated annually on February 11. It is a day that highlights how crucial it is to encourage girls to aspire to careers in STEM fields. The biggest takeaway from today’s session is that we were right to push for that initiative ten years ago—because we now see just how vital it is.
Rebecca Buttigieg: I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality of Malta within the Office of the Prime Minister.
Jacobsen: When you came into the session, what did you expect the audience to ask about artificial intelligence and gender parity?
Buttigieg: We had such a diverse audience that it was difficult to predict their perspective on the topic. However, the size of the audience and the level of engagement showed just how timely this discussion is. It also highlighted how proactive we, as governments, need to be. The session was fascinating—there were so many intersectional perspectives on AI and gender equality. And it made clear just how much more work remains to be done.
Jacobsen: What was your biggest takeaway—from the panel, the responses, and the questions?
Buttigieg: That we need to do more. As governments—not only mine but across the board—we tend to be reactive regarding what is happening online. It was well established during the session that the digital world is not a safe place for women. We need urgent action. We need practical policy tools that ensure equality is something we talk about in the physical world and implement meaningfully in the digital world.
Jacobsen: How can artificial intelligence be used to further gender parity efforts?
Buttigieg: AI can absolutely play a role because it already shapes so much of our lives. We often interact with AI more than with people now, whether through chatbots like ChatGPT or other platforms. But if we are not intentional about using AI to enhance equality and promote fairness—values that humans have long fought for—then we risk AI contributing to regression instead of progress. That is why these conversations are so important. We must work together to ensure AI serves inclusive, human-centered goals.
Jacobsen: In your conversations with other experts and leaders in this space, do you think we are progressing or regressing in terms of achieving gender parity through the use of AI?
Buttigieg: Honestly, the political landscape at the moment is concerning. We are witnessing a questioning—even a rollback—of principles the global community had long agreed upon. Since adopting the Beijing Platform for Action 30 years ago, many of our gains are now under threat. We need to ensure that those who have fought for gender equality and human rights continue to have a voice. We must stand up for our progress and protect the space for those advocating for it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/25
Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina discusses the complexities of gender-based violence (GBV), drawing on over 25 years of experience. He emphasizes a comprehensive approach that addresses root causes like patriarchal norms, economic inequality, and institutional gaps. Contreras-Urbina critiques short-term or superficial interventions and advocates for integrating GBV prevention into education, social protection, and peacebuilding, among others. He highlights data collection challenges in conflict zones and the ethical responsibilities involved. Notable country examples include Australia, Brazil, and Mozambique. The conversation explores what truly works to reduce GBV and stresses multi-sectoral, community-driven, and long-term strategies for lasting impact.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina is a Senior Social Development Specialist focusing on gender-based violence (GBV) in the World Bank. Contreras-Urbina is a gender specialist with over 25 years of experience in gender and GBV research and programming. Before joining the World Bank, he served as the Director of Research at the Global Women’s Institute at George Washington University, as a Programme Officer at UN Women in Mexico and Central America, and as Coordinator of the Gender, Violence, and Rights portfolio at the International Center for Research on Women.
He earned a Ph.D. in Population and Gender Studies from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a Master’s in Demography from El Colegio de México, and a Bachelor’s in Mathematics and Actuarial Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. His work focuses on violence against women and girls, social norms, men and masculinities, and sexual and reproductive health. He has contributed to evidence-based strategies and research on GBV prevention and response worldwide. He’s been everywhere.
So, my first question would be this: From an official standpoint, when people think of gender-based violence, they might only be thinking about physical violence. However, international institutions tend to take a broader view, which includes psychological or emotional violence as well. How do you define gender-based violence?
Manuel Contreras-Urbina: We usually follow the United Nations’ definitions, which result from many years of expert dialogue. We define gender-based violence as encompassing various types of violence rooted primarily in gender inequality—where there is a power imbalance between men and women.
Typically, the majority of those affected are women and girls. That does not mean other populations are unaffected, but the prevalence among women and girls is particularly high. There are different types of GBV. The most common is intimate partner violence. Others include early marriage, female genital mutilation, and sexual violence perpetrated by a non-partner.
Within intimate partner violence, there are several forms: physical, sexual, psychological, and economic violence. So, there are many dimensions to GBV.
And yes, you’re right. The most recognized or visible form of GBV tends to be physical violence. People are more aware of that. But the other forms—psychological, economic, sexual—exist and are deeply impactful.
Sometimes, the forms of violence are not even recognized by the perpetrators themselves, but they exist—and there are clear definitions for all of them. They are also quite common. For example, sexual violence is still not legally recognized in some countries. However, we are now seeing more and more progressive legal frameworks that recognize all these types and forms of violence that I mentioned.
Jacobsen: What are the key lessons from global data on gender-based violence and, particularly, from funding institutions that have worked to reduce its prevalence? There must be findings showing what kinds of programs and investments are effective—and, on the other hand, interventions that might sound good on paper but do not yield real-world results. So the question is: what works, and what do you think is commonly believed to work but does not?
Contreras-Urbina: Yes, that’s a critical question. There are different models for what works, and we do have evidence about effective efforts.
Ultimately, we want to see a reduction in violence, and that takes a comprehensive approach. That includes action at the policy level—such as establishing legal frameworks, national action plans, and protocols—which leads to stronger systems that can address GBV. This is especially important across sectors like health, education, and justice, where institutions need the capacity to prevent and respond to various forms of violence.
Those frameworks should then translate into programmatic actions—services and programs that provide support to survivors and work on prevention. That might include comprehensive survivor services in health and education or legal support. Beyond services, institutions—often in collaboration with civil society—need to implement prevention interventions. So, what kinds of interventions prevent violence?
They usually address the root causes, namely, the transformation of patriarchal gender norms. These long-term efforts create a more gender-equal environment at the community level. They involve work on women’s economic empowerment, leadership development, and the redistribution of unpaid care work. They also include community awareness and education on gender equality and rights. That works—but it takes time. These interventions are long-term by nature.
And what does not work? Short-term, isolated efforts generally do not work. Running a campaign without linking it to broader systemic change is ineffective. Likewise, programs that involve brief or one-time sessions—talking to people two or three times and expecting long-term impact—do not work.
Also, interventions that only focus on perpetrators without addressing the broader social and structural context have limited or no impact. Prevention has to be holistic, sustained, and rooted in transforming power dynamics and social norms.
So, it is not that these interventions are completely ineffective—it is that isolated or superficial efforts tend not to work. What does work is a comprehensive approach. At the programmatic level, the focus must be on addressing the root causes of violence, particularly harmful gender norms. Equally important is fostering a community culture that does not view violence as an acceptable way to resolve conflict.
One key area is violence against children, especially the use of violence as a method of discipline. That normalizes violence and creates a culture where it becomes an acceptable tool for control or punishment. We have seen that positive parenting programs—which discourage the use of violence against children—can have a meaningful impact, including reductions in intimate partner violence later on.
We also recognize that in many contexts—though not exclusively—poverty can exacerbate violence. While poverty does not cause GBV directly, it can intensify existing stresses and risk factors, particularly where families face displacement, migration, overcrowded housing, or prolonged unemployment.
Another effective strategy is integrating gender-sensitive approaches into social protection programs. For example, cash transfers directed at women can empower them economically and help create more stable and equitable household environments.
Lastly, one of the main approaches we are now emphasizing is integrating all these effective models into the education system. Schools should be safe spaces for children and environments where they learn about gender equality—where teachers, students, and the broader school community receive education about equality between men and women and about nonviolence.
We are working toward embedding these values into curricula and education policies, not as optional content but as a core part of delivering education. I believe this is one of the most promising long-term strategies to reduce violence and shape a different, more equal society.
Jacobsen: We are also living in a time of numerous ongoing conflicts—Russia-Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel-Palestine, and others. How do you approach the analysis of GBV in the context of conflict zones? And what are some of the ethical challenges that arise in that work?
Contreras-Urbina: That is a very important question. We already know from global evidence that violence increases significantly in conflict and humanitarian settings—across all forms of GBV.
The most immediate example that comes to mind is sexual violence perpetrated by combatants or armed actors. But it is not limited to that. All types of GBV tend to increase in conflict—intimate partner violence, for example, often worsens during periods of displacement or prolonged instability.
Collecting data in these contexts is incredibly challenging. Conflicts tend to unfold in phases, and each phase presents different risks and ethical considerations. Conducting research ethically means always ensuring confidentiality, informed consent, and do-no-harm principles. The safety of respondents and researchers is paramount.
There is also the challenge of underreporting due to stigma, fear, and the collapse of formal support systems. So, even where we do have data, we must interpret it cautiously and always prioritize survivors’ needs and agency.
There is typically an acute phase of conflict, followed by a medium phase and then a peacebuilding or state-building phase. In the first two phases, data collection is very difficult due to security risks and instability.
However, organizations like UNHCR and others are often present in the field and collect information through incident reporting mechanisms. These are based on cases reported by individuals to service providers or field teams, and while they do not provide prevalence data, they help us understand the types of violence occurring and where support is most needed.
More accurate and ethically collected data is sometimes possible in refugee or displacement camps, where conditions are more stable. Standardized methodologies can be applied to gather information responsibly in those settings.
There is now a well-developed field of methodology focused on collecting GBV data in conflict and humanitarian settings. Guidelines like those from the World Health Organization and UNFPA provide ethical frameworks emphasizing confidentiality, informed consent, and survivor safety. When these protocols are followed, meaningful data can be gathered, even in very challenging contexts.
Then, in the post-conflict or peacebuilding phase, researchers often conduct retrospective surveys with communities in more stable areas. These surveys ask individuals to reflect on their experiences during the conflict, its immediate aftermath, and the recovery period. From this, we can trace trajectories and trends—how violence changed over time and how interventions might have affected outcomes.
What we know for certain is that GBV increases during conflict. And just as critically, failing to address GBV during peacebuilding and state-building creates a cycle that allows violence—not just gender-based violence but broader forms of violence—to persist. So, it is essential to address GBV as an integral part of peace processes if we are serious about ending cycles of violence.
Jacobsen: Speaking from the UN context, Which member states have been truly remarkable in their ability to combat gender-based violence comprehensively? Specifically, which have applied the programs and strategies you recommend—realistically, at scale—and shown progress over the medium to long term?
Contreras-Urbina: Several countries have made strong efforts. Of course, this is a complex issue, and progress can be challenging and uneven.
If we begin with high-income countries, the Nordic countries—like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark—have been leaders in advancing this agenda. Canada has also been proactive in integrating GBV into its national policies. But I would say Australia is a particularly good example. Australia has taken a comprehensive approach, with strong government awareness, investment, and efforts to involve a wide range of actors—across sectors and communities. It stands out as a model in this regard.
When we look at middle—and low-income countries, many have made important efforts. These may not always result in an immediate reduction in violence, but that does not mean they are ineffective. Many of these countries have developed solid legal frameworks and national action plans and have made substantial investments in prevention and response infrastructure.
Brazil is a good example in Latin America. It has taken major steps through legislation and programming to address GBV.
In Africa, one example—based on work we have supported through the World Bank and in coordination with other organizations—is Mozambique. The country has invested significantly in GBV response systems.
India has taken important steps in Asia, though the country’s scale and complexity can make national coordination a challenge. Civil society is also driving much of the progress there.
In Eastern Europe, Uzbekistan stands out for having developed robust policies to combat gender-based violence in recent years.
That said, it is not that other countries are doing nothing. Most countries are taking action in some form. The reality is that this requires a multi-stakeholder effort. It is not only the government—it must involve civil society, local leaders, institutions, and communities working together.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on today’s conversation?
Contreras-Urbina: No, just to say thank you. These were excellent questions.
Jacobsen: Manuel, thank you very much for your time today and for sharing your expertise. I truly appreciate it.
Contreras-Urbina: Thank you. Very good questions—that’s what we’re here for.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/24
Prince Xavier Eyamba, Senior Technical Advisor to the Honorable Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, discusses Nigeria’s climate initiatives. He highlights Nigeria’s early commitment to the Paris Agreement, the Climate Change Act (2021), and the National Council on Climate Change. Nigeria is advancing solar, wind, and hydro energy while promoting gender-inclusive green economy policies. The LPG Clean Cookstove Initiative aims to transition millions to cleaner cooking. Fuel subsidy removal accelerates the shift to compressed natural gas (CNG) and electric vehicles. Eyamba stresses the need for NGO-government collaboration and international climate funding to scale initiatives for a sustainable energy future in Nigeria.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Prince Xavier Eyamba. What is your formal professional title?
Prince Xavier Eyamba: Thank you. My formal professional title is Senior Technical Advisor to the Honorable Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development..
Jacobsen: What is important for Nigerians and the international community to know about Nigeria about the green economy and anthropogenic climate change?
Eyamba: Nigeria has recognized the effects of climate change. It was one of the first African countries to sign and commit to the Paris Agreement. We enacted our Climate Change Act in 2021 after COP26 in Glasgow. Following our return to Nigeria, we developed a policy and established the National Council on Climate Change, which serves as Nigeria’s regulatory and implementing body for climate action. We are also highly active in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) initiatives. Thanks to the Honorable Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Nigeria has proactively ensured gender inclusivity in climate action efforts.
Climate change is a reality. Weather conditions in Nigeria are becoming increasingly severe. Temperatures are rising, humidity is intensifying, and rainfall patterns have become unpredictable. The consequences of climate change are undeniable.
We have witnessed the impact of climate security on Nigerians, particularly women and children. Drought and desertification have forced farmers to migrate southward, leading to agricultural conflicts. As a result, many women are displaced and end up in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. These harsh realities underscore the urgent need for action, and we are implementing measures to address them.
Regarding the green economy, we are developing policies promoting gender-inclusive sustainability roles. His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, is committed to advancing these initiatives. Under the leadership of the Honorable Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Dr. Betta Edu, significant efforts are being made to drive the green economy forward.
For example, in the area of energy transition, the Minister has formed a committee to reduce the use of firewood for cooking. This initiative is a crucial first step in mitigating deforestation by decreasing reliance on wood and kerosene. By preventing tree-cutting, we reduce deforestation and improve household air quality by lowering emissions from firewood. Our focus is empowering women with sustainable alternatives and ensuring healthier living conditions within their homes.
Another initiative the Honorable Minister is pursuing is the establishment of entrepreneurship programs for women in the green economy. This includes the adoption of solar energy and involvement in manufacturing, implementation, and skill development to help them scale up. We are also bringing together women from various climate and green economy sectors to form clusters, allowing them to drive initiatives that create jobs and establish themselves in this space.
One key program is the Nigerian Women Scale-Up LPG Initiative, which aims to transition one to five million households from traditional, high-emission cooking methods—what we call “dirty cooking”—to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. We are looking at how to make this transition sustainable.
Jacobsen: When it comes to reducing harmful emissions from wood-burning and its role in deforestation, these are practical efforts that individuals can undertake with the support of government policy to combat climate change and facilitate a transition to a greener economy. What about large-scale manufacturing or other industries?
Eyamba: Yes, for example, the Honorable Minister is developing a Green Economy Program, which focuses on reducing fossil fuel use in the transportation sector. We are also working on setting up assembly and manufacturing plants to facilitate the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources such as LPG. The Nigerian government is mainly focused on compressed natural gas due to its available resources, and we are also promoting the adoption of electric vehicles.
When companies establish manufacturing or assembly plants, we aim to ensure gender inclusivity in skills training and employment. For example, we are exploring ways to train and integrate 50 women into assembly factory plants to increase female participation in this field.
I have personally engaged with the Rural Electrification Agency to emphasize the need for women’s involvement in electrification projects. It is rare to see a woman working in solar system installation, just as it is uncommon to see female plumbers in certain parts of the world. However, change is happening gradually.
We are raising awareness, conducting outreach, and expanding efforts to address broader environmental issues such as drought and desertification. Change takes time, but we are making progress.
What types of crops can we cultivate to mitigate the effects of desertification, prevent drought from encroaching on the region, and support women in agriculture through government policies and programs? This is a 360-degree shift from the norm. It is no longer business as usual. We are taking active, proactive steps to implement change. That is the essence of our approach.
Jacobsen: Now, I’m Canadian, and I’m not sure if this occurs in Canada. However, I know that in the United States, subsidies are provided to oil and gas companies. This creates a challenge when attempting to transition to a greener economy because there are no government-imposed restrictions on fossil fuels—metaphorically speaking, there is only an incentive to continue their use. Are there similar or identical barriers within the Nigerian economy preventing the transition to sustainable energy?
Eyamba: When His Excellency President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took his first action, he was to remove the subsidy on fossil fuels. This was a significant shock to the people but a necessary step. To ease the financial burden of this transition, we are implementing initiatives and programs that promote alternative energy sources.
For example, several factories are being established across Nigeria to create pathways for sustainable transportation, ensuring that vehicles powered by cleaner energy sources become more accessible. However, affordability remains a concern. As I mentioned earlier, one of the key transitions involves converting fossil fuel engines to compressed natural gas (CNG).
Removing the fuel subsidy is a crucial step forward because it forces us to seek alternative transportation and energy solutions. We are also exploring ways to reduce Nigeria’s carbon footprint in the power sector. The President has prioritized natural gas, which produces lower emissions while still a fossil fuel. This transition allows us to document and track our national economic contributions to emission reductions, aligning with our international commitments.
However, we recognize that to fully meet our Paris Agreement obligations, we must move toward greener alternatives. That is why we are advancing multiple green initiatives, such as the LPG Clean Cookstove Initiative Program and the upcoming Green Cooking Initiative Program, which will be entirely sustainable. These will include biofuel, biogas, hydrogen cookstoves, and electric cookstoves—all of which represent a completely green approach.
That said, the transition must be just and gradual. Nigeria has relied entirely on fossil fuels since its independence and even before that. We cannot abruptly switch to green energy overnight. Under the leadership and guidance of our Honorable Minister, we are working to implement policies that ensure a structured and effective transition toward sustainability. That is our current focus.
Jacobsen: Nigeria is not like Scotland or Ireland, where there is perpetual—even excessive—rain and cloud cover, which could make solar energy less viable. As you’ve noted, rainfall patterns in Nigeria are becoming increasingly unpredictable. Do you think that, despite the projected increase in climate change, Nigeria and other countries closer to the equator could turn this assumption around and increase solar adoption due to greater sun exposure and a more consistent solar constant?
Eyamba: Nigeria has made significant progress in adopting solar energy for its power needs. The Rural Electrification Agency (REA) has been actively promoting off-grid solar solutions for households. Additionally, various organizations are distributing solar kit packs, which provide electricity for basic needs such as charging phones, powering small refrigerators, and other essential household uses, particularly for underprivileged communities.
Beyond solar, Nigeria is also investing in wind energy. We established the Wind Energy Council in mid-2023, forming a dedicated committee to drive its development. Private organizations like Oando Clean Energy have been actively involved in this initiative. I have worked with them previously and continue to collaborate with them. They have conducted studies to identify high-potential wind energy sites across Nigeria.
For example, we conducted a wind potential assessment in Cross River State, which determined that we could generate 350 megawatts of electricity exclusively from wind energy in that region. Similar assessments are being conducted for solar energy as well. These efforts highlight Nigeria’s commitment to diversifying its renewable energy sources and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Besides solar and wind energy, Nigeria also utilizes hydropower, which provides us with multiple green energy sources. The challenge lies in effectively harnessing and scaling these resources.
Developed countries must honour their pledges and make climate funds more accessible. They must also collaborate with the government to ensure that these resources reach the people who need them most. When governments are involved, they can help scale these initiatives to create a greater impact.
Currently, numerous NGOs operate in silos, claiming to implement various environmental projects, yet they often fail to engage with the government. As a result, much of their work remains unrecorded. Many receive significant funding from the United Nations and other international bodies, but the government is often unaware of these financial disbursements or how the funds are being utilized. This lack of coordination prevents the government from supporting and expanding these programs.
Several structural issues need to be addressed. That is why I emphasize the need for NGOs and foundations to work collaboratively with the government rather than operating independently. Transparency and cooperation are essential to ensure a smooth transition to a green economy and implement effective sustainability programs.
That said, Nigeria is making steady progress. Change takes time, but we are moving forward in the right direction.
Jacobsen: Xavier, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Eyamba: Thank you, 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): 2025/04/24
In this wide-ranging interview, Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, analyzes the global implications of the closure of Voice of America (VOA) and the pro-Russia media shift in U.S. politics. She discusses how these developments undermine U.S. soft power, weaken democratic values, and empower adversarial propaganda from Russia, China, and Iran. Tsukerman warns of escalating information warfare and the collapse of independent journalism, noting the rise of state-aligned influencers, AI-powered disinformation, and elite-driven, authoritarian sympathies. She emphasizes that media suppression, geopolitical instability, and policy inconsistency threaten U.S. global leadership and democratic resilience at home.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Irina Tsukerman. She 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 holds the position of 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.
Thank you for joining me again today. I appreciate it.
Irina Tsukerman: I’m glad to be here.
Jacobsen: Today, we will discuss the closure of Voice of America (VOA), U.S. information warfare efforts, Russia, attacks on Canada and other allies, and the broader pro-Russia shift in U.S. relations with NATO, Europe, and others. This will include commentary on leadership, transactional versus selfishness, intelligence sharing, and military concerns. Gender parity may also come up, given the recent Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) event. So, how do you interpret the closure or scaling back of VOA services in certain regions?
Tsukerman: It represents quite a paradigmatic shift in the global media narrative and, of course, in U.S. leadership and its role in information warfare. Voice of America has been operational since 1942, when it was explicitly created to counter Nazi propaganda. It played an important role throughout the Cold War as a beacon of truthful, factual, and accurate information, providing a U.S. perspective to the Soviet bloc. It offered information to families behind the Iron Curtain, including my grandparents, who listened clandestinely to Voice of America and Radio Free Europe on the radio to get past government censorship and propaganda. It gave them an accurate view of the U.S. and what it was doing and saying about world events.
When the Trump administration decided to close it, it was operational in 49 different languages. To be clear, it is not as though Voice of America never had any problems. There had been complaints for years that some of the stations—such as VOA Persian—were infiltrated by pro-Iranian regime apparatchiks and that many of these VOA stations were failing to reflect U.S. interests and perspectives. Instead, they were advancing propaganda promoted by various foreign assets that had managed to get their foot in the door.
There was a push by many people to clean out some of these stations from those types of influences. However, what we are talking about now with the closure of VOA is altogether different. Think of it as one of the world’s most prominent government-funded international broadcasters. It has been central in delivering U.S. policies, values, and perspectives to audiences worldwide—especially in regions with limited access to independent news sources.
It was a huge opportunity for the Trump administration to communicate its message. For instance, during the inauguration, Trump emphasized that a new golden age of the U.S. was coming. Imagine how powerful such a message would have been on international airwaves. Instead, Trump decided to shut it down completely.
So, from a geopolitical and informational standpoint, the closure has huge implications for U.S. soft power, media freedom, and global information warfare. Because it was a state-funded broadcaster, it was a pillar of U.S. soft power. It shaped international public opinion by providing news analysis and cultural programming to align with democratic values, human rights, and free-market principles, which the U.S. strongly advocates.
There was a huge uproar recently over Jeff Bezos shifting The Washington Post to align with those values. So why would the U.S. not want to do the same to reinforce its messaging? If these newspaper publishers are returning to their roots in local reporting, why would the U.S. not want to broadcast its core values to the world?
Part of the Trump administration’s anti-neoconservative agenda has been the claim that neocons were allegedly trying to forcibly export democracy and U.S. values around the world in a way that was not compatible with the reality on the ground. But broadcasting is exactly the opposite of that. Broadcasting offers messaging that people can listen to—and then make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.
Some people argued that the messaging had become muddled or unclear—that the U.S. was exporting far-left agendas that were demeaning to cultures around the world or harmful to specific populations because of their extremeness. But again, any administration is free to change the messaging.
The closure eliminated the mechanism for delivering any messaging to anyone. The closure of U.S. operations in strategic areas—namely the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe—is a huge blow to the United States’ ability to project its ideals abroad, whatever those ideals may be. Politics may change, but certain constitutional ideas remain inherently American.
I am concerned that part of the message these audiences may take away is that the U.S. no longer stands for its constitutional or Declaration of Independence values. Maybe the Trump administration is not merely upending mechanisms and policies but also changing—or reflecting—a completely different set of values that no longer represent a shared American culture or a common American principle.
For years, the U.S. operated as a counterweight to the influence of state-controlled media outlets—such as those from Russia, China, and Iran—which often pushed alternative narratives that undermined democratic values and presented authoritarian governance as a viable model.
Trump has been gravitating toward the leaders of authoritarian countries, including Russia, China, North Korea’s Kim—whom he praised repeatedly—Turkey’s Erdoğan, Qatar, and many others. And perhaps it is precisely because he is sympathetic to authoritarian, and especially anti-American authoritarian regimes, that he is now doing exactly the opposite of what would normally be done.
Rather than continuing to stand up to them, even in a different way, he is disengaging from the only mechanism that could provide a counter to this authoritarian model. Perhaps Trump is disposing of VOA because he believes that an authoritarian model is preferable to democracy. Maybe he wants the U.S. to become more like those countries. And certainly, he wants those countries to win—to be seen as stronger and more preferable—while democracy is seen as weak.
That has been a consistent Russian narrative: that democracy is weak, inherently polarized and divisive, and that it cannot stand because it destroys traditional values. And this is exactly what Trump is feeding into with this policy.
The closure weakens the U.S. ability to provide a balanced perspective in regions where the information landscape is otherwise dominated by heavily censored or propaganda-driven content. We are seeing this in Turkey, where there are major political protests against the arrest of the popular Istanbul mayor, İmamoğlu, on entirely politicized grounds.
Not only is the government shutting down internet channels and social media and trying to drive people off the streets, but Elon Musk is also shutting down accounts commenting on political protests—and VOA is no longer available. VOA Turkish can no longer provide a running commentary on what is happening. Without U.S. output, local populations in these regions are most susceptible to disinformation campaigns. That further strengthens the influence of adversarial states like Russia and China, which aggressively deploy state-controlled media to shape perceptions in their favour.
They are doing exactly the opposite. So, by reducing its media presence, the U.S. risks diminishing its leadership in the global fight for information freedom and political transparency. Countries like Russia and China have long leveraged their state-controlled media apparatus to push their foreign policy agendas.
VOA’s closure creates a void that adversaries are too eager to fill, allowing them to deepen their sway in key strategic areas abroad—not just at home. We have seen Russian and Chinese propagandists applaud, praise, and celebrate the closure, and this is the last thing anyone should be proud of.
In areas like the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central Asia—where VOA offered independent news and consistently reliable analysis—its absence presents a gap that other media outlets will inevitably fill. In many of these regions, where political instability and censorship already constrain the free flow of information, the loss of an independent and authoritative news source could lead to further reliance on media networks that are partisan or state-influenced—and certainly not friendly to the United States.
As Russia, China, and Iran have demonstrated with outlets like RT (Russia Today), Sputnik, CGTN, and Press TV in Iran, state-backed media can be powerful tools for disseminating anti-American and hostile narratives that challenge Western democratic norms.
For instance, in Africa and the Middle East, Russia’s RT and Sputnik have managed to attract audiences with tailored content that often criticizes Western interference and promotes an anti-imperialist stance. This strategic media expansion by adversaries directly challenges U.S. influence and the ideals of free and independent journalism that VOA once represented.
Moreover, it has a significant impact on foreign policy.
Due to this concerted propaganda, West African countries have had a major anti-Western shift. This has led to coup d’états by military juntas and created a security vacuum, where jihadist groups are clashing with Russia-backed and anti-democratic regimes, while U.S.-aligned democratic allies are imprisoned and, in some cases, even tortured.
We are also seeing all sorts of other foreign-backed media propaganda—such as Qatar’s Al Jazeera and China’s Xinhua—proliferate without any serious competition. In addition, the rise of these narratives, backed by Russia, China, Iran, and assorted anti-democratic movements, continues to erode the credibility of U.S. democratic institutions and foreign policy.
U.S. programming—which offered reliable reporting on U.S. democracy and regularly challenged the U.S. government on numerous issues, including Ukraine, human rights, and governance—had the power to counterbalance authoritarian narratives portraying Western powers as imperialistic or hypocritical. In other words, offering internal critique, investigative journalism, and questioning American leaders from both political parties on all kinds of issues demonstrated that the United States can withstand scrutiny.
This was the opposite of countries where people were imprisoned for criticizing or questioning government policies. It provided hope and inspiration for people around the world.
With VOA no longer operating in key regions, there is a risk that these narratives—about the U.S. and adversarial governments—will become less contested, allowing manipulation of public opinion in critical areas of global interest.
Of course, the global information environment is increasingly viewed as a battlefield, with the U.S. and its adversaries vying for influence over public opinion through digital media, news outlets, and social media platforms.
VOA was a significant player in that space. It was part of the broader U.S. information warfare strategy, which shaped the dynamics of this competition. Its absence gives adversarial states more room to shape global narratives without challenge.
The U.S. is becoming deaf, blind, and mute as a result of recent policies—shutting down VOA, shutting down USAID, and eliminating critical intelligence-gathering units within the State Department and the Pentagon.
Effectively, it is cutting itself off from the ability to engage in critical counter-information efforts against hostile propaganda and intelligence operations. The U.S. is unable to withstand active measures because it lacks the information needed to form coherent policies in regions where Russia, China, and Iran are actively expanding their media presence.
The absence of VOA—and related operations like Radio Free Europe—allows these powers to dominate the media, which means they dominate public perception and intelligence narratives.
Russia, for example, has been particularly adept at leveraging state-backed media to influence political movements, sway public opinion during elections (for what they are worth), and undermine democratic processes in European countries. We are seeing this play out. We have seen aggressive meddling in Moldova and Romania, where Russia has tried to push fake candidates—such as reviving the image of Ceaușescu—through TikTok-driven movements and propaganda.
By closing VOA operations, the United States effectively gives up one of its key strategic advantages in the battle for hearts and minds—an essential component of information warfare. This leaves a vacuum that adversaries are already exploiting.
Furthermore, this shift in the global information balance has geopolitical—not just informational—ramifications. It influences U.S. foreign policy and the policies of its adversaries in many conflict zones, where access to information is often limited or tightly controlled. Ukraine and the Middle East are both prime examples.
The availability of independent news sources was crucial in providing reliable updates and holding governments accountable. With VOA’s closure, the role of media as a tool for transparency and accountability is weakened. This allows authoritarian regimes to manipulate public perception and solidify their grip on power freely.
Of course, internally within the United States, the closure of VOA raises significant concerns about the future of media freedom and government interference in journalism. Notably, just before the VOA shutdown, the U.S. fired a Ukrainian journalist who had been known for questioning both the Biden administration and the Trump administration about their respective policies toward Ukraine.
It was a sign that the United States fears critical questions that make officials uncomfortable about their policies. The U.S. government-funded VOA operated independently, adhering to journalistic standards and ensuring that its reporting was fair and balanced. The closure is increasingly seen as part of a broader trend of curbing independent, publicly funded media outlets—particularly those that challenge the prevailing political climate.
If the closure of VOA signals a broader shift in U.S. media policy and reflects an erosion of commitment to supporting independent journalists, it could set a troubling precedent. And at a time when the United States is facing an increasing threat of disinformation from foreign adversaries and domestic sources—including, by the way, Tulsi Gabbard, who is regularly reposting comments from denialists and various Russian trolls—the dismantling of a key pillar of information integrity risks further enhancing the influence of partisan media, eroding public trust in democratic institutions, and shifting the information war effort in favour of U.S. adversaries. It is vulnerable to foreign meddling in the U.S. information landscape, allowing public opinion to shift toward propaganda messaging and disinformation.
The impact of this decision may resonate not only internationally but also domestically because media independence remains a cornerstone of political and civic engagement. It also reflects a shift in the U.S. government’s media strategy on a broader scale. There is growing recognition that traditional forms of broadcasting, such as radio and television, may no longer be the most effective ways to engage global audiences—especially with the rise of social media and digital platforms. Elon Musk’s role with X (formerly Twitter) outright shifting the U.S. election conversation in favour of Trump is one example of this new dynamic.
In light of this, the United States may focus on more targeted, digital-first approaches to information dissemination through social media and podcasting. However, much of this podcasting has become heavily favourable to Russia. It has provided unquestioned, highly subjective content that mirrors pro-Russian narratives, conspiracy theories, and anti-expertise rhetoric. While the U.S. government could adapt to these new consumption habits and potentially reach younger, more tech-savvy audiences, these platforms have become vehicles for disinformation by foreign adversaries. This happens through largely unvetted networks where there is little to no fact-checking.
This shift demands a recalibration of how the United States communicates its values abroad—one that embraces modern technologies and reaches people where they are most active: on mobile devices and online platforms. But the problem is that X has become an unmitigated propaganda machine for assorted foreign trolls and hate narratives. Anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny proliferate there freely. We are clearly at a pivotal moment in the evolution of global media dynamics. In general, people increasingly do not trust traditional media platforms.
However, VOA was one of the few remaining media outlets that maintained public trust precisely because its reporting was objective, challenging, and reflective of the traditional journalism standards we have historically upheld. The space VOA leaves behind will likely be filled by adversarial media, which will further tilt the balance in the ongoing information warfare. That warfare has become a key battleground in contemporary geopolitics. This shift moves that battleground in favour of U.S. adversaries and toward the values the United States once stood against—and now, apparently, is beginning to embrace.
Jacobsen: We have the shifting dynamics of White House media representation regarding who is given front-row seats and who is not, who is allowed to ask questions and who is not, and who is given preference for questioning. We have the cancelling of VOA. We have a proliferation of appearances on outlets like Fox News. We also have, as you noted, the growth of voices on platforms like X—many of which are not only anti-Semitic but also deeply entrenched in conspiracy-laden political theories.
We’ve covered anti-Semitism—that took a little while—but other conspiracy theories span a wide range of subjects. You can find your “Alex Joneses” of various types offering a para-media or quasi-mainstream media presence. These are typically less critical, shorter in format, and more entertainment-focused. So, what do all of these broader cultural, political, and institutional shifts tell you about the current administration?
Tsukerman: Well, the administration claims to be more in tune with social trends—namely, moving away from relying exclusively on one or two authoritative sources and promoting the democratization of the media environment to encourage broader engagement and more diverse perspectives. They also say they are trying to reflect more on what the public wants.
But I am not entirely convinced that it works as the administration claims. For instance, giving preference to particular journalists over others or packing the room with pro-administration voices does not necessarily reflect broader public opinion trends. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It limits perspectives and controls the landscape of who gets to ask questions and who gets a seat at the table. That is anti-democratic.
It sets strict boundaries on who is included rather than ensuring equal opportunity for diverse views. Even the inclusion of streamers and podcasters in press briefings may seem progressive. Still, these content creators are not required to be even remotely objective or to adhere to any ethical standards of journalism. They can say whatever they want without fact-checking; much of their content plays to confirmation bias. It does not challenge or critique anything—it only contributes to echo chambers and erodes critical thinking among audiences.
Suppose the administration aims to create a friendly, unchallenging environment with little to no pushback. In that case, this is the way to do it. That does not mean we should return to a Walter Cronkite model where one figure dominates the media landscape. However, it also does not mean there should be no diversity and critical reflection on the narratives being put forward, especially as the White House shapes those narratives. That is unfair to the public.
Claiming that “this is what the public wants” is a convenient and self-serving justification for imposing government perspectives on the media rather than letting the public choose organically from a free, competitive media environment. This points toward increased control over the media landscape—not its democratization.
One revealing example came up when a U.S. official was asked about the potential for a recession due to tariff-oriented economic policies. He responded, “I can’t tell you what will happen a year from now, and I can’t even tell you whether the journalist asking this question will still have his program a year from now.” To me, that sounded like a threat.
Jacobsen: Crazy. Oh, it was. So, what’s with the pro-Russian lean in media coverage now?
Tsukerman: It reflects the overall pro-Russian shift in the broader policy strategy. The media coverage is starting to align with that shift, mirroring U.S. government positions more and more. It is becoming less independent—less about critique and inquiry—and more about reflecting, echoing, and amplifying the government’s explanations and justifications for its policies.
Trump was described as a populist when he came to power, but I am not entirely sure that’s accurate. This pro-Russian shift is not broadly popular—it is not some groundswell of populist demand. Rather, it is an elite-level realignment that is now trickling down into the media narrative, and we are watching it happen in real-time.
And the only way this kind of narrative can become popular is if the U.S. and its allies—such as Elon Musk—continue to dominate the media landscape with so much pro-Russian content that there is no space for alternative perspectives, and people gradually become indoctrinated. But setting that aside, polls consistently show that Americans support Ukraine, that they want more assistance sent to Ukraine, and that they are not in favour of Russia, China, or authoritarianism. So, the policies we see are not populist—they are anti-populist. They are not even popular.
These policies are being imposed on the public and then justified as populist—not because they reflect broad public support, but because of louder engagement by trolls and media personalities who have adopted a populist tone and are popular with the public for other, unrelated reasons. These individuals are not necessarily speaking to issues of democratization or authoritarianism. We are witnessing a kind of political horseshoe: a convergence between the formerly fringe left and fringe right, now increasingly becoming mainstream.
We have podcasters with enormous audiences—thirty-two, thirty-nine million listeners—proliferating conspiratorial, anti-establishment content. But how anti-establishment is it when the establishment promotes the same content? What we see is essentially forced indoctrination—leading the public in a particular direction not because the public demands it but because those in power want it.
They are using media contacts to advance their agendas, just as previous administrations did, regardless of popularity. The difference now is the scale, reach, and intensity with which this is happening.
Jacobsen: Biden was more about bilateral and multilateral relations in a non-zero-sum or growth-oriented context. That was his grounding in trade, economics, and probably media. How do you see the Trump administration’s orientation? Is it zero-sum transactionalism or something else?
Tsukerman: It is a crossover. It is zero-sum transactionalism with allies, for sure. We saw that with the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and some Latin American allies.
But we do not see transactions with these new “friends”—such as those in North Korea and Russia. We see interventionism favouring those countries and a willingness to build quasi-long-term, relationship-oriented arrangements. Russia is even considered a potential mediator with Iran. There has also been outreach to North Korea about cultivating positive, long-term relations. Trump is clearly pursuing these relationships despite receiving very little in return.
And Trump is putting up with much disrespect from these authoritarian leaders. Putin once made him wait for a phone call for an hour and a half—something unprecedented and highly disrespectful. Meanwhile, Trump made the Polish president wait three hours for a ten-minute meeting after the president flew in from Poland.
So when Putin does the same or worse, instead of walking away, Trump waits patiently, says nothing about the delay, and then declares the meeting a success—even though Putin lied to him and rejected the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal outright. This is not transactionalism. This is Trump actively chasing the approval of authoritarian leaders, making concessions, and giving away promises—such as those concerning Ukraine—that he cannot deliver, especially as Ukraine is not willing to accept major curbs on its sovereignty.
And he is doing all of this in exchange for nothing. Russia is making no concessions. Putin has made it clear he will not be making concessions, and in some cases, he has even stated that the U.S. is not asking for any. This is far from a transactional approach. It is more like a one-sided infatuation—a teenage crush on authoritarianism—where Trump endures humiliation, provocations, endless red lines, and envelope-pushing to stay in their good graces.
Jacobsen: Will the Europeans be aggressive and defensive militarily, independent from the United States moving forward?
Tsukerman: They are pursuing a more independent course of action. But how long it will take them to reorient themselves fully is another matter—it will take longer than many expect. There is significant interdependence on the intelligence and defence levels, and building capacity takes time. Changing public opinion also takes time. Some European countries are dissatisfied with the pro-Russian politicians they previously elected, but removing them is difficult. In the meantime, those figures continue to do political damage within the EU and NATO.
There is growing unity within the European Union, but agreement that Trump is bad for EU security and interests is insufficient. It takes more than that to develop a coherent strategy and the military forces necessary for a centralized pan-European army—or even regional deployments. For example, when that was discussed, the British did not have enough personnel to send peacekeepers to Ukraine. Italy opposed the peacekeeping proposal entirely.
Europe’s defence industry is booming, with stock prices soaring. There will likely be a major shift away from defence purchases from the U.S., and that transition is already moving quickly. U.S. defence stocks are plummeting. Trump recently announced he would be selling low-grade weapons to allies and added that “these countries may not be allies in the future.” That kind of messaging is not encouraging for the U.S. defence sector. But it does mean that Europeans and the Japanese, South Koreans, and others are now buying more from each other and expanding defence cooperation.
That said, defence trade and defence agreements are two very different things. I am not sure that the European Union and NATO can become fully viable independent security actors within the next four years—which covers the rest of Trump’s current term. Some countries may progress faster than others. There has been talk of developing a European “nuclear umbrella.” Poland, for instance, is planning to more than double its standing army—from 200,000 to 500,000—and aims to train every male citizen in military service. Other countries are exploring semi-voluntary conscription policies. We are already seeing moves in this direction in places like Denmark and Sweden. There is also a greater focus on preparing elite units and offering citizens various roles to support national defence.
And yet, we still see signs of unpreparedness. Baltic states and Poland are leaving agreements like the landmine convention and are actively mining their borders to deter Russia. But they are still unable to prevent Russian intelligence operations and sabotage within their borders—such as the recent arson attacks in Lithuania and Poland.
The European Union still cannot effectively respond to Russian and Chinese sabotage of critical infrastructure, including underwater internet cables, which is increasing in frequency and severity. Despite efforts to build a stronger defense posture, current strategies remain ineffective. Europe lacks an offensive strategy and the political will to confront Russia and China directly.
There was an incident involving a Chinese ship that was confronted, but ultimately, nothing happened, and there were no consequences for the sabotage. So, while the EU and NATO members are becoming more strategic and assertive, they are still far from being truly independent—either from the U.S. or in an absolute sense. They are not yet ready to stand up to the coalition of adversaries forming between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist organizations, and private actors who are enabling this new axis of power.
This is not just about Russia acting alone. It is not conventional warfare alone. We are witnessing a sophisticated and expanding form of asymmetrical warfare—serious cyberattacks and subversion requiring coordinated responses. And now, the U.S. is actively forcing this European independence. For instance, the U.S. has ended its cooperation with Europe on Russian cyberattacks. It will not take action against such attacks internally or through international partnerships.
This puts many European countries in a difficult position, as the U.S. remains a global leader in cybersecurity. France, which has its national cyber capabilities, is now stepping up and looking to become the cybersecurity leader for Europe—but how quickly that transition can happen remains to be seen.
Jacobsen: There was talk about an Iron Dome for the United States.
Tsukerman: Yes, they renamed it the Golden Dome.
Jacobsen: So for the Golden Dome—it’s ironic because many of the images associated with “gold” and Trump tend to be toilets. What about the rocket technology that funds that system? Who is likely to be behind the rockets? Will it be a Musk-backed government venture where he gets hundreds of billions of dollars to compensate for his current financial losses?
Tsukerman: Up until now, Iron Dome production has been a joint U.S.-Israeli technology venture. The goal is to create something exclusive for the U.S., but the problem is that there is no clear defence consensus that this is an optimal technology for U.S. strategic needs. Theoretically, the Pentagon should lead on this, but it is currently trying to downsize its purchases. Presumably, this project is one of the priorities—but the decision has not yet been finalized.
I don’t know how Musk would fit into this. He has zero experience producing this specific type of weaponry. He could be taught, and he does have the necessary security clearance to be involved. However, none of his current businesses are optimized for producing missile defence systems. Commercial aerospace and defensive missile technology are two very different domains. His companies have no track record in this area.
The contract would go to companies with experience in Iron Dome production in cooperation with Israel. That would be far more efficient and make much more sense. Alternatively, Musk could subcontract the work to those companies, even if he were given nominal administrative control to profit from it. But in terms of actual execution, I do not see him capable of leading it.
Jacobsen: How effective has the U.S. adapted to modern information warfare strategies?
Tsukerman: Terribly. The Global Engagement Center—already woefully ineffective—was one of the only official U.S. government mechanisms designed to address information warfare independently. It had limited offensive capabilities. As a State Department project, it was limited to targeting foreign audiences. The Department of Justice has no internal program to counter foreign disinformation or other forms of domestic information warfare.
The Biden administration attempted to partner with private companies, but that raised significant constitutional concerns, which led to congressional hearings. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has become a major problem by actively boosting malign foreign influence efforts on X. Voice of America was one of the few other leaders in this space—mainly by providing accurate, factual reporting. But VOA was not designed for hearts-and-minds operations or active information warfare. It was there to report the truth, not to counter propaganda strategically.
There has been no cohesive information warfare strategy. The U.S. military does have some capabilities in this area, but with the broader policy trend leaning away from state-building and toward global disengagement, these types of efforts are being phased out. I have not seen any new initiatives in this space.
There has been no response to the proliferation of Hamas propaganda or Russia’s and China’s growing influence in the Middle East. For example, China’s Huawei controls telecommunications in Saudi Arabia and throughout Latin America, yet there has been no U.S. strategic response. The U.S. is actively blinding and deafening itself in the information domain—and dismantling its capacity for information warfare.
This is part of the strategy being implemented by DNI Tulsi Gabbard. She oversees 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, none of which have been tasked with developing serious information warfare plans. Instead of using U.S. intelligence to shape the information space, Gabbard has promoted and amplified Russian trolls. That is the current U.S. information warfare strategy—helping adversaries mislead American and global audiences by promoting their talking points and disinformation.
It is deeply concerning. The Pentagon has also shut down key information centers that had been active since the Cold War and were vital to gathering intelligence and countering propaganda. Those centers are now gone. So, the U.S. is not only failing to engage in information warfare but deliberately dismantling the infrastructure that once enabled it to do so.
Reestablishing that infrastructure would be extremely costly, difficult, and politically controversial. It would also be logistically and technically complex. If the next administration decides to rebuild the capabilities destroyed under the Trump administration, it will have to start from scratch.
Jacobsen: What does Putin want? What does China want, ultimately?
Tsukerman: Both of them?
Jacobsen: With the United States, with the world, with their region, with their populations.
Tsukerman: Both Russia and China, when it comes to the United States, want to see nothing more than a weakened, divided, and ultimately destroyed America. Russia is more chaotic and nihilistic in its approach—they want the U.S. subjected to complete internal destruction. A civil war in the United States would be ideal for them. Their strategy is not rooted in economic logic; they want to watch the world burn, even if it does not bring them measurable gains.
China, on the other hand, is more pragmatic. They still have significant financial interests in the U.S., but they, too, want to see America defeated. As intelligence reports show, the Chinese strategy is clear: they want to become the world’s sole superpower. Xi Jinping is an extreme nationalist who uses the communist system to pursue a vision of global domination—not of a collaborative global system but of a world ruled by China.
Together, Russia and China are focused on exploiting and exacerbating U.S. weaknesses—polarization, political extremism, and cultural fragmentation—because an internally divided U.S. helps them advance their ambitions. By fostering division, they make it easier to dominate regions of strategic interest and displace U.S. influence.
As for their populations, neither government values human life. In both China and Russia, standards of living are deteriorating. China faces significant economic troubles and enforces social control through re-education camps and a draconian social credit system that severely limits the quality of life. In Russia, there are widespread public health crises—rampant AIDS and hepatitis, crumbling infrastructure, poor hospital services, substance abuse, despair among youth, high abortion rates, and a population engaged in widespread self-destructive behaviour. All of this is preventable, but the leadership does not care. The citizens are not motivated to live well, and the system provides no support.
Beyond their desire to weaken the U.S., Russia also has specific geopolitical ambitions. It wants to be a dominant power in the Middle East—an ambition rooted in its history from the days of Tsarist Russia through the Soviet Union. The security services, which have long been the real power in Russia, have maintained a consistent foreign policy. Russia also seeks to turn the European Union into a Russia-friendly bloc and to “colonize” as much of it as possible, allowing the kleptocratic leadership to extract resources while building a legacy through war.
The war in Ukraine, however, is proving to be extremely costly. It has resulted in loss of life, economic sanctions, and immense financial strain. Russia cannot afford to win the war because victory would require long-term occupation, maintenance, and rebuilding—something it simply cannot do. Crimea turned out to be a major economic and strategic failure. It lost access to Ukraine’s broader infrastructure, including clean water and natural resources. Even tourism—once a lucrative stream for Crimea with three million visitors annually—is gone.
Russia continues to operate at a tremendous loss. It has grand imperial ambitions but lacks the military genius of a Napoleon, the organizational skills, or any ideological or institutional structures that would make empire-building feasible or even remotely beneficial. Instead, it is a collapsing empire clinging to the aesthetics of domination without the substance or resources to support it.
Jacobsen: Where does this geopolitical situation—and the media landscape that enables or reflects it—leave independent media, international freelance journalists, and others? What happens to their voices when they no longer have the institutional pillars that act as tent posts for freedom of expression?
Tsukerman: So-called “independent” Russian media is doing quite well and proliferating rapidly, largely because it is cheap to operate. They can run troll forums and hire writers or hacks-for-hire from virtually anywhere at a very low cost. They take low-paid individuals, pull them out of obscurity, give them a modest stipend, and as these individuals gain prominence, they start to receive additional income from mainstream institutions and media outlets—eventually becoming mainstream themselves.
Someone like Candace Owens, for instance, was getting paid by The Daily Wire and conservative organizations. She was not necessarily paid directly by Russia, but Russia is willing to invest money to elevate these individuals, helping them build visibility and institutional credibility. Sometimes oligarchs fund this; other times, third-party allies do. Regardless of the method, Russia always finds ways to fund these figures—and once they become well-known, their alternative income sources kick in: crypto, sponsorships, paid appearances, and more.
As a result, pro-Russian networks are proliferating. With AI, trolls can generate endless content across social media platforms for even less money. Elon Musk helps them significantly through his ownership of X, where the algorithmic amplification of such voices is widespread.
Independent journalists, on the other hand, are in real trouble. They do not have access to the same funding sources to sustain that kind of output. Traditional media collapsed because of flawed business models and the shift in information consumption. Unless you are willing to do corporate writing—focused on non-political topics like finance or business—you are at a disadvantage.
Media outlets are increasingly engaged in self-censorship, particularly when avoiding criticism of Trump or his allies. Any serious critique of Trump or his interests is difficult to get published and increasingly difficult to get paid for—even if you are willing to write it for free. That is because there are limits to what media platforms are willing to accept now that crossover figures are entering journalism and reshaping the industry.
By “crossover,” I mean individuals who support Trump but are not traditionally conservative. Some come from the radical left or have an incoherent ideological background. Their appeal is often social or aesthetic—the animus and outrage appeal to them—not rooted in a principled political stance. As a result, true independents—critical thinkers, classical liberals, traditional conservatives, and centrists—are marginalized. They do not have many places to publish in the United States anymore.
Some may find more receptive audiences in the UK, but European media is also difficult to access because it often requires payment to be published. So, the media landscape is becoming increasingly fractured and dominated either by adversarial powers or by extremely wealthy interests—corporations, billionaires, and institutional actors who can afford to shape the discourse.
This shift makes it harder for independent voices to publish thoughtful, informed analyses—voices outside the Beltway and the Washington bubble who focus on traditional foreign and domestic policies without the partisan spin. Platforms like The Free Press by Bari Weiss offer a slightly more diverse range of thought but still promote a specific group of thinkers. Much of what it publishes is not journalism—it is opinion writing. It is not investigative, fact-checked, boots-on-the-ground journalism.
We are facing an uphill battle. Even in podcasting—which is supposed to be a democratized medium—the same types of people dominate. Most successful podcasters are already famous for something else: comedians, MMA fighters, athletes, celebrities, or traditional journalists who transitioned into the format.
So, even in this supposedly accessible environment, average people struggle to build an audience. There is too much content and too much competition. Audiences gravitate toward a few well-known names or individuals who have the money to boost visibility and manipulate the algorithm. And in this quasi-populist, quasi-pro-Russian media environment, the same types of voices keep getting amplified—just in more sophisticated and coordinated ways.
Jacobsen: What about the limitation on information sharing and other concerns? The European Union is slowing down its information sharing at the same time—or right after—the United States has begun slowing down or stopping its information sharing.
Tsukerman: There are two distinct areas to look at: intelligence sharing and media-related information sharing. These are happening simultaneously, and both are worrying. The slowdown in intelligence sharing is deeply concerning because it leaves all parties—both in the EU and the U.S.—less secure, less capable of reacting to threats, and less able to develop comprehensive, preemptive strategies. And this is happening while the threats are not diminishing, just because the EU and U.S. are currently in disagreement.
This situation benefits adversarial actors who thrive on disunity. The less cohesive the Western alliance, the more likely we are to see successful terrorist attacks, drug smuggling operations, and political meddling from countries like Russia, China, and others. These developments increase the likelihood of serious damage occurring without adequate early warning, as the channels of communication that might otherwise prevent such threats are breaking down.
We are also seeing major losses in terms of media and social media cooperation. The European Union tends to be more restrictive in handling digital regulation, but there has also been a complete breakdown in dialogue between EU institutions and their American counterparts. This lack of mutual understanding leads to ignorance about each other’s regulatory, political, and technological environments.
Now, there are potential regulatory issues involving big tech companies that may lead to platforms like X (formerly Twitter) being pushed out of the EU due to non-compliance with privacy and security regulations. Elon Musk has refused to meet key European standards, which could lead to a total ban of X within the EU. That would create a massive vacuum for public commentary—particularly among journalists and public figures who rely on the platform.
We are increasingly seeing a fractured global communications environment. The less the Europeans and Americans engage in direct, consistent communication, the more room for false perceptions to grow. That makes it far easier for adversaries to spread disinformation, sow division, provoke antagonism and polarization, and manipulate public narratives in both directions. The long-term result could be the death of the transatlantic alliance—not just politically but on personal, business, and cultural levels. The breakdown of high-level political relationships could also mean the collapse of everyday cooperation between people across the Atlantic.
Jacobsen: So how would you describe Trump’s strategy—the big question—about the media?
Tsukerman: What did you ask? How would I describe Trump’s strategy regarding media? Yes, that is the big question. His approach has evolved. During his first term, it was mostly chaotic. He did not know what he was doing. He was reactionary. His strategy, such as it was, revolved around attacking the media, attacking Biden, attacking political opponents, and even attacking other Republicans.
Now, however, the strategy is more deliberate. It is consolidated and centralized. There is a clear method involving systematically bullying critics into submission. This goes far beyond the typical White House strategy of coaxing or pressuring the media through access manipulation—something we saw, for example, during the Obama administration. With Trump, it is not just about incentivizing loyalty through access; it is about threatening, attacking, and overwhelming critics until they fall in line.
We have seen this pattern with Biden, and we have seen it to some extent with every president. However, with Trump, it goes far beyond the usual tensions or isolated incidents of journalist intimidation. We are likely to see a full-scale, systematic attack on the media. We are already witnessing a lot of media outlets becoming significantly less critical.
As part of this adjacent effort, Jeff Bezos has noticeably reoriented The Washington Post toward priorities he believes may be more appealing to Trump. We are seeing similar trends in other outlets like Forbes, which are softening their criticism of major political figures to avoid conflict or controversy. Many outlets are already engaging in self-censorship.
Meanwhile, conservative media is doubling down on its pro-Trump stance—more so than before. Interestingly, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal have pushed back more than expected, but Trump has publicly attacked them, accusing them of being corporate, corrupt, and dishonest due to their ownership structure. His strategy is clearly to shape an information space that is friendly to him—one that follows his lead and supports his political goals.
Trump’s goal is not only to consolidate conservative media—much of which is already aligned with him—but to neutralize or co-opt all media. He wants to eliminate serious investigative criticism, especially anything probing into his inner circle, family, or business associates. What remains would be toothless reporting focused on banal topics, serving to distract rather than inform.
We are already seeing Republican officials use social media to bypass journalists, sometimes trying to charm the public or push products—like Teslas—instead of addressing serious policy issues. Some officials have even fought with journalists during press briefings, refusing to take questions from reporters they deem unfavourable.
Jacobsen: Like saying, “You’re not allowed to ask that.” “Sit down.”
Tsukerman: Exactly, him, Fox News, it’s a whole thing. And not everyone is going to tolerate that. Even some conservative publications are starting to express concern because they know it will be bad for business. For example, we have seen Newsmax and Fox side with journalists responding to AP’s exclusion from the press room.
Jacobsen: So, is it bad for them and their business?
Tsukerman: It damages their credibility, and they know they could suffer the same fate if they cross Trump on any issue in the future.
Jacobsen: Do you think Trump will pass away by the end of his term?
Tsukerman: It is hard to say. I am not a prophet. He is in reasonably good health. Anything is possible—he is getting older. I do think he appears more vigorous than Biden was, and Biden still made it through his term. Many people predicted Biden would not last four years, but he did. Trump seems in better physical and perhaps even mental shape than Biden.
He has made some of the same verbal gaffes, but he is not completely out of it. Could there be a violent incident, given that there have already been two previous assassination attempts? Anything is possible. Will that lead to more robust security efforts? Hard to say. I do not anticipate anything unusual, barring a natural or unpredictable event. He is in relatively good health, and I would not count on anything unexpected. In that sense, I expect a fairly conventional four years.
Jacobsen: Do you think the world is losing insight into slow-moving but existential threats—like climate change—as media freedom collapses and geopolitical tensions rise?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. The U.S. has historically been the global leader in media freedom. It will take time for the international community to understand the shift’s extent fully. Most of the world is used to more restricted media environments, so the idea of losing freedom of the press in the U.S. may not hit them immediately.
That is not to say the U.S. media was ever perfectly objective—it had its own biases and moments of self-censorship. But overall, it was the most open, willing to challenge power, ask hard questions, and host a diversity of viewpoints. The U.S. media environment allowed for more robust government scrutiny than the European Union.
It will take time for people to forget the U.S. as a beacon of media freedom. But now, the U.S. appears to be moving in a direction much less favorable to freedom of the press—and ironically, many international observers may be slower to react because they are accustomed to criticizing the U.S. for having too much freedom.
Then, when the shift goes fully in the opposite direction, and the world finally catches up to the reality of what is happening in the U.S., it will be a huge shock. People will realize what they did not appreciate about the U.S. free media environment—that the alternative is far worse once it collapses. Having too much freedom, too many loud opinions about government—that is far preferable to the suffocating silence of media suppression.
We are facing a contentious four years ahead. Political tensions will be high. It is not easy to decouple from global alliances fully, but Trump is doing everything he can to erode trust and dismantle those partnerships. Even if the next administration is fully committed to restoring those ties, it will be incredibly difficult. And if someone like J.D. Vance follows him into power, we may look at a long-term situation that will be nearly impossible to repair.
Frankly, the U.S. was a positive example for the world in many ways—its media environment being one of them. Of course, it had shortcomings. There were real concerns about journalistic ethics and the erosion of integrity. But until recently, the U.S. media ecosystem was by far the most intellectually diverse and self-critical. And that will be missed. It will leave a gaping hole that will be very hard to fill.
Fortunately, British and French publications have stepped up with solid investigative work on the Ukraine issue. But they have their blind spots on other global issues. The U.S., for all its flaws, was still more willing to critically examine both domestic governance and major foreign policy questions seriously.
Jacobsen: Which media organization do you think has been the best—rated highest in detail, factuality, prominence, and so on? Based on the kind of work Associated Press reporters do, are you one of those analyzers?
Tsukerman: The Wall Street Journal stands out for having a comprehensive, objective, and unsensational approach to news. Bloomberg is also strong, but in my view, it has a serious blind spot on China, and that skews much of its coverage. That said, both publications have individual journalists who have, unfortunately, become overly dependent on certain”trusted” sources—particularly government or intelligence sources—which can lead to skewed reporting on international issues.
It is easier to be misled on foreign affairs than domestic ones because journalists are less familiar with the nuances of those countries, cultures, and political environments. I have seen this happen repeatedly—not just at WSJ or Bloomberg, but at many other outlets I have been tracking.
Even so, those two publications remain among the more reliable ones. Of course, any major media outlet will have issues—governments leak information for strategic reasons, intelligence agencies manipulate narratives, and corporate interests get involved. You always have to read between the lines. But even with those limitations, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg generally have people trying to do a conscientious job, covering stories thoroughly and seriously. That matters.
Jacobsen: So you’re saying they become victims of their sources. The analogy that comes to mind—humorously, I might add—is the philandering husband who goes to the same prostitute repeatedly and starts speaking reverently of the “Lady of Joy,” becoming a victim of his exposure to a single, compromised source of opinion.
Tsukerman: Fair.
Jacobsen: o, what do we make of these Russia-U.S. or Kremlin-American discussions about “peace”? Is there any chance these talks are legitimate? Or are they just buying time for a country spending one-third of its budget on the military?
Tsukerman: Russia is absolutely buying time. Not only that—they are trying to manipulate the U.S. into giving them a lifeline at a time when they are hemorrhaging money, lives, and political capital. The European Union is consolidating against them. Globally, Russia is becoming deeply unpopular.
The U.S., by entertaining these discussions and pulling leverage away from Ukraine, is inadvertently helping Russia survive longer than it otherwise might. Without this lifeline, Russia would likely collapse on multiple fronts. But beyond the geopolitical stalling tactic, these so-called “peace talks” are also part of a broader Russian goal: destroying the U.S. image on the global stage.
Undermining U.S. credibility is central to Russia’s larger war effort. This is not just about controlling Ukrainian territory. It is about weakening the global perception of the U.S. as a leader and moral authority.
These talks are a major inflection point in global diplomacy. The U.S. has long portrayed itself as a champion of democracy—or, at the very least, of Enlightenment values, constitutional principles, international law, national sovereignty, and a rules-based order. Right now, the U.S. is walking a very fine line between maintaining that role and compromising it under the pressure of adversarial manipulation.
Let’s put it this way: the U.S. currently manages its evolving role in multilateral negotiations that include third-party mediators like Saudi Arabia. At the heart of this diplomatic drama is a battle for influence. Russia and Ukraine have opposing objectives. Russia seeks to legitimize its territorial gains, while Ukraine aims to restore sovereignty fully.
The U.S. has been inaccurate in claiming that Ukraine has no victory strategy or its undefined goals. Full restoration of sovereignty is, in fact, a clear military objective. The U.S. has been coy in denying that fact. While it may not be directly participating in some of these indirect talks, it has a profound interest in their outcomes—particularly in how they affect U.S. credibility, soft power, and its standing in the global geopolitical order. This is not just about conflict resolution but prestige and influence.
The involvement of neutral powers like Saudi Arabia raises serious questions about how these developments will reshape U.S. relationships—with both allies and adversaries. Historically, the U.S. has positioned itself as a defender of democratic rights, a rules-based order, and national sovereignty on the global stage. Its strong support for Ukraine, both militarily and diplomatically, reaffirmed that role.
Now, while the Biden administration can be criticized for not decisively pursuing a Ukrainian victory, for slow-rolling aid, or for applying undemocratic pressure on Zelensky, there is a broader picture. The American population has shown immense public support for Ukraine—support that has, in many ways, pushed values of democracy further than the U.S. government was willing to go. However, these ongoing indirect Russia–Ukraine talks complicate that dynamic.
As nations like Saudi Arabia take the lead in mediation, some observers question whether the U.S. is losing its leadership position. While the U.S. still claims to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, comments from the Trump camp are casting increasing doubt. The U.S.’s role in these third-party negotiations now appears inconsistent with its long-standing image as the global arbiter.
This new isolationism is not just about avoiding foreign conflicts. It is also about stepping back from leadership roles in diplomacy—roles that do not even tax U.S. resources or taxpayers. If these talks result in a compromise or peace process in which the U.S. has little influence, the perception of American power could take a significant hit. That perception is already weakening. The fact that the U.S. is voluntarily giving away leverage has not been properly addressed in public discourse.
The West’s traditional dominance in international negotiations is visibly weakening. The U.S. risks being sidelined in favour of emerging diplomatic powers like Saudi Arabia—or, in some cases, even Russia. If, on the other hand, these talks yield a ceasefire or lasting diplomatic outcome, then U.S. support in the broader process could enhance its image as a promoter of peace—even if it is not directly involved in every phase. But that would require tangible results, and we are not seeing those so far.
To benefit from these talks, the U.S. would need to carefully balance national interests with respect for the multilateral process being led by the Saudis. If it refuses to acknowledge the role of non-Western actors, that could be seen as a reluctance to share diplomatic influence in a world that many—like Senator Rubio—now describe as multipolar. That shift in perception, largely driven by Russia and China, is a psychological and information-warfare victory for Moscow, even though it is not grounded in actual geopolitical strength.
China may support the idea of multipolarity through its economic clout. But Russia? Russia is not a dominant geopolitical player. The fact that it is being treated as one is already a major win for its disinformation and diplomatic strategy.
There is also the question of how these developments affect U.S. relationships with its European allies. Many European countries, which have strongly supported Ukraine, view U.S. support for third-party mediation as either a sign of strategic flexibility or a troubling indication of unreliability. They are particularly uncomfortable with the fact that key discussions on Ukraine’s future are happening outside of NATO and the EU and without their involvement.
Russians argue that Europeans could choose to participate—that they are excluding themselves. They claim the U.S. did not have to include them either. However, no one in Europe considered talking to Putin a good idea, and they still do not. So, to the extent the U.S. engages in a process perceived as detrimental to European security, they want a seat at the table. This directly affects their future.
Meanwhile, Russia sees the involvement of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey as an opportunity to frame the entire situation as evidence of global dissatisfaction with U.S. and NATO policies. They are using this moment to argue that the U.S. can no longer dictate global terms and is losing moral authority.
Russia is using this as a diplomatic victory. It undermines the U.S. position on international law, sovereignty, and the rules-based order. The U.S. image as the leading force behind those principles is eroding—especially as Russia promotes the idea that non-Western mediators are better equipped for global peace negotiations.
But that is only part of the issue. The deeper problem is that Russia is portraying the U.S. as morally equivalent—or worse. Trump’s rhetoric, such as calling for the invasion of Greenland or joking about making Canada the 51st state, only reinforces the Russian narrative that the U.S. is no better than them.
If the U.S. can leverage its alliances and promote a united Western stance behind Ukrainian interests, it could enhance its image globally. For that to happen, Trump must abandon his current strategy and recognize that it is failing. Such a pivot would send a clear message to the world that despite recent challenges, the U.S. remains a dominant force in global diplomacy and security—capable of shaping outcomes through indirect influence, even when direct engagement is off the table.
Saudi Arabia’s role as a co-mediator in these talks marks a shift in global diplomatic power dynamics. While the U.S. has long been an important partner to the Saudis, the kingdom’s increasing participation in global peace processes puts it in direct competition with U.S. influence.
Saudi engagement in the Ukraine conflict—whether through these indirect talks or broader regional diplomacy—signals its growing role as an independent global actor. That is beneficial for Saudi Arabia but not necessarily for the U.S. On the one hand, Washington may welcome Riyadh’s role in fostering peace, particularly if it promotes stability in regions where the U.S. has strategic interests. Trump himself has encouraged Saudi involvement as a mediator.
However, Saudi Arabia’s rise as a diplomatic power suggests the U.S. faces growing competition in conflict mediation. If Saudi Arabia succeeds in these negotiations, it could significantly diminish America’s role as the world’s leading peace broker—especially outside the Western sphere. And that is part of the goal.
The U.S. might argue that it wants to avoid military entanglement in conflicts, but that does not explain why it would willingly forfeit its image as the top global diplomat. There is no strategic reason to surrender that role.
This shift could also have lasting consequences for U.S.–Saudi relations. Historically, the U.S. has relied on Saudi Arabia as a key partner in the Middle East. But as the kingdom asserts its independence in diplomacy—especially in the Russia–Ukraine talks—it may prompt Washington to reevaluate the relationship.
In the future, the U.S. may have to recalibrate its alliances and diplomatic strategies to maintain influence in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. This situation could spiral if the U.S. regrets giving away diplomatic leverage—even to an ally. For now, the arrangement is functional. But what happens if the U.S. and Saudi Arabia diverge significantly in how the negotiations should proceed—or who benefits?
That leads to a broader issue: these talks are not simply about a regional conflict. They reflect deeper transformations in global governance. As multilateral negotiations unite increasingly diverse actors—including powers from the Global South—the U.S. must confront a new reality: its previous dominance in shaping global narratives is no longer guaranteed.
Adding to that, the U.S.’s troubling flirtation with Russian propaganda is diminishing its capacity to craft and control its messaging on the world stage.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on American attitudes—internally—toward the media and dissent?
Tsukerman: There is growing concern outside of the hardcore MAGA circles. Even moderate Republicans—what remains of them—are worried they may be silenced. Some MAGA and MAGA-adjacent figures now gaining power believe they are finally “restoring” or “depoliticizing” the media environment, at least in their favour.
But the more government intervention and authoritarianism in the media, the less space there will be for independent voices—even those who agree with the overall strategy. In the long run, this will not be good for anyone.
Jacobsen: Irina, thank you again. I appreciate your time.
Tsukerman: That’s fine. 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): 2025/04/24
Mareyba Fawad, a federal health policy and data consultant at Acumen LLC, joined Scott Douglas Jacobsen to reflect on her experience as head delegate to CSW69 with the Young Diplomats of Canada. Fawad, with degrees from the University of Oklahoma and Columbia University, emphasized youth advocacy, gender justice, and public health. She discussed global backsliding in women’s rights, the importance of grassroots education on the Beijing Declaration, and the evolving role of Canada in international gender equity. Balancing federal consulting with activism, she highlighted mentorship, intergenerational responsibility, and hope in the next generations leadership as key to sustained progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Mareyba Fawad. She is a health policy and data consultant at Acumen LLC. She supports various offices at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. She earned her B.S. in Psychology and B.A. in History of Science from the University of Oklahoma in 2020, where she founded the Minority Health Sciences Conference to empower high school students interested in health sciences. She received her Master of Public Health from Columbia University in 2022, where she was awarded the Bernard Challenor Prize and worked on writing behavioral health policies for UN Women. She also directed Oklahoma’s annual public health conference and was honoured by the University of Oklahoma as the 2024 Young Distinguished Alumni for her early-career success and contributions to public health.
Additionally, she serves on the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health Alumni Board. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.
Mareyba Fawad: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Today, we will focus on a post-CSW synopsis. What inspired you to attend CSW this year? Who did you go with, and what were you hoping to gain from the experience?
Fawad: Absolutely. I chose to attend because of my ongoing commitment to developing myself as a public health professional, advocating for women’s health, and exploring ways I can contribute meaningfully in those spaces. I always acknowledge the shoulders I stand on — the many women who have uplifted and supported me throughout my journey.
In public health, it becomes clear that the backbone of healthcare systems and social communities — especially the impact of social determinants on health — is deeply rooted in families and local communities. Women are often the driving force behind the changes happening in these spaces, constantly working to improve the well-being of others.
During graduate school, I also gained significant experience in international affairs. I conducted global health systems research with Chelsea Clinton and participated in a prestigious international affairs fellowship at Columbia University, housed within the School of International and Public Affairs.
About 25 of us were selected from various schools across Columbia, and through that fellowship, I was exposed to how different disciplines influence global systems and structures.
After graduating and moving into federal health policy and consulting, I felt called to return to my roots and advocate for Canadian voices. I grew up in Mississauga, Ontario, and much of my family still lives in Canada. I saw this opportunity as a way to represent those voices and use my platform to support others. I attended CSW with the Young Diplomats of Canada.
We are a national non-profit organization. We are also non-partisan. And so, with that, we advocate for the different voices of youth across Canada. So yes, I serve as the head delegate for our delegation of four outstanding individuals. We were chosen through quite a rigorous process, and I’m honoured to have had the chance to be a part of this experience.
Jacobsen: What went against your expectations after you went, what matched them, and what was something surprising?
Fawad: Yes, what pleasantly surprised me, in some senses, was the access to rooms. I went into it expecting that we would not necessarily be allowed to enter certain spaces, have high-level discussions, or meet with certain people within the Canadian Mission or higher-up global leaders, even at the UN. We’re youth, so we’re inherently cognizant of that in the spaces we’re allowed to occupy.
The welcoming nature of so many individuals and their desire to talk with us, to bring us into spaces, and welcome us to different dinners, events, and other settings was eye-opening and humbling. There were instances where we would walk into a room, and people would say, “Oh, you’re with the Young Diplomats of Canada,” our reputation preceded us before we even had a chance to speak. They would have questions for us and wanted to seek out our perspective — to get our insights on how the issues discussed at CSW impact young women and girls, especially from a grassroots advocacy standpoint.
I’d say that pleasantly surprised me. Something that matched my expectations was understanding that many UN structures, and even international law more broadly, are horatory in nature—they do not necessarily have the teeth for change in the way we might hope.
As youth engaged in advocacy, we know how to build momentum, but understanding that many of these systems are deeply entrenched and often feel more conversation-heavy than action-oriented was expected. Many countries are making progress, but much of it depends on shifts in political will. When political conditions align, it seems there is prioritization of women’s rights and gender justice.
However, when those issues are not of political interest, they are often pushed to the back burner by certain governments. That matched my expectations, especially when revisiting the Beijing+30 agenda and reflecting on the Platform for Action. It’s an incredible framework, and there has been movement toward its goals.
However, we’ve also seen a dangerous backslide in many countries — a regression in gender justice initiatives. So, while we talked about progress, I also went into this aware and wary that there are still significant gaps. Many countries have seen setbacks rather than gains in this initiative.
Also, generally speaking, outside these UN spaces, many youths do not know about the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. It seems idealistic—it exists in these higher-level spaces. Trying to bring that down to the grassroots level, educate peers about it, and make it a topic more commonly discussed in the media and among people our age is definitely needed.
Outside of these formal settings, I thought, “Okay, we know this is a bit of an ideal — but how do we actually apply it and move forward?” That matched my expectations regarding realizing that we should not just pat ourselves on the back but also focus on making tangible progress. But yes.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite session?
Fawad: So hard.
Jacobsen: It can be more than one. Also, who was in it?
Fawad: It was the session titled “National Women’s Machineries: Accelerating BPfA Implementation Beyond Three Decades” the ambassador to the UN from the Philippines was in attendance. I believe the Minister for Women from New Zealand was there.
There was also the UN Women Director of Policy Programme and Intergovernmental Division and someone from the EU Commission who specialized in gender equity. There was a lot of great representation—New Zealand, Egypt, the Philippines, an EU Commissioner, and then a policy director from UN Women.
That panel was incredible. It focused on becoming advocates and agents of change within the larger global framework. The panellists shared successes from programs in their countries—what worked and what did not. I found that incredibly insightful because they were honest about the wins and the gaps.
I especially respected the ambassador from the Philippines. His statements were so heartfelt that you could tell that he truly understood the issues. Sometimes, when male allies speak, it can feel like they are just repeating talking points. But with him, it was different. He seemed to genuinely get it.
Jacobsen: I was just talking to a family member today about that — the political, and I use this term advisedly, manship, of that type of advocacy, versus truly integrating it and having a realistic view of people as people advocating for change. Because there are men and women, younger and older, and people from many backgrounds who do not agree with the aspirations of the Beijing Declaration, UN Women, or even the UN.
So, gender pay equity and similar efforts have to be integrated. It is not just about saying the right things but about embodying a real sentiment and sensibility.
Fawad: Yes, it felt like he truly got it. The ambassador also brought the Chairperson for the Philippines Commission on Women .
It spoke to his priorities and demonstrated that by having someone sit beside him and say, “This is how we show up in the Philippines. This is how we do the work.” She was candid. When your boss is sitting to your right, and you’re being honest about what is going well, what is not, and how to move the needle forward, it hits differently.
I loved that session and just seeing everyone come together. A representative from Egypt also talked about their national action plan and the new one they’re releasing this year. Then, New Zealand joined in, talking about the importance of civil society and how they are working to weave it in much more moving forward. Overall, it was an incredible session.
Jacobsen: What do you think Canada’s role is in advancing gender equity globally?
Fawad: Yes, good question. In terms of what I see as Canada’s role, it continues to serve as a role model in many senses. Of course, gender equity gaps persist in Canada, as they do in every country.
However, Canada’s initiatives and missions show that these issues are a clear priority. For example, the GBA Plus model—Gender-Based Analysis Plus—provides a framework for applying six elements within organizations and thinking critically about whether we are centering these conversations in work being done across Canada.
Canada’s role is also to amplify and support the work of other countries. As a nation that seeks to be a leader in this space, it is important to hold ourselves internally accountable and use our tools and resources to support countries seeking guidance and insights. The question becomes: “What has worked for you, and how can we apply some of those strategies in our setting?”
Canada must be candid about areas that need improvement. Human psychology often leads us to focus on the positives and amplify success stories, but it would be more realistic and helpful to acknowledge the gaps and challenges as well.
We need to address the missing and murdered Indigenous women crisis. We need to talk about the fact that 75% of Canada’s healthcare workforce is women — many of whom are burnt out and underpaid.
Being honest and upfront about those realities allows other countries to look at Canada and say, “They are not getting it right in every area either, and neither are we — but we are all committed to progress.” Together, we can move toward a deeper understanding of how to improve. And yes, I’d say that is our role in a nutshell. There is more to say, of course.
Jacobsen: What made CSW69 particularly important or emotionally resonant in the current geopolitical context?
Fawad: Yes. As a Canadian living abroad in the U.S., it felt incredibly timely and important to me. When you live in the West—or just observe globally—you see the backsliding of democracies and many rights that were previously enshrined in law.
These rights were agreed upon, with extensive legal precedent behind them, and yet we are now seeing various countries renege on long-standing commitments.
This reconvening of everyone at CSW and the opportunity to talk about what is happening in our countries and how youth are feeling was powerful. It also raised the question: Where do we go from here?
Unfortunately, many individuals in positions of power seem detached from the perspectives of young women or youth more broadly. So it was valuable to have space for youth dialogue — both with peers and in wider discussions.
Many people expressed concern about what CSW will look like next year, especially given what is currently happening.Will it still be held in New York?
There is real uncertainty about CSW’s future. How are things changing? Some people even asked whether we might be meeting in Geneva in the future—maybe even in Canada or another country.
The community that has been so strongly built in New York — including many foundational NGOs that show up and offer support — is deeply rooted there. There was this sense of, “Will it look the same in the future as it does this year?”
So yes, that stood out — this question of continuity and change.
Jacobsen: It was a sense of uncertainty and foreboding.
Fawad: Exactly.
Jacobsen: How do you balance federal policy consulting with your public service and leadership commitments?
Fawad: Yes, good question. In my day job, the root of it is ensuring people have access to healthcare — and that whatever the country says in terms of, “These are the social supports and services available to you,” those supports show up for them.
Logistically, it is about ensuring that what is promised is delivered. It is not just performative. When someone tries to access healthcare within their network or region, they should not be faced with the “Oh wait, I do not have providers who will see me” or similar obstacles.
The core of my work is rooted in social justice and in supporting individuals from historically marginalized backgrounds. When I think about the work I do outside of that—youth advocacy and gender justice—there is so much overlap.
Public health is inherently political, as is gender justice and youth advocacy. Everything is political. Every single thing impacts health — whether we are talking about the MMIWG crisis and gender-based violence or housing insecurity and its impact on the mental health of women and girls. It is all cyclical and interconnected.
In that sense, it feels relatively easy to balance because it all flows. It is a single train of thought connected between everything I do and am a part of.
We are all busy with our day jobs and have a lot going on, but when I feel passionate about something, I take time to support it through my volunteer work. Using the tools, wisdom, and resources I have is important.
As I mentioned, so many people have poured into me. I have had incredible mentors. I have had access to rooms that no one in my lineage could have imagined. Being a first-generation professional — someone who can work and live independently — is something no other woman in my family has been able to do.
I do not take that lightly. I carry that weight and want to pay it forward by advocating and showing up in spaces like CSW with mindfulness and thoughtfulness. So yes, that balance comes because I understand the weight and gravity of these situations — and the privilege I have been given. I want to pass it forward.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts before we close down for today?
Fawad: I am excited to see the next generation of youth. I am Gen Z, and I am looking toward Gen Alpha — seeing how they are already watching what we are doing, already knowing so much, and starting ahead of where we even began.
That gives me much hope and excitement for the future because they look up to us. It is beautiful to know we need to show up in these spaces and advocate for them, and it is also exciting to think about where they will take all of the efforts we have begun and move them forward.
I am looking forward to that and am excited to mentor those who come after us as well. As a lot of people mentored me, so we have to pass that on.
There’s a concept called Sankofa—an Akan word often referenced in Swahili, too. It means reaching back into your own community and giving back. So, I hope to do that, and I hope they will do that, too.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you for your time today.
Fawad: Thanks, Scott.
Jacobsen: You’re welcome. Take care. Bye.
Fawad: 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): 2025/04/23
Christiana Opalaye, founder of NeverKnowlinglyBoring, talks about her art and cultural advocacy. Opalaye, originally from Nigeria and now in London, started her work to teach her children about Nigeria’s rich ethnic diversity. Her Akikitancollection, meaning “endless praise” in Yoruba, highlights African cultural heritage, especially Nigerian women from lesser-known ethnic groups. She discusses tribal fashion, facial markings, and historical traditions, such as the Calabar fattening room. Opalaye aims to expand her work internationally, bridging cultural gaps and showcasing Africa’s talent. Her art is both a fashion statement and an educational tool celebrating African identity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired the creation of this?
Christiana Opalaye: My name is Christiana Opalaye, and I founded NeverKnowlinglyBoring.
It’s all about Africa, specifically West Africa. As I told someone a few minutes ago, I grew up in the diaspora. I live in London, having moved from Nigeria, and wanted to teach my children about Nigeria. We started with the core ethnic groups in Nigeria—the Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba.
As I explored further, I realized Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups, so I began drawing pictures representing different ones. That’s how this project came about. I wanted my children to understand that Nigeria, as vast as it is, has a rich diversity of cultures, traditions, and beauty. Each of these elements is reflected in the art I create.
Today, in Diamonds Watch, we discuss the United Nations, women’s empowerment, untapped female talent, and gender equality. I decided to showcase notable Nigerian women from various ethnic groups. You have the Benin, the Yoruba, and the Kalabari. These are women that many people don’t even know about because discussions often focus on the three major ethnic groups.
My art helps bring awareness to this cultural richness. We are showcasing Africa’s untapped talent and saying, “Yes, we are here—women, we are here.”
Jacobsen: And for Akikatan, what is the origin of the name, and what does it mean as a fashion statement?
Opalaye: My brand is NeverKnowlinglyBoring, and this particular collection is called Akikitan. The name is derived from Yoruba and means “endless praise.” When I thought of the name, I thought about Africa and the endless praise Africa deserves.
I’m talking about talent—about untapped talent. Africa deserves endless praise. West Africa deserves infinite praise. Nigeria—the world needs to know Nigeria. We have started with Nigeria and West Africa and the ethnic groups within, but we will expand to all African countries. That is my next step.
Jacobsen: What are the main tribes? So, the hairstyling, the colours, and the facial makeup designs—like the stark white dots and red accents—how do those elements characterize each tribe?
Opalaye: Each tribe has distinct cultural markers. For example, let’s take the Benin people. Benin women are known for their elaborate beadwork. They use very historical, richly symbolic beads.
This is a Benin woman; you can tell by her beads, which signify royalty. From looking at her attire, you immediately know she is from Benin. Even during marriage ceremonies, they incorporate these beads into their traditional attire.
A Yoruba woman, on the other hand, is different. Let me tell you about Yoruba women. This one is a Yoruba woman. I am Yoruba myself, and my name is Tokunbo. In Yoruba culture, we have something called an Oríkì name, which is a praise name.
The grandparents usually give it as a form of endearment. Oríkì is a name used to pamper or calm a child when they are misbehaving. When someone calls you by your Oríkì, it is meant to soothe and honour you.
So, for example, my Oríkì name is Abeke, which means “to pamper.” I believe I was created to do so—to pamper. Each name has a meaning. You have Akombi, which means “the firstborn.” You have Abeke, which means someone who has been blessed. Abeke also means “to pamper.” There are many different names, each carrying a unique significance.
Another distinguishing feature of Yoruba culture is facial markings. In the past, Yoruba people had tribal marks that indicated their heritage—what tribe or family they belonged to. Although this practice has largely disappeared in modern times, these marks were critical identifiers. A Yoruba woman, for example, could be recognized by these markings.
You can see a Yoruba woman here. Then we have the Hausa woman. For example, our Honourable Minister for Women’s Affairs is from the north—she is Hausa. This represents the Hausa identity. Within the Hausa ethnic group, there are also the Fulani people. This is a Fulani woman, and you can tell from her facial markings, distinct from Yoruba markings.
A Yoruba person might have just two marks, and in earlier times, those marks could immediately indicate what part of the Yoruba tribe they were from. For instance, marks could show if someone was from Ibadan, Owo, Ijebu, or Ogbomoso. These tribal marks were essential identifiers.
Here, you see a woman from Abeokuta and a Hausa-Fulani woman. You can recognize them by their facial markings—three marks distinct in their placement. This is not just an artistic or fashion statement but also educational.
Now, let me show you another example—this is a Calabar woman. The Calabar ethnic group has a unique tradition. Before a woman gets married, she is placed in what is called a fattening room. This tradition is meant to prepare her for marriage.
By fattening, I don’t mean just weight gain. The process involves pampering—she is placed in a room, massaged, nourished, and cared for. She is not allowed to do any strenuous work. Then, just before marriage, she is adorned in beautiful attire.
This is a Calabar woman about to get married. She is wearing elaborate accessories—the headpiece, the jewelry, everything that symbolizes her cultural heritage. She looks stunning.
Every single piece of art I create has a story behind it. There is always an inspiration. That’s why all my headpieces are one-of-a-kind. I don’t sit down and overthink them. I start, and whatever comes to me, I believe it is from God.
Here, for example, is a Yoruba woman representing royalty. You can see it in the gold corals around her neck and, of course, in her headpiece—very regal.
I call these women here water maidens. In ancient times, women would go to the stream, collect water in clay pots, and carry it home for cooking and daily life. This artwork represents those women returning from the stream, ready to care for their families.
As I said, this is not just art—it is also a fashion statement. Women were created to stand out. We are unique.
Anywhere you go, as my brand depicts—Never Knowingly Boring. We are never… I am never knowingly boring. I should stand out. These pieces have great art features as well. I am currently collaborating with an interior decoration company. What they are doing is incorporating my designs into wall art.
Imagine going to the beach, wearing your fashion statement, and then, instead of storing it in a cupboard, you place it on the wall as a feature. And so, yeah. That’s it.
Jacobsen: This is not just a hat. It’s a statement on the wall.
Opaleye: It is a statement, yes.
Jacobsen: How far back do these traditions go?
Opalaye: Oh, God.
Jacobsen: Do we know?
Opalaye: No exact timeline, but thousands of years. These are traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation.
And they are still alive today. If you go to Nigeria, you will still find all the ethnic groups preserving their traditions. Some communities still practice facial markings for tribal identification.
If you visit certain villages, rather than the big cities, you will still see children with these marks, identifying their lineage and heritage.
Jacobsen: Do you notice any conceptual gaps when presenting these ideas to Londoners? Do they struggle to understand the reasoning and style behind these traditions, or do they generally grasp it?
Opalaye: In what context? Do you mean with the facial markings and similar traditions?
Jacobsen: Yes, for example, the styling and the reasoning behind certain customs—like how the fattening room tradition was part of pampering before a marital ceremony. Do they find it difficult to relate?
Jacobsen: Yes. When translating these traditions, there are always cultural gaps, and many people just can’t grasp them.
Opalaye: In one sense, people can understand that markings help identify geographic origins and tribal affiliations. Let’s use the case of the Calabar people and their fattening room tradition. Londoners, particularly women, can relate to the concept because, before getting married, we engage in pampering rituals. We go to spas and have makeup parties—it’s all a form of self-care.
But in the past, there weren’t modern spa facilities. Instead, women were taken to a designated place where they were pampered in preparation for marriage.
So, they had a special place where women would receive beauty treatments, much like a spa retreat. When I explain it this way, people understand it. But when they hear the fattening room, their initial reaction is shock—they assume it means force-feeding women. That’s not the case at all. It’s more of a pampering room, but we still refer to it by its traditional name.
There are some cultural gaps people don’t immediately grasp. For example, Nigerians have a deep tradition of adorning themselves with jewelry. Some Londoners appreciate this, but it’s not as common in British culture. Just look at the Nigerian women attending this conference—they look incredible.
My art showcases this—it sends a message to the world that women are meant to stand out. We are unique. We shouldn’t be confined to the background.
Jacobsen: It seems like a cultural gap in conceptual understanding. I believe cultures share specific universal ways of organizing themselves, but how they express those traditions varies. British culture, in particular, is very utilitarian. The language is efficient, almost excessively neutral. If you want to add vibrancy, you must put effort into it. Where are you planning to take this next?
Opalaye: Oh, gosh.
Jacobsen: London?
Opalaye: Yes. London, Nigeria, America, Canada.
So far, my work has reached these countries: America, Canada, London, and Nigeria. But my goal is for it to reach everywhere in the world. We live in a time where people travel extensively. There are so many countries people know little about.
Imagine being in a country far from home… Nigerians are everywhere—in Iceland, in the most unexpected places. But if you’re somewhere wearing this hat, someone will ask you about it. And in that moment, you have the opportunity to share your heritage—to talk about your tribe, your origins, and Africa.
That’s the most fantastic thing in the world—to represent where I come from. I am proud to be Nigerian. I want the world to know about Nigeria, West Africa, and Africa. And I want them to see that we are doing things. We have talent. We are creative.
And being African, being Nigerian—and being a woman—is powerful.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Opalaye: Thank you very much.
—
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/23
Obesity remains a major public health concern in the U.S., affecting 42% of adults and contributing to chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo discusses a study identifying McAllen, Texas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Shreveport, Louisiana, as cities with the highest obesity rates. Factors include diet, economic challenges, and lack of physical activity. Lupo highlights the role of public policies, food accessibility, and misinformation in shaping health outcomes. He also notes that obesity burdens healthcare systems and ties into broader issues like lifestyle choices and crime rates, emphasizing the need for systemic changes to combat the crisis.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: March is National Nutrition Month, and obesity remains a significant public health challenge in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 42% of U.S. adults are classified as obese, a figure that has been steadily rising over the past few decades. Obesity contributes to numerous health complications, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure, leading to increased healthcare costs and a greater burden on the medical system. Given the seriousness of this issue, WalletHub, a personal finance website, has conducted a comprehensive analysis to determine the most overweight and obese cities in the country. Joining us today is Chip Lupo, an analyst at WalletHub who has shared insights on this topic with us before. Chip, thanks for being here again.
Chip Lupo: Yes, definitely, Scott.
Jacobsen: Your latest study focuses on the most overweight and obese cities in the U.S. for 2025. It’s important to clarify that we are not using these terms in a judgmental way. Instead, we are approaching this as a data-driven analysis to understand regional health trends and the economic implications of obesity better. The study evaluates factors such as obesity rates, physical inactivity, and the prevalence of obesity-related health conditions like diabetes and hypertension.
One of the key findings is that McAllen, Texas, has the highest share of obese adults and the highest percentage of physically inactive adults. Knoxville, Tennessee, stands out with the largest proportion of adults diagnosed with diabetes, while Shreveport, Louisiana, has the highest share of adults suffering from high blood pressure. These statistics highlight how obesity and related health issues are not evenly distributed across the country but tend to cluster in specific regions. You know this country better than I do, although I am here now. What is going on in McAllen, Knoxville, and Shreveport that contributes to these high obesity rates?
Lupo: Well, Scott, if you look at not only those three cities but also many of the top-ranking locations on your list, you will notice a strong geographical pattern. Many of these cities are concentrated in the Deep South, where obesity rates tend to be significantly higher than in other parts of the country. For example, my hometown of Columbia, South Carolina, ranks 18th in the study, and similar factors are at play in many of these areas.
One of the biggest contributors is diet. In much of the South, traditional foods are often high in fat, fried, and heavily processed. While culturally rich, Southern cuisine includes staples such as fried chicken, biscuits and gravy, sweet tea, and deep-fried seafood, all of which contribute to excessive calorie intake. Additionally, economic factors play a role—many lower-income communities have limited access to fresh, healthy foods, making it more convenient and affordable to opt for fast food or processed meals.
There is also a historical and systemic health component. Many Southern states have some of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes in the country. South Carolina, for example, ranks high in heart disease-related deaths. This is partly due to long-standing dietary habits, limited healthcare access, and lower preventive care rates in some areas. The lifestyle in these regions can also be more sedentary, with fewer people engaging in regular physical activity, exacerbating the problem.
What stands out in this analysis is that obesity is not just a personal health issue but also an economic and societal challenge. Rising obesity rates contribute to increased healthcare costs, putting additional pressure on insurance providers, employers, and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Employers must account for higher healthcare expenses in their group insurance plans, and some companies are beginning to implement wellness programs or provide incentives for employees to adopt healthier lifestyles. Furthermore, dietary recommendations and public health campaigns are being adjusted to address this growing issue.
Another concerning factor is the intersection of obesity with other health risk behaviours. Smoking and excessive alcohol consumption further compound health risks, leading to even higher rates of chronic illness. When you combine poor dietary habits, physical inactivity, and substance use, you create a perfect storm for widespread health complications.
Jacobsen: So, Chip, given the economic and social consequences of obesity, what trends do you see in how cities and policymakers address this issue?
Lupo: That’s a great point, Scott. We are seeing more cities take proactive measures to promote healthier lifestyles. Some local governments are increasing access to parks and recreational spaces, improving infrastructure for biking and walking, and investing in public health campaigns to encourage better eating habits. Schools are also playing a role by revising meal programs to provide healthier options and educating students on nutrition from a young age.
One of the biggest shifts post-COVID has been the increase in dining out and reliance on fast food. During the pandemic, many people stopped cooking at home, and even as restrictions lifted, that habit persisted. Regardless of region, more Americans are eating on the go, relying on convenience foods often high in sodium, fat, and sugar. This trend is particularly noticeable in cities with high obesity rates, where the availability of fast food options far outpaces access to fresh groceries and nutritious alternatives.
The challenge is multifaceted. While individuals can make healthier choices, systemic changes are necessary to make those choices easier and more accessible. That means addressing food deserts, promoting nutrition education, and making healthy options more affordable. Until then, we will likely continue seeing high obesity rates in these cities and the associated health and economic consequences.
People are returning to restaurants, sometimes for all their meals. Fast food, in general, is not the healthiest part of the diet, although many chains are taking steps to offer healthier choices—largely to capitalize on that part of the market.
Jacobsen: And what about physical activity? Even in New York, where I am right now, there are plenty of green and open spaces. There are parks, and there are many opportunities to walk around the city rather than take transit or drive to the nearest location for a meal.
Jacobsen: What is happening on that level in terms of lifestyle choices?
Lupo: Well, many times, access to green spaces depends on where you live. Crime significantly affects whether people feel comfortable engaging in outdoor activities. Many people hesitate to go for walks, particularly in the pre-dawn or evening hours, due to safety concerns. This is especially true in cities like New York, where crime rates in certain areas can be high. That factor alone discourages many from incorporating more physical activity into daily routines.
Jacobsen: Do you find that even what people consider healthy is often mistaken? In other words, are there widespread misunderstandings about what makes a healthy lifestyle and what constitutes a healthy meal—where people believe they are making good choices, but in reality, they are not?
Lupo: Absolutely. Too many people are influenced by advertising, often without critically examining the claims being made. They see marketing campaigns that promise miraculous results from certain diets, dietary supplements, or over-the-counter medications. However, if they read the fine print or listen carefully, they would notice disclaimers stating that these outcomes are not typical. Unfortunately, people tend to latch onto these extreme cases as the norm, which leads to unrealistic expectations.
There is also a psychological factor at play. When people consume foods labelled as “diet” or “low-calorie,” they often compensate by eating larger portions, ultimately defeating the purpose. This is a common trap that many fall into without realizing it.
Jacobsen: Is the food pyramid itself flawed? Did it contribute to some of the dietary issues Americans face today?
Lupo: I would say “outdated” is probably the better word. For years, there have been discussions about restructuring the food pyramid to better align with modern nutritional science and contemporary lifestyles. The traditional model of three square meals a day is somewhat antiquated, and while it may still work for some, it does not necessarily fit today’s eating habits.
Additionally, we know much more about food composition than we did when the original food pyramid was introduced. There is increasing concern over genetically modified foods, high gluten content, and other dietary sensitivities. Food allergies are far more prevalent today than a generation ago, another factor that should be considered in nutritional guidelines. A more adaptive, evidence-based approach is needed to ensure dietary recommendations reflect scientific advancements and real-world eating patterns.
Lupo: But to your point, yes, the food pyramid definitely needs some retooling or restructuring to better align with modern society.
Jacobsen: You have three other studies—healthiest and unhealthiest cities, best and worst cities for an active lifestyle, and best and worst states for healthcare. If you can recall, what were the core findings from those that tie into this study?
Lupo: There are many correlations. Your best and worst cities for healthcare usually align with the cities where residents are most obese. These factors are interconnected.
If people don’t take care of themselves, their health will suffer, putting a strain on the healthcare system. In states like South Carolina, where heart disease and adult diabetes are prevalent, hospitals and clinics can become overwhelmed. Additionally, in many rural states with lower-income populations, healthcare systems are already underfunded, making it even more challenging to address widespread health issues. This adds another layer of complexity to the crisis.
Jacobsen: Alright, man. I think that’s it for today.
Lupo: Thank you. Take care.
Jacobsen: You too, Scott. 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): 2025/04/23
Windy Pierre, an expert in digital marketing and eCommerce, discusses how the Trump administration’s trade and tax policies impact small businesses. Rising manufacturing costs and tariffs strain SMBs, offsetting tax cuts and reducing financial stability. Consumer confidence has declined, leading to lower sales. Pierre advises SMBs to maintain financial reserves, plan long-term, and adapt to market shifts. Immigration policies affect blue-collar labor, while tariffs create limited domestic manufacturing opportunities. Overall, small business owners remain uncertain about the future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: From your experience in digital marketing and eCommerce, how has the Trump administration’s trade policy impacted small business?
Windy Pierre: America’s economy is built on the backs of small businesses (SMBs), and trade policy will most affect them. SMBs will need to spend more on manufacturing, especially if your products are manufactured outside the US. You will have to raise prices to make up for the cost. Most SMBs do not have financial reserves to run a year of economic hardship. We had three suppliers that had to increase their prices.
Jacobsen: How has tax policy with the second iteration of the Trump administration affected small business growth?
Pierre: The 2017 tax cuts will not benefit SMBs. The new tariffs will offset the benefits.
Jacobsen: Are there shifts in consumer confidence or behavior among small business customers?
Pierre: Yes, I have started seeing decreased consumer confidence and spending in Q1 of 2025. Consumer spending drops by 0.2% in January, according to Reuters. Even in our commerce businesses, I’ve seen a 10% drop in sales compared to 2024 & 2023.
Jacobsen: How can small businesses adapt under the uncertainties of the current administration? What strategies can small businesses adopt to remain competitive?
Pierre: Economic volatility creates challenges. Have a long-term plan. Start working with a great tax professional. Your business should have 6 – 12 months of reserves. Please be on the lookout for growth opportunities. You must earn your customers’ business, excellent services, and products.
Jacobsen: How has the Trump administration’s immigration and visa restriction stance altered the talent pool available to American industries?
Pierre: I don’t believe the Trump administration’s immigration and visa restrictions will affect the talent pool for white-collar workers. However, blue-collar workers will face a different issue.
Jacobsen: What policies from this administration created new marketing opportunities or obstacles for small businesses?
Pierre: The tariffs will allow a small percentage of SMBs to manufacture state-side products.
Jacobsen: Are small business owners more or less optimistic about their future under the current set of economic policies? (And why?)
Pierre: I don’t believe SMB owners are more confident about the future. SMBs hire more blue-collar workers than midsize or large companies. That’s a significant portion of industries like construction, manufacturing, and retail, where hands-on, physical labor is common.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Windy.
Pierre: 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): 2025/04/22
Hala Bugaighis, a prominent Libyan researcher, women’s rights activist, and business lawyer discusses her journey from law to civil society after the assassination of her cousin, Salwa Bugaighis. She highlights the challenges Libyan women face, including exclusion from political and economic decision-making, lack of legal protections, and societal repression. Bugaighis criticizes Western contradictions in human rights advocacy, emphasizing how global regressions empower anti-rights movements in Libya. She stresses the need for economic empowerment and resilience in activism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Hala Bugaighis. She is a prominent Libyan researcher, women’s rights activist, and business lawyer with over 15 years of experience in commercial and petroleum law. She co-founded the Jusoor Center for Studies and Development, a Libyan think tank focused on economic development and advocating for women’s economic inclusion. In 2018, she founded LEAP, Libya’s first business incubator for women.
Hala Bugaighis is also a member of the Libyan Women Peace and Security Advisory Group, working to strengthen women’s roles in peace and security processes. She frequently speaks at local and international events on issues related to economic development and gender.
So, my first question—you have been a lawyer for over 15 years. What initially sparked your interest in women’s economic issues and security? These are broad and complex topics; when someone commits to them, it often becomes a lifelong pursuit, as it has for you.
Hala Bugaighis: Thank you for the question. It is a difficult story to share.
In 2015, I was an established lawyer with a promising career at a law firm. I had excellent prospects, particularly in the commercial and petroleum sectors. However, that same year, Libya plunged into its second civil war and targeted assassinations of women became a terrifying reality. One of the victims was my relative.
She was my first cousin once removed, Salwa Bugaighis, a renowned human rights lawyer and democracy advocate. Salwa had been a leading voice for civil rights, democracy, and women’s empowerment in Libya. Although we were from different generations and did not know each other well, I met her just one month before she was brutally assassinated.
During our conversation, she convinced me to engage in civil society. I told her that I didn’t see the benefit of nonprofit work, that it was a waste of time, and that being a lawyer was fulfilling both professionally and financially. She disagreed strongly. She told me, “What a waste that someone like you, with your intelligence and skills, is not with us in the movement. We need you. We need to talk more.”
We had planned to meet again, and she was determined to persuade me. Tragically, I had an accident on the day we were supposed to meet, and I never saw her again. She returned to Benghazi, where she was brutally assassinated in her home on June 25, 2014, shortly after casting her vote in Libya’s parliamentary elections.
Her murder was a turning point. After her death, there was a chilling silence from women’s voices in Libya. She was the first woman to be assassinated in her own home during the conflict. Her words continued to echo in my mind, and I dreamt of her constantly. That moment changed everything for me. I knew I had met her for a reason. I decided to stop everything, honour her legacy, and dedicate myself fully to civil society.
]And that’s why I gave up my law career and joined the civil society movement. With the money I earned as a lawyer, I invested in Jusoor, my organization, to support its work during difficult times. That was the turning point in my life.
Jacobsen: I mean, that’s—hey, that’s tragic.
Bugaighis: I know.
Jacobsen: And regarding her murder—this happened in her home. Was it carried out by State forces or a domestic attack?
Bugaighis: To this day, we do not know who murdered her. She was on television that day, urging people to go out and vote because it was election day. She encouraged people to cast their ballots and participate in the democratic process.
And then, suddenly, we heard about her murder. There was no open investigation into what happened. The government remained silent. Even today, we cannot accuse anyone. We do not know who did it or why. It remains a mystery.
Jacobsen: Something was pointed out during one of the sessions, which had singing at the end. A South African delegate made a final two-minute comment. I believe it was an Afrikaner.
I think she was from the Sisters of Mercy. She noted that the femicide rate—globally, if not in South Africa alone—had increased significantly, somewhere between 80% and 120%. In other words, it had nearly doubled.
For a public figure like your cousin, that is not the kind of person you would typically target because such a case is more likely to be investigated with significant resources. That makes it even more likely that this was a targeted assassination. Of course, that is speculation—but it is speculation grounded in reasonable considerations.
So, a tragedy jump-started your transition to civil society. Had you heard much about civil society before that conversation or that moment? Several people at UNHQ during CSW69 over the last few days have noted that they didn’t know about “civil society”–the concept–when they were younger. They only got involved more recently.
Bugaighis: Libya is a different case. We didn’t have a civil society for decades.
Jacobsen: You didn’t even have society?
Bugaighis: Exactly. We lived under a dictatorship where everything was designed to serve the leader—the Brother Leader, as we called him.
Jacobsen: The what? The Brother Leader.
Bugaighis: Yes, that’s how we referred to him. It all changed in 2011, with the new system, the uprising, and the fall of Gaddafi. That’s when we started hearing about civil society, grassroots movements, and people regrouping for different causes.
Before that, human rights weren’t even a topic of discussion—you didn’t talk about them. So, yes, I first heard about civil society in 2011.
Jacobsen: You mentioned 2011 as the first time you heard about it. So, okay, let’s establish two points of contact. So, when you first heard about civil society in 2011, and then later, when you founded Jusoor in 2015, how was the concept of human rights viewed in Libya? How would you say perceptions have evolved over the last 14 years, or at least over the past decade?
Bugaighis: In 2011, everybody talked about human rights, democracy, and social justice. These principles were the foundation of why people took to the streets and protested against Gaddafi. It was not just about a regime change but about demanding fundamental freedoms.
These ideals were at the heart of everything—constitutional declarations, political discussions, and civic engagement for about a year. People were motivated and hopeful. This is what we wanted, what we believed in.
But then, after Libya held its first parliamentary elections, everything shifted. Suddenly, the discourse changed. The focus moved away from human rights and democracy, and we started hearing about national security as the new priority.
Jacobsen: That sounds very American. America sounds like Libya. I mean, a lot of these stories…
Bugaighis: This is our history.
Jacobsen: I know, I know. Many of these excuses—I see where this is going—are internationally common is what I’m getting at.
Bugaighis: Absolutely, yes. And in 2015, when I started, there was no discussion of human rights. It was a taboo.
Human rights were considered a Western concept that went against our social traditions. You name it—there was always some excuse.
Today, we even see international actors interfering in Libya, compromising human rights for the sake of so-called “stability.” Human rights and democracy—these principles are being sacrificed to maintain order. This is incredibly dangerous because you cannot build the foundations of stability or a new political process on the wrong principles.
And this is exactly what is happening now.
Human rights defenders are being targeted in Libya. Speaking out about these issues is once again a taboo. It is completely shut down. All the major human rights defenders have left Libya—they have been forced into exile, outcasted, and they live in fear for their lives.
Jacobsen: What does this mean for the status of women in society? And for men, how does this shape how both genders are forced into particular societal roles? People are generally less free.
Bugaighis: That’s true. Even during Gaddafi’s rule, I always say that the issue wasn’t just about women’s rights—it was about human rights as a whole. And unfortunately, this is what is happening again.
Both men and women lack basic freedoms and are forced to self-censor. These rights are now seen as privileges, something people are told they cannot even discuss.
But when it comes to women, it is even more complicated.
Historically and traditionally, women were never meant to be part of public life. Their role has always been confined to the home and small community circles. Women were not welcomed in the public sphere.
So, when women step into public life—when they speak out and/or engage in activism—it’s not just the government or authorities that react. Even society itself sees them as breaking some unwritten moral code.
There is a belief that if a woman puts herself in the public sphere, she deserves to be targeted. She deserves to be silenced—even assassinated—because she left her so-called proper place in the private sphere.
This is why it is so much more complicated for women. Libyan society still refuses to see us as part of public life.
Jacobsen: One thing that often comes up in interviews on these topics is that when an excluded group—women, in this case—steps outside their expected role, they face slurs in their native language. What are some of the common insults directed at women in Libya?
Bugaighis: Let’s start with the most polite ones.
Jacobsen: The most polite.
Bugaighis: Yes. One common phrase in Libya is, “You don’t have men in your house?” or “Where are the men?” They will say, “Where are the men in this household? How come there are women here?”—as if being present in public or speaking out means something is wrong. And then, of course, it escalates to much more immoral and degrading insults. It becomes too much. You can see from this mindset that they assume men should control their women and keep them inside the home.
Jacobsen: Oh yes, that’s exactly right. The implication is that these men have shirked their responsibility.
Bugaighis: The blame isn’t just placed on women—it’s also placed on the men for failing to “control” them.
I ask this question often because I’ve spoken to journalists who, internationally, have endured relentless harassment—not just outright violence but also sustained intimidation across different societies.
Both men and women experience this at some level. But for women, there’s an additional layer—it is typically sexualized in nature. I don’t receive that kind of harassment. I have not experienced those types of threats. That is one very stark gender distinction in the journalistic world. Would it be the same for women’s rights defenders?
Bugaighis: It is. When I briefed the United Nations Security Council, some people immediately took to social media to attack me—not for what I was saying, but for not wearing a headscarf–in Libya. On social media. A month later, a man spoke at the same briefing. The conversation around him was completely different.
Nobody questioned his morality. Nobody attacked him for his appearance. They discussed what he was saying. With me, they didn’t discuss what I was saying at all. They only discussed that I was immoral.
Jacobsen: How have you applied your business law expertise—particularly your experience in organizational founding, administration, and business acumen—to addressing the challenges of women’s security and rights protections in Libya? Where have you seen the greatest progress, and where have you witnessed the most intense pushback? One theme that has come up constantly at CSW69 is that we are in an era of pushback.
Bugaighis: The one thing that worked for me as a business lawyer is knowing how to speak, negotiate, and convince people to support me. I know how to engage different audiences, prepare them, and frame discussions effectively. These negotiation skills, which I have developed over the years, have been crucial in persuading people that I am reliable—that my voice needs to be heard and that my organization needs to be involved in decision-making.
This is very difficult for many people. I don’t know what to say about the pushback—it is a challenging time for everyone. But I am used to it. Regarding Libya, I have always felt like I was walking in a minefield. You must always be careful, study where you step, be mindful of what you say, and know when to pause or shift strategies.
I have to say this: when you look at CSW and other feminist organizations, they are heavily reliant on donors and international aid, which is understandable. But they don’t know how to function without i, which is a problem. We should be an organic movement that can work independently, regardless of funding cycles.
Of course, financial support is important. We need to get paid and have resources to carry out our work effectively. However, many organizations are in shock because they don’t know how to continue without external funding. And it’s not just about the money—it’s also about the strategies. They often don’t know what to do next when funding is cut.
We struggle with this, too—we are not immune. But we have learned when to step back when to reflect, and when to act. We have figured out how to operate in a hostile and unpredictable environment.
We worked inside Libya during the war. In 2019, when hospitals were being bombarded and everything was collapsing, we were still on the ground. Our organization was under attack, yet we continued working. We learned how to function no matter what. It is not an ideal situation, of course—no one should have to work under such dangerous conditions—but it has given us the resilience needed to navigate difficult times.
Jacobsen: In one of your speeches—not necessarily at CSW, but at a Women, Peace, and Security event—you mentioned your second cousin’s story. What was the reaction to that speech? How did the international community respond to you sharing such a personal anecdote on that platform? And what was the reaction on social media?
Bugaighis: Do you mean the reaction from the Libyan or international audiences?
Jacobsen: That’s a good question. It was more probably impactful for the Libyan audience. How was it for you?
Bugaighis: I didn’t expect the Libyan audience to react like they did to my speech. Of course, I had some slurs thrown at me here and there—it was inevitable. But those mostly came from the usual voices deeply entrenched in political games. However, the broader response was overwhelmingly positive, especially from those engaged in Libyan politics and civil society. Many people were writing about it and congratulating me for being brave enough to bring it back into the conversation. This happened in 2015, and now, nobody talks about it anymore. So, for many, it felt like a necessary reminder of something that should never have been forgotten.
International bodies like UNSMIL and others also responded positively. They began discussing it again, and some even adopted elements of my ideas into their discussions and policy recommendations. I recently met with their team, and they are actively integrating these ideas into their approach. That is a sign of real progress.
When I prepared that speech, the usual process occurred—they came to me with suggestions about what they thought should be mentioned. They don’t tell you outright what to say but offer guidance on themes they’d like you to cover.
Jacobsen: It would be nice if you said this…
Bugaighis: Exactly. But I refused. If I was going to speak, it had to be my voice. I didn’t want anyone telling me what should or shouldn’t be included.
Jacobsen: Were any of the recommendations reasonable but just not your voice?
Bugaighis: No, nobody influenced what I said. I worked too hard to get a position where I could speak my mind. I was not going to give that up for anything. Even if a recommendation was reasonable, I needed to own my words.
Jacobsen: These issues don’t exist in isolation—they are all interconnected. Women can’t have security if they don’t have economic independence. And they can’t have true reproductive choices if they don’t have security and financial autonomy. These issues are woven together.
From a Libyan perspective, this is even more complex. Coming from a Canadian context, we have our own regression. However, we also started at a much higher baseline for women’s rights. Of course, there’s still room for improvement—particularly with Indigenous women’s rights, which are a major issue. I attended part of a session on that, and I recognized some of the speakers.
However, my understanding is that the baseline for multiple issues in Libya is quite low. So, in your opinion, which ones are the most critical within the Libyan cultural context?
For example, in Canada, finance is not the biggest barrier—something like 40% of households are led by female breadwinners. The real issue is political representation—and not just symbolic changes like making parliament 50-50, but actually building the infrastructure and pathways for women to reach those positions organically so that change is institutionalized, not just performative.
In Libya, what key pivot points need to be addressed first? What foundational changes are needed?
Bugaighis: What we need is to focus more on economic empowerment. Livelihoods are critically important, especially because of the ongoing conflict. Many women suddenly found themselves as the primary breadwinners—a role they never had before. Previously, even if they had jobs, they were often government jobs with low pay and little flexibility. With the economic crisis and instability, many women must take on multiple jobs to survive.
This is not just about survival—it is also about self-confidence and independence. When women are financially empowered, they regain a sense of power and control over their own lives. This is especially important in North Africa, where historically, women have been strong leaders. But over time, things changed. Conflict, political instability, and societal shifts have eroded that historical strength.
We also need representation across all sectors. Women are completely marginalized in politics, governance, and institutional decision-making. The most shocking example is economic policymaking—zero women are in economic decision-making roles. Can you believe that? None. Zero. Men make every single economic policy and decision that affects the nation exclusively.
Jacobsen: And that’s exactly the problem, right? You were talking earlier about funding dependency, but it goes beyond that. If women aren’t part of the decision-making process, they aren’t in control of resources or economic policies.
Bugaighis: It is not just about funding or budget allocations but about who decides how the nation’s wealth is distributed. Women are completely excluded from these conversations.
Jacobsen: Inheritance laws, for example—things like that?
Bugaighis: We are not even there yet. Another major issue is the lack of legal protections for women. Women cannot move freely in the streets without fear. They cannot drive safely because they face constant harassment. Law enforcement is not supportive—the system is not designed to protect women.
Only recently have policewomen been reinstated into the force. That alone shows you how deep the institutional problems are.
Jacobsen: And then, on top of all of this, some male commentators are pushing extreme narratives—not necessarily in Libya, but in broader Arab media. Sometimes, you see it on MEMRI TV or similar platforms—where some religious figure is giving a sermon, and you hear statements like “Women who dress provocatively are responsible for earthquakes.”
It’s absurd, and it highlights a complete detachment from reality. What we are discussing here—women’s security, economic empowerment, political representation—are real, practical issues. But then, you have these voices promoting archaic and superstitious beliefs that reinforce oppression rather than addressing real-world problems.
Bugaighis: Yes.
Jacobsen: But these impractical, irrelevant distractions influence real-world policies and discussions. It’s as if women are blamed for everything.
Bugaighis: Exactly. Women wearing makeup or showing their hair are supposedly responsible for earthquakes. Yet, menos, men who are looting the country, engaging in corruption, and selling off Libya’s resources to foreign powers for military bases—those men are not blamed.
These actual crimes—stripping Libya of its wealth, destabilizing its economy, and allowing foreign interference—do not cause earthquakes or disasters. But a woman with lipstick or uncovered hair does. It’s absurd.
Jacobsen: It also derails serious conversations. People get emotionally invested in sensationalist nonsense instead of addressing real issues. It happens in North America, too—people get caught up in chasing ghosts, believing in Sasquatch, or thinking the devil is lurking behind every corner.
Bugaighis: Here, too.
Jacobsen: It’s especially prominent in American megachurch culture among evangelical and charismatic pastors.
Bugaighis: Yeah.
Jacobsen: You see these televangelists on American TV—people fainting, convulsing, collapsing on the ground in mass hysteria.
Bugaighis: Yes, having a little epilepsy, as we say.
Jacobsen: And meanwhile, people buy into the witch hunts.
Bugaighis: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: These prosperity gospel preachers will tell people with diabetes, heart disease, or vision problems to throw their medication or glasses on stage because they are “healed by faith.”
Bugaighis: Yes, yes, yes.
Jacobsen: But none of this has anything to do with practical realities. People desperate for hope are exploited. Just like in economics—where there are legitimate grievances, but instead of fixing them, those frustrations get redirected toward false enemies and illegitimate targets.
Other groups have also been delegitimized in the political economy. What you’re describing in Libya isn’t the same as in North America—different culture and historical context’s roots, but the issue feels very familiar. It’s just that you’re starting from a lower cliff, so to speak—your baseline for these struggles is different. Still, the patterns of oppression and manipulation are similar.
Bugaighis: It is even more bizarre that this still happens today. That’s what makes it more surreal. This might have happened in North America in the 1940s or 1950s, maybe earlier.
Jacobsen: Sure, yeah.
Bugaighis: Even in the 1970s, I remember similar narratives.
Jacobsen: Probably more so in New York back then. But New York and California have always been kind of holdouts—places where things change a little faster.
Bugaighis: This mentality is still deeply embedded in many societies. It remains alive in people’s minds, and with modern tools like social media, it has become even easier to target people who challenge these ideas.
Jacobsen: Absolutely. Many of these people were never politically engaged, but now they have been politically energized. That’s why we are seeing these issues resurface so forcefully today.
This underscores one of the UN’s foundational premises—that despite our geographical and cultural differences, many of our experiences are only superficially different. Structurally, they are very much the same.
Bugaighis: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: Who are the women figures in Libya making significant inroads toward women’s equality?
Bugaighis: Libyan women are doing important work. Are you asking about political figures or activists?
Jacobsen: Political figures. Because honestly, people can have parades, protests, bumper stickers, lapel pins, blog posts, interviews—even small rallies. But at the end of the day, what truly changes things are economics and politics. Those forces make human rights and women’s equality a reality.
Bugaighis: We have a congresswoman, Rabia Abouraz. She is doing well. She is in parliament and the head of the Sustainable Development Committee. She has advocated for climate change policies, women’s rights, and decentralization. She is one of the best women leaders in Libya right now. I really respect her. Honestly, she’s the only one I can think of now.
Jacobsen: How do Libyans view the West, particularly when Western nations contradict their principles? The West often preaches universalist values but fails to uphold them in practice at times. We could go down a long laundry list of contradictions, naturally.
But when those contradictions become flagrant, like under the current American administration, how are they perceived in Libya? How do the media report on them?
Bugaighis: Although this is happening thousands of miles away from Libya, Libyans notice it immediately. They see Americans questioning their country’s principles and think, “Look, even the Americans are saying the same things we’ve been saying.”
To them, it validates their perspective. They see it as proof that the West is finally realizing its contradictions.
But more dangerously, it empowers those who oppose human rights in Libya. When the so-called leaders of the free world engage in anti-democratic behavior, it reinforces the belief that Libya is on the right track—that their own restrictions and regressions are justified. They see it as proof that the West is finally waking up to reality, which, in their minds, means rolling back human rights and social progress.
Jacobsen: Women in public life. Women in private life. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals…
Bugaighis: That topic does not exist in Libya. It is not allowed to be discussed.
Jacobsen: They exist. They are there—it’s just that nobody talks about it.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/22
Oliver Morrisey is the owner and director of Empower Wills and Estate Lawyers, a leading Australian law practice specializing in wills and estate law. With 15 years of legal experience, Oliver’s sole objective is to deliver the best results for his clients, and he achieves this through a unique combination of expert knowledge, personalized service, and strategy. Michael Montgomery is a political scientist at University of Michigan-Dearborn, specializing in U.S. elections, presidential power, public policy, and philanthropy, with a background as a U.S. diplomat in economic affairs. Ben Michael is the founding attorney of Michael & Associates, specializing in DUI/DWI, assault, drug possession, and felony defense. Recognized as a Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorney in Texas, he provides personalized, high-touch legal representation with a focus on dismissals and minimizing court time. Clients receive 24/7 direct attorney access and strategic, case-specific defense to achieve the best possible outcome.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the legal and policy environment and allowance for the executive regarding the cessation of pennies from circulation ot not?
Oliver Morrisey: The power to print money lies with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, but discontinuing a particular denomination is not as straightforward as an executive order. The Coinage Act of 1965, as amended, constitutes the legal foundation for the minting of U.S. coins. The President alone does not have the power to discontinue a coin without Congress’ approval because the Constitution places the authority to regulate money in the hands of Congress. That would render any move to stop the minting of pennies a legislative matter rather than an executive action alone.
There have been discussions in the past about eliminating the penny since it is more expensive to produce than its value, but those discussions have ceased in Congress. Should Trump issue that directive, it would likely be taken to court, and the judges would most likely rule that the Treasury needs congressional approval before it can act. Should Congress approve legislation to eliminate the penny, then the Treasury could proceed, but short of that, the law remains clear.
Michael Montgomery: Removing pennies from circulation would probably require legislation. To just not mint more pennies, however, probably would not. When Canada eliminated the penny, researchers found that prices generally were rounded-up imposing a penalty on consumers.
Ben Michael: From a legal perspective, there are people who hold different opinions about whether or not the President actually has the ability to stop minting pennies. Most, however, believe that this kind of action is something that would require Congress to make the decision as they have authority over the United States Mint according to the Treasury. Those who do believe the President has the power to make this happen believe there to be some room for interpretation in the wording of the articles in the Constitution that outline this kind of authority.
Right now, we are seeing that there is a bit of debate among experts about whether or not the President has constitutional authority to have the Treasury Department cease minting pennies. The majority of legal experts, however, don’t believe that the President has this authority. The primary reasoning behind this is because in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, authority over the US Mint is seemingly that of Congress – “The Congress shall have power … to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” So, it would be the legislative branch that ultimately has the power to make the Treasury Department cease minting pennies, not the executive branch. However, there are people who do believe the President has the right to instruct this, and that’s partly due to different interpretations of the wording of the law. Some also argue that the Treasury Secretary himself has the power to cease minting pennies, and since this position is appointed by the President, then the President at least has significant influence over this kind of decision. Even so, many who agree with this position still affirm the notion that Congress would still have to be the ones to put this into law.
So, while the majority of legal experts believe the President doesn’t have the authority to have the Treasury Department cease minting pennies, the fact that there are legal experts who hold the opposite opinion means that this is not a simple issue.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21
Rebecca Dabbs, Movember’s U.S. Cancer Implementation Director, discusses the “Know Thy Nuts” campaign, which uses humour and relatability to raise awareness about testicular cancer, mental health, and men’s health equity. With tools like the Nuts & Bolts website and campus outreach, the initiative encourages men to recognize what’s normal and seek help early. Dabbs emphasizes storytelling, digital engagement, and community support. Alongside colleague Blake, she underscores the campaign’s goal to eliminate stigma and promote proactive health. Movember’s lighthearted tone supports serious aims: saving lives and empowering men to take charge of physical and mental well-being.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Rebecca Dabbs, Movember’s Cancer Implementation Director for the U.S. and passionate advocate for mental health. She is a key part of their team of issue experts and here to chat with me today about their widely recognized “Know Thy Nuts” initiative for Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. Her work raises awareness, breaks stigma, and encourages early detection through clear, engaging messaging. With a background in health communication, Rebecca supports Movember’s mission to improve outcomes in testicular cancer, prostate cancer, mental health, and suicide prevention—all critically important issues. Her storytelling helps drive public engagement, funding, and education, encouraging individuals to take charge of their health and helping to create healthier communities worldwide. Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it.
Rebecca Dabbs: Oh, I’m happy to be here.
Jacobsen: What inspired the cheeky but impactful name of Know Thy Nuts?
Dabbs: Yes, that’s a great question. Movember is a cheeky and passionate organization that has been around since 2003 and funded over 1,300 projects worldwide. We’re constantly trying to challenge outdated approaches and shake things up.
For testicular cancer and Know Thy Nuts, we wanted to encourage men to check themselves regularly in a fun, approachable way—something that feels empowering regarding our health.
Jacobsen: Was the original messaging anywhere close to this?
Dabbs: Yes. Are you asking about general health messaging around testicular cancer?
Jacobsen: I am referring to more traditional public service announcements, like PBS-style messaging.
Dabbs: So, in this space, cancer is a serious disease—and we fully acknowledge that. But I do not think we should approach it with fear tactics.
We need to be relatable. We can—and should—be playful in how we word things to engage folks. As I mentioned, it’s about empowering people to know their bodies and what’s normal. That’s at the heart of the message. If we have to say “Know Thy Nuts” to get that message across, we will do it.
Jacobsen: It works. What are some other ways you balance humour with serious health messaging?
Dabbs: All of our work leans a little more cheeky and playful. That’s the benefit of being a global organization—not just rooted in the United States. We’re active in five main markets, the U.S. being one of them.
Rather than approaching things from a purely academic or research-focused perspective, we aim to be more lighthearted and engaging when we work on our three main pillars—mental health, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer. That helps us truly connect with the communities we’re working with.
Jacobsen: How do you explain the significance of the 2024 survey findings regarding young men’s health behaviour?
Dabbs: Honestly, I am not entirely sure. There is not one clear explanation for why people are responding this way. But one thing is certain: the survey found that 74% of young men in the United States—the demographic most impacted by testicular cancer—do not even know that they are at risk.
21% of young men either don’t feel confident checking their testicles or don’t know how. 14% of young men said they never check at all. We want to change that. We want to ensure the message is loud and clear: check yourself regularly. If something feels different, contact a clinician or healthcare provider and get it checked.
Jacobsen: Have you contacted people like Kevin Hart or Will Ferrell? They could do a funny little sketch—one walks into the doctor’s office, the other plays the doctor, and they go, “Cough,” in a humorous rendition of a checkup. That would be hilarious.
Dabbs: We have not done that only because we do not have access. Would you be willing to put us in contact with some of those folks? We would love that!
Jacobsen: If I had that access, I would make it happen. Know Thy Nuts is bold, attention-grabbing, and meant to encourage men. But what exactly is the core message?
Dabbs: Yes, Know Thy Nuts is relatable across the board. We are trying not necessarily to promote clinical self-exams in a medical sense but rather to encourage men to become familiar with their “normal.” So, the next time they shower or change clothes, they take a moment to check in on themselves—feel what is normal. If something changes, they will notice and can get it checked.
Jacobsen: What is the role of digital engagement in educating men about testicular cancer?
Dabbs: Great question. Know Thy Nuts is a cheeky, memorable way of getting men to pay attention to their health, but it is just one part of the equation. We also built a website to support the campaign. We created a Nuts & Bolts site—a comprehensive online hub filled with easy-to-understand, relatable information. It is designed for men who are going through testicular cancer, supporting someone who is, or just trying to understand how to check themselves. Some infographics include images of testicles, with visual guidance on when and how to check—like in a warm shower, with steam in the background. It walks through, checking one side, then the other. It covers everything from diagnosis to treatment, life after cancer, and preventive care.
Jacobsen: How much have men improved their willingness to get regular health checkups—testicular and otherwise?
Dabbs: That is still to be determined, honestly. But the more we talk about it and raise awareness, the better we prepare the community to step into a space of self-advocacy. It ensures men know their physical and mental health and feel empowered to seek help when something is off. That is what this campaign is all about.
Jacobsen: You mentioned operating in multiple regions. While you aim for universal messaging, how do you adapt your approach in culturally sensitive areas?
Dabbs: We use generically relatable phrasing and imagery but tweak the messaging depending on the region. With digital engagement, we pay close attention to cultural nuances. In some markets, humour must be more subtle or reframed to be engaging but not inappropriate. It comes down to knowing the subcultures within each audience and building trust with them. That is how we ensure the message lands effectively. That is important to your work—inclusivity and ensuring health equity are at the forefront.
Jacobsen: What does that mean in practice?
Dabbs: Yes. That is central to everything we do. Health equity means representation—in language, imagery, and accessibility. That is why our language is intentionally not academic. It is written in a way that people can understand. The infographics help support that message because we do not want to assume everyone can read or interpret all available support resources. We back up the written information with visuals—pictures and images that reflect our working demographics. It is about making sure everyone feels seen and supported.
Jacobsen: What innovations in testicular cancer research has Movember funded that you are especially excited about—projects that show the most promise?
Dabbs: We have done quite a lot since we began funding testicular cancer projects. Since 2008, we have invested over $11 million globally. That includes funding for research, supporting educational campaigns like Know Thy Nuts, and helping men navigate life after diagnosis. In 2024 alone, we received significant donations tied specifically to testicular cancer, which tells us this issue is deeply important to the community we work with. They are tied closely to research, education, and public awareness.
Jacobsen: Do you have metrics—clicks, views, downloads of guidelines, engagement with Instagram posts or informational web pages—that indicate how far the message is reaching?
Dabbs: Yes. That is a great question. I am unsure how much of that data is internal, but I can share a general overview. We are heavily involved in five core markets: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. We have also done work in Ireland, France, and Spain. As for specific click-through numbers or site traffic data, I do not have that at hand. However, we know that our Nuts & Bolts website is one of our most trusted tools, especially during Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. Based on user feedback, 84% of people who visit Know Thy Nuts leave feeling confident that they can check themselves and stay on top of what is normal for them—physically and mentally.
Jacobsen: So, mental health alongside physical health?
Dabbs: Yes. It is hard to disentangle those two, especially in the context of something like cancer. They are deeply related—self-perceived stigma, reluctance to seek help, and the internal struggle with vulnerability—all of which impact both physical and mental health.
Jacobsen: What do we know about the mental health side specifically, especially around help-seeking behaviour?
Dabbs: I cannot say definitively why, but we do know there is still a stigma among men when it comes to reaching out—whether it is about their body or their mental health. We have all heard the cultural message that guys should tough it out. But we know that does not work—at all—regarding physical or mental health. Movember is here to challenge that narrative. We are creating space for men to take charge of their well-being holistically. Mental health is one of our three main focus areas. Whether you are feeling something emotionally or noticing something physically, knowing what your normal is—and speaking up early—can make a huge difference.
Jacobsen: What about in-person community engagement? What kind of events do you have around Know Thy Nuts or Nuts & Bolts? Pamphlets, business cards, informational fact sheets—all of that?
Dabbs: We have some fun, cheeky swag that aligns with who we are as an organization. Our main community engagement in testicular cancer is online through the Nuts & Bolts website. That is where people can interact with general information and resources. Whether they are going through it themselves, are just curious, or are supporting someone who is.
We also have a large college campus program. We have staff that work with college athletes, fraternity programs, and several Movember campus teams. This month, testicular cancer awareness is big. Our key audience here is young men, so many teams are doing tabling and activations on campus. One student dressed as a testicle! The tabling setup is a great visual for informing our core audience during Awareness Month.
College campuses are our big focus during Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. We provide those teams with printed resources, swag, and guidance for running effective tabling events. Those teams are doing the groundwork to engage young men—our key demographic—with approachable, informative conversations about health.
Jacobsen: Have you ever considered calling your personal stories and experiences “testemanials”? Some are emotionally powerful, some express relief, and others reflect, “I can continue living my life.”
Dabbs: That is a great question. I do not know if we have considered calling them “testemanials,” but we should write that down. Actually… testemanials—I love that! He’s got a heart.
Jacobsen: Thank you—trademark that! I appreciate it.
Dabbs: To highlight again: our key audience is young men—those most affected by testicular cancer. We appreciate you covering this for your audience and The Good Men Project. Along with the events and activations, we also send resources to our campus teams across the U.S. so they can educate their peers.
The stats are in the press release, but roughly 75,000 new testicular cancer cases are reported annually. The earlier you catch it, the more treatable it is. We have a bunch of anecdotal stories from Mo Bros. One guy is a 19-year-old college football player—peak health. But he did a check-in and found out he was at stage two. That is the type of story we want to communicate year after year. This is one of our core focus areas because so few men know they are at risk.
Jacobsen: That sounds like a horizontal activation layer for men’s health—it cuts across so many different issues. That brings me to another question. Regarding testimonials—classically defined—which ones have stuck with you, especially as the front-facing person dealing with media and public messaging? The stories from those with lived experience.
Dabbs: Yes. The people who have lived through it and shared their stories—those stay with you. They want to tell others what they wish they had known. And the recurring theme is the importance of knowing what your normal is—and not waiting. Not waiting for the discomfort to go away, not waiting until something else more pressing is off your radar. Taking action when you notice something is key.
Jacobsen: Outside of the humour, the facts, and the structured campaigns—what have you found works on a more personal level? It is the kind of stuff that is hard to scale but powerful individually.
Dabbs: Individual change is tough to scale because everyone is different. But something that consistently works is ensuring people have a community to lean on—whether you are navigating a cancer diagnosis, a mental illness, or anything else difficult. Finding and holding onto a support network—family, friends, or others with lived experience—can make all the difference. It helps ensure that the quality of life during treatment or recovery can be as rich as before.
Jacobsen: It reminds me of a song I have been listening to—Bill Withers’ Lean on Me, from the 1970s. Have you heard it?
Dabbs: Yes, of course.
Jacobsen: That’s the song that comes to mind for this message. What about you?
Blake: A thread runs through our work at Movember, eliminating stigma—especially in men’s health. Whether we are talking about mental health, testicular cancer, or prostate cancer, some stigmas seriously affect men and often prevent them from taking action. The overarching goal of our organization is to stop men from dying younger than they should.
Men die, on average, five years earlier than women. That statistic is driven by many of the issues we work on—and the stigmas surrounding them. So, we focus on making men more comfortable with seeing a doctor, knowing their health status, and understanding how to care for themselves. The cheeky tone of our campaigns is part of that effort. It helps remove the barriers to these conversations and makes it easier for men to talk about the things that matter most to their health. The nuance in our approach is that it is not necessarily direct or heavy-handed—it is about making important topics approachable.
Jacobsen: What I appreciate about Movember’s approach is that it is de-escalatory by nature. For example, when I attended the sixty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York, it overlapped with the thirtieth anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action and the twenty-fifth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. Nigerian Women’s Day was also during that time—the most vibrant and joyful event there.
One major theme that emerged from those sessions was that many women across the globe are feeling a sense of blowback. Part of the discourse—at least from my perspective—is being framed around gender combat, and I think some cynical actors stand to gain from perpetuating that.
But Movember’s work sidesteps that whole framework. The campaign is hopeful. It does not present men’s and women’s health as opposing priorities. It suggests that advocating for gender equity—women having access to safe, equitable reproductive care and men being able to express themselves, seek help, and live longer, healthier lives—is not zero-sum. That is the value of campaigns like Movember. I know this is a broader point, but it resonates. It shapes my thinking about storytelling, question framing, and synthesizing narratives. Whether you are working on the testicular cancer campaign or something broader is crucial.
To end on something a little lighter—Rebecca, what is your favourite song right now?
Dabbs: Oh! Right now, it is The Adults Are Talking by The Strokes. That one has been on repeat for me, too. It has that drive to it. That track helped push me through a long work session recently. I just had it looping. Pizza and that song were the only things that kept the momentum going.
Jacobsen: Adult children everywhere are talking now, and adults should listen! Anyway, I am heading out on a long trip.
Dabbs: Enjoy!
Jacobsen: Thank you—I appreciate it.
Dabbs: Bye—thank you!
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): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21
Felipe Renom, an AI engineer and chatbot specialist, focuses on AI applications in smart cities, particularly in Uruguay and South America. He emphasizes AI-driven urban planning, governance, and sustainability, advocating for a balanced approach between automation and human oversight. Renom highlights AI’s role in traffic management, predictive analytics, and economic growth while stressing the importance of high-quality data. He discusses the challenges of AI integration, the evolving role of AI in governance, and future advancements in smart cities. Comparing Uruguay and the Middle East, he underscores differences in technological adoption and infrastructure development. AI, he concludes, will drive urban progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, we are here with Felipe today. Felipe Renom is an AI engineer and chatbot specialist with expertise in smart city intelligence applications. He explores AI-driven urban planning, governance, and sustainability innovations, particularly in Uruguay and South America. His expertise spans traffic management, energy optimization, and predictive analytics, ensuring cities become more livable, efficient, and human-centric. Felipe advocates for a balanced approach to automation, integrating AI while maintaining human oversight to build trust and inclusivity. He believes AI adaptability is key to meeting the evolving demands of urban landscapes and driving the future of sustainable cities. So, the first question is: How is AI being implemented in various smart city projects? What is the range of AI integration into urban infrastructure?
Felipe Renom: It depends on each city’s infrastructure, but we start with the foundational aspects. The most basic applications include digitalization processes, such as obtaining a passport without visiting an agency or making a phone call. From there, we innovate extensively in traffic management and computer vision, such as analyzing congestion levels on specific roads to optimize traffic flow and prevent overcrowding.
We also focus on internal clients. I work with many public sector organizations that implement AI solutions internally before rolling them out to the general public. They develop infrastructure and systems that allow employees to work more efficiently, ultimately improving the quality and effectiveness of public services.
Jacobsen: Sustainability is now a major topic. People are increasingly concerned about anthropogenic climate change and human-induced environmental shifts. How is AI helping enhance the sustainability of urban environments? Urban areas are typically associated with higher pollution levels.
Renom: Computer vision is a technology that analyzes videos and images. With this, you can identify, for example, how many cars there are in a live camera feed or drone footage. This analysis helps reduce congestion by providing real-time data that can be used to optimize traffic flow and urban planning. It all comes down to data. Sustainability is also a crucial aspect, and governments in South America are investing significantly in these areas.
Jacobsen: What about traffic management systems to reduce congestion and improve mobility?
Renom: Yes, AI is heavily utilized for traffic management. Computer vision plays a significant role, but other systems are also integrated into the process. The key component, however, is data. You need high-quality, structured data to make these systems effective. Governments must invest heavily in collecting and maintaining reliable datasets before implementing smart city developments. Without accurate data, even the most advanced AI models will be ineffective. That is the foundation on which all intelligent urban solutions should be built.
Jacobsen: What about the improvement of governance structures via artificial intelligence? And how do you ensure human oversight in AI-assisted decision-making within public services?
Renom: That is a fascinating question—I love this topic because governments must prioritize it. The first step is securing high-quality data so AI engineers like me can work efficiently and produce optimal results. Governments have two options: hire consultancy firms specializing in AI or build internal AI teams within public institutions. Ideally, they should do both—engaging external expertise while also developing in-house capabilities.
Data engineers play a critical role in this ecosystem. They are responsible for gathering, structuring, and maintaining datasets that power AI models. My work depends on the quality of the data they provide. AI models, including large language models (LLMs) and AI chatbots, do not function autonomously—they require structured input and careful prompting to generate meaningful results. I see AI as a co-pilot rather than an independent decision-maker. The key is understanding how to properly prompt these models, whether running on cloud-based infrastructure or on-premise government systems. AI should be a tool that enhances governance rather than replacing human decision-making.
Jacobsen: Now, urban infrastructure is important. The integration of AI into urban infrastructure comes with challenges despite its promises. What are the primary challenges of AI integration into urban centers? And on the positive side, what are the economic benefits for smart cities when AI-driven solutions are successfully implemented?
Renom: All right. We talk about systems, we talk about AI, we talk about AI engineers, but now we need to talk about citizens and people. People also need to be prepared to adopt artificial intelligence in smart cities. Some older individuals in society naturally show more resistance to AI and prefer traditional, old-school solutions. However, younger generations—like myself, as I am 26—tend to embrace AI much more because it is faster and eliminates unnecessary steps. For example, instead of visiting an agency in person to book an appointment for a passport, AI allows users to complete the process seamlessly online. That is why I believe people are a critical part of this equation.
Regarding economic growth, AI is playing a crucial role in shaping the global economy. If you look at the stock market, technology and AI-driven companies have experienced tremendous growth in the past couple of years. A prime example is NVIDIA, which has seen a massive surge in stock value. NVIDIA is the leading provider of GPUs for AI companies, making it a symbol of AI innovation in the stock market. Their growth reflects the increasing investment and confidence in AI technology. By analyzing market trends, we can see where we are now and predict where we are heading in the coming years. From an economic perspective, AI is a major growth driver, not only because it is a hot topic globally but because financial markets are already showing evidence of its long-term impact.
Additionally, electronic payments are another technological advancement that contributes to economic growth. While not strictly AI, digital transactions have revolutionized how people conduct business, reducing the need for physical cash. This shift has been a game-changer. AI will continue to drive economic expansion—not just because it is trending but because global financial data indicates that AI is directly linked to economic progress.
Jacobsen: What about human decision-making as an oversight in AI integration and the maintenance of a human- or people-focused smart city rather than one overly reliant on surveillance, automation, and similar technologies?
Renom: What exactly do you mean by a people-focused smart city?
Jacobsen: One where the city is designed to cater more to the needs of the citizens rather than overemphasizing surveillance or minimizing human intervention at key points through automation.
Renom: All right. I think it isn’t easy to develop truly people-focused artificial intelligence systems, such as chatbots, because of the current state of AI technology. Right now, it is challenging to deploy AI solutions directly to end users because chatbots still have the potential to generate inappropriate or incorrect responses. This risk requires a high level of caution.
AI should first be deployed for internal users, such as government employees or public agency staff, rather than the general public. There is a significant risk when AI interacts directly with end users because people often try to manipulate AI systems, and AI frequently falls for these tricks.
A well-known example of why such precautions are necessary is Chevrolet’s chatbot incident. Chevrolet launched a chatbot, and someone tricked it into agreeing to sell a car for $1. The company had no choice but to honour the sale, resulting in significant losses. This case illustrates why businesses, governments, and other institutions must be extremely careful when deploying AI systems to the public. If AI is not properly safeguarded, the consequences can be severe.
Jacobsen: For those who may not be familiar with predictive analytics, what is it? How does it apply to urban development, and how does it help city planners make data-driven decisions?
Renom: All right. First, let me explain predictive analytics. It is a branch of AI that includes machine learning, which analyzes historical data to forecast future trends. Machine learning learns from past patterns and adjusts to minimize prediction errors. That is why training an AI model teaches it to recognize mistakes and improve over time.
A simple example is ChatGPT. When you input a question or prompt, ChatGPT predicts the next word in a sequence based on the context of previous words. It keeps generating words one after another based on probability, which is a fundamental example of predictive analytics in action.
Predictive analytics is widely used in finance in practical applications. For example, Yahoo Finance provides historical data on stock prices, and AI models can analyze that data to predict future stock trends. However, this concept applies to countless industries.
In the public sector and smart city development, predictive analytics can forecast energy consumption, estimate municipal budgets, or anticipate infrastructure needs. However, one issue I see is that governments are investing heavily in AI but sometimes overlook the importance of machine learning, which plays a crucial role in data-driven decision-making. Machine learning offers different types of solutions that AI alone does not provide, and it should not be skipped in the development of smart city initiatives.
Jacobsen: If you compare the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region with Uruguay, what are some common challenges in building smart cities? What might be some unique challenges in each context? What are the similarities and differences?
Renom: All right. I visited the Middle East in 2022, and I noticed incredible growth. I was in Doha, Qatar, and they are far more advanced than we are here. One of the major challenges they face is traffic management, along with military-related technologies. Many military advancements can be implemented and optimized using AI and machine learning.
If I compare Uruguay to Uruguay, we have significant work to do when it comes to smart city development. One of the biggest challenges here is traffic—both car traffic and public transportation. Road congestion increases as more vehicles are sold, but our infrastructure is not keeping pace with this growth. Addressing these issues should be a priority.
Jacobsen: If you were to project forward a decade, how do you see smart cities progressing? I take into account the fact that AI is becoming more sophisticated at a rate beyond exponential. So, 10 years chronologically is not just a regular decade of development. In historical terms, it could be the equivalent of a century of progress compressed into 10 years.
Renom: Yes, we will see much more advanced smart city technologies, but we will not be looking at futuristic cities with flying cars—no way. We will certainly be in a much better position than we are now, but there will still be much work to do.
Cities will be significantly more automated and focused on user experience. Self-service infrastructure will expand, with fewer human interactions and more interactions with AI-driven systems. People will engage with machines and automation much more than they do today. That is the direction we are heading in over the next decade.
Jacobsen: Felipe, thank you very much for your time today. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I appreciate your expertise.
Renom: 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): 2025/04/20
Christy Harst, an influential voiceover actor and advocate for gender equity in media, founded the Building Doors campaign to create opportunities for women in male-dominated industries like sports, automotive, and tech. After years of effort, she discovered systemic barriers that kept women out of sports promo voiceover roles. Determined to change this, she launched Building Doors, revoicing traditionally male-led ads and engaging brands to commit to diverse casting. Her campaign gained traction, influencing companies like Valvoline and the Cleveland Cavaliers. She aims to reshape industry norms through advocacy, partnerships, and data-driven strategies and increase female representation in voiceover.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Christy Harst. She’s an influential voiceover actor and a passionate advocate for gender equity in media. For many people in their teens and early thirties, one of the most recognizable voiceover performances is Cortana, the AI assistant in the Halo video game franchise and Microsoft’s virtual assistant. However, the person behind that voice is Jen Taylor. While Christy is not the voice of Cortana, she is a powerful force in the voiceover industry, especially in advocating for more opportunities for women.
As the founder of the Building Doors campaign, Christy champions equal opportunities for women in traditionally male-dominated industries, including sports, automotive, and tech. With over a decade of experience in voiceover, she has collaborated with major brands such as Valvoline, the Cleveland Guardians, and the Cleveland Cavaliers, working to promote diverse casting practices. Her innovative approach includes revoicing advertisements to highlight female talent and challenge longstanding industry biases. Through her advocacy, training webinars, and media engagements, she has established herself as a leader in pushing for greater inclusion in the voiceover industry. Thank you for joining me.
Christy Harst: I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: So, what inspired the launch of the Building Doors campaign?
Harst: I’ve been doing voiceover work for about twenty years. Before that, I was a college athlete and a head varsity coach, and now I’m a mother of two kids, ages 10 and 12, who drain my bank account with all their various sports activities. We are a sports family. About five years ago, I merged my passion for voiceover with my love for sports. My goal was to voice for male-dominated sports, specifically promo work.
If you’re unfamiliar with promos, they are the voiceovers you hear on networks like ESPN or Fox Sports announcing upcoming events. For example:
“This Sunday, watch Rory McIlroy take on the competition at Pebble Beach live at 11 AM.”
For years, I did everything industry professionals told me to do. I sent cold emails, made cold calls, and experimented with creative marketing. I wrote, produced, edited, and voiced fan videos for the Cleveland Browns and the Cleveland Guardians when they changed their names from the Cleveland Indians. I put my work out there in every way I could, trying to stand out and break into the field.
Despite my efforts, I kept facing the same problem—no real access to these opportunities. I spent money on multiple workshops, working with coaches, recording professional demos, and undergoing extensive training. Yet, I wasn’t seeing any return on my investment. The industry wasn’t opening its doors to women in sports promo voiceover.
During an online workshop with a prominent promo agent in Los Angeles—a woman—I finally asked the question that had been weighing on me:
“What are my chances? I’ve been trying for five years. I’m doing everything people tell me, and it’s not working.”
Her answer was blunt:
“Yes, it’s because you’re a woman.”
She explained that the lack of opportunities wasn’t due to a lack of talented women trying to break in. Women producers and copywriters who work for major brands on freelance projects actively try to include female voices in their campaigns. However, when those projects reach the final decision-makers—typically middle-aged white men—a male one replaces the female voice.
That was when I realized I wasn’t just facing rejection—I was facing an institutional barrier. Women in voiceover weren’t just underrepresented in sports promos; they were being actively removed from them at the highest levels of decision-making. That realization led me to launch Building Doors to create tangible opportunities for women in sports voiceover and beyond.
And so, she encouraged me to make my noise. She said, “Go make your noise.” I was upset and frustrated and wondered if I had wasted the last five years of my life. All the money, all the time, all the creative energy—was it all for nothing?
I realized I had two choices in front of me. Either I could give up and focus on my commercial, narration, and e-learning voiceover work, or I could recognize that all the clichés about women knocking down doors and kicking down doors didn’t apply to me—because there was no door for me. So, instead, I could partner with women worldwide and build one. And that’s exactly what I did.
This workshop and revelation happened in February. Two and a half weeks later, I decided to launch the Building Doors campaign on March 1 for Women’s History Month. I called women I knew and researched other women around the world, and together, we revoiced scripts that were originally recorded by men in traditionally male-centric industries—not just sports but also alcohol, cars, gaming, and construction.
The campaign took off beyond my expectations. I intended to make a few posts, but it turned into something bigger. The response was overwhelming, and it became clear that the campaign had struck a nerve. It started gaining traction and developing a following, so much so that I could have a face-to-face conversation with the Chief Marketing Officer of Valvoline Instant Oil Change.
Valvoline has a female CEO, CFO, and CMO. When I spoke with her, she got straight to the point. She admitted, “Until Building Doors, we never viewed voiceover as an opportunity for diversity. We always just did the status quo. We’d say, ‘Here’s this guy,’ and that was it. Let’s have the guy voice it.” They had been focusing on putting more women in front of the camera, but they hadn’t made the connection to voiceover. She told me that because of Building Doors, Valvoline would now require their ad agency to present an equal number of male and female voice talents when pitching campaign ideas.
That moment was a huge milestone for me—it was a door built. That’s when I fully realized what this campaign could become and the kind of real change we could create.
Jacobsen: What are some practical tools to build doors and break down old ones? And separately, what actions are symbolic—emotionally meaningful but not necessarily pragmatic in moving things forward?
Harst: To answer your first question, Building Doors is about starting conversations directly with brands.
It’s not about attacking brands for what they haven’t done, but rather about showing them the value—financially and image-wise—of including more women both in front of and behind the camera.
For example, did you know that the NFL’s fan base is over 50% women, yet 85% of the Super Bowl commercials are voiced by men? There’s a clear disparity there. So, when I meet with a brand, my goal is to get them to commit—just like Valvoline Instant Oil Change did—to auditioning an equal number of men and women for any commercial, even non-broadcast spots.
When a brand takes our pledge on the Building Doors website, they commit to auditioning men and women. That means they will hear female and male voices when they sit in a conference room reviewing ad campaigns. Maybe they’ll choose the woman because she’s the right fit for that campaign—maybe they won’t. But even if she isn’t selected, she is heard in a space she previously wouldn’t have been.
Then what happens? Three months later, six months later, a producer or copywriter working on another project will remember, “Hey, that woman we heard in the conference room months ago—she’d be perfect for this!” That’s how we create opportunities for women where they didn’t exist before. We’re not just giving women a chance to audition; we’re shifting the casting culture.
I firmly believe that now, more than ever, people are searching for authenticity and community. They want to connect with like-minded people about work, life, or family. I want to think that Building Doors is that kind of community, even for people who aren’t in voiceover.
At its core, Building Doors is about ensuring voices are heard in spaces where they’ve been excluded. So when someone supports the campaign, I hope they engage with our content—sharing, tagging brands, amplifying the message. When a woman revoices a commercial originally voiced by a man, we want brands to take notice. But beyond that, I hope people find a sense of belonging in what we’re building.
Voiceover is already a niche industry. What I’m trying to do—advocating for women in sports and male-dominated branding—is a niche within a niche. And that’s why I hope women outside of voiceover—women working in male-dominated fields everywhere—see what we’re doing and feel inspired to do the same in their industries.
Here’s a real example. My best friend works in the insurance industry, which is also male-dominated. She just returned from a conference last night, and she told me that every networking event happened in bars and happy hours over three days. She was one of the only women there, navigating an all-male environment.
My best friend was super excited because a woman in her industry decided that, for one of their future industry conferences, they’re going to host a women’s tea—a gathering where all the women in insurance can come together, share their experiences, exchange stories, and build connections with their female peers. She’s so excited about it because something as small as creating a dedicated space for women in a male-dominated industry can make a huge impact.
There are so many opportunities to set an example of how tiny changes—small micro-adjustments—can produce big results. I’m not trying to change the entire world with Building Doors; I’m trying to change my world—my little world. I’m focused on making improvements in my industry, and I hope that by doing so, I will create a ripple effect that reaches women in other fields.
Jacobsen: Do you find that tech or automotive advocacy differs from sports advocacy? Or, since we’re talking about voiceover, is it all similar? And how has your partnership with Valvoline unfolded? Is it strictly about commercials, or does it extend to broader ad campaigns and promos? Are they partnering with various industries through voiceover, or is it more targeted?
Also, when negotiating with different brands and industries, do you find the conversation dynamics at the table similar?Or do different industries have distinct language, personalities, and approaches to these discussions?
Harst: There are commonalities, but each industry has its quirks. I started Building Doors over a year ago, and I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had since then.
For example, when I was trying to get to Sportsnet—the #1 sports broadcasting network in Canada—I had to speak with the creative director. It took me about four Zoom calls to finally get a face-to-face meeting with him. But to get a meeting with a Super Bowl-winning NFL franchise? That took me nine calls.
So I have many conversations, and I’ve noticed three main reactions when I bring this issue to companies:
- “Do we need this, Christy?”
- They’ll say, “I hear women on the radio constantly. Doesn’t Erin Andrews already broadcast live from the NFL end zone? Didn’t the Red Sox hire their first female play-by-play announcer? So do we need this?”
- “This is great! Love it. Applause… but nothing more.”
- They’ll tell me, “I love what you’re doing! Wonderful. Fantastic.” Then, that’s it: no follow-up, no action—just verbal support and a pat on the back.
- “I see the problem, and I want to help.”
- This is my favourite response. Some people say, “I agree that more needs to be done. How can I help you?” I’ll ask, “Can you make a public statement supporting this mission? Can you post something online to show that your brand is aligned with this initiative and that you’re committed to hiring more women or listening to more women?” And they’ll say, “Absolutely, no problem.”
It’s so interesting—when I look at all the brands I’ve reached and the face-to-face conversations I’ve had, I’ve only gotten there because of men. Why? Because there aren’t enough women in leadership positions.
That’s the reality. There aren’t enough women in executive roles for me to make those direct connections. Instead, I have to go through multiple levels of men before I can even get to the decision-makers. And that’s exactly why Building Doors exists—to help change that dynamic and create more pathways for women to rise into leadership positions.
Don’t get me wrong—amazing women have helped me get some of these calls and guided me along the way. But by and large, the people who have committed to supporting the brand after hearing about it are men. Most of the connections I’ve had to make to reach these brands have been through men in leadership positions.
So, going back to those three types of responses I typically get—the first one, where people ask, “Do we need this?” misses the forest for the trees. They point to one example of a woman in a prominent sports broadcasting role and act as though that means the problem is solved. The second response—”I love what you’re doing! This is great!”—isn’t as dismissive, but it isn’t helpful beyond acknowledging the larger issue. The third response—where people want to help—is the most useful.
Jacobsen: But what kind of support do they typically offer? Is it job opportunities, advocacy, or something else? We get a public quote—they give you a statement, and it goes on the website. Great. Shared support.
But do they go further? Do they offer access to their social media platforms? Because, let’s be real—if we’re talking about Sportsnet or any major franchise, their social media following is massive. And their audience isn’t just casual Facebook scrollers—fans who are emotionally invested in the Rams, the Raiders, or whatever team they follow. So when these brands show support, what does that look like?
Are they actively advancing this initiative? Or is it just a symbolic endorsement with no real action behind it?
Harst: That’s the challenge—we’re not quite there yet regarding widespread, active brand engagement. However, I will say that the Cleveland Guardians—through their nonprofit arm—reshared our post along with their quote of support, which was incredible. The Cleveland Cavaliers have been amazing.
The Cavs invited me to collaborate with them on creating an in-house roster of male and female voiceover talent, which is huge. They also invited me to be a panel speaker at their Women’s History Month event, another incredible step forward.
Additionally, they’ve offered to share content on social media—not through the Cavs’ main account, but through their Empower initiative. Empower represents all the women working across the organizations owned by Rocket Mortgage, including the Cleveland Cavaliers, the Cleveland Monsters (NHL), and the Cavs’ G-League team. The support from Empower has been fantastic, as it highlights women in all roles—whether it’s social media managers, lawyers, or executives—across these teams.
When I think about moving forward with brands, public support is great—and if you scroll through our social media or check our website, you’ll see approved quotes from various organizations. But I want to take it further.
I want them to go beyond statements. I want them to take the pledge—to publicly commit to auditioning an equal number of men and women when casting. I want them to partner with us, not just in words but in action. That could mean sponsoring our new podcast, which is launching soon, or supporting our Instagram and LinkedIn Live events this month.
Because, honestly, that’s what a true partnership looks like. It’s not just saying, “We support you,”—it’s showing up, investing, and helping push real change.
I would say that what they’ve done is a true partnership. However, one of the things becoming increasingly clear—from both my research and external data—is that brands are leaving billions of dollars on the table by not including more women in front of and behind the camera.
Billions.
Women have global purchasing power at an overwhelming scale. I believe—and don’t quote me on this because I’m not certain—but the statistic suggests that women control 80% of global household spending. That means women are researching and selecting insurance policies, choosing their cell phone carriers, deciding which sports camps their kids attend, and—if they’re a sports family—choosing season tickets, team merchandise, and overall brand loyalty.
Yet despite this, 85% of Super Bowl commercials are voiced by men. And when you break it down further, the numbers are even worse. Zero of the insurance commercials, zero of the alcohol ads, zero of the car ads, and zero of the cell phone ads were voiced by women.
Brands are missing out on billions simply by failing to be more inclusive. That’s why I believe huge partnership opportunities still need to be explored.
I will say this—I am one person. I am this campaign. That’s it.
Jacobsen: To quote Noam Chomsky to David Frum, ‘I am just one person. I am not Amnesty International.’
Harst: I don’t have the resources of a massive nonprofit. Mine is Building Doors.
On top of running this campaign, I have two kids, a life, and a lot going on. But right now, I’m working hard to find funding sources because I know that if I could hire even a small team, I could focus on what I do best—reaching out to brands, advocating for change, and finding the best partners to help advance this mission.
I don’t have as much time as I’d like, but we’ve accomplished much in just a year. That said, for 2025, I want to 10x the awareness of this campaign outside of the voiceover industry—and that’s why I’m so happy to be speaking with you today.
And ideally, by 2026, we’ll be going global.
Right now, Building Doors is represented in seven countries. Still, I am forming a group called Global Builders. These women in different countries are voice actors who will spend 2025 laying the groundwork for Building Doors in their regions. The goal is to raise awareness within their local voiceover communities and adjacent industries so that 2026 they can launch their own Building Doors campaigns in their native languages.
So ideally, by 2026, we’d have:
- Building Doors Egypt
- Building Doors Mexico
- Building Doors UK
- Building Doors Turkey
The goal is to have more representation of women in voiceovers.
Jacobsen: But beyond that, there’s another issue creeping into the industry—the encroachment of AI on male and female voice actors. Does AI replace voice actors? Does AI diminish opportunities for women and men? Does AI pose a threat to any of these efforts, or could it potentially provide new strategic opportunities—a way for ordinary women who may not have the CEO, CFO, or CTO connections to gain greater access?
Harst: You’ve opened a big box by asking about AI. AI is a huge disruptor in the voiceover industry.
I used to be the official e-learning voice for Delta Faucets’ high-end product line, Mars, the chocolate company, and Sherwin-Williams. I can tell you firsthand that AI took some of my jobs. It’s already happening.
There are voice actors right now who, if they can afford it, are working with AI models to clone their voices. They offer clients a choice:
“Oh, you want my voice? But do you want it fast? Here’s my AI-generated voice option.”
That’s becoming a real business model for some people.
But the bigger issue—the one I keep hearing in conversations with brands—is that companies are getting frustrated with AI voice submissions.
I recently spoke with a Major League Baseball team executive, and he told me:
“I want to work with real people. I want to pick up the phone, call someone I know and trust, and get things done. I don’t want AI in my auditions. But that’s what I’m getting—AI-generated auditions from people trying to make a quick buck.”
This is the problem AI is creating in voiceover. It’s flooding the industry with inauthentic, synthetic voices while brands still want to work with real, trusted professionals.
Building Doors hopes to connect brands with real, passionate talent—not just based on voice quality but on authentic expertise.
For example:
- If a woman is passionate about tech, we want to highlight her.
- That should matter if a voice actor is a die-hard Red Sox fan.
- If someone worked at Ford for 40 years, retired, and is now a voice actor, she should be the one narrating Ford’s e-learning because she knows the product.
We want brands to see beyond the voice—to recognize the value of lived experience and genuine passion.
The issue is that society still assumes women don’t belong in certain industries. They assume women can’t be real baseball, real football fans, or knowledgeable about tech, cars, whiskey, and cigars.
I hear from women all the time:
“I don’t want a pink-logoed hat and a wine night at the stadium. I want to go to the game and have access to the same experiences male fans do—because I’m just as into it.”
Oversized pretzels, big beers, and significant weekend spending debt. That’s all part of the fan culture, and women are part of that culture, too.
Brands need to wake up to that reality—and Building Doors is here to help them see it.
When you go to an auto show, Comic-Con, or any major industry event, women don’t want some pink-washed version of the experience that brands think defines them. They want to be included as they are.
It’s so important to focus on authenticity. Take me, for example—I told you I’m a former college athlete. My family is deeply into sports. My kids play sports, my husband plays soccer, and our family vacations are basically staycations across Ohio, where we travel the state watching professional sports.
There’s a knowledge and passion that a voice actor brings behind the mic when they genuinely love what they’re talking about. That’s why female voice actors are fighting hard to be heard in these spaces where they have traditionally not been invited.
We are just as passionate and knowledgeable, and in many cases, brands could actually improve their bottom line by including more diverse voices.
I’ve been collecting data for a while now, and I’m still working on this study, but I can give you some preliminary insights.
Give me a second—let me pull this up… yes.
I have about 100 client responses so far, and here are the key takeaways:
- Do you notice when a brand uses a female vs. male voice in ads?
- → 88% say yes.
- How important is it to you that a brand aligns with gender inclusivity?
- → 57% say it’s extremely important.
These are real numbers that brands need to consider when deciding who will be in front of and behind the camera.
Jacobsen: Many large corporate entities promote people who work their way up using a specific strategic mindset that tends to be singularly focused. These aren’t people working forty-hour workweeks; they specialize in a narrow, repetitive skill set they’ve mastered through endurance, consistency, and industry-specific expertise.
So, regardless of the campaign, these executives will primarily ask you: “What is the value-add? How will this help our bottom line?”
Suppose the data suggests that brands miss out on 35% of their total market when its 85% men but half the market is women. In that case, that number might be off, but let’s assume it’s a significant chunk—and that’s women who want to engage with the industry and contribute capital to it; how do you make that sale?
Beyond simply saying, “You’ll make more money,” what’s the strategic and targeted way to prove they can make more money? If they can say, “We’re doing the right thing by hiring more women,”—but at the same time, they’re also making an economically sound decision—how do you strategically sell that to them?
Harst: I think it’s critical to avoid opinion-based arguments and focus on data. That’s why I spend so much time researching, collecting data, and conducting polls.
When you can visualize a statistic and show them a picture of the gap, it makes a compelling case. For example, I’ve been working with AI to generate a visual for a stat I recently collected:
- 73% of male voice actors report receiving five or more promo auditions in the past year.
- Only 27% of female voice actors report receiving the same.
I want to take a baseball stadium and highlight 27% of the seats in the worst sections—while the remaining 73% are in the premium seats. That’s a clear visual of the imbalance.
The more I can back up personal experience—not just mine, but those of countless women in the industry—with hard data on lost revenue and missed opportunities, the more I can convince brands that hiring more women isn’t just ethical—it’s profitable.
Jacobsen: Christy, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Harst: Cool. Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/20
Marina Shepelsky is the CEO, Founder, and Lawyer at Shepelsky Law Group, specializing in U.S. immigration and family law. An immigrant herself, she is committed to legalizing people, keeping families together, and ensuring dignity in divorce proceedings while protecting children’s interests. Shepelsky discusses the challenges Ukrainian immigrants face due to the Russo-Ukrainian war and shifting U.S. policies. With the U4U program closed, many Ukrainians remain in legal limbo, uncertain about asylum eligibility and TPS extensions. Shepelsky highlights barriers to asylum, investment, and work visas, as well as fears of returning to Ukraine for consular processing. She emphasizes the urgent need for clearer immigration protections for displaced Ukrainians.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has the Russo-Ukrainian war affected Ukrainian immigration?
Marina Shepelsky: We do not see any NEW Ukrainians anymore as the U4U program is now finished and closed for new incomers. The rest of the Ukrainians are panicking and unsure what to do. Everyone is waiting to see what Trump will do with the TPS program and with the U4U parole status for the people who came in already after the TPS cutoff (Fall 2023) date. Thousands have come in after that cut-off date.
Jacobsen: What legal challenges face Ukrainian refugees with current U.S. immigration policies?
Shepelsky: Everyone from Ukraine is in limbo. Many are calling to consult about Asylum, but the legal system in US does not allow for Asylum when there is no past persecution based on race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinion or social group, and proving potential future persecution is tough. Also, they lived in third countries for months prior to coming to the U.S., which is another hurdle to asylum as they could have potentially asked for asylum there according to the current Trump era of asylum laws. Although many people DO have political opinions against Zelensky and the current state of horrible corruption in Ukraine that worsened during the war, they are afraid to express is publically (requirement for filing asylum based on political opinion) as they are worried of being deported back to Ukraine and dealing with the fallout, plus still have families there that can suffer the consequences of their opening their mouths right now while the clients are in US. They don’t want their families to pay for their freedom of speech in US.
Jacobsen: What protections exist for U.S. asylum and refugee laws for Ukrainians?
Shepelsky: Asylum
E-2 Some people can file for Investment Visas E-2 if they open a business in US, but the capital to start a business to be eligible is quite high (over $100K), plus many refuse to leave the US as the legal regulations require because their U4U is not a real status from which they are allowed to change status within the U.S.
O-1 or L-1 Work Visas. These are temporary and same issue with having to leave the US for a consular interview for these.
EB-1 and EB-2 for highly talented accomplished professionals, but also would require many Ukrainians to leave the US for a consular interview abroad and they are very afraid. Many cannot prove their accomplishments since the war has continued.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/19
Grace Torrente coordinates with the International Network of Journalists with a Gender Perspective, advocating for gender equality, media representation, and protecting women journalists facing violence. Alicia Oliver is a journalist and researcher analyzing the rise of far-right movements in Europe, misinformation, and political polarization, focusing on gender rights and democracy. She has a specialization in historical memory, anti-gender rhetoric, and the impact of authoritarian regimes on democracy and women’s rights. Montserrat Sosa is a human rights advocate and expert on political movements, specializing in historical memory, anti-gender rhetoric, and the impact of authoritarian regimes on democracy and women’s rights. Grace Torrente discusses the unique risks women journalists face, including gender-based violence. Alicia Oliver and Montserrat Sosa examine rising far-right European movements, misinformation, and anti-gender rhetoric. They compare historical authoritarianism to modern political trends, emphasizing the fragility of rights, the dangers of denial, and the ongoing fight for equality.
Grace Torrente: My name is Grace Torrente. I am part of the Collegial Coordinators. I’m one of the coordinators of the International Network of Journalists with a Gender Perspective.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, about journalists, what are women’s primary gender-specific challenges?
Torrente: Wow, this is a good question with a long answer. I’ll try my best. The challenges women face are different because they are not only at risk for being journalists but also for being women. So, there is a double burden—they carry it in their bodies and actions when they report and do their work. There is violence, and the attacks are directed at them—not just their work but their bodies, their voices, the way they act, and even their families. That violence extends to their families, including their children. So, yes, the risks are different, and that is why we are raising awareness and trying to talk about it. We want to address this issue and amplify the conversation. It is a conversation about what is happening, why the risks are different, and what must be done to achieve equality at some point.
Jacobsen: What was brought up in the session was Franco’s Spain. Another example that comes to mind is Romania under Ceaușescu. There are numerous figures in history—particularly in the 20th century—who explicitly sought to restrict the lives of women simply for being women, often using justification or cover for it. For example, under Ceaușescu, Decree 770 controlled reproductive freedom and choice. Doctors were required to monitor women to ensure they were having a certain number of children and to check whether they were pregnant. In Franco’s Spain, I believe someone noted that if a woman became pregnant, it was not just the temporary end of her job—it was the end of her career, period. This was the elimination of a woman’s professional life based on an assigned gender role in society. It wasn’t a matter of personal choice, where someone decided this was the life they wanted and pursued it. The state enforced it. Can you highlight similar contexts regarding the history of Spain and women journalists?
Torrente: This is not my area of expertise because I am not from Spain; I am from Colombia and Latin America. She can answer better than I can.
Alicia Oliver: My Spanish is worse than everyone’s.
Jacobsen: What is the history of women journalists’ repression in Spain?
Oliver: Okay, I was explaining the context and rise of the far-right movement in the European continent. Extreme rights are growing in Europe right now. I don’t know if that’s of interest to you. It doesn’t matter. The only thing you must understand is that being there is essential. Ten years ago, anti-gender groups were almost invisible. But now they represent the third political force in the European Parliament, and in the case of Spain, they are also the third group in the Spanish House of Representatives. They are very well connected with the population. I don’t know why I’m looking at him; I’m looking at you. They are very well connected. They are very well connected with a public that is depoliticized. With a public that is polarized and depoliticized, yes, that doesn’t have political content behind it. They are also fed by misinformation and fake news. They are very well connected with most people, have no information, and are not interested in politics. They are not politically aware.
Jacobsen: Politically apathetic.
Oliver: Politically apathetic, exactly. So they have many tools to get to them. Ten years ago, they were minorities, and it was frowned upon to agree with them. But now, not anymore. And groups of the traditional right agree and rise to power, individually or as a shared coalition. So, in some way, they were ashamed to show their beliefs. But right now, even the moderate right, the center-right, has no shame in making agreements with them. It could be local, in the States, or even international. So right now, what we observe in Spain—and other countries—is disinhibition.
Montserrat Sosa: Can we say disinhibition?
Torrente: Disinhibition, yes.
Jacobsen: Disinhibition. They openly show themselves without any problem.
Oliver: And they have this disinhibition to make agreements with them. They are united, yes, but they are also very diverse. They have in common, let’s say, the hatred—the hatred toward immigration, mainly Muslim immigration. It’s the same. Well, it’s the same. The issue of all the anti-gender rhetoric they have against women’s equality and climate change. In those things, they agree, right?
Even if they’re very different groups around the world, let’s say in Europe, they have in common that they’re anti-gender fighters. I mean, misogynistic, anti-LGBT groups, anti-climate. I mean, they’re negationists. How do you say that? Anti-climate.
Jacobsen: They’re climate deniers.
Sosa: Climate deniers, yeah. And anti-immigration, especially Muslims, are Islamophobic. Even if they’re so different, that’s the main thing they have in common. They have money. We don’t have women’s organizations. They have technology at their service as well. And now, they’re moderating their language and speech to attract a more popular population. They have a lot of money. They have companies behind them. They have resources and technology.
And also, now, they’ve been changing, moderating their language. I mean, in a way, they can approach… They’re no longer gangstalking aggressively use. They can appeal to regular people. And, of course, with the fake news they spread. And they don’t directly say, for example, that they are against Muslims because they are Muslims. Instead, they frame it as “they take our money, our jobs,” and so on. So, people think, “Oh yeah, that’s true.” They moderate their language and their discourse. What’s discurso?
Torrente: Speech.
Sosa: Yes, the speech. So, it’s similar to the Spanish Civil War because lately, in many meetings—both online and in person in Barcelona—I’ve noticed that they end by saying No pasarán. That slogan was coined during the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939 against fascism. And, really, not only did they not pass—they passed and destroyed. That is where the 40 years of Francoism and fascism come from.
She made that link with the Spanish Civil War or the coup d’état that Franco launched in 1936 because we were fighting against Franco for three years, actually with international brigades from here, too. And that slogan was created then. In Spanish, it was No pasarán.
They will not get over it. Breakthrough. But they say it in Spanish.
Torrente: Yes, it’s international.
Sosa: No pasarán. It’s more famous in Spanish than in English.
Torrente: People say it as No pasarán.
Sosa: In some movements, for example, here, I went to a rally, and they said No pasarán in Oslo. Because they say it in Spanish like a slogan, and No pasarán means they will not go through—the fascist regime of Franco and Hitler, and so on, from 1936 to 1939. But they did go through, and they suppressed us for 40 years.
Torrente: Our rights.
Sosa: Our rights, our democracy, everything. One thing you should know is that during the Second Republic in Spain from 1935 to 1936, before the coup d’état, it was a very, very, very progressive country. It is one of the most progressive in Europe and probably worldwide. Human rights, civil rights, women’s rights—women’s rights. Schools in the jails. In prisons. Itinerant schools. Divorce. Then it started to end in 1933 and ended in 1936.
Jacobsen: So this period, 1933 to 1936, was a period of removing rights?
Sosa: There was a fascist scheme. And then we lost everything. That’s why conquests—securing a right—don’t mean we always have it. Rights can be lost at any time. We must be aware because that shows that when you gain a right, it doesn’t mean you can take it for granted. You must stay aware because we’re always at risk of losing it. And we did lose it. We lost.
That’s my opinion, but many sociologists say that when a fascist regime lasts for 40 years, it can take over three generations to change. They behave as if democratic culture is spontaneous, but democracy is a culture. It’s not something you get suddenly. My mom, for example, still says, “Be careful what you say.” You know? It’s ingrained in the minds of three generations. It is not easy to undo that.
Jacobsen: So, do they have a false history and a nostalgia for a fantasy past of Spain where women knew their place in the home and outside the public sphere?
Torrente: Fantasies from the population?
Jacobsen: Make-believe. Dream.
Torrente: Talking about regular people, the population.
Jacobsen: Regular people. Regular people. And I don’t want to call them conservative activists because that misrepresents conservatism.
Torrente: Yes.
Jacobsen: But I want to say something like regressive activists who have this… So, like when the MAGA people talk about “Make America Great Again,” they have an image of the past. It’s false. It’s based on a fantasy.
Torrente: Okay.
Jacobsen: They say they want that fantasy to be the real past and then say we need to project that and return to it.
Jacobsen: Make America Great Again is based on a false history and a projected fantasy.
Torrente: Yes.
Jacobsen: When they talk about going back to America, they show pictures of a nostalgic America that’s not true, that’s false. That will never be. I wonder if that happens, too.
Torrente: No.
Jacobsen: You don’t have this fantasy?
Torrente: No.
Jacobsen: Because it’s a very subtle thing. They say, “We hope the past was one thing—which didn’t exist—and we’re going to use that as the basis to make us great into that again.”
Sosa: Yes, very much. But that fantasy… it’s a great again. So they’re not living in… It’s a much more complicated thing in America, by the way. It’s very particular to America. But I think… I don’t know if I’m here. There’s no such fantasy because, at the moment, talking about Franco isn’t well seen. It’s not very well regarded. It’s not very popular to talk about Franco’s time. Even if people think… I’m sure some people want to. Some people. Vox, yeah.
Jacobsen: There were a few Nazis that fled to Spanish-speaking countries. They look like me. If you say that, oh, gosh, people are going to throw stones at you. For 40 years, many people suffered, including impoverished people and women. When your grandchildren pop up in Uruguay, Brazil, or Argentina, they look like me. They might start to question. “So what’s your past?” I look like a Mormon stereotype. Anyway.
Sosa: So, Franco died in 1975. No one killed him. He died alone, quietly.
Jacobsen: So you have a democratic culture.
Sosa: We have a democratic culture, but people still fear getting into it. We are still the second country in the world with the most mass graves—about 100,000 people disappeared on the roads—and they don’t want to open them. They say, “We have to turn the page,” but we don’t want to until we read it all. So it’s a taboo, but not for the people… Activists. But for the politicians, even those from the right, they say, “No, that wasn’t a dictatorship.” They deny it. Some people deny it was a dictatorship.
Torrente: You cannot call it a dictatorship? You’re saying the opposite of what you said before.
Sosa: That’s right. They’re selling you the dictatorship. But there’s no fantasy. The people from the extreme right—no, what happens is that democracies are in danger. So, we have to be very alert because they present themselves differently. They normalize that speech. She’s right. I was contradictory because I told you there was no fantasy about returning. But it is a denial.
Torrente: That’s different.
Jacobsen: It’s different. Denial is more straightforward. To concoct a fantasy is more perverted. In English, a fantasy would be like someone thinking they’re Elvis—someone who thinks they’re reincarnated. Like that kind of fantasy, right? You’re living in a dream. That’s what I mean in terms of the past. But denial, I think that’s much more common.
Sosa: Yes, but even though we have all the data and people still remember—both their parents and grandparents—they deny it. And people still have a neighbour… Once she was dead 20 years ago.
She had a big plant in the building. She put it there when her brother went to war to fight fascism. It’s the same plant. It never died because she consistently watered it until he came back.
Jacobsen: That’s not the way the world works. People don’t come back like that.
Sosa: But can you imagine? In her mind, it’s not closed. It’s not over yet. So we need to close that. We’re just talking.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/19
Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based human rights and national security attorney, examines obscure and evolving forms of antisemitism, including conspiracy theories like the New World Order, QAnon, and Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). She explores how these narratives falsely depict Jews as global manipulators and blame them for political shifts, social unrest, and economic crises. She highlights how historical antisemitic tropes—such as Judeo-Bolshevism, accusations of dual loyalty, and exaggerated physical caricatures—have persisted and adapted across different cultural and political contexts. She also examines modern antisemitic rhetoric, including the Deadly Exchange conspiracy, which falsely blames Jews for oppressive policing tactics, and Holocaust distortion, which ranges from minimization to outright denial. The discussion touches on the resurgence of slurs like “kike” and the misrepresentation of kosher certification as a Zionist scheme. Lastly, she analyzes the genocidal implications of slogans like “From the river to the sea” and the targeting of Jews in pandemic-related conspiracies.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey! Oh my gosh, it’s Irina Tsukerman! Once again, we’re talking to a smart and insightful lady. Today, we’ll be covering more obscure forms of antisemitism that we haven’t yet discussed, and this should probably wrap up our conversation on the topic. We’ve gone from a comprehensive overview of antisemitism to bizarre forms of it, and now we’re moving into what I’d call “leftover antisemitism.” Of course, this isn’t the last word on the subject, because antisemitism tends to evolve—it’s fluid.
Once again, as you explained yesterday or the day before, we are dealing with the idea of a cabal. This concept has been falsely linked to Kabbalah, which led to its distorted interpretation. So, what is this supposed secret group that is allegedly trying to establish an all-powerful global regime? The New World Order: I’ve even heard it referred to as the Jew World Order. However, the reasoning behind that seems to lack real depth—these conspiracy theorists appear to have no taste.
Irina Tsukerman: And because their imagination is limited, they fail to recognize that, if they were trying to be accurate, they would be looking at actual major state actors that are actively shaping global structures—multipolarity, Eurasianism, and other geopolitical shifts. But I suppose conspiracy thinking only takes you so far. The New World Order is an idea that keeps getting recycled, and sometimes, it even makes its way into mainstream contexts.
For example, when President George H.W. Bush used the term “New World Order,” he wasn’t promoting an antisemitic conspiracy. He signalled a shift in policy structure—a new direction for U.S. foreign policy as the Cold War ended. The Soviet Union was collapsing, and there was an opportunity to capitalize on presumed liberalization and unipolarity, with the U.S. emerging as the world’s sole superpower.
However, conspiracy theorists—who are fixated on Jewish influence—seize on every major shift or potential change as proof that Jews are orchestrating events to consolidate their power. No matter what happens, they always reach the same conclusion: Jews must be behind it. Whether the issue at hand is globalism or anti-globalism, globalization or de-globalization, the conspiracy always morphs to fit the narrative, even when it’s completely contradictory.
The term New World Order itself is rarely clearly defined. In any world order, there will always be an elite with more power, wealth, and access than the average person. Whether it’s a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, technocracy, or republic, there will always be those with privilege and influence. Some people strive for power, some resent those in power, and others accept the system for what it is.
The idea that the world was once “perfect” and that sinister forces—in this case, Jews—are now trying to change it into something radically different and dystopian is, quite frankly, simplistic, bizarre, and cartoonish.
Jacobsen: You briefly mentioned QAnon in a previous interview but haven’t discussed it in depth. While QAnon is no longer uniquely American, it originated within American conspiracy culture and political discourse—or at least, that’s how I understand it.
Tsukerman: I would argue that it is important because the first mention of QAnon in common popular lore, as far as I know, came from two South African bloggers. Yes, which would make sense, given that South Africa is generally filled with all sorts of conspiracies, including homegrown ones—such as the false belief that raping a virgin can cure AIDS. I’m not even joking. It’s a common misconception, which is one reason for the high prevalence of sex crimes in South Africa.
Jacobsen: That’s horrifying.
Tsukerman: It is. It is. South Africa has a high crime rate, and of course, what happens is the opposite—AIDS is transmitted through sexual contact, so all this myth does is create more AIDS patients. So that’s one homegrown conspiracy, which essentially comes from a lack of basic education about AIDS.
But QAnon is not one of those witchcraft-type conspiracies. It is probably tied to Russian influence within South Africa. More likely, it was fed to these bloggers through Russian intelligence services, similar to Operation INFEKTION—a Soviet disinformation campaign that originated in obscure publications in Germany and India before being increasingly normalized, “news-laundered,” and mainstreamed until it reached specific demographics in the United States, such as the African American community and various left-wing groups.
At the time, Operation INFEKTION pushed the false claim that the U.S. deliberately invented and spread AIDS to eliminate African and Black populations and that it only affected Black people. This QAnon trajectory appears to follow a similar disinformation pattern—it started as a foreign import, emerging in an obscure online source before spreading like wildfire until it reached the top echelons of U.S. politics.
For example, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn became one of its main proponents, as did Jack Posobiec—a former intelligence officer who later founded the conservative media company ONN in the U.S. He was also one of the main figures behind Pizzagate, which focused on baseless pedophile sex trafficking allegations involving Washington and Hollywood elites.
Jacobsen: Some younger audiences might have assumed that Pizzagate involved the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fighting the Shredder—but no, it’s much worse.
Tsukerman: Yes, it’s literally wild—oh my gosh. This conspiracy theory somehow linked Washington and Hollywood sex offenders to Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats, accusing them of running a child sex trafficking ring.
According to these claims, this ring operated out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong, and conspiracy theorists alleged that a terrorist attack would expose these criminals. This specific version of Pizzagate began on dark web troll networks, including 4chan and the “HNs,” platforms notorious for criminal activity, disinformation, and Russian conspiracy tools.
They claimed that Clinton’s associates were paid in both money and children by foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Now, while it is true that the Clinton Foundation—like many NGOs and think tanks in Washington—had a “pay-to-play” element, there is zero evidence linking it to sex trafficking.
However, what is true is that Clinton, Donald Trump, and many other prominent individuals—both Democrats and Republicans—had connections to Jeffrey Epstein, who was involved in trafficking young and sometimes underage women and using blackmail against prominent individuals from all political backgrounds.
So ironically, we’re seeing that QAnon conspirators are mirroring the Russian method of projection and diversion—essentially accusing others of exactly what they are doing. The people participating in blackmail schemes and MeToo-type activities are the same people who also spread conspiracy theories—but only against their political opponents.
Jacobsen: We have one last topic in this category: Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG)—the assertion that Jews secretly control Western governments.
It’s not just the claim that Jewish organizations or Israel influences democracies through lobbying. It’s not merely arguing that Western governments are democracies with Jewish involvement. It’s asserting that Western governments themselves are mere covers for secret Jewish control.
Why?
Tsukerman: This idea is widely spread in the Middle East and undoubtedly builds on Soviet-era conspiracy theories.
The Soviet Union deliberately worked to merge anti-Zionism and antisemitism, fusing antisemitic narratives with Middle Eastern paranoia about U.S. foreign policy, xenophobia, pan-Arabism, and nationalism—especially in Ba’athist-dominated states like Syria and Iraq.
This was an intentional Soviet foreign policy strategy. The goal was to foster governmental and non-governmental opposition to Western nations, primarily the U.S. and the U.K. It was a deliberate geopolitical tactic designed to build social resistance against Western foreign policy—using paranoid, antisemitic conspiracy theories to polarize populations and weaken diplomatic cooperation between Western governments and Middle Eastern societies.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss Judeo-Bolshevism—the claim that Jews were behind communist revolutions and other left-wing, authoritarian, or subversive movements.
Tsukerman: This belief originated from early communist movements, such as the Mensheviks. Still, it was also heavily promoted by the Nazis. While communists blamed Jews for capitalism, the Nazis weaponized antisemitism to accuse Jews of being traitors, communists, and agents of international socialism.
Let’s not forget that the Nazi Party was socialist—but with a nationalist twist. Unlike international socialism, which sought to export revolutions globally, National Socialism (Nazism) was ethnocentric, chauvinistic, and focused on territorial expansion and annexation.
Slightly different variations—same expansionist, hegemonic, authoritarian, and antisemitic ideology. Both communists and Nazis accused each other of being controlled by Jews, and both used Jews as scapegoats for their perceived political enemies.
Historically, many Jews did join the Communist Party in Germany and the Soviet Union, often due to their opposition to historical oppression and the belief that communism could create an equal society where they would no longer face discrimination.
So, essentially, it was a deliberate political strategy—to separate Western governments from any chance of successfully engaging Arab and broader Muslim-majority Middle Eastern populations.
And, frankly, the same antisemitic narratives were exported to other parts of the world, including Latin America. This concept still survives in different forms today and is still fueled by the same sources.
Now, you have Islamist movements and groups feeding into this and helping fan the flames. These conspiracy theories persist despite greater openness, dialogue, and increased U.S. influence and presence in the Middle East. They haven’t been completely—nor partially—eliminated on the ground.
Of course, the worst governments in Iraq and Syria have been removed. Still, the conspiracy theories continue—often outlasting specific regimes. These ideas persist in the public consciousness, media, and intelligence agencies, maintaining institutional continuity even as political leadership changes.
Jacobsen: Now, what about the phrase “Jew Down”—the stereotype that Jewish people are miserly or cheap?
Tsukerman: It’s absurd. This kind of racial slur should have faded away along with many other offensive phrases that were common in past centuries. And yet, it still survives.
I’ve seen online celebrities use it, and for some reason, it doesn’t trigger the same backlash or “cancellation” response that similar racial slurs would if they were directed at African Americans or other minorities.
The stereotype of Jewish greed and economic control is tied to historical misconceptions about money lending and usury. In medieval Europe, Christians were forbidden—by religious law—from charging interest on loans. However, Jewish law did not impose this restriction when lending to non-Jews. As a result, Jews could offer loans with interest, which allowed them to earn money that way.
At the same time, Jews were barred from participating in many so-called “legitimate” professions—such as law and government—unless they converted to Christianity. In response, many Jews focused on banking and finance because those were the few areas where they could work.
This perception of Jewish thriftiness was also linked to the extravagance of Christian monarchs. Many European rulers were expected to display wealth, to splurge on entertainment, and to spend vast sums on warfare.
Jews, however, had practical reasons for being financially cautious:
- They needed savings in case of persecution, as history repeatedly showed they could be expelled anytime.
- Wealthy Jews were often forced to bail out monarchs who had overspent on wars and luxuries.
- Jewish communities had to pool financial resources—not only for communal needs but also to pay ransoms when pirates or bandits kidnapped Jewish individuals.
Because of these factors, Jews were less likely to spend lavishly and instead focused on preserving wealth. This clashed with European cultural norms, leading to the stereotype of Jewish stinginess.
Jacobsen: Now, what about Jewish Lightning and the Kosher Tax?
The fundamental premise behind Jewish Lightning and the Kosher Tax conspiracy theory is essentially the same—it’s rooted in the belief that Jews operate through deception and hidden schemes.
These conspiracy theories are just as absurd as claims about subterranean tunnels, secret moon bases, and hidden Antarctic fortresses.
They all rely on the same kind of paranoid thinking—that Jews supposedly say one thing publicly while secretly manipulating events for their benefit.
Tsukerman: Jewish Lightning is the false claim that Jewish business owners commit arson on their properties to collect insurance money—a baseless and antisemitic trope.
The Kosher Tax conspiracy alleges that consumers are forced to pay extra for kosher certification on food products—a myth commonly spread by white supremacists and right-wing extremists.
Both of these conspiracies reflect the same underlying stereotype: the idea that Jews cannot be trusted, that they operate through dishonest financial practices and that they secretly control economic systems.
Another example of antisemitic projection, then.
Look, to some extent, there is a monopoly on kosher food certification in the U.S., which does make it significantly more expensive than non-kosher food. However, most people who consume kosher food are Jewish, except for the occasional non-Jewish patron dining at a kosher restaurant. Non-Jewish consumers generally do not purchase kosher food, which is more expensive. The higher cost of kosher certification is due to religious oversight requirements, which involve certifying bodies and inspectors, making the process more labour-intensive.
Naturally, as with any product that requires specialized certification, the cost gets passed on to the consumer. But there is no conspiracy—it is simply a standard business practice when high demand, limited supply, and additional production costs are involved. Most people are not affected because they do not buy kosher food. So, it’s unclear what the conspiracy theory even alleges since this market is entirely voluntary and affects only those who actively seek out kosher-certified products.
However, the second part of this conspiracy theory claims that the extra cost of kosher products is not just compensation for the certification process but that these additional costs are secretly funnelled into Jewish organizations, Zionist causes, or the Israeli government. Of course, there is no evidence to support this claim. While some Jewish organizations that offer kosher certifications support Jewish causes in the U.S. or Israel, they do not redirect kosher certification fees specifically for political or nationalist purposes. There is no secret exchange taking place. These organizations exist in the same communal space. They may, separately, engage in charitable or advocacy efforts related to Jewish interests. The idea that kosher certification fees are some covert Zionist taxes is a classic antisemitic trope designed to fuel distrust toward Jewish businesses and institutions.
Now, moving on to cultural and social stereotypes, let’s talk about the claim that Jews are clannish—that they only associate with their kind. In most cases, this is a patently absurd notion, especially in modern cosmopolitan societies where exclusivity is impractical. The irony is that this stereotype originates from the very same Christian societies that historically segregated Jews. In medieval Europe, Jews were forced into ghettos. They were legally barred from socializing with non-Jews unless they converted to Christianity. They were also restricted from many professions, often relegated to roles such as moneylenders and physicians—professions that required limited interaction with the broader Christian population. So, to the extent that Jewish communities were insular, it was not by choice—it was the direct result of discriminatory policies imposed by Christian rulers.
There was generally more social integration in Muslim-majority societies, but significant restrictions still existed. Intermarriage, for instance, was culturally and religiously discouraged in both Jewish and Muslim communities, but this was not unique to Jews—it was simply a common cultural norm across many societies at the time. However, when it came to friendships and social associations, Jews were not precluded from interacting with non-Jews. The one major limitation was food consumption—strictly religious Jews required kosher food, which was not always readily available. As a result, Jewish families often socialized within their communities simply because it was logistically easier to maintain religious dietary practices. But this was not due to hatred or a desire to exclude others—it was a practical necessity. The idea that Jews deliberately isolate themselves from non-Jews is simply a distorted reading of history.
Jacobsen: What about the idea that Jews lack real patriotic commitment?
Tsukerman: That stereotype is closely tied to the concept of “rootless cosmopolitanism,” which was aggressively propagated by the Soviet Union. It is also connected to the dual loyalty accusation, which became more pronounced after establishing the State of Israel. The claim suggests that Jews, because of their distinct ethnic and religious identity, cannot fully be loyal citizens of the countries they live in. Historically, this accusation was used as a political weapon—whether by European nationalists, Soviet communists, or modern-day antisemites—to frame Jews as outsiders, regardless of their actual level of civic participation. This idea implies that Jews are inherently disloyal to their home nations, particularly in times of war or political crisis.
But this argument falls apart under scrutiny. Jews have served in their respective nations’ militaries, governments, and leadership roles for centuries. They have fought in wars, contributed to national economies, and played significant roles in science, arts, and politics. The accusation of dual loyalty is simply a convenient way to single out Jews for suspicion. At the same time, other ethnic or religious groups with transnational ties (such as Catholics with the Vatican or Muslims with Mecca) are not subjected to the same scrutiny.
Ultimately, these antisemitic tropes persist because they offer simplistic, scapegoating explanations for complex historical and social dynamics. Whether it’s economic stereotypes, social exclusion myths, or accusations of political disloyalty, these narratives serve to isolate and vilify Jewish communities rather than engage with the real history and realities of Jewish life in different societies.
It’s blatantly false to claim that Jews lack patriotism or have no national loyalty. Jews have served in governments and militaries of their respective countries for centuries, including in the Ottoman Empire, the United Kingdom, various European nations, and the United States—whenever they were not prohibited from doing so. When given the opportunity, they participated equally alongside everyone else and often displayed strong patriotic leanings. Of course, Jews also faced discrimination, and when the chance arose to relocate to Israel, many chose to leave—but at times, they were actively forced out. The idea that Jews lack rooted national loyalty is not just a falsehood—it is an outright libel, historically used to justify exclusion, discrimination, and expulsion.
Online antisemitic discussion forums and message boards have developed a coded language filled with tropes and insider terminology meant to obscure their bigotry from outsiders. Much of this language exists to ensure that, when outsiders peek in, they struggle to understand what’s being discussed. It creates an exclusive, insular environment, reinforcing their ideological bubble. It is almost as if they are speaking their secret language, similar to a specialized jargon one might hear at CERN. Still, in this case, it serves a malicious purpose.
Jacobsen: This isn’t the only example of coded language online. What about the triple parentheses, the echo symbol, e.g., “(((echo))),” or the use of words enclosed in triple parentheses?
Tsukerman: Much of this originates from the dark web and fringe online communities before being mainstreamed into social media discourse. The purpose of coded language is twofold. First, it allows users to bypass content moderation, evade anti-discrimination filters, and avoid being flagged by social media algorithms. Some platforms have automated systems designed to detect and remove antisemitic hate speech, so these users develop workarounds—using slang, memes, and coded symbols to keep their conversations hidden from automated detection and casual observers.
However, the second reason is more ideological. These coded signals are meant to reinforce the idea that shadowy forces are suppressing antisemitic discourse. This plays into the victimhood narrative—that those who spread antisemitic conspiracy theories are the “truth-tellers” who are being marginalized and persecuted. The same false grievance fuels the “War on Christmas” myth—the notion that people are forbidden from saying “Merry Christmas,” even though no such ban exists.
The same logic applies here—antisemitic groups claim that they are “not allowed” to talk about Jews, even though antisemitism has existed in public discourse for centuries. While it may not be encouraged or celebrated, it has never been fully silenced or erased. However, these groups falsely equate the lack of mainstream promotion of antisemitism with censorship, deplatforming, and political persecution.
This is why coded language is so effective—it fuels conspiracy thinking, strengthens group identity, and fosters a sense of persecution. It creates an illusion of an underground resistance movement, where members see themselves as truth-seekers fighting against an oppressive system. In reality, they are simply reinforcing their delusions and manufacturing a sense of victimhood to justify their bigotry.
Jacobsen: We discussed this before, but it’s striking how deliberate this strategy is.
Tsukerman: It’s not just about hiding antisemitism—it’s about making it feel subversive and rebellious so that followers believe they are engaged in some grand struggle rather than simply peddling age-old hatred.
Jacobsen: There is the stuff around the exaggerated big nose, smirking expression, and the rubbing of hands—the smirking merchant trope. Where does that stereotype reach its highest pitch? More generally, have exaggerated physical features been a consistent feature of antisemitic media for a long time?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. A lot of these visual tropes originate from Nazi propaganda. Still, they also predate that era, going back to medieval Christian portrayals of Jews in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and artwork. Historically, Jews—including Ashkenazi Jews—had distinct Middle Eastern features, making them visibly different from traditionally white European populations. This natural ethnic difference was exaggerated grotesquely to emphasize otherness and foster polarization. The goal was to alienate Jews from the broader society by making them appear physically distinct and repulsive.
Later, right-wing white supremacist movements and the Nazis took this further. They deliberately depicted Jews as vermin-like creatures, portraying them as ugly, unhealthy, physically weak, and inferior to the so-called “Aryan race.” This dehumanization strategy became a core part of Nazi propaganda, reinforcing the belief that Jews were not only socially undesirable but biologically subhuman. These ideas did not disappear after World War II—they continued to spread. They were later adopted by some Middle Eastern cultures, particularly in antisemitic portrayals of Israeli leaders.
In these depictions, grotesque physical exaggerations were often combined with bloodthirsty imagery, playing into age-old blood libel accusations—the false claim that Jews murder Christian or Palestinian children for ritualistic purposes. This imagery functions effectively as propaganda because people instinctively react aggressively toward ugliness. When an enemy is made to appear monstrous, it is much easier to justify violence or discrimination against them. Conversely, when someone looks similar to you, there is an inherent sense of shared humanity, making dehumanization more difficult.
This is why visual distortion in propaganda is so powerful—if someone perceives their enemy as ugly, alien, or monstrous, it reinforces pre-existing bias and makes them easier to hate. Furthermore, in regions where direct interaction with Jews and Israelis is limited, these caricatures become the dominant perception of Jewish people. Without real-life engagement, it is much easier to believe in negative stereotypes, to vilify an entire group, and to imagine them as inherently evil—rather than recognizing their humanity and common concerns.
Jacobsen: The idea of globalism and George Soros has been widely discussed. This builds into the dual loyalty accusation—the claim that Jews are transient cosmopolitans, the well-to-do “gypsies” of the world, with no real national allegiance.
This idea intersects with multiple antisemitic narratives. The accusation of dual loyalty suggests that Jews are never truly committed to their country of residence and that they serve a foreign agenda, whether it be Israel or a globalist conspiracy. At the same time, the reverse accusation exists—the claim that Jews have no loyalty at all, that they are rootless, transient elites who operate above nations and manipulate world affairs for their benefit.
These are contradictory narratives, but they serve the same function—to portray Jews as untrustworthy, disloyal, and fundamentally different from the majority population. Whether they are accused of controlling global capitalism, secretly running communist revolutions, or manipulating world politics, the result is the same—a scapegoat for society’s problems.
The key difference between these two narratives—”dual loyalty” versus “no loyalty”—is that dual loyalty assumes Jews are working for another state (usually Israel). In contrast, the “no loyalty” claim paints them as opportunistic globalists with no national allegiance. However, both accusations lead to the same conclusion: that Jews are outsiders who cannot be trusted.
Tsukerman: This is why these tropes persist across different political ideologies. Whether it’s far-right nationalists, far-left anti-globalists, or Islamist movements, the accusation shifts to fit the context. But the underlying purpose remains unchanged: to frame Jews as a permanent “other”—a group that exists outside the national fabric and is working against the interests of the majority population.
The underlying theme here is distrust—the idea that Jews cannot be trusted, that they have ulterior motives, and that their true intentions are unknowable. Even if those motives are not tied to any specific country, the accusation remains: “You never really know what these people are thinking.” This fosters a sense of suspicion and alienation, reinforcing the belief that Jews should not be included in society.
This narrative suggests that Jews cannot be your friends, that you cannot defend them, and that they should not be included in elite institutions. It perpetuates exclusionary policies—justifying why Jews should be barred from private clubs, prestigious universities, top law firms, and high-ranking positions. The justification? “They are not like us.” Their motivations are unclear, their allegiances are questionable, and their values are fundamentally different. This belief does not necessarily rely on physical differences. Instead, it suggests that Jews are internally distinct—culturally, religiously, and psychologically.
This fuels the desire to fabricate even more ambiguous suspicions—because as long as their true nature remains undefined, it provides an excuse to exclude them. There is also a deeper psychological element at play. Once a society opens the door to including culturally or religiously distinct people, it forces self-reflection. It challenges people to question their cultural identity, which can be deeply unsettling. As a result, some people project their insecurities onto Jews, questioning their motives and their loyalties rather than confronting their uncertainties.
Jacobsen: There is also the notion of blaming Jews collectively for the death of Jesus. The phrase “30 pieces of silver” appears in the Bible, referencing Judas Iscariot, who was portrayed as the ultimate betrayer who sold out Jesus to the authorities. How does this portrayal contribute to what could be considered biblical antisemitism?
Tsukerman: It’s a strange contradiction. First, according to Christian tradition, the crucifixion of Jesus was prophesied—it was predestined and unavoidable. If that is the case, who can truly be blamed for it? If it was meant to happen, then the idea of “Jewish complicity” in deicide becomes self-defeating.
Second, Christian theology holds that Jesus sacrificed himself to cleanse humanity of sin. Suppose that sacrifice was a necessary and redemptive act. Shouldn’t those who played a role in it be seen as fulfilling God’s plan rather than as villains? If Jesus had not been killed, then there would be nothing to celebrate in Christianity—no resurrection, no redemption. Yet, for centuries, this paradox has been ignored, and the blame has been placed squarely on the Jews.
The idea that Jews collectively bear responsibility for the crucifixion was explicitly rejected by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) in the 1960s. However, this decision only applies to the Catholic Church—it does not erase centuries of Christian antisemitic narratives, nor does it affect non-Catholic denominations that still perpetuate these beliefs. Even within Catholicism, older traditions and cultural biases remain deeply ingrained.
On a theological level, the accusation of deicide is nonsensical. If God is all-powerful and eternal, then God cannot be killed—the very concept of “killing God” is self-contradictory. The blame placed on Jews is not based on logical reasoning but rather on a need to scapegoat an entire group for a foundational event in Christian history.
This brings us to the Pharisees, often portrayed negatively in Christian texts. The ultimate accusation against the Jewish authorities of the time was that they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. At its core, this is not a crime but simply a difference in religious belief. Yet, this theological disagreement has been weaponized for centuries and used as a justification for antisemitism, exclusion, and persecution.
The accusation isn’t just that Jews killed Jesus—but rather, that they never accepted him. The deicide claim is essentially an exaggerated resentment, even though it makes no sense in many ways. The notion of betrayal is equally absurd, as it assigns historical and eternal collective responsibility to all Jewish people for the actions of one individual—Judas Iscariot.
Ironically, Judas was one of Jesus’s disciples—meaning he was a follower, not one of the Jews who originally rejected Jesus. Those who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah owed him no loyalty to begin with. From the Jewish perspective, he was a potential heretic, making claims that did not align with Jewish theology. Judaism has specific messianic criteria, and by Christian accounts of the story, Jesus did not fulfill them.
Jacobsen: This brings us to a related antisemitic trope: the accusation that Jews use their influence to silence criticism. This stereotype suggests that Jews manipulate public discourse, suppress dissenting opinions, or smear critics through negative information campaigns.
The “poisoning the well” comes in—the idea that Jews preemptively discredit people before they can even present their argument? Poisoning the well is a rhetorical tactic where negative information is introduced about a person or group before they even have a chance to speak. It’s like introducing a new colleague to others by subtly implying they are unpleasant or untrustworthy—but applied to an entire group. This tactic sets up bias in advance, making people dismiss the group’s perspective without engaging with it fairly.
Tsukerman: One of the most common antisemitic claims is that Jews deliberately engineer criticism against themselves to avoid accountability. This is inherently bigoted because it targets an entire group with a sweeping accusation, denying individual choice or personal agency. That dehumanization is the essence of group-based bigotry, no matter the religion, ethnicity, or cultural identity involved.
Furthermore, this idea that Jews manufacture accusations of antisemitism to shield themselves from legitimate criticism is often used to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Instead of acknowledging that Jewish communities—like all groups—are diverse and full of debate, these narratives present them as a monolithic bloc with a hidden agenda. In reality, Jews do not universally agree on anything, let alone on political issues like Israel or Zionism. However, antisemitic rhetoric erases these differences to create a single, caricatured enemy.
Jacobsen: And then there’s the stereotyping of Israel as 100% Jewish—as though everything Israel does represents all Jewish people, regardless of reality. This is a tactic to frame Israel as a stand-in for all Jews—which, in turn, makes anything Israel does a Jewish action and, therefore, by antisemitic logic, bad by default. The language used around this often includes derogatory shorthand like “Zionist” or “Zio,” which are frequently used as pejoratives.
Then there are thought-terminating clichés, like “Zionism is racism,” which shut down discussion rather than engaging with historical and political complexities. Another phrase central to this discourse is “From the river to the sea.”
That phrase confused me when I first heard it. “From the river to the sea” has been used in different contexts. Still, in the most common political interpretation, it implies the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state—a call for Palestinian sovereignty over the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Tsukerman: Many people who repeat this slogan believe it represents a call for Palestinian liberation. Still, its historical and militant context suggests the removal of Jews from the region altogether.
At the same time, this projection of fear and dispossession is often inverted. The same people who accuse Israel of planning to take over Palestinian territory entirely use “From the river to the sea” to imply that Israelis are the ones threatening Palestinians with elimination. In reality, the phrase has been a rallying cry for groups that openly advocate for Israel’s destruction, making it a clear example of how antisemitic narratives can be repackaged as political slogans.
At its core, the phrase is a placeholder for a broader antisemitic argument—one that frames Israel as an extension of Jewish global power and claims that the Jewish state exists purely as a tool of domination rather than as a nation with a complex history and diverse population.
The implication behind these arguments is clear: Jews should not have the right to a nation-state, even though other groups do. First, Israel is not an exclusively Jewish state, even though it is a Jewish nation-state. As we have seen with the recent Hamas release of prisoners, hostages included people of all backgrounds, including Bedouin Muslim Arabs, who were tortured and broken simply for holding Israeli citizenship—despite having no religious or cultural connection to Judaism.
Additionally, Israel is a pluralistic state, home to various ethnic and religious groups, including migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers from Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, and other countries. Many of these non-Jewish residents live in Israel without citizenship and have no direct ties to Judaism or Israeli nationalism. Furthermore, Israel has small but historically significant minority communities, such as the Samaritans, who are quasi-Jewish but reside in Palestinian territories and other regions.
Despite these realities, the claim that Israel is exclusively Jewish is often weaponized to delegitimize its existence. This is particularly troubling given the Holocaust, centuries of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Jews possess a unique, distinct cultural and religious identity. The outright opposition to Jewish self-determination, while other ethnic and national groups are granted the right to their states, is inherently bigoted and antisemitic. There is no other way to describe it.
What about Zionism? It seems that most Jews identify as Zionists, even if they criticize Israel heavily. Most Jews are Zionists, even if they are highly critical of Israel. The reason is that Zionism is deeply ingrained in Jewish history and tradition.
From a religious perspective, Zionism is not separate from Judaism—it is one of its core tenets. Many Jewish religious commandments can only be fulfilled in Israel under a Jewish-led government. This is a fundamental part of Jewish religious law. However, many people outside the Jewish community may be unaware of it.
Even secular Jews, who do not practice religiously, often feel a distant connection to Israel—even if they criticize its policies or governance. Zionism is not a political ideology alone—it is also a cultural and historical movement rooted in the belief that Jews deserve self-determination, like any other people.
Additionally, Zionists are not exclusively Jewish—many non-Jews support Israel’s right to exist for the same reason they support the national aspirations of other groups. There are diverse visions of what Israel should be, but the fundamental principle of Jewish self-determination remains the same.
The idea that Zionism is inherently shameful or evil is itself a form of antisemitism. The claim that “Zionism is racism” was aggressively pushed by the Soviet Union, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and other hostile actors. This false narrative was heavily promoted at the Durban Conference in South Africa, which was boycotted by Israel’s allies because of its clear antisemitic overtones.
This rhetoric is designed to frame Zionism as a uniquely oppressive ideology rather than recognizing it as one of many national liberation movements. The goal of these campaigns has always been to defame Zionism, delegitimize Jewish self-determination, and portray Israel as a colonial project rather than a historical homeland for an indigenous people.
Jacobsen: What about the phrase “From the river to the sea”?
Tsukerman: “From the river to the sea” is a slogan that many college students and activists repeat without fully understanding its origins or implications—some don’t even know which river and which sea it refers to. But its meaning is clear in militant and extremist contexts: it is a call for the destruction of Israel.
The phrase is not about converting Israel into a pluralistic state or reversing colonial structures. It is a euphemism for mass ethnic cleansing—the extermination or forced removal of all Jews living in Israel. The literal meaning of the phrase is that Israel must cease to exist, with its Jewish population eradicated or expelled.
This slogan has been used by terrorist organizations, including Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. While some activists ignorantly repeat it, believing it to be a call for Palestinian liberation, the historical and militant context of the phrase makes its meaning undeniably genocidal.
This is why the slogan is so dangerous—it is not merely a political statement but a rallying cry for violence used by those who openly advocate for Israel’s destruction. When people use it without understanding its origins, they inadvertently lend credibility to an extremist ideology that calls for mass murder.
A lot of this rhetoric originates from Hamas’s charter, which is explicitly genocidal and calls for the complete elimination of the State of Israel. It goes beyond opposition to Israel’s existence—Hamas’s ideology includes the claim that all Jews are cursed. According to this worldview, cursed people have no right to protection or inclusion in society. This rhetoric is not just anti-Israel—it is fundamentally antisemitic, targeting Jews worldwide.
Jacobsen: Let’s cover Deadly Exchange, Holocaust distortion, and the slur “kike” all at once. Deadly Exchange is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that falsely links Israel and Jewish organizations to oppressive police tactics worldwide. The idea is that whenever police behave ethically, Jews are absent from the conversation—but whenever police engage in brutality, Jews are somehow to blame. This narrative paints Jews as responsible for systemic police violence despite zero evidence to support this claim.
This conspiracy theory operates on selective framing. If the police act justly, Jewish involvement is ignored. If police engage in misconduct, it is attributed to a so-called Jewish connection—often linked to training programs or collaborations between U.S. and Israeli law enforcement. This follows the classic antisemitic pattern of collective blame, where individual Jews or institutions are held responsible for broader social injustices.
Of course, Israel is not immune to criticism regarding police misconduct—but police abuse exists in every country and affects Jews as well as non-Jews. In Israel, cases of police violence are investigated, and there are legal mechanisms for prosecuting misconduct. The idea that Jews or Israel are somehow responsible for global police brutality is completely baseless. Historically, Jews have advocated for police reform, including abolishing harsh punishments in military and law enforcement systems. In the U.S., Jewish activists have been at the forefront of civil rights and criminal justice reform.
And the slur “kike”—where does that come from?
Tsukerman: “Kike” originated during the mass migration of Eastern European Jews to the United States. Many Jewish surnames ended in “-ski” or “-ky,” and some non-Jewish immigration officials shortened these names to “kai”—a pronunciation that evolved into the slur “kike”.
It was not a common slur in Eastern Europe—there, other antisemitic epithets were more prevalent. In Western Europe, “Jude” or “Juden” was often used derogatorily. While “kike” has become less common in recent years, there has been a rise in modern antisemitic rhetoric, where Jews are smeared based on their perceived connection to Israel. Many contemporary antisemitic insults center around accusations of Zionism or conspiracies about Jewish global influence.
Jacobsen: And then there’s Holocaust distortion with holocough—not just denying it, but twisting it into something else.
Tsukerman: Yes, Holocaust distortion comes in several forms. Some minimize the Holocaust, claiming it was exaggerated, while others deny it outright. Another tactic is to accuse Jews of exploiting the Holocaust to whitewash alleged Israeli abuses or gain sympathy for political purposes.
Now, there is also an emerging trend of blaming Jews for COVID-19—as part of a long history of scapegoating Jews for plagues, pandemics, and natural disasters. Conspiracies about the pandemic deflect from real issues, such as China’s initial handling of COVID-19 and its lack of transparency. Instead, these theories redirect anger toward Jews, portraying them as manipulators of global health policies or profiteers of the crisis.
This is not new—Jews have been blamed for everything from the Black Death in medieval Europe to financial crises in modern history. These conspiracy theories lack any scientific or historical basis. Yet, they persist because they provide an easy scapegoat for complex global events.
Jacobsen: We made it. Excellent. Thank you so much.
Tsukerman: Yes! 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): 2025/04/18
Engineer-turned-photographer Simi Vijay recounts his journey from Nigeria’s National Youth Service Corps to becoming a respected documentary & portrait photographer. Initially inspired by a friend in photography, he began shooting weddings and portraits before transitioning into documentary work, encouraged by an investigative photojournalist. His major breakthrough was UNICEF’s Hard to Reach project during a polio crisis, which led him to study Visual Journalism at ICP in New York. Vijay has documented refugee experiences for UNHCR, cultural stories, and high-profile events. His work blends technical skills with artistic realism, emphasizing cultural identity, immigrant narratives, and social issues while continuously evolving through diverse photographic projects remarkably.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your overall background?
Simi Vijay: My background is in engineering. I studied electronics engineering at university, and after graduating, I had to complete the mandatory one-year National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in Nigeria.
During that time, I started spending time with a friend who was into photography. Her name was Aisha Augie-Kuta. She is currently a Director General at the Centre for Black and African Arts Culture (CBAAC). Through her, I developed an interest in photography, experimenting with capturing images and learning how to use a camera properly.
I began enjoying the process and started shooting a lot of weddings. One day, a friend named Tom Saater, a photographer and investigative photojournalist, approached me and suggested that I explore documentary photography. That was how I started—gradually taking on more projects.
My first major assignment was with UNICEF on the Hard to Reach project. At the time, all indicators suggested that polio had been eradicated in Nigeria, and the project aimed to document the effort and showcase how vaccination teams reached the most remote areas. However, shortly after the completion of that photo project, polio resurfaced in the country. This led to renewed efforts to eliminate the virus, a process that took several years. Nigeria was officially declared polio-free by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020.
After that experience, I transitioned into documentary photography and videography, focusing on telling human-interest stories. I became motivated to pursue formal education in the field, leading me to apply for a program in the United States. I was accepted into the International Center of Photography (ICP) in New York, where I studied Visual Journalism and Documentary Practice.
My time in the U.S. was particularly eye-opening, as it was my first exposure to a vast collection of photography books covering various styles—from still life to fine art. In Nigeria, there were no formal schools for photography, so most photographers were self-taught, learning from platforms like YouTube and Instagram. Many started with affordable lighting and basic equipment, honing their craft through practice and determination.
Several of my friends in Nigeria have since become successful photographers. Inspired by my experiences, I decided to explore living and working in America as a photographer, particularly in New York.
And I decided that I wanted to—of course, I started trying to do more documentary work and projects like that. But as time went on, I realized that many of the clients I had worked with in Nigeria—doing documentary work and portraits—would contact me when they came to New York for events like the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), or the Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C. They would engage my services to document their processes, meetings, and interactions in the U.S. during those time frames. That was how I started documenting some of these events. So, that is my connection to ministers, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and other high-level executives.
Over time, this work became a significant part of my career.
Jacobsen: Some people incorporate their nationality and heritage into their personal brand and work, while others do not. Is this a factor in your work?
Vijay: Sometimes, yes. When I work for Nigerians or Africans, my understanding of the culture, the nuances of respect, and the way our society functions helps me in my interactions and the way I approach certain projects. In that sense, cultural awareness definitely plays a role in my work.
It also informs the way I photograph. When I work on personal documentary projects, I find myself drawn to stories about culture, identity, and immigration. These subjects intrigue me because they relate to globalization and how Nigerians, Africans, and immigrants fit into the broader global landscape.
Jacobsen: What about your work with UNHCR?
Vijay: For UNHCR, I documented the stories of people displaced from Cameroon into Nigeria. These refugees had crossed the border into Southwestern Nigeria.
To provide some context: Nigeria is an Anglophone country, while Cameroon is predominantly Francophone. However, there is a subset of people in Cameroon, from the Northwest and Southwest regions, who identify as Anglophone and have been fighting for independence to create their own country, called Ambazonia. This conflict has forced many to flee into Nigeria as refugees, and my work involved documenting their experiences and displacement.
They are mostly Anglophone speakers in a Francophone country, and many of them feel unrepresented. There is ongoing conflict between these groups and the Cameroonian central government.
As a result of clashes between separatist groups—or, as they see themselves, independence advocates—and the Cameroonian police and military, many people have been displaced into Nigeria. Before colonial-era borders were drawn by Western powers, the people on the Nigerian and Cameroonian sides of the border were essentially the same ethnic and cultural communities. Today, they are separated by an artificial border, but they still have deep familial and historical ties.
My job was to document some of these displaced individuals and tell their stories of survival. Many were children who had to flee their villages after attacks, walking long distances to cross into Nigeria, often because they had heard that they had relatives on the other side. These families had been separated for generations, but their connections remained.
That was one of the major projects I worked on, and I thoroughly valued the experience because it demonstrated the power of storytelling—to convey a person’s struggles and reality through photography.
Another UNHCR project I worked on involved documenting Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, during his visit to Maiduguri and Abuja. He met with the President of Nigeria and other dignitaries while also inspecting humanitarian efforts in Maiduguri, a city devastated by the Boko Haram insurgency.
So yes, that was a significant part of my work with UNHCR.
Jacobsen: What about your work with UNICEF?
Vijay: For UNICEF, I was brought in to document the Hard to Reach project. This initiative aimed to showcase how UNICEF teams—composed of local staff and volunteers—worked to deliver polio vaccines to some of the most remote areas in Northern Nigeria.
The goal was to ensure every newborn received the polio vaccine, pushing toward the complete eradication of polio in Nigeria. The assignment required extensive travel across multiple states, including Kaduna, Katsina, and Yobe.
I captured images of both the beneficiaries—the children receiving the vaccines—and the UNICEF field workers responsible for carrying out the mission. These health workers transported vaccines in cold storage boxes, traveling across rivers, mountains, and inaccessible roads to reach the most isolated communities.
It was a demanding but impactful project, and I was honored to contribute to documenting UNICEF’s efforts in combating polio.
So that was what I documented. The project, however, never came to full fruition because, within a couple of months of photographing it, the polio vaccine initiative faced a setback when the poliovirus resurfaced in Maiduguri. As a result, the documentation had to end.
Yes, it took several more years, but I believe that eventually, the virus was officially eradicated.
By that time, though, I had already left for the U.S. to study. I’m not sure if they ever attempted to document or restart that project again.
Jacobsen: What about the Tokunbo project, exploring Nigerians in New York?
Vijay: So, Tokunbo is a project focused on identifying and documenting Nigerians in the diaspora. When I first came to the U.S. to study, I was amazed by how many Nigerians were living and thriving here.
One of the greatest challenges immigrants face is uprooting themselves from their culture and community. However, when they come to places like America, they rebuild a sense of home—whether in their personal spaces or through community gatherings.
Through this project, I explored how Nigerians maintain their cultural identity abroad. Some of the key elements I focused on were:
- Music, particularly Afrobeats and other Nigerian genres.
- Fashion, including traditional attire and modern influences.
- Cultural storytelling, such as how Nigerians pass down traditions, language, and history to their children.
- Food, which serves as a powerful cultural connector in immigrant communities.
The project examines how Nigerians integrate into American life while preserving their roots.
Jacobsen: How do you balance artistic creativity with documentary realism in your work?
Vijay: For me, my general approach is to observe quietly—the proverbial fly on the wall.
I try to document what I see as authentically as possible and let the images speak for themselves. By the time I put together a series of images with captions, my goal is to lead the viewer to a natural, plausible conclusion about the story being presented.
That, for me, is how I balance realism with artistic intent. I see myself as the fly on the wall, but beyond that, I also apply technical photography skills.
For instance, composition is crucial to my work. I aim to find interesting angles when photographing my subject, ensuring depth of field and a strong sense of place. This approach enhances the documentary storytelling aspect while still allowing for an artistic perspective.
Jacobsen: Who were your biggest influences in art?
Vijay: Honestly, for me, my first influences were the people around me in Nigeria.
I was greatly influenced by Aisha Augie-Kuta, whom I mentioned earlier as a photographer, and Tom Saater, another photographer whose work inspired me.
Later, I discovered international photographers whose visual storytelling resonated with me. One of my earliest influences was Steve McCurry. Over time, I became familiar with more photographers who balance artistic vision with documentary realism, such as Lindsay Addario and Sebastian Salgado, Ernest Cole, Aida Muluneh, Dario Mitidieri, among others.
However, much of my inspiration also comes from the vibrancy of my environment back home in Nigeria. The richness of color, the energy of daily life—these elements have always influenced my photography. Many of my works reflect that, as I aim to capture scenes in their full vibrancy and authenticity.
My family has also played a significant role in shaping my perspective. Growing up, my mother would take annual photographs of us, documenting moments in our lives. I remember spending time looking through old photo albums, captivated by how images could preserve memories. Looking back, I think that early exposure to photography created an intrinsic connection for me.
Jacobsen: What advice do you have for aspiring photographers?
Vijay: My biggest advice? Keep shooting. Keep practicing.
- Read about other photographers. Study how they see the world.
- Look at photo books. Get inspired by different styles of visual storytelling.
- Stay curious. Photography is about observation—the more you observe, the more you develop your photographic eye and voice.
- Collaborate with others. Engage with different artists and find the stories you want to tell.
More than anything, discover what part of humanity speaks to you—what themes you want to explore and represent through your work.
And most importantly, enjoy the process. Creativity is about bringing something into existence—whether from nothing or from our lived experiences—and leaving something meaningful for others to engage with.
Jacobsen: What’s next? We are participants of CSW69, primarily focusing on the Nigerian Women’s Day side event, which took up the entire day. So what are your next steps, and what are your reflections on the day and the event as a whole?
Vijay: For me, honestly, it was incredibly inspiring to hear the stories of these amazing women whom I had the opportunity to photograph and document throughout the day. The celebration of women is so important because women play a fundamental role in our world—from bringing us into this life to nurturing, supporting, and guiding both men and women. In a world filled with unrest and uncertainty, it is crucial to celebrate and uplift them.
I want to continue documenting stories—whether through photo essays or portraiture—because a single portrait can often convey a thousand emotions, revealing deep insights into people and places. That is what’s next for me. I also enjoy corporate photography, particularly observing how individuals navigate professional spaces and the dynamics of their lives both inside and outside of work.
More than anything, I was deeply moved and inspired by the CSW69 side event hosted by the Nigerian Ministry of Women Affairs. The resilience of these women and the challenges they have overcome were truly remarkable. Many of them have defied societal expectations that traditionally placed women in restrictive roles—whether as mothers or wives—and have instead become politicians, activists, professors, and corporate executives. They have pushed against cultural and systemic barriers, setting powerful examples for other women to follow. As someone who values storytelling, witnessing their strength reinforced the importance of self-belief and perseverance.
For me, that is exactly what I plan to keep doing—continuing to create and tell the stories of others through my perspective and the lens of my camera.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on how photography is evolving?
Vijay: I think that the evolution of photography, especially in North America, should include more narratives about migrants. Migration has fundamentally reshaped American society over generations, and I believe there is an opportunity to highlight the stories of immigrants and their integration into new cultural landscapes. The world is globalizing and evolving.
As immigration continues to shape economies, communities, and identities, I would love to see more visual storytelling that reflects these realities—documenting how migrants navigate life in a new country while preserving elements of their heritage and identity. The photographic landscape is evolving, and I hope it moves in a direction that amplifies diverse voices and untold stories.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Simi.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/18
Will Dempsey, LICSW, is a social worker, drag queen and queer rights advocate. He is the founder of Heads Held High Counseling, a LGBTQIA+ virtual group therapy practice supporting queer and trans individuals across Massachusetts and Illinois. Will’s innovative approach to social work seamlessly blends his creative flair with his commitment to advocacy, making mental health care both accessible and affirming for marginalized communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have regional differences influenced legal frameworks’ stipulations for access to gender-affirming healthcare?
Will Dempsey: Regional differences in the United States have had a significant impact on the legal frameworks governing access to gender-affirming healthcare. In many states, political ideologies and cultural attitudes have driven policies that restrict access to these services. Notably, transgender youth are often highlighted as a justification for these restrictions—even though clinical guidelines suggest that only a small fraction of transgender youth pursue medical interventions. For example, studies and guidelines from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics indicate that hormone replacement therapy and similar interventions are typically recommended only for a select group, with estimates suggesting that approximately 1–5% of transgender youth actually receive such treatments.
This focus on a small demographic appears to serve as a basis for broader policy restrictions. Historically, targeted policies—initially aimed at a narrowly defined group—have sometimes paved the way for more extensive limitations on rights. In the end, the focus on transgender youth seems less about genuine healthcare concerns and more about pushing a clear political agenda to restrict gender-affirming care.
Jacobsen: What challenges face transgender people seeking gender-affirming treatments?
Dempsey: Transgender people seeking gender-affirming treatments face a range of growing challenges. For example, patients are often required to obtain one or more letters from healthcare providers before undergoing procedures, yet these letters are increasingly being denied or are subject to more stringent conditions, such as requiring longer-term relationships between the provider and patient. At the same time, insurance companies are raising deductibles and increasing the frequency of premium adjustments, which disproportionately impacts transgender individuals given their statistically lower incomes.
Moreover, several conservative states have introduced restrictive legislation that labels gender-affirming treatments—especially for minors—as experimental or unapproved. Such legal measures not only add bureaucratic hurdles for healthcare providers but also threaten criminal penalties, creating a chilling effect that discourages professionals from offering these essential services.
Jacobsen: What legislative protections impact healthcare policy for transgender communities?
Dempsey: Legislative protections for transgender healthcare in the U.S. come from both federal and state measures. At the federal level, the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—a provision increasingly interpreted to include gender identity. In addition, many states have enacted laws that explicitly protect transgender individuals in healthcare settings. However, during the previous Trump presidency, federal protections under the ACA were rolled back and there was opposition to expanding non-discrimination safeguards. With the current Trump administration favoring state-led decision-making, only 17 states have enacted shield laws specifically safeguarding gender-affirming healthcare. This means that while protections exist today, their future remains uncertain.
Jacobsen: How can urban and rural healthcare systems provide access to comprehensive gender-affirming services?
Dempsey: Urban and rural healthcare systems can enhance access to comprehensive gender-affirming services by investing in provider education and expanding telemedicine Providers should receive regular training on transgender healthcare—covering hormone therapy, surgical procedures, and culturally competent communication—to ensure they meet the community’s unique needs. In rural areas, telemedicine and mobile clinics can bridge the gap where local specialists are scarce.
Additionally, integrated care models that combine primary care, mental health, and specialty services can streamline treatment. By partnering with local transgender organizations and advocating for protective policies and increased funding, healthcare systems can ensure that everyone, regardless of location, receives equitable and informed care.
Jacobsen: What adaptations are required for the integration of mental health supports for transgender patients?
Dempsey: Providers must be trained in cultural competency to integrate mental health supports effectively for transgender patients. This means not only mastering affirming language and communication skills but also understanding the unique experiences—such as societal rejection, discrimination, and systemic barriers—that contribute to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in the transgender community. A trauma-informed approach is essential, ensuring that care is sensitive to past harms and avoids further stigmatization.
Additionally, integrating mental health support into broader healthcare systems is key. This can involve establishing multidisciplinary teams that include both primary care and specialized mental health professionals, as well as leveraging telehealth to reach underserved areas. Collaborating with community organizations and advocacy groups also helps tailor services to the specific needs of transgender patients, ensuring that mental health care is accessible, culturally sensitive, and fully integrated with overall healthcare services.
Jacobsen: What are the examples of best practices for enhanced access to gender-affirming care?
Dempsey: Best practices for enhanced access to gender-affirming care include a combination of provider education, integrated care models, and outreach strategies. Providers benefit from ongoing training in transgender healthcare, ensuring they are versed in best practice protocols and culturally competent communication. Clinics that offer multidisciplinary services—combining primary care, mental health support, hormone therapy, and surgical expertise—help streamline treatment and reduce barriers. Additionally, telemedicine and mobile outreach programs can extend services to underserved or rural areas.
Equally important are inclusive administrative practices and strong community partnerships. This means using patients’ preferred names and pronouns, creating welcoming environments, and ensuring all forms and communications are affirming. Advocacy efforts that push for broader legislative protections and improved insurance coverage further bolster these practices, ensuring that comprehensive gender-affirming care is accessible to all who need it.
Jacobsen: How are, and aren’t, policymakers, healthcare providers, and transgender advocacy groups, collaborating to meet gaps in healthcare services?
Dempsey: Policymakers, healthcare providers, and transgender advocacy groups are not fully collaborating to address the healthcare gaps for transgender communities. Many policymakers, particularly those with conservative views, have dismissed the distinct needs of transgender individuals—often asserting that individuals should only be recognized by their assigned sex at birth. As a result, legislative efforts tend to focus on basic human rights, such as non-discrimination and safety, rather than on advancing comprehensive healthcare policies tailored to transgender needs.
On the other hand, healthcare providers and advocacy groups are actively working together to bridge some of these gaps. For example, they’re collaborating with insurance companies to develop standardized letter templates for gender-affirming surgeries, which has helped reduce denials and streamline the approval process. While these practical measures show promise in improving access to care, the lack of cohesive policy-level support remains a significant barrier to fully meeting the comprehensive healthcare needs of transgender individuals.
Jacobsen: What will be the significant challenges moving forward, whether expressed by patients in practice or in observation/reading of the current culture of healthcare and public opinion?
Dempsey: Significant challenges moving forward stem from a deep-seated refusal by many to recognize transgender people as fully human. Harmful rhetoric—ranging from dehumanizing labels to baseless accusations such as “child molester”—mirrors the past stigmatization of the broader LGBTQIA+ community for the latter half of the 20th century in America and continues to fuel discrimination. This pervasive bias not only hampers efforts to advance nuanced healthcare policies but also shifts the burden to individual states, where protective measures vary widely. Until society reaches a baseline acceptance of transgender individuals, the focus on politically charged issues—especially those centering on youth—will continue to obstruct progress toward comprehensive, equitable healthcare.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Will.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/17
Known as America’s Relationship Expert, Dr. Wendy Walsh is an award-winning television journalist, radio host & podcaster, and the author of three books on relationships and thousands of print and digital articles. She is currently a relationship expert at DatingAdvice.com. More than 1.5 million people follow her sage advice on social media. She holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and teaches in the Psychology Department at California State University Channel Islands and has been the host of “The Dr. Wendy Walsh Show” on iHeart Radio’s KFI AM 640 since 2015. Walsh is also a former Emmy-nominated co-host of “The Doctors,” as well as former host of the nationally syndicated show “EXTRA.” She was named a Time Magazine Person of the Year in 2017 after speaking out about harassment at a major news network. Walsh explores the differences between dating in one’s 20s and 30s, highlighting shifting priorities and biological realities. In the 20s, relationships are exploratory due to birth control, career-building, and extended adolescence, while 30s dating becomes high-stakes as individuals seek long-term partners, often under reproductive pressures. Dating apps have expanded options but also increased choice paralysis, making commitment harder. Walsh advises developing relationship skills, prioritizing emotional maturity, and clarifying long-term intentions. She emphasizes early in-person connections, avoiding casual flings for serious dating, and recognizing that healthy relationships require effort and sacrifice for lasting success.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the differences in dating in your 20s and your 30s?
Dr. Wendy Walsh: To fully answer that question, we need to go back into our anthropological past. Thousands of years ago, a cooperative tribe helped a young person with offspring (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc.) and thus reproduction began much earlier, most commonly in one’s teenaged years. Also, the knowledge and skills that were needed to “adult” and survive, were less complicated — how to build a fire, a hut and how to hunt and avoid poison berries.
But today, the intellectual skills needed to survive in today’s increasingly complex social and technological world mean that both males and females spend an extra decade becoming educated and launching their careers. Interconnected tribes have given way to nuclear families and single parent households. And mate selection has become a long game of skill building. I like to call today’s 20-something, dating relationships, “practice relationships.” And 30-something relationships as “high stakes” relationships. Because of birth control, people can practice relationship skills and audition mates while they simultaneously hone basic survival skills. But for those who aim to reproduce (about 80% of humans) the 30’s become a time of high stakes selection. A poor mate selection can send one down a life-path to poverty and poor mental and physical health.
Jacobsen: Maturity isn’t necessarily chronological. As a rule of thumb, though, how do one’s 30s contribute to a more fulfilling dating experience?
Walsh: Emotional maturity may not be chronological – some people do stagnate — but physical maturity is very much chronological. And for women who want to become mothers, it becomes a ticking clock for reproduction. It should be mentioned here that despite the media attention on dwindling fertility in females, new research is showing that paternal age is also being associated with developmental disorders, like autism. So a male fertility window is also a real thing.
While the 30’s dating life may look more fulfilling because partners have more life experience, it has also become the age of anxiety for many 30-somethings. There is a scramble to find mates before biology closes reproductive windows. And here’s the other thing people aren’t talking about: partners with a secure attachment style pull each other off the mating marketplace first. In the United States, the average age of first-time marriage is 28 for men and 26 for women. That means that by 30, more than half of healthy mates are off the market. What’s left in the dating pool are those who have an anxious or avoidant attachment style, or those who are happy staying single.
There is some good news here. At any stage of the lifespan, relationship skills can be acquired and attachment style can change. It does take time and work, usually in the office of a licensed therapist.
Jacobsen: Why are the 20s considered more exploratory for dating? Was this considered the case 50 years ago?
Walsh: The advent of birth control in 1962, changed the game. Prior to that, the “price” of sex was six-months of courtship and an alter. Sex was such a high-risk hobby that young people did not have the luxury of dating around.
Jacobsen: How have dating apps reshaped modern dating for the 20s cohort and the 30s cohort?
Walsh: Dating apps have expanded the mating marketplace. While that may be good news for sexual or ethnic minorities who live in small communities with few mate choices, for most urban dwellers, it has made dating harder. There is a psychological phenomenon called the “paradox of choice” that says that the more choice a human has, the less likely they are to make a choice. And when they do make a choice, they value that choice less. They are thinking about the ones who might still be in the mating pool. So dating apps essentially keep people single by providing too much choice.
Jacobsen: What are good strategies for someone in their 30s to navigate dating?
Walsh: Don’t confuse your 20’s with your 30’s! It’s a whole new mating game. If you haven’t learned some healthy relationship skills, it’s time to see a therapist. And, if you are still using short-term mating strategies (leading with hot and sexy) and hope to find a long-term relationship, you will likely lose the mating game. Stop hooking up and start interviewing!
Jacobsen: How have relationship milestones evolved?
Walsh: While birth control has helped people delay reproduction, it’s important to realize that we are walking around in ancient biology and the milestones are the same.
Jacobsen: How can folks leverage life experience to overcome modern dating challenges in a digital dating age?
Walsh: Get in the real world soon after matching. Don’t date more than two people at once, then eliminate one. Talk about feelings and life goals. And, most of all, if you are looking for a long-term relationship, say so, and walk away from someone who isn’t exhibiting commitment-oriented behavior.
Jacobsen: What are your favorite dating and mating quotes?
Walsh: There are ones I created and say all the time:
- “Sperm chases egg, not the reverse.” (Women shouldn’t pay for a first date.)
- “There is no such thing as a failed relationship!” (Only a love-lesson graduation)
- “When ‘til death do us part was invented, death was pretty imminent.” (Even monogamous people can expect two or three long stints of monogamy.)
- “Men don’t fall in love through sex!” (They fall in love through trust and they don’t trust a woman who gives them sex easily)
- “All genders value what they have to work for.” (Give them the gift of getting to sacrifice for you.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Wendy.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/17
Natural Resources Canada is committed to improving the quality of life of Canadians by ensuring the country’s abundant natural resources are developed sustainably, competitively and inclusively. The Canadian government is advancing offshore wind energy through strategic planning and regulatory frameworks. Natural Resources Canada discusses focusing on environmental protection, project timelines, and regulatory challenges. The Regional Assessment Committees for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have submitted final reports outlining recommendations for responsible offshore wind development. Legislative amendments and regulatory updates under the Accord Acts are establishing frameworks for offshore renewable energy. Canada’s membership in the Global Offshore Wind Alliance highlights its commitment to clean energy. Drawing from offshore oil and gas expertise, Canada is streamlining offshore wind projects. Collaboration with industry stakeholders, Indigenous groups, and investors is key to expanding this sector. The government continues to engage industry to ensure sustainable development.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What measures are considered to monitor and protect sensitive marine ecosystems?
Natural Resources Canada: In March 2023, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced the creation of a Regional Assessment Committee for Offshore Wind Development for Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, respectively. The purpose of the Regional Assessments was to provide information, knowledge and analysis regarding future offshore wind development activities in the study areas and their potential effects. This was to inform and improve future planning, licencing and impact assessment processes for these activities in a way that helps protect the environmental health, social and economic conditions while also creating opportunities for sustainable economic development.
In January 2025, the Committees submitted their Final Reports to governments, which have been published on the Impact Assessment Registry and are available through the following links:
- Final Regional Assessment Report of Offshore Wind Development in Nova Scotia
- Final Regional Assessment Report of Offshore Wind Development in Newfoundland and Labrador
Within these reports, the Committees have included recommendations to governments to inform the responsible development of the offshore wind energy industry. A number of recommendations address planning, considerations for co-existence, measures for mitigation and monitoring, and protection of the marine ecosystem.
As part of their mandate, the Committees also identified areas where offshore wind development may be suitable based upon technical feasibility, environmental considerations (e.g. marine protected areas, species at risk), and socio-economic considerations (e.g., commercial fishers and other ocean users). Proposed development areas also took into consideration feedback shared by participants during the extensive engagement programs. The Government will undertake further review and leverage other planning and decision-making tools, including Impact Assessments that will assess prospective economic, social, and environmental effects and mitigation measures of any proposed project(s).
For more information on the Regional Assessment Committees, please contact Impact Assessment Agency of Canadadirectly.
Jacobsen: What is the deployment timeline for offshore wind capacity and their financing structure?
Natural Resources Canada: According to current publicly available data, the global average timeline to build an offshore wind farm is around 7-9 years from the initial site assessment to full operation, with most of the time spent on permitting, environmental studies, and grid connection processes, rather than the construction itself. However, this can vary significantly depending on the location, regulatory environment, project size and complexity, and infrastructure requirements.
Jacobsen: Do these offshore wind projects represent significant regulatory challenges, or can these be streamlined if extant?
Natural Resources Canada: Offshore wind projects are complex to build and operate. The Government of Canada (GOC) has undertaken significant work to establish an effective, efficient and predictable legislative and regulatory framework to enable responsible development. In addition, the GOC has worked closely with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a legislative framework to support offshore wind development in the Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore areas.
On January 31, 2025, amendments to the federal and provincial Canada-Nova Scotia Accord Acts were brought into force and the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator became the lifecycle regulator for offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy development. Amendments to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Acts are expected to come into force later in 2025, which will expand the mandate of current Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (to be renamed the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator) to become the lifecycle regulator for both offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy development.
Regulations under the amended Accord Acts are in development and are based on the Federal Canada Offshore Renewable Energy Regulations that became law on December 16, 2024. These regulations will establish safety and environmental protection requirements for project developers.
Jacobsen: How will improved turbine designs or grid integration accelerate offshore wind energy generation efficiency?
Natural Resources Canada: This question is best directed to Marine Renewables Canada and offshore wind developers, as it falls outside the purview of NRCan.
Jacobsen: What is Canada’s part in the Global Offshore Wind Alliance?
Natural Resources Canada: Canada recently became a member of the Global Offshore Wind Alliance, a forum that supports collaboration with international partners on efforts to advance offshore wind as a source of clean and reliable energy.
Jacobsen: What are the lessons from offshore oil and gas, which could facilitate the transition to offshore wind energy?
Natural Resources Canada: Canada has a long history of offshore oil and gas development in the Atlantic Offshore, pursuant to comprehensive joint management frameworks established under the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, also known as the Accord Acts. There are strong joint management relationships and depth of experience from the regulatory and policy perspective in the offshore oil and gas sector that can be applied to offshore renewable energy. This includes expertise in practices such as running Call for Bids processes and issuing regulatory authorizations for project activities. That is why Governments opted to expand the existing regulatory regimes to include offshore renewable energy, by amending the Accord Acts.
Jacobsen: How will federal and subnational governments collaborate with industry stakeholders in this rapidly evolving market?
Natural Resources Canada: We already know that investors are interested in offshore wind projects in Canada, and many global offshore wind developers have stated that they see Canada as a promising market for future development, particularly on the east coast. The GOC recognizes the importance of regular dialogue and collaboration with different parties – from industry and commercial fishers to Indigenous groups as well as the general public – in moving forward with expanding offshore wind in Canada. Engagement with industry stakeholders is a key part of our work and has been taking place through fora such as Marine Renewables Canada. Insights from industry are significant to informing how governments will move forward with offshore wind planning and development in the future, and governments intend to continue outreach with interested and impacted stakeholders, including industry, to seek their feedback and input in support of building a strong and prosperous offshore wind industry in Canada.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16
*Link to interview.*
Senator Ireti Kingibe is a Nigerian civil engineer and politician serving as Senator for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) since 2023 under the Labour Party. A former engineer, she has held roles in various construction firms. Kingibe champions women’s empowerment and legislative reforms, advocating for increased gender representation in Nigerian governance. Kingibe highlights Nigeria’s progress in women’s empowerment, citing increased budgetary provisions and a proposed 35% inclusion bill. She emphasizes economic independence, investment over donations, and women’s high loan repayment rates. Kingibe praises proactive leadership, female unity, and legislative efforts, stressing that women’s inclusion strengthens governance, families, and national development.
Scott Duglas Jacobsen: Senator, thank you very much for joining me today. What are the things over the last thirty years that you’ve noted have been the greatest areas of progress for women in Nigeria?
Hon. Ireti Kingibe: For one, kudos to this particular minister, for the first time in women’s affairs, we’ve been able to get much, much bigger budgetary provisions. That’s the first place to start. Secondly, I’m hopeful that this thirtieth year, for the first time, the bill for the 35% women inclusion in all aspects of society as well as governments went to the first reading a few days ago. Hopefully, it will go to a second and third reading and then become enacted in parliament, and the president will sign it into law. If that happens, that would be the biggest progress so far.
But we’re also working on 74 special seats for women. That’s a constitutional amendment. So once we pass it in the national assembly, we have to get 28 state assemblies to also accept the/domesticate the amendment, then we can make a full constitutional amendment. There is progress. It’s been slow. Especially women in government and in policymaking, it’s been slow. But other aspects, as you can see in the banking sector and other sectors, the private sector, there are many, many women represented. Also, young women are doing a lot, especially in the creative industry. Nigerian women are very creative and a force to be reckoned with. They’re 70% of smallholder farmers, so a lot is happening.
It’s just that women are not getting the necessary support that they need. As you can see, for the first time, all the ministers that are female are united to meet, which means that in their different sectors and ministries will be looking to ensure that women’s empowerment and women are given special attention. Even the procurement part of it, so, women, the nation, are more aware of it: Economic development, just development as a nation. We cannot leave half of the population behind. Our GDP will increase 20-25% if we can bridge this gap. Also, I think that in all aspects; there will be an improvement. Women are empathic. Women are aware of family, posterity. I am a woman. It might be prejudicial to say, “Women are a little bit more than men,” but it would be a huge step in our development. are more empathic.”
Jacobsen: Do you think gender parity typically starts in economics as an economic independence, and then everything else flows down ultimately?
Kingibe: Most definitely. A lot of my programs are women’s empowerment programs. I’m trying to see how I can get more financing. One of the things that I’m hoping for is that we’re not looking for donors. We’re looking for investors. I feel that if the Nigerians who are in the diaspora, those who can, each person can invest a thousand dollars in a woman entrepreneur, payable in two years, they would see a huge difference.
And it’s not a donation. It’s actually an investment where you get back your capital, as well as some interest. If that can be put in place, I’m trying to work out a mechanism for that. So there are lots of things that I feel once we can empower them economically, the rest will flow from it because that’s the place to start.
Jacobsen:From what you get from the outside, so outside of Nigeria, what do you note that is a misconception about Nigerian culture and Nigerian women, that when they’re trying to promote women’s empowerment, may work in their culture but does not necessarily work within a Nigerian context because there are certain nuances that are a little bit different?
Kingibe: I don’t understand what you mean in terms of different nuances. I know that even within the Nigerian culture; I know that women tend to pay back their loans more. The payback rate for women in some sectors is up to 98%. So, women do pay back because they know what capital influx does for their businesses. When a woman’s business thrives, the family thrives, whether the man can help out is fine. If he or she has the resources, then the family unit will be fine.
Jacobsen: Does this flow to the community as well?
Kingibe: Yes it does.
Jacobsen: What do you notice about the positive outcrops for the next generation when family and community flourish?
Kingibe: I don’t understand. What do you mean?
Jacobsen: Whether it’s education, health outcomes, or infant mortality rates reduced?
Kingibe: Definitely. For one thing, when the mother when the father lacks the ability to pay school fees, mothers usually are determined that their children will go to school. You see the effort they put into it. And so it will then flow to education and many other sectors. The community will be uplifted.
Jacobsen: What was your favourite part of today’s gathering?
Kingibe: The Governor of Zamfara impressed me immensely because you have to understand that Zamfara is one of the core Northern states. A place you do not expect to have such a proactive governor. And that impressed me a lot.
I like the fact that the women ministers were supportive of each other. I also like the fact that it brought a lot of people, women, of diverse backgrounds together, all shooting for one thing. Women mentees, women’s empowerment, and women’s inclusion across the board.
Jacobsen: Last question, what matters to you most at this point in your career now?
Kingibe: Well, for me, when I first came to the Senate, 35% was my main legislative agenda. Getting that bill passed would be major, it would give me a lot of satisfaction, also I came to be a minesweeper, a vanguard, to get more women to come into the Senate, the National Assembly, all aspects of government. Then our voices will be heard. As one participant said–I think it was Iyom, “If you are not in the room, then you cannot be part of the discussion.” Getting into that room, for me, is critical.
Jacobsen: Senator, thank you very much for your time today.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16
Dr. Angela Rodriguez, a board-certified plastic surgeon and founder of ART Surgical, specializes in craniofacial, pediatric plastic surgery, and gender-affirming care. Initially focused on pediatric surgery, she transitioned to transgender healthcare in 2018, offering procedures like facial feminization surgery (FFS) and gender-affirming surgeries. She trained at Stanford and Harvard and contributed to tissue engineering research. Dr. Rodriguez discusses increasing demand, legislative barriers, and socioeconomic challenges in transgender healthcare. Technological advancements, including scarless surgery and 3D surgical guides, improve outcomes. She emphasizes resilience, visibility, and education, advocating for better access and understanding of gender-affirming care.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is everyone’s favourite part because they can fact-check a journalist live. Today, we are here with Dr. Angela Rodriguez. She is a board-certified plastic surgeon and the founder of ART Surgical. Her earlier career was in pediatric plastic surgery. With over 20 years of experience, she specializes in craniofacial, pediatric plastic surgery, and gender-affirming care. In 2018, she shifted her practice to focus exclusively on transgender patients, providing procedures such as facial feminization surgery (FFS), rhinoplasty, and chest and genital gender-affirming surgeries. Dr. Rodriguez completed her plastic surgery training at Stanford University and her craniofacial fellowship at Harvard University. Beyond surgery, she contributes to scientific research in tissue engineering. She is recognized for her compassionate approach and remains a leading advocate for inclusive and patient-centred transgender healthcare. Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it. Have you seen improvements in access to gender-affirming care in recent years, or have barriers increased?
Dr. Angela Rodriguez: We have seen an increase in demand, and with that, there are barriers to providing care for everyone who needs it. Legal rulings requiring insurance coverage for gender-affirming care have driven demand because more people are now seeking treatment who previously lacked access. They were not visible in society before, and now we have more patients but fewer doctors and healthcare systems equipped to meet their needs. We have made progress in expanding access, but barriers remain.
Jacobsen: What are the biggest challenges transgender individuals face when seeking gender-affirming healthcare?
Rodriguez: One major challenge is discrimination at the most basic level. I have had patients from other states, especially those outside of California, who struggle to find a primary care physician or dentist. Part of the problem is that many providers lack education on transgender healthcare needs.
Additionally, insurance coverage is often inconsistent, creating financial barriers. Patients also face privacy concerns, misgendering, and a lack of knowledgeable providers, making accessing safe and affirming care harder.
Jacobsen: The United States has a unique healthcare system. In my interviews with Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a pioneer of evidence-based medicine, he noted that Nordic countries, Western Europe, and Canada emphasize equity in healthcare, which leads to stronger support for universal public healthcare.
In contrast, the United States values autonomy more, resulting in a greater reliance on private healthcare.
Is there a difference in the quality of gender-affirming care between public and private healthcare systems in the U.S.?
Rodriguez: I believe that there is a difference. I don’t think there is a difference in quality—you’ll find good doctors in both systems. It’s more about what is better for the patient and how we can integrate them into these large institutions. I own a small boutique practice in San Francisco, which was created with the understanding that patients have unique needs and require specialized care. Many prefer not to go to large hospitals, though we perform surgeries at major institutions.
At this point, there isn’t a significant difference between public and private systems regarding gender-affirming care. More providers are receiving training. When gender-affirming care gained broader recognition around 2014–2015, major hospitals, institutions, and universities began developing programs. Now, we have strong fellowship programs focused on gender-affirming care.
However, this field’s initial supply of doctors came from private practice. For many years, private practice surgeons primarily met the demand for gender-affirming care. Some of the best surgeons, including those who trained me—I had already been practicing for 13 years when I entered this field—were in private practice and had established systems to meet patient needs. In the United States, private practices had more experience with gender-affirming care than public institutions for a long time.
Jacobsen: What strategies have helped expand access to gender-affirming procedures? You mentioned that developments in this field are relatively recent, but what effective strategies have been used to increase access?
Rodriguez: If you look at the Bay Area—particularly in California—we have seen community growth and the involvement of LGBTQIA+ organizations working to bridge the gap between the transgender community and medical providers. These groups have helped reconcile differences and provide education and information to patients. Expanding access to care has been a community-driven effort.
Jacobsen: How have recent legislative changes impacted transgender healthcare—both positively and negatively?
Rodriguez: They do? Is that a question?
Jacobsen: Yes, they do, but how have they?
Rodriguez: How have they? Initially, as I mentioned, everything was handled privately. Then, around 2014, the courts ruled that gender dysphoria should be covered by insurance. This was part of the Affordable Care Act’s effort to address the needs of the transgender community. However, as we see daily, numerous legislative efforts have since aimed to restrict access to care in many states.
Thankfully, this is not the case in California, but across the country, access to gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapy has been significantly limited. Some states that are more understanding of transgender patients’ needs have enacted shield laws to protect patients from these restrictions. These laws help ensure that individuals can still receive care without facing legal consequences.
Yes, legislative changes have had a profound impact on transgender healthcare, and we want lawmakers to recognize the importance of understanding this population. They need to sit down with transgender patients and truly grasp how these treatments impact lives. Gender-affirming surgery can be life-changing, allowing individuals to integrate fully into society. It is essential to protect and support these vulnerable populations.
Jacobsen: There are different demographic perspectives on transgender issues. Some people do not accept transgender individuals—that is just how they see the world. Others are completely affirming and supportive. Then, there is a third group that falls somewhere in between.
This middle group may struggle with specific topics, such as pronoun use, types of surgery, or the concept of “passability.” They might have transgender family members and be generally supportive, yet they hesitate when it comes to legislation around pronouns, medical care, or the extent of treatment. Others may not personally know any transgender individuals but still support transgender rights in an abstract sense.
What areas do you find to be the most gray—both legislatively and culturally—when it comes to transgender care? Not just in San Francisco, but perhaps across the Southwest United States more broadly?
Rodriguez: The Southwest United States? To clarify, are you asking about the gray areas regarding transgender healthcare and legislation?
Jacobsen: Yes. We have clear opposite ends—strong opposition versus full acceptance. But then there’s this middle ground—people are uncertain about certain aspects of transgender care.
Some may have transgender family members and no issue with it personally, but when it comes to laws on pronouns, medical access, or levels of care, they have mixed opinions. Others may not know any transgender people but still express general support—though only in an abstract way.
This nuanced debate is rarely discussed, but I would love your perspective since you have more experience dealing with these issues.
Rodriguez: Yes, I agree with you. The public discussion often focuses on very specific issues that affect only a small number of transgender individuals, such as transgender women in sports or bathroom access laws. These debates dominate media coverage, even though they impact a relatively small percentage of the population.
What we should focus on are real numbers. A person with gender dysphoria is four times more likely to attempt suicide. Mental health, life satisfaction, and overall well-being improve significantly when a transgender individual receives appropriate care, whether that means hormone therapy, surgery, or psychological support.
Not every transgender person needs surgery, but if someone experiences gender dysphoria, they will likely require some form of treatment, whether that is therapy, hormones, or surgery.
When we provide that care, we give people the tools to participate fully in society. It’s not that they didn’t contribute before, but they can find greater fulfillment and stability in their lives. By multiple measures, access to care improves the quality of life for transgender individuals.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, is ignorance. The way the media portrays transgender people does not reflect their daily lives. What people see in the news tends to focus on extreme cases or controversial issues, not the basic, everyday struggles of transgender individuals.
This is about providing essential healthcare, just like we do for any other medical condition.
Jacobsen: And how do these issues get framed in the media in ways that influence the course and direction of legislation? Some individuals argue that gender-affirming care should not be part of public healthcare because they see it as purely cosmetic. These are more sophisticated arguments, certainly—they’re more thought out—but they often stem from similar misunderstandings about what constitutes healthcare.
Rodriguez: Yes. Exposure and education are our only hope. The fact that transgender individuals were not as visible in the public eye before does not mean they didn’t exist. They were always someone’s aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers. They have always been part of society. The difference is that now they have the possibility of living openly. Unfortunately, change is difficult, and to make progress, the first step is visibility.
There will always be people for whom transgender visibility is unacceptable for one reason or another, but we must keep moving forward. More importantly, we cannot allow the majority to decide human rights and healthcare access. If that were the case, no civil rights movement would have succeeded. Civil rights are not about majority rule but about protecting vulnerable populations.
So, it comes down to visibility and education. I encourage anyone uncertain or resistant to sit down with transgender individuals. The vast majority are people just like you and me—ordinary people with their own stories, opinions, and feelings—who happen to have gender dysphoria. They did not choose this. It is not a choice. It is not a lifestyle. It is a medical condition, and as a society, we are judged by how we treat our most vulnerable members.
Jacobsen: If you analyze any population and divide it differently, everyone eventually falls into a minority group. So the point you’re making—that a majority should not dictate healthcare decisions for a particular minority—is necessarily relevant.
When patients come to see you, what concerns do they bring up? What are some misunderstandings that patients or potential patients have about what gender-affirming surgery entails?
Rodriguez: Patients have an incredible level of understanding. Think about someone diagnosed with colon cancer—by the time they see a specialist, they already know the available surgical options and medications. It’s similar to transgender individuals.
It’s not a case of someone waking up one day, realizing they have gender dysphoria, and deciding to get surgery tomorrow. That’s a misconception. In reality, once someone identifies their gender dysphoria, they go through therapy, hormone treatment, and years of preparation before reaching the stage of surgery. As a surgeon, I am the last step in a long process.
However, as with any type of surgery—including cosmetic and reconstructive procedures, which I perform—setting the right expectations is crucial. Unrealistic expectations lead to future disappointment, so I take the time to explain everything clearly.
There is significant post-surgical pain involved, and many of my patients have waited for years for their procedures, so they want things to move quickly. But we must follow proper protocols. Patients need to have the appropriate documentation, including letters from mental health providers diagnosing gender dysphoria. They must be over 18, can consent, and obtain letters from their hormone providers—sometimes even two separate letters from different mental health professionals—to confirm their diagnosis.
Surgery is just one part of a thorough, structured process, and we take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that patients are prepared physically and mentally.
Rodriguez: Patients sometimes push us to make quick decisions or move through the process faster in desperate times. Unfortunately, that’s not possible. The process takes time—insurance approval, proper documentation, and mental health evaluations. Patients often go through a long series of bureaucratic hoops, and while they are typically very well informed, they can sometimes have misconceptions about pain, recovery, and timelines. Our job is to set the right expectations so they are fully prepared for the journey ahead.
Jacobsen: What about socioeconomic factors? Do financial barriers affect access to gender-affirming care?
Rodriguez: Of course. There’s a major divide between those with insurance and those without insurance. And who is less likely to have insurance? Historically, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds haven’t had the same access to education or resources to navigate complex insurance systems. Even as a physician, I find dealing with insurance daunting, so imagine how difficult it is for someone without medical training.
That’s why it is heartbreaking to see some states closing off access to gender-affirming care. Right when we have better education, better-trained surgeons, and gender-affirming programs at nearly every major university, lawmakers are restricting physicians from treating patients in their states.
This forces people to travel across the country to places like San Francisco and the Bay Area, where they must spend weeks paying for lodging, flights, and post-operative care. I cannot perform a major operation on someone and send them home immediately. They need proper aftercare and monitoring to ensure they are stable and ready to return.
So yes, socioeconomic barriers add another major layer of inequality to access.
Jacobsen: I’m losing track of time—it’s already been six minutes. Since this is such a new and evolving field, there are likely to be rapid technological advancements. Given the pace of medical progress, what new techniques and technologies are emerging in gender-affirming care? And how might these advancements shape advocacy efforts and legislative discussions?
My previous interview focused on ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery. The surgeon mentioned working on scarless surgery techniques, particularly for tracheal shave procedures—reducing the Adam’s apple. Instead of an external incision, they operate through the mouth, leaving no visible scar. For trans women and cisgender women with a prominent Adam’s apple, this can make a significant social and psychological difference.
So, how do you see technological advancements helping to drive more rational, evidence-based advocacy and influence legislation?
Rodriguez: I don’t know if we can apply legislative pressure shortly, but every advancement in science pushes us forward. For example, facial feminization surgery (FFS)—which is one of the procedures I perform—involves up to 20 different surgeries on a single patient’s face. We must be efficient, precise, and cohesive as a surgical team to complete such a significant transformation within an eight-hour operation.
New technology is making these procedures more effective and streamlined. We now use 3D guides from CT scans to assist in jaw and forehead reconstruction, making surgeries more accurate and efficient. Scarless techniques, such as rhinoplasty performed internally through the nose, allow quicker procedures with no visible scarring. Each of these advancements improves patient outcomes, self-confidence, and recovery experiences.
There isn’t just one breakthrough—we are making incremental improvements over time. The beauty of plastic surgery is that it draws on decades of knowledge from reconstructive and cosmetic surgery. Modern plastic surgery originated after World War II to reconstruct facial injuries and other physical traumas. Today, we continue to refine and advance techniques across all areas of facial surgery.
Jacobsen: What is your biggest takeaway from your many years of experience—whether in surgery or in tracking progress in legislation?
Rodriguez: Change is hard. It takes time and requires resilience—something the trans community, like many other marginalized groups, has demonstrated time and again. There may be difficult times, but remember that you always want to be on the right side of history. That belief is why I do what I do.
Jacobsen: Dr. Rodriguez, I appreciate your time today. It was great to meet you.
Rodriguez: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Jacobsen: Bye, and thank you.
Rodriguez: Bye, thank you.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08
What inspired the transition from chemical engineering to leading Mensa Cyprus?
I would characterize my initial transition from Chemical Engineering to leading Mensa Cyprus as fateful to the extent that that was paradoxical. What got me interested in Mensa and inspired me to remain active in Mensa Cyprus was the realisation that identification and fostering of human intelligence which is the first of the three purposes of Mensa, in children from an early age as well as in adults, is essential for their well-being and successful development, as well as for the benefit of humanity. I also foresaw that intelligence identification/testing offers an objective criterion for the prevalence of meritocracy in societies. A criterion that nowadays finds increasing application in psychometric tests and assessments used to determine suitability for employment, education, training or placement.
What challenges come with leading Mensa Cyprus?
In Mensa Cyprus we believe in the need for early identification of intelligence/high abilities and talent in children, from the age of 4 years – this was in fact one of the recommendations in my Symposium talk ‘Intelligence and Giftedness’ at the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness in Dubai, 14-18 July 2012, which was also included in the Conference Declaration – and we have been recruiting children since Mensa Cyprus’s start up phase. The number of our child members below 18 (with the youngest joining Mensa at the age of 3 years and 8 months) has been increasing continuously since then and has stabilised around 35% of our total membership in the last years – a success and a challenge at the same time! A challenge because children below 14 have to be individually assessed by an appropriately qualified educational Psychologist (that is not always easy to find), with parents bearing the total cost of the assessment. Furthermore, highly able/gifted students require different teaching methods or special programmes to meet their academic and social needs, to become high achievers and reach eminence. And that’s also a challenge for us because schools in Cyprus do not offer gifted education – my Paper presentation ‘Gifted Students – The case of Cyprus’ at the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness in Dubai, 14-18 July 2012, https://www.academia.edu/4916295/Gifted_Students_The_Case_of_Cyprus is relevant. Both my Symposium talk and Paper presentation reflect many of the principles and objectives Mensa Cyprus has been actively pursuing for years.
What do gifted students need generally? How do educational systems tend to meet those and fail to meet those needs?
Gifted students are exceptional learners, they learn faster and understand complex ideas earlier, therefore they need accelerated and enriched content and opportunities to explore topics in greater depth and breath. They need curriculum compacting, subject acceleration, early access to higher-level material or acceleration in the form of grade skipping in order to overcome boredom and frustration the result of being unchallenged in a typical classroom, that may lead to learning and emotional disabilities at the early stage of their schooling. They need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school. Some countries provide gifted education, gifted programs or full-time gifted schools, but most don’t. In Cyprus gifted education programs are limited, and non-existent in the public system. Educational systems tend to meet gifted students’ needs by providing several forms of acceleration that can be easily applied and have been established as effective, as well as some forms of enrichment. Educational systems fail to meet gifted students’ needs by treating all students as equals providing for the average ability student and using standardized curricula that fail to challenge gifted learners, leading to underachievement and disengagement. Instruction is not differentiated to meet the needs of the gifted. Teachers lack training in identifying or supporting giftedness particularly in twice-exceptional (2e) students (gifted with learning disabilities). Appropriate teacher training is of essential importance. In my opinion – and that’s a position I presented at the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness in Dubai, 14-18 July 2012 – all students could be considered as potentially gifted in the multidimensional model of giftedness and appropriate gifted provision should be made for all students to fulfill their potential. The education system should be reconstructed to provide student-centred learning that would try to take account of every child’s particular needs and ways of thinking.
How do you balance technical analysis with economic & political considerations in consulting work?
It is important that the technical feasibility of the project is established first. Its economic viability (e.g. cost-benefit analysis) is studied next along with the political challenges the project might face. Depending on the findings of each step, scenarios are created and the scenario with the less political risk that enables financing of the project for example from Development banks or the EU and other sources, is chosen.
What climate change strategies can Cyprus prioritize with vulnerabilities facing it?
Cyprus faces:
Extreme weather conditions like heatwaves, prolonged droughts leading to desertification;
Sea level rise driven by human-caused global warming with added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, erosion of coastlines;
Increasing air pollution due to fossil fuels use, increased dust transfer from surrounding desert regions due to climate change;
Chronic water scarcity.
Strategies should be prioritized to:
Combat extreme weather conditions, protect coastlines, enhance the use of renewable energy, expand solar energy, increase water security.
What are the current risks of nuclear proliferation in the Eastern Mediterranean?
The current risks of nuclear proliferation in the Eastern Mediterranean are primarily due to tensions between Iran and Israel. Iran continues to enrich uranium with enrichment close to weapon-grade, although it maintains that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. It also possesses the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, including medium-range missiles potentially capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Iran’s nuclear program sites are the subject of negotiations with the US, but talks ended recently with no agreement. Israel on the other hand believed to possess nuclear weapons, has been hinting for days now at the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. A military confrontation between Iran and Israel could destabilize the region with severe implications. Other regional countries e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, have shown increasing interest in nuclear capabilities. Turkey is one of them, with the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant built in partnership with Russia’s Rosatom, and President Erdogan voicing his ambition to become a nuclear power. Turkey’s advanced missile programs along with its civilian nuclear power developed at the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant could easily be diverted towards weapons development. I hold Cyprus responsible for silently letting Turkey revive its plans for Akkuyu in 2009 without any protest. Even later with the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011, it could have taken the initiative in cooperation with the EU, for a complete ban by the IAEA on nuclear power plants in seismic areas (like the Akkuyu). Made a proposal then, urging it with a letter to the press published on March 18 and March 20 2011. It did nothing again!
What role can Mensa Cyprus play in fostering understanding of gifted pupils?
The first identification of highly gifted children in Cyprus occurred through Mensa Cyprus in 2010 during its start up phase. Two little brothers aged 6 and 12 years were its first young members accepted in Mensa via a Prior Evidence Application. That’s how recruitment of young pupil members started and quickly increased to reach 30% – 35% of our total membership, increasing at the same time our responsibility while giving more depth to our purposes. We emphasized from the very beginning the importance of raising awareness within the Government of Cyprus and particularly the Ministry of Education, about the need to have gifted education, care and support integrated into Cyprus’s national strategy. Have already contacted the Ministry of Education in the past making proposals, and I intend to do that again. Mensa Cyprus can play a uniquely impactful I would say role in fostering understanding of gifted pupils. It will reaffirm its long-standing commitment to identifying, supporting and empowering gifted individuals – particularly children – across the island. We recognize that giftedness if left unacknowledged and unsupported, can result in lost potential not only for the individual but for the society at large.
What is an example of an interesting successful international collaboration in policy or consulting work?
I would say that an example of an interesting successful international collaboration both in policy and consulting is IRENA www.irena.org a non-profit intergovernmental organization founded in 2009 to support the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, with headquarters in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 168 states and the EU are members of IRENA as of July 2022, and a further 17 are in the process of accession. IRENA provides advice and support to governments on renewable energy policy, capacity building, and technology transfer. IRENA also coordinates with existing renewable energy organizations.
Reflecting on early work in technology and industrial development, which predictions about them have become realities while others remained more science fiction?
Predictions that became reality: global digital connectivity; remote work and digital economies; robotic process automation and intelligent machines, AI systems; green technologies and energy transition.
Predictions that remained science fiction: True Artificial General Intelligence, AGI; space industry; fully engineered humans; man-machine symbiosis.
Any advice to offer young women pursuing careers in STEM and policy, particularly in leadership?To always believe in what they are saying and speak with purpose and confidence. STEM leaders can be the best leaders especially in formulating policy, because they understand how science intersects with society. To cultivate meaningful relationships across sectors and collaborate with them. To always advocate for the next generation.
Christina Angelidou
27 May 2025
Limassol
Cyprus
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Phenomenon
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08
Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive of ODI Global, has built a career at the intersection of humanitarian aid, peacebuilding, and international development.
Her advisory roles have included positions with The New Humanitarian, SOS Sahel, Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Centre, the UN Association of the UK, and the UN Population Fund’s ICPD25 High-Level Commission. In 2016, she was part of the Independent Team of Advisers tasked by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) with reforming the UN development system.
Pantuliano’s fieldwork experience includes leading a high-profile UN humanitarian response in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, directing the Peacebuilding Unit for UNDP Sudan, and observing the IGAD-mediated Sudan peace process. She has also lectured at the University of Dar es Salaam and holds a doctorate in Politics and International Studies from the University of Leeds.
Recognized for her leadership in peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, and development, Pantuliano was named a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) in the 2024 New Year Honours. Her writings explore the interconnected crises of conflict and climate change, particularly how desertification worsens tensions between pastoralists and farmers in vulnerable regions.
Through ODI Global’s podcast Think Change, Pantuliano amplifies critical issues facing marginalized communities. She highlights the growing disparity between Khartoum’s elites, who can escape instability, and those in remote regions left to endure survival-level hardships. A vocal critic of international aid’s short-term focus, she calls for a greater emphasis on sustaining livelihoods and education during protracted crises. Her advocacy for decentralized governance underscores the need to empower local civil society and rethink policy frameworks to enhance long-term effectiveness.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me, Sarah. Although you haven’t visited Sudan in several years, you’ve worked extensively on issues related to the country and have closely followed recent developments. The ongoing conflict in Sudan is crucial to highlight, especially given that Western media often prioritizes crises like Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine—both undeniably significant—while other conflicts are overshadowed. How has humanitarian access in Sudan evolved over the past five years as the conflict has deepened?
Sara Pantuliano: I appreciate your focus on Sudan. As you mentioned, much of the global media’s attention is directed toward other crises. Still, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is one of the largest in the world today. Even though some conflicts appear more dramatic and are more frequently featured in news coverage, Sudan’s crisis is staggering in terms of casualties, displacement, and the sheer number of refugees created by this latest wave of violence.
From the outset, humanitarian access has been extremely limited, but I must clarify what we mean by “access.” If we are referring to international humanitarian organizations’ ability to deliver aid, that has been severely restricted since the conflict began—and it remains so today. Some cross-border access from Chad is available for those in Darfur, but very little access elsewhere, and only a small amount of humanitarian aid reaches eastern Sudan.
However, one of the most remarkable aspects of the response has been the strong civil society-led mutual aid and support network. This is a powerful and transformative model of assistance in Sudan. The problem is that it lacks adequate funding. There is very limited financial support for the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) and local grassroots initiatives providing lifesaving services.
The ERRs are doing extraordinary work by establishing soup kitchens, supporting medical care, and keeping some schools operational. However, funding is not reaching them due to the fiduciary constraints that large donors face when attempting to fund local civil society groups and grassroots resistance committees directly. Additionally, the usual channels—where funding flows from the United Nations to NGOs and civil society organizations—are functioning poorly, with very little funding reaching local responders.
I have been advocating strongly for this issue alongside many colleagues. Ultimately, these local groups are highly effective. They are doing an incredible job on the ground. They are the backbone of the humanitarian response and the primary source of relief for Sudan’s distressed population.
Jacobsen: Regarding humanitarian crises, one issue that tends to resonate more with North Americans is the ongoing wildfires in California, particularly in and around Los Angeles. These fires have garnered significant attention, partly because they’ve impacted affluent communities and destroyed high-value properties in an area with steep real estate costs. This has elevated their importance in terms of economic consequences for Americans.
However, climate change isn’t just a problem for California—it’s a global crisis. How is anthropogenic climate change intersecting with and exacerbating the humanitarian challenges in Sudan?
Pantuliano: Yes, massively. I am certain that the acceleration of climate-related pressures in Sudan has been a compounding factor in many aspects of the crisis. There has been ongoing local-level conflict between pastoralists and farming communities for decades.
The aggressive process of desertification in Sudan’s peripheral regions has been a significant driver of this conflict. As pastureland becomes increasingly scarce and water sources dwindle, competition over natural resources intensifies.
Unfortunately, political leaders have exploited and manipulated these tensions, turning resource disputes into broader conflicts.
Many of the militias currently fighting are recruited from these struggling groups—people relying on land access for grazing and farming. Since pastures no longer exist as they once did, herders are being forced onto farmland, leading to encroachments and violent clashes with farming communities. This dynamic has long been at the heart of Sudan’s conflicts.
For many years, during my work in Sudan, notably when I led the Peacebuilding Unit at UNDP, we focused on natural resource management and conflict mitigation. We knew that competition over land and water was a major driver of conflict and that these disputes could be manipulated for wider political purposes. However, despite their pivotal role in Sudan’s instability, the so-called ‘international community’ has paid limited attention to these structural issues.
I also want to address your earlier point about the Los Angeles wildfires and the role of wealth in shaping how crises are perceived. A notable difference in this latest iteration of the Sudanese conflict is that, for the first time, the fighting has been concentrated in Khartoum.
Khartoum is a wealthy capital city where Sudan’s political and economic elites reside. Many of these elites can relate to the type of material loss seen in Los Angeles’ wealthier neighbourhoods following the wildfires. This starkly contrasts past conflicts, which were largely confined to Sudan’s peripheral and poorer regions. Historically, the elites in Khartoum were not deeply concerned because these conflicts did not directly affect them.
This time, however, the situation is different. The heart of the “imperial city,” as Khartoum is known, has been devastated. Khartoum, a center of culture, tradition, and art, was home to luxurious villas, historic landmarks, and invaluable cultural artifacts. Many of these estates and treasures have now been destroyed or looted.
For the first time, people from the peripheries—neglected for generations and exploited by external forces—have entered the capital. Many had nothing; others had a lot in the culture, history, and art embedded in the city’s grand homes and institutions. Even the National Museum in Khartoum, which houses Sudan’s cultural heritage, has not been spared.
This destruction is the result of decades of inequality, structural neglect, and deep-seated disparities that have long defined Sudan’s political and social landscape.
Jacobsen: When you compare the perspectives of Sudan’s elites with those from the marginalized peripheries—individuals who have little to nothing—what commonalities and differences emerge in their understanding and responses to the ongoing humanitarian crisis?
Pantuliano: The people in Sudan’s peripheries are, first and foremost, focused on survival because they have fewer resources and far fewer options. In contrast, the wealthy in Khartoum have networks—they can often find ways to escape and seek refuge.
That has been the case for many in Khartoum. They have relocated to Cairo, London, the Gulf, Nairobi, or other cities with family members, diaspora connections, or financial resources to draw from. Many also have money in foreign bank accounts, which has allowed them to flee and rebuild their lives elsewhere.
Of course, this is still a massive disaster for them—it is devastating to lose everything. However, their immediate survival is not as urgent as that of those in the peripheries, where people struggle to feed themselves and their children and stay alive.
We have already seen countless deaths due to acute food insecurity, which has had a devastating impact on those without resources. Many depend on aid, whether domestically mobilized or provided by international agencies.
That said, some common struggles are shared by the elites and those from lower-income communities. Access to education is a major issue for children, regardless of class. Schools have not operated for over a year and a half, leaving an entire generation at risk of losing their future. Additionally, medical assistance is either extremely limited or nonexistent in many areas, affecting both the rich and the poor. Some challenges in this crisis are universal.
Jacobsen: Let me offer a comparable example. Just yesterday, I interviewed someone about judicial reform efforts in Ukraine, a process complicated by ongoing war, corruption, and propaganda. Implementing reform under normal circumstances is difficult enough—but it’s a whole different challenge when you’re under daily bombardment. After just two weeks of constant air raid sirens, people began tuning them out entirely.
To provide readers with a sense of the conditions in Sudan: When experts are working amid a humanitarian crisis, armed conflict, or both, how do these realities complicate efforts to document human rights abuses and assess the need for humanitarian aid? What unique obstacles do they face in trying to maintain both accuracy and effectiveness in such an environment?
Pantuliano: The biggest challenge is security—for the experts and the people.
This phase of Sudan’s conflict has been extraordinarily violent. Of course, we saw similar violence in the South and Darfur 22 years ago. However, the current level of violence is truly senseless.
One of the most pervasive and horrifying aspects of this war is sexual violence, which has spread everywhere. This alone makes it extremely difficult for experts to operate—local or international.
Quite frankly, there are very few international experts in the areas most affected by the conflict. As I mentioned before, the response has been largely left to Sudanese citizens, who are doing everything they can to document atrocities and provide aid.
But their safety is constantly at risk. Some of the reports of how people have been killed and brutalized are simply unimaginable. It’s terrifying. That’s why so many people have chosen to flee—not because they want to, but because they fear for their lives. For those who have remained behind, it is often not by choice—they simply cannot escape. They are not allowed to flee to safety.
Jacobsen: When delivering aid or advising on the most effective forms of assistance in humanitarian crises and conflict zones, which types of support tend to have the greatest impact? Evacuation is, of course, one form of relief. But what about addressing immediate needs—such as food, clean water, shelter, and medical care? How do you account for the needs of vulnerable groups like pregnant women, survivors of sexual violence, or those with severe injuries at risk of infection? How do humanitarian efforts prioritize and balance these critical needs in such extreme conditions?
Pantuliano: Different situations require different responses, and aid must be designed around what people themselves identify as essential.
In the most acute phase of a crisis, basic survival needs take precedence. In the initial months of any humanitarian emergency, people need shelter, food, water, and medical assistance—the universal necessities.
However, in the vast majority of crises, the acute phase transitions into a protracted crisis after six months. Even in Sudan, we witness how the conflict is shifting geographically, moving from one part of the country to another, depending on which factions are fighting for territorial control. In many areas, armed groups have established their presence, pushing the crisis into a more prolonged and entrenched phase.
At this stage, the type of assistance needed changes. People do not want to remain dependent on aid indefinitely. They want to earn a living, regain dignity, and provide for their families. They also want their children to receive an education.
In every protracted crisis I have worked in, the priorities shift after the first six to nine months. The most urgent needs become jobs, livelihoods, and education.
Unfortunately, the humanitarian sector consistently deprioritizes these areas. When humanitarian funding appeals are made, the categories related to livelihoods and education receive the least resources. There is a major mismatch between what affected communities need and what the international aid system provides.
Jacobsen: In situations where governance is fragmented due to conflict, how do you strengthen local responses to provide even temporary governance structures?
Pantuliano: That’s an interesting question. Today, we just held a workshop on supporting local governance, which is becoming a defining feature in many conflict-affected contexts.
We see this dynamic in places like Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, and Ukraine, where the central government lacks control due to armed conflict, political instability, or loss of sovereignty. Syria is another example.
Of course, local governance does not function the same way everywhere. Some regions develop robust and accountable local structures, while others struggle with legitimacy and stability.
However, one common trend is that citizens frequently organize themselves to provide better services than the central authority ever did. Despite their effectiveness, these local governance structures receive almost no external support. They lack resources, and it is extremely difficult for them to access aid on the scale that a national government would.
Local communities have often implemented small-scale taxation systems to fund basic services, but this remains insufficient. The real problem is that international partners and regional stakeholders often struggle to engage with these informal governance structures.
In the long term, there is no clear vision for how these local structures could evolve into stable institutions or contribute to democratic processes.
We saw this firsthand in Sudan after the 2019 uprising. Resistance committees emerged as key grassroots governance bodies. Still, they were pushed into an uneasy power-sharing arrangement with the military. They resisted this, knowing it would lead to manipulation, but the international community still favoured a centralized, strongman-led approach.
This pattern repeats globally—mediating powers often insist on a single, dominant leader, and, as we have seen, it is almost always a man.
In many of these discussions, it is difficult to engage with the various expressions of local governance and civil society groups because there are too many actors, no unified structure, and no clear hierarchy.
Yet, Western societies have diffused federal structures and decentralized governance models. I don’t understand why we struggle to recognize and work with similar models elsewhere.
This is something worth reflecting on. As I mentioned in today’s workshop, there is an urgent need to develop a conceptual framework for engaging with diffused governance structures because many policymakers find it difficult to work with these systems—even when they function effectively.
Jacobsen: Urgent policy changes are needed to improve international humanitarian and diplomatic efficacy in Sudan. How is ODI contributing to shaping those policies?
Pantuliano: We have been a consistent ally for Sudanese voices. We must support, amplify, and advance what Sudanese citizens demand. It’s about helping them shape the narrative around the crisis. Honestly, you should be interviewing a Sudanese colleague instead of me.
Jacobsen: Please connect us. I would love to interview them.
Pantuliano: Absolutely, I’d be very happy to do that. Some incredible people are leading the response—at the forefront of the crisis. If you listen to my podcast, we have interviewed several Sudanese civil society leaders. I can connect you directly with others who have led the response in Sudan.
That’s what we are trying to do at ODI Global. We act as a bridge between grassroots responders and major donors, leveraging our global influence while ensuring that local actors remain at the center.
We strongly support the work of Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) and Sudanese mutual aid networks. We have also helped build coalitions around mutual aid to ensure the international community does not forget Sudan.
Our role is to continue highlighting this crisis and advocating for greater attention, better coordination, and smarter policies to support those most affected.
Jacobsen: Well, thank you so much for your time. It was a pleasure to meet you.
Pantuliano: Likewise. Thank you so much.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): schiessle.com
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): Unknown
This article examines the spectrum of beliefs surrounding divine intervention in the origins and development of life, particularly within a Canadian context. It categorizes various creationist perspectives, including young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, deistic creationism, intelligent design, rapid speciation, and views that accept microevolution while rejecting macroevolution. The article also outlines the scientific consensus around evolution via natural selection, positioning it among these belief systems for comparison.
The internal diversity and conflict among creationist groups are explored, with notable tensions between flat earth proponents and more traditional creationists, as well as between young earth and old earth advocates. These disagreements often center on the interpretation of scientific evidence and religious texts. Public debates and writings by prominent figures reflect these divisions and illustrate the persistence of these controversies.
Educational efforts to integrate or contrast science and faith are also discussed, including academic courses that explore models of interaction between scientific and religious epistemologies. These initiatives aim to clarify how different Christian traditions understand evolutionary theory and the age of the Earth.
The article highlights the continued relevance of these discussions in both religious and secular settings, suggesting that beliefs about creation and evolution remain deeply influential in shaping public understanding and personal worldviews.
“Around the world, around the world…” Good Fellas: Say, “Hello,” to my Little (Scientific) Friend!
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley
I’m an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people.
Katharine Hepburn
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Carl Sagan
I’m not sure why I enjoy debunking. Part of it surely is amusement over the follies of true believers, and [it is] partly because attacking bogus science is a painless way to learn good science. You have to know something about relativity theory, for example, to know where opponents of Einstein go wrong. . . . Another reason for debunking is that bad science contributes to the steady dumbing down of our nation. Crude beliefs get transmitted to political leaders and the result is considerable damage to society.
Martin Gardner
The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin’s chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant — inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin’s idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense…
Daniel Dennett
My father’s family was super Orthodox. They came from a little shtetl somewhere in Russia. My father told me that they had regressed even beyond a medieval level. You couldn’t study Hebrew, you couldn’t study Russian. Mathematics was out of the question. We went to see them for the holidays. My grandfather had a long beard, I don’t think he knew he was in the United States. He spoke Yiddish and lived in a couple of blocks of his friends. We were there on Pesach, and I noticed that he was smoking.
So I asked my father, how could he smoke? There’s a line in the Talmud that says, ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah. I said, “How come he’s smoking?” He said, “Well, he decided that smoking is eating.” And a sudden flash came to me: Religion is based on the idea that God is an imbecile. He can’t figure these things out. If that’s what it is, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Noam Chomsky
Young earth creationism continues apace in Canadian society, and the global community (Canseco, 2018a). Canada outstrips America, and the United Kingdom outstrips Canada, in scientific literacy on this topic of the foundations of the biological and medical sciences (The Huffington Post Canada, 2012). Here we will explore a wide variety of facets of Canadian creationism with linkages to the regional, international, media, journalistic, political, scientific, theological, personality, associational and organizational, and others concerns pertinent to the proper education of the young and the cultural health of the constitutional monarchy and democratic state known as Canada. [Ed. Some parts will remain tediously academic in citation and presentation – cautioned.] Let’s begin.
To start on a point of clarification, some, as Robert Rowland Smith, seem so unabashed as to proclaim belief in creationism a mental illness (2010). Canseco (2018b) notes how British Columbia may be leading the charge in the fight against scientific denial. The claim of belief in creationism as a mental illness seems unfair, uncharitable, and incorrect (Smith, 2010). A belief – creationism – considered true and justified, which remains false and unjustified and, therefore, an irrational belief system disconnected from the natural world rather than a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association (2019) characterizes mental illness as “Significant changes in thinking, emotion and/or behavior. Distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities.”
A mental illness can influence someone who believes in creationism or not, but a vast majority of adherence to creationism seems grounded in sincere beliefs and normal & healthy social and professional functioning, not mental health issues. Indeed, it may relate more to personality factors (Pappas, 2014). Other times, deliberate misrepresentations of professional opinion exist too (Bazzle, 2015). It shows in the numbers. Douglas Todd remarks on hundreds of millions of Christians and Muslims who reject evolution and believe in creationism around the world (2014), e.g., “Safar Al-Hawali, Abdul Majid al-Zindani, Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi`i and others” in the Muslim intellectual communities alone.
On the matter of if this particular belief increases mental health problems or mental illness, it would seem an open and empirical question because of the complicated nature of mental illness, and mental health for that matter, in the first place. Existential anxiety or outright death anxiety may amount to a non-trivial factor of belief in intelligent design and/or creationism over evolution via natural selection (UBC, 2011; Tracy, Hart, & Martens, 2011). On the factual and theoretical matters, several mechanisms and evidences substantiate evolution via natural selection and common descent, including comparative genomics, homeobox genes, the fossil record, common structures, distributions of species, similarities in development, molecular biology, and transitional fossils (Long, 2014; National Human Genome Institute, 2019; University of California, Berkeley, n.d.; Rennie, 2002; Hordijk, 2017; National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Some (Krattenmaker, 2017) point to historic lows of the religious belief in creationism.
Not to worry, though, comedic counter-movements emerge with the Pastafarians from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Josh Elliott (2014) stated, “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was founded in 2005 as a response to Christian perspectives on creationism and intelligent design. It allegedly sprang from a tongue-in-cheek open letter to the Kansas School Board, which mocked educators for teaching intelligent design in schools.” The most distinguished scientists in Britain have been well ahead of other places in stating unequivocally the inappropriate nature of the attempts to place creationism in the science classrooms as a religious belief structure (MacLeod, 2006). Not only in law, there are creationist ‘science’ fairs for the next generations (Paley, 2001).
Politics, science, and religion become inextricably linked in Canadian culture and society because of the integration of some political bases with religion and some religious denominations with theological views masquerading as scientific theories, as seen with Charles McVety and Doug Ford (Press Progress, 2018a). Religious groups and other political organizations, periodically, show true colors (Ibid.). Some educators and researchers may learn the hard way about the impacts on professional trajectory if they decline to pursue the overarching theoretical foundations in biological and medical sciences – life sciences; some may be seen as attempting to bring intelligent design creationism into the classroom through funding council applications (Hoag, 2006; Government of Canada, 2006; Bauslaugh, 2008).
It can be seen as a threat to geoscience education too (Wiles, 2006). According to Montgomery (2015), the newer forms of young earth creationists with a core focus on the biblical accounts alone rather than a joint consideration with the world around us take a side step from the current history. “For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church considered literal interpretations of the stories in Genesis to be overly simplistic interpretations that missed deeper meaning,” Montgomery stated, “Influential thinkers like Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas held that what we could learn from studying the book of nature could not conflict with the Bible because they shared the same author” (Ibid.). Besides, the evidence can be in the granite too (Plait, 2008).
There does appear a significant decline in the theological and religious disciplines over time (McKnight, 2019). Khan (2010) notes the ways in which different groups believe in evolution or not. In fact, he (Ibid.) provides an index to analyze the degree to which belief groups accept evolution or believe in creationism. These beliefs exist in a weave alongside antivaccination at times (oracknows, 2016). Even for foundational questions of life and its origin, we come to the proposals reported by and found within modern science (Schuster, 2018). There continue to exist devoted podcasts (Ruba, 2019) to the idea of a legitimate – falsely, so-called – conversations about creationism.
Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist (2018d) reflected on the frustration of dealing with dishonest or credulous readings of the biological and geological record by young earth creationists in which only some, and in already confirming-biases, evidence gets considered for the reportage within the young earth creationist communities by the young earth creationist journalists or leadership. Live Science (2005) may have produced the most apt title on the entire affair with creationism as a title category unto itself with the description of an “Ambiguous Assault on Evolution” by creationism. There continue to be book reviews – often negative – of the productions of some theorists in the creationist and the intelligent design camps (Cook, 2013; Collins, 2006; Asher, 2014). Others praise books not in favour of creationism or intelligent design (Maier, 2009).
Mario Canseco in Business in Vancouver noted the acceptance by Canadians of evolution via natural selection and deep biological-geological time at 68% (2018b). One report stated findings of 40% of Canadians believing in the creation of the Earth in 6 days (CROP, 2017). The foundational problem comes from the meaning of terms in the public and to the community of professional practitioners of science/those with some or more background in the workings of the natural world, and then the representation and misrepresentation of this to the public. There is work to try violate the American Constitution to enforce the teaching of creationism, which remains an open claim and known claim by creationist leaders too (American Atheists, 2018).
We can see this in the public statements of leaders of countries as well, including America, in which the term “theory” becomes interpreted as a hunch or guess rather than an empirically well-substantiated hypothesis defined within the sciences. We can find the same with the definitions of terms including fact, hypothesis, and law:
- Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
- Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
- Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
- Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. (NSCE, n.d.)
This happened with American Vice-President Mike Pence, stating, “…a theory of the origin of species which we’ve come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we.” (Monatanari, 2016). As Braterman (2017) stated – or corrected, “The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word ‘theory’ as used in science – that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeated testing. Pence’s argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call an equivocation – an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.” Vice-President Mike Pence equivocated on the word “theory.”
Some politicians, potentially a harbinger of claims into the future as the young earth creationist position becomes more marginal, according to O’Neil (2015), “Lunney told the House of Commons that millions of Canadians are effectively ‘gagged’ as part of a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion.” Intriguingly enough, and instructive as always, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) conducted Project Steve as a parody and an homage to the late Stephen Jay Gould, in which the creationists’ attempt to portray evolution via natural selection as a “theory in crisis” through the gathering of a list of scientists who may disagree with Darwin (n.d.) becomes one methodology to attempt to refute it or to sow doubt in the minds of the lay public. One American teacher proclaimed evolution should not be taught because of origination in the 18th century (Palma, 2019). One may assume for Newtonian Mechanics for the 17th and 18th centuries. RationalWiki, helpful as always, produced a listing of the creationists in addition to the formal criteria for inclusion on their listing of creationists (RationalWiki, 2019d), if curious about the public offenders.
Unfortunate for creationists, and fortunate for us – based on the humor of the team at the NCSE, there is a collected list of scientists named “Steve” who agree with the findings in support of evolution via natural selection in order to point to the comical error of reasoning in creationist circles because tens of thousands of researchers accept evolution via natural selection – and a lot with the name Steve alone – while a select fraction of one percent do not in part or in full (Ibid.). Still, one may find individuals as curators as in the case of Martin Legemaate who maintains Creation Research Museum of Ontario, which hosts creationist or religious views on the nature of the world. In the United States, there is significant funding for creationism on public dollars (Simon, 2014). Answers in Genesis intended to expand into Canada in 2018 (Mehta, 2017a) with Calvin Smith leading the organizational national branch (Answers in Genesis, 2019a). Jim McBreen wrote a letter commenting on personal thoughts about theories and facts, and evolution (McBreen, 2019). Over and over again, around the world, and coming back to Canada, these ideas remain important to citizens.
York (2018) wrote an important article on the link between the teaching of creationism in the science classroom and the direct implication of institutes built to set sociopolitical controversy over evolution when zero exists in the biological scientific community of practicing scientists. Other theories propose “interdimensional entities” in a form of creationism plus evolutionary via natural selection to explain life (Raymond, 2019). Singh (n.d.) argues for the same. This does not amount to a traditional naturalistic extraterrestrial intelligent engineering of life on Earth with occasional interference or scientific intervention, and experimentation, on the human species, or some form of cosmic panspermia.
This seems more akin to intelligent design plus creationism and an assertion of additional habitable dimensions and travellers between their dimension and ours. In other words, more of the similar without a holy scripture to inculcate it. [Ed. As some analysis shows later, this may relate to conspiratorial mindsets in order to fill the gap in knowledge or to provide cognitive closure.] Whether creationism or intelligent design, as noted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2019a):
“Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of “intelligent design.” They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call “irreducible complexity.” Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed – that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously….
…Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems…
… In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists’ claims. There may be alternative explanations…
… Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science…
… The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter – that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems – rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.
Disagreements exist between the various camps of creationism too. These ideas spread all over the world from the North American context, even into secular Europe (Blancke, & Kjærgaard, 2016). Canada remains guilty as charged and the media continue in complicity at times. Pritchard (2014) correctly notes the importance of religious views and the teaching of religion, but not in the science classroom. Godbout (2018) made the political comparison between anti-SOGI positions and anti-evolution/creationist points of view. This reflects the political reality of alignment between several marginally scientific and non-scientific views, which tend to coalesce in political party platforms or opinions.
Copeland (2015) mused, and warned in a way, the possibility of the continual attacks on empirical findings, on retention of scientists, on scientific institutes and research, reducing the status of Canada. This seems correct to me. He said:
- High-level science advice has been removed from central agencies and is non-existent in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, despite trends to the contrary almost everywhere else;
- Science-based departments, funding agencies and NGOs have faced crippling budget cuts and job losses — 1,075 jobs at Fisheries and Oceans and 700 at Environment Canada alone;
- Opaque, underhanded techniques, such as the passage of the omnibus budget bill C-38 in June 2012, have weakened, reduced or eliminated scientific bodies, programs and legislative instruments. These include the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Nuclear Safety Control Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Species at Risk Act.
- Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and earned distinction as a “Lifetime Unachiever” and “Fossil of the Year”, while promoting the development of heavy oil/tar sands, pipelines, asbestos exports and extractive industries generally;
- The long form census was abolished — against the advice of everyone dependent upon that data — prompting the resignation of the Chief Statistician;
- Rare science books have been destroyed and specialized federal libraries and archives closed or downsized;
- Commercially promising, business-friendly, applied R&D has been privileged over knowledge-creating basic science in government laboratories;
- Scientists have been publically rebuked, are prevented from speaking freely about their research findings to the public, the media or even their international colleagues, and are required to submit scholarly papers for political pre-clearance (Ibid.)
To an American context, this can reflect a general occurrence in North America in which the Americans remain bound to the same forms of problems. The attempts to enter into the educational system by non-standard and illegitimate means continues as a problem for the North Americans with an appearance of banal and benign conferences with intentional purposes of evangelization. One wants to assume good will. However, the work for implicit evangelizations seems unethical while the eventual open statements of the intent for Christian outreach in particular seems moral as it does not put a false front forward. Indeed, some creationists managed to construct and host a conference at Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing (Callier, 2014). It was entitled “The Origin Summit” with superordinate support by the Creation Summit (Ibid.) Creation Summit states:
Our Mission
Creation Summit: confronting evolution where it thrives the most, at universities and seminaries!
We may have been banned from the classroom, but banned does not mean silenced. By booking the speakers and renting the facilities on or near college campuses, we can and still do have an impact for proclaiming the truth of science and the Bible.
Our Strategy
Creation Summit is visiting college and university campuses through-out the country, bringing world renowned scientists before the students. Modern sciences from astronomy to genetics have shown that Darwin’s story is no longer even a feasible theory. It just does not work. It is only a matter of getting the word out to the next generation. So we work with local Creation groups and schedule a seminar with highly qualified scientists with tangible evidence as speakers. Many of these scientists were once evolution believers, but their own research convinced them that evolution is not viable. Students, many for the first time ever, are discovering that the Bible is true – that science and Genesis are in total agreement. And, if Genesis 1:1 can be trusted, so can John 3:16. (Creation Summit, 2019)
A partisan group hosting a partisan and religious conference with the explicit purpose of reducing the quality of cultural knowledge, of science, on campuses, as they bring “scientists [who] were once evolution believers, but their own research convinced them that evolution is not viable” (Ibid.). Mike Smith, the executive director of the student group at MSU, at the time stated, the summit is “not overtly evangelistic… we hope to pave the way for evangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientific evidence for intelligent design. Once students realize they’re created beings, and not the product of natural selection, they’re much more open to the Gospel, to the message of God’s love & forgiveness” (Ibid.).
There can be inflammatory comparisons, as in the white nationalist and teaching & creationism and teaching example of Robins-Early (2019). This comes in a time of the rise of ethnic nationalism, often from the European heritage portions of the population, but also in other nation-states with religion and ultra-nationalism connected to them. Creationists see evolution as intrinsically atheistic and, therefore, a problem as taught in a standard science classroom. Beverly (2018) provided an update to the Christian communities in how to deal with the problem – from Beverly’s view and others’ perspectives – of “atheistic evolution.” Beverley stated, “The battle line that emerged at the conference is the same one that surfaced in 1859 when Charles Darwin released his famous On the Origin of Species. Then and now Christians separate into two camps – those who believe God used macroevolution (yes, Virginia, we descended from an ape ancestor about 7 million years ago), and those who abhor that theory (no, Virginia, God brought us here through special creation)… Leaders in all Christian camps agree that one of the main threats to faith in our day is the pervasiveness of atheistic evolution.” (Ibid.).
Their main problem comes from the evolution via natural selection implications of non-divine interventionism in the development of life within the context of the fundamental beliefs asserted since childhood and oft-repeated into theological schools, right into the pulpits. The same phenomenon happened with the prominent and intelligent, and hardy – for good reason, Rev. Gretta Vosper or Minister Gretta Vosper (Jacobsen, 2018m; Jacobsen, 2018n; Jacobsen, 2018o; Jacobsen, 2019n; Jacobsen, 2019o; Jacobsen, 2019q; Jacobsen, 2019r).
One can see the rapid growth in the religious groups, even in secular and progressive British Columbia with Mark Clark of Village Church (Johnston, 2017). Some note the lower education levels of the literalists, the fundamentalists and creationists, into the present, which seems more of a positive sign on the surface (Khan, 2010). Although, other trends continue with supernatural beliefs extant in areas where creationism diminishes. Supernaturalism seems inherent in the beliefs of the religious. Some 13% of American high school students accept creationism (Welsh, 2011). Khan (2010) notes the same about Alabama and creationism, in which the majority does not mean correct. Although, some Americans find an easier time to mix personal religious philosophy with modern scientific findings (Green, 2014). Christopher Gregory Weber (n.d.) and Phil Senter (2011) provide thorough rejections of the common presentations of a flood geology and intelligent design.
Garner reported in the Independent on the importance of the prevention of the teaching of creationism as a form of indoctrination in the schools, as this religious philosophy or theological view amounts to one with attempted enforcement – by religious groups, organizations, and leaders, often men – into the curricula or the standard educational provisions of a country (2014). Professor Alice Roberts (Ibid.) stated, “People who believe in creationism say that by teaching evolution, you are indoctrinating them with science but I just don’t agree with that. Science is about questioning things. It’s about teaching people to say ‘I don’t believe it until we have very strong evidence.’”
Vanessa Wamsley (2015) provided a great introduction to the ideal of a teacher in the biology classroom with education on the science without theist evangelization or non-theist assumptions:
Terry Wortman was my science teacher from my sophomore through senior years, and he is still teaching in my hometown, at Hayes Center Public High School in Hayes Center, Nebraska. He still occasionally hears the question I asked 16 years ago, and he has a standard response. “I don’t want to interfere with a kid’s belief system,” he says. “But I tell them, ‘I’m going to teach you the science. I’m going to tell you what all respected science says.’
Randerson (2008) provides an article from over a decade ago of the need to improve educational curricula on theoretical foundations to all of the life science. As Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society – circa 2008, said, “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe” (Ibid.).
Indeed, some state, strongly, as Michael Stone from The Progressive Secular Humanist, the abuse of children inherent in teaching them known wrong or factually incorrect ideas, failed hypotheses, and wrong theories about the nature of nature in addition to the enforcement of a religious philosophy in a natural philosophy/science classroom (2018). In any case, creationism isn’t about proper science education (Zimmerman, 2013).
Creation Ministries International – a major creationist organization – characterizes creationism and evolution as in a debate, not true (Funk, 2017). Pierce (2006), akin to Creation Ministries International, tries to provide an account of the world from 4,004 BC. People can change, young and old alike. Luke Douglas in a blog platform by Linda LaScola, from The Clergy Project, described a story of being a young earth creationist at age 15 and then became a science enthusiast at age 23 (2018). It enters into the political realm and the social and cultural discourses too. For example, Joe Pierre, M.D. (2018) described the outlandish and supernatural intervention claimed by Pat Robertson in the cases of impending or ongoing natural disasters. This plays on the vulnerabilities of the suffering.
However, other questions arise around the reasons for this fundamental belief in agency behind the world in addition to human choice rather than human agency alone. Dr. Jeremy E. Sherman in Psychology Today (2018), who remains an atheist and a proper scientist trained in evolutionary theory, attempts to explain the sense of agency and, in so doing, reject the claims of Intelligent Design. Regardless of the international, regional, and national statuses, and the arguments for or against, America remains a litigious culture. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents met more than mild resistance against their religious and supernaturalist, respectively, philosophies about the world, as noted by Bryan Collinsworth at the Center for American Progress.
He provided some straightforward indications as to the claims to the scientific status of Intelligent Design only a year or thereabouts after the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005. Legal cases, apart from humour as a salve, exist in the record as exemplifications of means by which to combat non-science as propositions or hypotheses, or more religious assertions, masquerading as science. All this and more will acquire some coverage in the reportage here.
Court Dates Neither By Accident Nor Positive Evidence for the Hypothesis
The theory that religion is a force for peace, often heard among the religious right and its allies today, does not fit the facts of history.
Steven Pinker
I feel like I have a good barometer of being more of a humanist, a good barometer of good and bad and how my conduct should be toward other people.
Kristen Bell
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other religions were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
Oliver Stone
God, once imagined to be an omnipresent force throughout the whole world of nature and man. has been increasingly tending to seem omniabsent. Everywhere, intelligent and educated people rely more and more on purely secular and scientific techniques for the solution of their problems. As science advances, belief in divine miracles and the efficacy of prayer becomes fainter and fainter.
Corliss Lamont
There exists indeed an opposition to it [building of UVA, Jefferson’s secular college] by the friends of William and Mary, which is not strong. The most restive is that of the priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the fatal harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they live. In this the Presbyterian clergy take the lead. The tocsin is sounded in all their pulpits, and the first alarm denounced is against the particular creed of Doctr. Cooper; and as impudently denounced as if they really knew what it is.
Thomas Jefferson
A common error in reasoning comes from the assertion of the controversy, where an attempt to force a creationist educational curricula onto the public and the young fails. This becomes a news item, or a series of them. It creates the proposition of a controversy within the communities and, sometimes, the state, even the nation, as a plausible scenario as the public observes the latter impacts of this game – literally, a game with one part including the Wedge Strategy of Intelligent Design proponents – playing out (Conservapedia, 2016; Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, n.d.). The Wedge Strategy was published by the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture out of the Discovery Institute as a political and social action plan with a serious concern over “Western materialism that (it claims) has no moral standards” and the main tenets of evolution create a decay in ethical standards because “materialists… undermined personal responsibility,” and so was authored to “overthrow… materialism and its cultural legacies” (Conservapedia, 2016). The Discovery Institute planned three phases:
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
(Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, n.d.)
The Discovery Institute (Ibid.) argued:
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment…
…The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating…
…Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
The strategy of a wedge into the institutions of the culture to renew the American landscape, and presumably resonating outwards from there, for the recapture of the citizenry with the ideas of “Western civilization,” human beings created in the “image of God,” and the rejection of Darwinian, Marxian, and Freudian notions of the human race as not “moral and spiritual beings” (Ibid.). As this game continues to play out, more aware citizens can become irritated and litigious about the infringement of Intelligent Design and creationism in the public schools through an attempted enforcement.
Then the response becomes a legal challenge to the attempted enforcement. From this, some of the creationist community cry victim or utilize this legal challenge as a purported example of the infringement on their academic freedom, infringement on their First Amendment to the American Constitution right to freedom of speech or “free speech,” or the imposition of atheism and secular humanism on the public (the Christian community, the good people), and the like; when, in fact, this legal challenge arose because of the work to bypass normal scientific procedure of peer-review, and so on, and then trying to force religious views in the science classroom – often Christian. Some creationist and biblical fundamentalist outlets point to the calls out of creationism as non-science, i.e., it goes noticed (The Bible is the Other Side, 2008). It even takes up Quora space too (2018).
Although indigenous cosmologies, Hindu cosmology, Islamic theology, and so on, remain as guilty in some contexts when asserted as historical rather than metaphorical or religious narratives with edificative purposes with, for example, some aboriginal communities utilizing the concept of the medicine wheel for counselling psychological purposes. Some remain utterly firm in devotion to a fundamentalist reading or accounting of Genesis, known as “literal Genesis,” as a necessity for scriptural inerrancy to be kept intact, as fundamental to the theology of the Christian faith without errors of human interpretation, and to the doctrines so many in the world hold fundamentally dear (Ross Jr., 2018). The questions may arise about debating creationists, which Bill Nye notes as an important item in the public relations agenda – not in the scientific one as no true controversy exists within the scientific community (Quill & Thompson, 2014). Nye explained personal wonder at the depth of temporality spoken in the moment here, “Most people cannot imagine how much time has passed in the evolution of life on Earth. The concept of deep time is just amazing” (Ibid.).
Hanley talked about the importance of sussing out the question of whether we want to ban creationism or teach from the principles of evolution to show why creationism is wrong (2014). Religion maintains a strong hold on the positions individuals hold about the origin and the development of life on Earth, especially as this pertains to cosmogony and eschatology – beginning and end, hows and whys – relative to human beings (Ibid.). Duly noting, Hanley labelled this a “minefield”; if the orientation focuses on the controversial nature of teaching evolution via natural selection, and if the mind-fields – so to speak – sit in religious, mostly, minds, then the anti-personnel weapons come from religion, not non-religion (Ibid.). Religion becomes the problem.
This teaching evolution, or not, and creationism, or not, continues as a global problem (Harmon, 2011). Harmon stated, “Some U.K. pro–intelligent design (ID) groups are also pushing to include ‘alternatives’ to evolution in the country’s national curriculum. One group, known as Truth in Science, calls for allowing such ideas to be presented in science classrooms—an angle reminiscent of ‘academic freedom’ bills that have been introduced in several U.S. states. A 2006 overhaul of the U.K. national curriculum shifted the focus of science instruction to highlight ‘how science works’ instead of a more ‘just the facts’ approach” (Ibid.).
Ghose, on education and religion links to creationism, stated, “About 42 percent espoused the creationist view presented, whereas 31 percent said God guided the evolutionary process, and just 19 said they believe evolution operated without God involved. Religion was positively tied to creationism beliefs, with more than two-thirds of those who attend weekly religious services espousing a belief in a young Earth, compared with just 23 percent of those who never go to church saying the same. Just over a quarter of those with a college degree hold creationist beliefs, compared with 57 percent of people with such views who had at most a high-school education, the poll found.”
Pappas (2014b) sees five main battles for evolutionary theory as taught in modern science against creationism: the advances of geology in the 1700s and the 1800s, the Scopes Trial, space race as a boon to the need for science – as Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson notes almost alone on the thrust of scientific advancement and funding due to wartimes stoked (e.g., the Americans and the Soviets), ongoing court battles, and the important Dover, Pennsylvania school board battle. Glenn Branch at the National Center for Science Education provided a solid foundation, and concise one, of the levels of who accepted, or not, the theory of evolution in several countries from around the world stating:
The “evolutionist” view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the “creationist” view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).
Consistently with previous polls, in the United States, acceptance of evolution was higher among respondents who were younger, with a higher level of household income, and with a higher level of education. Gender was not particularly important, however: the difference between male and female respondents in the United States was no more than 2%.
The survey was conducted on-line between September 7 and September 23, 2010, with approximately 1000 participants per country except for Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Russia, and Turkey, for which there were approximately 500 participants per country; the results were weighted to balance demographics. (2011a)
We can find creationist organizations around the world with Creation Research and Creation Ministries International in Australia, CreaBel in Belgium, Sociedade Criacionista Brasileira – SCB, Sociedade Origem e Destino, and Associação Brasilera de Pesquisa da Criação in Brazil, Creation Science Association of Alberta, Creation Science Assoc. of British Columbia (CSABC), Creation Science of Manitoba, L’Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Creation Science of Saskatchewan, Inc. (CSSI), Ian Juby – Creation Science Research & Lecturing, Big Valley Creation Science Museum, Creation Truth Ministries, Mensa – International Creation Science SIG, Creation Research – Canada, Creation Ministries International – Canada, and Amazing Discoveries in Canada, Assoc. Au Commencement in Franch, SG Wort und Wissen and Amazing Discoveries e. V. in Germany, Noah’s Ark Hong Kong in Hong Kong, Protestáns Teremtéskutató Kör and Creation Research – Eastern Europe in Hungary, Creation Science Association of India and Creation Research And Apologetics Society Of India in India, and Centro Studi Creazionismo in Italy (Creationism.Org, 2019).
Furthermore, クリエーション・リサーチ/Creation Research Japan – CRJ and Answers in Genesis Japan in Japan, Korea Assn. for Creation Research – KACR in Korea, gribu zināt in Latvia, CREAVIT (CREAndo VIsion Total) and Científicos Creacionistas Internacional in Mexico, Degeneratie of Evolutie?, Drdino.nl, and Mediagroep In Genesis in Netherlands, Creation Ministries International – New Zealand and Creation Research in New Zealand, Polish Creation Society in Poland, Parque Discovery in Portugal, Tudományos Kreacionizmus in Romania, Russia (None listed, though nation stated), SIONSKA TRUBA in Serbia, Creation Ministries International – Singapore in Singapore, Creation Ministries International – South Africa and Amazing Discoveries in South Africa, SEDIN – Servicio Evangelico Coordinadora Creacionista in Spain, The True.Origin Archive and Centre Biblique European in Switzerland, Christian Center for Science and Apologetics in Ukraine, and Creation Science Movement, Creation Ministries International – United Kingdom, Biblical Creation Society, Daylight Origins Society, Answers in Genesis U.K., Edinburgh Creation Group, Creation Resources Trust, Creation Research – UK, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, and Creation Discovery Project in the United Kingdom (Ibid.). Mehta (2019b) described the “weird” nature of some of the anti-evolution content produced by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, best known for Intelligent Design or ID. In these contexts of creationist and Intelligent Design groups attempting to enforce themselves on the population, American, at a minimum, court cases arise.
Of the most important court cases in the history of creationism came in the form of the Scopes Trial or the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, H.L. Mencken became more famous and nationally noteworthy, and historically, with the advent of this reportage on Tennessean creationist culture and anti-evolution laws in which individuals who taught evolution would be charged, and were charged, as in the case of John T. Scopes (Jacobsen, 2019). The cases reported by the NCSE (2019) notes the following other important cases:
1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas
1981, in Segraves v. State of California
1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard
1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District
1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District
1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education
2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al.
January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al.,
December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover
This points to the American centrality of the legal challenges and battles over biological sciences education in the public schools of the United States. The inimitable Eugenie C. Scott (2006) stated, “Judge John Jones III, the judge in the Kitzmiller case, was not persuaded that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution… the judge’s decision—laid out in a 139-page ruling—[stated] that ID was merely a form of creationism. His ruling that the new ID form of creationism is a form of religion and thus its teaching in science classes is unconstitutional is of course a great victory for science and science education.”
NCSE (n.d.) takes the stand on evolution as follows, “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”
I agree with the thrust of the statement; however, I disagree on the representation of creationism as a single set of belief structures or hypotheses about the world with creationism as such because the different formulations of the interpretations of religious orthodoxy exist within the record and into the present. These can include the young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, deistic creationism, rapid speciation, microevolution only (no macroevolution, i.e., speciation), intelligent design, and evolution via natural selection (nontheistic) views about the development, speciation, and growth of life on Earth (RationalWiki, 2019a).
I find the misrepresentation of the incorrect views, religious and theological orientations, of biological life not “scientifically inappropriate” but “pedagogically irresponsible” as this oversimplifies the issue and may not properly arm or equip students in their conversations with creationists, as the approach becomes creationism in general rather specific creationism(s), or in particular. The problem with creationism does not lie in the sciences in general.
Barbara J. King provided a decent rundown as to the hows and whys of evolution and the how nots and why nots of creationism (2016). In either case, for laughs and insight, though mean-spirited at times, one can return the deceased American journalist H.L. Mencken and commentary on the Scopes trial. As Fern Elsdon-Baker in The Guardiannotes, trust in science exists – not trust in evolution – is the core issue, which makes this biological science specific rather than other sciences, scientific methodology, or scientific findings in general, as the source of the sociopolitical controversy (2017). As we may reasonably infer from some reading between the lines, though uncertain, the focus comes from sectors of religious communities and interpretations of religious writings as factual accounts about the foundations and development, and so history, of the world and life. If looking at the writings of the prominent creationists, there can be, at times, conflations between biological sciences and physical sciences including cosmology in which “creationism,” as such, refers to “creation of the cosmos and life” instead of “creation of life alone.”
In fact, Elsdon-Baker (Ibid.) states, “Even more unexpectedly, 70% in the UK and 69% in Canada who expressed some personal difficulty with evolution also said they felt experts in genetics were reliable, even though genetics is a fundamental part of evolutionary scientific research.” In other words, as you may no doubt tell, we come to the realization of a specific denial, suspicion, or rejection of the community consensus or the evidence on this specific scientific issue alone, which may, potentially, point to the problem sitting with the specific disinformation and misinformation campaigns coming from the creationist circles. In other words, a long, ongoing, and recent history of the court battles for the inclusion of religion in the science, or not, with the cases overwhelmingly setting the precedent of religion as not science and, therefore, not permissible inside of the science classroom or the science curricula of America.
The Global Becomes Local, the Local Becomes Tangential
I could never take the idea of religion very seriously.
Joyce Carol Oates
My introduction to humanism was when my sixth grade teacher, seeing I had a decidedly secular bent, suggested I look up Erasmus and the Renaissance. The idea that mankind could create a better future through science and industry was very appealing to me. Organized religion just got in the way.
John de Lancie
In 1986, Gloria Steinem wrote that if men got periods, they ‘would brag about how long and how much’: that boys would talk about their menstruation as the beginning of their manhood, that there would be ‘gifts, religious ceremonies’ and sanitary supplies would be ‘federally funded and free’. I could live without the menstrual bragging – though mine is particularly impressive – and ceremonial parties, but seriously: Why aren’t tampons free?
Jessica Valenti
I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty—and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.
Kurt Vonnegut
True character arises from a deeper well than religion. It is the internalization of moral principles of a society, augmented by those tenets personally chosen by the individual, strong enough to endure through trials of solitude and adversity. The principles are fitted together into what we call integrity, literally the integrated self, wherein personal decisions feel good and true. Character is in turn the enduring source of virtue. It stands by itself and excites admiration in others.
Edward O. Wilson
If it were up to me, I would not define myself by the absence of something; “theist” is a believer, so with “atheist” you’re defining yourself by the absence of something. I think human beings work on yes, not on no. … humanist is a great term. …except that humanism sometimes is not seen as inclusive of spirituality. To me, spirituality is the opposite of religion. It’s the belief that all living things share some value. So I would include the word spiritual just because it feels more inclusive to me. Native Americans do this when they offer thanks to Mother Earth and praise the interconnectedness of “the two-legged and the four, the feathered and the clawed,” and so on. It’s lovely. … because it’s not about not believing. It’s about rejecting a god who looks like the ruling class.
Gloria Steinem
This connects to the global context of acceptance of the theoretical underpinnings and mass of empirical findings in support of evolution via natural selection compared to young earth creationism. As Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist, on other countries and religious versus scientific views in the political arena, notes, “…in the other countries, science and religion are not playing a zero-sum game” (Mehta, 2017a). He continues, “A new survey from YouGov and researchers at Newman University in Birmingham (UK) finds that only 9% of UK residents believe in Creationism. Canada comes in at 15%. It’s shockingly low compared to the 38% of people in the U.S. who think humans were poofed into existence by God a few thousand years ago. And on the flip side, 71% of UK respondents accept evolution (both natural and guided by God) along with 60% of Canadians. (In the U.S.? That number is 57%.)” (Mehta, 2017d; Swift, 2017; Hall, 2017). The statistical data differ for various surveys on the public. However, an important marker is the closeness of the outcomes in the numbers of individuals who believe in creationism or accept evolution.
Based on a 32-year-long survey, we can note the declines over decades in Australia, too (Archer, 2018). Of course, the ways in which questions on surveys get asked can shift the orientation of the participants in the surveys (Funk et al, 2019). Even so, some of the remarkable data about the United States indicates a wide acceptance of science quascience with the advancements bringing benefits to material comfort and wellbeing (Pew Research Center, 2009). Opposition to science from some religious circles exists within the historical record including Roman Catholic Christian Church’s opposition to the findings of Galileo Galilei in defense of the Copernican model of the Solar System with the Sun at the center and the discoveries of Charles Darwin about the general mechanisms for the changes in organisms over deep time with evolution via natural selection (Ibid.).
At the same time, “For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth,” Pew Research continued, “Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation. Even in the 20th century, some of the greatest scientists, such as Georges Lemaitre (the Catholic priest who first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory) and physicist Max Planck (the founder of the quantum theory of physics), have been people of faith” (Ibid.). The world remains a complicated place – clichés can fail to capture it. Even though, the thrust of creationism and Intelligent Design comes from religious institutions and devout individuals, except, perhaps, Dr. David Berlinski.
Nonetheless, the professional community of biological scientists or individuals with the necessity of a unified theory of the differentiation of life, as found in Darwinian theory and not creationism or Intelligent Design, for the proper comprehension of the natural world of life, of biology, or plant and animal life from the highest levels of professional scientific expertise rebuke – to use a theological term – assertions of creationists and Intelligent Design advocates (ACLU, n.d.a). Arguments from authority or quote-mining do not make much sense. However, arguments from authoritative authorities, e.g., major scientific bodies as those below, or quotes to add spice to an article, i.e., as those at the tops of section headings of this article, can make a certain sense – much more so than quote mining of individual scientists to attempt to refute evolution via natural selection rather than run the experiments to support or not – always not, so far – creationism or Intelligent Design.
The list of organizations against the teaching of creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classrooms amounts to a significant number of the major scientific bodies in the United States, which remains a massive scientific powerhouse:
National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life’s history.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The [intelligent design] movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution… the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education.
American Anthropological Association
The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however. Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.
National Association of Biology Teachers
Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,’ scientific creationism,’ intelligent design theory,’ young earth theory,’ or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
Geological Society of America
In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls creation science,’ which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.
American Institute of Biological Sciences
The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science.
The Paleontological Society
Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.
Botanical Society of America
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. (Ibid.)
The authority of science as a methodology and its steady erosion of faith with an incremental rise in the amount of evidence present creates problems for religious laity and some leadership. Take, for example, one of the largest religious denominations in the world. Science and the authority of scientific functional discoveries about the natural world changes the view of ardent faithful leaders, including amongst the leadership of the largest hierarchical organization on the planet.
The Roman Catholic Christian Pope affirms evolution via natural selection with a theological twist, but without creationist turns of the supernatural (Elliott, 2014). Hindu and Sunni Islam as huge religious denominations harbour different sentiments, or different flavours of similar orientations. Other times, the wide acceptance in some faiths can result in some states and branches of faiths combined rejecting, in a rather dramatic manner, the fundamental theory in all of life science. This can result in creationist and state-based activist backlash and repression of the population through an attack on their ability to self-inform about the most updated views of the nature of reality, of the world. Adnan Oktar, one of the main proponents of creationism in the Middle East, got caught in some shenanigans – criminal, legal, and otherwise (Branch, 2018). Aydin (2018) reported in Hurriyet Daily News:
Oktar’s deputy, Tarkan Yavaş, escaped during the police raid, according to security sources who stressed that the suspect was armed.
Some 79 suspects in the case were detained by noon July 11.
According to the detention warrant, Oktar and his followers are accused of forming a criminal organization, sexual abuse of children, sexual assault, child kidnapping, sexual harassment, blackmailing, false imprisonment, political and military espionage, fraud by exploiting religious feelings, money laundering, violation of privacy, forgery of official documents, opposition to anti-terror law, coercion, use of violence, slander, alienating citizens from mandatory military service, insulting, false incrimination, perjury, aggravated fraud, smuggling, tax evasion, bribery, torture, illegal recording of personal data, violating the law on the protection of family and women, and violating a citizen’s rights to get education and participate in politics.
In fact, Turkey banned the teaching of evolution (Williams, 2017). Williams said, “Turkey’s move to ban the teaching of evolution contradicts scientific thinking, and tries to turn the scientific method into a belief system – as if it were a religion. It seeks to introduce supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, and to assert that some form of truth or explanation for nature beyond nature. The ban is unscientific, undemocratic and should be resisted” (2017). The trial opened on Oktar and 225 associates in September of 2019 (The Associated Press).
According to Professor Rasmus Nielsen, a Danish biologist and professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, the most severe cases of the banning and censure of the teaching of evolution via natural selection comes from the Middle East and North Africa region with cases including Saudi Arabia as the worst of the worst and other populations of students and teachers in Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Turkey rejecting the evidence somewhere between 25% and 75%, depending on the country (2016).
“The majority of Middle Eastern and North African scientists are, like scientists in the rest of the world, firmly convinced about the principles of evolution. However, they are often isolated and lack scientific networks. Examples of researchers that do great work on teaching evolution, often in isolation, include Rana Dajani at the Department of Molecular Biology at Hashemite University in Jordan and my good friend and former postdoc Mehmet Somel from the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey,” Nielsen explained, “Mehmet is a stellar new young researcher who is building up a very strong research group in evolutionary biology in Ankara, in the middle of increased direct and indirect pressure on the universities from Davutoğlu and Erdoğan’s Islamist government. There are serious worries that the government in Turkey is engaged in a process of reducing intellectual freedom at Turkish universities” (Ibid.).
The decline in the numbers who identify as creationist, of the waning of the days of much creationism in several parts of the world, comes with some signals to this slow and steady demise over time, but the “decline” may only appear as a decline without necessarily existence as a demise – perhaps an interlude or asymptote rather than a denouement. Of course, there exist hyper-optimists. Even Bill Nye may take a pollyannish mindset on the hardiness of beliefs in creationism, he posits the death throes of creationism in 20 years, presumably in America.
“In the United States there’s been a movement to put creationism in schools — this sort of pseudoscience thing — instead of the fact of life… People fight this fight in court constantly, and it wouldn’t matter except we need people to solve the world’s problems,” Nye said (Kennedy, 2014). The Kansas case in America became a phenomenon, dramatic. CBC (2005) provided some insight as to the 2005 dramatic events in Kansas and with leading scientists and researchers inside the United States and, presumably, elsewhere:
- In September 2005, four months after this broadcast, 38 Nobel Prize-winning scientists sent a joint letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, arguing against the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. “Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific,” they wrote. “It cannot be tested as a scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”
- In November 2005, the Kansas board voted 6-4 in favour of teaching intelligent design.
- The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, The American Association for the Advancement of Science and publications from Yale, Harvard and UCLA have all dismissed intelligent design as a pseudoscience.
Even by leading Roman Catholic Jesuit intellectuals and scientists, they consider intelligent design bad science and bad theology. Still, the United Kingdom banned creationism outright (Kaufman, 2014). A ban in a time of increased persecution of humanist activists around the world; a time with the increased persecution of open humanists (Humanists International, 2019). As Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel (2016) remark on the correct point of some creationists, in which the attempt to force religion on people would be a human rights problem, however, evolution does not equate to a religion and, therefore, cannot amount to a religious orientation or theory about the world (2016), making this line of creationist complaint moot or argumentation invalid, unsound.
Ken Ham views literalism as the only legitimate manner in which to believe in Christianity (Ross Jr., 2018), which, in essence, makes other Christians into heretics or heretical Christians. One can find highly trained and intelligent individuals including Dr. Hugh Ross who maintains an old earth creationist view and critiques, heavily, the young earth creationist viewpoint on the nature of the world (RationalWiki, 2019c).
With an old earth creationism, he adheres to a progressive creationism, which means one methodology to maintain the fundamentalist view on creation with a still-major modification of the scientific evidence in support of the age of the earth or life complementing the biblical interpretations of the world – theological views of the world (Ibid.). Indeed, he rejects the idea of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis and, thus, rejects intelligent design (Ibid.). He founded Reasons To Believe (2019).
The religious orientation of creationism remains an open secret with few or no one from the mainstream community of journalists and media personalities in Canada simply reading the statements of the websites of the associations and the individuals involved in the creationist efforts in Canada. Something to praise of the creationists more than the Intelligent Design advocates: honest and transparent on the websites as to their ministerial visions of the world and targeted objectives for the wider culture. The religious tone reflects cognitive biases. As Nieminen (2015) stated, “Creationism is a religiously motivated worldview in denial of biological evolution that has been very resistant to change. We performed a textual analysis by examining creationist and pro-evolutionary texts for aspects of ‘experiential thinking’, a cognitive process different from scientific thought.” Nieminen went on to describe testimonials, confirmation bias, simplification of data, experiential thinking, and logical fallacies pervaded the mindset of creationist thought (Ibid).
Some, including Jerry Coyne, do not accept the thrust of the intelligent design movement with support from biologists and judges in the United States (2019). Even at the individual level, others, such as Sarah Olson, continue the fight for personal enlightenment against the standard ignorance and misinformed education of youth, who impressively worked out the more accurate view about the nature of the world (Olson, 2019). To point more to the problem as religion in education, Answers in Genesis will teach a Bible-based worldview in the classroom in a Christian school (Smith, 2019). So it goes.
This Ain’t No Pillow Fight: Combat for Minds, Battles for Values, and Wars for Ideological Survival
I’m an atheist.
Dax Shepherd
The media—stenographers to power.
Amy Goodman
People tend to romanticize what they can’t quite remember.
Ira Flatow
Jesus is said to have said on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.
Cenk Uygur
The problem of unsafe abortion has been seriously exacerbated by contraceptive shortages caused by American policies hostile to birth control, as well as by the understandable diversion of scarce sexual health resources to fight HIV. All over the planet, conflicts between tradition and modernity are being fought on the terrain of women’s bodies. Globalization is challenging traditional social arrangements. It is upsetting economic stability, bringing women into the workforce, and beaming images of Western individualism into the remotest villages while drawing more and more people into ever growing cities. All this spurs conservative backlash, as right-wingers promise anxious, disoriented people that the chaos can be contained if only the old sexual order is enforced. Yet the subjugation of women is just making things worse, creating all manner of demographic, economic, and public health problems.
Michelle Goldberg
If it were up to me, I would not define myself by the absence of something; “theist” is a believer, so with “atheist” you’re defining yourself by the absence of something. I think human beings work on yes, not on no. … humanist is a great term. …except that humanism sometimes is not seen as inclusive of spirituality. To me, spirituality is the opposite of religion. It’s the belief that all living things share some value. So I would include the word spiritual just because it feels more inclusive to me. Native Americans do this when they offer thanks to Mother Earth and praise the interconnectedness of “the two-legged and the four, the feathered and the clawed,” and so on. It’s lovely. … because it’s not about not believing. It’s about rejecting a god who looks like the ruling class. I like to say that the last five-to-ten thousand years has been an experiment that failed and it’s now time to declare the first meeting of the post-patriarchal, post-racist, post-nationalist age. So let’s add “post-theological.” Why not?
Gloria Steinem
Several signals point to problems within the communities of the young earth creationist, old earth creationist, and the flat earth communities. Those who take these hypotheses as serious challenges to Darwinian theory (Masci, 2019). They exist in non-trivial numbers. Signals of a decline in the coherence of the creationist communities including the in-fighting between individuals who adhere to a flat earth theory of the structure of the world and creationists, or between young earth creationists and old earth creationists. An old earth becomes the next premise shift, as the dominoes fall more towards standard interpretations of empirical evidence provided through sciences (Challies, 2017; Graham; 2017). It can cross well beyond the realm of the absurd into young earth creationists mocking believers in the theory of the flat earth, as taking the biblical accounts of the world with an interpretation seen as much too direct for them (Mehta, 2017b).
There can be in-fighting and ‘debate’ between young earth creationists and old earth creationists (Mehta, 2018b). Esther O’Reilly at Young Fogey stated, “It’s not every day that you get to see Ken Ham pick a fight with Matt Walsh, but it happened this week, after the conservative firebrand posted a video explaining why he rejects young Earth creationism. Walsh states emphatically that the evidence has spoken loudly across multiple disciplines, that this is not a hill anybody should be dying on, and that evangelical Christians are damaging the impact of their witness by making it so” (O’Reilly, 2018; Matt Walsh, 2018; Ham, 2018).
As Hemant Mehta stated, “Pat Robertson dismissed Young Earth Creationism as ‘nonsense’ that’s ‘so embarrassing’ and how all that ‘6,000-year stuff just doesn’t compute’” (Mehta, 2019c). Ken Ham, CEO and Founder of Answers in Genesis, stated, “It’s not those of us who take God at his Word who are ‘embarrassing,’ it’s the other way around! Those like Pat Robertson who adopt man’s pagan religion, which includes elements like evolutionary geology based on naturalism (atheism), and add that to God’s Word are destructive to the church. This compromise undermines the authority of the infallible Word” (Ibid.).
As a result, Ken Ham wants Pat Robertson to visit the Ark Encounter (Mehta, 2019f). Prominent creationists, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, wanted to – and probably still want to – save America from the evils of evolution through the ongoing, and seemingly never-ending, 150+ year battle over evolution with an emphasis on the construction of and distribution of their own On the Origin of the Species (Hinman, 2009). Cameron wanted to save America with a movie, too. Mehta (2017c) stated, “You know, conservative Christians got us into this mess. I don’t trust them to get us out of it. I especially don’t trust people who got together right before the election to do the exact same thing when that clearly failed. Whatever they were doing, it pissed God off something fierce. Why would He be on their side now? I’m also not sure how Cameron plans to unite people when his personal goals involve blocking women from ever obtaining an abortion and convincing transgender people it’s all in their minds.”
Even for those with, more or less, inerrant view of some of the standard North American purported holy texts, the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community – at least some – do not want to teach the perspective or theory of the world, the earth, as only 6,000-years-old, as this amounts to a “lie” (Mehta, 2018c). They stated, “As reported by the JC last week, last months’ notice from the UOHC warned strictly orthodox educational institutions not to sign contracts with councils for early years funding, because the [Department of Education] guidelines state councils should not fund institutions which present ‘creationism as fact.’ The notice stated that ‘they place great doubts, Heaven forfend, in the creation of the world with the lie that the world is ancient, may their mouths be filled with earth. ‘This is a lie that earlier sages of blessed memory contended with, and now they wish to infiltrate us with this falsehood’” (Ibid.). In the Canadian portion of North America, we can find the differences in the provinces and some correlates with education, age, and political and social orientation (e.g., left or right ideological commitments). The NCSE reported on some of this back in 2011.
Glenn Branch (2011b) at the National Center for Science Education stated, “Accordingto Ekos’s data tables (PDF, pp. 77-79), creationism was strongest in the Atlantic provinces (25.1 percent) and Alberta (18.8 percent), stronger among women (18.8 percent) than men (9.5 percent), stronger among those with “right” ideology (22.4 percent), and stronger with those who attended religious services more than once in the past three months (38.4 percent). The “natural selection” option was particularly popular among respondents in Quebec (67.6 percent), less than twenty-five years old (73.9 percent), with university education (72.8 percent), and with “left” ideology (74.2 percent).” The gap in the numbers emerge more in America than elsewhere, as we can see. In fact, some questions around the foundations of consciousness remaining incomprehensible form a reason for doubting evolutionary processes, for the claims of evolution via natural selection among atheists in the United Kingdom and in Canada.
On the point about human consciousness, for instance, Catherine Pepinster in Religion News spoke to an important concern of the unexplained as a gap in the acceptance or full endorsement of evolution via natural selection (2017). She states:
- Around 64 percent of adults in the U.K. found it easy to accept evolutionary science as compatible with their personal beliefs; it was lower for Canadian adults at 50 percent.
- Somewhat fewer people with religious beliefs found evolution easy to square with their faith: 53 percent in the U.K. and 41 percent in Canada.
- 1 in 5 U.K. atheists and more than 1 in 3 Canadian atheists were not satisfied with evolutionary theory. Specifically, they agreed that “evolutionary processes cannot explain the existence of human consciousness.” (Ibid.)
As stated in The Sensuous Curmudgeon (2018), “Our understanding is that Canada has nothing like the Constitutional separation of church and state which prevails in the US, so we can’t really evaluate their opinions about what their schools should teach,” in response to survey data about school curricula. This may create problems into the future as the teaching of evolution may face ongoing attacks on its legitimacy in illegitimate and dishonest ways on the basis, often, of literal reading of a purported holy text.
Douglas Todd in the Vancouver Sun (2017) spoke to two concerns about the advancement of the fundamental idea in all of life science. Todd agrees with some of the aforementioned points. He stated:
There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us. The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism.
It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence. The second major barrier to a rewarding public conversation about the impact of evolution on the way we understand the world is not named nearly as much.
It is “scientism.”
Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. Scientism can, like religious literalism, become its own ideology.
The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities).”
(Ibid.)
P.Z. Myers notifies the public to the, more or less, creationist, more directly teleological, orientation of some in Silicon Valley with some of their views on the nature of simulations and the universe (2016). This seems more complete trust in the notion of the progress of scientific knowledge leading to the moral advancement of the species. Nick Bostrom, Paul Davies, Elon Musk, Sean M. Carroll, David Chalmers, and others posit a simulation universe as more probable than a natural universe. A natural universe would host the simulation universe. One needs stable enough universes for natural entities to evolve and some of the beings sufficiently technologically inclined and intelligent to produce powerful technologies, and then have an interest in the production of simulations of the real universe in the first place.
However, one needs a natural universe for a simulation universe, as a host universe for the virtual universe. In other words, the probability sits not on the side of simulation, but on the side of natural as the ground probability state for the universe inhabited by us. Unless, of course, one posits an extremely large number of simulated universes within one natural universe. In other words, the Bostrom, Davies, Musk, Carroll, Chalmers, and others crowd seem wrong in one consideration of naturality versus virtuality and correct in another on the assumption of the civilizations with an orientation towards mass simulation, where this leads to some brief thoughts about the future of science with novel principles to become adjunct to standard principles of modern science as an evolved, and evolving, epistemology: proportionality of evidence to claims, falsifiability, parsimony, replicability, ruling out rival hypotheses, and distinguishing causation from correlation. These provide a foundation for comprehension of the natural world as a derivation from centuries of science with some positing epistemological naturalism as foundational to the scientific methodology or epistemology, as supernatural methodologies or supernatural epistemologies failed in coherence or in the production of supportive evidence.
The next principles on science will include precision in the fundamental theories and correlations unfathomed by current human science in which simulatability becomes the next stage of scientific epistemology, where computation becomes more ubiquitous and the utilization of computations to construct artificial environments to test hypotheses about the real world in artificial ones created to simulate the real world (while in the real world, as a real embedment with the virtual). The virtual becomes indistinguishable from the real at this level. At that point, when the virtual modelling becomes indistinguishable from the ‘real’ world insofar as we model the world from our sensory input and processing, the virtual will be virtual by old definitions, but will be seen as real by practical definitions. Then the new science should be simulation science.
Scientific skepticism, naturalism, and the like seems the most accurate view on the nature of the world. Most religious interpretations are teleological and seem more and more like failed philosophies. One can observe this in the decline in fundamentalist religion and in the decline of theology as a discipline. It is increasingly seen as something that people once did before proper science to put boundaries on any metaphysical speculation. In some way, the physical seems like as a limited form of materialism and materialism as a limited form of naturalism and naturalism as a limited form of informationism/informationalism. Some science incorporates simulations now. However, it is expensive. Cheap information processing further into the future will mean cheap simulations, and so cheap simulatability and the emergence of simulation as a derivative of scientific methodology into a principle of science. The over-trust in the advancements of science, though, to Todd (2011), reflects the feeling of fundamentalist Christians.
This being upset “at what they characterize as a liberal attack on the family, many evangelical leaders – like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Benny Hinn, Sarah Palin and Canada’s Charles McVety – take combative stands, which the conflict-hungry news media gobble up,” Todd stated (Ibid.). The media, according to Todd (Ibid.), remains complicit in this sensationalism with deleterious effects on the general culture. The general public and academia can be wiser at times. Counter events to educate about the evolutionary critiques against intelligent design exist too (McGill University, 2006). Some consequences even arise with the earning of tenure for some “intelligent design” professors (Slabaugh, 2016). However, the subtle use of language for political effect may imbue social and political power to religious ideas. In America, these can become significant issues with the ways in which political language can be code for creationism as noted by Waldman (2017). Freethought people can struggle for inclusion in the general public, too.
Some preliminary research indicates atheists treat Christians better than Christians treat atheists (Stone, 2019). One may extrapolate, though on thin preliminary evidence, the differential bidirectional treatment of atheists to non-Christians and non-Christians to atheists as a real phenomenon. Sometimes, secular people form community in the form of satire out of frustration or for general fun. The era where Pastafarians continue to struggle for acceptance by the wider community at any rate (Henley, 2019). To the question of teaching creationism alongside evolution in the science classroom, America gets harder problems, as in the school board candidates in St. Louis (Mehta, 2019a). Barbara A. Anderson wanted to teach both; Louis C. Cross III wanted “all aspects” addressed; and William Haas avoided the question and considered the “least of our” (their) problems as creationism and intelligent design (Ibid.). Public figures and politicians, and policymakers, set the tone for a country.
They hold an immense responsibility in North America and abroad to characterize science in an accurate way. Religious communities should clean their own house too. Otherwise, for private and personal religious beliefs, these can become seen front and center for the funding of religious projects with public money. For example, one such project came in the Ark Encounter in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Ark hired 700 people to build it, which came to the price tag of $120-million dollars (Washington Post, 2017). Ken Ham intends the Ark Encounter to reach the general public with his supposed gospel akin to the attractions for science to the public through “Disney or Universal or Smithsonian” (Ibid.). 42,000 small donors funded the Ark (Ibid.). Religion becomes political, becomes politics.
Define “Global” and “Diverse” for Me
It is the chief characteristic of the religion of science that it works.
Isaac Asimov
I am also atheist or agnostic (I don’t even know the difference). I’ve never been to church and prefer to think for myself.
Steve Wozniak
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.
Stephen Hawking
Am I a criminal? The world knows I’m not a criminal. What are they trying to put me in jail for? You’ve lost common sense in this society because of religious fanaticism and dogma.
Jack Kevorkian
When I worked on the polio vaccine, I had a theory. Experiments were done to determine what might or might not occur. I guided each one by imagining myself in the phenomenon in which I was interested. The intuitive realm is constantly active—the realm of imagination guides my thinking.
Jonas Salk
I never professed any theology. And it’s complicated by my Jewishness. Obviously, being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. I was concerned that if I were to explicitly disavow any religiosity, it could get distorted into an effort to distance myself from being Jewish—and I thought that was wrong, given that there is anti-Jewish prejudice.
For years I would go to temple, but I suddenly realized it doesn’t mean anything to me. So I decided, I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to pretend. During my service I never pretended to be a theist. It just never became relevant that I wasn’t, and I guess I was not as conscious of the discrimination nontheists felt. But I’ve always been opposed to any imposition of religion. I fought hard, for example, with other members of Congress to oppose any notion that a religious group getting federal funds could discriminate in hiring.
When I took the oath of office, I never swore and said, “So help me God.”
Barney Frank
As Ryan D. Jayne, Staff Attorney at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in response to a recent conservative article, stated, “A recent article by a creationist hack for the National Review (the flagship conservative publication) preposterously argues that Canada is stifling religious freedom and that we are headed in the same direction. But Canada is doing just fine, thank you very much, and the U.S. government needs less religion, not more.” Jayne, astute in the concision of a proper and educated response, pointed to the state of affairs in secular democracies – to varying degrees, e.g., Canada and the United States, and then in theocracies, e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the intuitive understanding comes in the form of the level of restriction of religious freedom found in these areas.
“The best way to protect religious freedom is to keep the government secular. This includes enforcing laws that give protections regardless of the whims of the majority religion. A law prohibiting female genital mutilation in a Muslim-majority country would not have much effect if it allowed Muslims to opt out of the law for religious reasons,” Jayne continued, “and would be tantamount to the government simply sanctioning the abhorrent religious practice… Advocates of religious freedom only oppose state/church separation when they are comfortably in the majority and trust their government to favor their particular set of religious beliefs” (Ibid.).
Creationism in a number of ways represents a mind set or a state of mind. It seems, as a postulation, as if a reflection of a fundamentalist mindset outsourced into one domain with a happenstance in the biological sciences. The origin of the universe and life, and so us, treads directly on the subject matter of evolution via natural selection with the importance of the biological sciences and some proclamations of religious faith. This can seem rather straightforward, but this creates some issues, too. Not only limited to the United States or Canada, as reported by the University of Toronto, the creationist movement went into a global phenomenon (Rankin, 2012). Rankin continues to note the original flavor of creationism as breaking apart into “young Earth creationism, intelligent design and creationism interpreted through the lens of other world religions” (Ibid.). The numbers of the creationist movement, in its modern manifestation, continue to increase with the varieties as well as the numbers (Ibid.). An increase well beyond the borders of the United States and the Christian faith (Ibid.).
Noting, of course, the fundamental belief in the Christian creationist movements with the artificer of life and, in some interpretations, the cosmos as the Christian God, even in the genteel foundational individuals of the more sophisticated movement entitled Intelligent Design, i.e., Dr. William Dembski – a well-educated, highly intelligent, and polite person – who said, “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God” (Environment and Ecology, 2019). In short, the final premise of the Intelligent Design movement becomes “the Christian God” with every other item as a conditional upon which “the Christian God” becomes the eventual conclusion of the argument. This does not represent a diversity. The undertone remains other religions may harbour some eventual truth in them insofar as they adhere to some principles or beliefs best defined as Christian.
“Sometimes I marvel at my own naiveté. I wrote The End of Christianity thinking that it might be a way to move young-earth creationists from their position that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old by addressing the first objection that they invariably throw at an old-earth position, namely, the problem of natural evil before the Fall. I thought that by proposing my retroactive view of the Fall, that I was addressing their concern and thus that I might see some positive movement toward my old-earth position,” Dembski confessed, “Boy, was I ever wrong. As a professional therapist once put it to me, the presenting problem is never the real problem. I quickly found out that the young-earth theologians I was dealing with were far less concerned about how the Fall could be squared with an old earth than with simply preserving the most obvious interpretation of Genesis 1–3, namely, that the earth and universe are just a few thousand years old. Again, we’re talking the fundamentalist impulse to simple, neat, pat answers. Now I’ll readily grant that the appeal to complexity can be a way of evading the truth. But so can the appeal to simplicity, and fundamentalism loves keeping things simple” (Rosenau, 2016).
It represents, mostly, a Christian movement with a wide variety of institutes and other organizations connected within it, including Access Research Network, Biologic Institute, Center for Science & Culture at Discovery, Institute Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, Intelligent Design Network, and Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (Access Research Network, 2019; Biologic Institute, 2019; Discovery Institute, 2019; IDEA, 2019; Intelligent Design Network, 2019; IDURC, 2019). The movement spread into the Islamic and Hindu worlds too (Rankin, 2012), as reported, “For example, in the 1980s the Turkish Minister of Education asked the Institute for Creation Research in the United States to translate Scientific Creationism into Turkish. Since then creationism has been taught in Turkey’s high school science curriculum.” This non-scientific and religious movement exists in Australia, South America, and South Korea now (Ibid.), including amongst Israeli and American Jewish fundamentalists who formed the Torah Science Foundation in 2000 (Ibid.).
One can find this in religious groupings too. According to the Hare Krishna, “First, Maha-Vishnu transforms some of His spiritual energy into the primordial material elements. He then glances over them, activating them with the energy of time, which underlies all transformations in the material world. Matter then evolves from subtle elements (sound, form, touch, etc.) to gross (earth, water, fire, etc.)” (2019). Then sound becomes the most important element in the creation of the world, in particular the hearing and speaking of spiritual sound, received from the Vedas or its spiritual world for the freedom of the souls to achieve a material creation (Ibid.). This amounts to a creationism.
Leslie Scrivener (2007) more than a decade ago reported on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a spoof on the Intelligent Design movement based on the creations of an Oregon State University physics graduate named Bobby Henderson. Henderson wrote, “Let us remember there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster” (Ibid.).
For the Raëlian religion or movement, there were messages dictated to an individual named Rael as to how the life on Earth is not the product of a supernatural engineer or a random world with a non-random naturalistic selection process, but, rather, the creations of a “scientifically advanced people” who chose to make beings in their own image in a process called scientific creationism (Ashliman, 2003). In examination of these movements more as this helps provide a basis to see the ideational movement in the society with regards to the non-scientific propositions floating around the minds of the public, including famous and creative types, who further provide popular cover for these views with movies including the following – media complicit once more:
- Origins (IMDb, 1985) with Russ Bixler, Donn S. Chapman, and Paul Nelson.
- The Genesis Solution (IMDb, 1987) with Ken Ham.
- Steeling the Mind (IMDb, 1993) with Kent Hovind.
- Genesis: The Creation and the Flood (IMDb, 1994) with Annabi Abdelialil, Omero Antonutti, and Sabir Aziz.
- Startling Proofs (IMDb, 1995) with Dave Breese, Keith Davies, and David Harris.
- A Question of Origins (IMDb, 1998) with Roger Oakland, Dan Sheedy, and Mark Eastman.
- Genesis: History or Myth (IMDb, 1999a) with Kent Hovind, Nick Powers, and Terry Prewitt.
- Creation Seminar (IMDB, 1999) with Kent Hovind.
- Earth: Young or Old? (IMDb, 2000a) with John Ankerberg, Hugh Ross, and Kent Hovind.
- Creation Science 102 (IMDb, 2000b) with Kent Hovind.
- Creation Science 101 (IMDb, 2001a) with Kent Hovind.
- Creation Science 103 (IMDb, 2001b) with Kent Hovind.
- Creation Science 104 (IMDb, 2001c) with Kent Hovind.
- Christ in Prophecy. (IMDb, 2002) with David Reagan, Nathan Jones, and Jobe Martin.
- The Creation Adventure Team: A Jurassic Ark Mystery (IMDb, 2003a) with Buddy Davis, Andy Hosmer, and Brad Stine.
- Answering the Critics (IMDb, 2003b) with Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, and Jonathan Sampson.
- A Creation Evolution Debate (IMDb, 2003c) with Kyle Frazier, Hugh Hewitt, and Kent Hovind.
- Six Days & the Eisegesis Problem (IMDb, 2003d) with Ken Ham
- Design: The Evolutionary Nightmare (IMDb, 2004a) with Tom Sharp.
- Creation in the 21st Century (IMDb, 2004b) with David Rives, Carl Baugh, and Bruce Malone.
- Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time (IMDb, 2004c) with Tom Sharp.
- The Genesis Conflict (IMDb, 2004d) with Walter J. Veith.
- Three on One! At Embry Riddle (IMDb, 2004e) with Kent Hovind, Jim Strayer, and R. Luther Reisbig.
- Old Earth vs. Young Earth (2004f) with Jaymen Dick and Kent Hovind.
- Berkeley Finally Hears the Truth (IMDb, 2004g) with Kent Hovind.
- The Big Question (IMDb, 2005b) with Rupert Hoare, Roger Phillips, and John Polkinghorne.
- Creation Seminar (IMDb, 2005a) with Kent Hovind.
- Creation Boot Camp (IMDb, 2005c) with Daniel Johnson, Eric Hovind, and Kent Hovind.
- The Intelligent Design Movement: How Intelligent Is It? (IMDb, 2005d) with Georgia Purdom.
- The Case for a Creator (IMDb, 2006a) with Lee Strobel, Tom Kane, and Don Ranson.
- Dinosaurs and the Bible (IMDb, 2006b) with Jason Lisle.
- Noah’s Flood: Washing Away the Millions of Years (IMDb, 2006c) with Terry Mortenson.
- The Longevity Secret: Is Noahs Ark the Key to Immortality? (IMDb, 2007a) with T. Lee Baumann, John Baumgardner, and Walter Brown.
- Creation and Evolution: A Witness of Prophets (IMDb, 2007b) by James F. Stoddard III.
- Ancient Secrets of the Bible (IMDb, 2007c) with Richard S. Hess, Grant Jeffrey, and Michael Shermer.
- Faithful Word Baptist Church (IMDb, 2007d) with Steven L. Anderson, David Berzins, and Roger Jimenez.
- Noah’s Ark: Thinking Outside the Box (IMDb, 2007e) with Mark Looy, John Whitcomb, and Ken Ham.
- God of Wonders (IMDb, 2008b) with John Whitcomb, Dan Sheedy, and Don B. DeYoung.
- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (IMDb, 2008a) with Ben Stein, Lili Asvar, and Peter Atkins.
- Red River Bible & Prophecy Conference (IMDb, 2008c) with David Hocking, James Jacob Prasch, and Carl Teichrib.
- The Earth Is Young (IMDb, 2009a) with Michael Gitlin.
- Evolutionist vs. Evolution (IMDb, 2009b) with Walter Brown, Kent Hovind, and Kenneth Miller.
- The Creation: Faith, Science, Intelligent Design (IMDb, 2010a) with Robert Carr, Art Chadwick, and Alvin Chea.
- All Creatures Great and Small: Microbes and Creation (IMDb, 2010b) with Georgia Purdom.
- Wonder of the Cell (IMDb, 2010c) with Georgia Purdom.
- Creation Today (IMDb, 2011a) with Eric Hovind, Paul Taylor, and Ben Schettler, and ongoing into the present as a television series.
- Genesis Week (IMDb, 2011b) with Ian Juby and Vance Nelson for 23 episodes.
- Starlight and a Young Earth (IMDb, 2011c) with Charles Jackson.
- Hard Questions for Evolutionists (IMDb, 2011c) with Kent Hovind.
- Creation Bytes! (IMDb, 2012a) with Paul Taylor.
- What’s Wrong with Evolution? (IMDb, 2012b) with Eric Hovind, John Mackay, and Paul Taylor.
- Not All ‘Christian’ Universities Are Christian (IMDb, 2012c) with Jay Seegert, Eric Hovind, and Paul Taylor.
- The Six Days of Genesis (IMDb, 2012d) with Paul Taylor.
- Deconstructing Dawkins (IMDb, 2012e) with Paul Taylor.
- Prometheus (IMDb, 2012f) with Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender.
- How to Answer the Fool (IMDb, 2013b) with Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind.
- Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith (IMDb, 2013a) with Ray Comfort, Kevan Brighting, and Alessandro Bianchi.
- The Interview: Past, Present, Future (IMDb, 2013c) with John Mackay and Ken Ham.
- Creation Training Initiative (IMDb, 2013d) with Mike Riddle, Buddy Davis, and Carl Kerby.
- The Comfort Zone (IMDb, 2013e) with Ray Comfort, Emeal Zwayne, and Mark Spence.
- Creation and the Last Days (IMDb, 2014a) with Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, and Paul Zachary Myers.
- Post-Debate Answers Live W/Ken Ham (IMDb, 2014b) with Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom.
- The Pre & Post Debate Commentary Live (IMDb, 2014c) with Eric Hovind, Paul Taylor, and Terry Mortenson.
- Design(er) (IMDb, 2014d) with Georgia Purdom.
- The Genetics of Adam & Eve (IMDb, 2014e) with Georgia Purdom.
- Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A (IMDb, 2015a) with Kent Hovind, Mary Tocco-Hovind, Bernie Dehler.
- Open-Air Preaching (IMDb, 2015b) with Ray Comfort and Emeal Zwayne.
- A Matter of Faith (IMDb, 2016a) with Jordan Trovillion, Jay Pickett, and Harry Anderson.
- Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels (IMDb, 2014) with Donald Batten, Alessandro Bianchi, and Pieter Borger.
- Kent Hovind: An Atheist’s Worst Nightmare (IMDb, 2016a) with Michael Behe and Kirk Cameron.
- The Building of the Ark Encounter (IMDb, 2016b) with Craig Baker, Brad Benbow, and Ken Ham.
- The Atheist Delusion (IMDb, 2016c) with Tim Allen, Ray Comfort, and Richard Dawkins.
- Alien: Covenant (IMDb, 2017) with Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, and Billy Crudup.
With some reflection, one can note the lengths some believers of fundamentalist stripes must strive in order for coherence in the worldview, but one who affirms the evidence of evolution via natural selection first becomes much less stuck in the mud.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England stated, “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it’s not a theory alongside theories. It’s not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this… ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” (BBC News, 2002; BBC News, 2009) Indeed, Andrew Brown in The Guardiancorrectly identified the manner in which the focus on creationism as a Christian phenomenon limits the reach or scope of understanding on the nature of the problem (2009). PEW Research (2009) identified one of the main issues as the theological implications of the theory of evolution. The populations in the United States who appear below the average of the nation in acceptance of evolution via natural selection are the Jehovah’s Witnesses (8% accept), Mormons (22% accept), Evangelical Protestants (24% accept), historically Black Protestant (38% accept), and Muslims (45% accept) (Khan, 2009).
In fact, the ADL defined creationism, creation science, and intelligent design as religious and supernatural accounts of the world, where science deals with the natural and, thus, the views of creationism, creation science, and intelligent design amount to non-scientific and theological/supernatural propositions (2019), as you may no doubt recall in some of the conclusions from the court cases or legal contexts in the United States from earlier. The Freedom From Religion Foundation of Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker provides summarization of creationism, too, in an article by Andrew L. Seidel (2014). The Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren (2019) state:
Many Bible scholars have pointed out that the Genesis account of creation gives a Hebrew poetic description of the reality that God created the heavens and the earth by his word. A detailed scientific explanation of how God’s word brought creation into existence is not in view in the biblical narratives of creation. Rather, as scholars have shown, these narratives contrast markedly with ancient Near Eastern myths about cosmic origins. Unlike the deities in other texts who are depicted as giving birth to the material world, the God of the Bible speaks creation into existence. The Bible reveals a divine presence that is both intimate in its closeness and exalted in its transcendence. God is invisible, yet accessible to those who seek him in a faithful response to his self-revelation. Moreover, although God’s wisdom is revealed in the working of the natural order, the depths of God’s wisdom are beyond the reach of human understanding.
From a Christian perspective, the biblical description of God’s creative work is also necessary for understanding human nature. Christians af rm the clear statement of Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth. As the pinnacle of creation, human beings are the deliberate work of God. Human beings are created in the image of God. Atheistic models of evolutionary origins are incompatible with the biblical witness when they fail to account for human beings bearing the image of God.
In terms of the physical world, the Bible tells that God created matter from nothing, and then ordered the chaotic matter into an ordered reality (Genesis 1:1-2; Romans 4:17; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 11:3). Historically, Christian theologians have interpreted this as meaning creation ex nihilo—out of nothing.3 This point is important for a number of reasons. First, it reminds us that only God is eternal, and that God’s ordered creation serves his plan. Second, in expressing that God has brought creation to be out of nothing, the biblical authors express the power of the Creator God. Third, Scripture reveals that God is distinct from creation, and sovereignly rules over it. (2019)
RationalWiki catalogues some religious orientations on creationism: Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hare Krishna, Raëlism, and None (2019a). PEW Research provided a summary of some of the views of the various religious groups (2009), in which they stated:
Buddhism
Many Buddhists see no inherent conflict between their religious teachings and evolutionary theory. Indeed, according to some Buddhist thinkers, certain aspects of Darwin’s theory are consistent with some of the religion’s core teachings, such as the notion that all life is impermanent.
Catholicism
The Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of all life. However, this acceptance comes with the understanding that natural selection is a God-directed mechanism of biological development and that man’s soul is the divine creation of God.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ first public statement on human origins was issued in 1909 and echoed in 1925, when the church’s highest governing body stated, “Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes.” However, several high-ranking officials have suggested that Darwin’s theory does not directly contradict church teachings.
Episcopal Church
In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement.” The church has also expressed skepticism toward the intelligent design movement.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that “God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation.”
Hinduism
While there is no single Hindu teaching on the origins of life, many Hindus believe that the universe is a manifestation of Brahman, Hinduism’s highest god and the force behind all creation. However, many Hindus today do not find their beliefs to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Islam
While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.
Judaism
While all of the major movements of American Judaism – including the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches – teach that God is the creator of the universe and all life, Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that “the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a ‘myth’ or ‘story’ made up to explain the origin of all things.” The church rejects evolution or any theory that “denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture.”
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
In 1969, the Presbyterian Church’s governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. Still, the church has stated that it “should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution,” and church doctrine continues to hold that man is a unique creation of God, “made in His own image.”
Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution and stating that creation science “can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts.” Some Southern Baptist leaders have spoken out in favor of the intelligent design movement.
United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means “to see our faith in a new way.”
United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church’s highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that “science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church’s] theology.” Moreover, the church states that “many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible … are intended to be metaphorical
[and]
were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science.”
The purpose remains the innervation of a non-theological discipline as a theological set of fields or as the study of God – to bring God into science and vice versa. One may observe this in non-literate-based spiritualities and practices bound to longer histories, often, than the traditionally considered ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ religious orientations; those grounded in oral traditions. One can look to aborigine, aboriginal, first peoples’, indigenous, native, or originals’ traditions about the nature of nature. The world around us as inhabited by spirits and forces, often with a singular capital “C” Creator behind the works of it.
Indigenous belief structures in various parts of the world, and in Canada, assert a creation narrative. In C2C Journal, reportage by Robert MacBain and Peter Shawn Taylor (2019) covered some of the aspects of bad history on the part of some aboriginal communities due to historical circumstance as a consequence of colonization, they state:
Today, approximately 30,000 Ojibways live in a sprawling region north of Lake Huron and Lake Superior. And thanks to a recent Ontario court decision, they could soon be in line for a massive and unprecedented financial gift from Canadian taxpayers. It’s a giveaway made possible by an imaginative rewriting of two nearly 170-year-old signed treaties, a legal system that appears to have fallen under the spell of native mysticism, a federal government that’s given up defending the taxpayers’ interests and a judge who thinks she can read the minds of long-dead historical figures and mistakenly believes the Ojibway have lived in Northwestern Ontario since time immemorial…
Rather than sticking to the historical facts, Justice Hennessy extensively quoted an Ojibway elder’s account of his people’s cosmology and creation story, and then herself claimed: “As the last placed within creation, the Anishinaabe [Ojibways] could not act in ways that would violate those relationships that came before their placement on the land and that were already in existence across creation.” Setting aside her curious acceptance of Indigenous mythology as fact, we know that at the time of their “creation” the Anishinaabe could not have been placed in Northwestern Ontario. They originated on the Atlantic Coast and are essentially newcomers to the area, having arrived after European explorers. (MacBain & Taylor, 2019)
MacBain and Taylor firmly judge the captivation of Justice Hennessy with indigenous creationism, akin to the notion of a several thousand years old Earth with human beings as a special creation in their current form and separate from the rest of creation (Ibid.). Vine Deloria, a Standing Rock Sioux, argued for an indigenous interpretation of the world with a young planet, existence of humans alongside dinosaurs, a worldwide flood, the Middle Eastern origin of the Native Americans, the increased levels of carbon dioxide leading to “gigantism,” and, of course, a lack of acceptance in evolution (Brumble, 1998).
Bailey (2014) notes the asymmetry in the treatment of different types of creationism, where indigenous creationism gets a pass in some circles. However, creationism remains a wrong theory in a scientific sense and only one set of particular religious interpretations of origins of life and, often, the universe. Canadian Museum of History (n.d.) stated, “For the Haudenosaunee, the earth was created through the interplay of elements from the sky and waters. The different Iroquoian-speaking peoples tell slightly different versions of the creation story, which begins with Sky Woman falling from the sky.”
Several Coast Salish nations exist in Canada with creation stories (Kennedy & Bouchard, 2006) including Cowichan, Esquimault, Halalt, Homalco, Hwlitsum, Klahoose, K’omoks, Lake Cowichan, Lyackson, Musqueam, Qualicum, Saanich, Scia’new, Semiahmoo, Shishalh, Snaw-Naw-As, Snuneymuxw, Songhees, Squamish, Stó:lõ, Stz’uminus, Tla’amin (Sliammon), Tsawwassen, Tsleil-Waututh, and T’Sou-ke; each, likely, as with other complex civilizations – with or without technology – harbour creation stories or mythologies asserted as factual accounts of the world. The Canadian Encyclopedia states: Coast Salish culture and traditional knowledge survive through oral histories. Although Coast Salish legends vary from nation to nation, they often feature many of the same spiritual figures and tell similar creation stories.
One example of such a tale is the story of how Old-Man-In-The-Sky created the world, animals and humans. These stories also highlight the importance of certain creatures and elements of nature, such as the salmon and red cedar, which are considered sacred for spiritual reasons and because of the valuable resources they provide for the people (Ibid.). On some non-Middle Eastern (and co-opted by the Europeans) mythologies, we can look to Australia:
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep – or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
“Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms.”
The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
This time she ventured into the dark caves on the mountainsides. The bright light that radiated from her awoke the spirits and after she left insects of all kinds flew out of the caves. The Sun Mother sat down and watched the glorious sight of her insects mingling with her flowers. However once again the Father urged her on.
The Mother ventured into a very deep cave, spreading her light around her. Her heat melted the ice and the rivers and streams of the world were created. Then she created fish and small snakes, lizards and frogs. Next she awoke the spirits of the birds and animals and they burst into the sunshine in a glorious array of colors. Seeing this the Father of All Spirits was pleased with the Sun Mother’s work.
She called all her creatures to her and instructed them to enjoy the wealth of the earth and to live peacefully with one another. Then she rose into the sky and became the sun.(Williams College, n.d.)
Now, we can see this reflected in others with supernatural intervention or anthropomorphization of the objects of the world, as if the cosmos amounted to one big dramatic play. National Museum of the American Indian (2019) describes the Mayan foundational narrative as follows:
In this story, the Creators, Heart of Sky and six other deities including the Feathered Serpent, wanted to create human beings with hearts and minds who could “keep the days.” But their first attempts failed. When these deities finally created humans out of yellow and white corn who could talk, they were satisfied. In another epic cycle of the story, the Death Lords of the Underworld summon the Hero Twins to play a momentous ball game where the Twins defeat their opponents. The Twins rose into the heavens, and became the Sun and the Moon. Through their actions, the Hero Twins prepared the way for the planting of corn, for human beings to live on Earth, and for the Fourth Creation of the Maya.
Native American origin narratives or superstitions reflect some of the similar things:
…the Makiritare of the Orinoco River region in Venezuela tell how the stars, led by Wlaha, were forced to ascend on high when Kuamachi, the evening star, sought to avenge the death of his mother. Kuamachi and his grandfather induced Wlaha and the other stars to climb into dewaka trees to gather the ripe fruit. When Kuamachi picked the fruit, it fell and broke open. Water spilled out and flooded the forest. With his powerful thoughts, Kuamachi created a canoe in which he and his grandfather escaped. Along the way they created deadly water animals such as the anaconda, the piranha, and the caiman. One by one Kuamachi shot down the stars of heaven from the trees in which they were lodged. They fell into the water and were devoured by the animals. After they were gnawed and gored into different ragged shapes, the survivors ascended into the sky on a ladder of arrows. There the stars took their proper places and began shining….
… Iroquois longhouse elders speak frequently about the Creator’s “Original Instructions” to human beings, using male gender references and attributing to this divinity not only the planning and organizing of creation but qualities of goodness, wisdom, and perfection that are reminiscent of the Christian deity. By contrast, the Koyukon universe is notably decentralized. Raven, whom Koyukon narratives credit with the creation of human beings, is only one among many powerful entities in the Koyukon world. He exhibits human weaknesses such as lust and pride, is neither all-knowing nor all-good, and teaches more often by counterexample than by his wisdom…
… These actions commemorate events that occurred in the mythic first world. At that time a formless water serpent, Amaru, was the first female being. Her female followers stole ritual flutes, kuai, from the males of that age and initiated Amaru by placing her in a basket while they blessed food for her. Insects and worms tried to penetrate the basket, and eventually a small armadillo succeeded in tunneling through the earth into the centre of the women’s house. The creator, Yaperikuli, led the men through this tunnel, and the resulting union of males and females marked the beginning of fertile life and the origin of all species. Thus, an individual girl’s initiation is brought into alignment with cosmic fertility…
… South American eschatological thinking and behaviour share common ground with Christian eschatology. (Sullivan, & Jocks, 2019).
As Zimmerman (2010) noted, the general tenor of the public and educational conversation around creationism continues for a long time and has been extant in the North American landscape for a longer time than even Stephen Jay Gould, who is long dead at this time. Bob Joseph (2012) states:
Most cultures, including Aboriginal cultures, hold creationism as an explanation of how people came to populate the world. If an Aboriginal person were asked their idea of how their ancestors came to live in the Americas the answer would probably include a creation story and not the story of migration across a land bridge.
Take the Gwawaenuk creationism story for example. The first ancestor of the Gwawaenuk (gwa wa ā nook) Tribe of the west coast of British Columbia is a Thunderbird. The Thunderbird is a super natural creature who could fly through the heavens. One day, at the beginning of time, the Thunderbird landed on top of Mt Stevens in the Broughton Archipelago at the northern tip of Vancouver Island. Upon landing on Mt. Stevens, the Thunderbird transformed into human form, becoming the first ancestor of the Gwawaenuk people. This act signals the creation of the Gwawaenuk people as well as defining the territory which the Gwawaenuk people would use and protect.
Now, the Indigenous perspectives of a Thunderbird landing on a mountain and transforming into a human being may sound unusual and a little silly but to a Gwawaenuk person it doesn’t sound any more unusual or silly than a virgin birth, or a person walking on water, coming back from the dead, or parting the Red Sea.
Tallbear (2013) describes the problems in the inappropriate sensitivities of indigenous communities to genomics testing, which may lead to a disintegration of mythologies considered or asserted true simply because of the connection to the original inhabitants of the land, i.e., those mythologies about people groups assumed as true when stating that the indigenous inhabitants have been there since time immemorial. These amount to empirical claims and, by most accepted anthropological and historical standards, wrong ones because of the migratory patterns found through genetics and other studies into the origins and travels of ancient homo sapiens. Christian and indigenous mythologies can impede research and the lead to a furtherance of factually wrong beliefs about the world. Indeed, genetics studies can combat the problems of racism to show what the biological scientists have known since Darwin: the unified nature of the ‘race’ seen in the human species more in line with modern biological terminology and evidence rather than more non-scientific or pre-modern scientific conceptualizations, or sociological terminologies, found in colloquialisms like “race.”
In examination of the world’s indigenous and religious creation stories, individual adherents may not amount to creationists as they may accept the naturalistic evidence in support of evolutionary theory; however, the base claims of the indigenous and religious belief structures purport a supernaturalism incompatible with the processes of scientific epistemology in the modern period and, therefore, as accounts of the cosmos and life equate to creationism or creationist claims with the first evaluation as creation stories. iResearchNet (2019) catalogues creationism into a number of more distinct categories: flat earth, geocentric creationism, young earth uniformitarianism, restitution creationism or gap creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, Paley-an creationism with a Thomist theological framework, evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, and the tried-and-untrue young earth creationism. They state the fundamentals of the literalist creationism found in Christian variations of creationism as follows:
- Creation is the work of a Trinitarian God.
- The Bible is a divinely inspired document.
- Creation took place in 6 days.
- All humans descended from Adam and Eve.
- The accounts of Earth in Genesis are historically accurate records.
- The work of human beings is to reestablish God’s perfection of creation though a commitment to Jesus. (Ibid.)
Regardless, as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2019b) states, creationist views reject scientific findings and methods:
Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently, “intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a “creationist” is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationism in its various forms is not the same thing as belief in God because, as was discussed earlier, many believers as well as many mainstream religious groups accept the findings of science, including evolution. Nor is creationism necessarily tied to Christians who interpret the Bible literally. Some non-Christian religious believers also want to replace scientific explanations with their own religion’s supernatural accounts of physical phenomena.
In the United States, various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth. But even these creationists hold very different views…
…No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints…
…Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because “no one has ever seen evolution occur.” This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations…
…Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning…
…Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.
Across the world and through time, creation stories emerge to provide some bearing as to the origin of the world and of life, but the narratives failed to match the empirical record of the world in which the sciences emerged and advanced while the mythologies died out due to a loss of adherents or continued to stagnate in the minds of the intellectuals and leadership of the communities of supernatural and spiritual beliefs. Evolution via natural selection stands apart from and opposed to, often, the creationist arguments and lack of evidences in addition to the assertions of the creation stories of all peoples throughout time into the present, insofar as a detailed naturalistic accounting for the variety of life forms on Earth with a formal encapsulation with functional mechanisms supported by hypotheses and the hypotheses bolstered by the evidence then and now.
Institutional Teleology, Purpose-Driven Hierarchies: Associations, Collectives, Groups, and Organizations with a Purpose
We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people. The same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation.
Dan Savage
Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome – and even comforting – than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.
Carolyn Porco
The lesson here, and through the years I’ve seen it repeated over and over again, is that a relatively small group of agitators, especially when convinced God is on their side, can move corporate America to quake with fear and make decisions in total disregard of the Constitution that protects against such decisions.
Norman Lear
In almost every professional field, in business and in the arts and sciences, women are still treated as second-class citizens. It would be a great service to tell girls who plan to work in society to expect this subtle, uncomfortable discrimination-tell them not to be quiet, and hope it will go away, but fight it. A girl should not expect special privileges because of her sex, but neither should she “adjust” to prejudice and discrimination.
Betty Friedan
The reason I prefer the sledgehammer to the rapier and the reason I believe in blunt, violent, confrontational forms for the presentation of my ideas is because I see that what’s happening to the lives of people is not rapierlike, it is not gentle, it is not subtle. It is direct, hard and violent. The slow violence of poverty, the slow violence of untreated disease. Of unemployment, hunger, discrimination. This isn’t the violence of some guy opening fire with an Uzi in a McDonald’s and forty people are dead. The real violence that goes on every day, unheard, unreported, over and over, multiplied a millionfold.
George Carlin
The next time believers tell you that ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word ‘trinity.’ The word ‘trinity’ appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord’s Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.
Dan Barker
There has been important editorial work on the general post-truth era, which reflects the creationist way of knowing the world (Nature Cell Biology, 2018). It may reflect a general anti-science trend over time connected to Dunning-Kruger effects. The problem of supernaturalism proposed as a solution to the issues seen in much of the naturalistic orientation of scientific investigation creates problems, especially in publics, by and large, bound to religious philosophies.
In North America, we can see teleological belief groups adhering to a supernaturalistic interpretation of science, when science, in and of itself, remains naturalistic, technical, and non-teleological. For instance, the Baptist Creation Ministries exists as a problematic ministry (2019). In their words, “Our goal is to reintroduce biblical creationism back to North America. If people don’t believe they are created, they will not see their need for the Saviour.” The Baptist Creation Ministries earned praise from Pastor Scott Dakin from Ambassador Baptist Church in Windsor, Ontario, Pastor Douglas McClain from New Testament Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, Pastor David Kalbfleisch from Cornerstone Baptist Church in Newmarket, Ontario, Pastor Mark Bohman from Forest City Baptist Church in London, Ontario, and Pastor Jeff Roberts from Maranatha Baptist Church in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Canadians like supernaturalism with a hunk of the supernaturalists approving of the creationist outlooks on the nature of the real world. We can see echoes throughout Canada in this regard.
Humanists, Atheists, & Agnostics of Manitoba (2019) take the appropriate stance of calling young earth creationism by its real name. Coggins (2007) compared the creationist museums here and elsewhere, in brief. Even the media, once more, Canada Free Press has been known to peddle creationism (RationalWiki, 2018a). Tim Ball is one creationist publishing in Canada Free Press (RationalWiki, 2019e). The late Grant R. Jeffrey was one creationist, involved in Frontier Research Publications, as a publication permitting creationism as purportedly valid science (2017, October 27). Emil Silvestru holds the title of the only karstologist in the creationist world (RationalWiki, 2018b). Silvestru may reflect the minority of trained professionals in these domains [Ed. Please do see the Project Steve of the National Center for Science Education]. Faith Beyond Belief hosted members of the creationist community on the subject matter “Is Biblical Creationism Based on Science?” (2019).
Canadian Atheist, which covers a wide variety of the flavors of atheism, produced a number of articles on creationism or with some content indirectly related to creationism in a critical manner, especially good material of ‘Indi’ (Jacobsen, 2017a; MacPherson, 2014a; MacPherson, 2014b; Haught, 2019; Jacobsen, 2019a; Jacobsen, 2019b; Jacobsen, 2019c; Jacobsen, 2019d; Jacobsen, 2019e; Jacobsen, 2019f; Jacobsen, 2019g; Jacobsen, 2019h; Jacobsen, 2019i; Indi, 2019; Jacobsen, 2019j; Jacobsen, 2019k; Jacobsen, 2019l; Jacobsen, 2019m; Indi, 2018a; Indi, 2018b; Indi, 2018c; Jacobsen, 2018d; Law & Jacobsen, 2018; Jacobsen, 2018e; Jacobsen, 2018f; Jacobsen, 2018g; Jacobsen, 2018h; Indi, 2018e; Jacobsen, 2018i; Indi, 2018f; Jacobsen, 2018j; Jacobsen, 2018p; Indi, 2017a; Indi, 2017b; Jacobsen, 2017d; Indi, 2017c; Rosenblood, 2015; Indi, 2015; MacDonald, 2015; Themistocleous, 2014; MacPherson, 2014c; MacPherson, 2014d; Abbass, 2014a; MacPherson, 2014e; Indi, 2014; Abbass, 2014b; MacPherson, 2014f).
Some of the more obvious cases of creationism within Canada remain the perpetually fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of Christianity with the concomitant rise of individual textual analysts and pseudoscientists, and collectives found in museums (travelling or stationary), associations, a special interest group, and different websites. One of the main national ones as a satellite for the international group: Creation Ministries International (Canada). As another angle of the fundamental issue from RationalWiki – a great resource on this topic, “Science, while having many definitions and nuances, is fundamentally the application of observation to produce explanation, iteratively working to produce further predictions, observations and explanations. On the other hand, creationism begins with the assertion that a biblical account is literally true and tries to shoehorn observations into it. The two methods are fundamentally incompatible. In short, ‘creation science’ is an oxymoron” (2019b).
That is to say, the use of the world to produce empirical factual sets in order to comprehend the nature of nature as the foundation of science rather than a ‘holy’ textual analysis in order to filtrate selected (biased in a biblical manner, or other ways too) information to confirm the singular interpretation of the purported divinely inspired book. No such process as creation science exist, except in oxymoronic title or name – either creationism or science, not both.
A large number of organizations in Canada devoted to creationism through Creation Ministries International (2019e). They function or operate out of “Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America” (Ibid.). Creation Ministries International (Canada) remains explicit and clear on its intention and orientation as a “Bible first” organization and not a “science first” organization:
Our heart as a ministry is to see the authority of God’s Word spread throughout the body of Christ… we work hard to move your people to a position of deeper faith, trusting the Bible as the actual Word of God that is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…
…We believe person-to-person evangelism is, unquestionably, still the most effective way to win souls. That said, almost all of our presentations are geared towards a Christian audience because we believe our calling is to the building up of the LORD’s church, equipping believers with answers for their faith so they can do personal outreach more effectively…
Our goal is to show how a plain reading of Genesis (following the established historical-grammatical hermeneutic) produces a consistent theology and is supported by the latest scientific evidences!
CMI is a ‘Bible first’ (not ‘science first’) ministry. Our emphasis is on biblical authority and a defence of the faith, refuting skeptics’ and atheists’ attacks on Scripture, not to marginalize, minimize or ostracize fellow Christians.
As an apologetics (rather than polemic) ministry we seek to educate, equip, and inform Christians about the importance of consistency when interpreting Scripture and developing a Biblical worldview. We will gently point out inconsistencies when Genesis is interpreted to include evolution and millions of years, encouraging people who hold those views to consider evidence against them (both Biblical and scientific). We want your congregation to learn to love the truths that God has communicated to us in His Word! We equip the believer and challenge the skeptic, ultimately for the glory of God…
… An outside ministry can often re-energize the importance of the topic by injecting a new perspective from a different ‘face’, and often the resident creationist will be reinvigorated themselves by having an outside expert in the field provide new insight…
… As an apologetics ministry our goal is to help pastors grow their congregations in their faith to the point where people know that God’s Word is true whether they have a specific answer or not, and make Jesus the Lord of their life…
… We understand that teachers will be judged with a greater strictness. (James 3:1) Because of these principles we leave out poorly researched scientific evidences for creation, and favour the evidences that have been rigorously investigated.
(Creation Ministries International Canada, 2019a)
In short, non-scientific, or quasi-scientific, processes connected to fundamentalist and literalist on the interpretations of the Bible to comprehend the nature of the world as a ministry with an explicit aim of arming believers – followers and teachers of the Gospel, or both – to spread the glory of God, the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, and to challenge the skeptic. If this orientation seems not explicit enough as to the evangelistic nature of non-science and theological imposition on the general culture, and into the educational systems, we can examine the doctrines and beliefs of Creation Ministries International:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs…
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God…
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
God created from the beginning male and female in his own image with different but complementary characteristics. It is thus contrary to God’s created order to attempt to adopt a gender other than a person’s biological sex… (2019b)
In other words, Creation Ministries International states ad nauseam the fundamentalist and literalist Christian belief in the Bible as the source of all proper knowledge about the natural world with contradictory evidence as sufficient to reject as unreliable because this goes against the word of their supposed god. An evangelistic ministry devoted to blur the line between science and theology, or religion and legitimate domains of natural philosophical enquiries. Within this framework of understanding the definitional and epistemological differences between the sciences and religion, and between the propositions of creationism and evolution via natural selection, the rules and parameters, and operations, of science become unused in a legitimate sense by creationists and, therefore, any proposition or proposal of a debate between an “evolutionist” (a creationist epithet for an individual who rejects creationist as non-science and affirms the massive evidence in favour evolution via natural selection in addition to the more rigorous epistemological foundations of evolutionary theory with the standard approaches in other sciences) and a creationist as creationism amounts to a biblical, religious, or theological worldview and evolution via natural selection equates to the foundations of the biological and medical sciences as a well-substantiated scientific theory about life, flora and fauna. No scientific controversy exists in practice – only an educational as per attempts to force the issue into schools or attempt a so-called wedge as in the Wedge Strategy, legal as per the legal challenges following from the educational debacles, and sociopolitical as per the largely ignorant public about the foundations of the life sciences and a sector of the public credulous enough or deprived of proper scientific educations enough to become vulnerable to these oppressions, one – and no empirical controversy could exist in theory, Q.E.D. Overall, we can note the real effects on the general population with the reduction in the quality of the culture if science becomes included in a wider or more generalized definition of that which we define as culture, where this seems legitimate, to me, as science infuses all aspects of culture because of the ideas and with the influence of the technological progress dependent on the discoveries of science – as applications of science.
They have a speaker’s bureau in a manner of speaking (Creation Ministries International Canada, 2019a). The speakers include – and may be limited to – Richard Fangrad, Clarence Janzen, Jim Mason, Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn, Thomas Bailey, Matt Bondy, Tom Tripp, and Jim Hughes (Ibid.). Creation Ministries International exists as a Canadian charity and a certified member of the Canadian Council of Christian Charities with an incorporation in 1978 and a more rapid growth phase in 1998 with its current headquarters in Kitchener, Ontario (Ibid.). Richard Fangrad is the CEO of Creation Ministries International (Canada) (Ibid.). Clarence Janzen is a retired high school science teacher (Ibid.). Dr. Jim Mason is a former experimental nuclear physicist (Ibid.). Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn is a founding member of the Creation Science Association of Quebec and former employee/technical instructor of Bombardier Aerospace (Ibid.). Thomas Bailey is an event planner for Creation Ministries International and one of the co-hosts of Creation Magazine Live! (Ibid.). Matt Bondy is a computer scientist and the Chief Operations Officer at Creation Ministeries International Canada (Ibid.). Tom Tripp is a former a lab analyst, a computer programmer, or an HR trainer (Ibid.). Jim Hughes is a former of statistics and urban planner (Ibid.). The more complete backgrounds and educational trainings exist on the website. Rod Walsh from Australia was invited to conduct tours across Canada, which can indicate the international work and travel networks of the lecturers (Creation Ministries International, 2019c).
The questions, aside from the statements of religion proposed as statements of faith and science, may arise around the issues of the churches within Canadian society opening to bringing in speakers as the aforementioned (Creation Ministries International, 2019d). If one examines those churches and then the speakers, we can note them:
· September 19, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Winkler Evangelical Mennonite Mission Church in Winkler, MB.
· September 19, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the Bonnyville Baptist Church in Bonnyville, AB.
· September 20, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Christian Life Church in Winnipeg, MB.
· September 20, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the West Edmonton Baptist Church in Edmonton, AB.
· September 20, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Christian Life Church in Winnipeg, MB.
· September 20, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at the Bornholm Free Reformed Church in Bornholm, ON.
· September 20, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at the Trinity Lutheran Church in Leader, SK.
· September 21, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at the Church of the Open Bible in Swift, SK.
· September 21, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Gladstone Christian Fellowship Church in Glasstone, MB.
· September 21, 2019 with Matt Bondy at Hilltop Community Church in Whitecourt, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Living Faith Fellowship in Herbert, SK.
· September 22, 2019 with Matt Bondy at the Community Christian Centre in Slave Lake, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Tom Tripp at the Morden Church of God in Morden, MB.
· September 22, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Assiniboia Apostolic Church in Assiniboia, SK.
· September 22, 2019 with Matt Bondy at Mayerthorpe Baptist Church in Mayerthorpe, AB.
· September 22, 2019 with Tomm Tripp at Rosenort Evangelical Mennonite Church in Rosenort, MB.
· September 26, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Lavington Church in Coldstream, BC.
· September 27, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Kaslo Community Church in Kaslo, BC.
· September 27, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Alberton Baptist Church in Alberton, PE.
· September 28, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Glad Tidings Tabernacle in Murray River, PE.
· September 28, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Grindrod Gospel Church in Grindrod, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Jim Hughes at Scarborough Baptist Church in Scarborough, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Matt Bondy at New Life Pentecostal Church in Gravenhurst, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Calvary Church in Charlottetown, PE.
· September 29, 2019 with Richard Fangrad at Hopewell Worship Centre in Kitchener, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Bethany Baptist Church in Barriere, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at Kinmount Baptist Church in Kinmount, ON.
· September 29, 2019 with Clarence Janzen at Okanagan Valley Baptist Church in Vernon, BC.
· September 29, 2019 with Thomas Bailey at Cloyne, Flinton, and Kaladar Area Churches.
· September 29, 2019 with Augustinus “Gus” Olsthoorn at Charlottetown Bible Chapel in Charlottetown, PE.
· September 30, 2019 as a retreat for pastors and christian leaders in Huntsville, ON.
(Creation Ministries International, 2019d)
Here, we come to the easy realization with some minor research as to less than half of a month’s worth of speaking engagements for the Creation Ministries International dossier. A purely religious audience from a ministry with a Bible-first orientation rather than a science first orientation and to churches and worship centres, i.e., the creationist movement as portrayed by Creation Ministries International (Canada) by FAQ statements, values and beliefs statements, speakers listing, and upcoming speakers’ engagements becomes a religious and theological movement attempting with some modicum of success in practice to blur the line of science and theology to the public with miserable failures to the community of scientific experts in the life sciences
One of the more active pseudoscience organizations comes in the form of the Creation Science Association of British Columbia. The Creation Science Association of BC, as others, states their overarching values and goals at the outset. Something worth praising, as this represents openness and intellectual honesty, and transparency, in presentation of belief systems guiding the movements, as follows:
• We believe that the Bible is inerrant, and that salvation is by grace through faith in the one Mediator, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
• We affirm creation by God in six days, a young universe and Earth, and a worldwide flood in the days of Noah.
• We cooperate with similar ministries across Canada.
Our special concern is to battle the evolutionary worldview and to promote creation as described in the Bible. We’ve been serving BC churches since 1967. (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019a)
One wonders as to what one needs saving, where this makes one reflect on the research on existential anxiety or death anxiety. They view the Bible as a source of evidence (Ibid.). This sources the problem in a rapid way. One can use this as a theory of mind heuristic. Often, the literal interpretation is the root problem at the intellectual level. Conspiratorial states of mind and death anxiety/existential anxiety may be the bedrock at the emotional level. The propositions before the science or the scientific research begins, which remains against standard scientific procedure to acquire data from the world to inform, from first principles, one’s view of the world rather than work from religious assertions of the world. That is to say, Creation Science Association of BC functions as a faith-based organization; a euphemism in “faith-based organization” meaning a “religious organization,” meaning they aren’t scientific but theological.
In this manner, they’re open about principles, but dishonest about presentation: George Pearce, Christine Pearce, Richard Peachey, Gerda Peachey, Denis Dreves, The Bible Science Association of Canada (1967), now known as the Creation Science Association of Canada, was formed in 1967 (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019b). This group seems much less active over time into the present than the others with a focus on Egyptian Chronology and the Bible in September at the Willingdon Church in Burnaby, British Columbia featuring Patrick Nurre (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019c).
Other churches inviting non-science posing as science in British Columbia include Faith Lutheran Church in Surrey, Newton Fellowship Church in Surrey, Willingdon Church in Burnaby, Trinity Western University (Church) in Langley, Johnston Heights Church in Langley, Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, New Westminster Community Church in New Westminster, Faith Lutheran Church in Surrey, Free Reformed Church of Langley in Langley, Cloverdale Free Presbyterian Church in Surrey, Renfrew Baptist Church in Vancouver, Calvary Baptist Church in Coquitlam, Franklin Chinese Gospel Chapel in Vancouver, New Westminster Orthodox Reformed Church in New Westminster, Olivet Church in Abbotsford, Dunbar Heights Baptist Church in Vancouver, Fellowship Baptist Church in White Rock, Chandos Pattison Auditorium in Surrey, Cloverdale Baptist Church in Cloverdale, Sea Island United Church in Richmond, Westminster Bible Chapel in New Westminster, and the University of the Fraser Valley (Creation Science Association of BC, 2019d).
The speakers included Clarence Janzen, David Rives, Vance Nelson, Dr. Andy McIntosh, John Baungardner, Donald Chittick, Dennis Petersen, John Byl, Michael Oard, Mike Riddle, Danny Faulkner, Larry Vardiman, Mike Psarris, Jonathan Sarfati, John Martin, and Kevin Anderson (Ibid.). This is well-organized ignorance in British Columba. Ignorance is not a crime. It can be changed with information rather than misinformation. You will often see phrases or terms including “evolutionist” or “secular [fill in the discipline]” so as to separate the regular training in the sciences from their biblical assertions as alternative theoretical foundations as valid as regular training (Ibid.). Nurre is stated as having training in “secular geology,” by which they mean geology in contradistinction to creation ‘science’ and ‘biblical geology’ or, what is also known as, non-science and theological assertions (Ibid.). One may claim training in physics, chemistry, or biology.
However, if one learns physics and teaches astrology, or if one learns biology and proclaims creationism, or if one learns chemistry and asserts alchemy, then the person did not use the education to educate and instead used the credentials to bolster non-scientific claims. This seems less excusable than mere ignorance or lack of exposure. Indeed, the damage over time to the cultural, including science, health of the nation makes individuals with proper education and credentials much more culpable as panderers to public theological prejudice and lowering the bar on the theological discussions and the scientific literacy of the general public, especially amongst followers who trust in them. In many ways, we all know this, but we permit this in the light of dogma or faith as a means by which to remove true critiques – using the proverbial sledgehammer to render such non-scientific and simplistic beliefs ridiculous and fringe at best.
As one works from first principles, science, and the other works from purported holy texts, creationism, we come to the obvious: creationism amounts to theology with attempts at scientific justifications; therefore, creationism cannot amount to science, only theology with strained attempts at science, e.g. “creation science” becomes “creationism,” “secular science” becomes “science” with the logical iterations following in other cases or terminological rather than content differences (Ibid.). In sum, creation science amounts to creationism or a religious view of the world, not a scientific one. Furthermore, if in the case of a purported or supposed debate, the, rather obvious, conclusion becomes the debate format more as a ‘debate’ if between an evolutionary biologist and a creationist, as one demands, within the framework of the debate format, an equivalence between science and theology, which there is not; chemists would have no obligation to debate alchemists or physicists would hold zero responsibility in standing on shared debate platforms with astrologers if not for the overwhelmingly religious population amongst the more scientifically and technologically advanced industrial economies, including Canada.
Another tactic with the creationist community comes in the form of quote mining, as one can see in Creation Science Association of BC writings with quotations from Sean B. Carroll, John Sanford, Beth A. Bishop and Charles W. Sanderson, Richard Dawkins, Eugene V. Koonin, Edward J. Larson, Simon Conway Morris, John Chaikowsky, Antony Flew, W. Ford Doolittle, Colin Patterson, Richard Lewontin, A. S. Wilkins, Mark Pagel, Kenneth Miller, Francis Crick, Michael Ruse, Philip S. Skell, Richard Weikart, William Provine, John S. Mattick, Stephen Jay Gould, George Gilder, Stefan Bengtson, Michael J. Disney, Francis Crick, Paul Ehrlich and L. C. Birch, Charles Darwin, George Gilder, Eric J. Lerner, Halton Arp, W. Ford Doolittle, David Raup, C.S. Lewis, David Berlinski, Massimo Pigliucci, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, John H. Evans, David Goldston, Andy Stirling, Lawrence Solomon, Marni Soupcoff, Arnold Aberman, Greg Graffin, Thomas Nagel, Jerry Coyne, Francis S. Collins, Edward J. Young, Henri Blocher, Alan Guth, Peter Harrison, Kenneth R. Millerand, Mark Ridley, S.R. Scadding, Storrs Olson, Mano Singham, Niles Eldredge, Gavin de Beer, Robert Carroll, Roger Lewin, Brian Alters, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Edward O. Wilson, Douglas J. Futuyma, Charles Hodge, Michael Ruse, John Horgan, Robert Root-Bernstein, Richard Lewontin, Jacques Monod, David Hull, and others probably unstated, even “quotes on the Mars rock” (Batten, n.d.a; Hillsdon, n.d.; Wald, n.d.; Peachey, n.d.a; Peachey, n.d.b; Peachey, n.d.c; Peachey, n.d.d; Peachey, n.d.e; Peachey, n.d.f; Peachey, n.d.g; Peachey, n.d.h; Peachey, n.d.i; Peachey, n.d.j; Peachey, n.d.k; Peachey, n.d.l; Peachey, n.d.m; Peachey, n.d.n; Peachey, n.d.o; Peachey, n.d.p; Peachey, n.d.q; Peachey, n.d.r; Peachey, n.d.s; Peachey, n.d.t; Peachey, n.d.u; Peachey, n.d.v; Peachey, n.d.w; Peachey, n.d.x; ; Peachey, n.d.y; Peachey, n.d.z; Peachey, n.d.aa; Peachey, n.d.ab; Peachey, n.d.ac; Peachey, n.d.ad; Peachey, n.d.ae; Peachey, n.d.af; Peachey, n.d.ag; Peachey, n.d.ah; Peachey, n.d.ai; Peachey, n.d.aj; Peachey, n.d.a k; Peachey, n.d.al; Peachey, n.d.am; Peachey, n.d.an; Peachey, n.d.ao; Peachey, n.d.ap; Peachey, n.d.aq; Peachey, n.d.ar; Peachey, n.d.as; Peachey, n.d.at; Peachey, n.d.au; Peachey, n.d.av; Peachey, n.d.aw; Peachey, n.d.ax; Peachey, n.d.ay; Peachey, n.d.az; Peachey, n.d.ba; Peachey, n.d.bb; Peachey, n.d.bc; Peachey, n.d.bd; Peachey, n.d.be; Peachey, 1999; Peachey, 2002; Peachey, 2003a; Peachey, 2003b; Peachey, 2004; Peachey, 2005a; Peachey, 2005; Peachey, 2005c; Peachey, 2005d; Peachey, 2006a; Peachey, 2006b; Peachey, 2006c; Peachey, 2006d; Peachey, 2007a; Peachey, 2007b; Peachey, 2008a; Peachey, 2008b; Peachey, 2008c; Peachey, 2009; Peachey, 2010a; Peachey, 2010b; Peachey, 2010c; Peachey, 2010d; Peachey, 2011a; Peachey, 2011b; Peachey, 2012a; Peachey, 2012b; Peachey, 2012c; Peachey, 2013a; Peachey, 2014a; Peachey; 2014b; Peachey, 2014c; Peachey, 2015a; Peachey, 2015b; Peachey, 2015c; Peachey, 2015a; Peachey, 2009b; Peachey, 2009c; Peachey, 2009d; Peachey, 2009e; Peachey, 2009f; Peachey, 2009g; Peachey, 2009h; Peachey, 2009i; Peachey, 2009j; Peachey, 2009k; Peachey, 2009l; Peachey, 2009m; Peachey, 2009n; Peachey, 2009o).
To creationists in British Columbia – who may be the prime national or Canadian examples of creationist quote mining known to me – and others arguing from quote-mining, and on a broader critique, the reason the vast majority of, secular and religious, scientists do not pay attention nor care about creation ‘science’ or creationism comes from the non-scientific and theological status of it. Religion does not belong in the science classroom any more than alchemy, astrology and horoscopes, spiritism, and the like. Creationism is seen as invalid in the argument in general and unsound overall, not individuals or personalities as people can change and grow, and ideas remain the core issue, but the content and theological positions of creationism as non-science proliferated as ‘science.’ From the view of most Canadians, especially most scientifically literate ones as a rule of thumb rather than an iron law or steel principle, creationism is seen as comically befuddled – bad science and bad theology; a national embarrassment to our standing abroad, and deleterious to the scientific training of the next generations and, subsequently, the scientific and technological – not necessarily moral and ethical – advancement of the country as a whole. Thus, creationism holds the country back now, and in the past.
Individual Canadians reserve the right to freedom to believe in mythologies. However, the children and common good hold right over creationists to acquire proper scientific training and knowledge dissemination rather than religion proposed as scientific, i.e., one can freely waste their educations and lives in pursuit of the inscrutable supposed transcendent as a fundamental human right. The Creation Science Association of Alberta ‘teaches’ the same ignorance in the manner of the other associations, with the President as Dr. Margaret Helder (2019a). As with the other associations around the country, they remain admirably open and transparent in their mission statements and purposes:
Mission Statement
To provide encouragement and resources to persons who desire good scientific information which conforms to the Bible.
Purpose
- To collect, organize and distribute information on creation science.
- To develop a better public understanding of creation. (Creation Science Association of Alberta, 2019b).
They publish a newsletter, sell literature and DVDs, set forth books and information tables, have speakers, host an annual meeting, and have camps and summer seminars too (Ibid.). They openly state, “An association of Christians from all over Alberta, active in the province for over thirty years” (Ibid.). Also, they not only state Christian only members as “an association of Christians” but also the idea of creation ‘science’ or creationism as teleological or non-science, “Creation scientists have a world view or model for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer exists who created our universe and everything in it” (Creation Science Association of Alberta, 2019c). By the standards of the associations in Canadian society, the demographics seem to converge on one form of creationism with Christian creationism as the source and focus of the ideological and religious, and theological, commitments here.
There is Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. comprised of the leadership of Keith Miller (President), Dennis Kraushaar, Garry A. Miller, Shirley Dahlgren, Calvin Erlendson, Rudi Fast, Sharon Foreman, Don Hamm, Steve Lockert, Dennis Siemens, and Nathan Siemens with the tagline, “Sharing Scriptural and Scientific Evidence for Special Creation and the Creator!” (2019a). They have a number of resources including a prayer calendar, Introductory (High School/Adult) Books, Children’s Books, Christian Ed. (Home & School) Books, Popular (lay) Books, Scientific (lay) Books, Post Secondary Books, Commentaries & Bible Study Books, Apologetic Books, Biographies & History Books, CD & Audio Tapes, DVD, and Video Tapes, and more (Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019a; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019b; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019c; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019d; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019e; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019f; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019g; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019h; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019i; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019j; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019k; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019l; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019m; Creation Science Association of Saskatchewan, 2019n). Their explicit statements of purpose and worldview in What is C.S.S.I.?, as follows:
Statement of Purpose
1. To collect, organize, and distribute information on Creation.
2. To develop a better public understanding of Creation.
3. To prepare resource material on scientific creation for educational use.
4. To promote inclusion of scientific creation in school curricula.
Creation Model
1. All things came into existence by the Word of God according to the plan and purpose of the Creator.
2. The complex systems observable within the universe demonstrate design by an intelligent Creator.
3. All life comes from life, having been created originally as separate and distinct kinds.
4. The originally created kinds were created with the ability to reproduce and exhibit wide variation within pre-determined genetic boundaries.
5. The geological and fossil record shows evidence of a world wide Flood.
6. Honest scientific investigation neither contradicts nor nullifies the Biblical record of the origin and history of the universe and life. (Ibid.)
They offer a Creation Celebration and a Creation Family CAMP featuring Dr. Randy Guliuzza, Institute for Creation Research (Ibid.) with former years including Calvin Smith (Executive Director, Answers in Genesis-Canada), John Plantz, and Irene Live. They affirm the non-creation of human beings as per the section “Why we exist,” stating:
CSSI was designed to create and distribute information on the creation/evolution origins controversy. Too often the scientific information which argues against evolution is censored and the evidence for design is denied. CSSI promotes, primarily in Saskatchewan, Canada, the creation position by presenting resources covering topics such as theology, Biblical creation, scientific creation, intelligent design, fossils, dinosaurs, radiometric dating, and flood geology, as well as some teaching and home school materials. We also support people involved in creationary activities.
We continue to sell books, DVDs, and audio tapes which support the position that we did NOT evolve but that we were created by God. We handle materials for all ages (children to adults), and various interest levels right up to technical. We also sponsor international, as well as local, creation science speakers and other outreach events. (Ibid.)
As well, they appear to harbour a defunct radio station connected to ICR or the Institute for Creation Research (Science, Scripture, & Salvation, 2019; Institute for Creation Research, 2019). Features or labelled people included James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D., Frank Sherwin, M.A., Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D., Brian Thomas, Ph.D., Jake Hebert, Ph.D., Tim Clarey, Ph.D., Jason Lisle, Ph.D., and Henry M. Morris III, D.Min. (Ibid.). Ultimately, the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019) group considers origins and development a matter of faith. They host six articles: “Was Darwin Wrong? – a critique” by John Armstrong, “The Age of Things” by Rudi Fast, “The Big Bang” by Rudi Fast, “God As Our Creator” by Garry Miller, “When is a Brick a House?” by Garry Miller, and “The Age of the Earth” by Janelle Riess (2004, Armstrong; Fast, n.d.a; Fast, n.d.b; Miller, n.d.a; Miller, n.d.b; Riess, n.d.).
The main hosts of the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019) have been Emmanuel Pentecostal Fellowship in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, and the Echo Lake Bible Camp, near Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan. Their main events are Creation Celebration (North Battleford – March), SHBE Conference (Saskatoon – February), Discerning the Times Bible Conference (Saskatoon – April), the camp (Echo Lake – July), or Christianity on Trial Conference (Regina – October)” (Ibid.). Noting, of course, the last item pitching to the event attendees the sense of siege as if 70% of the country who identify as Christian remain beleaguered in contrast to the other superminorities in the nation, i.e., the rest of the country.
Creation Science of Manitoba is a small, but an active group without an identifiable website at this time. C.A.R.E. Winnipeg has a Creation Museum in downtown Winnipeg. One may safely assume the same principles and religious views as other creationist organizations in Canada. Association de Science Créationniste du Québec devotes itself to the same real attempts at fake science:
Our Mission
CSAQ is a non-denomination and non-profit organization, which objectives are:
-To promote creation teaching;
-To link the Christian Bible with science, education and industry;
-To promote creationist scientific research;
-Encourage every human to establish a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe
About Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec
The Creation Science Association of Quebec (CSAQ) is an organism for all interested in the subject of biblical creation from a scientific and theological perspective. (Canadahelps.Org, 2019)
They have a number of articles in the same vein as the others with proposals or propositions for scientific endeavours (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019a). They have “Videos” with strange content (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019c). The “Press Kit” page remains blank (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019d). Individuals endorsed by them are Laurence Tisdall, M. Sc., Julien Perreault B.Sc., and Jonathan Nicol M.Sc. (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019e).
The places hosting the individuals of the Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec are the Centre Chrétien l’Héritage, Église Génération, Église Fusion, Collège Letendre à Laval, Assemblée Évangélique Pentecôte de St-Honoré, Église Vie Nouvelle, Centre Chrétien l’Héritage, Église Grâce et Vérité, Assemblée Chrétienne Du Nord, Mission Chrétienne Interculturelle, Centre chrétien des Bois-Francs, Assemblée de la Bonne Nouvelle à Montréal, Montée Masson Laval, Université Concordia, Centre Il Est Écrit, l’Église Évangélique d’Aujourd’hui, Théâtre Connexion, Kensington Temple, Église Évangélique Farnham, Église Adventiste Granby, Église Adventiste Sherbrooke, Eglise Evangélique Marseille, IFIM, Eglise Evangélique Aix-en-Provence, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste De Cowansville, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste de la Haute Yamaska, Cave Springs Baptist Church, Grand Forks High School, Okanagan College, Anglican Church, Église Carrefour du Suroît, and Evangel Church (Montreal) (Creation Science Association of Quebec – Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, 2019f).
Also, Centre Chrétien Viens et Vois, Église Amour et Vie, Hôtel La Saguenéenne, Laval Christian Assembly, Église baptiste évangélique de Trois-Rivières, Centre MCI Youth, Eglise Evangélique Baptiste de St-Hyacinthe, Cégep de Drummondville, Mission Charismatique Internationale, Centre Evangélique de Châteauguay, Best Western Hotel Drummondville Universel, Eglise Evangélique de Labelle, Eglise de Toulouse Minimes, Camp arc en ciel, Eglise Biblique Baptiste du Comminges, Baptiste De Rivière Du Loup, Assemblée du Plein Évangile, Assemblee de la Parole de Dieu, Christian and Mssionary Alliance Noyan, CFRA AM 580, Assemblée du Plein Évangile Lasalle, Assemblée Chrétienne De La Grâce, The River Church (Gouda), Eglise Evangelique Baptiste De l’Espoir, Cégep de Baie-Comeau, Assemblee Chretienne De La Grace Victoriaville, Eglise-Chretienne-de-l-Ouest, Église Amour et Vie de Victoriaville, Église Baptiste Évangélique de Valcourt, Assemblée Évangélique de la Rive-Sud, and Église Carrefour chrétien de l’Estrie (Ibid.).
The Association de Science Créationniste du Québec published a number of articles with different creationist takes on traditional sciences, as theological or fundamentalist religious interpretations or filtrations of the empirics (Tisdall, n.d.; Perreault, n.d.a; Batten, n.d.b; Sarfati, n.d.; Thomas, n.d.; Humphreys, n.d.a; Gibbons, n.d.; Tisdall, n.d.a; Taylor, n.d.a; Wieland, n.d.a; Tisdall, n.d.b; Tisdall, 2003; Perreault, n.d.b; Tshibwabwa, n.d.a; Thomas, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.c; Grigg, n.d.a; Perreault, n.d.d; Wieland, n.d.b; Skell, 2005; Couture, n.d.; Gosselin, 1995; Perreault, n.d.e; Grigg, n.d.b; Bergman, n.d.a; Sarfati, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.f; Bergman, n.d.b; Tshibwabwa, n.d.b; Stewart, n.d.a; Wieland, n.d.c; Tshibwabwa, n.d.c; Perreault, n.d.g; Tshibwabwa, n.d.d; Phillips, n.d.; Perreault, n.d.h; Taylor, n.d.b; Clarey, n.d.; Tshibwabwa, n.d.f; Bergman, n.d.c; Tshibwabwa, n.d.g; Madrigal, 2012; Sarfati, n.d.c; Hartwig, n.d.; Demers, n.d.; McBain, n.d.; n.a., n.d.a; Coppedge, 2017; Perreault, 2009; Perreault, n.d.i; Humphreys, n.d.b; Perreault, n.d.j; Stewart, n.d.b; Russel & Taylor, n.d.; Montgomery, n.d.; Humphreys, n.d.c; Taylor, n.d.c; Taylor, n.d.d; Lauzon, n.d.; Snow, n.d.; Tisdall, n.d.c; Hebert, n.d.; Taylor, n.d.e; Tisdall, n.d.d; Morris, n.d.; n.a., n.d.b; Tisdall, n.d.e.). The general orientation fits the other associations throughout the country. Museums throughout the country remain extant. Many small and one travelling museum devoted to creationism.
In the Canadian cultural context, creationism, often, means Christian forms of creationism with an emphasis on the vast majority of the nation identifying as Christian – mostly Roman Catholic Christian or Protestant Christian. We have the Creation Research Museum of Ontario (2019) out of Baptist Goodwood Church in Cornwall, Ontario run by Martin Legermaat with support from John Mackay who is the head of Creation Research (2019). There’s the Big Valley Creation Science Museum. Its curator is described by Bobbin, “Here you will meet Harry Nibourg, the charismatic owner. He used to be an oil field worker operating a gas well out of Sylvan Lake, and is now retired to run his museum full time. In 2017, he was elected to sit on the Big Valley village council. He’s an engaging person, extremely approachable and very keen to share his knowledge on all topics related to Creation Science” (2018). It is located in Big Valley, Alberta.
Creation Truth Ministries (2019a) stands to defend “the authority of the Bible starting in Genesis… enable believers to defend their faith in an increasingly secular age… fill a void in the Christian church that exists concerning this area.” Based out of Red Deer, Alberta, the Creation Truth Ministries travels and functions on this basis providing 3-day seminars, multimedia presentation, Vacation Bible Schools, and Christian camps for kids and children (Ibid.). Its statement of faith:
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches…
…The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today (as defined by humans), reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman)…
…Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead…
…Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.(Creation Truth Ministries, 2019b)
The Creation Truth Ministries exists to minister to the public in what the founders and managers consider the truth of the artificer of the universe, in which the Bible represents the foundational truth to the entirety of reality. They have museum exhibits and a virtual tour, a book about dragons, a pot found in coal, and a hammer in cretaceous rock (Creation Truth Ministries, 2019c; Creation Truth Ministries, 2019d; Creation Truth Ministries, 2019f). Likewise, they see the modern period as a secular age and evolution as fundamentally atheistic (Creation Truth Ministries, 2019e).
Further than the Creation Discovery Centre out of Alberta run by Larry Dye (2019), one can find the Creation Truth Ministries (Secrets of Creation Travelling Museum) out of Alberta run by Vance Nelson and associated with the Alberta Home Education Association Convention (2019), and the Museum of Creation out of Manitoba run by John Feakes and Linda Feakes (2019) in the basement of the New Life Sancutary Church and maintains association with the Canadian National Baptist Convention.
Another group is the International Creation Science Special Interest Group (n.d.a) formed by Ian Juby out of Mensa International and due to membership in Mensa Canada with the explicit “intention… to provide a means for the gathering together of intellectuals (specifically members of Mensa) with a common interest in the sciences and philosophies supporting special Creation and refuting Evolutionism” (International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.a). They have an explicit mention of the non-partisan nature of Mensa International on the subject matter (Ibid.). Once more, the communities of creationists in Canada remain open and honest in terms of the beliefs held by them and endorsed by their organizations — all aboveboard in this regard:
The Universe, time, space, earth, and life was created with purpose, Ex Nihilo, by a Creator named by name as Jesus Christ (John 1:1–6), in a literal six days, roughly 6,000 years ago, as documented in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. That there was a catastrophic, global flood (genesis 7:11), which submerged the entire planet and destroyed all life that breathes, except for a scarce few saved on board a very large boat better known as the “Ark” of Noah. That stellar, planetary and biological macroevolution, as scientific theories, are based solely on blind faith and as such, these theories are scientifically invalid.
(International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.c)
Ian Juby, a member of Mensa since 1994, discovered the Mensa International social interest groups and decided to request and create one for creation science through Mensa International (International Creation Science Special Interest Group, n.d.b). The International Creation Science Special Interest Group formed out of this interest with memberships of Dr. G. Charles Jackson who is a lifetime member of Mensa, David Harris who is a member of Mensa, and Steve Edwards who is a member of Mensa, and another unmentioned person comprising the original “fab five” (Ibid.).
They have a few articles, which appeared to end in the latter half of 2005 only a few years after the social interest group began (Juby, 2005aa: Juby, 2005ab; Jackson; 2005a; Jackson, 2005b). Joseph Wilson (2007) reported on the Canadian Christian College and its invitations of Australian creationist Tas Walker, as a note on the invitations to seemingly friendly territory for creationists on Christian university and college campuses throughout Canada to indicate the religious undercurrent of creationism. Some humanists can be found in the most unlikely of people, as in the case of one of the sons of Professor Michael Behe, who founded the idea of irreducible complexity, named Leo Behe (Shaffer, 2011).
He did an interview with Ryan Shaffer for the flagship publication of the American Humanist Association entitled The Humanist (Ibid.). One cannot use Leo Behe as an example of somehow disproof or evidence against intelligent design, but, in a way, provide a window into the nature of belief and non-belief in some religious strictures in youth and the impact of proper science education of the young in terms of an increase in intellectual sophistication about the nature of the world towards a more comprehensive naturalistic framework (Ibid.). One should note Professor Behe, of Intelligent Design, and young earth creationism stand at odds, and in knowing publics, with one another (Lyons, 2008). Answers in Genesis (2019c) describes the splits between the communities of young earth creationists – themselves – and the Intelligent Design movement. Denis O. Lamoureux advocates theistic evolution after time as a young earth creationist (RationalWiki, 2018c; Lamoureux, 2019).
People with similar ideological commitments can band together and then work on common projects in spite of minor differences at times. Indeed, the nature of the variety of creationist movements means the different ways in which the common projects remain the maintenance of theological beliefs – which they have a right to – and the imposition of this in the science classroom as a seeming preventative measure. Not as well-funded or as well-organized, but present, nonetheless.
Institutions of Higher Learning: Higher From What, Learning From Who?
God is by definition the holder of all possible knowledge, it would be impossible for him to have faith in anything. Faith, then, is built upon ignorance and hope.
Steve Allen
And if you have a sacred text that tells you how the world began or what the relationship is between this sky-god and you, it does curtail your curiosity, it cuts off a source of wonder.
Ian McEwan
Justice is never given; it is exacted and the struggle must be continuous for freedom is never a final fact, but a continuing evolving process to higher and higher levels of human, social, economic, political and religious relationship.
Philip Randolph
A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a ‘child of Muslim parents’ will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.
Carolyn Porco
For a thousand years, the Bible was almost the only book people read, if they could read at all. The stories that were officially told and portrayed were Biblical and religious stories. That other fount of Western civilization as we know it today — the Greek classics — went largely unknown until the Renaissance. For our purposes, there’s a noteworthy difference between these two literatures: in the Bible people are hardly ever said to be mad as such, whereas in Greek drama they go off their rockers with alarming frequency. It was the rediscovery of the classics that stimulated the long procession of literary madpeople of the past four hundred years.
Margaret Atwood
The problem with theology and religion in general: it was designed to answer questions via making up stuff that were not yet answerable throughout history by actual understanding of how the world worked.
Religion has been and is a comfort. It has been a means of exercising social control and concentrating power. It contains a lot of guesses about the nature of things that have turned out, as we have learned more, not to be true.
It does not mean that you have to throw out the entire exercise. Because, to some extent, theologizing and building religions. That is practicing philosophy. It is just that philosophy, especially with it is theological, eventually turns out to be disproven…
…Religion is a tool of its era. Each type of religion is a tool of its era to support or provide mental buttressing and societal buttressing for the necessary structures of that society.
But most of religions guesses about the nature of things have been wrong except in the most generous, general terms.
Rick Rosner
Christian universities and colleges throughout Canadian postsecondary education hold a non-trivial number of the possible institutional statuses of the country. Indeed, if one looks at the general dynamics of the funding and the private institutions, most remain Christian and some maintain a sizeable population of students for extended periods of time and continuing growth right into the present. These provide, within the worldview, a possibility to retain and grow one’s faith and develop a relationship with God, and maybe find a boyfriend or girlfriend who seems like husband or wife material. From the point of view of the Christian faithful within the country, one of the main issues comes from the development of a science curriculum influenced by a theology in the midst of a long history of non-science proposed as science. As to the individuals at the universities or the institutions themselves rather than the associations and the external individuals with an active written or speaker presence, or the churches and international networks supportive of them, these, too, can be catalogued for the edification or educational purposes of the interested public about the ways in which theology influences the scientific process within the nation. With some research on the internet and an investigation into the contents of the websites of the university, we can garner glimpses into the ideological commitments to creationism or not within Canadian Christian colleges and universities. If the resources exist off-site or not on the main web domain of the below-stipulated universities and colleges, or institutes, these may have evaded research and investigation. Also, the seminaries have been included in this section too.
Nonetheless, for a first instance, Crandall University, to its credit, did not have search results for creationism (2019). Same with Providence University College & Theological Seminary (2019) and Redeemer University College (2019), and Tyndale University College & Seminary (2019). Ambrose University offers “IND 287 – 1 SCIENCE AND FAITH” described as follows:
This course explores the complex relationship between science and Christian faith, with a particular focus on evolutionary biology. Topics include: models of science-faith interactions; science and religion as ways of knowing; and Christian interpretations of evolution. The bulk of the course will be spent on discussing the four main contemporary Christian perspectives: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution. These perspectives will be placed in their historic and contemporary contexts, and will be compared and contrasted for their theological understandings of Creation, Fall, Flood, image, and human origins. (Ambrose University, 2019)
Burman University (2019) does not harbour it. Canadian Mennonite University (2019) invited Professor Dennis Venema from Trinity Western University as the Scientist in Residence. Venema, at the time, stated, “I’m thrilled to be invited to be the Scientist in Residence at CMU for 2019. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for students, and I am honoured to join a prestigious group of prior participants… I hope that these conversations can help students along the path to embracing both God’s word and God’s world as a source of reliable revelation to us” (Ibid.). Venema defends the view of evolutionary theory within a framework of “evolutionary creationism,” which appears more a terminologically diplomatic stance than evolution via natural selection or the code language within some religious commentary as things like or almost identical to “atheistic evolution” or “atheistic evolutionism” (Venema, 2018b; Apologetics Canada, 2019; The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, 2019; Gauger, 2018). He provides education on the range of religious views on offer with a more enticing one directed at evolution via natural selection (The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, 2016). The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation provides a space for countering some of the young earth geologist and young earth creationist viewpoints, as with the advertisement of the Dr. Jonathan Baker’s lecture (2014), or in pamphlets produced on geological (and other) sciences (2017).
He works in a tough area within a community not necessarily accepting of the evolution via natural selection view of human beings with a preference for special creation, creationism, or intelligent design (Trinity Western University, 2019a). Much of the problems post-genetics as a proper discipline of scientific study and the discovery of evolution via natural selection comes from the evangelical Christian communities’ sub-cultures who insist on a literal and, hence, fundamentalist interpretation or reading of their scriptures or purported holy texts. Another small item of note. Other universities have writers in residence. A Mennonite university hosts a scientist in residence (Ibid.). Science becomes the abnorm rather than the norm. The King’s University contains one reference in the search results within a past conference (2019). However, this may be a reference to “creation” rather than “creationism” as creation and more “creation” speaking to the theological interpretations of genesis without an attempt at an explicit scientific justification of mythology.
By far, the largest number of references to “creationism” came from the largest Christian, and evangelical Christian, university in the country located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada called Trinity Western University, which, given its proximity and student body population compared to the local town, makes Fort Langley – in one framing – and Trinity Western University the heart of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in Canada. Trinity Western University teaches a “SCS 503 – Creationism & Christainity [sic] (Korean)” course and a “SCS 691 – Creationism Field Trip” course (2019b; 2019c). They hosted (2019d) a lecture on Stephen Hawking, science, and creation, as stated:
In light of Steven Hawking’s theories, is there enough reason for theists to believe in the existence of God and the creation of the world?
This lecture will respond to Hawking’s views and reflect on the relationship between science, philosophy and theology.
Speaker: Dr. Yonghua Ge, Director of Mandarin Theology Program at ACTS Seminaries (Ibid.)
They hosted another event on evolution and young earth creationism:
All are welcome to attend, Public Lecture, hosted by TWU’s ‘Science, Faith, and Human Flourishing: Conversations in Community“ Initiative, supported by Fuller Seminary, Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences, and the Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, “Evolutionary and Young-Earth Creationism: Two Separate Lectures” (Darrel Falk, “Evolution, Creation and the God Who is Love” and Todd Wood, “The Quest: Understanding God’s Creation in Science and Scripture”) (2019e)
Dirk Büchner, Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University, states an expertise in “Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac (grammar and syntax), Hellenistic Greek (grammar and lexicography), The Septuagint. Of more popular interest: The Bible and Social Justice, and Creationism, Scientism and the Bible: why there should be no conflict between mainstream science and Christian faith” (Trinity Western University, 2019f). Professor Büchner holds an expert status in “creationism” (Ibid.). A non-conflict between mainstream science and the Christian faith would mean the significantly reduced status of the intervention of the divine in the ordinary life of Christians. He remains one locus of creationism in the Trinity Western University environment. Dr. Paul Yang’s biography states, “Paul Yang has over twenty years teaching experience, lecturing on physics and physics education, as well as Christian worldview and creationism. He has served as the director of the Vancouver Institute for Evangelical Wordlview [Sic] as well as the Director of the Christian” (Trinity Western University, 2019g). Yang holds memberships or affiliations with the American Scientific Affiliation (2019), Creation Research Society (2019), and Korea Association of Creation Research (2019). Dr. Alister McGrath and Dr. Michael Shermer had a dialogue moderated by a panel with Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D., Jaime Palmer-Hague, Ph.D., and Myron Penner, Ph.D. in 2017 at Trinity Western University.
All exist as probably Christian front organizations with the pretense as scientific and Christian organizations. One can see the patterns repeat themselves over and over again. Christian ‘science’ amounts to creationism, as noted before. Yang, with more than 20 years, exists as a pillar of creationist teaching, thinking, and researching within Canada and at Trinity Western University. The American Scientific Affiliation (2019) states, “Two things unite the members of the ASA… belief in orthodox Christianity, as defined by the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, which can be read in full here… a commitment to mainstream science, that is, any subject on which there is a clear scientific consensus.” Creation Science in Korea (2019) states, “The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with worldwide membership.” The Korea Association of Creation Research (2019) states, ‘Our vision is to restore ‘biblical creation faith’ and to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations.’
The seminaries across the country harbour differing levels of this, too. Taylor College and Seminary (2019) does not reference it. Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (2019) does not state anything about it. St. Peter’s Seminary (2019) says nothing about it. Master’s College and Seminary (2019) states nothing about it. Toronto School of Theology (2019) talks a lot about “creation” without specific mention of creationism, in which the general framework functions around the origins and not the formal religious view of creationism. St. Mark’s College (2019) does not have reference to creationism. Summit Pacific College (2019) succeeds to not reference it. Centre for Christian Studies (2019) does not talk about it. CAREY Theological College (2019) does not speak of it. Also, Queen’s College Faculty of Theology (2019) did not write about it. Regis College: The Jesuit School of Theology in Canada (2019) did not have any statements about it. Heritage College & Seminary (2019) does not seem to speak to it. St. Philip’s Seminary (2019) appears to have no references to it. Emmanuel College (2019) states nothing about it. Knox College (2019) does not talk to it. Concordia Lutheran Seminary (2019) does not write about it. Acadia Divinity College (2019) does not reference creationism. St. Augustine’s Seminary of Toronto (2019) does not talk about creationism. Wycliffe College (2019; Taylor, 2017) has many references to “creation” with one specific mention by Glen Taylor about creationism. Toronto Baptist Seminary & Bible College (2019) does talk about creationism.[1]
These seminaries, colleges, and universities represent some of the more elite and academic manifestations of creationism within Canadian society. While, at the same time, we can note the lack of a creationist foothold in several, even most, of the institutions of higher learning for the Christians of several denominations throughout Canadian postsecondary. Some other creationists include: Andrew A. Snelling, Carl Wieland, Duane Gish, Frank Lewis Marsh, George McCready Price, Harold W. Clark, Henry M. Morris, John Baumgardner, John C. Sanford, John C. Whitcomb, John D. Morris, John Hartnett, Kurt Wise, Larry Vardiman, Marcus R. Ross, Paul Nelson, Raymond Vahan Damadian, Robert V. Gentry, Russell Humphreys, Thomas G. Barnes, Walt Brown, Paul Gosselin, Julien Perreault, André Eggen, Ph.D., Robert E. Kofahl, Laurence Tisdall and Jason Wiles, Dr. Walt Brown, and Douglas Theobold. Other organizations, facilities, and lawsuits include Answers in Genesis (AIG), Anti-Evolution League of America, Biblical Creation Society (BCS), Caleb Foundation, Creation Ministries International (CMI), Creation Research Society (CRS), Answers in Genesis Ministries International’s Ch ristianAnswers.Net, Geoscience Research Institute, Genesis Park, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Creation-Science Research Center, The Center for Scientific Creation Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Science Movement (CSM), and Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), and Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Hendren v. Campbell (1977), McLean v. Arkansas (1982), Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), and Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990).
Subsumed Autonomy: Motivated True Believers Fighting for the One Correct, Right, Righteous, and True Religion
After a lot of reading, and research, I realized I didn’t have any secret channel picking up secret messages from God or anyone else. That voice in my head was my own.
Greydon Square
The pens sharpen – Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same – Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women’s bodies.
Polly Toynbee
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not gonna get the right answer. Your whole world is just gonna be — a mystery. Instead of an exciting place.
Bill Nye
It’s like those Christians that say that if there wasn’t a God they’d be out there robbing, raping, and murdering folks. If that’s true, and the only reason they aren’t out committing crimes is because they’re afraid to go to hell, then they aren’t really good people.
Wrath James White
I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
Gene Roddenberry
Religion, by its very nature as an untestable belief in undetectable beings and an unknowable afterlife, disables our reality checks. It ends the conversation. It cuts off inquiry: not only factual inquiry, but moral inquiry. Because God’s law trumps human law, people who think they’re obeying God can easily get cut off from their own moral instincts. And these moral contortions don’t always lie in the realm of theological game-playing. They can have real-world consequences: from genocide to infanticide, from honor killings to abandoned gay children, from burned witches to battered wives to blown-up buildings.
Greta Christina
Apart from the associations, the museums, the universities, the colleges, and the seminaries, another category for open investigation remains the individuals who adhere to a creationist ideology throughout the world, in which the more prominent garner reputations and by doing so respectability and stature, and thus benefits, within the communities of faith. Duly noting, all efforts at isomorphizing scripture and science remain theological at base and, hence, religious in nature, and so appealing to the more sophisticated and literate amongst the populations of the religious.
An important member of the skeptic and writing/blogging community in Canada remains Professor Laurence A. Moran who speaks with authority against numerous faith-based claims and premises of the creationists in Canadian society (Farrell, 2015; Jacobsen, 2017a). America has examples of pressuring by creationists for access to research materials for fundamentally incorrect theories. Andrew Snelling, Christian creationist geologist, wanted to collect rocks from the Grand Canyon National Park (Reilly, 2017; Wartman, 2017). Snelling said, “I am gratified that the Grand Canyon research staff have recognized the quality and integrity of my proposed research project and issued the desired research permits so that I can collect rock samples in the park, perform the planned testing of them, and openly report the results for the benefit of all” (Wartman, 2017).
We need individuals like Moran to prevent the instances of creationism, or to fight on behalf of the public for proper science education and scientifically literate policymaking (CBC News, 2009), as happened with Goodyear under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We can see the continued attempts to “overturn evolution” fail at periodic rates with Professor Michael Behe earning a powerful critique from John Jay College Professor Nathan H. Lents, Washington University Professor S. Joshua Swamidass, and Michigan State Professor Richard E. Lenski (The City University of New York, 2019). The article from CUNY (Ibid.) states:
Lents and his colleagues discredit Behe in elaborate detail, noting that he’s ‘selective’ in his examples and ignores evidence contradicting his theories. Modern evolutionary theory, the authors write, ‘provides a coherent set of processes — mutation, recombination, drift, and selection — that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically and are consistent with the fossil record and comparative genomics.’ In contrast, ‘Behe’s assertion that ‘purposeful design’ comes from an influx of new genetic information cannot be tested through science’…
…Behe is known for the notion of “irreducible complexity.” He argues that “some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective,” according to the Science article. But Lents and his co-authors explain that “irreducible complexity” is refuted by the evolutionary process of exaptation, in which “the loss of one function can lead to gain of another.”
Whales, for example, “lost their ability to walk on land as their front limbs evolved into flippers,” but flippers “proved advantageous in the long run.” Nature’s retooling of a biomolecular structure for a new purpose can lead to “the false impression of irreducible complexity.”
Of course, evolutionary theory has been challenged by non-scientific arguments since Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species in 1859. Darwin Devolves continues this pseudoscientific tradition. (Ibid.)
Rather direct and frank, also overall, we can find the general issue of full arguments and a complete accounting of the evidence rather than selective targeting of some of the evidence as somehow destructive of the entire edifice of evolution via natural selection. The relation between religion and politics must be maintained in the conversations on creationism in Canada because of the intimate relation at present and in the past. Historical precedents exist for the instantiation of religion into the political dialogue because of the open positions of public officials who can set policy or inform the tone of policy in educational contexts as public representatives [Ed. As the next section will explore].
Calgary YouTube personality Paul Ens attempted to attend the homeschooling conference (Michelin, 2018). Unfortunately, he was not permitted to attend the conference while others with sympathetic ties to creationist educational movements earned speaker status. In Manitoba, evolution is included in the grade 12 biology curriculum, and the grade 11 topics in science curriculum. Both classes are optional science electives for high school students. The theory is not included in science curriculums for the grades prior. The province does not make alternative viewpoints on origins a mandatory classroom science topic.
Michelin said, “Helen Beach of the Atheist Society of Calgary, said she was among those who had registered for the Alberta Home Education Association Conference, but was prevented from attending it last weekend by organizers… Dr. Jim Linville, professor of Religious Studies at U of Lethbridge, was also told he wouldn’t be admitted… Ens said he received an email from Alberta Home Education Association president Patty Marler, denying him access to the conference” (Ibid.). Some broadcasting groups, like The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada can engage in discussions on creationism while, weirdly, talking about marijuana and science (2019). On the other hand, some of the most prominent creationists receive invitation to home schooling conventions, e.g., Ken Ham in Alberta to the Red Deer Alberta Home Education Association convention or the “contentious reality TV couple Bob and Michelle Duggar” by the same association (Kaufmann, 2017). CBC Radio (Ibid.) reported, “‘Our government expects all students to learn from the same Alberta curriculum that prepares all students for success,’ Alberta’s education minister David Eggen said in a statement sent to The Current. But Judy Arnall, president of the Alberta Home Education Parents Society, says that’s not actually the case. ‘According to Alberta, homeschoolers have the right to teach their children any curriculum they want,’” including creationism, presumably. The estimated number of home-schooled children in Alberta comes to 11,600 (Kaufmann, 2017), circa 2017.
Nonetheless, individuals behind some of the national and local Canadian problems of the proliferation of pseudoscience come in the form of the founders of groups or who take on replicated monikers of mainstream science popularizers within North American in general, but fit to print for the Canadian sensibilities and culture in some fundamentalist Christian communities. Larry Dye “the Creation Guy” stealing the theme name, and twisting the original, from Bill Nye “the Science Guy” with a defunct main website circa 2018, who founded the Creation Bible Center (CreationWiki, 2018; CreationWiki, 2016). Edgar Nernberg, somewhat known creationist, happened to find a 60,000,000-year-old fossil (Feltman, 2015; Holpuch, 2015; Platt, 2015). His case is among the more ironic (CBC News, 2015).
Other cases of the more sophisticated and newer brands of Christianity with a similar theology, but more evolutionary biology – proper – incorporated into them exist in some of the heart of parts of evangelical Christianity in Canada. Professor Dennis Venema of Trinity Western University and his colleague Dave Navarro (Pastor, South Langley Church) continued a conversation on something entitled “evolutionary creation,” not “creation science” or “intelligent design” as Venema’s orientation at Trinity Western University continues to focus on the ways in which the evolutionary science can mix with a more nuanced and informed Christian theological worldview within the Evangelical tradition (Venema & Navarro, 2019; Navarro, 2019). One can doubt the fundamental claim, not in the Bible but, about the Bible as the holy God-breathed or divinely inspired book of the creator of the cosmos, but one can understand the doubt about the base claim about the veracity of the Bible leading to doubt about the contents and claims in the Bible – fundamental and derivative.
For many, and an increasing number in this country, this becomes a non-starter and, therefore, the biblical hermeneutics and textual analysis do not speak to the nature of the world or provide value in a descriptive capacity about the nature of nature, including the evolution to and origin of human beings and other animals. In the conversation, they make a marked distinction between some of the lecture or sermon types. Some for the secular and some for the congregants, by implication (Ibid.). The argument is equipping followers of Jesus, Christians, with hermeneutics and Genesis in a proper understanding can help them keep and maintain the faith (Ibid.). Intriguingly, and astutely, Navarro states, “I had always suspected that we should be reading Genesis as something other than modern Western historiography, but I didn’t know what! But seeing the similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, and Atra-Hasis made it clear that Genesis is an Ancient Near Eastern document, and speaks in Ancient Near Eastern frameworks of reality. It gave me permission to read the text differently” (Ibid.).
Even notions of the Imago Dei, the creation in the image of God may hold little weight to them, whether quoting John 1:1 or Genesis 1:27. John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (The Bible: New International Version, 2019a). Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (The Bible: New International Version, 2019b). Venema, almost alone, presents a bulwark against creationism and intelligent design, as he moved away from intelligent design in the past.
Intelligent design tends to rest on two principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity from Professor Michael Behe and Dr. William Dembski, respectively (Beckwith, 2009; New World Encyclopedia, 2018). Some of the core foundations in literature happened in 1802 with William Paley’s Natural Theology, Michael Denton’s 1985 book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and Philip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial from 1991 (Wieland, n.d.d). Philip Johnson noted Christianity as the foundation of intelligent design in the “Reclaiming America for Christ Conference” in 1999:
I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call “The Wedge,” which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science.
…
In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we’re going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don’t have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we’re the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That’s what America stands for, and that’s something we stand for, and that’s something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let’s recapture that, while we’re recapturing America.
Intelligent design breaks into two streams (McDowell, 2016). Dembski stated one comes from the information-theoretic components (Ibid.). Another comes from the molecular biology parts (Ibid.). The information can be seen in the notion of specified complexity of Dr. William Dembski. The molecular biology can be seen in the irreducible complexity of Professor Michael Behe. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab represents the information-theoretic side while the Biologic Institute and Bio-Complexity, a journal, represent the molecular biology portion. Batemann and Moran-Ellis quote Behe:
By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition non-functional. (2007)
This represents the fundamental idea of irreducible complexity in accordance with the description of the founder of it. The other founded by Dembski in the form of specified complexity or complex specified information describes itself, as a form of information with specificity and complexity rather than specificity & simplicity or generality & complexity. Dembski sees attacks against the intelligent design community from two sides:
By contrast, the opposition to ID in the church is large.
On the one hand, there are the theistic evolutionists, who largely control the CCCU schools (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities), and who want to see ID destroyed in the worst possible way — — as far as they’re concerned, ID is bad science and bad religion.
And then there are the young-earth creationists, who were friendly to ID in the early 2000s, until they realized that ID was not going to serve as a stalking horse for their literalistic interpretation of Genesis. After that, the young-earth community largely turned away from ID, if not overtly, then by essentially downplaying ID in favor of anything that supported a young earth.
The Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky is a case in point. What an embarrassment and waste of money. I’ve recently addressed the fundamentalism that I hold responsible for this sorry state of affairs. (McDowell, 2016)
Professor Behe’s department stands apart from him:
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. (Lehigh University, 2019)
Some of the members of the movement distanced themselves from it. For example, Dembski in a reflection on the state of intelligent design as a movement stated:
As someone no longer active in the field but still to some extent watching from the sidelines, I gave my impressions in the interview about the successes and failures of the ID movement.
The reaction to that interview was understandably mixed (I was trying to be provocative), but it got me thinking that I really am retired from ID. I no longer work in the area. Moreover, the camaraderie I once experienced with colleagues and friends in the movement has largely dwindled.
I’m not talking about any falling out. It’s simply that my life and interests have moved on. It’s as though ID was a season of my life and that season has passed. Earlier this month (September 10, 2016) I therefore resigned my formal associations with the ID community, including my Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years.
The one association I’m keeping is with Bob Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab, but I see the work of that lab as more general than intelligent design, focusing on information-theoretic methods that apply widely and which I intend to apply in other contexts, especially to the theory of money and finance. (Ibid.)
Insofar as I can discern, the Bible represents the theological ground of Intelligent Design; Paley represents the historical father of Intelligent Design; Johnson represents the legal and cultural father of Intelligent Design; Behe represents the molecular biology father of Intelligent Design; and, Dembski represents the information-theoretic and philosophical father of Intelligent Design. All intelligent and educated men of their time, and bound to beliefs of a previous one. A world of more faith, magic, mystery, and male authority. The Director of the Discovery Institute is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the United States; the institute was founded by Bruce Chapman (Discovery Institute, n.d.). Other highly involved individuals include several, as follows:
…microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, geneticist Norman Nevin (emeritus) at Queen’s University of Belfast, mathematician Granville Sewell at the University of Texas, El Paso, and medical geneticist Michael Denton. Research centers for intelligent design include the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, led by Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University; and the Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, formerly a research scientist at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge.(Ibid.)
Intelligent Design does have some conversation in Canadian Christian communities. However, some leave the movement, as with Venema. Looking into some of the dynamics of the ways in which the phraseology exists in some of the conversations or dialogues in Canadian culture, if we look at some almost journal entries in writing to the public about an “evolving faith,” we can see the notion of evolution of a faith as an attenuation or weakening of a religious worldview in some persons of faith, which may be the source of the strong fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of the Christian scriptures by some creationists some of the time (Chiu, 2015). Bearing in mind, the entire edifice rests on a flimsy claim as to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of a collection of books with an emphasis on one book in the collection entitled the Book of Genesis.
As one can see in the above-mentioned statements about William Dembski – “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God” (Environment and Ecology, 2019), the general tenor of the argument becomes the quotes as the argument, the smoking pistols as seen extensively with the Creation Science Association of BC, rather than a point of individual appraisal of the cultural status of a field in the case of Dembski rather than a knockdown against intelligent design or showing the researchers of intelligent design as, ultimately, aiming for or following the “Christian God,” but many do follow it and the original aim in accordance with the statements of one of the founders becomes opening a scientific landscape for a religious worldview. Religion is politics. In this sense, where religion is proposed as personal, the personal became political (again), with the political representative of the all-encompassing for oneself – fair enough – and others – unfair enough.
To one who does not accept the authority of scripture or quotes as evidence for or against the theoretical framework or hypothesis of evolution, a purported holy text and quotes – in or out of context – do not suffice as reasons to accept in the evidence of evolution or not, as the evidence of evolution rests with the experimental and converging evidence from a variety of scientific disciplines. Does a god or gods write or inspire the writings of books? Hundreds exist on offer; one must study the claims about those first, then upon rejecting those prove the inspiration and veracity of this one interpretation of one religion’s texts, and then move about toppling the vast landscape of modern evidence in favour of evolution via natural selection in the proper way.
None of these get done, one can see a repetition in the talking points in several domains, and in the religious doctrines or religious constructions echoed in the halls of the associations, the museums, and the articles of the writers and speakers. Some might proclaim the creationist worldview as a scientific one and not a religious or theological position; however, look once more at the missions and the purposes of the organizations, their foundations come from one interpretation of the Christian faith or religion and, thus, sit upon a bedrock of philosophical creationism, religion, and theology.
One can respect the greater honesty in title than “creation science” found in much of the other spokespeople for the religious movement known as creationism causing socio-political controversy. Another individual in Canada, akin to Dye, as a youth outreach pastor, we can find the Ian Juby website, as a devoted creationist web domain (2019a). There exists a reasonably large compilation of creation videos (Juby, 2019e). Juby is the President of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education, the Director of the Creation Science Museum of Canada, a member of Mensa, and, unfortunately, Mensa International caved or inattentively created the International Creation Science Special Interest Group for Mensans (Juby, 2019c), as discussed briefly earlier on organizations.
An intelligent and educated man with detailed and, unfortunately, counter-scientific views about the world. He sells DVDs including ones on the Book of Genesis and aliens, and one series entitled “The Complete Creation” (Juby, 2019b). He writes a decent amount in something called “Creation Science Notes” or creationist notes (Juby, 2015a; Juby, 2015b; Juby, 2015c; Juby, 2015d; Juby, 2015e; Juby, 2015f; Juby, 2015g; Juby, 2015h; Juby, 2015i; Juby, 2015j; Juby, 2015k; Juby, 2015l; Juby, 2015m; Juby, 2015n; Juby, 2015o; Juby, 2015p; Juby, 2015q; Juby, 2015r; Juby, 2015s; Juby, 2015t). Those went from a highly productive March through April in 2015 and then fizzled into obscurity. Some overlap with the timings of the “Research” page publications (Juby, 2015v; Juby, 2015w; Juby, 2015x; Juby, 2015y; Juby, 2015z). Most of the research publications amount to calls for help, or short calls published as blog posts.
Within the “Media Kit,” he describes in a concise fashion the worldview laid out in the creationism espoused by him; I would use “creation science” if this perspective took on the formal procedures of science and in a correct manner, bit I do not see this playing by the normal or regular rules of modern science nor do the vast majority of secular and religious scientists, including those involved in evolutionary biology – thus creationism fits better or more aptly (Juby, 2019d). Juby states:
The Creation message is a major key to evangelism in the western hemisphere. How can a person be saved, if they’ve been convinced by “science” (falsely so called) that we evolved and there is no God?…
… In fact the gospel message of Jesus Christ is invalidated if Evolution is true. The purpose of this ministry is to expose the fallacies of Evolution and proclaim the truth of both the Bible, and its young-earth Creation message. Jesus Christ and the Apostles were all young-earth Creationists, so it is completely understandable when people (especially teens) have questions about the Bible when confronted by the supposed “overwhelming evidence” of Evolution and an old earth.
The museum is the centerpiece to Ian’s lectures, providing tangible evidence of Creation. During lectures, Ian hands out genuine fossils, fossil casts and replicas, and after the lecture, people can take photographs.
- Dinosaurs are in the bible, and in the museum!
- Fossils tell the tale of the global flood of Noah
- Biology is shown in all its incredible complexity with animatronic displays
- Ancient artifacts from deep in the earth show that man has been on earth since the beginning of time
- Truly all of Creation declares the glory and character of the Lord! (Ibid.).
Noting, of course, Juby identifies himself as in the work of “Creation ministry,” which seems more appropriately as a descriptor compared to creation science, as “creation science” seems more akin to “creation ‘science’” to me (Ibid.). He does family days, sessions for children, talks on “God’s Little Creation,” uniformitarianism, Noachian flood mythology as historical fact, dinosaurs and humans, evolution, geology and the age of the Earth, as well as a guide tour of the “traveling Creation Museum” (Ibid.). Juby (2015u) covers home projects, which remain uncertain, personally, as to how to enter into a category – corresponding “Past Projects” and “Cool Stuff” webpages remain blank, empty.
Other movement leaders are Calvin Smith who direct the work of Answers in Genesis-Canada (2019b), Dennis Kraushaar as the 1st Vice-President of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. and Nathan Siemens as the 2nd Vice-President of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Roger Oakland and Myrna Okland of Understand the Times, Barbara Miller and Anne-Marie Collins as camp preparers for the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Tina Bain of the Creation Science Association of Alberta, Vance Nelson who writes the Untold Secrets books, and Garry Miller as the camp director for the Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Calvin Erlendson of Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., Dr. Gordon Wilson, Barb Churcher, John MacKay, Dr. Peter Barber at Nipawin Bible College, Laurence Tisdall and Julie Charette at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Shirley Dahlgren, Sandra Cheung at Creation Discovery Science Camp, Warren Smith, Alex Scharf and Velma Scharf, John Feakes, Paul Gosselin at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Sharon Foreman, Bryce Homes, Don Hamm, David Lashley, Dennis Siemens, David Kadylak, Dr. Thomas Sharp, Steve Lockert, Steve Lockert at Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., David Dombrowski and Deborah Dombrowski, Joe Boot, Marilyn Carter, Laurence Tisdall, T. A. McMahon at The Berean Call ministry, Julien Perreault, Calvin Erlendson, John Feak, John Plantz, Robert Gottselig, François Garceau at Association de Science Créationniste du Québec, Dr. Andy McIntosh, Lise Vaillancourt, Thomas Bailey and Dr. Jim Mason, Doug Wagner, Emilie Brouillet, and Jonathan Nicol (Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc., 2019a). Other organizations include Institute for Creation Research (2019), The Emperor Has No Clothes (2019), Creation Safaris (2019), Northwest Creation Network (2019), Creation Ministries International (2019a), Creationism.Com (2019), Creation Resources Trust (2019), Creation-Evolution Headlines (2019), Logos Research Associations (2019), Revolution Against Evolution (2019), Canadian Home Education Resources devoted to creationism (2019), Reasons (2019), and one assumes more – part from repetitions.
As one can see over and over again – if one looks at the References – in the titles of the articles and organizations, there exist mistakes in the titling of the articles and the organizations, which, as an independent journalist and researcher looking at the mainstream and dependent journalists and researchers, should stop or halt as a practice because no ‘debate’ exist between creationism and evolution because evolution does not have a peer in the scientific community, in the community of professional and lay biological scientists, and, thus, cannot exist with a ‘debate’ against creationism except insofar as some mechanisms of evolution via natural selection account for some more or creationism sits at a debate table with reality or, more properly, at odds with reality. (Dubois, 2014). Although, I do not set this at the feet of Dubois, for example, as the Ken Ham and Bill Nye ‘debate’ remains a problem for the overall reportage emerging out of the cultural milieu, Dubois (Ibid.), in spite of the title, provided a good comment, “Creation Ministries International, a spinoff from Answers in Genesis-Australia, has a Canadian branch with a headquarters in Ontario, which is actively involved in outreach across Canada to promote their viewpoints to the public.”
Centre for Inquiry-Canada has covered some of the materials (CFIC, 2013; CFIC, 2014). The Associated Press provided some decent coverage on the Bill Nye and Ken Ham dialogue or presentation time, or ‘debate,’ reflecting the need for better education in the United States, especially in regards to science (2014). However, one may suspect this ‘debate’ became a point of bolstering for the true believers in creationism in Canada while convincing some fence-sitters of the necessity of proper scientific theoretical frameworks as that found in evolutionary theory. An appearance as if an important and real scientific debate can convince some who wish for conversion over time. As Ham (The Associated Press, 2014) stated, “The Bible is the word of God… I admit that’s where I start from.” The “word of God” means literal readings of the Book of Genesis and, in fact, the complete suite of the books of the Bible. Note the underbelly, one can see the in-fighting. Mehta characterizes the conflicts between the flat earthers and the creationists as groups lacking complete self-awareness (Mehta, 2019d). This amounts to one collective of fundamentalists calling another group of fundamentalists not Christian enough or too fundamentalist in their reading of Christian scriptures.
So it goes,
and on, and on,
it goes,
too.
Religion in Politics and Politics in Religion: or, Religion is Politics
God is merciful, but only if you’re a man.
Ophelia Benson
The development of the nation is intimately linked with understanding and application of science and technology by its people.
Vikram Ambalal Sarabhai
‘Respect for religion‘ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.
Salman Rushdie
Given cognitive vulnerabilities, it would be convenient to have an arrangement whereby reality could tell us off; and that is precisely what science is. Scientific methodology is the arrangement that allows reality to answer us back.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
A great swindle of our time is the assumption that science has made religion obsolete. All science has damaged is the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Jonah and the Whale. Everything else holds up pretty well, particularly lessons about fairness and gentleness. People who find those lessons irrelevant in the twentieth century are simply using science as an excuse for greed and harshness. Science has nothing to do with it, friends.
Kurt Vonnegut
There’ll be no money to keep them from being left behind — way behind. Seniors will pay. They’ll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won’t be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war. Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.
Pete Stark
Some attempt to bring creationist orientations into Canadian textbooks with a focus on the non-difference called “microevolution” and “macroevolution,” which one sees in religious circles and not scientific ones (Coyne, 2015). Microevolution amounts to change within a species and macroevolution to change into a new species, in which the religious creationist (probably a superfluous phrase in the vast majority of cases) denies changes into new species – as this means the creation of new “kinds” or species against God’s dictates – and accept changes within a species as in changes between parent and child but not dog into another species (Ibid.). These considerations, as stated in previous sections, influence politics, including Canadian. We live amidst a age of a rising tide and anti-science acts (Waldmann, 2017).
Torrone (2007), accurately, and more than a decade ago, noted the lack of imagination in much of the creationist works passed onto the next generations in the religious circles – as stated throughout this article about the fundamental religious bases for the creationist movements and, in fact, in accordance with the statements of the founders of the movements. With some examination, a case, at least within Canadian public life, can be made for the mainstay of the creationist movements coming from the religious traditions in this country with a focus on Christianity and some aboriginal traditions; another case may be made with the political life of the country as the conservatives, the Conservative Party of Canada, in particular, tends to produce the most creationist politicians (Canadian Press, 2007). Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory stated as such in 2007 in public statements devoid of scientific legitimacy (Ibid.). Tory, at the time (Ibid.), said, “It’s still called the theory of evolution… They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs,” pointing to the equivocation between theory in science and within the lay public and political leadership. These form a basis alongside religious fundamentalist ideals throughout the country, where the political and the religious become synonymous.
Take, for example, former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, and associates, who represented a similar worldview and voting base often at odds with the science of evolutionary theory. Nikiforuk noted the “covert” evangelicalism of the former prime minister of Canada Stephen Harper (2015). He stated:
Religion explains why Harper appointed a creationist, Gary Goodyear, as science minister in 2009; why the party employs Arthur Hamilton, as its hard-nosed lawyer (he’s an evangelical too and a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance); why Conservative MP Wai Young would defend the government’s highly controversial spying legislation, Bill C-51, by saying it reflects the teachings of Jesus; and why Canada’s new relationship with Israel dominates what’s left of the country’s shredded foreign policy.
It also explains why Harper would abolish the role of science advisor in the federal government only to open an Office of Religious Freedom under the department of Foreign Affairs with an annual $5-million budget. Why? Because millions of suburban white evangelical Christians consider religious freedom a more vital issue than same-sex marriage or climate change.
Of approximately 30 evangelical MPs that followed Harper into power in 2006, most have stepped down for this election. One, James Lunney, even resigned from the party to run as an independent member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Alberni.
Lunney did so as he called critics of creationism “social bigots,” and railed against what he describes as “deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian worldview from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine and academia.”
This points to, once more, the influence of religion and, in particular, evangelical Christianity’s influence on the fundamentals of the faith enforced in the social, economic, political, and science-policy domains of the nation – our dear constitutional monarchy. (Ibid.)
Some creationist politicians may feel cyberbullied (Postmedia News, 2015). Postmedia News reported, “B.C. independent MP James Lunney, who left the Conservative caucus Tuesday so he could speak out freely on his creationist views, was denied the right Wednesday to deliver in full a lengthy speech he had prepared. In a rambling address in the House of Commons, he said ‘millions’ of Canadians are being ‘gagged’ as part of a ‘concerted effort by various interests to undermine freedom of religion’” (Ibid.).
This arose after questioning the theory of evolution (Ibid.). I do not support cyberbullying of anyone for their beliefs, but I do respect humour as a tool in political and social activism as an educational tool against ideas. Lunney said, “I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled” (Ibid.). Thus pointing to the more known point of religion and personal religious beliefs as the problem and not the science, science conflicts with the religious convictions of the Hon. Lunney and others (Ibid.).
As noted earlier, or furthermore, O’Neil (2015) reported Lunney told the House of Commons that millions of Canadians feel gagged by efforts to – from his point of view – “undermine freedom of religion.” Naharnet Newsdesk (2015) stated:
A veteran Conservative MP quit Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government Tuesday in order to freely defend his denial of evolution, claiming there is a concerted Canadian effort to stifle creationists’ views.
MP James Lunney, who was first elected to parliament in 2000, said he will sit in the House of Commons as an independent but will continue to vote with the ruling Tories.
The British Columbia MP said he took the decision to leave the party just six months before a general election in order to “defend my beliefs and the concerns of my faith community.”
He pointed to an alleged plot that reaches into the “senior levels” of Canadian politics seeking “to suppress a Christian world-view,” and criticized the media for provoking a “firestorm of criticism and condemnation.”
A more small-time politician, Dr. Darrell Furgason, ran for public office in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada (Henderson, 2018). Furgason lectured at Trinity Western University and earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies (Ibid.). Dr. Furgason claims inclusivity for all while ignoring standard protocol in science, i.e., asserting religious views in written work, “Theistic evolution is a wrong view of Genesis, as well as history, and biology. Adam & Eve were real people….who lived in real history….around 6000 years ago” (Ibid.). He believes no Christian extremists exist in Canada (Lehn, 2019).
Mang, back in 2009, described some of the religious influence on the political landscape of Canada. The statements of “God bless Canada” at the ends of Harper’s speeches, the alignment of Roman Catholic Christianity with the conservatives and of the Protestant Christians with the liberals, and the lack of religion or the non-religious affiliated associated with the New Democratic Party or the NDP (Ibid.). Evangelical Christians identify with socially conservative values more often and, therefore, identify with and vote for the conservative candidates in local ridings or in federal elections (Ibid). Even so, the laity and the hierarchs of the Catholic Church can differ on some fundamental moral questions of the modern period for them with the Pope issuing, or popes writing, encyclicals on abortion and contraception for espousal by the religious leaders in the bishops and priests while being rejected by the lay Catholic public (Ibid.).
This may explain the support for the liberals by many of the Catholic voters of Canadian society (Ibid.). One of the dividing issues, according to Mang, came in the form of the same-sex marriage question because of the importance seen in the religious concept of the “sanctity of marriage” with the sanctity intended only or solely for heterosexual couples (Ibid.). Mang (Ibid.) stated, “But times could be changing. Current polls suggest that the Conservatives are in majority territory while Liberal support, once steady and predictable, is dropping precipitously. The Conservatives invoke god when delivering speeches, hire political staff such as the Prime Minister’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Darrel Reid, who denounced abortion and same-sex marriage while president of Focus on the Family in Canada, and pander to myriad religious communities. However, they have attempted to place a veil over a level of religiosity that makes the majority of Canadians squeamish” (Focus on the Family, 2019; Mang, 2009).
Press Progress (2018d) spoke to the far-right rallies of Doug Ford who wanted to “celebrate” the new social conservative agenda for the country. Some point out the direct attempts for a transformation of the society into more socially conservative directions with the work to change policy in that direction (Gagné, 2019). The Christian right with an intent or desire to teach creationism or intelligent design in the schools (Ibid; The Conversation, 2019). A top creationist was invited as a speaker at a convention in Alberta (CBC News, 2017b). In the meantime, Canadians continue with non-sense around purported miracles of white men in modern garb and selling ancient superstitions (Carter, 2016).
Gurpreet Singh (2019) spoke to the urgent need to defeat some of the more egregious cases of science denialism in the political realm. He, immediately, directed attention to ‘skepticism’ on the part of Conservative Party of Canada Leader Andrew Scheer about the Canada Food Guide (Kirkup, 2019; Government of Canada, 2019). Singh (2019) said, “Scheer recently told dairy farmers in Saskatoon that the food guide was ‘ideologically driven by people who have a philosophical perspective and a bias against certain types of healthy food products’… Scheer’s statement clearly shows that he has joined the growing list of right-wing populist leaders of the world who have repeatedly denied science and are bent upon taking the society backwards.” Press Progress (2018a) catalogued Charles McVety stating:
People talk about the world being billions and billions of years old, but I’ve never seen anything more than 6,000 years old. You have a perfect historical record for about 6,000 years and then…stopped…This nonsense that this world has been like this for billions of years is really troublesome to me in my mind because it makes no sense at all, but how many know that the devil makes no sense?…
…I just want people to know, that this man takes a stand, and you know that the devil doesn’t like it. In fact, last week the Toronto Star wrote an article and they ridiculed us for having Ken Ham here to come to speak on Genesis and they said that they’re worried that McVety’s relationship with Doug Ford means that creation is now going to be taught in all the schools in Ontario. I, of course, said there’s no move in that direction but it sounds like a good idea, don’t you think? (Press Progress, 2018a; Canada Christian College, 2018).
None of these statements of frustrations, or behaviours, are new. They harbour a legacy in this country undealt with in the past, which provides the basis for their maintenance through time. Almost two decades ago, Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance Leader in Canadian politics (The Globe and Mail, 2000). As reported, he resented “the probing of his conviction that the Biblical account of how life originated on this planet is a scientifically supported theory capable of being taught alongside evolution. He says the inquiries are intrusive and irrelevant to the election campaign” (Ibid.). Problem: the personal beliefs and convictions “coloured” the proposed policies and policy changes of Day on behalf of the public as a public servant, a politician. He said, “There is scientific support for both creationism and evolution” (Ibid.). The reportage continued:
In a documentary aired Tuesday on CBC-TV’s The National, the head of natural science at Red Deer College in 1997 said he heard Mr. Day tell a crowd that the world is only several thousand years old and that men walked with dinosaurs. While that may be consistent with the literal word of Genesis, it is inconsistent with the evidence uncovered by geologists and others, and subjected to tests and challenges, that Earth is billions of years old and that, The Flintstones notwithstanding, dinosaurs died off tens of millions of years before humans first appeared.
Mr. Day says the documentary denied him a chance to reply. (Ibid.)
Other politicians right into the present continue this tradition in different ways. The work to indoctrinate children with right-wing ideological stances remains against the spirit of education and the stance of the general notion of an informed education rather than a coerced education around creationism and pro-life groups, as in some schools (Press Progress, 2019c).
One can see this in some Cloverdale-Langley candidates in British Columbia associated with the promotion of “blogs purporting to show science supports the idea earth was created in six days. Cloverdale-Langley City’s Tamara Jansen has been in full damage control mode” (Press Progress, 2019a). At the same time, she cast doubt on Darwinian evolution and climate change research published by NASA scientists. Press Progress stated, “…on multiple occasions, Jansen has promoted obscure blogs on the topic of ‘Young Earth Creationism’ — the idea God literally created the Earth in six days only a few thousand years ago. One creationist blog Jansen shared, titled ‘a defence of six-day creation,’ states: ‘Yes, scientific theories do appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was asix-day creation. ‘What is the remedy?’ the blog asks. ‘I will tell you that too. A return to God’s Word! We had science for the sake of science, and got the World War.’ It is entirely true that World War II was, in the deepest sense, a result of widespread acceptance of the doctrine of human evolution” (Press Progress, 2019a; Williamson, 2013; Wieske, 2013). One can find some, but not pervasive, approval of some creationist ideas or modernist paradigms in the creation ministerial works (DeYoung, 2012). In some writing, Mehta commented on and reflected on the need for experts, which seems relevant and important here (2018a).
Gerson (2015) identified a problem for conservative candidates who espouse religious worldviews as scientific hypotheses. In that, belief in young earth creationism may become ammunition utilized by political opposition against the conservative politician who holds religious views on biological origins, who adheres to young earth creationism. At the time, education minister Gordon Dirks was picked by Jim Prentice, former Alberta premier. He was insinuated to adhere to a religious view in rejection of modern scientific evidentiarily substantiated hypotheses or theories found in the biological sciences and important to the medical sciences. She said, “Evolution became a toxic issue for Conservative politicians in the early 2000s. Barney the Dinosaur dolls and whistled renditions of the Flintstones theme song met former federal MP Stockwell Day after he expressed his belief in Young Earth creationism in the early 2000s… In 2009, researchers balked when federal science minister Gary Goodyear declined to say whether he believed in evolution” (Ibid.). This became an issue for Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls who thought positively of the ability of students having the option to opt out of the teaching of evolution (The Canadian Press, 2015). “For myself, I don’t believe in evolution… But that doesn’t mean I speak for everyone else in my caucus. That’s a personal stance,” Nicholls stated (Ibid.). Jim Wilson, Interim PC leader at the time, described Nicholls’s position as unrepresentative of the Ontario Tories (Ibid.). At the time, this was heavily used by liberals against Nicholls. Health Minister Eric Hoskins said, “We had one member of the PC party questioning whether we should even be teaching evolution in schools… I can’t even begin to imagine what may be coming next: perhaps we never landed on the moon.” Religion and politics professor at the University of Calgary, Irving Hexham, explained how if a politician came out in support of evolution via natural selection then the liability becomes exclusion from the religious community (Gerson, 2015). A religious community, one might safely assume, propping said politician up.
Dr. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., the Samuel J. Mikolaski Professor of Religious Studies at Crandall University in Moncton, New Brunswick, stated, “Still, maybe evolution, theistic or otherwise, can explain all these things–as Christian Francis Collins believes just as firmly as atheist Richard Dawkins believes. But we must allow that evolution has not yet done so” (2018). Perhaps, however, the phrase should parse because unguided evolution remains much different than a god-guided evolution in the overall narrative framework. Stackhouse also notes:
Nowadays, however, many people assume that belief in creation (= “creationism”) means a very particular set of beliefs: that the Biblical God created the world in six 24-hour days; that the earth is less than 10,000 years old; and that the planet appears older because a global flood in Noah’s time laid down the deep layers of sediment that evolutionists think took billions of years to accumulate.
These beliefs are not, in fact, traditional Christian beliefs, but a particular, and recent, variety of Christian thought, properly known as “creation science” or “scientific creationism.” Creation science was popularized in a 1923 book called The New Geology by amateur U.S. scientist George McCready Price. A Seventh-Day Adventist, Price learned from Adventism’s founder Ellen G. White that God had revealed to her that Noah’s flood was responsible for the fossil record. (Ibid.).
Further, this means Collins and Dawkins believe in disparate narratives on, at least, one fundamental level. Stackhouse continues to cite the “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould as somehow not quite evolution, but the problem: punctuated equilibrium exists as a theory adjunct to evolutionary biology as a component of evolution in some models. With all due respect to Dr. Stackhouse, he remains flat wrong, or mostly incorrect.
Stackhouse (2018) edges into the conflation of theory with hypothesis, religious narrative guess, or hunch in saying, “The creation science and ID people cannot be dismissed as wrong about everything!—and their opponents would do well to heed their criticisms, even if they hate their alternative theories.” What predictions have been made by young earth creationists to narrow the point? What makes young earth creationism falsifiable as a part of the fundamental proposal? In a strange ongoing well-informed and wrong-headed soliloquy, Stackhouse states, “So what should we do about the vexed questions about origins and evolution?” Nothing, except, maybe, continue with more predictions, more and better tools for more and better science, for improved understandings of origins an evolution via natural selection.
Often, we can find the ways in which the socially conservative views mix with the conservative political orientation, the conservative religious views, and the non-science views on origins and, in particular, development of complex organisms, e.g., mammals and primates including human beings (Press Progress, 2019b). Some social conservatives, mutually, support one another or, probably more properly, protect one another when on the gauntlet over some messaging or statements around creationism and denial/pseudoskepticism of evolution via natural selection, as with Stockwell Day protecting Wai Young (Press Progress, 2015). Day controversial for creationist views in the past, in and of himself (BBC News, 2000). The BBC said, “From an early age Stockwell Day has had strong ties with the Evangelical Church. Between 1978-85 he was assistant Pastor at a church in Alberta” (Ibid.). The evangelical upbringing and traditions seems deeply linked, in many not all regards, to creationist outlooks on the world.
Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls stood by the position from 2015 in which he said, “For myself, I don’t believe in evolution” (Ferguson, 2015). Conservative MPP Christine Elliott disagreed, stating, “I don’t agree with the views that were expressed with respect to evolution” (Ibid.). Helpful to note, during the statements by Nicholls, now infamous, he did not simply state them, but, in fact, shouted them, “…not a bad idea,” which connects, once more, to other conservative political points in the news cycle, e.g., sexual education (Ferguson, 2018; Benzie & Ferguson, 2018). Benzie & Ferguson (2008) stated, “Inside, the morning question period was especially nasty — Education Minister Liz Sandals mocked McNaughton and other right-wing Tories saying they “want to make the teaching of evolution optional.” One may surmise the conflict of the religious-political views as at odds with the march of the scientific rationality into the public and the policies and, thus, more and more with what is better known about the real world rather than what was in the past assumed about the ‘real’ world.
Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s United Conservative Party, remains an individual not to shy from attendance at some of these creationist events within the country (Press Progress, 2018b), where Kenney was, in fact, the distinguished guest as the key note speaker at the National Home Education Conference held in Ottawa, Ontario between September 28 and 29 (2019). Homeschooling remains one way in which the proliferation of religious or theological views as science continues. Kenney (Press Progress, 2018b) was seen as the headline speaker for a “conference sponsored by fringe education groups that promote homophobic and anti-scientific teachings… one sponsor helped shape UCP education policy and is now campaigning for the repeal of a law protecting students in gay-straight alliance clubs, another provides students with learning material that denies evolution, claims sea monsters are real and suggests humans traveled to the moon 4,000 years ago.”
Kenney (Press Progress, 2019d) stated an admiration for the tactics of a former KGB operative who became President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This reflects a violent and fundamentalist orientation against the right to protest. This may form some of the general attitudinal orientation of Kenney in the rights of others. One may doubt the symmetry for others in his party, or for him, if protesting in some fashion. Often, the creationist politicians comprise four categories: older, male, white, and conservative. The counter-science reactionaries tend to target women who are not conservative. The Governor General of Canada, Julie Payette, described the problem with faith-based and non-scientific approaches to the world to a group of scientists in the news, which became a media item and a political debacle – not on her part but on the commentators’ parts. Foster (2017) in the ongoing game of missing the point used the Payette news cycle to make a point against another woman who is the Canadian Environment and Climate Minister, Catherine McKenna.
Efforts to point out sympathizing, knowingly or unwittingly (ignorantly because unaware of the implications of what one says), may, in fact, bolster the support for the candidate with such musings (Dimatteo, 2018), creationism in education and politics seems like an open secret. The British Columbia Humanist Association, described the rather blatant, overt, and without shame presentation of creationism in the schools at the high school level as if science (Bushfield, 2018). Science is not despised by religion or politics in general. Indeed, there can be affirmations of some fundamental scientific findings, including human-induced climate change (Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, 2019) by religious orthodoxies in Canada’s religious belief landscape. Creationism, climate change denial, and Intelligent Design maintain a similar rejection of the facts before us. As you know well by now, Intelligent Design adheres to non-naturalistic mechanisms, or guided processes, for the features of some creatures or organisms alive now (Smith, 2017).
CBC News (2018) stated Payette “learned” from the earlier statements based on reporting of the event after the fact with the nature of the problem coming into the fore with the position, as the Hon. Payette noted adaptation to the position, i.e., do not change on the scientific positions but remain chary of the soft spots of a largely religious public. Payette (Bissett, 2017) even affirmed some standard Canadian values, “Our values are tolerance and determination, and freedom of religion, freedom to act, opportunities, equality of opportunities amongst everyone and for all.” The purportedly egregious statements of Payette on matters of scientific import to the cultural health of the nation. Let’s see:
Payette targeted evolution, climate change, horoscopes, and alternative medicine in the speech. Some quotes, on climate change from human activity:
Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period?
On evolution by natural selection, unguided:
And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.
On alternative medicines:
And so many people — I’m sure you know many of them — still believe, want to believe, that maybe taking a sugar pill will cure cancer, if you will it!
On horoscopes:
And every single one of the people here’s personalities can be determined by looking at planets coming in front of invented constellations.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supported the remarks by Payette.
(Jacobsen, 2017c)
From a standard scientific point of view, she did not state anything incorrect, and several within the community of the general public – leaders and laity – conflated criticism of non-science masquerading as science as somehow an assault on faith-based systems of belief found in traditionalist religions (Rabson, 2018). These, purely and simply, do not mean the same thing and the conflation by the media, or the catering to this by the media personalities and outlets, reflects a significant problem and, in turn, stoked fires not needing further enflaming, as the veneer of congeniality and sociability amongst the laity and leadership of religious communities with one another and the freethought communities seems thin to me. Duly note, the most prominent religious denomination at present and since the founding of Canadian society: Roman Catholic Christian. Both Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau identify as Roman Catholic Christians of more conservative and more liberal strains of the same undergirding theological assumption-structure. For the purposes of this commentary on the article of Urback (2017), the nature of the problem comes from the lack of scientific literacy in the public and non-derision but pointing out the discrepancies in the factual state of the world, as per a trained scientist and former astronaut Governor General, and the sensitivities of the public to counters to faith-claims, apolitical scientific statements. In fact, the Governor General may have experienced the reality of the phrase by Mark Twain, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” As Carl Meyer (2017) observes, Payette was in the service of the general public with telling – to the sensitivities of the general public – uncomfortable truths with myth busting there.
“Rideau Hall is, furthermore, a hidebound place that puts a premium on tradition. Ms. Payette’s scientific background valorizes reason and new frontiers, rather than the way things have been done in the past. It could be said that this personality mismatch speaks well of Ms. Payette – that she’s too smart and independent for such a fusty post,” the Globe and Mail reported (2018). Both CBC News and Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan in 2017(a) missed the point entirely on the nature of the problem with the inclusion of “religion” as a statement, which remains wrong then, and now, and amounts to imputed motive, as the Governor General Payette focused on factually wrong beliefs: climate change from human activity, evolution by natural selection, unguided, alternative medicines, and horoscopes. All parties who misrepresented the comments – news stations, public officials, and individuals – of the Hon. Julie Payette should issue a public apology or writer a letter of apology to her. In fact, they should appreciate and thank her. She set a tone of scientific literacy and individual, educated integrity with the spirit and content of the statements unseen in this country, often.
Besides, Payette noted the turbulence within Rideau Hall as, more or less, supposed or purported turbulence (Marquis, 2018). The Globe and Mail (2018) noted the statements by Payette as mocking creationism, and not creationists – an important distinction. For some who want to bring a nation back to the Bible like those at www.backtothebible.com consider critiques of bad hypotheses and affirmation of scientific theories as an attack on their religion, a giveaway as to name of the sincere game: the creationist view – and other faith-based and supernatural views – as a religious proposition without merit. John Neufeld, a Bible Teacher at Back to the Bible Canada, stated, “At a recent speech to scientists at an Ottawa convention, Ms. Payette was very clear about how she felt about religion… Much has already been said about Ms. Payette’s insensitivity to people of religious persuasion. Some have called her ‘mean-spirited’… As one Christian living in Canada, I say, “Shame on you” (2017). Again, he never said, “She’s empirically wrong,” because this would force commitment to a scientific, repeatably testable, and empirical position. These, purely and simply, do not mean the same thing and the conflation by the media, or the catering to this by the media personalities and outlets, reflects a significant problem and, in turn, stoked fires not needing further enflaming, as the veneer of congeniality and sociability amongst the laity and leadership of religious communities with one another and the freethought communities seems thin to me.
Wood (2017) wrote on the entire fiasco around the Hon. Payette with a rather humorous note about Rex Murphy writing a “hard-to-follow take down” of the speech, which makes one question the strength of the take down or even the assertion of a ‘take down.’ Scientific views do not come from the intersubjective realm of political and social discourses found in norms and mores, but, rather, in the nature of the empirical findings and the preponderance of those findings with the best theoretical framework for knitting the data in a coherent weave. The other theories lack empirical support and, many times, coherence. Thus, every single commentator who took part in the chorus of Canadian journalism here exposed themselves as marginally intellectual in the affairs of central concern to them, in proclaiming faux offense over the Hon. Payette’s statements about basic science. It was never about opinion, but it was about relaying the statements of fact and fundamental scientific theories about the world and the reaction represented the discrepancy of the general public’s knowledge of science and the scientific findings themselves. In these domains, the journalists, as a reflection of some of the public, and several politicians, showed themselves ignorant, or deliberately pandering to sectors of the public who do not prefer women in power, smart and educated individuals in places of influence, or both.
The aforementioned Professor Dennis Venema at Trinity Western University has stated on several occasions and in an articulate manner the theologically inappropriate and scientifically incorrect beliefs inherent in all alternatives to evolutionary theory. He states:
Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case).
For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict. Our genome is nearly identical to the chimpanzee genome, a little less identical to the gorilla genome, a little less identical to the orangutan genome, and so on—and this correspondence is present in ways that are not needed for function (such as the location of shared genetic defects, the order of genes on chromosomes, and on and on). If you’re interested in this research, you might find this (again, somewhat technical) lecture I gave a few years ago helpful. You can also see a less technical, but longer version here where I do my best to explain these lines of evidence to members of my church.(Venema, 2018a)
He sets a new or a more scientific tone in the fundamentalist Evangelical Christian communities and postsecondary institutions within Canadian society and remains active, and young, and can continue to develop a positive theological grounding within a modern scientific purview. In a way, he shows a non-fundamentalist path for the next generations. He and others can provide a context for a more sophisticated political discourse over time.
Creative Stiflement and the Outcomes of Personal Bafflement: or, the Need for Cognitive Closure
I don’t profess any religion; I don’t think it’s possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words ‘spiritual’ or ‘spirituality.’
Philip Pullman
I think . . . that philosophy has the duty of pointing out the falsity of outworn religious ideas, however estimable they may be as a form of art. We cannot act as if all religion were poetry while the greater part of it still functions in its ancient guise of illicit science and backward morals.
Corliss Lamont
I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam — good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system.
Gore Vidal
Science and religion stand watch over different aspects of all our major flashpoints. May they do so in peace and reinforcement–and not like the men who served as a cannon fodder in World War I, dug into the trenches of a senseless and apparently interminable conflict, while lobbing bullets and canisters of poison gas at a supposed enemy, who, like any soldier, just wanted to get off the battlefield and on with a potentially productive and rewarding life.
Stephen Jay Gould
It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what’s bad and it’s really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term ‘born again.’ That truly describes freethinkers who’ve thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!
Julia Sweeney
They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: ‘If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.’ Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
It may be remarked incidentally that the recognition of the relational character of scientific objects completely eliminates an old metaphysical issue. One of the outstanding problems created by the rise of modern science was due to the fact that scientific definitions and descriptions are framed in terms of which qualities play no part. Qualities were wholly superfluous. As long as the idea persisted (an inheritance from Greek metaphysical science) that the business of knowledge is to penetrate into the inner being of objects, the existence of qualities like colors, sounds, etc., was embarrassing. The usual way of dealing with them is to declare that they are merely subjective, existing only in the consciousness of individual knowers. Given the old idea that the purpose of knowledge (represented at its best in science) is to penetrate into the heart of reality and reveal its “true” nature, the conclusion was a logical one. …The discovery of the nonscientific because of the empirically unverifiable and unnecessary character of absolute space, absolute motion, and absolute time gave the final coup de grâce to the traditional idea that solidity, mass, size, etc., are inherent possessions of ultimate individuals. The revolution in scientific ideas just mentioned is primarily logical. It is due to recognition that the very method of physical science, with its primary standard units of mass, space, and time, is concerned with measurements of relations of change, not with individuals as such.
John Dewey
*Footnotes in accordance with in-text citations of Story.*
Canadian creationism exists, as per several sections before this, within a larger set of concerns and problematic domains, including the international and the regional. By implication, American creationism forms some basis for creationism in Canada. Of the freethought communities’ writers, even amongst religious people – apart from Professor Dennis Venema, few individuals stood out in terms of the production of a comprehensive piece on creationism in Canada. Melissa Story is one exception, and, in a way, amounts to the national expert circa 2013 on this topic based on an honours thesis on creationism in Canada (Jacobsen, 2019t; Jacobsen, 2019u). Full credit to Story’s investigative and academic work for the foundation of this section – much appreciated.
Ken Ham sees Intelligent Design as insufficient to keep the faith of the next generations (2011). We see more creationism than Intelligent Design in Canada. Boutros (2007) gave a reasonable summary on creationism in some of Canada. We can see Creation Ministries International launched their own Deconstructing Darwin in Canada (Creation Ministries International Canada. (2019b). Canseco (2015) notes the decline most strongly in British Columbia of creationism. Mulherin (2014) noted the differences of opinion and belief, and so conclusions, of the different types of theological views known as creationism. Journalist and Philosopher, Malcolm Muggeridge, of the University of Waterloo, stated, “I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has” (GoodReads, 2019). This is Canada.
The British Columbia Humanist Association republished a reasonable piece by Melissa Story in 2013 on the Canadian creationism landscape, of which this section will incorporate as part of the larger analysis of the context of creationism and its (dis-)contents (Story, 2013a; Story, 2013b; Story, 2013c; Story, 2013d). Story (2013a) directs attention to the “Teach the Controversy” battles within Canada and the style of them. They tend to be more local and not national (Ibid.). Story supports religious freedom (Ibid.). Some of the history precludes the recent history. NPR (Adams, 2005) provided a rundown of the history from the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 to the publication of The Descent of Man in 1871, to the publication of George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology in 1914. The ex-Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, was a leader of the anti-evolution movement starting in 1921, who was a former congressman too (Ibid.). Bryan spoke about the Bible’s truth and delivered copies of the speech to the Tennessee legislature in 1924, and on January 21, 1925 Representative Butler introduced legislation banning evolution to the Tennessee House of Representatives entitled the Butler bill (Ibid.).
1925, busy a year as it was, January 27 saw the approval of the Butler bill 71:5 with heated debate for hours on March 13 for approval of the Butler bill (24:6) in the Tennessee Senate with Tennessee Governor Austin Peay signing the Butler bill into law as the first law banning evolution in the United States of American (Ibid.). May 4 saw a Chattanooga newspaper run a piece on the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the Butler law with May 5 had a “group of town leaders in Dayton, Tenn., read the news item about the ACLU’s search. They quickly hatch a plan to bring the case to Dayton, a scheme that they hope will generate publicity and jump-start the town’s economy. They ask 24-year-old science teacher and football coach John Thomas Scopes if he’d be willing to be indicted to bring the case to trial” (Ibid.).
May 12 had William Jennings Bryan agree to participation in the prosecution side of the trial for national interest in the case with Clarence Darrow and Dudley Field Malone taking the opposing side, or representing Scopes, and Scopes got indicted by a grand jury on May 25, where May to July of 1925 saw the preparation for the trials’ anticipated publicity (Ibid.). A touch of naughtiness must have filled the air. The ACLU lawyers represented Scopes with Clarence Darrow as the main defense attorney or the individual who took the rather theatrical stage with Darrow convincing Scopes to admit to the violation of the statute of Tennessee (Adams, 2005). Modern technology, including a movie-newsreel camera platform with radio microphones, telephone wiring, and the telegraph, was equipped to the courthouse to provide a context of proper amplification of the happening to the outside world (Ibid.). July 10 the jury selection begins and Rev. Lemuel M. Cartright opens the proceedings with a prayer based on the request of Judge John Raulston (Ibid.). July 13 the court case opens and July 14 Darrow objected to the use of a prayer to open, but the judge overruled the objection allowing the ministers to continue and not to reference the matters of this case (Ibid.). July 15, Judge Raulston overruled the defense’s motion of the Butler law declared as unconstitutional because “public schools are not maintained as places of worship, but, on the contrary, were designed, instituted, and are maintained for the purpose of mental and moral development and discipline” (Ibid.).
July 17 saw the barring of expert testimony by scientists based on a motion of the prosecutors with Judge Raulston arguing expert opinion will not shed light on the issues of the trial involving evolutionary theory (Ibid.). For July 20 and July 21, “With the proceedings taking place outdoors due to the heat, the defense — in a highly unusual move — calls Bryan to testify as a biblical expert. Clarence Darrow asks Bryan a series of questions about whether the Bible should be interpreted literally. As the questioning continues, Bryan accuses Darrow of making a ‘slur at the Bible,’ while Darrow mocks Bryan for ‘fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes,’”NPR continued, “The final day of the trial opens with Judge Raulston’s ruling that Bryan cannot return to the stand and that his testimony should be expunged from the record. Raulston declares that Bryan’s testimony ‘can shed no light upon any issues that will be pending before the higher courts.’ Darrow then asks the court to bring in the jury and find Scopes guilty — a move that would allow a higher court to consider an appeal. The jury returns its guilty verdict after nine minutes of deliberation. Scopes is fined $100, which both Bryan and the ACLU offer to pay for him. After the verdict is read, John Scopes delivers his only statement of the trial, declaring his intent ‘to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom — that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom’” (Ibid.).
On July 26, William Jennings Bryan dies in Dayton, in his sleep, with a burial in the Arlington National Cemetery on July 31 (Ibid.). In 1926, Mississippi was the second state to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools. On May 31, 1926, the appeal hearing of the Scopes case begins once more (Ibid.). Into the next year, on January 15 of 1927, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Butler law, where this overturned the verdict of the Scopes case based on a technicality (Ibid.). In 1927, the updated version of the textbook, A New Civic Biology, by George William Hunter used by Scopes in the educational context teaches evolution in a more cautious way, more judicious to the fundamentalist sensibilities of the Tennessean establishment of the time in 1927 (Ibid.). Arkansas becomes the third state to enact legislation banning the instruction of evolution in 1928, and then one March 13, 1938 Clarence Darrow dies (Ibid.), aged 80. “Inherit the Wind” base on the Scopes “Monkey” trial opens on Broadway on January 10, 1955 with the 1960 showing the first film version entitled Inherit the Wind (Ibid.), which Scopes saw in Dayton (Ibid.). On May 17, 1967, the Butler Act is repealed (Ibid.).
In 1967, Scopes published Center of the Storm as a memoir of the trial; in 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas struck down the banning of evolution in Arkansas (Ibid.). In 1973, “Tennessee becomes the first state in the United States to pass a law requiring that public schools give equal emphasis to “the Genesis account in the Bible” along with other theories about the origins of man. The bill also requires a disclaimer be used any time evolution is presented or discussed in public schools. It demands evolution be taught as theory and not fact,” NPR stated. 1975 saw the ruling of the equal time demanded and passed as unconstitutional with the defeat by a federal appeals court of the 1973 law (Ibid.). As you may see from the development from the 1920s with the Scopes trial and fallout from it, Story, appropriately, points to the 1920s as an important time for the creationist movement in the legal cases, and for the public school teachers who want to teach the fundamentals of all of life science (American Experience, n.d.).
It came to a head in Dayton, Tennessee with the Scopes trial, where John Scopes became someone willing to be arrested for the teaching of evolution based on a call of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, n.d.b). Scopes was arrested on May 7, 1925 with the purpose to show the ways in which the particular statute or law in Tennessee was unconstitutional (Ibid.). The ACLU stated, “The Scopes trial turned out to be one of the most sensational cases in 20th century America; it riveted public attention and made millions of Americans aware of the ACLU for the first time. Approximately 1000 people and more than 100 newspapers packed the courtroom daily” (Ibid.). William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow were the opposing attorneys in this world-famous case (History.Com Editors, 2019). The legal case was known as The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes and challenged the Butler Act of Tennessee at the time – the ban on the teaching of evolution in the state (Szalay, 2016).
“It would be another four decades before these laws were repealed; however, the trial set in motion an ongoing debate about teaching evolutionary theories alongside Biblically-inspired creation accounts in science classrooms… The early years of legal challenges focused on the constitutionality of imposing religious views in public schools versus the autonomy of parents to provide an education to their children that was compatible with their own worldviews,” Story explained, “The inclusion of creationism in the curriculum was seen by some as a violation of the separation of church and state. Others argued that by not providing equal time to creationist theories, religious students were being taught in an environment that was seemingly hostile to their religious beliefs. Time and time again, higher courts ruled that creationism could not be taught alongside evolution because creationism was dogmatic in nature and essentially brought religion into the public school system” (2013a).[2],[3],[4]
Story emphasized the early development of the arguments against evolution in the public schools with the emphasis on two items. One with the autonomy of parents to raise and educate their children. Another for the constitutionality of the imposition of religious views on the or in the public schools with, often as one can observe, a preference for one particular religious creation story or creationism. Story (2013a) explained the more recent developments in the theorization of the communities of faith with the leadership, often, as white men with doctoral or legal degrees – or two doctoral degrees as in the case of Dr. William Dembski – espousing Intelligent Design or ID, where there is a proposal for “alternative ‘scientific’ theories.” Story (2013a) stated, “Proponents claim that ID is a valid alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution and have lobbied to have it included in science curricula. To date, several higher courts have ruled that ID is nothing more than creationism in the guise of science.”[5],[6]
One of the abovementioned cases from 2005 stemmed from parents who challenged the Pennsylvania Dover Area School District in its amended curriculum of the time proposed for the inclusion of Intelligent Design, which Story (2013a) characterizes as “essentially a secularized version of creationism.”[7]The separation of church and state, Story notes (Ibid.), accounts for the continual return to the American Constitution in the matters of religious orthodoxy, to some, within the educational system and the pushback against the attempted imposition within the science classrooms via the biology curricula. “Canada, however, does not have such finite divisions between church and state entrenched in its laws,” Story said, “While the Charter of Rights does provide protections to citizens, it does not explicitly outline divisions between faith and politics. Despite this, Canadian politics do not seem to be overtly intertwined with religion. On the surface, Canadians seem less preoccupied or concerned about religious influences on government or public institutions. This has meant that any religious controversies, similar to those in the United States, have remained largely unnoticed” (Story, 2013a).[8] Her main warning comes in the recognition of the quiet penetration of Canadian educational institutions with creationist dogmas or religious ideologies pretending to take the place of real science or proper education. (Ibid.).
The main fundamentalist Evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, university, found in Canadian society is Trinity Western University, where Professor Dennis Venema was the prominent individual referenced as the source of progress in the scientific discussions within intellectual and, in particular, formal academic discussions and teaching. Trinity Western University operates near Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada in Langley. The main feature case for Story comes from a city near to Trinity Western University in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Story (2013a) considers this the single most controversial case of creationism in the entire country. The communities here have been characterized the Bible belt of the province, of British Columbia. Story stated, “During the time of this controversy, Abbotsford’s population consisted of a large Mennonite community, many Western European immigrants, and the highest number of Christian conservatives in the province” (Ibid.).
She recounted the 1977 walkout of 300 students in a high school because of the reinstatement of compulsory prayer and scripture readings every day; following this, in 1980, the Abbotsford School Board defied the Supreme Court of Canada ruling “that struck down mandatory daily prayer in public schools” (Ibid.). 15 years later, the library board attempted to ban a newspaper who targeted homosexuals as their main readership.[9] In the late 2000s, the same school board was caught in controversies involving “Social Justice” courses intended for the high school curriculum with some emphasis on community concerns including homophobia or discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals (Ibid.).[10],[11] In 2012, the same school board went under review for the allowance of Gideons International providing Bibles to students, where Story attributes the highly religious nature of the education system to the lack of a formal and consistent challenge (Ibid.). Story uses the terminology and creation science within the context of self-definition by creation scientists. This will become a split in the orientation between Story and this article because the nature of creation science amounts to an appropriation of the term “science” while being a creation ministry, religious worldview, theological proposition, or simply creationist views, i.e., creation science remains a misnomer. The public schools in the 1970s in British Columbia became the first introduction of creationism into the public school school science classes in Canadian society, which points to the Creation Science Association of British Columbia or the Creation Science Association of BC as a possible culprit with a founding in 1967.
“Unlike the Abbotsford case, which received considerable media and government scrutiny, other districts enacting such policies received little attention. Indeed, scant evidence exists that creationism was ever taught in public schools,” Story stated, “The Mission School Board introduced creation-instruction to its classrooms in 1976, but there exists little evidence to support rumours that creation instruction was taking place in other schools throughout British Columbia. Further, the policy enacted by the Mission School Board garnered much less controversy than the Abbotsford case. It is unclear as to why one board’s policy went virtually unnoticed…” (2013b).[12] Some reach national consciousness and numerous remain unnoticed in the entire dialogue of the media. Story (Ibid.) speculated pastors, parents, and “unofficial lobbyists” of the region placed these to the table, even though documents remain lacking here (Ibid.) to further corroborate the supposition. One journalist named Lois Sweet took the time to investigate into the findings through interviews with stakeholders “embroiled in the controversy” who, based on research and acumen, proposed the constituents influenced the decisions of the school board, i.e., the Mennonite and Dutch Reform Church community, and, potentially, the development of the Abbotsford School District Origin of Life policy (Ibid.).[13] Sweet (Ibid.) considered fundamentalist Christian advocates as major players in the 1970s for influencing the development of the school board science program “for more than ten years.”
“In late 1980, an Abbotsford resident, Mr. H. Hiebert, began to a campaign to have more creationist materials available to teaching staff in the district,” Story explained, “Feeling that his requests to the board were not satisfactorily addressed, he approached local news outlets and urged residents to make the lack of creation-instruction a concern during the upcoming election of school board trustees” (Ibid.). At the beginning of the 1980s, in 1981, the national organization, the Creation Science Association of Canada, mentioned much earlier, sent a petition to the Education Minister, Brian Smith, with more than 7,000 signatures as a group of concerned citizens over the purported unequal time for a religious philosophy next to a natural philosophy with the Hon. Smith stating both in the classroom may be valuable for the students (Ibid.).[14],[15],[16] Intriguingly, the comments from the Education Minister did not spark discussion and the comments went into the aether.
Story (2013b) provided part of the contents of the Origin of Life policy with explicit references to the inability of evolutionary theory or “Divine creation” as capable of explaining the origin of life and so as have “the exclusion of the other view will almost certainly antagonize those parents and/or pupils who hold to the alternative view, all teachers, when discussing and/or teaching the origin of life in the classrooms, are requested to expose students, in as objective a manner as possible, to both Divine creation and the evolutionary concepts of life’s origins.”[17] The inclusion of the theological assertions and the proper biological scientific theory because of an implied fear of antagonizing the parents of children. In 1983 a majority vote provided the grounds for refraining from the teaching of the theory of evolution for teachers alone, this meant the enforced teaching of both creationist and evolution via natural selection in Social Studies 7, Biology 11, and Biology 12 (Ibid.).[18],[19] Story (Ibid.) stated the resources for the schools, including textbooks and speakers, came from organizations including the Institute for Creation Research found throughout the country and discussed, or mentioned, in earlier sections, but, interestingly, the teachers avoided the origin of life altogether. In a manner of speaking, this became a weird victory for creationists and a loss for science, as the fundamental theory of life sciences was simply avoided due to religiously-based fundamentalism winning the vote in an educational setting in a fundamentalist and sympathetic part of the country (Ibid.).[20] “Fleeting media attention was directed at the policy and its application. Almost a decade later, Abbotsford was thrust back in the media spotlight,” Story said (Ibid.).
The 1990s continued some of the same creationist trends as those in the 1970s and 1980s in Abbotsford as a flash point case of the influence of so-called creation science or, more properly, creation ministry or creationism with more concerted efforts by Robert Grieve, then-director of the Creation Science Association of Canada, with the distribution of letters to Canadian school boards with requests for the presentation of creationism “creation science associations” (Story, 2013c). Several years later, the Creation Science Association of Canada, as was discovered or found out, has been conducting presentations in Abbotsford schools for “a number of years” (Ibid.).[21]Based on the academic reportage of Story (Ibid.), the 1990s became a period of unprecedented, probably, scrutiny of creationism within the public education system in Abbotsford, presenting a problem to the proper education of the children, especially as regards the aforementioned Origin of Life policy stipulated by Abbotsford (Ibid.). Anita Hagan, British Columbia Minister of Education, in 1992, spoke about the issue “with passive interest,” in spite of the fact that “most of the pieces were resoundingly negative” (Ibid.).
Story (2019c) stated, “…the Minister never formally addressed the Abbotsford School Board regarding the policy. Since no formal intervention was being carried out, a group of teachers and parents aided by a science teacher from outside the district, Scott Goodman began to covertly investigate the policy. This examination led the Abbotsford Teachers’ Association to issue a request to the board to review and rescind the policy. This request was ignored.”[22],[23] The middle of the 1990s, 1995 specifically, became the height of the controversy in Abbotsford over creationism in the schools and its relationship with public policy with the Organization of Advocates in Support of Integrity in Science Education with Scott Goodman and a teachers’ association from the area (Ibid.). They filed an appeal to Art Charbonneau, the Education Minister, where Goodman argued, in an interview at the time, for the importance of secularity of the government, freedom of religion, and the possibility of the attacks of fundamentalist Christianity on the public school curriculum with religious views posed as scientific ones (Ibid.).[24],[25]
John Sutherland, of Trinity Western University, chaired the Abbotsford school board of the time, which, potentially, shows some relationship between the surrounding areas and the school curriculum and creationism axis – as you may recall Trinity Western University sits in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada, next to the city of Abbotsford, British Columbia as an evangelical Christian university (Ibid.). “The Minister agreed with Goodman and the Teachers’ Association and sent a letter requesting assurances from the board that they were adhering to the provincial curriculum…”, Story (Ibid.) explained, “…The Minister’s requests were not directly acknowledged, but Sutherland was vocal about the issue in local media outlets. He accused the Minister of religious prejudice by attempting to remove creationism from the district.”[26]
According to Story, the board did not respond properly to Charbonneau, who then sent a second letter with actionables for the board and recommendations from the Education Minister (Ibid.). One such directive included the amendment of the Origin of Life policy by June 16, 1995 with the cessation of creation science in the educational curricula of the biology classes (Ibid.).[27],[28],[29],[30] The Education Minister of the time stated the efforts of the board were to force the educators to teach religious theory as if scientific theory (Ibid.).[31] Sutherland defended the board; the board mostly shared the position and support of Sutherland, where the theological positions infected the science curriculum posited as scientific ones (Ibid.).[32],[33] “Sutherland countered accusations that the board was attempting to bring theology into science classrooms by suggesting that learning different theories allowed students to hone critical thinking skills, and that only alternative ‘scientific’ theories were presented to students,” Story said, “Sutherland also pointed out that the community supported creation-science instruction” (Ibid.).[34],[35],[36],[37] An interview with Sutherland, at the time,indicated a personal belief in “alternative schemes” in the interpretation of the data presented to students in the biology classroom with the “random, purposeless, evolutionary hypotheses” as only one among other belief systems (Ibid.).[38]
The drafting of the newer Origin of Life policy took place and references to supernatural creation was removed while leaving one loophole for alternative theories (Ibid.). British Columbia Civil Liberties Association representatives lobbied for the disbandment of the policy while the Minister thought the policy needed further clarification, so the board chad to comply with the requests of the Minister (Ibid.). The main arguments focused on the feelings of marginalization of the Christians within the and outside the community while others viewed the media sensationalizing the entire affair with further people supporting the Ministry who thought fundamentalist Christians influenced the region (Ibid.). These were seen as attempts to force Christianity morality, mores, and ideas on the general culture, not simply in the biology classrooms (Ibid.). “With the final version of the new Origin of Life policy in place, the board forwarded it to Charbonneau and also obtained legal counsel to ensure the policy adhered to the School Act,” Story stated, “In July of 1995, Minister Charbonneau formally rejected the new policy stating that it was, ‘vague and open to various meanings’” (Ibid.).[39] The base claim of religious dogma not permitted in the science classroom, as religious dogma amounts to theology or religious orthodoxy – not science.
According to Story’s coverage of the new curriculum and digging into the documents, the teachers are instructed or guided to teach the proper science while respecting the particular religious beliefs of the students.[40] September 14, 1995 saw the drafting of a new Abbotsford School Board Origin of Life policy stating, “Teachers may find that the evolutionary perspectives of modern biology conflict with the personal beliefs of some of their students; therefore, when teaching this topic in the classroom, teachers should explain to students who have misgivings, that science is only one of the ways of learning about life. Other explanations have been put forth besides those of biological science. However, other viewpoints which are not derived from biological science are not part of the Biology 11/12 curriculum. Biology teachers will instruct only in the Ministry of Education curriculum” (Ibid.).[41] Story claims the mid-1990s was the end of the public discussion on creation in the public schools in Canadian society (Ibid.).
In the present day, circa the 2013 publication in July of the research by Story, the provincial and territorial curriculum guidelines frame the origin of life issue as unsettled through the acknowledge of parents and students who may have questions about the theories in science put forth in the educational setting (Story, 2013d). British Columbia has the only ban on creationism as an “explicit policy” (Ibid.), while New Brunswick does provide language in such a manner so as to allow Intelligent Design a possible way into the curricula (Ibid.). In fact, Ontario stipulates cultural sensitivities as an issue, which may connect to the feeling of siege on the part of some Christians in the jurisdiction (Ibid.). Newfoundland and Labrador explicitly leaves room open for the doubt portion, in relation to “Earth origins, life origins, evolution, etc.” with possible judgment along the lines of value judgments, ethical assessments and religious beliefs” (Ibid.).[42],[43] Some carryover between the different portions of the contents appears evident in the documents, as analyze by Story (Ibid), as in a permission of discussion and exploration as if legitimate to entertain religious views as science in a biology classroom.
“For the most part, Canada’s education system seems to relegate evolution to upper year elective biology courses. This means that the vast numbers of public high school students are graduating without ever learning about Darwin’s evolutionary theories,” Story (Ibid.) explained, “Quebec is the only province to mandate elementary school teaching of evolutionary. Perhaps then, the critics are right. Canada appears to draw less divisive lines between creationist and evolution instruction as is the case in the United States.”[44] Story (Ibid.) considers the split between the private schools and the public schools within Canadian society in which the public schools exist in a different cultural milieu than the private school system, especially in a nation bound to a largely religious population with the vast majority as Christian – the religious source of creationism in North America, mostly; this does not even mention the “thousands of homeschooled children unrestricted by standard curricula. Story said, “In 2007, a group of Quebec Mennonites moved their families to a small town in Ontario. They did so because the Quebec Ministry of Education had mandated that their small private school must adhere to the provincial curriculum, which included instruction on Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Ibid.).[45],[46]
A reporter called the private schools private businesses without the necessary certification from the Ontario College of Teachers; in addition, public organizations, e.g., Big Valley Creation Science Museum, opened in the 2000s to compound the issue of proper scientific education in the public and the private schooling systems in the nation followed by the impacts on the general populace as a result (Ibid.).[47],[48]Religious orthodoxy dominant in the culture infused into the homeschooled educational curricula and bolstered by monuments to public ignorance. Creations acquires a platform unseen in other institutions. Story (Ibid.) stated, “The Social Science and Humanities Research Council, the federal body that rejected the proposal, stated that there was not ‘adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design, was correct…’ Thus, creationism seems to be an issue that some government institutions would rather not bring into the public consciousness. The refusal to fund such investigations speaks volumes to this being a hot-button topic best avoided.”[49]
Story’s most important point comes in the cultural analysis of the apathy of Canadians in the face of the creationism issue and the proper teaching of the foundations of biological sciences where students come into the postsecondary learning environment with “either no knowledge or very limited knowledge of Darwin’s theory of evolution” providing an insight into the cultural ignorance grounded in the apathetic stances of the public (Ibid.). We can do better.
Post-Apocalyptic Visions: Admission of Mistakes, But Only Under Pressure and After Community Catastrophes
God doesn’t exist, and even if one is a bloody idiot, one finishes up understanding that.
Michel Houellebecq
Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful.
Martin Amis
I mean I don’t believe: I’m sure there’s no God. I’m sure there’s no afterlife. But don’t call me an atheist. It’s like a losers’ club. When I hear the word atheist, I think of some crummy motel where they’re having a function and these people have nowhere else to go.
John Brockman
Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn’t stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it – he’d come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it. Should he ever write an autobiography, he’d call it The Life and Death of a Male Body.
Philip Roth
The final piece was to present it to the world and to make it useful to the world. That was essential to my healing. I survived all of this. I am lucky. I came out on my own two feet with a sense of who I am and a love, and joy, of life. I want that for everyone on the planet.
If my story can help you work through your story in any way, and make you have a more joyful, fulfilling life, then it was worth every bit of suffering for me, for that to happen. That’s really the healing, ultimately. It is the healing we do for each other when we tell our stories because it helps us feel a lot less alone.
We all have these stories to tell. We have all lived through treacherous moments in our lives, great loss, stupidity, joy, and success. We need to share these stories because we connect with each other. The only way we’re going to get through the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years on this planet is by connecting to each other as human beings.
Not ideologies, not profit motives, not how big our bank accounts are, but just humans-to-humans. When we tell our stories, that instantly happens. So, I am very honored to be a member of the tribe that tells the stories of the humans and to have been able to tell my story.
Kelly Marie Carlin-McCall
Canadian schools, fundamentally, avoid or inadequately teach evolution via natural selection in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools leaving students who proceed to postsecondary education ill-equipped to learn within the biology classes in university, as noted by Douglas Todd (2009).
Fred Edwords, in Dealing With “Scientific” Creationism (n.d.) – a well-informed and well-researched article, stated, “Only with this knowledge can one have some chance of success. One should, in fact, go to great lengths to avoid misrepresenting the creationist position. Paradoxically, one must also go to great lengths to not too easily buy into the creationist definition of the issues. One would do best by seeking to understand accurately what creationists are saying while, at the same time, seeking to learn their hidden motives and agendas.”
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History provides a good explanation of science and religion, and the demarcation between them (2018):
Science is a way to understand nature by developing explanations for the structures, processes and history of nature that can be tested by observations in laboratories or in the field…
Religion, or more appropriately religions, are cultural phenomena comprised of social institutions, traditions of practice, literatures, sacred texts and stories, and sacred places that identify and convey an understanding of ultimate meaning…
Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future… Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning. (Ibid.)
Although, as Wyatt Graham, Executive Director of the Gospel Coalition Canada, stated, “There seems to be widespread agreement that the age of the earth is tertiary or non-central point of doctrine among Christians. The impulse to press the doctrine of YEC in the 1950s-1980s has become gentle hum, with Answers in Genesis being an exception to the rule.” (Graham, 2017). He harbours doubts as to the long-term viability of this view, saying, “It is safe to assume that in Canada YEC will decline in popularity. The cultural and theological pressures of those who hold to YEC will slowly erode YEC proponents’ confidence” (Ibid.). Stoyan Zaimov of the Christian Post spoke to the concerns of the decline of creationist beliefs in some countries in the more developed world and the apathy of some Christians and the rebuking by other Christians (2017).
This seems to imply the, based on the statement of Graham, comprehension or eventual admission – with the eventual decline of young earth creationism – in Canadian Christian communities of their forebears believing patent wrong ideas in a purported inerrant and holy text, as continues to happen over history and leaves one critical as to the viability of supposed origin, development, and assertions of the Bible within generations and generations of sincere biblical believers. Still into the present, young earth creationism and old earth creationism continue abated and debated, e.g. “Drs. Albert Mohler (YEC) and John Collins (Old Age Creationist / OEC)” or between “Tim Challies (YEC) and Justin Taylor (OEC)” (Graham, 2017; Carl F.H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding, 2017).
Edwords notes the foundational claims of creationism in multiple forms:
For convenience, I will quote the definition of “creation-science” appearing in Arkansas Act 590.
Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
- Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
- The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
- Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
- Separate ancestry for man and apes;
- Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
- A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.(n.d.)
As with the British Columbia jurisdictional case of the banning of creationism from the public schools, this has been replicated in other countries including Australia:
The South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board has published a new education policy that states it requires the ”teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.” It then goes on to state that it “does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design.”
However, Stephen O’Doherty, the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, said that he believes the intention of the South Australian policy was to ban the teaching of the biblical perspective on the nature of the universe altogether. It was the only such subject singled out, he said.
O’Doherty said the statement by the South Australian Board was too strident, the Herald reports. “Taken literally,” he said, “it means you cannot mention the Bible in science classes.” (Baklinski, 2010).
However, the poor ideas may continue to persist. One difficulty lies in the conspiratorial mindset behind the belief system. Lewandowsky said, “There is growing evidence that indulging in conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject scientific findings, from climate change to vaccinations and AIDS. And researchers have now found that teleological thinking also links beliefs in conspiracy theories and creationism.” In a sense, the conspiratorial mindset rests on a teleological foundation in which the creationist becomes an extreme and explicit case study or the creationism as a theory of the origins of life and the cosmos. Conspiracy theory mindsets provide creationists (Best, 2018). Mehta (2019e) stated:
The good news: Belief in Young Earth Creationism is nearly as low as it’s ever been, and acceptance of evolution by natural selection is at an all-time high!
The bad news: Belief in Young Earth Creationism is still nearly twice as popular as reality.
Unfortunately, if well financed, and if an invalid epistemological belief-building structure, and if sufficient fervor and zeal, then we come to the problems extant in one nation extending into another country, as in the creationist theme park in Hong Kong (Taete, 2019). The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky remains an – ahem – testament and warning as to the problems inherent in the religious-based conceptualization of the natural world, of the world discovered by science and organized by the theoretical frameworks of scientists (Creation Museum, 2019). They have a life-sized Noah’s Ark and an Eden Zoo. Onward with these problems of education and theology proposed as science, the main concern becomes the proliferation of bad science.
The choice for good science is ours if we work where it counts: education.
[1] The Creation Club [Ed. David Rives Ministries] is an online resource (2016), which lists a large number of creationists for consumption and production of similar materials around the world: David Rives, Sara J. Mikkelson, Cheri Fields, Duane Caldwell, Tom Shipley, Jay Wile, Jay Hall, Vinnie Harned, Dr. Tas Walker, Avery Foley, Bryan Melugin, Karl Priest, Tiffany Denham, Garret Haley, Dr. Jack Burton, Terry Read, Mike Snavely and Carrie Snavely, Caleb LePore, Kate [Loop] Hannon, Russel Grigg, Russ Miller, Dante Duran, Doug Velting, Joseph Mastropaolo, Zachary Bruno, Bob Sorensen, Daniel Currier, Bob Enyart, Steve Schramm, Todd Elder, Dr. Jason Lisle, Walter Sivertsen, Janessa Cooper, Christian Montanez, Peter Schreimer, Todd Wood, Gary Bates, Lindsay Harold, Luke Harned, Wendy MacDonald, Dr. Charles Jackson, Emma Dieterle, Jim Liles, Victoria Bowbottom, Jeff Staddon, Rachel Hamburg, Tim Newton, Dr. Carolyn Reeves, Emory Moynagh, Bill Wise, Richard William Nelson, David Bump, Kally Lyn Horn, Tom Wagner, Mark Finkheimer, Paul Tylor, Jim Brenneman, Benjamin Owen, Steven Martins, Dr. John Hartnett, David Rives, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Mark Opheim, Mark Crouch, Salvador Cordova, Jim Gibson, Dr. Edward Boudreaux, Stephanie Clark, Faith P., Sara H., Donnie Chappell, George Maxwelll, Dr. Jerry Bergman, Jonathan Schulz, Albert DeBenedictis, Steve Hendrickson, Pat Mingarelli, Verle Bell, Bill Kolstad, D.S. Causey, Michael J. Oard, Jillene Bailey, NNathan Hutcherson, Tammara Horn, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geoff Chapman, Philip Bell, Denis Dreves, Len Den Beer, Stella Heart, Joe Taylor, Trooy DeVlieger, Patrick Nurre, Roger Wheelock, David Mikkelson, Douglas Harold, Louie Giglio, Eric Metaxas, and Murry Rives.
[2] See America’s difficulty with Darwin. (2009, February). History Today, 59(2), 22-28.
[3] See Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76-79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811.
[4] See Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[5] See Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch. J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? BioScience, 53(8), 766-771.
[6] See Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76-79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811
[7] See Cameron, A. (2006). An utterly hopeless muddle. The Presbyterian Record, 130(5), 18-21..
[8] See Noll, M. A. (1992). A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[9] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[10] See Steffenhagen, J., & Baker, R. (2012, November 8). Humanist wants Abbotsford School District scrutinized for Bible distribution. Abbotsford Times.
[11] See Gay-friendly course halted by Abbotsford school board. (2008, September 21). The Vancouver Sun.
[12] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[13] See Sweet, L. (1997). God in the classroom: The controversial issue of religion in Canada’s schools. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Inc.
[14] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[15] See British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (1995). Comments on the “creation science” movement in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://bccla.org/our_work/comments-on-the-creation-science-movement-in-british-columbia/.
[16] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[17] See Ibid.
[18] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[19] See British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (1995). Comments on the “creation science” movement in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://bccla.org/our_work/comments-on-the-creation-science-movement-in-british-columbia/.
[20] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[21] See Ibid.
[22] See Ibid.
[23] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[24] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[25] See British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (1995). Comments on the “creation science” movement in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://bccla.org/our_work/comments-on-the-creation-science-movement-in-british-columbia/.
[26] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[27] See Todd, D. (1995). Abbotsford teachers want Genesis out of Biology 11 class: Creationism stays, school chair insists. The Vancouver Sun.
[28] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[29] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[30] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[31] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[32] See Byfield, T., & Byfield, V. (1995, November 20). Religious dogma is banned in B.C. science classes to make way for irreligious dogma. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 36.
[33] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[34] See Todd, D. (1995). Abbotsford teachers want Genesis out of Biology 11 class: Creationism stays, school chair insists. The Vancouver Sun.
[35] See Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
[36] See Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85-108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
[37] See Sweet, L. (1997). God in the classroom: The controversial issue of religion in Canada’s schools. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart Inc.
[38] See Ibid.
[39] See Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981-1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
[40] See British Columbia Ministry of Education (2006). Biology 11 and 12 Integrated Resource Package 2006. [Program of Studies]. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/sciences/2006biology1112.pdf.
[41] See School District No. 34 – Abbotsford. (1996). Origin of Life. [Curriculum Guide].
[42] See Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2004). Biology 3201 Curriculum Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/guides/science/bio3201/outcomes.pdf.
[43] See Laidlaw, S. (2007, April 2). Creationism debate continues to evolve. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/life/2007/04/02/creationism_debate_continues_to_evolve.html.
[44] See Halfnight, D. (2008, September). Where’s Darwin? The United Church Observer. Retrieved from http://www.ucobserver.org/ethics/2008/09/wheres_darwin/.
[45] See Alphonso, C. (2007, September 4). Quebec Mennonites moving to Ontario for faith-based teaching. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-mennonites-moving-to-ontario-for-faith-based-teaching/article1081765/.
[46] See Bergen, R. (2007, September 1). Education laws prompt Mennonites to pack bags; Quebec residents move to Ontario so kids can be taught creationism. Times – Colonist.
[47] See Alphonso, C. (2007, September 4). Quebec Mennonites moving to Ontario for faith-based teaching. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-mennonites-moving-to-ontario-for-faith-based-teaching/article1081765/.
[48] See Dunn, C. (2007, June 5) A Canadian home for creationism. CBC News. [Video file].
[49] See Halfnight, D. (2008, September). Where’s Darwin? The United Church Observer. Retrieved from http://www.ucobserver.org/ethics/2008/09/wheres_darwin/.
References
[Matt Walsh]. (2018, October 18). Why I’m Not A Young Earth Creationist | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 126. Retrieved from
.
Abbass, V. (2014b, February 5). Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/02/celebrate-darwins-birthday/.
Abbass, V. (2014a, March 1). The Appropriation of Natural. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/03/the-appropriation-of-natural/.
Acadia Divinity College. (2019). Search Results for: creationism. Retrieved from
Access Research Network. (2019). AccessResearch Network. Retrieved from www.arn.org.
ACLU. (n.d.b). ACLU HISTORY: THE SCOPES ‘MONKEY TRIAL’. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-scopes-monkey-trial.
ACLU. (n.d.a). WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SAYS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design.
Adams, N. (2005, July 5). Timeline: Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2005/07/05/4723956/timeline-remembering-the-scopes-monkey-trial.
ADL. (2019). Religious Doctrine in the Science Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/religion-in-public-schools/creationism.
Alleyne, R. (2010, September 17). Pope Benedict XVI’s astronomer: the Catholic Church welcomes aliens. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html.
Alphonso, C. (2007, September 4). Quebec Mennonites moving to Ontario for faith-based teaching. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-mennonites-moving-to-ontario-for-faith-based-teaching/article1081765/.
Ambrose University. (2019). IND 287–1 SCIENCE AND FAITH. Retrieved from https://ambrose.edu/course/ind-287-1-science-and-faith.
America’s difficulty with Darwin. (2009, February). History Today, 59(2), 22–28.
American Atheists. (2018, September 10). Creationist Encourages Kentucky Schools to Violate Constitution After Atheist Advisory Letter. Retrieved from https://www.atheists.org/2018/09/ken-ham-response/.
American Experience. (n.d.). John Scopes. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/monkeytrial-john-scopes/.
American Psychiatric Association. (2019). What Is Mental Illness?. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness.
Anglican Diocese of British Columbia. (2019). Creation Matters. Retrieved from https://www.bc.anglican.ca/diocesan-ministries/special-ministries/pages/creation-matters–184.
Answers in Genesis. (2019a). Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
.
Answers in Genesis. (2019b). Calvin Smith Executive Director and Speaker (Canada). Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/bios/calvin-smith/.
Answers in Genesis. (2019c). Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/.
Apologetics Canada. (2019). Adam and Eve and the Human Genome: An Interview with Dennis Venema. Retrieved from https://apologeticscanada.com/2018/11/30/adam-and-eve-and-the-human-genome-an-interview-with-dennis-venema/.
Archer, M. (2018, August 21). Fewer Australian university students than ever before believe in creationism. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/fewer-australian-university-students-than-ever-before-believe-in-creationism-101674.
Armenta, T. & Lane, K. E. (2010). Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the evolution controversy in public education. The Clearing House, 83, 76–79. doi:10.1080/00098651003655811
Armstrong, J. (2004, November). “Was Darwin Wrong?” — A Critique. Retrieved from www. cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/wasdarwinwrong.html.
Asher, R.J. (2014, January 9). A New Objection to Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-new-objection-to-intell_b_4557876.
Ashliman, D.L. (2003, January 8). The Creation of Life on Earth. Retrieved from https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/rael.html.
Aydin, C. (2018, July 11). Turkish televangelist Adnan Oktar blames ‘British deep state’ over detention on several charges. Retrieved from www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-televangelist-adnan-oktar-blames-british-deep-state-over-detention-on-several-charges-134430.
Bailey, R. (2014, November 21). Paradox: Christian Creationism Bad — Native American Creationism Good. Retrieved from https://reason.com/2014/10/21/paradox-christian-creationism-bad-native/.
Baklinski, TM. (2010, March 5). AUSTRALIA BANS CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS FROM TEACHING CREATIONISM. Retrieved from https://arpacanada.ca/news/2010/03/05/lifesitenewscom-australia-bans-christian-schools-from-teaching-creationism/.
Barker, J. (2004). Creationism in Canada. In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The cultures of creationism (pp. 85–108). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Bars, S.L. (2011, June 2). In France, a Muslim Offensive Against Evolution. Retrieved from content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075011,00.html.
Baptist Creation Ministries. (2019). Recommendations. Retrieved from https://baptistcreation.org/recommendations/.
Bateman, P.W. & Moran-Ellis, J. (2007, July/August). The science in the intelligent design debate: teach it like it is. Retrieved from www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532007000400005.
Batten, D. (n.d.a). But it’s divisive!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/but-its-divisive/.
Batten, D. (n.d.b). L’âge de la Terre : 101 preuves de la jeunesse de la terre et de l’univers. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2010/07/lage-de-la-terre-101-preuves-de-la-jeunesse-de-la-terre-et-de-lunivers/.
Bauslaugh, G. (2008, January/February). One Large Defeat For Science In Canada. Retrieved from https://skepticalinquirer.org/2008/01/one_large_defeat_for_science_in_canada/.
Bazzle, S. (2015, January 18). Biology Professor Says Creationist Magazine Misquoted Him To Perpetuate Lies Against Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.inquisitr.com/1766536/biology-professor-creationist-magazine/.
BBC News. (2009, June 2). Creationism and intelligent design. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml.
BBC News. (2002, December). Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/rowanwilliams_1.shtml.
BBC News. (2000, November 28). Stockwell Day: Preaching politician. Retrieved from www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1042814.stm.
BCHA. (2018, November 28). Poll: British Columbians oppose teaching creationism in schools. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/researchco_poll_british_columbians_oppose_teaching_creationism_in_schools.
Beckwith, F.J. (2009, June 9). Intelligent Design in the Schools. Retrieved from https://www.equip.org/article/intelligent-design-in-the-schools/.
Benzie, R. & Ferguson, R. (2015, February 24). Sex education debate at Queen’s Park gets nasty. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/02/24/sex-education-debate-at-queens-park-gets-nasty.html.
Bergen, R. (2007, September 1). Education laws prompt Mennonites to pack bags; Quebec residents move to Ontario so kids can be taught creationism. Times — Colonist.
Berger, P.L. (2010, July 29). Pentecostalism — Protestant Ethic or Cargo Cult?. Retrieved from https://www.the-american-interest.com/2010/07/29/pentecostalism-protestant-ethic-or-cargo-cult/.
Bergman, J. (n.d.b). Le darwinisme et l’holocauste nazi. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/holocauste/.
Bergman, J. (n.d.d). L’effet du darwinisme sur la moralité et le christianisme. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/moralite/.
Bergman, J. (n.d.a). L’enseignement darwinien sur l’infériorité des femmes. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/inferiorite_des_femmes/.
Bergman, J. (n.d.c). L’incroyable dromadaire. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2014/12/lincroyable-dromadaire/.
Berthault, G. (n.d.). Expériences de stratification. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/stratification/.
Best, S. (2018, August 20). People who believe that God created the Earth are also more likely to believe CONSPIRACY THEORIES, study reveals. Retrieved from https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/people-who-believe-god-created-13110217.
Beverly, J. (2018, February 28). An update on the creation debate. Retrieved from https://www.faithtoday.ca/Magazines/2018-Jan-Feb/An-update-on-the-creation-debate.
Big Valley Creation Science Museum. (2019). Welcome to the Big Valley Creation Science Museum. Retrieved from www.bvcsm.com.
Biologic Institute. (2019). Biological Institute. Retrieved from
.
Bissett, K. (2017, November 13). Governor-General Julie Payette praises freedom of religion, tolerance. Retrieved from https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/governor-general-julie-payette-praises-freedom-of-religion-tolerance/article36873050/.
Blancke, S. & Kjærgaard, P.C. (2016, October 1). Creationism Invades Europe. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eurocreationism/.
Bobbin, S. (2018, June 15). So a Geologist Walks Into a Creationist Museum …. Retrieved from https://www.gigcity.ca/2018/06/15/so-a-geologist-walks-into-a-creationist-museum/.
Boutros, A. (2007, June 9). Creationism in Canada. Retrieved from https://therevealer.org/creationism-in-canada/.
Branch, G. (2018, July 11). Harun Yahya in hot water. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/news/2018/07/harun-yahya-hot-water-0018773.
Branch, G. (2011a, April 25). Polling creationism and evolution around the world. Retrieved from https://ncse.ngo/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634.
Branch, G. (2011b, March 22). Polling creationism in Canada. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/news/2011/03/polling-creationism-canada-006556.
Braterman, P. (2017, August 2). How to slam dunk creationists when it comes to the theory of evolution. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-to-slam-dunk-creationists-when-it-comes-to-the-theory-of-evolution-81581.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (1995). Comments on the “creation science” movement in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://bccla.org/our_work/comments-on-the-creation-science-movement-in-british-columbia/.
British Columbia Ministry of Education (2006). Biology 11 and 12 Integrated Resource Package 2006. [Program of Studies]. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/sciences/2006biology1112.pdf.
Brown, A. (2009, February 13). Science vs superstition, not science vs religion. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/feb/13/religion-evolution.
Brumble, D.H. (1998, November/December). Vine Deloria Jr, Creationism, and Ethnic Pseudoscience. Retrieved from https://ncse.ngo/library-resource/vine-deloria-jr-creationism-ethnic-pseudoscience.
Burman University. (2019). Search. Retrieved from https://www.burmanu.ca/search?search_api_fulltext=creationism.
Bushfield, I. (2018, September 24). BC subsidizes the teaching of creationism in science class. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/bc_subsidizes_the_teaching_of_creationism_in_science_class.
Callier, V. (2014, October 27). Creationism conference at large U.S. research university stirs unease. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/creationism-conference-large-us-research-university-stirs-unease.
Cameron, A. (2006). An utterly hopeless muddle. The Presbyterian Record, 130(5), 18–21..
Canada Christian College. (2018). ‘Answers in Genesis Conference’ with Dr. Ken Ham — Day 3. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/CanadaChristianCollege/videos/2080109038668282/.
Canadahelps.Org. (2019). Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. Retrieved from https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/creation-science-association-of-quebec-association-de-science-creationniste-du-quebec/.
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. (2019). Creation: God’s Revelation in Nature. Retrieved from https://www.mennonitebrethren.ca/bfl-resources/creation-gods-revelation-in-nature/.
Canadian Home Education Resources. (2019). Canadian Home Education Resources. Retrieved from https://www.canadianhomeeducation.com/276-Creation-Science.
Canadian Mennonite University. (2019). CMU welcomes Dr. Dennis R. Venema as 2019’s Scientist in Residence. Retrieved from https://media.cmu.ca/sir2019.
Canadian Museum of History. (n.d.). Origin Stories — Sky Woman. Retrieved from https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/fp/fpz2f22e.html.
Canadian Press. (2007, September 5). Creationism can be taught with evolution: Tory. Retrieved from https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/creationism-can-be-taught-with-evolution-tory-1.255148.
Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. (2019). Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. Retrieved from https://www.canadianreformedseminary.ca/search.aspx?q=creationism.
Canseco, M. (2018b, November 27). B.C. leading the land in opposition to creationism in schools. Retrieved from https://biv.com/article/2018/11/bc-leading-land-opposition-creationism-schools.
Canseco, M. (2015, July 23). BC evolving away from Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/bc-evolving-away-creationism.
CAREY Theological College. (2019). CAREY Theological College. Retrieved from
Carl F.H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding. (2017). Genesis and the Age of the Earth: Does Scripture Speak Definitively about the Age of the Universe?. Retrieved from https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/calendar/trinity-debate-al-mohler-c-john-collins.
Carter, A. (2016, July 21). Evangelist who claims to heal the sick and raise the dead preaching in Hamilton. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/todd-bentley-hamilton-1.3689603.
CBC News. (2015, May 28). Alberta creationist discovers rare fish fossils in basement dig. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-creationist-discovers-rare-fish-fossils-in-basement-dig/ar-BBkmjPn. Creationism.Org. (2019). LINKS — International. Retrieved from https://www.creationism.org/topbar/linksI18L.htm.
CBC News. (2005, May 5). Creationism evolves. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/creationism-evolves.
CBC News. (2018, August 30). Gov. Gen. Julie Payette on what she learned from her controversial comments on science, religion and climate. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-julie-payette-climate-speech-lessons-1.4805004.
CBC News. (2017a, November 9). Premier Brad Wall criticizes Governor General’s ‘divine intervention’ speech. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/wall-comments-on-payette-speech-1.4394958.
CBC News. (2009, March 17). Science minister’s coyness on evolution worries researchers. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/science-minister-s-coyness-on-evolution-worries-researchers-1.800906.
CBC News. (2017b, November 8). Top U.S. creationist’s invitation as keynote speaker for Alberta homeschooling convention draws fire, Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/creationist-alberta-homeschool-convention-1.4392300.
Cell Press. (2018, August 20). Core thinking error underlies belief in creationism, conspiracy theories: study. Retrieved from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-core-error-underlies-belief-creationism.html.
CBC Radio. (2017, November 10). Creationist speaker at Alberta homeschooling conference prompts controversy. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-november-10-2017-1.4395380/creationist-speaker-at-alberta-homeschooling-conference-prompts-controversy-1.4395387.
Centre for Christian Studies. (2019). Search results for “creationism”. Retrieved from www.ccsonline.ca/?s=creationism.
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. (n.d.). The Wedge Strategy. Retrieved from www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html.
CFIC. (2014, February 7). Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham the Young Earth Creationist. Retrieved from www.centreforinquiry.ca/bill-nye-the-science-guy-vs-ken-ham-the-young-earth-creationist/.
CFIC. (2013). Film Screening: The Revisionaries. Retrieved from www.centreforinquiry.ca/film-screening-the-revisionaries-2/.
Chahal, S. S. (2002). Nation building and public education in the crossfire: An examination of the Abbotsford School Board’s 1981–1995 Origin of Life policy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/16315.
Challies, T. (2017, February 3). Is Genesis History?. Retrieved from https://www.challies.com/articles/is-genesis-history/.
Chiu, M.K. (2015, March 6). Evolving Faith. Retrieved from https://salvationist.ca/articles/2015/03/evolving-faith/.
Clarey, T. (n.d.). Les trilobites : apparition soudaine et enfouissement rapide.. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2014/02/les-trilobites-apparition-soudaine-et-enfouissement-rapide/.
Coggins, J. (2007). Creation science controversy: a tale of two museums. Retrieved from https://canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/2007/070607creation.html.
Collinsworth, B. (2006, April 10). The Flaws in Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2006/04/10/1934/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/.
Concordia Lutheran Seminary. (2019). Concordia Lutheran Seminary. Retrieved from www.concordiasem.ab.ca.
Conservapedia. (2016, September 10). The Wedge Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Wedge_Strategy.
Cook, G. (2013, July 2). Doubting “Darwin’s Doubt”. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/doubting-darwins-doubt.
Copeland, D. (2015, August 31). Will Canada be the country that dumbed itself to death?. Retrieved from https://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/31/will-canada-be-the-country-that-dumbed-itself-to-death/.
Coppedge, D.F. (2017, December 22). Un généticien corrige le théorème de Fisher, mais la correction bouleverse la sélection naturelle. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2017/12/un-geneticien-corrige-le-theoreme-de-fisher-mais-la-correction-bouleverse-la-selection-naturelle/.
Couture, B (n.d.). L’évolution: science ou croyance?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/methscien_fnal4.pdf.
Coyne, J. (2015, October 10). Canadian human biology textbook flirts with creationism. Retrieved from https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/canadian-human-biology-textbook-flirts-with-creationism/.
Coyne, J.A. (2019, March 8). Intelligent design gets even dumber. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html.
Crandall University. (2019). Search Results for: creationism. Retrieved from
Creation Discovery Centre. (2019). Creation Discovery Centre. Retrieved from
Creation Ministries International. (2019c). Ark Across the Prairies. Retrieved from https://creation.com/ark-across-the-prairies.
Creation Ministries International. (2019a). Creation Ministries International. Retrieved from
.
Creation Ministries International. (2019b). DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS. Retrieved from https://creation.com/what-we-believe.
Creation Ministries International. (2019d). Events. Retrieved from https://creation.com/events/ca/.
Creation Ministries International. (2019e). Organizations in Canada. Retrieved from https://creation.com/organizations-in-canada.
Creation Ministries International Canada. (2019a). CREATION MINISTRIES CANADA PASTORS’ SITE. Retrieved from https://creation.com/sites/ca/pastors/.
Creation Ministries International Canada. (2019b). Deconstructing Darwin Canada. Retrieved from https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-canada.
Creation Museum. (2019). Creation Museum. Retrieved from
.
Creation Research. (2019). Creation Research. Retrieved from
http://www.creationresearch.net/
.
Creation Research Museum of Ontario. (2019). Creation Research Museum of Ontario. Retrieved from
http://creationresearchontario.weebly.com
.
Creation Research Society. (2019). Creation Research Society. Retrieved from
Creation Resources Trust. (2019). Creation Resources Trust. Retrieved from https://www.c-r-t.co.uk/index.html.
Creation Safaris. (2019). Creation Safaris. Retrieved from www.creationsafaris.com.
Creation Science Association of Alberta. (2019a). Creation Science Association of Alberta. Retrieved from www.create.ab.ca.
Creation Science Association of Alberta. (2019b). About CSAA. Retrieved from www.create.ab.ca/about-csaa/.
Creation Science Association of BC. (2019a). Creation Science Association of BC. Retrieved from
.
Creation Science Association of BC. (2019b). Information on the purpose and work of the CSABC. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/about-us/.
Creation Science Association of BC. (2019c). September DVD meeting at Willingdon. Retrieved from
.
Creation Science Association of BC. (2019d). Past Events, Videos & MP3s. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/past-events-mp3s/.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019a). Articles. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/trouver-des-reponses/archives.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019e). Conférenciers. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/conferences/conferenciers.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019f). Événements. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/evenements.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019b). Foire aux questions. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/trouver-des-reponses/faq.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019g). Liens. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/trouver-des-reponses/liens.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019d). Press Kit. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/conferences/press-kit/.
Creation Science Association of Quebec — Association de Science Créationniste du Québec. (2019c). Videos. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/videos.
Creation Science Centre. (2019). Creation Science Centre. Retrieved from www.creationsciencecentre.ca/.
Creation Science in Korea. (2019). Creation Science in Korea. Retrieved from https://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-korea/.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019a). Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc.. Retrieved from www.creation-science.sk.ca.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019b). 1. Introductory Booklets & Books (High School/Adult). Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksIntroductory.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019c). 2. Children’s Books. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksChildren.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019d). 3. Christian Education (Home and School). Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksChristianEd.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019e). 4. Popular (Lay). Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksPopular.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019f). 5. Scientific (Lay). Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksLayScience.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019g). 6. Post-Secondary. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksPostSecondary.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019h). 7. Commentaries and Bible Study. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksBible.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019i). 8. Evangelism/Apologetic/Philosophical/Occult. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksApologetic.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019j). 9. Biographies and History. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/BksHistory.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019k). Audio CDs for Sale!. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/CDs.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019l). DVDs FOR SALE and ‘Borrowing’. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/DVDs.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019m). VIDEOS (VHS) still available for ‘Rent’. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/Videos.pdf.
Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc. (2019n). MISCELLANEOUS. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/PDF/Otheritems.pdf.
Creation Summit. (n.d.). Creation Summit. Retrieved from
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019f). Are the Rocks of the Earth Really Millions of Years Old?. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org/answers.html.
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019a). Creation Truth Ministries. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org.
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019b). Creation Truth Ministries’ Statement of Faith. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org/ctmbeliefs.html.
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019d). Dire Dragons Book. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org/storenews.html.
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019e). Purpose/Goals. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org/purposegoals.html.
Creation Truth Ministries. (2019c). The Secrets of Creation Traveling Museum. Retrieved from www.creationtruthministries.org/museumexhibits.html.
Creation-Evolution Headlines. (2019). Creation-Evolution Headlines. Retrieved from
.
Creationism.Com. (2019). Creationism. Retrieved from www.creationism.com.
Creationism.Org. (2019). LINKS — International. Retrieved from https://www.creationism.org/topbar/linksI18L.htm.
CreationWiki. (2016, September 28). Creation Bible Center. Retrieved from https://creationwiki.org/Creation_Bible_Center.
CreationWiki. (2018, July 13). Larry Dye. Retrieved from https://creationwiki.org/Larry_Dye.
CROP. (2017, February 10). 40% of Canadians believe that life on Earth was created in six days (The ideal prelude to Wagner’s Das Rheingold!). Retrieved from https://www.crop.ca/en/blog/2017/138/.
Dembski, B. (2016, September 23). Official Retirement from Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://billdembski.com/personal/official-retirement-from-intelligent-design/.
Demers, J. (n.d.). Que nous enseignent l’audition, la parole et le langage sur la création. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/audition/.
DeYoung, K. (2012, April 19). What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution?. Retrieved from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/whats-wrong-with-theistic-evolution-2/.
Dimatteo, E. (2018, June 14). Ontario Election 2018: 10 hard lessons on Doug Ford’s win from hell. Retrieved from https://nowtoronto.com/news/ontario-election-2018-doug-ford-win/.
Discovery Institute. (2019). Center for Science and Culture. Retrieved from https://www.discovery.org/id/.
Discovery Institute. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/.
Douglas, L. (2018, July 19). How to Save Children from Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2018/07/how-to-save-children-from-creationism/.
Dubois, C. (2014, November 11). Evolution and creationism in education still under debate. Retrieved from www.themanitoban.com/2014/11/evolution-creationism-education-still-debate/21505/.
Dunn, C. (2007, June 5) A Canadian home for creationism. CBC News. [Video file].
Edwords, F. (n.d.). Dealing With “Scientific” Creationism. Retrieved from https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/dealing-scientific-creationism/.
Elliott, J. (2014, October 6). B.C. ‘Pastafarian’ loses driver’s licence over holy colander hat. Retrieved from https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastafarian-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-hat-1.2041844.
Elliott, J. (2014, October 29). Pope Francis: Evolution is real, God did not wave a ‘magic wand’. Retrieved from https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pope-francis-evolution-is-real-god-did-not-wave-a-magic-wand-1.2076772.
Elsdon-Baker, F. (2017, September 5). Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists.
Emmanuel College. (2019). Emmanuel College. Retrieved from www.emmanuel.utoronto.ca.
Environment and Ecology. (2019). Intelligent Design. Retrieved from www.environment-ecology.com/religion-and-ecology/371-intelligent-design.html.
Examining Atheism. (2019, March 28). Atheist author and advocate is absolutely TERRIFIED about the future growth of pentecostal Christianity. Retrieved from https://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2019/03/atheist-author-and-advocate-is.html.
Faith Beyond Belief. (2019, June 6). Is Biblical Creationism Based on Science?. Retrieved from https://www.faithbeyondbelief.ca/podcast/2019/6/6/is-biblical-creationism-based-in-science.
Farrell, J. (2015, July 31). Meet The Canadian Scientist Who Loves Battling American Creationists. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2015/07/31/meet-the-canadian-scientist-who-loves-battling-american-creationists/#2e8f02203f20.
Fast, R. (n.d.a). The Age of Things. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/theageofthings.html.
Fast, R. (n.d.b). The Big Bang. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/thebigbang.html.
Feltman, R. (2015, May 28). Whoops! A creationist museum supporter stumbled upon a major fossil find.. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/28/whoops-a-creationist-museum-supporter-stumbled-upon-a-major-fossil-find/.
Ferguson, R. (2015, February 25). Tory MPP Rick Nicholls says he doesn’t believe in evolution. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/02/25/tory-mpp-rick-nicholls-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-evolution.html.
Focus on the Family. (2019). Focus on the Family. Retrieved from
.
Foster, P. (2017, November 8). Who’s name-calling whom?. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/whos-name-calling-whom.
Funk, R. (2017, October 23). Christian Faith Church Takes On Creation/Evolution Debate. Retrieved from https://www.pembinavalleyonline.com/local/christian-faith-church-takes-on-the-creation-evolution-debate.
Funk, C., Smith, G., & Masci, D. (2019, February 12). How Many Creationists Are There in America?. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-many-creationists-are-there-in-america/.
Gagné, A. (2019, July 24). The Christian right’s efforts to transform society. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-christian-rights-efforts-to-transform-society-120878.
Garner, R. (2014, January 17). New laws are needed to prevent creationism ‘indoctrination’ in independent schools, says top science educator. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/new-laws-are-needed-to-prevent-creationism-indoctrination-in-independent-schools-says-top-science-9067488.html.
Gauger, A. (2018, March 2). A Professor’s Journey Away from Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/a-professors-journey-away-from-intelligent-design/.
Gay-friendly course halted by Abbotsford school board. (2008, September 21). The Vancouver Sun.
Gerson, J. (2015, March 12). Being a creationist conservative in Canada ‘gives your opponents a tremendous amount of ammunition’. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/creationist-conservatives-in-canada.
Ghose, T. (2014, June 5). 4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html.
Gibbons, W. (n.d.). À la recherche du dinosaure du Congo. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2002/05/a-la-recherche-du-dinosaure-du-congo/.
Globe and Mail. (2018, September 28). Globe editorial: Julie Payette’s problems as Governor-General are hers to fix. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-julie-payettes-problems-as-governor-general-are-hers/.
Godbout, N. (2018, October 11). SOGI not up to school boards. Retrieved from https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/opinion/editorial/sogi-not-up-to-school-boards-1.23461550.
GoodReads.Com. (2019). Malcolm Muggeridge. Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/913269-i-myself-am-convinced-that-the-theory-of-evolution-especially.
Goodwood Baptist Church. (2019). Goodwood Baptist Church. Retrieved from www.goodwoodbaptistchurch.com/creation-museum.
Gosselin, P. (1995). Explosions démographiques. Retrieved from www.samizdat.qc.ca//cosmos/origines/pop/demogr.htm.
Government of Canada. (2019). Canada’s food guide. Retrieved from https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/.
Government of Canada. (2006, April 11). Evolution and intelligent design: SSHRC in the news. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2006/04/evolution-intelligent-design-sshrc-news.html.
Graham, W.A. (2017, February 10). How Old Is the World?. Retrieved from www.wyattgraham.com/how-old-is-the-world/.
Green, E. (2014, June 9). Intelligent Design: Slowly Going Out of Style?. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/intelligent-design-slowly-going-out-of-style/372454/.
Grigg, R. (n.d.a). Du nouveau sur la fraude d’Haeckel. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2012/01/du-nouveau-sur-la-fraude-dhaeckel/.
Grigg, R. (n.d.b). L’enfant illégitime de Darwin. Retrieve from www.creationnisme.com/2015/09/lenfant-illegitime-de-darwin/.
Halfnight, D. (2008, September). Where’s Darwin? The United Church Observer. Retrieved from http://www.ucobserver.org/ethics/2008/09/wheres_darwin/.
Hall, A. (2017, September 5). PRESS RELEASE: results of major new survey on evolution. Retrieved from https://sciencereligionspectrum.org/in-the-news/press-release-results-of-major-new-survey-on-evolution/.
Ham, K. (2011, August 31). Intelligent Design Is Not Enough. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/08/31/intelligent-design-is-not-enough/.
Ham, K. (2018, October 20). Matt Walsh and a Young Earth. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/matt-walsh-and-young-earth/.
Hanley, P. (2014, February 12). Can schools find way through creationism-meets-science minefield in the classroom?. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/can-schools-find-way-through-creationism-meets-science-minefield-in-the-classroom-22807.
Hare Krishna. (2019). Primary Creation. Retrieved from www.krishna.com/primary-creation.
Harmon, K. (2011, March 3). Evolution Abroad: Creationism Evolves in Science Classrooms around the Globe. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/.
Hartwig, M. (n.d.). tires Qu’est-ce que la théorie de la création intelligente ?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/crea_intel/.
Haught, J. (2019, September 17). Preachers Who Awoken. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/09/preachers-who-awaken/.
Hebert, M. (n.d.). Jésus: Créateur, créationniste et scientifique !. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2010/01/jesus_createur/.
Henderson, P. (2018, September 6). Biblical creationist joins Chilliwack school board race. Retrieved from https://www.theprogress.com/municipal-election/biblical-creationist-joins-chilliwack-school-board-race/.
Henley, J. (2019, September 18). Documentary follows Pastafarians as they strain for recognition. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/18/documentary-follows-pastafarians-strain-for-recognition.
Heritage College & Seminary. (2019). Heritage College & Seminary. Retrieved from
Higgins, P. (2014, February 4). Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record Can Science Support Creationism?. Retrieved from https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/can_science_support_creationism/?/specialarticles/show/can_science_support_creationism.
Hillson, D. (n.d.). The Unforgettable Flight. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-unforgettable-flight/.
Hinman, N. (2009, October 6). On the Origin of Creationism with Kirk Cameron: The Canadian Response. Retrieved from www.skepticnorth.com/2009/10/on-the-origin-of-creationism-with-kirk-cameron-the-canadian-response/.
History.Com Editors. (2019, June 10). Scopes Trial. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial.
Hoag, H (2006, April 5). Doubts over evolution block funding by Canadian agency. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/440720b.
Holpuch, A. (2015, May 31). Creationist hopes his fossil find will get two plaques — one fitting his world view. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/31/creationist-fossil-alberta-canada-museum.
Hordijk, W. (June, 2017). Evolution Is As Real As Gravity. Retrieved from https://evolution-institute.org/evolution-is-as-real-as-gravity/.
Humanists, Atheists, & Agnostics of Manitoba. (2019). Morden Outreach 2019. Retrieved from www.mbhumanistsatheists.ca/event/morden-outreach-2019/.
Humanists International. (2019, September 19). BREAKING: Persecuted humanist, Gulalai Ismail, safe in United States. Retrieved from https://humanists.international/2019/09/breaking-persecuted-humanist-gulalai-ismail-safe-in-united-states/.
Humanists UK. (2019). Science, evolution and creationism. Retrieved from https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/school-curriculum/science-evolution-and-creationism/.
Humphreys, D.R. (n.d.b). Faits appuyant l’hypothèse d’une terre jeune. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/terre_jeune/.
Humphreys, R. (n.d.d). Le Champ magnétique terrestre: toujours récent. Retrieved from www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/sc_nat/humph/geomag_rh.htm.
Humphreys, R. (n.d.c). La désintégration nucléaire : évidence d’une terre jeune. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/helium_age/.
Humphreys, R. (n.d.a). Le temps et la lumière des étoiles. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/cosm_trou/.
IDEA. (2019). Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Center. Retrieved from www.ideacenter.org.
IDURC. (2019). Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center. Retrieved from www.idurc.org.
IMDb. (2003c, June). A Creation Evolution Debate (2003). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3809764/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2016c, May 1). A Matter of Faith. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2587914/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1998). A Question of Origins (1998). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0801007/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2017, May 19). Alien: Covenant (2017). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2010). All Creatures Great and Small: Microbes and Creation (2010). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3825636/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2003b). Answering the Critics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt3750696/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004g). Berkeley Finally Hears the Truth (2004). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3802598/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2002). Christ in Prophecy. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3223464/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2007, December 23). Creation and Evolution: A Witness of Prophets (2007). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2065907/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014a, March). Creation and the Last Days (2014). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3818234/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2005c). Creation Boot Camp. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3523048/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012a). Creation Bytes!. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3054642/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004b). Creation in the 21st Century. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3103298/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2001a). Creation Science 101. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3748014/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2000b). Creation Science 102. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3755858/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2001b). Creation Science 103. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3775508/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2001c). Creation Science 104. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3790302/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2005a). Creation Seminar. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3720610/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1999b). Creation Seminar. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3801750/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2011a). Creation Today. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3017190/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2013). Creation Training Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3835164/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012e, March 9). Deconstructing Dawkins (2012). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3355090/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004a). Design: The Evolutionary Nightmare (2004). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3893562/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014d). Design(er). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3823772/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2006b). Dinosaurs and the Bible (2006). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3828844/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2015). Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5062926/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2000). Earth: Young or Old?. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3755980/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004c). Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time (2004). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3886952/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014, October 17). Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels (2014). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3863814/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2013a, July 22). Evolution vs. God: Shaking the Foundations of Faith (2013). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3064248/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2008a, April 18). Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2007d). Faithful Word Baptist Church. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3840030/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1999a). Genesis: History or Myth (1999). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3811966/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1994, September 16). Genesis: The Creation and the Flood (1994). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109884/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2011b). Genesis Week. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3069342/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2008b, March 1). God of Wonders (2008). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3106646/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2011c, May 13). Hard Questions for Evolutionists (2011). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3972978/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2013b, May 6). How to Answer the Fool (2013). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3237168/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2016a, April 24). Kent Hovind: An Atheist’s Worst Nightmare (2016). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5661968/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2007e). Noah’s Ark: Thinking Outside the Box (2007). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3819114/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2006c). Noah’s Flood: Washing Away the Millions of Years (2006). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3819168/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012c, May 6). Not All ‘Christian’ Universities Are Christian (2012). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3831412/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004, March). Old Earth vs. Young Earth (2004). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3810016/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2015b, January 5). Open-Air Preaching (2015). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4430666/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1985). Origins. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2572958/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014, February 5). Post-Debate Answers Live W/Ken Ham (2014). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3830260/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012, June 8). Prometheus. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/.
IMDb. (2008c). Red River Bible & Prophecy Conference. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3627884/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2003c). Six Days & the Eisegesis Problem (2003). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3834882/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2011c). Starlight and a Young Earth (2011). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3558938/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1995). Startling Proofs (1995). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1895536/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1993). Steeling the Mind. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3868812/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2016c, July 29). The Atheist Delusion (2016). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5910814/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2016b, August 1). The Building of the Ark Encounter (2016). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6105404/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2006a, July 15). The Case for a Creator (2006). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938294/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2013e). The Comfort Zone. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3478728/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2010a, October 5). The Creation: Faith, Science, Intelligent Design (2010). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832487/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2003a). The Creation Adventure Team: A Jurassic Ark Mystery (2003). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3899684/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2009a, April 19). The Earth Is Young (2009). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454680/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004d). The Genesis Conflict. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3343556/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (1987). The Genesis Solution (1987). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2137668/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014e). The Genetics of Adam & Eve (2014). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3830272/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2005d). The Intelligent Design Movement: How Intelligent Is It? (2005). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3823982/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012d). The Six Days of Genesis. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3073696/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2013c). The Interview: Past, Present, Future (2013). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3832770/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2007, October). The Longevity Secret: Is Noahs Ark the Key to Immortality? (2007). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1679310/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2014c). The Pre & Post Debate Commentary Live. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3504126/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2004e). Three on One! At Embry Riddle (2004). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3693136/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2012b, June 7). What’s Wrong with Evolution? (2012). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3831374/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
IMDb. (2010c). Wonder of the Cell (2010). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3830168/?ref_=kw_li_tt.
Indi. (2017b, October 9). Answers in Genesis is coming to Canada? Great!. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/10/answers-in-genesis-canada/.
Indi. (2018, January 31). 2018 Canadian Atheist Awards — Person of the year. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/2018-canadian-atheist-awards-person-of-the-year/.
Indi. (2019, January 30). 2019 Canadian Atheist Awards — Person of the year. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/2019-canadian-atheist-awards-person-of-the-year/.
Indi. (2015, May 14). CBC News laments the decline of religion in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2015/05/cbc-news-laments-the-decline-of-religion-in-canada/.
Indi. (2014, February 8). There are stupid questions. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/02/there-are-stupid-questions/.
Indi. (2018a, December 8). Weekly Update: 1-Dec-2018 to 7-Dec-2018. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/12/weekly-update-2018-12-01-to-2018-12-07/.
Indi. (2017c, August 19). Weekly Update: 12-Aug-2017 to 18-Aug-2017. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/08/weekly-update-2017-08-12-to-2017-08-18/.
Indi. (2018b, December 1). Weekly Update: 24-Nov-2018 to 30-Nov-2018. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/12/weekly-update-2018-11-24-to-2018-11-30/.
Indi. (2018c, June 2). Weekly Update: 26-May-2018 to 1-Jun-2018. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/06/weekly-update-2018-05-26-to-2018-06-01/.
Indi. (2018e, February 3). Weekly Update: 27-Jan-2018 to 2-Feb-2018. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/02/weekly-update-2018-01-27-to-2018-02-02/.
Indi. (2017a, November 4). Weekly Update: 28-Oct-2017 to 3-Nov-2017. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/11/weekly-update-2017-10-28-to-2017-11-03/.
Institute for Creation Research. (2019). Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved from https://www.icr.org/homepage/.
Intelligent Design Network. (2019). Intelligent Design Network. Retrieved from www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org.
International Creation Science Special Interest Group. (n.d.b). Members. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/members.html.
International Creation Science Special Interest Group. (n.d.c). Our Mission. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/mission.html.
International Creation Science Special Interest Group. (n.d.a). Welcome!. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/enter.html.
iResearchNet. (2019). Beliefs in Creationism. Retrieved from www.anthropology.iresearchnet.com/beliefs-in-creationism/.
Jackson, G.C. (2005a, August). “Was Darwin Wrong?”. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/jacksonnatgeog.html.
Jackson, G.C. (2005b, December). Entropy & Life (with a Matrix twist). Retrieved from www.icssig.org/matrix.html.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018h, February 15). 2017 in Review with Professor David Orenstein. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/02/orenstein-2/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018d, May 1). About One in Five Canadians are Young Earth Creationists. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/05/creationism/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018k, January 10). An Interview with David McGinness — SSA President, California State University San Marcos. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/david-mcginness/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018e, March 19). An Interview with Dr. Leo Igwe — Founder, Nigerian Humanist Movement. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/03/leo-igwe%e2%80%8a/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018p, January 29). An Interview with James-Adeyinka Shorungbe — Director, Humanist Assembly of Lagos. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/james-adeyinka/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018i, February 1). An Interview with Kayla Bowen — President, SSA at Morehead State University. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/02/kayla-bowen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018j, January 25). An Interview with Professor Michael J. Berntsen — Faculty Advisor, University of North Carolina at Pembroke SSA — Part 3. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/michael-berntsen%e2%80%8a-2/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018f, March 16). An Interview with Ray Zhong — Translator, Amsterdam Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/03/ray-zhong/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019a, September 9). And now, a word from our sponsors…. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/09/sponsors-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018m, December 25). A Secular Women’s History Moment. Retrieved from https://www.newsintervention.com/a-secular-womens-history-moment/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019n, January 7). Ask Gretta 1 — World Beyond Belief Through Grace in the Search for Understanding. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/gretta-1-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019o, January 14). Ask Gretta 2 — Expect the Unexpected, and the Expected. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/gretta-2-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019p, January 28). Ask Gretta 3: What Is The Stance of the United Church of Canada on the Resurrection?. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/ask-gretta-3-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019q, February 20). Ask Gretta 4: Why Are Canadians Less Likely To Be Fundamentalists?. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/02/ask-gretta-4-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019r, March 5). Ask Gretta 5 — Upon This Rock: A Shared Future With Those Still Comforted By Their Religious Beliefs. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/03/ask-gretta-5-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019s, March 31). Ask Gretta (and Denise) 6 — Atheists and Humanists at the Pulpit: A Tale of Two Freethinkers. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/03/ask-gretta-and-denise-7-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019e, May 16). Ask Herb 8 — A Hodge-Podge Conjecture: Me Versus Not-Me. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/05/ask-herb-8-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019u, October 5). Ask Melissa 1–2013 to Infinity: On Creationism in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/10/ask-melissa-1-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018o, February 1). Conversation with Atheist Minister Gretta Vosper — Current Context. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2018/02/conversation-atheist-minister-gretta-vosper-current-context/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018c, October 15). Conversation with Dr. Gleb Tsipursky — Co-Founder, Pro-Truth Pledge & Intentional Insights. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/10/tsipursky-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018l, January 9). Discussion with a Tanzanian Eminent Public Figure Who Happened to be a Freethinker. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/discussion-with-a-tanzanian-eminent-public-figure-who-happened-to-be-a-freethinker/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018b, December 18). End of the Year BCHA Interview with Ian Bushfield. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/12/bushfield-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017b, September). Evolution vs. Creationism via “Scientific American” E-Book. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/09/evolution-creationism/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018g, February 16). In Conversation with Joyce Arthur — Founder and Executive Director, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/02/arthur/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018n, January 12). In Conversation with Atheist Minister Gretta Vosper — Current Context. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/01/vosper/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019h, January 3). In-Depth Interview with Fredric L. Rice — Co-Founder, The Skeptic Tank. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/rice-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017, November 16). Indefinite Delay in Ecclesiastical Court Hearing for Minister Gretta Vosper. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/11/gretta-vosper/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019m, January 9). Interview with Ann Reid — Executive Director, National Center for Science Education. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/interview-with-ann-reid-executive-director-national-center-for-science-education/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019k, January 14). Interview with Kristine Klopp — Assistant State Director, American Atheists Alabama. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/klopp-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019i, March 5). Interview with Jim Hudlow — President, Inland Northwest Freethought Society. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/03/hudlow-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019t, October 2). Interview with Melissa Story on Personal Story and Christian Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/10/story-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019c, July 16). Interview with Minister Bruce McAndless-Davis — Minister, Peninsula United Church & Curator, ThirdSpace Community Café. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/07/mcandless-davis-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019d, June 10). Interview with Luke Douglas — Executive Director, Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/06/douglas-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019j, January 22). Interview with Patrick Morrow — (New) President, Humanists Atheists and Agnostics of Manitoba. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/morrow-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019f, March 25). Interview with Professor Kenneth Miller — Professor, Brown University. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/03/miller-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019g, March 7). Interview with Rob Boston — Editor, Church & State (Americans United for Separation of Church and State). Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/03/boston-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017, October 15). Interview with Roslyn Mould: President of the Humanist Association of Ghana; Chair of the African working group (IHEYO). Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/10/roslyn-mould/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019, August 29). Interview with Secular Community Member at Baylor University. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/08/baylor-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2018a, December 31). Interview with Tim Mendham — Executive Officer & Editor, Australian Skeptics Inc.. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/12/mendham-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019l, January 12). Interview with Tim Ward — Assistant State Director, American Atheists Oklahoma. Retrieved fromhttps://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/01/ward-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017c, November 5). Payette: It’s a Joke, Folks. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/11/payette/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2019, April 6). See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil: Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey Hearsay. Retrieved from https://www.newsintervention.com/evil-jacobsen/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017a). Short Chat with Professor Laurence A. Moran. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/09/laurence-moran/.
Jacobsen, S.D. (2017d, September 30). The Calgary Pride Parade with Christine M. Shellska. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2017/09/the-calgary-pride-parade-with-christine-m-shellska/.
Jayne, R.D. (2019, July 8). Keeping church and state separate does not stifle religious freedom. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/keeping-church-and-state-separate-does-not-stifle-religious-freedom/.
Johnston, J. (2017, June 29). How an unlikely pastor started one of Canada’s fastest growing churches. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/village-church-growth-1.4184294.
Joseph, B. (2012, January 21). Scientific and Indigenous Perspectives of the “New World”. Retrieved from https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/scientific-and-indigenous-perspectives-of-the-new-world.
Juby, I. (2005aa, July). “Does God Exist?”. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/doesgodexist.html.
Juby, I. (2005ab, December). “On Evolution and Design”, a response to Bernard Cloutier. Retrieved from www.icssig.org/augmc2article.html.
Juby, I. (2015p, April 23). A letter with questions regarding the age of the earth. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/a-letter-with-questions-regarding-the-age-of-the-earth/.
Juby, I. (2015f, March 30). A study of The cliffs of Joggins — Part I. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/a-study-of-the-cliffs-of-joggins-part-i/.
Juby, I. (2015g, March 30). A study of The cliffs of Joggins — Part II. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/a-study-of-the-cliffs-of-joggins-part-ii/.
Juby, I. (2015h, April 1). A study of The cliffs of Joggins — Part III. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/a-study-of-the-cliffs-of-joggins-part-iii/.
Juby, I. (2015t, May 19). Commentary: US “doomed” if creationist president is elected. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/commentary-us-doomed-if-creationist-president-is-elected/.
Juby, I. (2015x, May 19). Consultants Wanted!. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/consultants-wanted/.
Juby, I. (2015j, April 8). Examining the Delk Track. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/examining-the-delk-track/.
Juby, I. (2015m, April 20). From Atoms to Traits. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/from-atoms-to-traits/.
Juby, I. (2015z, May 19). Fun family fossil dig!. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/fun-family-fossil-dig/.
Juby, I. (2015d, March 30). Giantism in the fossil record: Part I. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/the-fossil-and-frozen-records/.
Juby, I. (2015e, March 30). Giantism in the fossil record: Part II. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/giantism-in-the-fossil-record-part-ii/.
Juby, I. (2019a). Ian Juby. Retrieved from
.
Juby, I. (2015w, May 19). Liquefaction research. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/liquefaction-research/.
Juby, I. (2015a, March 27). May 1999, Let me get personal…. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/may1999-let-me-get-personal/.
Juby, I. (2019d). Media Kit. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/media-kit/.
Juby, I. (2015q, April 23). My comments on Nova’s “Ancient Creature of the Deep”. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/my-comments-on-novas-ancient-creature-of-the-deep/.
Juby, I. (2015k, April 20). Panderichthys, a supposed “fishopod”. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/988/.
Juby, I. (2015i, April 1). Preliminary reports of sedimentation experiments. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/preliminary-reports-of-sedimentation-experiments/.
Juby, I. (2015r, April 23). Put through the ringer at “The Laundromat.. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/put-through-the-ringer-at-the-laundromat/.
Juby, I. (2015o, April 23). Reply to criticisms of the Delk track report. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/reply-to-criticisms-of-the-delk-track-report/.
Juby, I. (2015u, May 19). Robot Gripper Project:. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/category/projects/.
Juby, I. (2015s, April 23). TDG felt my Sources were suspect. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/tdg-felt-my-sources-were-suspect/.
Juby, I. (2015y, May 19). The effects of pink light on life…. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/the-effects-of-pink-light-on-life/.
Juby, I. (2015l, April 20). The Evolution of Evolution. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/the-evolution-of-evolution/.
Juby, I. (2015v, March 27). The Muskrat Lake monster hunt…?. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/the-muskrat-lake-monster-hunt/.
Juby, I. (2015c, March 27). The Sauropods and the Incans. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/the-sauropods-and-the-incans/.
Juby, I. (2015n, April 23). This Old Body. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/this-old-body/.
Juby, I. (2019b). Welcome to Ian’s Store. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/dvds/.
Juby, I. (2019e). Welcome to My Blog. Retrieved from https://ianjuby.org/blog-2/.
Juby, I. (2019c). Who is Ian Juby?. Retrieved from
.
Kaufmann, B. (2017, November 9). Creationist invited to speak at Alberta home schooling convention, raising questions about curriculum. Retrieved from https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/prominent-creationist-addressing-alberta-home-schoolers-raises-hackles-curriculum-questions.
Kaufman, S. (2014, June 20). UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding, Retrieved from https://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/uk-bans-teaching-of-creationism-in-any-school-that-receives-public-funding/.
Kennedy, J.R. (2014, October 1). WATCH: Bill Nye the Science Guy predicts end of creationism is nigh. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/1592923/watch-bill-nye-the-science-guy-predicts-end-of-creationism-is-nigh/.
Kennedy, D. & Bouchard, R. (2006, February 7). Coast Salish. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/coastal-salish.
Khan, R. (2010, July 7). Liberal Creationists Are Not Very Intelligent. Retrieved from www.blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/07/liberal-creationists-are-not-very-intelligent/#.XZJzA0ZKiM8.
Khan, R. (2019, May 12). The people aren’t always right: Alabama & Creationism. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/the-people-arent-always-right-alabama-creationism/#.XZJ1PEZKiM8.
Khan, R. (2009, February 15). Which religious groups are Creationist?. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/02/which-religious-groups-are-creationist/#.XYu3ekZKiM9.
Khan, R. (2010, May 17). Who are the creationists? (by the numbers). Retrieved from www.blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/who-are-the-creationists-by-the-numbers/#.XZJxFkZKiM8.
King, B.J. (2016, August 11). When Science Stands Up To Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/08/11/489513355/when-science-stands-up-to-creationism-what-it-means-and-doesn-t-mean.
Kirkup, K. (2019, July 18). Andrew Scheer promises to review new Canada Food Guide if elected. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/5654635/andrew-scheer-food-guide/.
Klinghoffer, D. (2014, October 3). Intelligent Design’s Secret Weapon: The World. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20/.
Knox College. (2019). 0 Search Results for creationism. Retrieved from
Krattenmaker, T. (2017, July 13). Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/13/creationism-evolution-template-for-easing-divisions-tom-krattenmaker-column/467800001/.
Laats, A. & Siegel, H. (2016, April 19). Teaching Evolution Isn’t About Changing Beliefs. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/teaching-evolution-isnt-about-changing-beliefs.html.
Laidlaw, S. (2007, April 2). Creationism debate continues to evolve. The Toronto Star.Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/life/2007/04/02/creationism_debate_continues_to_evolve.html.
Lamoureux, D.O. (2019, August 29). Denis O. Lamoureux. Retrieved from https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/.
Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lauzon, J.C. (n.d.). Endoctrinés ! La vie dans un monde d’illusion et de tromperie.. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2016/02/endoctrines-la-vie-dans-un-monde-dillusion-et-de-tromperie/.
Law, S. & Jacobsen, S. (2018, April 1). In Conversation with Dr. Stephen Law — Philosopher and Author. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2018/04/law/.
Lehigh University. (2019). Department position on evolution and “intelligent design”. Retrieved from https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html.
Lehn, D. (2019, March 17). More Controversial Remarks From Chilliwack School Trustee Darrell Ferguson (VIDEO). Retrieved fromwww.fraservalleynewsnetwork.com/2019/03/17/more-controversial-remarks-from-chilliwack-school-trustee-darrell-ferguson-video/.
Lewandowsky, S. (2018, August 22). There’s a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/theres-a-psychological-link-between-conspiracy-theories-and-creationism-101849.
Logos Research Associates. (2019). Logos Research Associates. Retrieved from
.
Long, J. (2014, September 11). Life on Earth still favours evolution over creationism. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-life-earth-favours-evolution-creationism.html.
Lyons, E. (2008). Michael Behe: “No Friend of Young-Earth Creationists”. Retrieved from www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=2555.
MacBain, R. & Taylor, P.S. (2019, May 28). The Real Cost of Bad History. Retrieved from https://c2cjournal.ca/2019/05/the-real-cost-of-bad-history/.
MacDonald, E. (2015, January 13). Reading Tarek Fatah. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2015/01/reading-tarek-fatah/.
Macdonald, N. (2017, May 30). Andrew Scheer says he won’t impose his religious beliefs on Canadians. We’ll see: Neil Macdonald. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/andrew-scheer-leadership-1.4136808.
MacLeod, D. (2006, April 11). Science class no place for creationism, says Royal Society. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/apr/11/schools.uk3.
MacPherson, D. (2014f, February 2). Australians Apologize for Ken Ham. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/02/australians-apologize-for-ken-ham/.
MacPherson, D. (2014b, February 4). Can Science Support Creationism? A Great Presentation by Penny Higgins of the University of Rochester. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/02/can-science-support-creationism-a-great-presentation-by-penny-higgins-of/.
MacPherson, D. (2014a, June 22). Doonesbury Cartoon Wittily Addresses Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/06/doonesbury-cartoon-wittily-addresses-creationism/.
MacPherson, D. (2014e, February 10). Religious Books Sneaking into Science Sections in Book Stores. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/02/religious-books-sneaking-into-science-sections-in-book-stores/.
MacPherson, D. (2014c, March 8). Reminder! Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Airs Tomorrow. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/03/reminder-cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey-airs-tomorrow/.
MacPherson, D. (2014d, March 3). The Reboot of Cosmos Premières Sunday, March 9. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/03/the-reboot-of-cosmos-premieres-sunday-march-9/.
Madrigal, A. (2012, July 23). Pour modéliser le microbe le plus simple au monde, il vous faut 128 ordinateurs !. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2012/08/pour-modeliser-le-microbe-le-plus-simple-au-monde-il-vous-faut-128-ordinateurs/.
Maier, R. (2009, July 1). Critique of Intelligent Design. Retrieved from https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/critique-of-intelligent-design.
Mang, E. (2009, December 9). How religion influences Canadian politics. Retrieved from www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/ericmang/2009/12/how-religion-influences-canadian-politics/.
Marquand, R. (2015, January 11). In China, a church-state showdown of biblical proportions. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2015/0111/In-China-a-church-state-showdown-of-biblical-proportions.
Marquis, M. (2018, December 18). Julie Payette says reports of Rideau Hall turbulence greatly exaggerated. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/payette-rideau-hall-national-post-1.4950648.
Masci, D. (2019, February 11). For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/.
Master’s College and Seminary. (2019). Search Results for: “creationism”. Retrieved from
Mastropaolo, J (n.d.). L’évolution, le plus extraordinaire conte de fées jamais raconté. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/conte_de_fees/.
McBain, G. (n.d.). Quiz sur les chaînons manquants. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/quiz_chainons_manquants/.
McBreen, J. (2019, September 25). Reader Opinion: Theory of Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.brainerddispatch.com/opinion/letters/4677008-Reader-Opinion-Theory-of-Evolution.
McDowell, S. (2016). How is the Intelligent Design Movement Doing? Interview with William Dembski.. Retrieved from https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/how-is-the-intelligent-design-movement-doing-interview-with-william-dembski.
McGill University. (2006, March 23). An intelligent critique of intelligent design. Retrieved from https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/intelligent-critique-intelligent-design-19231.
McKnight, S. (2019, May 28). Theology Declining in Universities?. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2019/05/28/theology-declining-in-universities/.
McLean, C. (2006). Language of God. Retrieved from https://cbwc.ca/language-of-god/.
Mehta, H. (2019a, March 28). 3 School Board Candidates in St. Louis Say Creationism Belongs in Science Class. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/03/28/3-school-board-candidates-in-st-louis-say-creationism-belongs-in-science-class/.
Mehta, H. (2019b, May 21). A Creationist “Think Tank” Is Launching a Weird New Anti-Evolution Video Series. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/05/21/a-creationist-think-tank-is-launching-a-weird-new-anti-evolution-video-series/.
Mehta, H. (2017a, October 7). Answers in Genesis is Expanding Into Canada. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2017/10/07/answers-in-genesis-is-expanding-into-canada/.
Mehta, H. (2018a, May 26). Canadian Politician’s Ally Says Creationism Should Be Taught in Ontario Schools. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/05/26/canadian-politicians-ally-says-creationism-should-be-taught-in-ontario-schools/.
Mehta, H. (2019c, May 3). Creationists Are Furious That Pat Robertson Said They Believe in “Nonsense”. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/05/03/creationists-are-furious-that-pat-robertson-said-they-believe-in-nonsense.
Mehta, H. (2019d, June 3). Creationists Are Mocking Flat Earthers for Not Understanding Science. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/06/03/creationists-are-mocking-flat-earthers-for-not-understanding-science/.
Mehta, H. (2017b, July 17). Creationists Are Mocking Flat Earthers for Taking the Bible Too Literally. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2017/07/17/creationists-are-mocking-flat-earthers-for-taking-the-bible-too-literally/.
Mehta, H. (2017c, September 26). Creationist Kirk Cameron Is Going to Heal Our Divided Nation… With a Movie. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2017/09/26/creationist-kirk-cameron-is-going-to-heal-our-divided-nation-with-a-movie/.
Mehta, H. (2019e, July 26). Gallup: 40% of Americans Are Creationists, but a Record-High 22% Accept Reality. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/26/gallup-40-of-americans-are-creationists-but-a-record-high-22-accept-reality/.
Mehta, H. (2019f, May 6). Ken Ham Is Desperately Trying to Get Pat Robertson to Visit Ark Encounter. Retrieved from www.friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/05/06/ken-ham-is-desperately-trying-to-get-pat-robertson-to-visit-ark-encounter/.
Mehta, H. (2017d, September 6). Survey Finds Very Little Support for Creationism in the UK and Canada. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2017/09/06/survey-finds-very-little-support-for-creationism-in-the-uk-and-canada/.
Mehta, H. (2019g, April 4). This is a Brilliant Way to Cover a Local Appearance by Creationist Kent Hovind. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/04/04/this-is-a-brilliant-way-to-cover-a-local-appearance-by-creationist-kent-hovind/.
Mehta, H. (2018b, November 18). Two Christians Are Arguing Over the Age of the Earth in the Dumbest Debate Ever. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/11/18/two-christians-are-arguing-over-the-age-of-the-earth-in-the-dumbest-debate-ever/.
Mehta, H. (2018c, February 20). Ultra-Orthodox Jews Don’t Want To Teach “Lie” That Earth’s Not 6,000 Years Old. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/02/20/ultra-orthodox-jews-dont-want-to-teach-lie-that-earths-not-6000-years-old/.
Mehta, H. (2015, June 2). What Religious Cults Seem to Have in Common. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2015/06/02/what-religious-cults-seem-to-have-in-common/.
Mehta, H. (2018d, June 4). Young Earth Creationists Shouldn’t Cite Pro-Evolution Articles to Make a Point. Retrieved from https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/06/04/young-earth-creationists-shouldnt-cite-pro-evolution-articles-to-make-a-point/.
Meyer C. (2017e, November 23). Julie Payette doubles down on mythbusting. Retrieved from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/11/23/news/julie-payette-doubles-down-anti-science-mythbusting.
Michelin, L. (2018, April 19). Red Deer home schooling conference bans critics of creationism. Retrieved from https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/red-deer-home-schooling-conference-bans-critics-of-creationism/.
Miller, G. (n.d.a). God As Our Creator!. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/godasourcreator.html.
Miller, G. (n.d.b). When is a Brick a House?. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/whenbrickahouse.html.
Mohler, A. (n.d.). Darwin est-il dangereux ?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/darwin_danger/.
Montanari, S. (2016, November 10). VP-Elect Mike Pence Does Not Accept Evolution: Here’s Why That Matters. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/#59f9690215a7.
Montgomery, A. (n.d.). L’odyssée de Robert Gentry. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/odyssee/.
Montogmery, D.R. (2015, April 28). Even setting evolution aside, basic geology disproves creationism. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/even-setting-evolution-aside-basic-geology-disproves-creationism-40356.
Montgomery, A. (n.d.). L’odyssée de Robert Gentry. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/odyssee/.
Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch. J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? BioScience, 53(8), 766–771.
Morris, H. (n.d.). Quel âge a cette roche?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/age_roche/.
Mulherin, C. (2014, September 18). Categories of creationists … and their views on science. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/categories-of-creationists-and-their-views-on-science-27123.
Museum of Creation. (2019). Museum of Creation. Retrieved from http://www.carewinnipeg.com/museum-home.
Myers, P.Z. (2016, October 12). Silicon Valley creationists. Retrieved from https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/10/12/silicon-valley-creationists/.
n.a. (n.d.b). Liste des références bibliques à la Création divine. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2017/01/liste-des-references-bibliques-a-la-creation-divine/.
n.a. (n.d.a). Si tous les scientifiques sont évolutionnistes, l’évolution n’est-elle pas une théorie confirmée ?. Retrieved from http://www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/si-tous-les-scientifiques-sont-evolutionnistes-l’evolution-n’est-elle-pas-une-theorie-confirmee/.
Naharnet Newsdesk. (2015, March 31). Canadian MP Quits Harper Government to Tout Creationism. Retrieved from www.naharnet.com/stories/en/173847.
National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition.: Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/.
National Home Education Conference. (2019). National Home Education Conference. Retrieved from https://cche.ca/national-home-education-conference/.
National Human Genome Institute. (2019). Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Comparative-Genomics-Fact-Sheet.
National Museum of the American Indian. (2019). Creation Story of the Maya. Retrieved from https://maya.nmai.si.edu/the-maya/creation-story-maya.
Nature Cell Biology. (2018, October 25). The challenge of the post-truth era. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-018-0231-z.
Navarro, D. (2019). Deconstructing Pastor. Retrieved from
.
Neufeld, J. (2017, November 9). Governor General Julie Payette of Canada Mocks Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.backtothebible.ca/articles/julie-payette-should-apologize/.
News World Encyclopedia. (2018, March 3). Intelligent design. Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design.
Nielsen, R. (2016, February 25). Teaching Evolution in the Middle East. Retrieved from https://www.nielsenlab.org/author/rnielsen/.
Nieminen, P. (2015, March 3). Experiential Thinking in Creationism — A Textual Analysis. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118314.
NIH: U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2019, September 10). Homeoboxes. Retrieved from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genefamily/homeoboxes.
Nikiforuk, A. (2015, September 14). Stephen Harper’s Covert Evangelicalism. Retrieved from https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/14/Covert-Evangelism-Stephen-Harper/.
Noll, M. A. (1992). A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Northwest Creation Network. (2019). Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved from www.nwcreation.net.
NSCE. (n.d.). Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work.
NCSE. (n.d.). Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2004). Biology 3201 Curriculum Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/guides/science/bio3201/outcomes.pdf.
O’Neil, P. (2015, February 4). Canadians who believe in creation ‘gagged,’ B.C. MP charges. Retrieved from www.vancouversun.com/life/canadians+believe+creation+gagged+charges/10938857/story.html.
O’Reilly, E. (2018, October 26). Creationism is Bigger Than the Age of the Earth Question. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/youngfogey/2018/10/creationism-is-bigger-than-the-age-of-the-earth-question/.
Olson, S. (2019, May 8). My Parents Raised Me to Be a Science Denier, So I Educated Myself. Retrieved from https://leapsmag.com/my-parents-raised-me-to-be-a-science-denier-so-i-educated-myself/.
oracknows. (2016, September 5). The marriage of creationism and antivaccinationism — literally. Retrieved from https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/05/the-marriage-of-creationism-and-antivaccinationism-literally.
Paley, R. (2001). Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001. Retrieved from www.objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html.
Palma, S. (2019, September 17). MN public school board chairwoman: Evolution is outdated because ‘it was discovered in the 1800s’. Retrieved from https://deadstate.org/mn-public-school-board-chairwoman-evolution-was-discovered-in-the-1800s-so-why-still-teach-it/.
Pappas, S. (2014a, February 4). 5 Battles in the War Between Creationism and Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/43107-evolution-creationism-battles.html.
Pappas, S. (2014b, January 3). Personality Traits Help Explain Creationist Beliefs. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/42314-personality-creationist-beliefs.html.
Peachey, R. (n.d.). Trinity Western University’s Statement on Creation: A Critique (detailed version). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/trinity-western-universitys-statement-on-creation-a-critique-detailed-version/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.k). “. . . if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.” — leading evolutionary biologist. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/if-truth-be-told-evolution-hasnt-yielded-many-practical-or-commercial-benefits-leading-evolutionary-biologist/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.au). “Big Bang”: The Implausible Explosion!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/big-bang-the-implausible-explosion/.
Peachey, R. (2002, December). “Finding Darwin’s God” — Is It Possible?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/finding-darwins-god-is-it-possible/.
Peachey, R. (2009a, March). “Flat Earthers” — A Half-Baked Charge Against Creationists!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/flat-earthers-a-half-baked-charge-against-creationists/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.bd). “Men of Science — Men of God”. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/men-of-science-men-of-god/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.aa). “SADDLE CATNAP”: Ten reasons why the Genesis flood must have been a global event. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/saddle-catnap-ten-reasons-why-the-genesis-flood-must-have-been-a-global-event/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.af). “Time is the Hero of the Plot” — in Genesis!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/time-is-the-hero-of-the-plot-in-genesis/.
Peachey, R. (2012c, December). A Simple But Powerful Argument Against Evolution — The Bible Doesn’t Teach It!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/a-simple-but-powerful-argument-against-evolution-the-bible-doesnt-teach-it/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.a). A Smorgasbord of Quotations. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/a-smorgasbord-of-quotations/.
Peachey, R. (2006b, June). Altercation at McGill!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/altercation-at-mcgill/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ar). Are “Vestigial Organs” Valid Evidence of Evolution?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/are-vestigial-organs-valid-evidence-of-evolution/.
Peachey, R. (2007a, June). Arguing from Augustine: Evolutionists Should Give It Up!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/arguing-from-augustine-evolutionists-should-give-it-up/.
Peachey, R. (2005a, June). As a Creationist . . . I Agree with Evolutionists!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/as-a-creationist-i-agree-with-evolutionists/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.x). Bruce Waltke on the Genre of Genesis 1: A Critique. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/bruce-waltke-on-the-genre-of-genesis-1-a-critique/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.av). Can Scientists Create “Life” in a Test Tube?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/can-scientists-create-life-in-a-test-tube/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.aw). Chemical Evolution: The Problem Of Improbable Proteins. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/chemical-evolution-the-problem-of-improbable-proteins/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.s). Christ’s View of the Bible. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/christs-view-of-the-bible/.
Peachey, R. (2004, March). Classic Defense of Genesis. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/classic-defense-of-genesis/.
Peachey, R. (2006a, March). Creation, Evolution, and Speed-of-Light Problems. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/creation-evolution-and-speed-of-light-problems/.
Peachey, R. (2014c, December). Criticizing The Creator — And Calling It “Science”!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/criticizing-the-creator-and-calling-it-science/.
Peachey, R. (2009d, September 24). Darwin’s Depressing Idea. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/darwins-depressing-idea/.
Peachey, R. (2009l, November 20). Darwin’s Favourite Evidence: Fraudulent!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/darwins-favourite-evidence-fraudulent/.
Peachey, R. (2006d, December). Darwinism = Atheism!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/darwinism-atheism/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.al). Darwin’s Use of Lamarck’s “Laws”. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/darwins-use-of-lamarcks-laws/.
Peachey, R. (2009f, October 9). David: About that Opinion Piece . . .. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/david-about-that-opinion-piece/.
Peachey, R. (2009j, November 6). David’s Disappointing Diatribe: A Rejoinder. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/davids-disappointing-diatribe-a-rejoinder/.
Peachey, R. (2009b, September 10). Dawkins and Design. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/dawkins-and-design/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.d). Debate: “Evolution versus Creation: War of the Worldviews!”. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/debate-evolution-versus-creation-war-of-the-worldviews/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.c). Did We Quote Dawkins Properly? — A Blog Interaction. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/did-we-quote-dawkins-properly-a-blog-interaction/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.e). Do Creationists Oppose “All of Science”?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/do-creationists-oppose-all-of-science/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.f). Do Evolutionists Avoid the Terms “Macroevolution” and “Microevolution”?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/do-evolutionists-avoid-the-terms-macroevolution-and-microevolution/.
Peachey, R. (2005c, September). Do Examples of “Microevolution” Provide Support for Macroevolution?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/do-examples-of-microevolution-provide-support-for-macroevolution/.
Peachey, R. (2014a, March). Do You Believe in Magic? — A Blog Interaction. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/do-you-believe-in-magic-a-blog-interaction/.
Peachey, R. (2014b, June). Does “Creation Science” Equal “Belief in the Bible as the Word of God”?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/does-creation-science-equal-belief-in-the-bible-as-the-word-of-god/.
Peachey, R. (2010d, December). Eight Pillars: A Biblical/Christian Approach to the Origins Controversy. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/eight-pillars-a-biblicalchristian-approach-to-the-origins-controversy/.
Peachey, R. (2009g, October 16). ev•o•lu•tion (evil — you — shun) n.. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/evolution-evil-you-shun-n/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ac). Evolution and the Bible: A Blog Interaction. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/evolution-and-the-bible-a-blog-interaction/.
Peachey, R. (2009k, November 13). Evolution’s Biggest Problem!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/evolutions-biggest-problem/.
Peachey, R. (2012b, September). Evolutionary Thinking leads to Retarded Science. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/evolutionary-thinking-leads-to-retarded-science/.
Peachey, R. (2009c, September 17). Evolutionists and E x t r a p o l a t i o n. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/evolutionists-and-e-x-t-r-a-p-o-l-a-t-i-o-n/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ae). Explaining Away the Genesis “Days” — Two Favourite Techniques (an email exchange). Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/explaining-away-the-genesis-days-two-favourite-techniques-an-email-exchange/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ba). False, Flawed, and Unrepeatable — How “Science” is Losing its Aura. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/false-flawed-and-unrepeatable-how-science-is-losing-its-aura/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.t). Five Arguments for Genesis 1 and 2 as Straightforward Historical Narrative. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/five-arguments-for-genesis-1-and-2-as-straightforward-historical-narrative/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.v). Five Arguments for Genesis 1 and 2 as Straightforward Historical Narrative. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/five-arguments-for-genesis-1-and-2-as-straightforward-historical-narrative/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.z). Four Reasons Why You Can’t Believe Both Genesis And Evolution At The Same Time. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/four-reasons-why-you-cant-believe-both-genesis-and-evolution-at-the-same-time/.
Peachey, R. (2008a, March). Genesis 2:4 and the Meaning of “Day” in Genesis 1. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/genesis-24-and-the-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1/.
Peachey, R. (2010, March). HOLES IN EVOLUTION! (as described by my university Invertebrate Zoology textbook). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/holes-in-evolution-as-described-by-my-university-invertebrate-zoology-textbook/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.bc). How a Literal Understanding of Genesis Promoted the Rise of Modern Science!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/how-a-literal-understanding-of-genesis-promoted-the-rise-of-modern-science/.
Peachey, R. (2008b, June). How Darwinism Contributed to Modern Views on Abortion, Infanticide, and Euthanasia. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/darwinism-contributed-modern-views-abortion-infanticide-euthanasia/.
Peachey, R. (2005b, June). How Evolutionists Ought to Teach Evolution. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/how-evolutionists-ought-to-teach-evolution/.
Peachey, R. (2013a, June). How to Argue Against the Obvious Meaning of “Day” in Genesis 1. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/how-to-argue-against-the-obvious-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.w). How Was Genesis Composed?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/how-was-genesis-composed/.
Peachey, R. (2003b, September). Is a “Day” Really a Day in Genesis 1? Here’s What the Hebrew Scholars Say!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/is-a-day-really-a-day-in-genesis-1-heres-what-the-hebrew-scholars-say/.
Peachey, R. (2010a, March). Is Evolution Really So Central to Biology?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/is-evolution-really-so-central-to-biology/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.u). Is Genesis Poetry? (response to a high school student). Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/is-genesis-poetry-response-to-a-high-school-student/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ad). If Jesus Was Wrong: The Implications. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/if-jesus-was-wrong-the-implications/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.aq). Is Peripatus a Valid Evolutionary Intermediate?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/is-peripatus-a-valid-evolutionary-intermediate/.
Peachey, R. (2009m, November 27). Let’s Be Realistic: You Can’t Logically Have it Both Ways!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/lets-be-realistic-you-cant-logically-have-it-both-ways/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.az). Life On Mars?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/life-on-mars/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ak). Major Nineteenth Century Theories of Evolution: Lamarck and Darwin. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/major-nineteenth-century-theories-of-evolution-lamarck-and-darwin/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.am). Major Twentieth Century Theories of Evolution: The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and Punctuated Equilibrium. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/major-twentieth-century-theories-of-evolution-the-neo-darwinian-synthesis-and-punctuated-equilibrium/.
Peachey, R. (2009n, December 4). Medieval “Flat Earth” Belief: Another Evolutionist Fallacy!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/medieval-flat-earth-belief-another-evolutionist-fallacy/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ax). Mistaken Microfossils! (And Other Erroneous Evidence of Early Earthlife). Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/mistaken-microfossils-and-other-erroneous-evidence-of-early-earthlife/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.y). Nine Reasons Why the “Days” in Genesis 1 Must Be Understood as Normal (24-Hour) Days. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/nine-reasons-why-the-days-in-genesis-1-must-be-understood-as-normal-24-hour-days/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.as). Not “Junk”!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/not-junk/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.j). Noted Atheist Critiques Neo-Darwinism!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/noted-atheist-critiques-neo-darwinism/.
Peachey, R. (2010b, June). On Being Labeled “Extreme”. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/on-being-labeled-extreme/.
Peachey, R. (2009h, October 23). On Restoring Science to its “Rightful Place”. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/on-restoring-science-to-its-rightful-place/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.bb). Personalities in the Evolution/Creation Conflict. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/personalities-in-the-evolutioncreation-conflict/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.i). PhD Study Finds: Evolution is Incompatible with God!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/phd-study-finds-evolution-is-incompatible-with-god/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ay). Planet Earth — A Well-Designed Place to Live!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/planet-earth-a-well-designed-place-to-live/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ah). Pluperfect: The Right Solution for the Genesis 2:19 “Problem”. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/pluperfect-the-right-solution-for-the-genesis-219-problem/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ai). Positive Scientific Evidence for Creation!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/positive-scientific-evidence-for-creation/.
Peachey, R. (2011b, September). Resisting an Overused Argument for Evolution (Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/resisting-an-overused-argument-for-evolution-antibiotic-resistance-in-bacteria/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.o). Response to Governor General Julie Payette. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/response-to-governor-general-julie-payette/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.m). Response to Spencer Boersma’s article “Why Genesis One Does Not Teach Creationism”. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/response-to-spencer-boersmas-article-why-genesis-one-does-not-teach-creationism/.
Peachey, R. (2015a, March). Right-Handed Amino Acids: Can They Smack Down the Evolutionist’s Chirality Problem?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/right-handed-amino-acids-can-they-smack-down-the-evolutionists-chirality-problem/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.be). Science: Child of the Biblical Worldview. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/science-child-of-the-biblical-worldview/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ap). Sickle-Cell Anemia: Example of a “Beneficial Mutation”?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/sickle-cell-anemia-example-of-a-beneficial-mutation/.
Peachey, R. (1999, September). Sir John William Dawson: A Great Canadian Creationist. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/sir-john-william-dawson-a-great-canadian-creationist/.
Peachey, R. (2005d, December). The “Big Bang” Explains Nothing!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-big-bang-explains-nothing/.
Peachey, R. (2015d, September). The Bible & The Shape of the Earth — A Blog Exchange. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-bible-the-shape-of-the-earth-a-blog-exchange/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.n). The British Monarchy: Contrived History?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-british-monarchy-contrived-history/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.b). The Coffee News Ads. Retrieved from https://www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-coffee-news-ads/.
Peachey, R. (2007b, September). The Eight E’s of Evolution!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-eight-es-of-evolution/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ao). The Galápagos Finches: Prime Example of Evolution?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-galapagos-finches-prime-example-of-evolution/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.p). The Genesis Debate: Richard Peachey’s speeches. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-genesis-debate-richard-peacheys-speeches/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.aj). The Giraffe: A Favourite Textbook Illustration of Evolutionary Theories. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-giraffe-a-favourite-textbook-illustration-of-evolutionary-theories/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.an). The Peppered Moth Story: Prime Example of Evolution?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-peppered-moth-story-prime-example-of-evolution/.
Peachey, R. (2012a, June). The Peppered Moth Story: Vindicated!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-peppered-moth-story-vindicated/.
Peachey, R. (2009i, October 30). The Reality of God (in response to Peter Raabe). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/the-reality-of-god-in-response-to-peter-raabe/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.at). The “Science” of Paleoanthropology (Human Fossils) — Exposed!. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-science-of-paleoanthropology-human-fossils-exposed/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ag). The seventh day in Genesis 2:1–3 — a long, indefinite period of time?. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-seventh-day-in-genesis-21-3-a-long-indefinite-period-of-time/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.ab). The Uniqueness of Human Beings: “In the Image of God”. Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/the-uniqueness-of-human-beings-in-the-image-of-god/.
Peachey, R. (2003a, March). Theistic Evolution: Can this “Marriage” be saved??. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/theistic-evolution-can-this-marriage-be-saved/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.h). Trinity Western University’s Statement on Creation: A Critique (detailed version). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/trinity-western-universitys-statement-on-creation-a-critique-detailed-version/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.g). Trinity Western University’s Statement on Creation: A Critique (short version). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/trinity-western-universitys-statement-on-creation-a-critique-short-version/.
Peachey, R. (n.d.r). Was Christ a Creationist? (One-Page Summary). Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/was-christ-a-creationist-one-page-summary/
Peachey, R. (n.d.q). Was Christ a Creationist? (Sermon). Retrieved from www.creationbc.org/index.php/was-christ-a-creationist-sermon/.
Peachey, R. (2006c, September). What I Taught my Science 9 Students this Summer!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/what-i-taught-my-science-9-students-this-summer/.
Peachey, R. (2015b, March). What the New Testament teaches about Creation, Fall, and the Flood. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/what-the-new-testament-teaches-about-creation-fall-and-the-flood/.
Peachey, R. (2009e, October 1). What Would Jesus Do . . . about the Creation/Evolution Controversy?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/what-would-jesus-do-about-the-creationevolution-controversy/.
Peachey, R. (2015c, June). Where Cain Got His Wife: Is This a Moral Problem for the Bible? And does Darwinism Provide a Better Answer? (an Email Exchange). Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/where-cain-got-his-wife-is-this-a-moral-problem-for-the-bible-and-does-darwinism-provide-a-better-answer/.
Peachey, R. (2008c, December). Why Can’t Evolutionists Make Headway?. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/why-cant-evolutionists-make-headway/.
Peachey, R. (2010c, September). Why Christians Should Not Be Open to Darwin!. Retrieved from https://creationbc.org/index.php/why-christians-should-not-be-open-to-darwin/.
Pepinster, C. (2017, September 5). Britons reject creationism but some find evolutionary theory lacking, too. Retrieved from https://religionnews.com/2017/09/05/britons-reject-creationism-but-some-find-evolutionary-theory-lacking-too/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.b). Au coeur de la vie : les protéines. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2004/07/au-coeur-de-la-vie-les-proteines/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.j). Deux Arguments Clés Démontrant l’Hypothèse d’une Terre Jeune. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2000/07/deux-arguments-cles-demontrant-lhypothese-dune-terre-jeune/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.c). Dix arguments de la théorie de l’évolution démentis. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/dixargumentsdementis/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.d). Embryologie et Évolution. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/embryologie/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.a). L’âge de l’univers. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/age_univers/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.e). L’agence SCIENCE PRESSE aveuglée par sa religion évolutionniste. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/science_presse_aveuglee/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.f). La théorie de l’évolution en déclin. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/06/evolution_declin/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.h). Les plantes et les insectes. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/plantes_et_insectes/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.g). Les « preuves » incontournables de l’évolution ne sont que du vent. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2010/05/les_preuves_evolution_que_du_vent/.
Perreault, J. (2009, December 7). Un poisson mutant prouve l’évolution ?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/09/un-poisson-mutant/.
Perreault, J. (n.d.i). Une preuve mathématique de l’impossibilité de l’évolution. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/preuve_mathematique/.
PEW Research. (2014, February 3). Overview: The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/overview-the-conflict-between-religion-and-evolution/.
Pew Research Center. (2009, November 5). Religion and Science in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/an-overview-of-religion-and-science-in-the-united-states/.
PEW Research. (2009, February 4). Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution. Retrieved from ttps://pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religi.
Phillips, D. (n.d.). Les Néandertaliens demeurent toujours humains !. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/neander_humain/.
Pierce, L. (2006 April 28). The World: Born in 4004 BC?. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/.
Pierre, J. (2018, September 13). Hurricanes, Homosexuality, and Belief in the Hand of God. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psych-unseen/201809/hurricanes-homosexuality-and-belief-in-the-hand-god.
Plait, P. (2008, July 21). Creationists fail again: taken for granite. Retrieved from blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/21/creationists-fail-again-taken-for-granite/#.XZOEo0ZKiM8.
Platt, M. (2015, May 27). Alberta creationist Edgar Nernberg digs up what scientists are calling the most important fossil finds in decades. Retrieved from https://edmontonsun.com/2015/05/27/alberta-creationist-edgar-nernberg-digs-up-what-scientists-are-calling-the-most-important-fossil-finds-in-decades/wcm/a4ded4e0-bec6-46e5-970c-2043a217d9d3.
Postmedia News. (2015, April 2). In rambling Commons address, B.C. MP James Lunney says he was ‘cyberbullied’ for his creationist views. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/james-lunney-creationism-cyberbullying.
Press Progress. (2018d, June 8). ‘God Has Delivered Victory’: Doug Ford’s Far-Right Allies Celebrate New Social Conservative Agenda. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/god-has-delivered-victory-doug-fords-far-right-allies-celebrate-new-social-conservative-agenda/.
Press Progress. (2018c, May 24). “It sounds like a good Idea, don’t you think?”. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/doug-ford-ally-charles-mcvety-teaching-creationism-in-schools-sounds-like-a-good-idea/.[SJ1]
Press Progress. (2019c, June 12). Anti-Abortion Group Recruits High School Students to Vote in Nominations for Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/anti-abortion-group-recruits-high-school-students-to-vote-in-nominations-for-andrew-scheers-conservatives/.
Press Progress. (2018a). Doug Ford ally Charles McVety: Teaching creationism in schools “sounds like a good idea”. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/doug-ford-ally-charles-mcvety-teaching-creationism-in-schools-sounds-like-a-good-idea/.
Press Progress. (2018b, October 5). Jason Kenney Headlined an Education Conference Sponsored By Homophobic and Creationist Fringe Groups. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-headlined-an-education-conference-sponsored-by-homophobic-and-creationist-fringe-groups/.
Press Progress. (2019b, June 12). Anti-Abortion Group Recruits High School Students to Vote in Nominations for Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/anti-abortion-group-recruits-high-school-students-to-vote-in-nominations-for-andrew-scheers-conservatives/.
Press Progress. (2019a, September 22). Conservative Candidate Promoted Idea Earth Was Created in 6 Days, Cast Doubt on Evolution and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/conservative-candidate-promoted-idea-earth-was-created-in-6-days-cast-doubt-on-evolution-and-climate-change/.
Press Progress. (2018e, October 5). Jason Kenney Headlined an Education Conference Sponsored By Homophobic and Creationist Fringe Groups. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-headlined-an-education-conference-sponsored-by-homophobic-and-creationist-fringe-groups/.
Press Progress. (2019d, September, 11). Jason Kenney: Vladimir Putin’s Jailing of Dissidents is ‘Instructive’ on How to Deal With Environmentalists. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-vladimir-putins-jailing-of-dissidents-is-instructive-on-how-to-deal-with-environmentalists/.
Press Progress. (July 15, 2015). Stockwell Day comes to rescue of #CPCJesus MP with e-mail warning of “extreme” group. Retrieved from https://pressprogress.ca/stockwell_day_comes_to_rescue_of_cpcjesus_mp_with_email_warning_of_extreme_group/.
Pritchard, J. (2014, February 5). Should we teach creationism in schools? Yes, in history class. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/should-we-teach-creationism-in-schools-yes-in-history-class-22808.
Providence University College & Theological Seminary. (2019). Search Our Website. Retrieved from https://www.prov.ca/site/search/.
Queen’s College Faculty of Theology. (2019). Nothing Found. Retrieved from queenscollegenl.ca/?s=creationism.
Question Evolution Campaign. (2015, March 6). Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: “Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.”. Retrieved from www.questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/03/johns-hopkins-university-press-reported.html.
Quill, E. & Thompson, H. (2014, November 6). Bill Nye on the Risks of Not Debating With Creationists Read. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bill-nye-risks-not-debating-creationists-180953249/.
Quora. (2018). What do Young Earth creationists think about the Borealopelta markmitchelli discovered in Canada?. Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-do-Young-Earth-creationists-think-about-the-Borealopelta-markmitchelli-discovered-in-Canada.
Rabson, M. (2018, September 30). Governor General Julie Payette Under The Microscope As Criticism Mounts. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/30/governor-general-julie-payette-under-the-microscope-as-criticism-mounts_a_23546514/.
Randerson, J. (2008, September 11). Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education.
Rankin, K. (2012, February 9). Creationism goes global. Retrieved from https://www.utoronto.ca/news/creationism-goes-global.
RationalWiki. (2019a, August 26). Creationism. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism#Religion.
RationalWiki. (2018a, September 23). Canada Free Press. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press.
RationalWiki. (2019b, February 23). Creation science. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creation_science.
RationalWiki. (2018b, December 17). Emil Silvestru. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Silvestru.
RationalWiki. (2018c, October 15). Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_Creation:_A_Christian_Approach_to_Evolution.
RationalWiki. (2019c, January 6). Hugh Ross. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross.
RationalWiki. (2017, October 27). Grant Jeffrey. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grant_Jeffrey.
RationalWiki. (2019d). Lists of creationist scientists. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/.
RationalWiki. (2019e, September 23). Tim Ball. Retrieved from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball.
Raymond. (n.d.). Darwin’s Evolution Theory and Creationism — Alien deceptions?. Retrieved from www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/ufo_extraterrestrials/2012/05/09/3913.html.
Reasons.Org. (2019). Reasons. Retrieved from
.
Reasons To Believe. (2019). Reasons To Believe. Retrieved from
.
Redeemer University College. (2019). Search results for “creationism”. Retrieved from
Regis College: The Jesuit School of Theology in Canada. (2019). No posts were found. Retrieved from
Reilly, A. (2017, June 30). Update: Creationist geologist wins permit to collect rocks in Grand Canyon after lawsuit. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/update-creationist-geologist-wins-permit-collect-rocks-grand-canyon-after-lawsuit.
Rennie, J. (2002, July 1). 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/.
Reuters. (2007, May 28). Canada’s first museum of creation opens in Alberta. Retrieved from https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-museum-idUKN2547663920070529.
Revolution Against Evolution. (2019). Revolution Against Evolution. Retrieved from
Riess, J. (n.d.). The Age of the Earth. Retrieved from www.cssiweb.sasktelwebhosting.com/theageoftheearth.html.
Robins-Early, N. (2019, May 18). The White Supremacist Professor Teaching At A Public University. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/ricardo-duchesne-white-nationalist-unb_n_5cdec3c8e4b09e057802c216?ri18n=true.
Rosenau, J. (2016, June 7). Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Retrieved from https://ncse.com/blog/2016/06/dembski-scandal-evangelical-mind-0018286.
Rosenblood, L. (2015, June 15). Guest Post: Jerry Coyne in Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2015/06/guest-post-jerry-coyne-in-toronto/.
Ross Jr., B. (2018, March 20). ‘If Christians don’t believe in a literal Genesis, they have no foundation for their doctrine’. Retrieved from https://christianchronicle.org/if-christians-dont-believe-in-a-literal-genesis-they-have-no-foundation-for-their-doctrine/.
Ruba, J. (2019, June 6). Is Biblical Creationism Based in Science?. Retrieved from https://www.faithbeyondbelief.ca/podcast/2019/6/6/is-biblical-creationism-based-in-science.
Ruse, M. (2003, August 30). Creationism. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/.
Russel, J.B. & Taylor, I. (n.d.). L’invention de la terre plate. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/terre_plate/.
Sarfati, J. (n.d.a). La lune: luminaire de la nuit. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/lune/.
Sarfati, J. (n.d.b). La non-évolution du cheval (Création spéciale ou daman évolué?). Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2018/02/la-non-evolution-du-cheval-creation-speciale-ou-daman-evolue/.
Sarfati, J. (n.d.c). Pour un évolutionniste, il est acceptable de tromper les étudiants afin de les amener à croire en l’évolution. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2012/01/il-est-acceptable-de-tromper-les-etudiants-afin-de-les-amener-a-croire-en-levolution-evolutionniste/.
School District №34 — Abbotsford. (1996). Origin of Life. [Curriculum Guide].
Schuster, R. (2018, January 15). Chemists Propose Solution to Mystery of How Life Began on Violent Early Earth. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/amp/science-and-health/chemists-propose-solution-to-mystery-of-how-life-began-on-violent-early-earth-1.5730656.
Science, Scripture, & Salvation. (2019). ICR: Science, Scripture, & Salvation. Retrieved from https://www.icr.org/radio/.
Scott, E.C. (2006, February 10). Creationism and Evolution: It’s the American Way. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867406001267.
Scrivener, L. (2007, January 7). In praise of an alternate creation theory. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2007/01/07/in_praise_of_an_alternate_creation_theory.html.
Seidel, A.L. (2014). State/Church FAG: Creationism. Retrieved from https://ffrf.org/outreach/item/20084-creationism.
Senter, P. (2011, May/June). The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology. Retrieved from www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf.
Shaffer, R. (2011, August 23). The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe. Retrieved from https://thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2011/features/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe.
Sherman, J.E. (2018, March 27). Intelligent Design’s One Valid Scientific Point. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201803/intelligent-designs-one-valid-scientific-point.
Simon, S. (2014, March 24). Taxpayers fund teaching creationism. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.
Singh, G. (2019, July 20). Gurpreet Singh: Science deniers need to be defeated in the upcoming federal election. Retrieved from https://www.straight.com/news/1269021/gurpreet-singh-science-deniers-need-be-defeated-upcoming-federal-election.
Singh, J. (n.d.). Human Evolution and Creationism: Manipulative Extraterrestrial deceptions?. Retrieved from www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/ufo_extraterrestrials/2011/07/09/71-human-evolution-and-creationism-manipulative-extraterrestrial-deceptions.html.
Skell, P.S. (2005, May 12). tires En science, la liberté intellectuelle est fondamentale.. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2012/02/en-science-la-liberte-intellectuelle-est-fondamentale/.
Slabaugh, S. (2016, May 11). ‘Intelligent design’ professor earns tenure at Ball State. Retrieved from https://amp.thestarpress.com/amp/83916274.
Smith, S. (2019, July 10). Answers in Genesis to operate Christian school, will teach ‘biblical worldview’. Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.com/news/answers-in-genesis-to-operate-christian-school-will-teach-biblical-worldview.html.
Smith, W.J. (2019, June 28). Canada Stifles Religious Freedom. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/canada-stifles-religious-freedom/.
Smith, R.R. (2010, March 29). Creationism as a mental illness. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/breakfast-socrates/201003/creationism-mental-illness.
Smith, W. (2017, May 3). TW Viewpoint | Why Isn’t Intelligent Design Science?. Retrieved from https://www.lcgcanada.org/viewpoint/why-isnt-intelligent-design-science.php.
Smithsonian: Museum of Natural History. (2018, September 14). Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer. Retrieved from humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer.
Snow, E.V. (n.d.). Jésus : le Sauveur de la science !. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/sauveurscience/.
Stackhouse, J. (2010). “Creation versus Evolution”: Is This a Real Issue?. Retrieved from www.contextwithlornadueck.com/2018/12/14/creation-versus-evolution-is-this-a-real-issue/.
St. Augustine’s Seminary of Toronto. (2019). All Resources: Search. Retrieved from https://www.staugustines.on.ca/search/default.aspx?q=creationism&type=0,90749-360768,90749-117|-1,90833-124.
St. Mark’s College. (2019). St. Mark’s College. Retrieved from
St. Peter’s Seminary. (2019). Search Results. Retrieved from https://www.stpetersseminary.ca/search.php.
St. Philip’s Seminary. (2019). St. Philip’s Seminary. Retrieved from https://oratory-toronto.org/st-philips-seminary/.
Steffenhagen, J., & Baker, R. (2012, November 8). Humanist wants Abbotsford School District scrutinized for Bible distribution. Abbotsford Times.
Stewart, M. (n.d.b). L’hélium et l’âge de la Terre. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/helium/.
Stewart, M. (n.d.a). Le papillon nocturne du Yucca et la plante du Yucca. www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/papillon_et_yucca/.
Stone, M. (2018, January 29). Science Education: Teaching Children Creationism Is Child Abuse. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/01/science-education-teaching-children-creationism-child-abuse/.
Stone, M. (2019, July 1). Study: Atheists Treat Christians Better Than Christians Treat Atheists. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2019/07/study-atheists-treat-christians-better-than-christians-treat-atheists/.
Story, M. (2013a, July 2). Creationism in Canada: Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/creationism_part_1.
Story, M. (2013b, July 3). Creationism in Canada: Part 2. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/creationism_part_2.
Story, M. (2013c, July 8). Creationism in Canada: Part 3. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/creationism_part_3.
Story, M. (2013d, July 9). Creationism in Canada: Part 4. Retrieved from https://www.bchumanist.ca/creationism_part_4.
Sullivan, L.E. & Jocks, C. (2019, May 28). Natiive American religions. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Native-American-religion/Forms-of-religious-authority.
Summit Pacific College. (2019). Search: creationism. Retrieved from https://www.summitpacific.ca/search?q=creationism.
Swift, A. (2017, May 22). In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx.
Swift, D. (n.d.). Les dinosaures d’Acambaro. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/dino_acambaro/.
Szalay, J. (2016, October 1). Scopes Monkey Trial: Science on the Stand. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/56343-scopes-monkey-trial.html.
Taete, J.L.C. (2019, May 21). Hong Kong’s Creationist Theme Park Is Somehow Worse Than It Sounds. Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xznnp/hong-kongs-creationist-theme-park-is-somehow-worse-than-it-sounds.
Tallbear, K. (2013, August/October). Tell Me A Story: Genomics Vs. Indigenous Oriigin Narratives. Retrieved from www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=495&archive=yes.
Taylor College and Seminary. (2019). Search. Retrieved from www.taylor-edu.ca/component/search/?searchword=creationism&searchphrase=all&Itemid=207.
Taylor, I. (n.d.a). Ces fascinants dinosaures. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/dinosaures/.
Taylor, I. (n.d.e). L’idée du progrès. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/progres/.
Taylor, I. (n.d.c). Le déluge de la Genèse. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/deluge/.
Taylor, I. (n.d.b). Les racines du racisme. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/racisme/.
Taylor, I. (n.d.d). Lyell : une question de temps. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/lyell/.
Taylor, G. (2017, September 26). The “missing link” in creation vs. evolution debates. Retrieved from https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/blog/missing-link-creation-vs-evolution-debates.
Taylor, J. (2017, February 4). Why I Would Like to See a Moratorium on Using the Word ‘Literal’ When It Comes to Biblical Interpretation. Retrieved from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/why-i-would-like-to-see-a-moratorium-on-using-the-word-literal-when-it-comes-to-biblical-interpretation/.
Than, K. (2005, September 22). Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/9355-intelligent-design-ambiguous-assault-evolution.html.
The American Scientific Affiliation. (2019). The American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved from
The Associated Press. (2014, February 5). Bill Nye debates creation museum’s Ken Ham on evolution, Earth’s origin. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-nye-debates-creation-museum-s-ken-ham-on-evolution-earth-s-origin-1.2523756.
The Associated Press. (2019, September 17). Trial opens against controversial Turkish televangelist. Retrieved from https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/09/17/trial-opens-against-controversial-turkish-televangelist/.
The Bible: New International Version. (2019a). Genesis 1:27. Retrieved from https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-27.htm.
The Bible: New International Version. (2019b). John 1:1. Retrieved from https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm.
The Bible is the Other Side. (2008, September 27). Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences Concerned With Creationism. Retrieved from https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/tag/antonio-snider-pellegrini/.
The Canadian Press. (2015, February 25). ‘Not a bad idea’ to make evolution education opt out, Ontario MPP says as he draws caucus ire. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/not-a-bad-idea-to-make-evolution-education-opt-out-ontario-mpp-says-as-he-draws-caucus-ire.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2014). BAKER AT TWU: WHAT MEAN THESE STONES?: ADVENTURES IN BLOGGING ABOUT YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/events/event/baker-twu-2014/.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2017, December 11). Earth Science & Christian Faith. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/2017/12/11/es-geddes-pamphlet/.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2019, March 6). Falk & Wood at TWU: Evolutionary Creation & Young-Earth Creationism — The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/events/event/van-falk-wood-19-1/.
The Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation. (2016). VENEMA AT TWU, SURVEYING THE ORIGINS LANDSCAPE. Retrieved from https://www.csca.ca/events/event/venema-origins-twu-2016/.
The City University of New York. (2019 February 11. Defending Darwin: Scientists respond to attack on evolution. Retrieved from https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/tcuo-dds021119.php.https://www.bereadyalberta.ca/bios.
The Conversation. (2019, July 26). How the Christian right’s efforts to transform society extend beyond the US border. Retrieved from https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/how-the-christian-rights-efforts-to-transform-society-extend-beyond-the-u-s-border/.
The Creation Club. (2016). List of Authors. Retrieved from https://thecreationclub.com/list-of-authors/.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2017, March 10). Creationism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism.
The Emperor Has No Clothes. (2019). The Emperor Has No Clothes. Retrieved from www.detectingdesign.com.
The Globe and Mail. (2000, November 17). Creationism and Stockwell Day. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/creationism-and-stockwell-day/article771010/.
The Globe and Mail. (2018, September 28). Globe editorial: Julie Payette’s problems as Governor-General are hers to fix. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-julie-payettes-problems-as-governor-general-are-hers/.
The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada. (2019). EPISODE 148: ADDING TO THE CONVERSATION — MARIJUANA, SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM. Retrieved from https://indoubt.ca/episodes/episode-148-adding-to-the-conversation-marijuana-science-and-creationism/.
The Huffington Post Canada. (2012, June 9). Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html.
The King’s University. (2019). Search Results. Retrieved from https://www.kingsu.ca/search-results?cx=015348874003726329418%3Ajdjjbfmcko0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=creationism&sa=Search.
The Sensuous Curmudgeon. (2018, November 30). Canadian Poll Results on Creationism. Retrieved from https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/canadian-poll-results-on-creationism/.
Themistocleous, C. (2014, August 3). MOAN: My Ontario Atheist Network. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2014/08/moan-my-ontario-atheist-network/.
Thomas, B. (n.d.b). Des écureuils jurassiques? Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2016/01/des-ecureuils-jurassiques/.
Thomas, B. (n.d.a). Les jeunes comètes viennent remettre en question l’histoire de la formation du système solaire. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2011/07/les-jeunes-cometes/.
Tisdall, L. (n.d.b). Conférences en Suisse, Belgique et France. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2004/11/conferences-en-suisse-belgique-et-france/.
Tisdall, L. (2003). Diaporama du voyage à Joggins, NE (Tisdall, 2003). Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/07/joggins/.
Tisdall, L. (n.d.c). Jésus et le livre de la Genèse. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/jesusetlagenese/.
Tisdall, L. (n.d.a). L’affaire Galilée — La religion contre la science?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/galilee/.
Tisdall, L. (n.d.d). Les six jours de la création. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/les-six-jours-de-la-creation/.
Tisdall, L. (n.d.e). Nous payons cher la mort de Dieu. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/mort_de_dieu/.
Todd, D. (2009, February 17). Canadian schools get low grade on teaching evolution. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/canadian-schools-get-low-grade-on-teaching-evolution.
Todd, D. (2014, October 4). Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals.
Todd, D. (2017, May 6). The danger of “scientism:” When science becomes an ideology. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/the-danger-of-scientism-when-science-becomes-an-ideology.
Todd, D. (2011, October 30). The state of evangelicalism: Canada differs from U.S.. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/the-state-of-evangelicalism-canada-different-from-u-s.
Toronto Baptist Seminary & Bible College. (2015). Search: “creationism”. Retrieved from tbs.edu/?s=creationism.
Torrone, P. (2007, November 12). “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/remotelyconnected/2007/11/nova_judgment_day_intelligent.html.
Tracy, J.L., Hart, J., & Martens, J.P. (2011, March 11). Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017349.
Trinity Western University. (2019d). ACTS SEMINARIES HOSTS, MANDARIN PUBLIC LECTURE, “HAWKING, SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM”. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/acts-seminaries-hosts-mandarin-public-lecture-“hawking-science-and-creationism”.
Trinity Western University. (2019a). Dennis Venema, Ph.D. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/profile/dennis-venema.
Trinity Western University. (2019f). Dirk Büchner, D. Litt.. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/profile/dirk-büchner.
Trinity Western University. (2019e). “EVOLUTIONARY AND YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM: TWO SEPARATE LECTURES”. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/“evolutionary-and-young-earth-creationism-two-separate-lectures”.
Trinity Western University. (2019g). Paul Yang, Ph.D.. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/profile/paul-yang.
Trinity Western University. (2019b). SCS 503 — Creationism & Christainity (Korean). Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/scs-503-creationism-christainity-korean.
Trinity Western University. (2019c). SCS 691 — Creationism Field Trip. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/scs-691-creationism-field-trip.
Trinity Western University. (2017, September 21). TWU FAITH AND SCIENCE CLUB, INSTITUTE OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, AND CANADIAN SCIENTIFIC AND CHRISTIAN AFFILIATION PRESENT, STREAM AND FACULTY PANEL, “IS GOD A FIGMENT OF OUR IMAGINATION?”. Retrieved from https://www.twu.ca/twu-faith-and-science-club-institute-christian-apologetics-and-canadian-scientific-and-christian.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.a). Ces parasites qui résistent à la trinité évolutionniste. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2008/10/ces-parasites-qui-resistent-a-la-trinite-evolutionniste/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.f). L’homologie, l’anatomie comparée et la théorie de l’évolution. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/homologie/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.c). Le troisième oeil du cobra. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/cobra/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.b). Le dimorphisme sexuel et la théorie de l’évolution. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/dimorphisme/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.d). Les chromosomes et Genèse 2.21–22. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/chromosomes/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.e). Les fossiles: Témoignage des mondes perdus ou preuves de l’évolution biologique?. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/fossiles/.
Tshibwabwa, S. (n.d.g). Pas d’évolution à la frontière du vivant et du non-vivant. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/viru/.
Tyndale University College & Seminary. (2019). Search. Retrieved from https://www.tyndale.ca/search/node/creationism.
UBC. (2011, March 3). Death anxiety prompts people to believe in intelligent design, reject evolution: UBC research. Retrieved from https://news.ubc.ca/2011/03/30/death-anxiety-prompts-people-to-believe-in-intelligent-design-reject-evolution-ubc-research/.
Uncommon Descent. (2011, June 15). Two Views About How Darwinism Stays In Place, With But One Difference …. Retrieved from https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/two-views-about-how-darwinism-stays-in-place-with-but-one-difference/.
University of California, Berkeley. (n.d.). Transitional forms. Retrieved from https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03.
Urback, R. (2017, November 2). In what universe is it appropriate for a Governor General to deride people for their beliefs?: Urback. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/governor-general-speech-julie-payette-climate-change-1.4384481.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. (2019b). Creationist Perspectives. Retrieved from www.nas.edu/evolution/CreationistPerspective.html.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. (2019a). Intelligent Design. Retrieved from www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html.
Venema, D. (2018a, July 30). Ask an Evolutionary Creationist: A Q&A with Dennis Venema. Retrieved from https://biologos.org/articles/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-qa-with-dennis-venema.
Venema, D. (2018b, November 7). Dennis Venema on Evolution, Genetics and the Historical Adam (Part 3). Retrieved from intersectproject.org/faith-and-science/dennis-venema-on-evolution-genetics-and-the-historical-adam-part-3/.
Venema, D. & Navarro, D. (2019). Pastoring and Preaching on Evolutionary Creation. Retrieved from https://biologos.org/articles/pastoring-and-preaching-on-evolutionary-creation.
Wald, G. (n.d.a). What is the Most Serious Problem for All Evolutionary “Origin of Life” Theories?. Retrieved from www.https://creationbc.org/index.php/what-is-the-most-serious-problem-for-all-evolutionary-origin-of-life-theories/.
Waldman, A. (2017, January 29). DeVos’ Code Words for Creationism Offshoot Raise Concerns About ‘Junk Science’. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/devos-education-nominees-code-words-for-creationism-offshoot-raise-concerns.
Waldmann, S. (2017, May 6). EPA fires members of science advisory board. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/epa-fires-members-science-advisory-board.
Wamsley, V. (2015, May 26). Were You There?. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2015/05/creationism-and-evolution-in-school-religious-students-cant-learn-natural-selection.html.
Wartman, S. (2017, June 29). NKY Notebook: Creation Museum researcher cleared to study Grand Canyon; Brent Spence traffic not a ‘hell’. Retrieved from https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/06/29/nky-notebook-creation-museum-researcher-cleared-study-grand-canyon/439019001/.
Washington Post. (2017, May 25). A giant ark is just the start: These creationists have a bigger plan for recruiting new believers. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-giant-ark-is-just-the-start-these-creationists-have-a-bigger-plan-for-recruiting-new-believers.
Webb, E. (2019, August 26). We must not introduce new blasphemy laws. Retrieved from https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/26/we-must-not-introduce-new-blasphemy-laws.
Weber, C.G. (n.d.). The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology. Retrieved from https://ncse.ngo/fatal-flaws-flood-geology.
Welsh, J. (2011, January 27). 13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html.
Wieland, C. (n.d.d). CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement. Retrieved from https://creation.com/cmis-views-on-the-intelligent-design-movement.
Wieland, C. (n.d.a). Découverte du tissu de dinosaure encore mou et élastique. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2009/05/tiss_mou-2/.
Wieland, C. (n.d.b). En savoir plus sur les phalènes. Retrieved from www.creationnisme.com/2012/07/en-savoir-plus-sur-les-phalenes/.
Wieland, C. (n.d.c). Le train de l’évolution s’en vient. Retrieved from https://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin-french.
Wieske, C. (2013, February 16). Reformed Academic. Retrieved from www.archive.is/MBaGl#selection-203.1-203.18.
Wiles, J.R. (2006, August 9). A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada. Retrieved from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/gc/article/view/2687/3105.
Williams College. (n.d.). Australian Aborigine Creation Myth. Retrieved from https://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html.
Williams, J. (2017, June 28). Turkey bans teaching of evolution — but science is more than a belief system. Retrieved from www.theconversation.com/turkey-bans-teaching-of-evolution-but-science-is-more-than-a-belief-system-80123.
Williamson, G.I. (2013, September 16). A Defense of Six-Day Creation. Retrieved from www.archive.is/vUAvf#selection-415.0-415.29.
Wilson, J. (2007, October 13). Blinding them with ‘science’. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/life/2007/10/13/blinding_them_with_science.html.
Wood, C. (1995). Big bang versus a big being. Maclean’s, 108(24), 14.
Wood, L.S. (2017, November 6). Science v. religion and the new Governor General under fire. Retrieved from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/11/06/opinion/science-v-religion-and-new-governor-general-under-fire.
Wycliffe College. (2019). Search Results. Retrieved from https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/search/wycliffe/creationism.
York, J. (2018, February 5). Creationism helped push climate skepticism into classrooms. Retrieved from https://massivesci.com/articles/climate-change-taught-schools-creationism-evolution/.
Zaimov, S. (2017, September 7). Less Than 10 Percent of Brits, Minority of Canadians Back Creationist View, Reject Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.com/news/less-than-10-percent-brits-minority-canadians-back-creationist-view-reject-evolution.html.
Zimmerman, M. (2013, January 25). Creationists Say the Darndest Things — And Their True Colors Are Made Clear. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/creationists-say-the-darndest-things-and-their-true-colors-are-made-clear_b_2513813?guccounter=1.
Zimmerman, M. (2010, January 1). Young Earth Creationism: Not Only in America. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/young-earth-creationism-e_b_591873.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Greek Helsinki Monitor
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/08/12
Ask Panayote 1 — Greece and Freethought
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Panayote Dimitras is the Co-Founder and Spokesperson of the Humanist Union of Greece, and a Board Member of the European Humanist Federation.
Here we talk about Greek culture and freethought, and more.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What has been the historical acceptance of atheism and theism in Greece? How do these impact political, social, and family life?
Panayote Dimitras: Greece is a country where theism is a near-universal value and atheism is broadly perceived as an anti-Hellenic value or “heresy” or “insult.”
As the President of the Republic, the Government, the Parliament are sworn in not only invoking God etc but also in the presence of priest, bishops, and often the Archbishop; as in all birth, religious but also civil marriage, and cohabitation partnership certificates it is mandatory to declare one’s religion; and so on; it is asphyxiating to be an “out-atheist” in Greece.
It is indicative that the former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and the former Mayor of Athens George Kaminis once stated that they were atheists but this was not evident at all in the day toi day functioning of the Government and the City of Athens.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Panayote.
Ask Panayote 2 — Ancient Greek Gods
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Panayote Dimitras is the Co-Founder and Spokesperson of the Humanist Union of Greece, and a Board Member of the European Humanist Federation.
Here we talk about Greek culture and freethought, and more.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Greek culture invented many gods in ancient history. What did the gods represent to the ancient Greeks? What do those gods represent to the Greeks, in general, now?
Panayote Dimitras: Gods in polytheistic cultures, ancient and/or contemporary, in my opinion reflect people’s needs to manage phenomena they could not explain and/or fear.
In contemporary Greece for a very small minority ancient gods are venerated as such by “dodecatheists” [followers of twelve gods]; for the majority they are part of ancient history and elements of the tourist industry.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Panayote.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Humanisten (Swedish Humanist Association, Humanisterna)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/09
Humanisten: Can you tell us a little about yourself and your background?
Roslyn Mould: I was born and raised in Accra, Ghana. I studied linguistics and modern languages at the University of Ghana, Legon. I became active in the humanist community in 2012 when I joined the Humanist Association of Ghana (HAG). Later, I became the Chairperson of HAG and also served on the boards of Humanist International and the African Humanist Alliance.
Humanisten: How did you come to identify as a humanist?
Roslyn Mould: I grew up in a religious environment, but I always asked questions and was never satisfied with the answers. At university, I met other people who thought like me and I realized there was a name for it: humanism. It was liberating to know I wasn’t alone.
Humanisten: What are the main challenges for humanists in Ghana?
Roslyn Mould: The biggest challenge is social stigma. Religion is very important in Ghanaian society. If you say you are a humanist or atheist, people assume you are immoral. There is also family pressure. Many people hide their beliefs to avoid problems at home, at work, or in their communities.
Humanisten: How has the Humanist Association of Ghana responded to these challenges?
Roslyn Mould: We try to provide a safe space for nonbelievers. We organize regular meetings, conferences, and social activities. We also work with international partners to promote secularism and human rights. Education is key — we want to show that humanists also value ethics, compassion, and community.
Humanisten: You have also been involved in activism beyond Ghana. Can you tell us more?
Roslyn Mould: Yes, I have been on the board of Humanist International and the African Humanist Alliance. This has given me the opportunity to connect with humanists around the world, to share experiences, and to work on projects that promote freedom of belief and expression.
Humanisten: What motivates you personally to do this work?
Roslyn Mould: I want to help create a society where people are free to think for themselves without fear. I believe humanism can contribute to building a more tolerant and just Ghana, and a better world.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Atheist Alliance of America
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): Unknown
An overwhelming majority of African Americans self-identify as Christians, putting them ahead of both whites and Latinos. Black Nonbelievers, Inc, aims to revolutionize the community and its deeply entrenched relationship with religion through community-building events like the one here discussed.
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Mandisa Thomas is the Founder of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., one of, if not the, largest organizations for African-American or black nonbelievers or atheists in America. The organization is intended to give secular fellowship, provide nurturance and support for nonbelievers, encourage a sense of pride in irreligion, and promote charity in the non-religious community. It is affiliated with the Center for Inquiry, Ex-Muslims of North America, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, among other associations.
From the page:
“We connect with other Blacks (and allies) who are living free of religion and other beliefs, and might otherwise be shunned by family and friends. Instead of accepting dogma, we seek to determine truth and morality through reason and evidence.”
The organization is currently present in a number of cities through the U.S., including Atlanta, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Dallas, Detroit, Washington D.C., Louisville, Milwaukee, New York, Orlando, and Portland, “[encouraging] people to move from a mindset of faith and belief to reason and rationality.”
Why the need for an atheist organization specific to the African American community?
According to the Pew Research Center, an overwhelming majority of African Americans self-identify as Christians, putting them ahead of both whites and Latinos. Seventy-five percent of black Americans say religion is very important in their lives and are more likely to profess an absolute certainty in their belief for God.
Despite these statistics, however, a recent trend promises potential for black Americans who identify as unaffiliated–and a ‘market’ of sorts that renders an organization like Black Nonbelievers, Inc. ever relevant.
Three in ten African Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say they are religiously unaffiliated, mirroring larger, national trends towards agnosticism or atheism.
In the words of Mandisa Thomas:
“Critical thinking is at an all time low in the Black community – the proof is in the high drug, disease and pregnancy rates. And with so many churches concentrated there – with millions of dollars collectively flowing through them – there’s really no reason why the notion to look to an invisible entity to solve problems should still exist…
I would like to say that the time to turn around the image of the one dimensional, religious minded African American is NOW. And here at Black Nonbelievers, we are determined to make this a reality.”
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen explores the organization’s upcoming convention.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is an upcoming convention scheduled after Thanksgiving with presenters from the Black or African American atheist or non-believing community, or allies of said community.
What is the general theme of this event? And why did you consider it important to organize?
Mandisa Thomas: The theme is fun, support, community. The affiliate organizer is a tour and cruise specialist. This is a good way for us to host a larger event and raise funds for the organization.
Also, it provides people the opportunity to do something that they have never done before. It was a good way for us to provide that community and connection while giving people new experiences and the opportunity to travel with a group of like-minded people.
It does incorporate the sense of community that Black Nonbelievers tries to provide as an organization.
Jacobsen: Who will be some of the speakers?
Thomas: Jeremiah Camara is one. He is the producer of the documentary Contradiction and the author of Holy Lockdown and The New Doubting Thomas.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] I like that.
Thomas: [Laughing] We have Candace Gorham, who is the author of The Ebony Exodus Project. We have Monette Richards from Secular Woman. We have Larry Decker from the Secular Coalition for America.
We have Detryck von Doom, who is with the Louisville chapter of The Satanic Temple . We have a number of people, but those are our main speakers there.
Jacobsen: What topics do you consider will be some of the highlights of this 5-day event?
Thomas: Jeremiah will be discussing the new documentary Holy Hierarchy: The Religious Roots of Racism in America. We will also be emphasizing the importance of being a good ally to people of color and women.
Black Nonbelievers is a member organization for Secular Coalition for America. We will be expounding on the work that Secular Woman as an organization accomplishes.
Many of the women involved in Black Nonbelievers, myself included, will be highlighting the work of women as well as other people of color. We will also be bringing attention to the authors, activists, and other talent coming from the black atheist community.
Jacobsen: What are some ways for allies to achieve better engagement?
Thomas: Healthier engagement is listening. I do not know how many times I have said that. Listen, listen, listen, to the people doing the work, what the problems are, what the issues are.
Donation also helps tremendously. Make sure that if you know anyone who is looking for a resource, you can point to us as a valuable resource. It can go towards community-building and connection efforts. A good ally should know how to listen, know when to offer input, and when not to, and also when to play a supporting role when they need you.
Jacobsen: Is this going to be an annual event following forward?
Thomas: Yes, the first event had about 36 people. The ship holds about 2,000 people [Laughing]. But yes, it was a very, very good event. We are hoping to make this annual. Also, it is important to note that people can still sign up.
Even though the deadline for the deposit has passed, it is still possible to sign up. You would just have to make a larger payment now than before.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on the conversation today?
Thomas: Yes, we will be looking forward to it again. We sail out of Miami. We will go to the Dominican Republic and elsewhere. It can be an overwhelming experience, but, please, look at our website for more information on the speakers as well as the excursions and the points of destination and get ready to have a good time with us.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mandisa.
Thomas: 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): Arab Atheist Broadcasting (Arab Atheist Magazine)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/02/23
English Version
China and Europe Continue to Dominate in the Quantity of Atheists
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
China and Europe continue to dominate in the quantity of atheists. In particular, China has 67% of its population identifying as “convinced atheists.” Europe holds several of the top 20 positions in the world. Slovenia holds 28%, Italy 8%, and France at 19%. Japan, though not in Europe, ranks second after China at 29%.
According to a global survey, the number of “convinced atheists” grew worldwide from 5% in 2005 to 9% in 2017. This represents an increase of about 80% in 12 years. Over that same time, the percentage of people identifying as religious fell from 77% to 62%.
The correlation tends to follow trends of higher education, higher income, and higher age with lower religiosity. This is consistent across countries, though China remains an exceptional case in the sheer size of its irreligious population.
النسخة العربية
الصين وأوروبا تواصلان الهيمنة على أعداد الملحدين
بقلم سكوت دوغلاس جاكوبسن
تواصل الصين وأوروبا الهيمنة على أعداد الملحدين. ففي الصين على وجه الخصوص، يعرِّف 67% من السكان أنفسهم بأنهم “ملحدون مقتنعون”. وتحتل أوروبا عدة مراكز ضمن العشرين الأوائل عالميًا. فتمتلك سلوفينيا نسبة 28%، وإيطاليا 8%، وفرنسا 19%. أما اليابان، رغم أنها ليست في أوروبا، فتأتي في المرتبة الثانية بعد الصين بنسبة 29%.
وبحسب استطلاع عالمي، ارتفعت نسبة “الملحدين المقتنعين” في العالم من 5% عام 2005 إلى 9% عام 2017. وهذا يمثل زيادة تُقدَّر بحوالي 80% خلال 12 عامًا. وفي نفس الفترة، انخفضت نسبة الأشخاص الذين يعرّفون أنفسهم كمتدينين من 77% إلى 62%.
تميل هذه الظاهرة إلى الارتباط بمستويات أعلى من التعليم والدخل والعمر مع انخفاض التدين. وينطبق هذا الاتجاه على معظم الدول، وإن كانت الصين تظل حالة استثنائية بحجم سكانها غير المتدينين.
Arab Atheist Magazine, Issue 69
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vatican Observatory
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/12/04
An in-depth interview with Vatican Observatory astronomer Paul Gabor, S. J., by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, published in 2016 by In-Sight.
Part One – An interview with Dr. Fr. Paul Gabor, S.J. He discusses: childhood and adolescence trajectory influence on him, pivotal moments in personal development towards an interest in science and theology, the gains from the research and professional experiences; motivation for interest in philosophy and theology; the way that the priesthood entered and benefits personal life, and the greatest intellectual stimulation from within the Jesuits; origin of interest in physics, the physics of the small scale, and the instrumental side of particle physics; PhD work and entailed work, explanation for the lay person, and the esoteric aspects of this research.
Part two – An interview with Dr. Fr. Paul Gabor, S.J. He discusses: description of research areas and the reason for personal interest in these areas; entering the ranks of the Vatican Observatory, and the main misconception about the purpose of the Vatican Observatory’s Research Group in Tucson, Arizona and the Vatican Observatory in general; source of ability to speak eight languages and the assistance in current work; convictions in Roman Catholicism, and arguments and evidences for the truth of Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular; and the current activities at the Vatican Observatory and the aim of the research in the future.
Click here for Part One of the interview.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Irish Freethinkers & Humanists (Irish Freethinkers & Humanists Monthly)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/25
Anthony Grayling CBE, MA, DPhil (Oxon) FRSL, FRSA is Master of the New College of the Humanities, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford. Until 2011 he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London. He has written and edited over thirty books on philosophy and other subjects; among his most recent are “The Good Book,” “Ideas That Matter,” “Liberty in the Age of Terror,” and “To Set Prometheus Free.” For several years he wrote the “Last Word” column for the Guardian newspaper and a column for the Times. He is a frequent contributor to the Literary Review, Observer, Independent on Sunday, Times Literary Supplement, Index on Censorship and New Statesman, and is an equally frequent broadcaster on BBC Radios 4, 3 and the World Service. He writes the “Thinking Read” column for the Barnes and Noble Review in New York, is the Editor of Online Review London, and a Contributing Editor of Prospect magazine.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hello, again! It has been a little over 8 years since the Conatus News interview–thanks to the link of Benjamin David, who has since moved onto another field than publishing. Obviously, we’ve had quite a few changes with the uptick in the conflict in Ukraine and a bit of the Russian Federation, and in Israel-Palestine. Elections have continued in leadership for humanists. Life keeps going. How has the United Kingdom political context been for the humanist community there, since 2016?
Dr. Anthony Grayling: The UK political context since 2016 has itself been a largely disastrous time: Brexit, an increasingly right-wing government which has assaulted civil liberties, exacerbated the economic difficulties created by Brexit, widened inequality, deepened divisions in society, and increased dissatisfaction with democracy. But from the humanist perspective there have been promising signs: safe spaces around abortion clinics, a positive change in sentiment over physician-assisted suicide, increased visibility of the debate over religion in education and bishops in the House of Lords, to name a few. These have been long-term outcomes of increasing secularism in society, and the greater purchase of humanistic ideals. The headline political issues that have dominated the media have been so vexing to many that these gains have happened without too much fanfare; an example of the unfortunate truth that chaotic conditions can be times of opportunity too.
Jacobsen: Christianity has been, and is, a rapidly diminishing demographic of the United Kingdom. How has this altered the discussions around religion, faith schools, and the necessity of humanism to step up?
Grayling: There is still a long way to go on the question of religion in education, and in one respect there has been a backward step: the fact that the religious education curriculum in schools has made humanistic alternatives less salient – but as indicated in the previous answer, the debate about this has increased in volume as a consequence of opposition to the change by humanists and other secularist organisations, benefitting from the increasing shift in public opinion, which travels in a direction contrary to what government policy has been under the Conservatives.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the updates to the Amsterdam Declaration in 2022?
Grayling: If you look at the various resolutions and statement emanating from humanist conferences in the two decades since 2002, e.g. in Paris, Brussels, Oxford and New Zealand, you see how evolving circumstances in the world, together with the spread of humanism as a movement from the ‘global North’ to become truly global, you see that humanism is a living, responsive outlook that applies its principles – these at base unchanging – to new challenges and circumstances. The 2022 Declaration wording addresses the way humanist principles apply to the evolving nature of the challenges, as well as to their exercise in places where humanism had not been a visible presence until recently. This is appropriate; as a living and growing movement, concerned to promote rational and progressive responses to social problems in the interest of human flourishing, humanism needs to reassert its principles periodically in terms that meet the environment it works in. The 2022 Declaration will not be the last iteration – humanism will always speak to people in the language of their time, showing how its fundamental tenets apply to that time.
Jacobsen: Daniel Dennett died recently. Any words on his personal meaning, to you, and his intellectual importance to the advancement of philosophical clarity and understanding, generally?
Grayling: Dan’s departure from among us is a great loss. The combination of his intellectual powers and personality made him a wonderful advocate for the causes he was committed to. When adjectives were applied to the more vocal atheists of recent note, among whom my friends Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins appeared to their opponents as rebarbative and threatening, Dan was thought of as ‘cuddly,’ and apologists for religious outlooks found it harder, indeed impossible, to demonise him as they did the others. He was amused by the description of me as ‘the velvet atheist,’ which he rightly saw could be construed as something other than a compliment. I always enjoyed his company, which was genial as well as invariably educative; and his lectures to my students at the New College of the Humanities were a high point for them as they were to me and our other colleagues. One of the first things he said to our students was that use of the word ‘surely’ in any argument marked its weakest point. That, I’m sure, has stuck with all of them, to their benefit. His memoir I’ve Been Thinking is a marvellous read; he lives on in it.
Jacobsen: Large Language Models and similar algorithmic schema for robotic statistical generativity pose intriguing additions to the humanist philosophical reflection on the meaning of information processing and consciousness. What does humanist philosophy have to contribute to the discussion on more ergonomically interactive artificial intelligence systems in the near future?
Grayling: This is a complicated matter. The truth is that it is early days in the impact of all forms of AI on life and society, and understanding the consequences of what such innovations as Chat will be are still being groped for. It is as if a bomb has landed among us and we cannot see clearly because the smoke and dust is still flying about. Without doubt, there will be many good things as a result of this particular technological advance – and many bad things, unless we find sensible ways of managing it, few such ways being on the horizon yet. I am concerned about the impact on education, whose benefits lie largely in ‘doing the work oneself’ of finding out, analysing, drawing inferences, making rational calculations, choosing and justifying; if too much of the spadework is done by systems other than the ones inside one’s own head, that will be a serious loss. On the other hand, we could and probably will see an expansion of creative possibilities, some we can’t yet even imagine. As to consciousness: given that we still do not know what it is, how it works, and how it arises, and that the degree of its prevalence in nature beyond the higher animals is still unknown, if indeed it occurs there at all, it is hard to know what would count as securely recognising it in an AI system. What any such system could teach us about our own consciousness is made moot by that thought – though once again: who knows? In the present smoke and dust we don’t see our way clearly on any of this.
Jacobsen: When computer systems develop higher levels of autonomy, how can humanist philosophy deliver an ethical framework for making them human-friendly?
Grayling: It is already a good thought that AI systems should have built into them from the get-go a bar on doing harm to people and the environment. This assumes that such systems cannot escape any constraints placed on them by the builders of their ground architecture; since they teach and develop themselves beyond that origin there has to be a risk that a system could reach the point at which it asks itself, ‘What is the most destructive thing on the planet’ and answer, as logic would oblige it to, ‘Human beings.’ What it might do next – if it has directed itself to combat harms – might inspire a sci-fi writer to some creative ideas. But while there are humans on the planet, their ethical obligations remain just that: their ethical obligations, and no amount of machinery removes their responsibility. Humanism enjoins rationality and kindness as fundamental to how we act in every situation involving other sentient beings – indeed, the world itself. If we can infect AI so deeply with the same principle that any system would exemplify good humanist behaviour in all its activities, we will have done ourselves an immense favour.
Jacobsen: With new technologies and new political galvanizing of religiously dogmatic communities in some of the West, what does humanism need to continue to meet these challenges head-on?
Grayling: A continued persistence in presenting the arguments for, and a model of, humanism: that is the open-ended task, until the day, if ever it comes, in which people are capable, on the basis of reflection and understanding, of overriding the impulse to act on tribalism, self-interest, greed and aggression, together with a rejection of cheap and easy answers to life’s questions such as are found in superstitions and one-size-fits-all ideologies. Given that tribalism and aggression are evolved tendencies, built into the psychological DNA of human beings, it is a major task; but the fact is that most people in most ordinary situations manage to achieve it if only to a degree. Most of us do not go about impulsively hitting people we dislike or stealing whatever takes our fancy in a shop; we are capable of self-management, of educating our emotions and sensibilities, just as we are capable at times of deferring present satisfactions for greater longer-term gains on rational grounds. Humanism enjoins individuals to achieve such self-management, and enjoins society to generalise it to all human affairs. On this basis, holding the line against dogmatisms – and better still, refuting them and loosening their grip on minds and societies – and mastering rather than becoming the slaves of our technologies, remains among the chief aims of humanism.
Jacobsen: Do you have any new projects–literary, academic, or activist–that can be plugged here?
Grayling: I have a book [that came out] out in April 2025 on how to achieve peace in the culture wars that dog our times, called Discriminations, and I’m in process of writing another two. One concerns how to defend democracy against the loss of faith it is experiencing – because it does not deliver for the people, having become trapped in party-politicking; because international business lies outside its control and causes great harms, widening wealth inequalities and environmental damage; because politico-economic models such as China seem, to some, more attractive than democratic arrangements; because anti-democratic agencies such as Russia are actively undermining democracy with interference, propaganda and misinformation, empowered by social media – and I argue that democracy is hugely worth defending because the rule of law, civil liberties and human rights associated with it really matter; we take them so for granted in our democracies that we are in danger of losing them by inattention. The other is about philosophical themes in major works of literature, literature being one of the greatest resources for exploration of human nature and the human condition, rich in philosophical insight and comment accordingly; I discuss the treasures there, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others, and explaining why.
As to activism: I remain involved with efforts to promote secularism in society and education, to achieve the aims of ‘dignity in dying,’ to support human rights endeavours and efforts to mitigate climate change effects, and to reverse Brexit. Most of this is done through speaking and writing, but I get onto the streets at times.
Jacobsen: What are your favorite humanism coda quotes?
Grayling: One is the Humanist UK slogan itself: ‘Think for yourself, act for others.’ Another is Dick McMahan’s definition: ‘A humanist is someone who does the right thing even though she knows no-one is watching’. Kant’s ‘Always treat people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end’ and Hume’s ‘A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence’ provide further defining quotables. And so does Russell: ‘A good world needs knowledge, kindness and courage; it does not need the fettering of free intelligence by words uttered long ago by ignorant men.’ Between them these quotations amount to a credo, certainly for me.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Anthony.
Grayling: My thanks in return, Scott, and warm good wishes to 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): BioAro
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025
Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD, a cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and BioAro founder, advocates excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs. He highlights the U.S.-Canada healthcare interdependence and warns that tariffs could disrupt medical innovation, increase costs, and delay treatment access. Kapoor stresses the need for stronger cross-border collaboration, elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, and domestic investment in life sciences. He also underscores the risks of AI restrictions, manufacturing relocations, and brain drain. While hopeful tariffs are temporary, he warns of long-term industry consequences. Kapoor urges policymakers to prioritize human lives over economic policies that hinder medical progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Anmol Kapoor, MD. He is a distinguished cardiologist, healthcare innovator, and entrepreneur who advocates for excluding life sciences from U.S. tariffs.
As the founder of BioAro, he leads advancements in genomic precision health, nuclear imaging isotopes, and AI-driven medical breakthroughs. A key figure in the Canadian life sciences sector, Dr. Kapoor collaborates with high-complexity laboratories in the U.S., particularly in California, emphasizing the deep interconnection between the two countries’ healthcare systems. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate your time.
Dr. Anmol Kapoor: Thank you for having me.
Jacobsen: Why should life sciences be exempt from U.S. tariffs?
Kapoor: At the time of publication, this discussion may be more relevant than ever. Life sciences should be excluded from tariffs because they impact human life directly. There should be no debate about placing tariffs on medical advancements that save lives. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right.
The best healthcare should be available, enabling longer, healthier lives. If we begin taxing life sciences, we create barriers to access. Restrictions on medical innovation and distribution don’t just affect one country-they create a ripple effect globally. If my neighbour’s house is on fire, I will feel the heat too. Similarly, if my community faces a healthcare crisis-an epidemic or pandemic-it affects everyone.
No one can isolate themselves from healthcare challenges. Canada, the U.S., and the global medical community are deeply interconnected.
One major area is research and academia. Universities, clinicians, and medical scientists in North America collaborate with biotech firms and pharmaceutical companies to develop life-saving treatments. These partnerships transcend national borders. A research breakthrough in Canada could lead to a new drug developed in the U.S., or a clinical trial in the U.S. could help refine a therapy that benefits patients worldwide. The question isn’t about where a company is headquartered-it’s about ensuring the free flow of scientific knowledge that drives medical progress.
It is seamless. When ideas emerge, they are implemented immediately. However, imposing taxes or tariffs on them could harm them.
The second aspect is manufacturing, which is deeply intertwined. Some facilities are in Canada, some in the U.S., and different parts of the manufacturing process occur in different locations. One part of a medical device may be produced in Canada, another in the U.S., and another overseas. These processes are interconnected.
If you impose a tax on one side, the other will respond with tariffs. Ultimately, Americans and Canadians will bear the financial burden- effectively paying a tax on their lives.
So, the first is R&D, and the second is manufacturing.
The third issue is medical isotopes. Nearly all medical isotopes used in Canada-particularly for cardiac patients- come from the U.S. We do not have domestic production. We used to be an exporter, with the Chalk River nuclear reactor producing these critical isotopes. However, that facility was shut down, and we never revived it. Canada chose not to reinvest in this area, leaving us dependent on U.S. suppliers.
There are European sources, but they represent a small supply chain with high global demand. As a result, Canada is now a newt importer of medical isotopes, relying on the U.S. for supply.
Who will ultimately pay the price if counter-tariffs are imposed on life sciences products?
Canadians.
No special government billing code compensates for these tariffs in clinical settings. Canada does not have any domestic manufacturing of imaging equipment, such as MRIs and CT scans. We rely on American companies.
Yes, some of these companies manufacture in China, Israel, or other regions. Still, both countries bear the cost. Many software technologies essential for MRI and other imaging evaluations are developed through U.S.-Canadian innovation partnerships. Who will ultimately pay if tariffs and taxes are imposed on these technologies?
We will- through human lives. Delays in diagnosis. Delays in access to care. Increased healthcare costs. Healthcare systems in Canada and the U.S. are already under immense strain. Demand is skyrocketing. Instead of increasing tariffs and taxes, we should work together to lower costs.
At a time when we should be collaborating to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, imposing tariffs is equivalent to endangering human lives. That is wrong. That is unethical. It should not be done.
Jacobsen: Ethical, economic, and diplomatic frameworks are all built upon fundamental principles. Medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, committing not to harm. The United Nations bases its geopolitical and diplomatic efforts on universal human rights and consensus-building principles. In economics, the central concept is trade-offs. What are we willing to trade for innovation and healthcare access? If the price of tariffs is human lives, is it worth it?What is the opportunity cost of prioritizing one sector over another? Regarding life sciences and tariffs, beyond the critical impact on human well-being, are there other sectors that should also be exempt from tariffs? If we broaden the argument to include additional industries, could this make the case for life sciences exemptions more substantive? Is there another sector that could be paired with life sciences to strengthen the overall argument?
Kapoor: Absolutely. One major sector is pharmaceutical manufacturing, specifically Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). APIs are the chemical components of medications, and their production depends on a complex network of chemical manufacturing facilities across North America.
These chemicals are essential for drug formulation. The packaging of medications, vaccines, and vials also relies on plastics and specialized materials, which tariffs could negatively impact. The entire pharmaceutical supply chain will be affected if tariffs are imposed on any of these components.
Beyond medications, we must also consider medical supplies and devices- critical items for patient care. This includes:
- Medical gloves
- Wearable health devices (e.g., heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, insulin pumps)
- Pacemakers
- Diabetes consumables (e.g., test strips, glucose monitors)
- Cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy drugs)
You cannot isolate one sector of life sciences- everything is interconnected. Manufacturing, packaging, and consumables are all part of the same ecosystem.
If tariffs are imposed, what happens?
- Medication costs will increase, making life-saving drugs inaccessible for many patients.
- Diabetic patients may struggle to afford glucose test strips and insulin pumps.
- Heart disease patients could lose access to pacemakers.
- Cancer patients might face higher costs for chemotherapy.
The repercussions are enormous-affecting millions of lives.
Jacobsen: AI-driven medical technologies are increasingly important in global healthcare. Could tariffs slow the development of these technologies? If so, how would that impact healthcare systems in the United States and Canada? Would this create economic, healthcare, and public health consequences-perhaps even exacerbating existing cost and accessibility issues?
Kapoor: Definitely. AI-powered medical technology is revolutionizing healthcare. It is helping to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and bridge gaps in healthcare access. Tariffs could stifle AI-driven diagnostics, personalized medicine, and genomic research innovation.
Take genomics, for example. BioAro is one of the leading global companies in genomics. Why does this matter? Because genomic medicine is the future- it allows for:
- Early disease detection
- Precision medicine tailored to individuals
- More effective treatment strategies
Suppose tariffs slow progress in AI-driven medical research. In that case, it would have a ripple effect across the entire healthcare system. This is especially problematic for the U.S., where healthcare costs are already a major issue. Though somewhat insulated, Canada would also feel the economic and healthcare consequences.
At a time when we should be investing in AI-driven healthcare innovations, imposing tariffs would be a step backward- increasing costs, delaying access, and ultimately harming patients.
Because of the PanOmiQ technology we developed, we are currently the only company globally with this advanced computing power and proprietary AI algorithms. This technology was built entirely in Canada, enabling us to analyze vast amounts of sequencing data from DNA, microbiomics, and epigenomics in real time.
No other company or country has this real-time whole genome analysis sequencing level. It typically takes days to weeks, sometimes even months, for patients to receive clinical reports from genetic sequencing.
However, our technology eliminates those delays, allowing instant genomic insights.
Our AI-driven genomics platform and advanced software algorithms were built locally in Calgary. If tariffs are imposed, this would have serious consequences, especially since American patients and researchers rely on fast genomics data for:
- Cancer diagnostics
- Dementia research
- Heart disease screening
- Pharmacogenomic analysis for personalized medicine
The new FDA Director has emphasized the need for faster adoption of new science to provide rapid access to innovative healthcare solutions. However, if tariffs are implemented, this will negatively impact the U.S. in several ways:
- Higher sequencing costs- making advanced genomic testing more expensive.
- Delayed access to care- slowing down diagnoses and treatment plans.
Today, labs can use PanOmiQ technology without additional taxes. But if tariffs are imposed, they will face two bad choices:
- Option A: Pay the extra tariff and pass the cost to patients with high medical expenses.
- Option B: Avoid AI-powered technology, revert to manual methods, and delay diagnoses, which could potentially lead to medical complications later on.
With the power of AI and genomics, we can revolutionize healthcare in America. AI is not just about cost-efficiency- it helps people live longer, healthier lives.
Jacobsen: AI-driven genomics is becoming a cornerstone of modern healthcare. If these tariffs delay AI adoption, what are the broader implications for genomics and the entire medical ecosystem?
Kapoor: There are two major impacts: Combining AI, genomics, and IoT (Internet of Things) data is already transforming medicine. AI processes massive amounts of wearable health data from devices like smartwatches, heart monitors, and glucose sensors- all integrated into real-time decision-making systems.
If tariffs increase costs, it will slow adoption at the hospital level and increase expenses for patients. Many AI models in Canada and the U.S. are trained on shared scientific data. AI models developed in the U.S. often rely on Canadian datasets and vice versa. If tariffs disrupt this collaboration, it will severely impact:
- Medical research
- Drug discovery
- AI-driven diagnostics
A prime example is electronic health records (EHRs).
Most Canadian hospitals use American-built health record systems, such as:
- Epic (used in Alberta, costing over $1 billion)
- Cerner (used in British Columbia and Ontario)
These systems are already considered outdated by today’s standards. They lack AI-driven functionality, making them inefficient in clinical decision-making.
By failing to update healthcare AI integration, we are slowing medical progress in Canada and across North America.
This is why tariffs on life sciences and AI-driven healthcare are a fundamental mistake- they don’t just increase costs; they set back medical innovation, reduce access to critical healthcare, and ultimately harm patients.
Due to compatibility issues, the datasets generated in Canada are often difficult to integrate with current AI models. As a result, billions of dollars are spent in Canada, but much of that money ultimately flows back to American companies.
Canada has an opportunity to develop our own AI-driven health record systems- or even create some of the best in the world- so we can be self-reliant. Much of our healthcare data is transferred to and accessed by American systems. If we establish our AI-powered ecosystem, this data could remain in Canada, enhancing domestic innovation while reducing reliance on foreign-built platforms.
So, while tariffs create chaos, they also present opportunities. We must identify the right opportunities and leverage AI as an enabler. It is up to us how we choose to use AI.
Tariffs can have a negative impact, but they also force us to innovate. If we invest in our healthcare AI infrastructure, Canada could become less dependent on systems like Epic and Cerner, creating a stronger, self-sustaining ecosystem for healthcare technology.
Jacobsen: With trade policies under the Trump administration and this interview occurring on February 28, the extension on tariffs expires tomorrow, formally imposing new trade barriers across multiple sectors. Beyond just tariffs, what alternative strategies could protect life sciences from broader economic barriers?
Kapoor: The best protection is collaboration.
Canadian and American life sciences companies have a long history of working together. Now is the time to strengthen that relationship even further.
We already have robust academic collaborations across universities in North America. Industry partnerships between Canadian and U.S. biotech firms are also well-established. Now is the moment to reinforce those ties.
That is the most effective way to counteract tariffs.
Suppose we allow isolationist policies to disrupt this life-saving supply chain. In that case, the consequences will be severe for both Canada and the U.S.:
- Rising costs for medications, supplies, and diagnostics
- Delays in access to medical isotopes (critical for cancer treatments)
- Increased costs for AI-driven diagnostics
We must intensify cross-border collaboration, invest in each other’s life sciences sectors, and grow the industry together.
The life sciences sector should be completely exempt from tariffs for humanitarian and economic reasons.
Jacobsen: Could you provide a historical example where international collaboration in life sciences was prioritized over economic restrictions?
Kapoor: Absolutely. Look at the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the crisis, the United States did not have an mRNA vaccine of its own. The technology came from Europe. European researchers had already developed the foundation for mRNA-based vaccines.
The vaccine was manufactured in the U.S., but the scientific breakthrough originated elsewhere. Imagine if Europe had imposed strict trade barriers or tariffs on that technology. If they had said:
“We will not allow you to access this innovation unless you pay more.”
That would have been disastrous. But they did not do that because it was a global health emergency. Yes, companies profited from the vaccine, but at its core, scientific collaboration saved lives.
Another example is insulin. When Canadian scientist Frederick Banting discovered insulin, he refused to patent it for profit. He believed that insulin should be accessible to all people and not controlled by a single corporation for financial gain.
That is the right model for life sciences. It is about humanity first, not profit. Life sciences must be exempt from tariffs. It is not just about economics-it is about saving lives.
We need to show a bigger heart. I ask our American friends to extend the same generosity toward the life sciences sector. Do not even consider imposing tariffs. If tariffs are in place, remove them- because lives depend on them.
Jacobsen: What ethical considerations should policymakers consider when crafting trade policies that affect the life sciences sector? I’m not talking about political appeals to leaders or calls for scientific collaboration- though those are important in global geopolitics. I mean policymakers- the people who set the tone for trade regulations.
Kapoor: From a policy perspective, there are multiple ways to support the life sciences sector. One crucial step is to loosen intellectual property (IP) laws to allow university research commercialization. Many groundbreaking technologies originate in academic institutions across North America. Yet, due to restrictive IP regulations, startups often struggle to bring these innovations to market. Policymakers should ensure that startups can take risks and test the market with these advancements.
Life sciences startups also need easier access to capital to develop new drugs, software technologies, and AI-driven healthcare models. To support innovation, policymakers should streamline funding opportunities for early-stage companies, making it easier for them to secure investment and scale.
Additionally, regulatory sandboxes can provide startups with a controlled environment to test new healthcare models without taking on excessive financial burdens. These IT and medical innovation sandboxes allow companies to:
- Experiment safely in the healthcare sector.
- Refine technologies before large-scale deployment.
- Reduce costs while improving patient outcomes.
Further, policymakers should offer better tax credits for companies investing in research and development (R&D). Allowing businesses to reinvest their earnings into expansion, innovation, and scaling projects will strengthen the industry and enhance global competitiveness.
North America lags in pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing, creating a strategic vulnerability as most life sciences companies rely on overseas production. Policies should incentivize domestic manufacturing by encouraging:
- “Made in Canada” and “Made in America” initiatives.
- Local procurement of medical technology.
By investing in local manufacturing, Canada and the U.S. can:
- Retain scientific talent.
- Build a sustainable ecosystem.
- Reduce dependency on foreign supply chains.
Startups in the life sciences sector follow a cycle similar to students in education. They need the right environment to learn, grow, and innovate. They also require mentorship, education, and competition to succeed. The best ideas should rise to the top only if policy frameworks support their development.
Some countries are already investing heavily in the life sciences sector. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, for example, aims to position the country as a global leader in:
- Precision healthcare
- Multi-omics research
- Real-time genomic analysis
North America must take similar steps to enhance innovation, support startups, and strengthen life sciences infrastructure to remain competitive.
They recognize the potential of life sciences and are moving aggressively to lead in biotechnology and medical innovation. Meanwhile, Canada has underinvested in life sciences compared to other sectors like energy and mining.
Policymakers must take life sciences seriously. They are not just an industry-they are a humanitarian necessity. Strong policies will drive economic growth and save lives.
The pandemic has shown us that we are vulnerable. We relied on masks and medical gowns from other countries. We found ourselves in a position where we were begging for essential supplies. That should never happen again. Canada and the United States have more than enough resources to manufacture these necessities domestically.
Jacobsen: You live in Alberta. I live in British Columbia. We often see stereotypes about our provinces- Alberta as “Canada’s Texas” and British Columbia as “Canada’s California.” A bunch of cowboys in Alberta, a bunch of hippies in B.C. These are stereotypes, but like most, they contain a grain of truth. That said, do you think different provincial and territorial strategies will be needed to mitigate the effects of these tariffs? While tariffs may apply across the board, their impact on business networks and industries varies from province to territory and territory to territory.
Kapoor: Absolutely. As Canadians, we need to think nationally about life sciences. If Canada wants to be a global leader in this sector, we must address one of our biggest domestic barriers- interprovincial trade restrictions. Currently, Canada operates with fragmented healthcare systems, which hurts us.
Medical data is not easily shared between provinces. Physicians face bureaucratic barriers when trying to practice across provincial lines. This creates inefficiencies and hinders innovation. Canada claims to have a universal healthcare system, but in reality, each province operates in its silo. Some aspects of healthcare in British Columbia are superior, while others in Alberta are stronger. From a cardiology perspective, Alberta’s system is more efficient. We can perform more outpatient procedures than our counterparts in British Columbia, which means patients in B.C. often experience delays in care.
I see where the cowboy vs. hippie stereotype comes from. Albertans tend to be entrepreneurial, risk-takers, and innovators. That does not mean British Columbians are not, but restrictive policies often stifle innovation in certain provinces. Life sciences startups face barriers that prevent them from growing, whether unnecessary regulations, slow licensing processes, or a lack of investment incentives. If there is one major policy shift Canada should prioritize, it is the elimination of interprovincial barriers.
If Europe- a continent with multiple languages, cultures, and political systems- can break down trade barriers between its provinces, Canada should be able to do the same. Canada has more restrictive trade barriers between its provinces than the European Union does between its member states. This is unacceptable.
It is time to implement a free trade agreement covering life sciences and other industries in Canada. This would unify our markets, allow talent to move freely, and accelerate innovation. That should be step one. Next, we must mobilize talent nationally and encourage cross-border collaboration between provinces.
Jacobsen: Will these tariffs impact specific areas within the life sciences sector more than others? With tariffs being implemented across the board, are there specific subfields within life sciences that will be severely impacted while others may experience minimal disruption?
Kapoor: It depends on which products are affected. If radioisotopes are included in the tariffs, that would be catastrophic. Canada does not produce radioisotopes for medical use- we import them entirely from the U.S. These isotopes are essential for cardiac imaging and cancer treatments. If tariffs make them more expensive or less accessible, it will harm patients.
We also do not manufacture medical devices in Canada. The vast majority of diagnostic and treatment devices- from MRI machines to pacemakers- come from American manufacturers. Some small-scale manufacturing is done in Europe, but it is nowhere near enough to replace U.S. imports.
Canada excels in software development for medical applications. We are leaders in AI-driven diagnostics, health data analytics, and medical software innovations. However, even in this area, we depend on U.S. data, computing infrastructure, and partnerships. If tariffs or other trade restrictions disrupt this collaboration, it will slow innovation and increase costs.
Ultimately, the effects will be devastating if these tariffs target critical medical imports. The worst-case scenario involves delays in medical procedures, increased costs for patients, and restricted access to life-saving treatments. That is why the life sciences sector must be exempt from tariffs- this is about human lives, not just economics.
The impact may be less severe in some areas, but it could be significant in medical diagnostics. Items like diabetic supplies, glucose monitors, home healthcare services, and essential medical equipment are largely manufactured in the U.S. and imported into Canada. If tariffs increase costs, we need to find alternative suppliers internationally- which is easier said than done, especially in medical manufacturing.
Pharmaceuticals will also be affected. Many brand-name drugs are manufactured in the U.S., and while Canada produces some generics, we still rely heavily on American manufacturers. Generics might remain stable, but branded medications could become more expensive, leading to supply chain issues. The difficulty is that everything in life sciences is interconnected- it’s hard to predict which areas will suffer most.
I hope we never reach a point where patients have to choose between diabetic medical supplies and home healthcare essentials due to budget cuts caused by tariffs. The entire sector is deeply intertwined, and restrictions on one area will inevitably ripple across the healthcare ecosystem.
Jacobsen: Is there any indication that these tariffs will at least be temporary if they do not include an exemption for life sciences? Could they last only for 2025 or remain in place until the next U.S. election cycle, when a new administration might lift them? Or do you think this is part of a longer-term pattern where the U.S. moves toward imposing broad tariffs across multiple industries, including life sciences?
Kapoor: I hope these tariffs are short-term. I hope they are primarily a political play, a negotiation tactic aimed at domestic audiences, and they do not escalate into lasting trade restrictions.
That said, even if tariffs are eventually lifted, they could still have long-term consequences. Companies that relocate manufacturing overseas in response to tariffs may not return unless significant tax incentives or policy shifts make it financially viable. A brain drain could also occur, with Canadian scientists and life sciences experts moving to countries with more favourable business environments. If that happens, rebuilding Canada’s position in the life sciences sector will take years.
Looking at historical precedent, during President Trump’s first term, tariffs were imposed but later adjusted or lifted as compromises were reached. If that pattern repeats, we could expect a similar outcome this time. I am optimistic that these restrictions will not become permanent, but the uncertainty damages the industry.
Jacobsen: Let’s hope for the best. That concludes all my questions for today, Dr. Kapoor. Thank you for your time- I truly appreciate it. It was great to meet you.
Kapoor: Thank you. It was great meeting you as well. I always try to be honest and insightful, and I hope I provided useful perspectives.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/14
Clergy sexual abuse is not confined to any one faith, denomination, or country—it is a global crisis rooted in power, secrecy, and institutional self-preservation. In this conversation, survivors, advocates, clergy, legal scholars, and researchers confront the patterns that allow abuse to persist and the systemic enablers who shield perpetrators from accountability. From the misuse of spiritual authority to the failure of church leadership to act, their testimonies reveal both the depth of the harm and the urgent need for reform. Together, they ask the questions that religious institutions have long avoided—and challenge the structures that have turned sacred spaces into sites of betrayal.
Katherine Archer is the co-founder of Prosopon Healing and a graduate student in Theological Studies, soon to begin a Master’s in Counseling Psychology. Her work lies at the intersection of academic research and nonprofit advocacy, focusing on clergy abuse within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Archer champions policy reform to address adult clergy exploitation, advancing a vision of healing rooted in justice, accountability, and survivor support.
Irene Deschênes, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, first reported her case to the Diocese of London (Ontario) in 1992. Nearly three decades later—after a Supreme Court of Canada ruling—she reached a civil settlement in 2021. With a background in sociology and a career in social services, Deschênes co-founded Outrage Canada, a national, non-religious coalition demanding accountability from the Roman Catholic Church and justice for victims. Known for asking Canadians, “Where’s the outrage?” she works to prevent further abuse, protect children, and keep survivor voices in the public conversation through media appearances and documentary work.
Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., a legal scholar and former IDF officer, has made a career of confronting institutional complicity and promoting bystander accountability. Author of The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, Guiora draws direct lines between Holocaust history and modern abuse cases. His advocacy was instrumental in Utah’s 2021 bystander law, and through the Bystander Initiative, he presses for survivor-centered legal reforms. “All hands on deck,” he insists.
Father Bojan Jovanović, a Serbian Orthodox priest and Secretary of the Union of Christians of Croatia, is recognized for his unflinching critiques of institutional failings within the Church. His book Confession: How We Killed God and his leadership in the Alliance of Christians of Croatia reflect his commitment to ethical reform and moral reckoning. Jovanović calls for transparency and open dialogue as prerequisites for restoring trust in religious life.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr. led Forest Hill Presbyterian Church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for more than three decades. Known for his passionate preaching and deep commitment to justice, compassion, and community leadership, Lentz retired in 2024 after a distinguished ministry. During his tenure, he inherited and confronted the traumatic legacy of clergy sexual abuse, guiding the congregation through its aftermath.
John Metsopoulos, a former Connecticut state representative and Fairfield’s first selectman, has publicly accused two Greek Orthodox bishops—Metropolitan Athenagoras Aneste (2017–2019) and the late Metropolitan Iakovos Garmatis (1970)—of sexual and psychological abuse, as well as financial misconduct. Now living in Central America, Metsopoulos advocates for institutional accountability and supports fellow survivors through the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu, a neuroscientist at Scripps Research in San Diego, investigates the brain’s circuitry to better understand the neurobiological roots of abnormal behavior, particularly in the context of trauma and substance use. Her current research examines how sexual trauma is encoded in the brain, with the goal of improving therapeutic strategies for PTSD and addiction comorbidity.
Professor David K. Pooler, Ph.D., LCSW-S, teaches at Baylor University’s Diana R. Garland School of Social Work. Specializing in trauma, abuse, and institutional responses to misconduct, Pooler is a committed advocate for survivors. His research focuses on systemic injustice and ethical accountability within faith-based organizations.
Dorothy Small, a retired registered nurse, has been a vocal survivor advocate with SNAP for decades. Having endured both childhood and adult clergy abuse, she began speaking out long before the #MeToo movement brought wider attention to such experiences. A cancer survivor and grandmother, she now writes about recovery, resilience, and personal freedom, amplifying survivor voices and pressing for institutional reform.
Michelle Stewart is a cult survivor, author, and activist whose memoir Judas Girl: My Father, Four Cults & How I Escaped Them All recounts her harrowing upbringing in extremist religious groups. Now based in Colorado, Stewart advocates for survivors of religious abuse, focusing on the harms of coercive control and religious trauma in children. Through public speaking, education, and support work, she pushes for greater awareness and protection for the vulnerable.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Drawing on your experience, conversations, and research, what broad trends and facts have emerged—either definitively or with near-conclusive certainty—in international cases of clergy-related abuse? Which truths, when stated consistently and publicly, are most crucial for reshaping the informational landscape—not only around misconduct in general, but clergy abuse in particular?
Katherine Archer: Clergy abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with sex; rather, it is sexualized violence that, at its root, is about power and control. We are now learning that the majority of clergy abuse survivors may be adult women, but because historically adult abuse has been mislabeled as an “affair,” women do not easily come forward and report their experiences. Many women delay disclosure or never disclose, and this isolation in secret-keeping exacerbates the injury.
Finally, clergy sexual abuse cannot be separated from spiritual abuse. There is significant spiritual injury before or as part of the abuse, and it is inseparable from the clergy abuse. This causes a truly profound double-injury, in that typically a victim-survivor has greater difficulty turning to a Higher Power or to one’s spirituality or religion to heal from a tremendous injury. In this way, it differs from other types of violence, wherein one might decide to turn to a Higher Power to heal. The place of healing is also a place of injury. It is like taking medicine that also feels poisonous.
There is a third, even greater injury when a religious community aligns against a victim-survivor. I would say that in most communities, congregants might understand that a priest exploiting an adult congregant is abusive as a theoretical idea. Still, when it comes to a situation in front of them, they do not view the adult victim that they know as an injured party. It’s common to label the adult victim with a mental illness in a derisive, dismissive way, and this is yet another abuse. If a victim-survivor is experiencing symptoms of what is termed mental illness, perhaps the priest’s actions induced depression, anxiety, or whatever it may be. The victim is not “crazy.” This is ignorant, and it’s unacceptable.
Irene Deschênes: What I have seen, not only from my personal experience, but also with working with other survivors of clergy sexual abuse, is that the church hierarchy’s knee-jerk reaction is to contact their lawyers before doing anything else. One would think a moral institution that purports to offer compassion and care to the most marginalized in society would instead take a pastoral approach to survivors who come forward. Sadly, this happens more often than not. First, the Catholic Church attempts to litigate its way out of dealing with the real issue – care and healing of the victim they created. Don’t get me wrong, most survivors need the monetary compensation that a civil suit might provide to deal with an interrupted work history. However, most victims merely want to hear, “What happened to you was wrong. It should never have happened to you. This is what we’re going to do…and, what do you need from us?” These words were never spoken to any survivor I have worked with in the 33 years that I have been advocating for and with survivors.
Secondly, members of the hierarchy, globally, obfuscate when speaking to their flock, the media, the public, and, more importantly, to survivors that come forward. The Roman Catholic Church have staff and unlimited financial resources. How can survivors’ voices, individually or even collectively, ever be heard with limited to no resources to tell our truths?
Thirdly, the secrecy is mind-boggling. Whether it be with meeting a member of the hierarchy or in litigation, a lot of information is held to the chest. Canon law even speaks of ‘secret files’ that must be maintained. Most survivors are told they are “the only victim,” and there is no way to verify or refute it. The church hierarchy has this information but refuses to release it to the public or even to lawyers or plaintiffs. It’s common knowledge that perpetrators rarely only have one victim; therefore, it’s of great importance that victims know they are not alone and that there have potentially been allegations against a clergy perpetrator.
The seal of the confession is making news in the United States as of late. Roman Catholic priests who learn of a child being abused by a penitent (one confessing to a priest) are not required under canon law to report the abuse. In Canada, everyone is a mandated reporter. Everyone. However, those professionals who work with the marginalized in our communities have a greater obligation to report. Does canon law supersede civil law? The church seems to think so.
Finally, on our website, our values are the extreme opposite of what the church espouses vs. what they do, in my experience.
Dr. Amos Guiora: To fully appreciate clergy abuse requires that we recognize the critical role played by enablers. While attention is generally focused on the perpetrator of the abuse, the role of the person in a position of authority/status who knows or should know of harm to vulnerable individuals demands our attention. That is the individual I define as the enabler. In a series of books and articles, I have argued that the enabler must be held accountable for the harm they caused. It is for this reason that I have engaged with legislators, the media, the broader public, survivors, and thought leaders both in the U.S. and internationally, with the aim of criminalizing enablers by enacting legislation addressing the crime of enabling.
In examining clergy abuse, I have focused on the actor who directly protects the institution, indirectly the perpetrator. Interactions with clergy abuse survivors shed powerful light on the harm caused by the enabler upon recognition that the perpetrator had previously abused and should not have had access to the vulnerable individual.
As I learned when writing two books addressing enablers, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, and a series of law review articles, the impact of the harm caused by enablers was, more often than not, a revelation (the word is not used theologically) to the survivors whose primary focus, for understandable reasons, been on the perpetrators. However, when we would “reverse engineer” the interaction with the perpetrator, the survivor would come to understand that absent the enabler, the abuser would not have been able to commit the heinous crime/s they did.
While I am not a person of faith (I am a secular Jew), I have come to appreciate the powerful role of the Church as an institution and the clergy as an individual in the life of a person of faith. Undoubtedly, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this triangular relationship is positive. Of great significance to the believer, the question before us is what happens when abuse occurs and is reported to faith leaders. THAT (caps intended) is the question that demands our attention; as I have come to learn, in many cases, the report is either not believed or the abuse of clergy is “shuffled” off to another location. Both reactions are devastating for the survivor who was not only physically abused but, no less significantly, emotionally injured.
Understanding the harm caused to them would result in neither punishment of the perpetrator nor acknowledgment of the abuse to which they had been subjected, which often resulted in re-victimization. This is the essence of institutional complicity, whereby (in the faith context), faith leaders make the conscious decision to prioritize the “good name” of the church, thereby casting asunder the survivor for whom, in many cases, the abusive clergy was an individual whom they revered and held in the highest regard.
The all-but instinctual reaction to hunker down, reflective of institutional protection, is oft-repeated, almost akin to a time-tested manual with one clear purpose: protect the institution, consequences to the individual be damned. Criminalizing the enabler is necessary to address institutional complicity that protects the abuser while re-victimizing the survivor and placing in harm’s way individuals who will encounter an abusive clergy in the future. Who is the beneficiary of the act of enabling by those whose primary obligation is to protect the vulnerable?
In a clergy-faith context, failure to address the consequences of the harm caused by the enablers is akin to saying to people of faith: we knowingly abandon you, and no less egregiously, we are consciously placing other vulnerable individuals in harm’s way. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of enabling.
The time to act is now, with the understanding that as the lines are written, an individual who should have been protected is in harm’s way because of enablers who have committed the act of enabling. To address this, we need an “all hands-on deck” approach, inspired by a handwritten letter from a Holocaust survivor who once wrote me, “You give voice to the voiceless.”
Ask any survivor: we do not have the luxury of time; given the numbers and accounts of clergy abuse, addressing the crime of enabling demands our immediate attention.
Fr. Bojan Jovanović: First hard fact: Abuse within religious structures is not a “failure” of individuals, but a result of a hierarchical system that enables complete control, isolation, and impunity for perpetrators. Abuse happened—and continues to happen—precisely because of the power that religious office holds: the unquestioning of authority, manipulation of conscience, and the belief that the institution stands above the law. These are not isolated incidents; they are patterns.
The handling of internal disciplinary processes, without mandatory reporting to the state, has allowed rapists to be transferred from one location to another without any punishment. These “internal proceedings” are nothing more than a smokescreen to evade legal accountability. Every such cover-up is an act of complicity, which, in legal terms, qualifies as aiding and abetting or concealing a criminal offense.
Thousands of victims never got the chance to speak out because they were threatened with spiritual consequences—that they would be excommunicated, that they would “harm the Church,” that they would lose their community. This is institutional intimidation. In many cases, those who tried to report abuse were ridiculed, belittled, and their testimonies discredited.
To this day, in many countries, there is no legal framework that obligates religious officials to report suspected sexual abuse. This puts religious institutions above the law, and this must be dismantled in public discourse. Because an institution that delivers moral sermons while protecting rapists is not a sanctuary—it is an organization that must be held accountable like any other. If not more so.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr.: What must be consistently stated in public discourse is the amount of clergy sexual abuse (aka “misconduct”) that continues to occur. Furthermore, it is not just a Roman Catholic issue.
I think it is important to note what denominations have done in the past 20 years or so to confront cases of abuse. For example. I know that in the Presbyterian Church USA, there are now criminal background checks for every hire of pastors, Directors of CE, Music directors, and staff. Sexual misconduct trainings are held for all elected leaders of the congregation, and all who volunteer with children (birth through 18) must have said training. Any allegations against a pastor must be reported to the Presbytery (regional governing authority,) and all allegations must be shared with all other Presbyteries if a job transfer is requested. However, it has not stopped abuse from taking place.
In the PCUSA, pastors are legally mandated to report cases of sexual abuse and misconduct. If a pastor is accused, then the Associate Pastor or Clerk of Session (ordained lay leaders) is legally mandated to report the pastor.
I think that most Protestant denominations have moved in the right direction in the matter of sexual misconduct and abuse in the past two decades. However, enabling and covering up continue. The status and perceived power of the pastor or priest continue to create barriers to reporting and accountability.
John Metsopoulos: It is not the fault of the abused, and it can happen at any age. It is a fallacy that it only happens to the young. The abuser uses many forms of abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional, and financial. They may use others to degrade the victims and increase their power and control over the victims. The abuser starts building up the abused, making them feel special, and then they begin to tear them down. In addition, the abuser attempts to alienate them from family, friends, and persons who might see a change in the behavior of the abused. Once they are isolated, the abused now has no one to trust, and the abuser now has complete control over the victims. The abused feels totally alone emotionally and mentally. The abused is further confused as they may enjoy the physical aspect of the abuse, as the body tends to respond to the abuse.
The abused hunt their victims, and seek out victims for the innocence of a person and their depth of faith. The stronger the faith, the greater the opportunity for the abuser. The abuser seeks out individuals whose family is going through turmoil. The abuser seeks out victims whose families have deep faith and would never believe a member of the clergy would abuse anyone. They make the victims feel that what is normal in their lives is abnormal and only they can bring normalcy. Abuse is a total, all-consuming devastation that leaves them alone and deprived of self-respect.
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu: The first truth is this: accused sexual offenders employed as “clergy” by Church institutions often remain in ministry—unimpeded—unless they are criminally convicted and physically imprisoned. Church administrators routinely go to extraordinary lengths to shield or reassign these individuals, often prioritizing institutional reputation over victim safety. This persistent pattern is exactly why enabling behavior must be criminalized, as law professor Amos Guiora has argued through his extensive work on the “enabler” phenomenon.
There is a noteworthy trend. In the Russian and even in Romanian Orthodox churches in Russia and Romania, sexual perpetrators are held accountable at higher rates than sexual perpetrators in Orthodox churches in the United States. Our preliminary data show that more accused clergy are defrocked or penalized by the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia compared to other jurisdictions.
The second truth is even more grotesque: victims of clergy sexual abuse are frequently blamed for their abuse. Church officials often reverse the roles, casting the victim as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the misunderstood “man of God.” The immense power differential between clergy and laity suddenly disappears from their moral calculus.
We are talking about a crime—so, lacking any legitimate defense, they default to blaming the victim. I read about a case that involved a 4-year-old child accused of “encouraging” an adult man by wearing his boxer shorts. If defenders can stoop to blaming a toddler, they certainly won’t hesitate to call the abuse of an adult woman an “affair” or something “consensual.” That word—“consensual”—has become a favorite among Church apologists, conveniently ignoring the inherent coercion that comes from spiritual authority. But sexual abuse cloaked in sacraments is still sexual assault, which is a crime. Calling it “consensual” doesn’t make a crime any less criminal.
The third truth is a demographic pattern that should raise immediate red flags: clergy sexual abuse cases often involve victims who are decades younger than their abusers. Many of these clergy are well beyond retirement age, yet inexplicably remain in active ministry—exempt from both moral scrutiny and mandatory rest.
And finally, at a recent academic conference on religion and sexual abuse, we presented findings from our research into hundreds of clergy sexual abuse cases within Orthodox Christian communities. The data is clear: the Orthodox Church has a clergy sexual abuse problem. This is not hearsay. This is research-based.
Among U.S.-based Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America stands out for having the highest number of reported sexual misconduct cases in the public domain. Oddly enough, this American jurisdiction answers to a high-ranking official based in Istanbul—who was even honored this year with the Templeton Prize for his climate change advocacy.
I find it deeply troubling that a man can be celebrated while disregarding the suffering of women and children who were, and continue to be, abused by clergy under his spiritual authority. There can be no climate justice without social justice. Yet while victims suffer here at home, ultimate decision-making power remains half a world away, seemingly more invested in liturgical pageantry and accolades than in justice for the abused.
Dr. David Pooler: In public discourse around clergy sexual abuse, we must first name it as a phenomenon that is about the abuse and misuse of power, role, and position of a religious authority. The responsibility for the safety of people in interpersonal relationships is on the professional in a position of power. And this is especially true in relationships where someone with more power represents God.
This religious authority does not have to be a pastor or priest only. It is far more about the way the person has power in any given religious system. Even a volunteer who is given much authority and power can use their position to have sex with someone they support.
When the victim is an adult, we must unequivocally state it is not an “affair” and the person being targeted is not “participating willingly.” We must smash the idea that the victim in adult clergy sexual abuse wants this or should be responsible for stopping it. The harm done to a victim is profound and complex. The reason this is so urgent is that officials and spokespersons within religious systems continue to use the idea that it is an unfortunate case of consenting adults who had an inappropriate relationship. The longer we tolerate a false and misleading narrative like this, the longer clergy sexual abuse can be done with impunity, and the harm done to survivors overlooked or minimized.
Dorothy Small: The firm facts and broad trends—based on my personal experience and on conversations with other survivors of clergy-related abuse, whether as adults or as children—are consistent across international cases: dismissal, disbelief, victim-blaming and shaming, retaliation and ostracism after reporting, loss of faith or religious community, and the protection of clergy perpetrators and institutions over the needs of the abused. Silence is rewarded; speaking out is punished, often for the very reasons I’ve listed.
Victims frequently struggle with the emotional impact of grooming tactics. Trauma bonding formed through intensive grooming creates a powerful attachment, akin to an addictive mood-altering substance on brain chemistry. This bond gives the illusion of being “in love,” fostering an addictive pattern that overrides rational judgment. Pursuit behaviors—chasing after what once felt good—are fueled by intermittent reinforcement, alternating “love-bombing” with withdrawal and emotional coercion. This cycle drives the exploited person to dismiss the pain in search of the next emotional high. The victim often falsely believes their involvement was “consensual,” when in reality it was the result of manipulation, not genuine care or love.
Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or culture, human beings tend to respond similarly to such abuse, though specific factors can create unique challenges. For example, males sexually abused by males often experience heightened embarrassment and shame, which can adversely affect sexuality. Adults abused by clergy frequently feel responsible not only for what happened but also carry the guilt and shame projected onto them by their abuser.
Michelle Stewart: While most Eastern Orthodox clergy are not abusers, the hierarchical structure creates an environment in which abuse can flourish. Though the majority of clergy are likely well-intentioned, the system of spiritual authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church often acts as a petri dish for misconduct. Allegations must typically pass through multiple layers of hierarchy, where, in my experience, the benefit of the doubt is more often given to the accused than to the victim.
A well-documented example is the case against my former brother-in-law, Fr. Matthew Williams. Another is St. Innocent’s Academy, where reports of student abuse were ignored or minimized for years. In both cases, the Church’s delayed response not only obscured the misconduct but effectively enabled it.
The Church frequently resists external oversight, minimizing legal accountability. When it does respond to allegations, legal action is often delayed or actively resisted. My first encounter with this came nearly twenty years ago in the case of Christ of the Hills Monastery, when ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) vigorously defended monks accused of child sexual abuse—even supplying character witnesses. As the then-spouse of one such witness, I overheard private conversations in which participants acknowledged the allegations could be credible. Yet the institutional response prioritized church sovereignty over victim protection, with statements like “this is a matter for confession” or, more bluntly, “this is none of the legal system’s business.” Similar dynamics are now playing out in the Fr. Matthew Williams case.
Confession and the authority of the spiritual father are often weaponized to silence victims. In Judas Girl, reflecting on my own experiences and broader patterns of abuse—particularly within ROCOR—I wrote: “There is no greater predator than the one who convinces you they have power over your soul.” Those unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy may underestimate the influence of the spiritual father, especially within the sacrament of confession.
While I do not advocate eliminating confession for those who find it spiritually meaningful, it is important to note two critical points: In many states, clergy are mandatory reporters; however, the seal of confession often exempts them. Many Orthodox believers are taught that obedience to one’s spiritual father is essential for salvation—even when that guidance is ethically or spiritually troubling.
In my own case, when I disclosed emotional or spiritual abuse by my husband or clergy during confession, I was rebuked and told I was spiritually deficient for harboring resentment. I was told such matters were not mine to speak of, but rather the abuser’s to confess. This pattern is not unique to me. Several victims I’ve spoken with shared that after disclosing sexual abuse during confession, they were advised not to speak publicly—reinforcing a culture of silence and spiritual coercion.
Jacobsen: What question is the most crucial to ask about clergy-related abuse to you?
Archer: The most urgent question is why all 50 states do not have legislation holding criminally liable clergy persons who misuse their position of trust and authority. A clergyperson is in a position of trust and power relative to their congregant. A doctor or therapist cannot sexualize a relationship with a patient because professional ethics and state boards recognize the power differential and expressly prohibit this behavior. It is known to be abuse. There are no state boards for clergy. Why is it that clergy get a “pass” on ethical standards, when I would argue that there is even more implicit trust and intimacy in a relationship of soul-care?
I view this from the perspective of an Orthodox Christian, with an understanding of the long history of soul-care within Orthodox Christianity; however, the spiritual intimacy between clergyperson and congregant holds within many other faith traditions as well. Orthodox tradition recognizes a long history of psychotherapy, or care of the psyche. This is different from mental health therapy as it is practiced with a superbill and a co-pay, but truly no different ethically if a priest sexually abuses a man or woman who has gone to him for help. It should be criminalized so that a victim-survivor can gain some understanding of the injury, and a priest cannot continue to pastor.
In the absence of this kind of law in every state, many church bodies “investigate” these abuses as though they were affairs. There may be substantial evidence of what we term misconduct, but it is viewed through the lens of it being an “affair.” This is a reprehensible protection of the institution over a human person who has experienced severe injury. Church investigating bodies, which include attorneys and clergy, inflict greater injuries when sexualized violence is mislabeled as an “affair.” As a society, we should demand that all clergy understand this issue– even if religious seminaries are not addressing this subject well enough for clergy to use the correct language.
Deschênes: The hashtag I used on Twitter was #thechurchcantpoliceitself—and that’s exactly what has been happening for a long time. There is no transparency, only secrecy. All matters are handled internally, leaving victims unaware of what discussions take place or what decisions are made. Many survivors are told the offending clergy is no longer serving their community. Yet, in reality, they often remain in place or are quietly transferred to another parish—sometimes across provincial or federal borders—where new victims can be found.
The Roman Catholic Church, as many can attest, has changed little in its thinking or modus operandi. The few changes that do occur happen over a lifetime, not years or decades. The Church should reevaluate how it responds to victims. One member of the hierarchy once said, when told that most victims simply want an apology, “That can’t happen, because then we set ourselves up for litigation.” Survivors who have endured litigation know how arduous, re-traumatizing, and drawn-out the process can be—delaying healing, if healing is even possible.
My question is: why not evolve and change your approach when a victim of sexual assault by one of your members comes forward? Why is litigation the first response? Why protect your “brother” instead of a member of your flock? What do you lose by treating victims with compassion and care?
I believe the secrecy exists to protect the Church’s reputation. It may have worked in the past. But with the internet, survivors can find one another, offer mutual support, and learn—often through the media—about credible allegations against clergy. What is the Church’s real reputation today? Person A: “Our parish priest was charged with sexual assault.” Person B: “Another one? Well, that’s the Catholic Church for you.” That is the reality now. What institution would want that?
Metsopoulos: What is the true number of cases of abuse by clergy? It seems that a true figure does not exist. It is important to get a true number, as it is a lot higher than the churches or their attorneys admit. They do not want to face the problem, as it is a problem that is at the core of the church’s organization. The abusers in the churches are the majority of the institution. The clergy all have incriminating evidence on each other and blackmail each other to silence each othe,r preventing the truth from coming out. To get a true figure would decimate the churches, and it would become apparent that the rot goes all the way to the top.
Also, the legal professionals associated with the churches are not concerned with the truth coming out, but with protecting the church, allowing the abuse to continue.
The attorneys and churches, under the pretext of wanting to end clergy abuse, seek victims to share their traumatic events to bring justice, when in fact they are attempting to cover the tracks of the abusers and discredit the victims of abuse. The goal is not to achieve justice for the victims but to evade the law. The attorneys play both sides against the middle. They are the worst of the legal profession and, in some ways, worse than the abuser, by providing false hope for the abused.
Why are victims afraid to come forward?
The victims are victimized by the church, the public, friends, and family. They feel isolated, empty, and guilty for coming forward. They feel shame and guilt for allowing it to happen and allowing it to continue. They may confuse healthy sexual relations with abuse. In the end, the victim is victimized and left alone.
Nedelescu: The most urgent question is this: Why are church officials who knowingly enable clergy sexual abuse not held criminally liable?
People including Melania Sakoda and Cappy Larson have spent decades cataloging the crimes of abusive clergy within the Orthodox Church (all jurisdictions), and while that work is continuing by Katherine and I, it is no longer enough. A new frontier of accountability must now target the enablers—the bishops, chancellors, general counsels, and senior administrators who receive complaints, suppress evidence, intimidate victims, move or cover for perpetrators, and then dare to call themselves “spiritual leaders,” “protecting the Church,” or seeking “truth.”
These enablers rarely touch the criminal justice system. Why? Because our legal frameworks still treat institutional cowardice and bureaucratic cover-up as unfortunate oversights rather than as deliberate acts that perpetuate harm. And yet, without the enabler, the perpetrator cannot persist. The real scandal is not just the abuse—it’s the system that sustains it.
We must stop pretending these enablers are merely misguided managers. They are collaborators. Their silence, their memos, their settlement clauses—all of it—forms the infrastructure of abuse. And until we criminalize enabling behavior, the Church will continue protecting predators while branding survivors as “unstable,” “sinful,” “temptress,” or “misunderstood.”
The urgent question is no longer “Who abused?” but “Who knew—and did nothing?” And if the answer is a bishop or a synod or a patriarch, the next question must be: When will that enabler be indicted?
Pooler: To further advance the study of justice in clergy-related abuse, the most crucial question to ask is what barriers stand in the way of churches setting up rigorous protocols to prevent abuse from happening and responding well when abuse is discovered or reported? One answer is Clericalism, the invisible force at play that teaches people to trust a spiritual authority and distrust themselves blindly. Religious leaders benefit from this arrangement, and therefore, religious systems appear impervious primarily to outside feedback and seem to struggle to reflect and accurately appraise how well they train leaders, develop useful processes to deal with abuse, and respond to survivors. In my observation, churches are largely ineffectual in addressing these issues and cannot admit it to themselves or others. And truly, one of my most profound questions is “why”? It would seem to me that churches could lead the way and model to society the virtues of kindness, generosity, care, and create robust and thoughtful responses when a leader injures someone in their care. But churches appear to fail at this repeatedly and often. And a second question is, why aren’t churches asking this question for their own sake? The fact that there isn’t a great answer to either of these questions deeply troubles me.
Small: The most urgent question about clergy abuse is this: Why is it still an issue today, given the decades of documented complaints, known victims, and our expanded understanding of the serious, lifelong health consequences? Addiction, for example, is one such consequence, with far-reaching effects. It is a global epidemic, and research has long shown that at the root of addiction often lies complex post-traumatic stress and other severe mental health conditions, frequently stemming from abusive relationships and relational traumas.
In other caregiving professions, abuse has been met with legal consequences—heavy fines, imprisonment, and loss of licenses—effectively removing offenders from positions of trust. Yet in religious institutions, whose reach and influence are vast, the problem persists. This is a public safety crisis of epic proportions. The data clearly show the profound damage such abuse inflicts on mental and physical health. The most powerful institutions have the capacity either to heal and unify, as they were meant to, or to cause lasting harm, as history has shown.
Why, then, is it so difficult for religious institutions to sanction and remove offenders instead of shielding them—often by transferring them to new locations where they can prey on the vulnerable again? The Catholic Church’s global presence, for instance, allows abusers to be relocated to other countries, where they continue to exploit trust. Vulnerability is universal; trust itself makes anyone susceptible. While minors are the most at risk, vulnerability spans all ages.
Why is immediate corrective action so rare when credible accusations arise? At the very least, institutions could remove the accused from active roles and make their names public. By the time a survivor fully recognizes they were abused, decades may have passed. Concealing an abuser’s identity only leaves others at risk. During the grooming phase, a victim may sense something is wrong, but the perpetrator—armed with authority and institutional backing—can manipulate, plant doubt, and gaslight the target into confusion and compliance. This dynamic not only weakens victims but also enables escalating abuse.
Stewart: The most urgent question is: How can external accountability be meaningfully enforced within the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly among the clergy?
Abuse can occur in any organization and may never be fully eradicated. However, the decisive factor is how institutions—especially those in positions of authority—respond when abuse surfaces. Their response determines whether the organization actively works against abuse or inadvertently becomes a breeding ground for it. In hierarchical systems like Eastern Orthodoxy, abuse is not merely the result of individual misconduct; it is often facilitated—and concealed—by the very structures designed to provide spiritual guidance. The rigid church hierarchy, combined with the protections of confession, can allow perpetrators to avoid legal scrutiny, while internal mechanisms have consistently failed to safeguard victims.
As documented abuse cases accumulate, the Church—and those responsible for holding it accountable—now stand at a critical crossroads. Raising awareness is an essential first step, but the next imperative is to implement enforceable mechanisms of accountability that address and dismantle the systemic enablers of abuse. While some within the Church hierarchy may resist what they perceive as external intrusion, there is, hopefully, a broader majority of clergy and faithful who are willing to support reform. Their participation is not only desirable—it is likely essential to achieving meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Everyone, thank you for taking a little time to discuss this straightforward topic with complex derivatives. I appreciate the courage, forthrightness, and honesty.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/08/12
Clergy sexual abuse is not confined to any one faith, denomination, or country—it is a global crisis rooted in power, secrecy, and institutional self-preservation. In this conversation, survivors, advocates, clergy, legal scholars, and researchers confront the patterns that allow abuse to persist and the systemic enablers who shield perpetrators from accountability. From the misuse of spiritual authority to the failure of church leadership to act, their testimonies reveal both the depth of the harm and the urgent need for reform. Together, they ask the questions that religious institutions have long avoided—and challenge the structures that have turned sacred spaces into sites of betrayal.
Katherine Archer is the co-founder of Prosopon Healing and a graduate student in Theological Studies, soon to begin a Master’s in Counseling Psychology. Her work lies at the intersection of academic research and nonprofit advocacy, focusing on clergy abuse within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Archer champions policy reform to address adult clergy exploitation, advancing a vision of healing rooted in justice, accountability, and survivor support.
Irene Deschênes, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, first reported her case to the Diocese of London (Ontario) in 1992. Nearly three decades later—after a Supreme Court of Canada ruling—she reached a civil settlement in 2021. With a background in sociology and a career in social services, Deschênes co-founded Outrage Canada, a national, non-religious coalition demanding accountability from the Roman Catholic Church and justice for victims. Known for asking Canadians, “Where’s the outrage?” she works to prevent further abuse, protect children, and keep survivor voices in the public conversation through media appearances and documentary work.
Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., a legal scholar and former IDF officer, has made a career of confronting institutional complicity and promoting bystander accountability. Author of The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, Guiora draws direct lines between Holocaust history and modern abuse cases. His advocacy was instrumental in Utah’s 2021 bystander law, and through the Bystander Initiative, he presses for survivor-centered legal reforms. “All hands on deck,” he insists.
Father Bojan Jovanović, a Serbian Orthodox priest and Secretary of the Union of Christians of Croatia, is recognized for his unflinching critiques of institutional failings within the Church. His book Confession: How We Killed God and his leadership in the Alliance of Christians of Croatia reflect his commitment to ethical reform and moral reckoning. Jovanović calls for transparency and open dialogue as prerequisites for restoring trust in religious life.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr. led Forest Hill Presbyterian Church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for more than three decades. Known for his passionate preaching and deep commitment to justice, compassion, and community leadership, Lentz retired in 2024 after a distinguished ministry. During his tenure, he inherited and confronted the traumatic legacy of clergy sexual abuse, guiding the congregation through its aftermath.
John Metsopoulos, a former Connecticut state representative and Fairfield’s first selectman, has publicly accused two Greek Orthodox bishops—Metropolitan Athenagoras Aneste (2017–2019) and the late Metropolitan Iakovos Garmatis (1970)—of sexual and psychological abuse, as well as financial misconduct. Now living in Central America, Metsopoulos advocates for institutional accountability and supports fellow survivors through the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu, a neuroscientist at Scripps Research in San Diego, investigates the brain’s circuitry to better understand the neurobiological roots of abnormal behavior, particularly in the context of trauma and substance use. Her current research examines how sexual trauma is encoded in the brain, with the goal of improving therapeutic strategies for PTSD and addiction comorbidity.
Professor David K. Pooler, Ph.D., LCSW-S, teaches at Baylor University’s Diana R. Garland School of Social Work. Specializing in trauma, abuse, and institutional responses to misconduct, Pooler is a committed advocate for survivors. His research focuses on systemic injustice and ethical accountability within faith-based organizations.
Dorothy Small, a retired registered nurse, has been a vocal survivor advocate with SNAP for decades. Having endured both childhood and adult clergy abuse, she began speaking out long before the #MeToo movement brought wider attention to such experiences. A cancer survivor and grandmother, she now writes about recovery, resilience, and personal freedom, amplifying survivor voices and pressing for institutional reform.
Michelle Stewart is a cult survivor, author, and activist whose memoir Judas Girl: My Father, Four Cults & How I Escaped Them All recounts her harrowing upbringing in extremist religious groups. Now based in Colorado, Stewart advocates for survivors of religious abuse, focusing on the harms of coercive control and religious trauma in children. Through public speaking, education, and support work, she pushes for greater awareness and protection for the vulnerable.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Drawing on your experience, conversations, and research, what broad trends and facts have emerged—either definitively or with near-conclusive certainty—in international cases of clergy-related abuse? Which truths, when stated consistently and publicly, are most crucial for reshaping the informational landscape—not only around misconduct in general, but clergy abuse in particular?
Katherine Archer: Clergy abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with sex; rather, it is sexualized violence that, at its root, is about power and control. We are now learning that the majority of clergy abuse survivors may be adult women, but because historically adult abuse has been mislabeled as an “affair,” women do not easily come forward and report their experiences. Many women delay disclosure or never disclose, and this isolation in secret-keeping exacerbates the injury.
Finally, clergy sexual abuse cannot be separated from spiritual abuse. There is significant spiritual injury before or as part of the abuse, and it is inseparable from the clergy abuse. This causes a truly profound double-injury, in that typically a victim-survivor has greater difficulty turning to a Higher Power or to one’s spirituality or religion to heal from a tremendous injury. In this way, it differs from other types of violence, wherein one might decide to turn to a Higher Power to heal. The place of healing is also a place of injury. It is like taking medicine that also feels poisonous.
There is a third, even greater injury when a religious community aligns against a victim-survivor. I would say that in most communities, congregants might understand that a priest exploiting an adult congregant is abusive as a theoretical idea. Still, when it comes to a situation in front of them, they do not view the adult victim that they know as an injured party. It’s common to label the adult victim with a mental illness in a derisive, dismissive way, and this is yet another abuse. If a victim-survivor is experiencing symptoms of what is termed mental illness, perhaps the priest’s actions induced depression, anxiety, or whatever it may be. The victim is not “crazy.” This is ignorant, and it’s unacceptable.
Irene Deschênes: What I have seen, not only from my personal experience, but also with working with other survivors of clergy sexual abuse, is that the church hierarchy’s knee-jerk reaction is to contact their lawyers before doing anything else. One would think a moral institution that purports to offer compassion and care to the most marginalized in society would instead take a pastoral approach to survivors who come forward. Sadly, this happens more often than not. First, the Catholic Church attempts to litigate its way out of dealing with the real issue – care and healing of the victim they created. Don’t get me wrong, most survivors need the monetary compensation that a civil suit might provide to deal with an interrupted work history. However, most victims merely want to hear, “What happened to you was wrong. It should never have happened to you. This is what we’re going to do…and, what do you need from us?” These words were never spoken to any survivor I have worked with in the 33 years that I have been advocating for and with survivors.
Secondly, members of the hierarchy, globally, obfuscate when speaking to their flock, the media, the public, and, more importantly, to survivors that come forward. The Roman Catholic Church have staff and unlimited financial resources. How can survivors’ voices, individually or even collectively, ever be heard with limited to no resources to tell our truths?
Thirdly, the secrecy is mind-boggling. Whether it be with meeting a member of the hierarchy or in litigation, a lot of information is held to the chest. Canon law even speaks of ‘secret files’ that must be maintained. Most survivors are told they are “the only victim,” and there is no way to verify or refute it. The church hierarchy has this information but refuses to release it to the public or even to lawyers or plaintiffs. It’s common knowledge that perpetrators rarely only have one victim; therefore, it’s of great importance that victims know they are not alone and that there have potentially been allegations against a clergy perpetrator.
The seal of the confession is making news in the United States as of late. Roman Catholic priests who learn of a child being abused by a penitent (one confessing to a priest) are not required under canon law to report the abuse. In Canada, everyone is a mandated reporter. Everyone. However, those professionals who work with the marginalized in our communities have a greater obligation to report. Does canon law supersede civil law? The church seems to think so.
Finally, on our website, our values are the extreme opposite of what the church espouses vs. what they do, in my experience.
Dr. Amos Guiora: To fully appreciate clergy abuse requires that we recognize the critical role played by enablers. While attention is generally focused on the perpetrator of the abuse, the role of the person in a position of authority/status who knows or should know of harm to vulnerable individuals demands our attention. That is the individual I define as the enabler. In a series of books and articles, I have argued that the enabler must be held accountable for the harm they caused. It is for this reason that I have engaged with legislators, the media, the broader public, survivors, and thought leaders both in the U.S. and internationally, with the aim of criminalizing enablers by enacting legislation addressing the crime of enabling.
In examining clergy abuse, I have focused on the actor who directly protects the institution, indirectly the perpetrator. Interactions with clergy abuse survivors shed powerful light on the harm caused by the enabler upon recognition that the perpetrator had previously abused and should not have had access to the vulnerable individual.
As I learned when writing two books addressing enablers, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, and a series of law review articles, the impact of the harm caused by enablers was, more often than not, a revelation (the word is not used theologically) to the survivors whose primary focus, for understandable reasons, been on the perpetrators. However, when we would “reverse engineer” the interaction with the perpetrator, the survivor would come to understand that absent the enabler, the abuser would not have been able to commit the heinous crime/s they did.
While I am not a person of faith (I am a secular Jew), I have come to appreciate the powerful role of the Church as an institution and the clergy as an individual in the life of a person of faith. Undoubtedly, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this triangular relationship is positive. Of great significance to the believer, the question before us is what happens when abuse occurs and is reported to faith leaders. THAT (caps intended) is the question that demands our attention; as I have come to learn, in many cases, the report is either not believed or the abuse of clergy is “shuffled” off to another location. Both reactions are devastating for the survivor who was not only physically abused but, no less significantly, emotionally injured.
Understanding the harm caused to them would result in neither punishment of the perpetrator nor acknowledgment of the abuse to which they had been subjected, which often resulted in re-victimization. This is the essence of institutional complicity, whereby (in the faith context), faith leaders make the conscious decision to prioritize the “good name” of the church, thereby casting asunder the survivor for whom, in many cases, the abusive clergy was an individual whom they revered and held in the highest regard.
The all-but instinctual reaction to hunker down, reflective of institutional protection, is oft-repeated, almost akin to a time-tested manual with one clear purpose: protect the institution, consequences to the individual be damned. Criminalizing the enabler is necessary to address institutional complicity that protects the abuser while re-victimizing the survivor and placing in harm’s way individuals who will encounter an abusive clergy in the future. Who is the beneficiary of the act of enabling by those whose primary obligation is to protect the vulnerable?
In a clergy-faith context, failure to address the consequences of the harm caused by the enablers is akin to saying to people of faith: we knowingly abandon you, and no less egregiously, we are consciously placing other vulnerable individuals in harm’s way. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of enabling.
The time to act is now, with the understanding that as the lines are written, an individual who should have been protected is in harm’s way because of enablers who have committed the act of enabling. To address this, we need an “all hands-on deck” approach, inspired by a handwritten letter from a Holocaust survivor who once wrote me, “You give voice to the voiceless.”
Ask any survivor: we do not have the luxury of time; given the numbers and accounts of clergy abuse, addressing the crime of enabling demands our immediate attention.
Fr. Bojan Jovanović: First hard fact: Abuse within religious structures is not a “failure” of individuals, but a result of a hierarchical system that enables complete control, isolation, and impunity for perpetrators. Abuse happened—and continues to happen—precisely because of the power that religious office holds: the unquestioning of authority, manipulation of conscience, and the belief that the institution stands above the law. These are not isolated incidents; they are patterns.
The handling of internal disciplinary processes, without mandatory reporting to the state, has allowed rapists to be transferred from one location to another without any punishment. These “internal proceedings” are nothing more than a smokescreen to evade legal accountability. Every such cover-up is an act of complicity, which, in legal terms, qualifies as aiding and abetting or concealing a criminal offense.
Thousands of victims never got the chance to speak out because they were threatened with spiritual consequences—that they would be excommunicated, that they would “harm the Church,” that they would lose their community. This is institutional intimidation. In many cases, those who tried to report abuse were ridiculed, belittled, and their testimonies discredited.
To this day, in many countries, there is no legal framework that obligates religious officials to report suspected sexual abuse. This puts religious institutions above the law, and this must be dismantled in public discourse. Because an institution that delivers moral sermons while protecting rapists is not a sanctuary—it is an organization that must be held accountable like any other. If not more so.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr.: What must be consistently stated in public discourse is the amount of clergy sexual abuse (aka “misconduct”) that continues to occur. Furthermore, it is not just a Roman Catholic issue.
I think it is important to note what denominations have done in the past 20 years or so to confront cases of abuse. For example. I know that in the Presbyterian Church USA, there are now criminal background checks for every hire of pastors, Directors of CE, Music directors, and staff. Sexual misconduct trainings are held for all elected leaders of the congregation, and all who volunteer with children (birth through 18) must have said training. Any allegations against a pastor must be reported to the Presbytery (regional governing authority,) and all allegations must be shared with all other Presbyteries if a job transfer is requested. However, it has not stopped abuse from taking place.
In the PCUSA, pastors are legally mandated to report cases of sexual abuse and misconduct. If a pastor is accused, then the Associate Pastor or Clerk of Session (ordained lay leaders) is legally mandated to report the pastor.
I think that most Protestant denominations have moved in the right direction in the matter of sexual misconduct and abuse in the past two decades. However, enabling and covering up continue. The status and perceived power of the pastor or priest continue to create barriers to reporting and accountability.
John Metsopoulos: It is not the fault of the abused, and it can happen at any age. It is a fallacy that it only happens to the young. The abuser uses many forms of abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional, and financial. They may use others to degrade the victims and increase their power and control over the victims. The abuser starts building up the abused, making them feel special, and then they begin to tear them down. In addition, the abuser attempts to alienate them from family, friends, and persons who might see a change in the behavior of the abused. Once they are isolated, the abused now has no one to trust, and the abuser now has complete control over the victims. The abused feels totally alone emotionally and mentally. The abused is further confused as they may enjoy the physical aspect of the abuse, as the body tends to respond to the abuse.
The abused hunt their victims, and seek out victims for the innocence of a person and their depth of faith. The stronger the faith, the greater the opportunity for the abuser. The abuser seeks out individuals whose family is going through turmoil. The abuser seeks out victims whose families have deep faith and would never believe a member of the clergy would abuse anyone. They make the victims feel that what is normal in their lives is abnormal and only they can bring normalcy. Abuse is a total, all-consuming devastation that leaves them alone and deprived of self-respect.
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu: The first truth is this: accused sexual offenders employed as “clergy” by Church institutions often remain in ministry—unimpeded—unless they are criminally convicted and physically imprisoned. Church administrators routinely go to extraordinary lengths to shield or reassign these individuals, often prioritizing institutional reputation over victim safety. This persistent pattern is exactly why enabling behavior must be criminalized, as law professor Amos Guiora has argued through his extensive work on the “enabler” phenomenon.
There is a noteworthy trend. In the Russian and even in Romanian Orthodox churches in Russia and Romania, sexual perpetrators are held accountable at higher rates than sexual perpetrators in Orthodox churches in the United States. Our preliminary data show that more accused clergy are defrocked or penalized by the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia compared to other jurisdictions.
The second truth is even more grotesque: victims of clergy sexual abuse are frequently blamed for their abuse. Church officials often reverse the roles, casting the victim as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the misunderstood “man of God.” The immense power differential between clergy and laity suddenly disappears from their moral calculus.
We are talking about a crime—so, lacking any legitimate defense, they default to blaming the victim. I read about a case that involved a 4-year-old child accused of “encouraging” an adult man by wearing his boxer shorts. If defenders can stoop to blaming a toddler, they certainly won’t hesitate to call the abuse of an adult woman an “affair” or something “consensual.” That word—“consensual”—has become a favorite among Church apologists, conveniently ignoring the inherent coercion that comes from spiritual authority. But sexual abuse cloaked in sacraments is still sexual assault, which is a crime. Calling it “consensual” doesn’t make a crime any less criminal.
The third truth is a demographic pattern that should raise immediate red flags: clergy sexual abuse cases often involve victims who are decades younger than their abusers. Many of these clergy are well beyond retirement age, yet inexplicably remain in active ministry—exempt from both moral scrutiny and mandatory rest.
And finally, at a recent academic conference on religion and sexual abuse, we presented findings from our research into hundreds of clergy sexual abuse cases within Orthodox Christian communities. The data is clear: the Orthodox Church has a clergy sexual abuse problem. This is not hearsay. This is research-based.
Among U.S.-based Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America stands out for having the highest number of reported sexual misconduct cases in the public domain. Oddly enough, this American jurisdiction answers to a high-ranking official based in Istanbul—who was even honored this year with the Templeton Prize for his climate change advocacy.
I find it deeply troubling that a man can be celebrated while disregarding the suffering of women and children who were, and continue to be, abused by clergy under his spiritual authority. There can be no climate justice without social justice. Yet while victims suffer here at home, ultimate decision-making power remains half a world away, seemingly more invested in liturgical pageantry and accolades than in justice for the abused.
Dr. David Pooler: In public discourse around clergy sexual abuse, we must first name it as a phenomenon that is about the abuse and misuse of power, role, and position of a religious authority. The responsibility for the safety of people in interpersonal relationships is on the professional in a position of power. And this is especially true in relationships where someone with more power represents God.
This religious authority does not have to be a pastor or priest only. It is far more about the way the person has power in any given religious system. Even a volunteer who is given much authority and power can use their position to have sex with someone they support.
When the victim is an adult, we must unequivocally state it is not an “affair” and the person being targeted is not “participating willingly.” We must smash the idea that the victim in adult clergy sexual abuse wants this or should be responsible for stopping it. The harm done to a victim is profound and complex. The reason this is so urgent is that officials and spokespersons within religious systems continue to use the idea that it is an unfortunate case of consenting adults who had an inappropriate relationship. The longer we tolerate a false and misleading narrative like this, the longer clergy sexual abuse can be done with impunity, and the harm done to survivors overlooked or minimized.
Dorothy Small: The firm facts and broad trends—based on my personal experience and on conversations with other survivors of clergy-related abuse, whether as adults or as children—are consistent across international cases: dismissal, disbelief, victim-blaming and shaming, retaliation and ostracism after reporting, loss of faith or religious community, and the protection of clergy perpetrators and institutions over the needs of the abused. Silence is rewarded; speaking out is punished, often for the very reasons I’ve listed.
Victims frequently struggle with the emotional impact of grooming tactics. Trauma bonding formed through intensive grooming creates a powerful attachment, akin to an addictive mood-altering substance on brain chemistry. This bond gives the illusion of being “in love,” fostering an addictive pattern that overrides rational judgment. Pursuit behaviors—chasing after what once felt good—are fueled by intermittent reinforcement, alternating “love-bombing” with withdrawal and emotional coercion. This cycle drives the exploited person to dismiss the pain in search of the next emotional high. The victim often falsely believes their involvement was “consensual,” when in reality it was the result of manipulation, not genuine care or love.
Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or culture, human beings tend to respond similarly to such abuse, though specific factors can create unique challenges. For example, males sexually abused by males often experience heightened embarrassment and shame, which can adversely affect sexuality. Adults abused by clergy frequently feel responsible not only for what happened but also carry the guilt and shame projected onto them by their abuser.
Michelle Stewart: While most Eastern Orthodox clergy are not abusers, the hierarchical structure creates an environment in which abuse can flourish. Though the majority of clergy are likely well-intentioned, the system of spiritual authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church often acts as a petri dish for misconduct. Allegations must typically pass through multiple layers of hierarchy, where, in my experience, the benefit of the doubt is more often given to the accused than to the victim.
A well-documented example is the case against my former brother-in-law, Fr. Matthew Williams. Another is St. Innocent’s Academy, where reports of student abuse were ignored or minimized for years. In both cases, the Church’s delayed response not only obscured the misconduct but effectively enabled it.
The Church frequently resists external oversight, minimizing legal accountability. When it does respond to allegations, legal action is often delayed or actively resisted. My first encounter with this came nearly twenty years ago in the case of Christ of the Hills Monastery, when ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) vigorously defended monks accused of child sexual abuse—even supplying character witnesses. As the then-spouse of one such witness, I overheard private conversations in which participants acknowledged the allegations could be credible. Yet the institutional response prioritized church sovereignty over victim protection, with statements like “this is a matter for confession” or, more bluntly, “this is none of the legal system’s business.” Similar dynamics are now playing out in the Fr. Matthew Williams case.
Confession and the authority of the spiritual father are often weaponized to silence victims. In Judas Girl, reflecting on my own experiences and broader patterns of abuse—particularly within ROCOR—I wrote: “There is no greater predator than the one who convinces you they have power over your soul.” Those unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy may underestimate the influence of the spiritual father, especially within the sacrament of confession.
While I do not advocate eliminating confession for those who find it spiritually meaningful, it is important to note two critical points: In many states, clergy are mandatory reporters; however, the seal of confession often exempts them. Many Orthodox believers are taught that obedience to one’s spiritual father is essential for salvation—even when that guidance is ethically or spiritually troubling.
In my own case, when I disclosed emotional or spiritual abuse by my husband or clergy during confession, I was rebuked and told I was spiritually deficient for harboring resentment. I was told such matters were not mine to speak of, but rather the abuser’s to confess. This pattern is not unique to me. Several victims I’ve spoken with shared that after disclosing sexual abuse during confession, they were advised not to speak publicly—reinforcing a culture of silence and spiritual coercion.
Jacobsen: What question is the most crucial to ask about clergy-related abuse to you?
Archer: The most urgent question is why all 50 states do not have legislation holding criminally liable clergy persons who misuse their position of trust and authority. A clergyperson is in a position of trust and power relative to their congregant. A doctor or therapist cannot sexualize a relationship with a patient because professional ethics and state boards recognize the power differential and expressly prohibit this behavior. It is known to be abuse. There are no state boards for clergy. Why is it that clergy get a “pass” on ethical standards, when I would argue that there is even more implicit trust and intimacy in a relationship of soul-care?
I view this from the perspective of an Orthodox Christian, with an understanding of the long history of soul-care within Orthodox Christianity; however, the spiritual intimacy between clergyperson and congregant holds within many other faith traditions as well. Orthodox tradition recognizes a long history of psychotherapy, or care of the psyche. This is different from mental health therapy as it is practiced with a superbill and a co-pay, but truly no different ethically if a priest sexually abuses a man or woman who has gone to him for help. It should be criminalized so that a victim-survivor can gain some understanding of the injury, and a priest cannot continue to pastor.
In the absence of this kind of law in every state, many church bodies “investigate” these abuses as though they were affairs. There may be substantial evidence of what we term misconduct, but it is viewed through the lens of it being an “affair.” This is a reprehensible protection of the institution over a human person who has experienced severe injury. Church investigating bodies, which include attorneys and clergy, inflict greater injuries when sexualized violence is mislabeled as an “affair.” As a society, we should demand that all clergy understand this issue– even if religious seminaries are not addressing this subject well enough for clergy to use the correct language.
Deschênes: The hashtag I used on Twitter was #thechurchcantpoliceitself—and that’s exactly what has been happening for a long time. There is no transparency, only secrecy. All matters are handled internally, leaving victims unaware of what discussions take place or what decisions are made. Many survivors are told the offending clergy is no longer serving their community. Yet, in reality, they often remain in place or are quietly transferred to another parish—sometimes across provincial or federal borders—where new victims can be found.
The Roman Catholic Church, as many can attest, has changed little in its thinking or modus operandi. The few changes that do occur happen over a lifetime, not years or decades. The Church should reevaluate how it responds to victims. One member of the hierarchy once said, when told that most victims simply want an apology, “That can’t happen, because then we set ourselves up for litigation.” Survivors who have endured litigation know how arduous, re-traumatizing, and drawn-out the process can be—delaying healing, if healing is even possible.
My question is: why not evolve and change your approach when a victim of sexual assault by one of your members comes forward? Why is litigation the first response? Why protect your “brother” instead of a member of your flock? What do you lose by treating victims with compassion and care?
I believe the secrecy exists to protect the Church’s reputation. It may have worked in the past. But with the internet, survivors can find one another, offer mutual support, and learn—often through the media—about credible allegations against clergy. What is the Church’s real reputation today? Person A: “Our parish priest was charged with sexual assault.” Person B: “Another one? Well, that’s the Catholic Church for you.” That is the reality now. What institution would want that?
Metsopoulos: What is the true number of cases of abuse by clergy? It seems that a true figure does not exist. It is important to get a true number, as it is a lot higher than the churches or their attorneys admit. They do not want to face the problem, as it is a problem that is at the core of the church’s organization. The abusers in the churches are the majority of the institution. The clergy all have incriminating evidence on each other and blackmail each other to silence each othe,r preventing the truth from coming out. To get a true figure would decimate the churches, and it would become apparent that the rot goes all the way to the top.
Also, the legal professionals associated with the churches are not concerned with the truth coming out, but with protecting the church, allowing the abuse to continue.
The attorneys and churches, under the pretext of wanting to end clergy abuse, seek victims to share their traumatic events to bring justice, when in fact they are attempting to cover the tracks of the abusers and discredit the victims of abuse. The goal is not to achieve justice for the victims but to evade the law. The attorneys play both sides against the middle. They are the worst of the legal profession and, in some ways, worse than the abuser, by providing false hope for the abused.
Why are victims afraid to come forward?
The victims are victimized by the church, the public, friends, and family. They feel isolated, empty, and guilty for coming forward. They feel shame and guilt for allowing it to happen and allowing it to continue. They may confuse healthy sexual relations with abuse. In the end, the victim is victimized and left alone.
Nedelescu: The most urgent question is this: Why are church officials who knowingly enable clergy sexual abuse not held criminally liable?
People including Melania Sakoda and Cappy Larson have spent decades cataloging the crimes of abusive clergy within the Orthodox Church (all jurisdictions), and while that work is continuing by Katherine and I, it is no longer enough. A new frontier of accountability must now target the enablers—the bishops, chancellors, general counsels, and senior administrators who receive complaints, suppress evidence, intimidate victims, move or cover for perpetrators, and then dare to call themselves “spiritual leaders,” “protecting the Church,” or seeking “truth.”
These enablers rarely touch the criminal justice system. Why? Because our legal frameworks still treat institutional cowardice and bureaucratic cover-up as unfortunate oversights rather than as deliberate acts that perpetuate harm. And yet, without the enabler, the perpetrator cannot persist. The real scandal is not just the abuse—it’s the system that sustains it.
We must stop pretending these enablers are merely misguided managers. They are collaborators. Their silence, their memos, their settlement clauses—all of it—forms the infrastructure of abuse. And until we criminalize enabling behavior, the Church will continue protecting predators while branding survivors as “unstable,” “sinful,” “temptress,” or “misunderstood.”
The urgent question is no longer “Who abused?” but “Who knew—and did nothing?” And if the answer is a bishop or a synod or a patriarch, the next question must be: When will that enabler be indicted?
Pooler: To further advance the study of justice in clergy-related abuse, the most crucial question to ask is what barriers stand in the way of churches setting up rigorous protocols to prevent abuse from happening and responding well when abuse is discovered or reported? One answer is Clericalism, the invisible force at play that teaches people to trust a spiritual authority and distrust themselves blindly. Religious leaders benefit from this arrangement, and therefore, religious systems appear impervious primarily to outside feedback and seem to struggle to reflect and accurately appraise how well they train leaders, develop useful processes to deal with abuse, and respond to survivors. In my observation, churches are largely ineffectual in addressing these issues and cannot admit it to themselves or others. And truly, one of my most profound questions is “why”? It would seem to me that churches could lead the way and model to society the virtues of kindness, generosity, care, and create robust and thoughtful responses when a leader injures someone in their care. But churches appear to fail at this repeatedly and often. And a second question is, why aren’t churches asking this question for their own sake? The fact that there isn’t a great answer to either of these questions deeply troubles me.
Small: The most urgent question about clergy abuse is this: Why is it still an issue today, given the decades of documented complaints, known victims, and our expanded understanding of the serious, lifelong health consequences? Addiction, for example, is one such consequence, with far-reaching effects. It is a global epidemic, and research has long shown that at the root of addiction often lies complex post-traumatic stress and other severe mental health conditions, frequently stemming from abusive relationships and relational traumas.
In other caregiving professions, abuse has been met with legal consequences—heavy fines, imprisonment, and loss of licenses—effectively removing offenders from positions of trust. Yet in religious institutions, whose reach and influence are vast, the problem persists. This is a public safety crisis of epic proportions. The data clearly show the profound damage such abuse inflicts on mental and physical health. The most powerful institutions have the capacity either to heal and unify, as they were meant to, or to cause lasting harm, as history has shown.
Why, then, is it so difficult for religious institutions to sanction and remove offenders instead of shielding them—often by transferring them to new locations where they can prey on the vulnerable again? The Catholic Church’s global presence, for instance, allows abusers to be relocated to other countries, where they continue to exploit trust. Vulnerability is universal; trust itself makes anyone susceptible. While minors are the most at risk, vulnerability spans all ages.
Why is immediate corrective action so rare when credible accusations arise? At the very least, institutions could remove the accused from active roles and make their names public. By the time a survivor fully recognizes they were abused, decades may have passed. Concealing an abuser’s identity only leaves others at risk. During the grooming phase, a victim may sense something is wrong, but the perpetrator—armed with authority and institutional backing—can manipulate, plant doubt, and gaslight the target into confusion and compliance. This dynamic not only weakens victims but also enables escalating abuse.
Stewart: The most urgent question is: How can external accountability be meaningfully enforced within the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly among the clergy?
Abuse can occur in any organization and may never be fully eradicated. However, the decisive factor is how institutions—especially those in positions of authority—respond when abuse surfaces. Their response determines whether the organization actively works against abuse or inadvertently becomes a breeding ground for it. In hierarchical systems like Eastern Orthodoxy, abuse is not merely the result of individual misconduct; it is often facilitated—and concealed—by the very structures designed to provide spiritual guidance. The rigid church hierarchy, combined with the protections of confession, can allow perpetrators to avoid legal scrutiny, while internal mechanisms have consistently failed to safeguard victims.
As documented abuse cases accumulate, the Church—and those responsible for holding it accountable—now stand at a critical crossroads. Raising awareness is an essential first step, but the next imperative is to implement enforceable mechanisms of accountability that address and dismantle the systemic enablers of abuse. While some within the Church hierarchy may resist what they perceive as external intrusion, there is, hopefully, a broader majority of clergy and faithful who are willing to support reform. Their participation is not only desirable—it is likely essential to achieving meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Everyone, thank you for taking a little time to discuss this straightforward topic with complex derivatives. I appreciate the courage, forthrightness, and honesty.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/08/01
Nasir Hassan is a veteran Sudanese human rights advocate who has lived in Switzerland since 1993. As president of For Sudan, an NGO focused on humanitarian aid, Hassan speaks candidly about the devastating war engulfing Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—a group widely accused of atrocities, particularly in Darfur.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Hassan outlines the RSF’s ethnic violence, foreign support from the United Arab Emirates, logistical coordination via Chad, and the catastrophic toll: over eight million Sudanese displaced. Urging immediate Western engagement, Hassan calls for a shift in international aid and policy to bypass sanctions and deliver direct support to those suffering on the ground.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Nasir, thank you for joining me. You’re a longtime human rights defender from Sudan living in Geneva. Can you share more about your background—your work in Switzerland and your experience in Sudan?
Nasir Hassan: I have lived in Switzerland since 1993. I am the president of For Sudan. Our organization focuses primarily on humanitarian aid. Right now, Sudan is experiencing a devastating civil war. This war is destroying the country. Many people have been killed or displaced.
The RSF was originally a government-backed militia known as the Janjaweed during the Darfur conflict. It was later formalized into a paramilitary force under the Sudanese government. However, in April 2023, tensions between the SAF and RSF escalated into full-scale war, with both sides vying for control of the country. The RSF has been accused of committing widespread atrocities against civilians, particularly in the Darfur region, including ethnically targeted violence against non-Arab communities. I firmly affirm that the legitimate authority to defend and protect Sudan lies with the internationally recognized government and the national military institutions, led by the President and the Security Council, under the leadership of General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Chairman of the Sovereignty Council.
At the same time, I categorically reject the notion that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) represent a legitimate national army. The RSF is an ethnically driven militia that serves agendas unrepresentative of the Sudanese people and operates in the interest of foreign actors—most notably the United Arab Emirates, which has supported the group through funding and arms. Their actions have deeply fractured Sudan’s unity and gravely threatened the safety and sovereignty of its people.
The responsibility for national defense must remain in the hands of national institutions that represent and protect all Sudanese—regardless of ethnicity, region, or background—not forces driven by sectarian loyalties or acting as proxies for external powers.
(UNMISS)
Jacobsen: When we talk about this war, are the divisions you’re referring to primarily ethnic, religious, or some combination of both?
Hassan: It is primarily ethnic. The RSF has been accused of committing atrocities along ethnic lines, particularly targeting non-Arab groups. They have carried out mass killings, sexual violence, and displacement of civilians in towns and villages. If this were purely a conventional military conflict, we might not be standing here today. However, this war has targeted civilians. Armed fighters have entered homes and killed people based on ethnicity or perceived affiliations. Anyone can be accused—whether they are Islamist, part of the former regime, or have no political ties at all.
Ordinary people, with no involvement, are caught in the violence. Initially, we had no involvement in politics. We focused on humanitarian work. However, after witnessing the scale of suffering, we felt compelled to act and understand the underlying causes. We tried to mediate and open a dialogue. In doing so, we discovered that external actors may also be influencing the situation. There have been credible reports that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has provided support—either material or political—to the RSF.
The UAE has commercial interests in Sudan, including agriculture, mining, and port access. These relationships complicate the situation further. Sudanese authorities have welcomed foreign investment, but the involvement of foreign powers in this internal conflict is deeply concerning. It appears that outside actors are capitalizing on Sudan’s instability.
We did not expect neighbouring countries—our so-called brothers—to play a role in fueling violence or benefiting from our suffering. Now, we stand with our people, with our institutions—not out of loyalty to any regime, but because we believe it is the only way to protect the population. General Burhan and the SAF have not been accused of the same level of ethnically targeted violence as the RSF. Even among the RSF’s ethnic communities, not all individuals support the violence.
However, the RSF’s actions have included indiscriminate attacks. If you enter certain areas now, you risk being targeted solely for your appearance or identity. That is unacceptable. The war has also had a profound impact on education.
Educated people within the RSF’s ranks have sometimes used their positions to justify or intensify the conflict through racist ideology and the pursuit of power. They want to consolidate control, displace others, and dominate the state.
But if you see them now, they have started to fight each other as well. Even the tribes that were aligned with them are now accusing one another of collaboration. They are accusing each other of betrayal. They have turned on themselves. It has become a truly bloody conflict. I have never seen anything like this. I attempted to translate parts of some videos, but I could not continue—it was too challenging. So brutal. You cannot imagine. It is unimaginable that a human being could do such things. Maybe a machine, yes. However, can a human being cut or kill a person like that?
Jacobsen: You’ve described an immense humanitarian disaster. For Western audiences unfamiliar with the scale of the conflict, can you give us a sense—how many people have been killed or displaced, both inside and outside Sudan?
Hassan: Right now, over 8 million people have been displaced. Eight million. The total population is around 50 million. That is one of the countries. People have either fled the country or left their homes and communities.
(Oxfam America)
Jacobsen: For context, that’s nearly one-eighth of the population of Canada. Let’s turn to the international dimension. You’ve mentioned the UAE’s involvement. What do you believe are the most critical facts that the international public should understand?
Hassan: They support these groups with money and weapons. Also, some neighbouring countries support certain military elements. Because someone from the country, someone who truly feels Sudanese, would not commit atrocities against his people like this. However, the individuals I have seen—many of whom come from the same tribe that stretches from northwest Sudan to Mali. This entire region shares similar customs.
They dress alike and think alike. Moreover, many of them show extreme brutality, especially towards Black Africans. People like my brother, Abdel Jabbar, and his family—when they are seen, they are treated as if they are insects. Just kill him. He has not done anything. Just find him and kill him. Shockingly, they did not even know that people with such hatred lived among us in Sudan.
Jacobsen: What you’re describing—this kind of brutality and dehumanization—echoes patterns we’ve seen in history. In the West, parallels are often drawn with the Nazis tried at Nuremberg, where many lacked any discernible empathy. Do you think the same kind of moral corrosion is at work in Sudan?
Hassan: The core issue here is that the Emirates has misled the leaders at the top. If the Emirates stopped their financial, weapons, and logistical support for this war, the conflict would end within a month—not because everyone would be defeated, but because the fighters would question why they are continuing.
Without external support, especially for these unofficial paramilitary forces committing brutal acts, the war would resolve on its own. There are also people from this tribe who are in Sudan. You can imagine—even in Canada, you would never expect one tribe or group to control all others while everyone else is expected to remain silent. That is not acceptable.
Jacobsen: You mentioned tribal dominance—one ethnic group attempting to impose control across regions. For a North American audience, especially in a country like Canada with its own history of colonialism, how would you explain the lived consequences of that kind of power imbalance?
Hassan: But how do you solve these problems? You solve them through power-sharing, by engaging in dialogue, and by investing in development—especially in regions that have been neglected. Development reduces conflict.
These groups causing problems come primarily from desert regions. Sudan is a vast country. Developing the entire territory, including the desert and areas near the Nile, is challenging. Combine that with limited resources, underdeveloped education systems, and ongoing external interference, and the situation becomes even more complex.
Jacobsen: Beyond the UAE, are there any other foreign governments or regional actors—directly or indirectly—playing a role in fueling the conflict?
Hassan: They have also manipulated Chad. Chad is our neighbour, and we have always believed its people are kind—and many are. However, Chad has also been influenced by financial considerations.
A lot of the logistics for this war—transporting weapons, moving people—have come through Chad into Sudan. Other neighbours, such as Egypt in the north, have stayed out of it. To the east is Ethiopia. They have not intervened either, although historically, our countries have not always had the best relations. Still, as people, Ethiopians have supported us.
When they faced conflict in their own country, they fled to Sudan as refugees. We welcomed them—we had no problem with that. We still have no issue with refugees, but we do take issue with armed groups entering our land to dominate us.
Some of our people are just farmers—straightforward people. They cannot read or write. Some do not even speak Arabic well. However, these invading forces accuse them of being part of the regime.
Jacobsen: It’s a haunting detail: fighters accusing ordinary farmers of being regime loyalists, even when many are illiterate and uninvolved in politics. At the end of the day, most people are just trying to survive. Would you agree?
Hassan: And this is what happened. If they were targeting specific political figures or entities, we could understand that even if they were misusing those targets.
Jacobsen: So if the RSF’s targets were actual regime figures or former political elites, as brutal as that still might be, at least the violence would have some twisted rationale. But that’s not what’s happening, is it?
Hassan: Yes.
Jacobsen: Apart from the Sudanese government and yourself, who else is actively advocating for human rights and peace in this conflict? Are there credible voices or organizations still operating on the ground?
Hassan: Yes. The government is genuinely trying its best. We can see it. Wherever people can escape from these armed groups, they flee to areas controlled by the government military. Not because they believe the military is powerful but because they feel safer there. Otherwise, they would not survive—even if they had done nothing wrong.
They could be killed on the street. It all depends on which soldier is standing in front of them. Some of these fighters even enter people’s home and strip the floors—taking the tiles, the mosaic flooring. It is beautiful. They remove it to bring it back to their areas. The mattresses, the things you sleep on—bed sheets.
They take those, too. It is such a ridiculous obsession. They take refrigerators, fans, and air conditioning units. Their thinking is on an entirely different level. It is not that we oppose them just for the sake of opposition. We oppose them because of what they are doing—because it is inhuman.
Jacobsen: Finally, what else should people in North America know—especially those reading this interview—about what’s urgently needed in Sudan, and what kind of international action might actually make a difference?
Hassan: Peace requires that weapons be removed from the hands of those causing harm. The RSF are the only armed group acting like this in Sudan. If you go to my family’s home—any of the areas—they only have kitchen knives in their houses. Maybe a stick, in case of a disagreement between neighbours. But not weapons. Not weapons meant for killing people or destroying buildings, airports, or banks.
To achieve peace, we need support from the people. Many Sudanese living in the West are trying to help their relatives, attempting to relocate them out of dangerous areas. However, now, when these militias catch people, they demand payment. If they know you have family abroad, they say, “Pay us.” You “have to” pay—sometimes 10,000 francs, or $10,000. If you do not, they will shoot the person.
We need help. We need food. People have no shelter. Moreover, there are also problems with sanctions. For example, I, along with others, attempted to create an organization called Insane Organization—a humanitarian group similar to a charity. However, we were unable to open a bank account here in Switzerland because Sudan is subject to sanctions. However, we are not the government. We want to help the people.
When we asked how we could do that, they told us to work through a Swiss organization. However, we cannot go through them because we do not have formal offices. We send money directly into people’s hands so they can buy food. Sometimes, they create community food centres where they cook all day. Neighbours from all over come to take food and return to their homes.
We support that. In areas where fighting is ongoing, we cover the costs of transporting people out—utilizing cars, drivers, and fuel.
We need the West to take this seriously. There is a history behind this—like what is happening to Palestinians now. It is the same. There is no justification. Anyone who fights, if they have any feelings at all, will recognize that this is wrong. No one should even have to tell him. If you are human, you should know—should I do this much harm to another human being? There is no need.
Thank you.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Plays
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): Unknown (Before 2008)
A short play
named
Wile Away Hogwash
Written by
Scott Jacobsen
(+)=up in modulation,(-)=down modulation, [ ]=actions,{ }=scene setting,
___=strong projection,<>=stronger projection.
Props: Park Bench, Kitchen table.
(Scene 1)
[{Enter with music (Urban spaceman) in Park setting at SL}
-Young Woman sits on far right of bench writing script as music enters in.
-Old Man with book/or briefcase enters SL in Mid-intro music.
-End music at 37 seconds in.
-Young Woman scribbles out what she wrote and Old Man looks over.
-Young Woman begins writing again only to scribble the words out in Frustration
-Old Man looks over and startles the Young Woman]
Young Woman: “[surprised] What do you want?”
Old Man: “Just viewing the jyst of your, not so jovial jumble”
Young Woman: “ You really interested in my ranting”
Old Man: “I would not wonder if I ignored asking what”
[Young Woman smirks]
Young Woman: “Attempting to write a script(+,gradually) but troubles with starting(-)”
Old Man: “What did you write?”
[Woman looks upon paper then to Old Man, and sighs]
Young Woman: “Quality ideas quit me indefinitely”
Old Man: “You know(+), I could suggest a story, to set your art at a start”
Young Woman: “Tell the tale(+)”
[Fade off SL light]
(Scene 2)
[{Fade light on SR, into a setting of a Kitchen with a Father and Son}
-Father and Son eating.
Father pauses and looks at son distraughtly, as son continues eating}]
Father: “ I feel as irate as you,
Over our lives getting thrown askew,
[short pause]
But we may still get through(-).”
Son: “You act as though| you did not know(-)| what you wrought(-),
Leaving her, when her worry would not(-), money became what you sought,
For her life to get better(-), now the table turns, as it becomes for naught.
[quieter] Please peer into my eyes and sway my thoughts another way,
So I may| keep them from their everyday disarray(-,gradually).”
Father: “I tried| to subside| my pride(-),
For you two I could then provide(+),
Yet not foreseeing| the coming tide(-),
Slowly our ways did slide, and divide,
Our love then knew not where to reside(-).
[Father pauses, sighs and sits by son]
Could you care to see things by my side?”
Son: “Dad don’t dare deal on her downfall,
Upon us both for blame to spread.
You never came for her call.
And your heartless nature I place my dread,
Which seems to me to lead her to the dead.”
Father: “While we wear evermore over who,
Our emphasis ought employ over why.
If we trifle over such things we tend to have no clue.
Then you and I [point, son then you]| seem blind as to why| she chose to <die>.”
[Son pauses, looks father in the eyes and leaves.
-Fade off SR light]
(Scene 3)
[Fade on SL light, Old Young Woman same setting and position]
Young Woman: “Wait, why so sad a start(-)?”
Old Man: “ The best part usually begins at the end
Personally(+), appears as a sort of trend(-, gradually).”
Young Woman: “So you promise a happy part(+)?”
Old Man: “[Jokingly]Depends upon how many times
You tell me to stop telling my tale of rhymes”
Young Woman: “[Friendly laugh] Alright, alright(+)
But how do you continue(+,gradually)from a fight?”
[Old Man pauses]
Old Man: “Lust for that fable seems lost,
Cause, I let| you get| my rhythm tossed.
So setting the story in another time(+)
I will keep those already told
And from the old| renew the mold
Maybe ending in something sublime(+).”
Young Woman: “[Frantic]
Don’t dictate discord in my hectic(+),
[lean more towards pleading]
Do deliver a decisive dialectic.”
Old Man: “[kindly] Okay, okay
Only because you begged on a good day.
[closes his book or briefcase]
Between these brash two
The son left the father to start anew.
The father did not know what to do.
The years went by,
The son began asking why,
He never let that anger die.
The fathers fitness faded(-,gradually),
As he justly felt jaded.
His wounds| he wished| were mended.
Which frequented through and through,
He heralded thoughts long due(+),
Of restoring the life their family knew.
In months to follow the father received a call his way(-).
Speaking to his son(+), who sought sanctuary someday,
Beseeching Betwixt a bounding bond of begat and boy,
Beyond bitter jabs and joining in joy(+).”
[Young Woman finishes writing what he said.]
Young Woman: “[write through, make mark on ‘go‘]…good geared for another go…”
[Old man flicks arm up to reveal watch, for himself to look at]
Old Man: “Ma’am… I must vacate shortly…
[Old Man pauses mid getting up, Young woman touches his arm, begins sitting again]
…yet, If you rely| on my supply| of courtly allegory.
Then the saga can close(-,gradually),
With some carefully calculated prose(-,gradually).”
[Black out for 5 seconds]
(Scene 4)
[{Fade lights on SL at bench}
-Father at same bench
-Father paces back and forth at bench.
-Looks at his watch, tries to calm himself and sits on far right of bench.
-Father tries to find the proper sitting position, yet can’t.
-Finds perfect position(same as Old Man at intro).
-Son enters from SL slowly, they pause and gaze at one another.]
-Father presents SL side of bench with his left hand, son takes time sitting.
-Father and son look straight ahead, son can’t find a comfortable seating position.
-Son looks at and gets into same position as father.
-Father and son look straight ahead]
Father: “ahem”
[Father almost begins talking but son cuts into first sentence]
Son: “So no sound still endures our plight,
Although coming here expecting it might(-,gradually).”
[Pause]
Father: “[astonished] Five years… five years
[sad] Since you first shed tears
Over your mother…[looks away ashamed] my dear(-).”
Son: “To talk of such a tentative time,
Does not constitute any crime,
Shall we then not act like mimes.”
[pause]
Father: “Well… you sure wriggle to the worry…”
[pause]
Son: “Yes… yet, we need not make our memorial a waste,
The plane leaves this place soon, so let us talk with haste.”
Father: “Then may I ask upon my shame(-),
Why you rooted blame(-)| solely on my name?”
Son: “In youth,
I tried for truth.
But impulsive ignorance implied my naïve nature,
Gathering ideas to settle your guilt for me feeling so sure.
Guesses of obscurity| got grasped through my period of immaturity(-,gradually).
You were the intent| for wrath and torment,
I do resent| the descent| and sit here [present seat] on behalf of a need to repent.
We may seem uncouth| but I won’t endure| any more lament| till we reach purity.”
Father: “In our pain, out of frustration,
I apologize| for exercise| of unwise| instruction,
When the main concentration(-)| required manifestation| of consolation(+).
Alas, our last conversation| ended in a realization of trepidation(-,gradually).
Son: “Do you ever often wonder where it instigated?”
[Pause]
Father: “Son(-)… our spark slowed sourly(-),
Even prior to perpetual enmity.”
Son: “Why would you then wait(+) and allow it to get worse?(-,gradually).”
Father: “I lost love and lust for your mother,
As our lives let little of either in.
I went to work out of town to see if I would miss her,
[Son doesn’t look convinced]
[Explaining] To see| if we still had passion enough to miss each other,
But the relationship took a spin| where none of us could win(-,gradually),
Ever after that moment we could not come to concur(-,gradually).”
[Son looks at father with sorrow]
Son: “Both of you misplaced your aims of affection…”
Father: “…and that transferred beyond resurrection.
Where she had sensed tenderness(+,gradually), soon felt anguish(-,gradually)…”
Son: “…To rid herself of the worry(-), she made a wish(-),
To end her life in one swish.
Mother had nothing more to show or bestow…”
Father: “…and now we can know,
on her own, she chose to wobble away her woe by swinging to fro(-,gradually)…”
[Father and Son get up]
Son: “…Yet, my mother…[son smiles] your dear, expected past this, we could grow(+).”
[Father and Son hug]
[Black out for 5 seconds]
(Scene 5)
[{Fade SL light on, same bench Old Man and Young Woman}
-Old Man closes book or briefcase.]
Old Man: “Now no need for the nuisance of forming a fable,
Unless you use untapped potential.”
[Young Woman finishes writing]
Young Woman: “So that settles the seriousness.
I do appreciate your dose of authenticity,
Especially in my distress,
You demonstrated such fine finesse,
Without even a moment of digress.
I did expect a story of simplicity,
But I now possess a success(+)[Young Woman lifts and shows binder].”
Old Man: “Before I Depart, as to| why I helped you|, let me construe.
A Young Woman like yourself seemed like a sweet reminder of someone I knew.”
[Old Man and Young Woman get one last look in each other’s eyes and man walks away.
-As Old Man walks off Young Woman speaks]
Young woman: “Hail to your father for me a Hello(+)”
[-Begin ending 52 seconds of Urban Spaceman
-Young Woman still writes and looks up at audience at the last line of song
-’Here comes the twist, I don’t exist‘
-On ‘Exist’ Black out]
{[End]}
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/08/11
Clergy sexual abuse is not confined to any one faith, denomination, or country—it is a global crisis rooted in power, secrecy, and institutional self-preservation. In this conversation, survivors, advocates, clergy, legal scholars, and researchers confront the patterns that allow abuse to persist and the systemic enablers who shield perpetrators from accountability. From the misuse of spiritual authority to the failure of church leadership to act, their testimonies reveal both the depth of the harm and the urgent need for reform. Together, they ask the questions that religious institutions have long avoided—and challenge the structures that have turned sacred spaces into sites of betrayal.
Katherine Archer is the co-founder of Prosopon Healing and a graduate student in Theological Studies, soon to begin a Master’s in Counseling Psychology. Her work lies at the intersection of academic research and nonprofit advocacy, focusing on clergy abuse within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Archer champions policy reform to address adult clergy exploitation, advancing a vision of healing rooted in justice, accountability, and survivor support.
Irene Deschênes, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, first reported her case to the Diocese of London (Ontario) in 1992. Nearly three decades later—after a Supreme Court of Canada ruling—she reached a civil settlement in 2021. With a background in sociology and a career in social services, Deschênes co-founded Outrage Canada, a national, non-religious coalition demanding accountability from the Roman Catholic Church and justice for victims. Known for asking Canadians, “Where’s the outrage?” she works to prevent further abuse, protect children, and keep survivor voices in the public conversation through media appearances and documentary work.
Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., a legal scholar and former IDF officer, has made a career of confronting institutional complicity and promoting bystander accountability. Author of The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, Guiora draws direct lines between Holocaust history and modern abuse cases. His advocacy was instrumental in Utah’s 2021 bystander law, and through the Bystander Initiative, he presses for survivor-centered legal reforms. “All hands on deck,” he insists.
Father Bojan Jovanović, a Serbian Orthodox priest and Secretary of the Union of Christians of Croatia, is recognized for his unflinching critiques of institutional failings within the Church. His book Confession: How We Killed God and his leadership in the Alliance of Christians of Croatia reflect his commitment to ethical reform and moral reckoning. Jovanović calls for transparency and open dialogue as prerequisites for restoring trust in religious life.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr. led Forest Hill Presbyterian Church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for more than three decades. Known for his passionate preaching and deep commitment to justice, compassion, and community leadership, Lentz retired in 2024 after a distinguished ministry. During his tenure, he inherited and confronted the traumatic legacy of clergy sexual abuse, guiding the congregation through its aftermath.
John Metsopoulos, a former Connecticut state representative and Fairfield’s first selectman, has publicly accused two Greek Orthodox bishops—Metropolitan Athenagoras Aneste (2017–2019) and the late Metropolitan Iakovos Garmatis (1970)—of sexual and psychological abuse, as well as financial misconduct. Now living in Central America, Metsopoulos advocates for institutional accountability and supports fellow survivors through the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu, a neuroscientist at Scripps Research in San Diego, investigates the brain’s circuitry to better understand the neurobiological roots of abnormal behavior, particularly in the context of trauma and substance use. Her current research examines how sexual trauma is encoded in the brain, with the goal of improving therapeutic strategies for PTSD and addiction comorbidity.
Professor David K. Pooler, Ph.D., LCSW-S, teaches at Baylor University’s Diana R. Garland School of Social Work. Specializing in trauma, abuse, and institutional responses to misconduct, Pooler is a committed advocate for survivors. His research focuses on systemic injustice and ethical accountability within faith-based organizations.
Dorothy Small, a retired registered nurse, has been a vocal survivor advocate with SNAP for decades. Having endured both childhood and adult clergy abuse, she began speaking out long before the #MeToo movement brought wider attention to such experiences. A cancer survivor and grandmother, she now writes about recovery, resilience, and personal freedom, amplifying survivor voices and pressing for institutional reform.
Michelle Stewart is a cult survivor, author, and activist whose memoir Judas Girl: My Father, Four Cults & How I Escaped Them All recounts her harrowing upbringing in extremist religious groups. Now based in Colorado, Stewart advocates for survivors of religious abuse, focusing on the harms of coercive control and religious trauma in children. Through public speaking, education, and support work, she pushes for greater awareness and protection for the vulnerable.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Drawing on your experience, conversations, and research, what broad trends and facts have emerged—either definitively or with near-conclusive certainty—in international cases of clergy-related abuse? Which truths, when stated consistently and publicly, are most crucial for reshaping the informational landscape—not only around misconduct in general, but clergy abuse in particular?
Katherine Archer: Clergy abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with sex; rather, it is sexualized violence that, at its root, is about power and control. We are now learning that the majority of clergy abuse survivors may be adult women, but because historically adult abuse has been mislabeled as an “affair,” women do not easily come forward and report their experiences. Many women delay disclosure or never disclose, and this isolation in secret-keeping exacerbates the injury.
Finally, clergy sexual abuse cannot be separated from spiritual abuse. There is significant spiritual injury before or as part of the abuse, and it is inseparable from the clergy abuse. This causes a truly profound double-injury, in that typically a victim-survivor has greater difficulty turning to a Higher Power or to one’s spirituality or religion to heal from a tremendous injury. In this way, it differs from other types of violence, wherein one might decide to turn to a Higher Power to heal. The place of healing is also a place of injury. It is like taking medicine that also feels poisonous.
There is a third, even greater injury when a religious community aligns against a victim-survivor. I would say that in most communities, congregants might understand that a priest exploiting an adult congregant is abusive as a theoretical idea. Still, when it comes to a situation in front of them, they do not view the adult victim that they know as an injured party. It’s common to label the adult victim with a mental illness in a derisive, dismissive way, and this is yet another abuse. If a victim-survivor is experiencing symptoms of what is termed mental illness, perhaps the priest’s actions induced depression, anxiety, or whatever it may be. The victim is not “crazy.” This is ignorant, and it’s unacceptable.
Irene Deschênes: What I have seen, not only from my personal experience, but also with working with other survivors of clergy sexual abuse, is that the church hierarchy’s knee-jerk reaction is to contact their lawyers before doing anything else. One would think a moral institution that purports to offer compassion and care to the most marginalized in society would instead take a pastoral approach to survivors who come forward. Sadly, this happens more often than not. First, the Catholic Church attempts to litigate its way out of dealing with the real issue – care and healing of the victim they created. Don’t get me wrong, most survivors need the monetary compensation that a civil suit might provide to deal with an interrupted work history. However, most victims merely want to hear, “What happened to you was wrong. It should never have happened to you. This is what we’re going to do…and, what do you need from us?” These words were never spoken to any survivor I have worked with in the 33 years that I have been advocating for and with survivors.
Secondly, members of the hierarchy, globally, obfuscate when speaking to their flock, the media, the public, and, more importantly, to survivors that come forward. The Roman Catholic Church have staff and unlimited financial resources. How can survivors’ voices, individually or even collectively, ever be heard with limited to no resources to tell our truths?
Thirdly, the secrecy is mind-boggling. Whether it be with meeting a member of the hierarchy or in litigation, a lot of information is held to the chest. Canon law even speaks of ‘secret files’ that must be maintained. Most survivors are told they are “the only victim,” and there is no way to verify or refute it. The church hierarchy has this information but refuses to release it to the public or even to lawyers or plaintiffs. It’s common knowledge that perpetrators rarely only have one victim; therefore, it’s of great importance that victims know they are not alone and that there have potentially been allegations against a clergy perpetrator.
The seal of the confession is making news in the United States as of late. Roman Catholic priests who learn of a child being abused by a penitent (one confessing to a priest) are not required under canon law to report the abuse. In Canada, everyone is a mandated reporter. Everyone. However, those professionals who work with the marginalized in our communities have a greater obligation to report. Does canon law supersede civil law? The church seems to think so.
Finally, on our website, our values are the extreme opposite of what the church espouses vs. what they do, in my experience.
Dr. Amos Guiora: To fully appreciate clergy abuse requires that we recognize the critical role played by enablers. While attention is generally focused on the perpetrator of the abuse, the role of the person in a position of authority/status who knows or should know of harm to vulnerable individuals demands our attention. That is the individual I define as the enabler. In a series of books and articles, I have argued that the enabler must be held accountable for the harm they caused. It is for this reason that I have engaged with legislators, the media, the broader public, survivors, and thought leaders both in the U.S. and internationally, with the aim of criminalizing enablers by enacting legislation addressing the crime of enabling.
In examining clergy abuse, I have focused on the actor who directly protects the institution, indirectly the perpetrator. Interactions with clergy abuse survivors shed powerful light on the harm caused by the enabler upon recognition that the perpetrator had previously abused and should not have had access to the vulnerable individual.
As I learned when writing two books addressing enablers, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence, and a series of law review articles, the impact of the harm caused by enablers was, more often than not, a revelation (the word is not used theologically) to the survivors whose primary focus, for understandable reasons, been on the perpetrators. However, when we would “reverse engineer” the interaction with the perpetrator, the survivor would come to understand that absent the enabler, the abuser would not have been able to commit the heinous crime/s they did.
While I am not a person of faith (I am a secular Jew), I have come to appreciate the powerful role of the Church as an institution and the clergy as an individual in the life of a person of faith. Undoubtedly, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this triangular relationship is positive. Of great significance to the believer, the question before us is what happens when abuse occurs and is reported to faith leaders. THAT (caps intended) is the question that demands our attention; as I have come to learn, in many cases, the report is either not believed or the abuse of clergy is “shuffled” off to another location. Both reactions are devastating for the survivor who was not only physically abused but, no less significantly, emotionally injured.
Understanding the harm caused to them would result in neither punishment of the perpetrator nor acknowledgment of the abuse to which they had been subjected, which often resulted in re-victimization. This is the essence of institutional complicity, whereby (in the faith context), faith leaders make the conscious decision to prioritize the “good name” of the church, thereby casting asunder the survivor for whom, in many cases, the abusive clergy was an individual whom they revered and held in the highest regard.
The all-but instinctual reaction to hunker down, reflective of institutional protection, is oft-repeated, almost akin to a time-tested manual with one clear purpose: protect the institution, consequences to the individual be damned. Criminalizing the enabler is necessary to address institutional complicity that protects the abuser while re-victimizing the survivor and placing in harm’s way individuals who will encounter an abusive clergy in the future. Who is the beneficiary of the act of enabling by those whose primary obligation is to protect the vulnerable?
In a clergy-faith context, failure to address the consequences of the harm caused by the enablers is akin to saying to people of faith: we knowingly abandon you, and no less egregiously, we are consciously placing other vulnerable individuals in harm’s way. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of enabling.
The time to act is now, with the understanding that as the lines are written, an individual who should have been protected is in harm’s way because of enablers who have committed the act of enabling. To address this, we need an “all hands-on deck” approach, inspired by a handwritten letter from a Holocaust survivor who once wrote me, “You give voice to the voiceless.”
Ask any survivor: we do not have the luxury of time; given the numbers and accounts of clergy abuse, addressing the crime of enabling demands our immediate attention.
Fr. Bojan Jovanović: First hard fact: Abuse within religious structures is not a “failure” of individuals, but a result of a hierarchical system that enables complete control, isolation, and impunity for perpetrators. Abuse happened—and continues to happen—precisely because of the power that religious office holds: the unquestioning of authority, manipulation of conscience, and the belief that the institution stands above the law. These are not isolated incidents; they are patterns.
The handling of internal disciplinary processes, without mandatory reporting to the state, has allowed rapists to be transferred from one location to another without any punishment. These “internal proceedings” are nothing more than a smokescreen to evade legal accountability. Every such cover-up is an act of complicity, which, in legal terms, qualifies as aiding and abetting or concealing a criminal offense.
Thousands of victims never got the chance to speak out because they were threatened with spiritual consequences—that they would be excommunicated, that they would “harm the Church,” that they would lose their community. This is institutional intimidation. In many cases, those who tried to report abuse were ridiculed, belittled, and their testimonies discredited.
To this day, in many countries, there is no legal framework that obligates religious officials to report suspected sexual abuse. This puts religious institutions above the law, and this must be dismantled in public discourse. Because an institution that delivers moral sermons while protecting rapists is not a sanctuary—it is an organization that must be held accountable like any other. If not more so.
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr.: What must be consistently stated in public discourse is the amount of clergy sexual abuse (aka “misconduct”) that continues to occur. Furthermore, it is not just a Roman Catholic issue.
I think it is important to note what denominations have done in the past 20 years or so to confront cases of abuse. For example. I know that in the Presbyterian Church USA, there are now criminal background checks for every hire of pastors, Directors of CE, Music directors, and staff. Sexual misconduct trainings are held for all elected leaders of the congregation, and all who volunteer with children (birth through 18) must have said training. Any allegations against a pastor must be reported to the Presbytery (regional governing authority,) and all allegations must be shared with all other Presbyteries if a job transfer is requested. However, it has not stopped abuse from taking place.
In the PCUSA, pastors are legally mandated to report cases of sexual abuse and misconduct. If a pastor is accused, then the Associate Pastor or Clerk of Session (ordained lay leaders) is legally mandated to report the pastor.
I think that most Protestant denominations have moved in the right direction in the matter of sexual misconduct and abuse in the past two decades. However, enabling and covering up continue. The status and perceived power of the pastor or priest continue to create barriers to reporting and accountability.
John Metsopoulos: It is not the fault of the abused, and it can happen at any age. It is a fallacy that it only happens to the young. The abuser uses many forms of abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional, and financial. They may use others to degrade the victims and increase their power and control over the victims. The abuser starts building up the abused, making them feel special, and then they begin to tear them down. In addition, the abuser attempts to alienate them from family, friends, and persons who might see a change in the behavior of the abused. Once they are isolated, the abused now has no one to trust, and the abuser now has complete control over the victims. The abused feels totally alone emotionally and mentally. The abused is further confused as they may enjoy the physical aspect of the abuse, as the body tends to respond to the abuse.
The abused hunt their victims, and seek out victims for the innocence of a person and their depth of faith. The stronger the faith, the greater the opportunity for the abuser. The abuser seeks out individuals whose family is going through turmoil. The abuser seeks out victims whose families have deep faith and would never believe a member of the clergy would abuse anyone. They make the victims feel that what is normal in their lives is abnormal and only they can bring normalcy. Abuse is a total, all-consuming devastation that leaves them alone and deprived of self-respect.
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu: The first truth is this: accused sexual offenders employed as “clergy” by Church institutions often remain in ministry—unimpeded—unless they are criminally convicted and physically imprisoned. Church administrators routinely go to extraordinary lengths to shield or reassign these individuals, often prioritizing institutional reputation over victim safety. This persistent pattern is exactly why enabling behavior must be criminalized, as law professor Amos Guiora has argued through his extensive work on the “enabler” phenomenon.
There is a noteworthy trend. In the Russian and even in Romanian Orthodox churches in Russia and Romania, sexual perpetrators are held accountable at higher rates than sexual perpetrators in Orthodox churches in the United States. Our preliminary data show that more accused clergy are defrocked or penalized by the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia compared to other jurisdictions.
The second truth is even more grotesque: victims of clergy sexual abuse are frequently blamed for their abuse. Church officials often reverse the roles, casting the victim as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the misunderstood “man of God.” The immense power differential between clergy and laity suddenly disappears from their moral calculus.
We are talking about a crime—so, lacking any legitimate defense, they default to blaming the victim. I read about a case that involved a 4-year-old child accused of “encouraging” an adult man by wearing his boxer shorts. If defenders can stoop to blaming a toddler, they certainly won’t hesitate to call the abuse of an adult woman an “affair” or something “consensual.” That word—“consensual”—has become a favorite among Church apologists, conveniently ignoring the inherent coercion that comes from spiritual authority. But sexual abuse cloaked in sacraments is still sexual assault, which is a crime. Calling it “consensual” doesn’t make a crime any less criminal.
The third truth is a demographic pattern that should raise immediate red flags: clergy sexual abuse cases often involve victims who are decades younger than their abusers. Many of these clergy are well beyond retirement age, yet inexplicably remain in active ministry—exempt from both moral scrutiny and mandatory rest.
And finally, at a recent academic conference on religion and sexual abuse, we presented findings from our research into hundreds of clergy sexual abuse cases within Orthodox Christian communities. The data is clear: the Orthodox Church has a clergy sexual abuse problem. This is not hearsay. This is research-based.
Among U.S.-based Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America stands out for having the highest number of reported sexual misconduct cases in the public domain. Oddly enough, this American jurisdiction answers to a high-ranking official based in Istanbul—who was even honored this year with the Templeton Prize for his climate change advocacy.
I find it deeply troubling that a man can be celebrated while disregarding the suffering of women and children who were, and continue to be, abused by clergy under his spiritual authority. There can be no climate justice without social justice. Yet while victims suffer here at home, ultimate decision-making power remains half a world away, seemingly more invested in liturgical pageantry and accolades than in justice for the abused.
Dr. David Pooler: In public discourse around clergy sexual abuse, we must first name it as a phenomenon that is about the abuse and misuse of power, role, and position of a religious authority. The responsibility for the safety of people in interpersonal relationships is on the professional in a position of power. And this is especially true in relationships where someone with more power represents God.
This religious authority does not have to be a pastor or priest only. It is far more about the way the person has power in any given religious system. Even a volunteer who is given much authority and power can use their position to have sex with someone they support.
When the victim is an adult, we must unequivocally state it is not an “affair” and the person being targeted is not “participating willingly.” We must smash the idea that the victim in adult clergy sexual abuse wants this or should be responsible for stopping it. The harm done to a victim is profound and complex. The reason this is so urgent is that officials and spokespersons within religious systems continue to use the idea that it is an unfortunate case of consenting adults who had an inappropriate relationship. The longer we tolerate a false and misleading narrative like this, the longer clergy sexual abuse can be done with impunity, and the harm done to survivors overlooked or minimized.
Dorothy Small: The firm facts and broad trends—based on my personal experience and on conversations with other survivors of clergy-related abuse, whether as adults or as children—are consistent across international cases: dismissal, disbelief, victim-blaming and shaming, retaliation and ostracism after reporting, loss of faith or religious community, and the protection of clergy perpetrators and institutions over the needs of the abused. Silence is rewarded; speaking out is punished, often for the very reasons I’ve listed.
Victims frequently struggle with the emotional impact of grooming tactics. Trauma bonding formed through intensive grooming creates a powerful attachment, akin to an addictive mood-altering substance on brain chemistry. This bond gives the illusion of being “in love,” fostering an addictive pattern that overrides rational judgment. Pursuit behaviors—chasing after what once felt good—are fueled by intermittent reinforcement, alternating “love-bombing” with withdrawal and emotional coercion. This cycle drives the exploited person to dismiss the pain in search of the next emotional high. The victim often falsely believes their involvement was “consensual,” when in reality it was the result of manipulation, not genuine care or love.
Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or culture, human beings tend to respond similarly to such abuse, though specific factors can create unique challenges. For example, males sexually abused by males often experience heightened embarrassment and shame, which can adversely affect sexuality. Adults abused by clergy frequently feel responsible not only for what happened but also carry the guilt and shame projected onto them by their abuser.
Michelle Stewart: While most Eastern Orthodox clergy are not abusers, the hierarchical structure creates an environment in which abuse can flourish. Though the majority of clergy are likely well-intentioned, the system of spiritual authority within the Eastern Orthodox Church often acts as a petri dish for misconduct. Allegations must typically pass through multiple layers of hierarchy, where, in my experience, the benefit of the doubt is more often given to the accused than to the victim.
A well-documented example is the case against my former brother-in-law, Fr. Matthew Williams. Another is St. Innocent’s Academy, where reports of student abuse were ignored or minimized for years. In both cases, the Church’s delayed response not only obscured the misconduct but effectively enabled it.
The Church frequently resists external oversight, minimizing legal accountability. When it does respond to allegations, legal action is often delayed or actively resisted. My first encounter with this came nearly twenty years ago in the case of Christ of the Hills Monastery, when ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) vigorously defended monks accused of child sexual abuse—even supplying character witnesses. As the then-spouse of one such witness, I overheard private conversations in which participants acknowledged the allegations could be credible. Yet the institutional response prioritized church sovereignty over victim protection, with statements like “this is a matter for confession” or, more bluntly, “this is none of the legal system’s business.” Similar dynamics are now playing out in the Fr. Matthew Williams case.
Confession and the authority of the spiritual father are often weaponized to silence victims. In Judas Girl, reflecting on my own experiences and broader patterns of abuse—particularly within ROCOR—I wrote: “There is no greater predator than the one who convinces you they have power over your soul.” Those unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy may underestimate the influence of the spiritual father, especially within the sacrament of confession.
While I do not advocate eliminating confession for those who find it spiritually meaningful, it is important to note two critical points: In many states, clergy are mandatory reporters; however, the seal of confession often exempts them. Many Orthodox believers are taught that obedience to one’s spiritual father is essential for salvation—even when that guidance is ethically or spiritually troubling.
In my own case, when I disclosed emotional or spiritual abuse by my husband or clergy during confession, I was rebuked and told I was spiritually deficient for harboring resentment. I was told such matters were not mine to speak of, but rather the abuser’s to confess. This pattern is not unique to me. Several victims I’ve spoken with shared that after disclosing sexual abuse during confession, they were advised not to speak publicly—reinforcing a culture of silence and spiritual coercion.
Jacobsen: What question is the most crucial to ask about clergy-related abuse to you?
Archer: The most urgent question is why all 50 states do not have legislation holding criminally liable clergy persons who misuse their position of trust and authority. A clergyperson is in a position of trust and power relative to their congregant. A doctor or therapist cannot sexualize a relationship with a patient because professional ethics and state boards recognize the power differential and expressly prohibit this behavior. It is known to be abuse. There are no state boards for clergy. Why is it that clergy get a “pass” on ethical standards, when I would argue that there is even more implicit trust and intimacy in a relationship of soul-care?
I view this from the perspective of an Orthodox Christian, with an understanding of the long history of soul-care within Orthodox Christianity; however, the spiritual intimacy between clergyperson and congregant holds within many other faith traditions as well. Orthodox tradition recognizes a long history of psychotherapy, or care of the psyche. This is different from mental health therapy as it is practiced with a superbill and a co-pay, but truly no different ethically if a priest sexually abuses a man or woman who has gone to him for help. It should be criminalized so that a victim-survivor can gain some understanding of the injury, and a priest cannot continue to pastor.
In the absence of this kind of law in every state, many church bodies “investigate” these abuses as though they were affairs. There may be substantial evidence of what we term misconduct, but it is viewed through the lens of it being an “affair.” This is a reprehensible protection of the institution over a human person who has experienced severe injury. Church investigating bodies, which include attorneys and clergy, inflict greater injuries when sexualized violence is mislabeled as an “affair.” As a society, we should demand that all clergy understand this issue– even if religious seminaries are not addressing this subject well enough for clergy to use the correct language.
Deschênes: The hashtag I used on Twitter was #thechurchcantpoliceitself—and that’s exactly what has been happening for a long time. There is no transparency, only secrecy. All matters are handled internally, leaving victims unaware of what discussions take place or what decisions are made. Many survivors are told the offending clergy is no longer serving their community. Yet, in reality, they often remain in place or are quietly transferred to another parish—sometimes across provincial or federal borders—where new victims can be found.
The Roman Catholic Church, as many can attest, has changed little in its thinking or modus operandi. The few changes that do occur happen over a lifetime, not years or decades. The Church should reevaluate how it responds to victims. One member of the hierarchy once said, when told that most victims simply want an apology, “That can’t happen, because then we set ourselves up for litigation.” Survivors who have endured litigation know how arduous, re-traumatizing, and drawn-out the process can be—delaying healing, if healing is even possible.
My question is: why not evolve and change your approach when a victim of sexual assault by one of your members comes forward? Why is litigation the first response? Why protect your “brother” instead of a member of your flock? What do you lose by treating victims with compassion and care?
I believe the secrecy exists to protect the Church’s reputation. It may have worked in the past. But with the internet, survivors can find one another, offer mutual support, and learn—often through the media—about credible allegations against clergy. What is the Church’s real reputation today? Person A: “Our parish priest was charged with sexual assault.” Person B: “Another one? Well, that’s the Catholic Church for you.” That is the reality now. What institution would want that?
Metsopoulos: What is the true number of cases of abuse by clergy? It seems that a true figure does not exist. It is important to get a true number, as it is a lot higher than the churches or their attorneys admit. They do not want to face the problem, as it is a problem that is at the core of the church’s organization. The abusers in the churches are the majority of the institution. The clergy all have incriminating evidence on each other and blackmail each other to silence each othe,r preventing the truth from coming out. To get a true figure would decimate the churches, and it would become apparent that the rot goes all the way to the top.
Also, the legal professionals associated with the churches are not concerned with the truth coming out, but with protecting the church, allowing the abuse to continue.
The attorneys and churches, under the pretext of wanting to end clergy abuse, seek victims to share their traumatic events to bring justice, when in fact they are attempting to cover the tracks of the abusers and discredit the victims of abuse. The goal is not to achieve justice for the victims but to evade the law. The attorneys play both sides against the middle. They are the worst of the legal profession and, in some ways, worse than the abuser, by providing false hope for the abused.
Why are victims afraid to come forward?
The victims are victimized by the church, the public, friends, and family. They feel isolated, empty, and guilty for coming forward. They feel shame and guilt for allowing it to happen and allowing it to continue. They may confuse healthy sexual relations with abuse. In the end, the victim is victimized and left alone.
Nedelescu: The most urgent question is this: Why are church officials who knowingly enable clergy sexual abuse not held criminally liable?
People including Melania Sakoda and Cappy Larson have spent decades cataloging the crimes of abusive clergy within the Orthodox Church (all jurisdictions), and while that work is continuing by Katherine and I, it is no longer enough. A new frontier of accountability must now target the enablers—the bishops, chancellors, general counsels, and senior administrators who receive complaints, suppress evidence, intimidate victims, move or cover for perpetrators, and then dare to call themselves “spiritual leaders,” “protecting the Church,” or seeking “truth.”
These enablers rarely touch the criminal justice system. Why? Because our legal frameworks still treat institutional cowardice and bureaucratic cover-up as unfortunate oversights rather than as deliberate acts that perpetuate harm. And yet, without the enabler, the perpetrator cannot persist. The real scandal is not just the abuse—it’s the system that sustains it.
We must stop pretending these enablers are merely misguided managers. They are collaborators. Their silence, their memos, their settlement clauses—all of it—forms the infrastructure of abuse. And until we criminalize enabling behavior, the Church will continue protecting predators while branding survivors as “unstable,” “sinful,” “temptress,” or “misunderstood.”
The urgent question is no longer “Who abused?” but “Who knew—and did nothing?” And if the answer is a bishop or a synod or a patriarch, the next question must be: When will that enabler be indicted?
Pooler: To further advance the study of justice in clergy-related abuse, the most crucial question to ask is what barriers stand in the way of churches setting up rigorous protocols to prevent abuse from happening and responding well when abuse is discovered or reported? One answer is Clericalism, the invisible force at play that teaches people to trust a spiritual authority and distrust themselves blindly. Religious leaders benefit from this arrangement, and therefore, religious systems appear impervious primarily to outside feedback and seem to struggle to reflect and accurately appraise how well they train leaders, develop useful processes to deal with abuse, and respond to survivors. In my observation, churches are largely ineffectual in addressing these issues and cannot admit it to themselves or others. And truly, one of my most profound questions is “why”? It would seem to me that churches could lead the way and model to society the virtues of kindness, generosity, care, and create robust and thoughtful responses when a leader injures someone in their care. But churches appear to fail at this repeatedly and often. And a second question is, why aren’t churches asking this question for their own sake? The fact that there isn’t a great answer to either of these questions deeply troubles me.
Small: The most urgent question about clergy abuse is this: Why is it still an issue today, given the decades of documented complaints, known victims, and our expanded understanding of the serious, lifelong health consequences? Addiction, for example, is one such consequence, with far-reaching effects. It is a global epidemic, and research has long shown that at the root of addiction often lies complex post-traumatic stress and other severe mental health conditions, frequently stemming from abusive relationships and relational traumas.
In other caregiving professions, abuse has been met with legal consequences—heavy fines, imprisonment, and loss of licenses—effectively removing offenders from positions of trust. Yet in religious institutions, whose reach and influence are vast, the problem persists. This is a public safety crisis of epic proportions. The data clearly show the profound damage such abuse inflicts on mental and physical health. The most powerful institutions have the capacity either to heal and unify, as they were meant to, or to cause lasting harm, as history has shown.
Why, then, is it so difficult for religious institutions to sanction and remove offenders instead of shielding them—often by transferring them to new locations where they can prey on the vulnerable again? The Catholic Church’s global presence, for instance, allows abusers to be relocated to other countries, where they continue to exploit trust. Vulnerability is universal; trust itself makes anyone susceptible. While minors are the most at risk, vulnerability spans all ages.
Why is immediate corrective action so rare when credible accusations arise? At the very least, institutions could remove the accused from active roles and make their names public. By the time a survivor fully recognizes they were abused, decades may have passed. Concealing an abuser’s identity only leaves others at risk. During the grooming phase, a victim may sense something is wrong, but the perpetrator—armed with authority and institutional backing—can manipulate, plant doubt, and gaslight the target into confusion and compliance. This dynamic not only weakens victims but also enables escalating abuse.
Stewart: The most urgent question is: How can external accountability be meaningfully enforced within the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly among the clergy?
Abuse can occur in any organization and may never be fully eradicated. However, the decisive factor is how institutions—especially those in positions of authority—respond when abuse surfaces. Their response determines whether the organization actively works against abuse or inadvertently becomes a breeding ground for it. In hierarchical systems like Eastern Orthodoxy, abuse is not merely the result of individual misconduct; it is often facilitated—and concealed—by the very structures designed to provide spiritual guidance. The rigid church hierarchy, combined with the protections of confession, can allow perpetrators to avoid legal scrutiny, while internal mechanisms have consistently failed to safeguard victims.
As documented abuse cases accumulate, the Church—and those responsible for holding it accountable—now stand at a critical crossroads. Raising awareness is an essential first step, but the next imperative is to implement enforceable mechanisms of accountability that address and dismantle the systemic enablers of abuse. While some within the Church hierarchy may resist what they perceive as external intrusion, there is, hopefully, a broader majority of clergy and faithful who are willing to support reform. Their participation is not only desirable—it is likely essential to achieving meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Everyone, thank you for taking a little time to discuss this straightforward topic with complex derivatives. I appreciate the courage, forthrightness, and honesty.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky (Humanist Association of Toronto)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019
The basic tenets of humanism, if one wants the elevator pitch, come in compassion, reason, and science. The more in-depth definitions change from generation to generation while represented within the declarations, manifestos, and statements. Some of the declarations, manifestos, and statements exist for organizations while others as a collective representative of a national stance. Humanism, by this multiple standard, becomes non-singular. The questions return home in the queries about the Canadian flavor of humanism, not by necessity an easy question and, in fact, one needing some exploration.
This consideration of humanism as plural implies questions about Canadiana and Canadianisms. Canadianisms are those markers of cultural identity reflected in behaviour – often verbal output – and, mostly, tacit or implicit knowledge with few exceptions, like, “Eh,” or an “ou” sounding as if “oo,” e.g., “Oot” instead of “Out.”
Others with some reflection may include kerfuffle, mickey, keener, Canuck, arse, hoser, and, of course, poutine. But this layering of humanism onto cultures can reflect rarer Canadian sensibilities – Molson muscle (potbelly), back bacon (Canadian bacon), rye and ginger (Canadian whiskey and ginger ale), serviette (paper napkin), and Mountie (member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP).
Canadiana is often represented with the peculiar character of aloneness, being apart, in search of oneself without others, and simply living in the eternal Great Outdoors. An example of this may come in the Idea of North by the prominent Canadian pianist Glenn Gould, best known for playing Bach – and well, of whom Canadians and other nationals find intrigue decades after Gould’s death.
Another may emerge in the equal status of women, the rights of women, or the unique character of women’s stories in a nation about one century into its granting of universal suffrage, where before, the country simply existed only with a particular suffrage for some men. Bearing in mind, of course, Indigenous Canadians, men and women, only acquired the right to vote in 1960, right in the backdoor of the national consciousness and, not surprisingly – probably because of embarrassment, talked about in public as much as one sees the wind.
The Canadiana in literature retains its women’s rights orientation prominently in the Anglo-Canadian realm with Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Atwood remarked on the foundations of the Western written word living in the collection of books or the library of ancient texts comprising the Bible, the poetic, literary, and dramatic works of Shakespeare, and European folk tales or myths. But Canadiana also comes in the narratives of the Indigenous, of the prominent Cree author Lee Maracle, who set a national genre on its races.
Some argue Canadian culture is a Christian one. That we are even a Christian nation. By the demographics, Canadians by a large majority self-identify as Christian, especially Roman Catholic Christian. In part, especially with the Bible, this harbours a modicum of truth to it. Although, even on the factor of demographics, Canadian Christians, in some denominations, continue to decline with a stunning rapidity due to death rates – so-called aging out. Unfortunately, the national character statement often comes heaped with an ought, as in, more Canadians ought to kowtow to this sensibility. Or this emerges in a political context, where the values ought to reflect some of the national origin there. However, one may note this only comes in Christian signifiers as needing acknowledgement rather than the litany of crimes done by self-identified Christians, and in the name of Christianity, through the origin story of the country.
Nonetheless, there are the novelties of accents on word and on the titles for things. There is the emphasis on the virtue of solitude. Continually, we see more respect for women’s experiences, narratives and unique take on life, in addition to an incorporation of an Indigenous view – of the original inhabitants and caretakers of the geography and ecosystem. There is the acknowledgement of Christianity, in part, embedded into the cultural fabric representative of manifestations of Canadiana and Canadianisms, too. However, humanism remains both historical and living, nationally and internationally. It lives in the records and in the public consciousness in other words.
The historical context comes from Renaissance Humanism, or perhaps more specific to-geography Italian Humanism, with a foundation in Italy and then growth throughout Europe from the 14th to the 16th centuries. It can be seen in the notion of deep education, or Paideia to the Greeks, or Humanitas to Cicero and reflected in the notion of studia humanitatis during its historical blossoming. Reflected in so many collected Western, and other thinkers, humanism itself tends to exist as a sensibility and to be an emergent trend rather than a distinct philosophical doctrine unto itself. Humanism in the national and international context differs in its definitions. Let’s take a peak, together:
On the international level, the International Humanist and Ethical Union expressed humanism as a democratic and ethical life stance without theism and supernaturalism. Within the regional perspective, the European Humanist Federation views humanism as emphasizing human rights, thus bound implicitly within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the rightness in respect for individual choice and personal responsibility.
At several national levels, The Council of Australian Humanist Societies paints humanism as an ethical life lived without extra-natural and external-to-humanity sources of meaning and ethics. Humanists UK exists within the frame of perspective on the absence of an afterlife, morals from care and concerns as the nature of human beings, and science and naturalism and a process and lens for knowledge about the world. The
Humanist Association of Ireland takes humanism as a combination of reason and compassion, harking back to the original point.
The Indian Humanist Association examines humanism within the contextualization of an ethic grounded in human perceptions and abilities, a scientific attitude, and an emphasis on communal harmony and social reform. Humanistisch Verbond/Humanistic Association Netherlands partakes of living together humanism with thinking for yourself as its centrality.
Romanian Secular-Humanist Association considers humanism as an ethic while also promoting critical thinking, scientific methodology, and the separation of church and state. New Zealand Humanists, succinctly states reason, science, and secularism as its basis. Humanist Society Scotland looks for a secular state in Scotland and the abolition of the privileges for the religious.
Humanist Society Singapore considers naturalism and non-theism as foundational, as well as emphasizing rights and responsibilities of individual human beings. The Swedish Humanist Association works within a humanistic frame of reason, compassion, and accountability. American Humanist Association thinks humanism comprises reason, compassion, and experience. Then, to the home turf, we can note Humanist Canada with reason and science to know the natural world, and dignity and compassion to live in the interpersonal one.
Even closer to home than the lawn, the Humanist Association of Toronto’s constitution speaks to humanism as freedom of enquiry and the use of reason, an emphasis on human creativity and fallibility, and a natural world linked with a human-based and oriented ethics. The commonality of the history represents the bubbly trend. Humanism over time and geography emerges and then dissipates, as per the examples before.
A humanistic philosopher, ethical visionary, or community emerges and then fades away, but leaves a trace. This happens continually in the world thought record. This is a bubbling. Of course, as we all know, bubbles pop; hence, the emergence and then dissipation of them. The sensibilities across organizations, whether international, regional, national, or for a city, exhibit philosophical consistency while retaining open questions. As noted at the outset, this reflects the innumerable documents on offer.
These can include the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Amsterdam Declaration (1952), Humanist Manifesto II (1973), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), A Declaration of Interdependence (1988), Humanism: Why, What, and What For, In 882 Words (1996), IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism (1996), Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call For A New Planetary Humanism, The Promise of Manifesto 2000, Amsterdam Declaration (2002), Humanist Manifesto III/Humanism and Its Aspirations (2003), Manifeste pour un humanisme contemporain/Manifesto for a contemporary humanism (2012), and so on.
Certainly, more will become entertained into the future, in replicated or adapted format relevant for the time. The inherent incompleteness of systems in logical structure lead to some revelations about humanism’s emphasis on science linked to its ethic. It may remain eternally incomplete to retain its consistency’ by implication, dogmatic systems, of which assume completeness, become inconsistent in structure, haven’t we noticed. Something that defines science is indefinite discovery; thus, humanism, with science included in itself, as an inevitable ethical and logical complement of this incompleteness.
Therein lies the insight to the question, “What is Canadian Humanism?” Through reflections on the state of Canadiana and Canadianisms, and humanism the world over, humanism, in its ethics and its scientific perspective, becomes inherently incomplete but self-consistent. It is this way via logical necessity. Its – humanism’s – fundamentals remain the same while its flavor per culture changes. The basic facts of the world inform the ethics and the type of culture brings the different manifestations of humanism. The peculiarities of humanisms derivations simply reflect higher-order incorporations of the surrounding culture. Nonetheless, it retains its core principles of reason, compassion, and science.
Canadian humanism, as with all humanisms, exists as more question than answer, where the title gives the game away. The answer is in the question: what is Canadian Humanism? Canadian humanism is about compassion, reason, and science, but also about the surface presentations of a people: beaver hats, maple syrup, and double double Tim Horton’s coffees.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/07
Rev. Dr. John C. Lentz Jr. served over 30 years as Lead Pastor of Forest Hill Presbyterian Church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Known for passionate preaching, community leadership, and a commitment to justice and compassion, he profoundly shaped the Church’s mission before retiring in 2024 after a celebrated ministry. Lentz reflects on his 30-year tenure at Forest Hill Presbyterian Church, where he inherited the traumatic legacy of sexual abuse by a former associate pastor. Lentz details the Church’s response—early efforts at acknowledgment, limited legal options, and survivor support—highlighting the structural weaknesses in denominational accountability. He explores systemic patterns of abuse across denominations, including the role of clerical authority, enabling networks, and institutional cover-ups. Drawing from neuroscience, psychology, and theology, Lentz emphasizes the importance of independent investigations, seminary reform, and third-party oversight. He warns against simplistic narratives that scapegoat Catholicism alone and calls for nuanced, data-driven reform efforts across religious institutions. He discussed how virtues like compassion and forgiveness, without accountability, can become vulnerabilities. Both advocate for cultural and institutional reforms rooted in moral clarity, survivor support, and transparent justice processes. The dialogue ultimately calls for partnership—not polarization—in addressing clergy abuse.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, you are a former pastor at Forest Hill Presbyterian Church. What is the story there? We can use that as a context for a broader conversation about a wider phenomenon.
Rev. Dr. John Lentz: Yes. I served as pastor at Forest Hill Church for thirty years, from 1994 to 2024. During my final interview before being offered the position, the search committee told me something they felt I needed to know. They said, “John, we need to tell you this because it might affect your decision to come here.” They explained that a previous associate pastor had been involved in the sexual abuse of youth in the congregation.
That wasn’t comforting to hear. Here is what I learned so from personal knowledge: In 1977, Reverend Dale Small became the associate pastor at Forest Hill Church. He came from another congregation in the Detroit area of Michigan. His primary responsibilities were overseeing the confirmation program and leading retreat and camping ministries. He served in that role until 1981.
Afterward, he retired and was granted the honorary title of pastor emeritus. He moved to North Carolina following his retirement. In 1984, he organized a reunion-style camping trip for former youth members of Forest Hill Church in North Carolina. During that event, one former youth participant—by then in his twenties—experienced a resurgence of traumatic memories related to prior abuse. He left the trip and returned home.
Later that year, he and his parents sent a letter to the Church’s governing body (the session) reporting that Dale Small had sexually abused him. The letter also mentioned other possible victims, although it is unclear how many individuals were named or how those claims were verified.
When I joined the Church in 1994, ten years after that disclosure, I learned that the session at the time had responded by engaging a consultant—though I do not know their name—to assess what actions should be taken to support the congregation, particularly its youth. They also reportedly sent letters to families whose children had been part of the youth group or confirmation classes during that period, asking whether anything inappropriate had occurred.
It was reported that at least half a dozen boys came forward, identifying themselves as victims of abuse. Many of these boys came from homes where the father was absent or where the family structure had been disrupted. All of the reported victims were male.
Even years later, I encountered the impact of this traumatic history. One individual told me he had been abused not directly by Reverend Small but by someone who had themselves been abused and possibly groomed by Small. I also became close to someone a few years younger than me who eventually disclosed that he had been one of the victims. He confided in me and described the abuse in detail.
His account matched what is now known to be common patterns in clergy abuse cases: identifying vulnerable boys, assuming the role of a surrogate father figure, using pastoral authority to gain trust, showing excessive attention, and initiating inappropriate physical contact during church retreats—starting with massages and escalating to sexual abuse.
As more stories emerged, it was essential to support survivors in any way I could. I recall one conversation with a survivor in which I said, “Whatever you need, I will help. Let’s pursue justice if that’s what you want.” By that time, Reverend Small had passed away so that any legal recourse would have been limited. Still, the priority was to provide acknowledgment, support, and whatever healing was possible.
There was also a statute of limitations, and unfortunately, it was heartbreaking. The abuse survivor did not want to proceed. He still had such mixed and conflicted emotions about this man—someone he said he loved and who, he believed, loved him. You can imagine the emotional complexity and heartbreak that comes with hearing something like that.
Then Dale Small died, so pursuing anything in a legal sense became moot. I did ensure, however, that he was no longer listed as pastor emeritus. I also informed our local presbytery, which removed Dale Small from the rolls as a retired and honourably retired pastor.
I have probably left out many details, but that’s the general account. That part is fact—that is what I know to be true. What lies in the murkier areas—and this is what makes it so difficult—is that there were some alleged incidents of misconduct at Dale Small’s previous Church in Michigan. Now, my predecessor—whom I overall have great respect for and who was a prominent leader in this community—knew Dale Small personally. He was the one who called and invited him to serve at Forest Hill Church.
I cannot say with any degree of certainty, and I have no evidence, that he knew of the abuse or that he was abused. But, from what I understand, he may have been a classic enabler.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Bishop Accountability
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/22
Today, I’m joined by Katherine Archer, Father Bojan Jovanović, Dr. Hermina Nedelescu, and Dorothy Small for a wide-ranging discussion on clergy abuse—its psychological toll, institutional roots, and pathways to reform.
Katherine Archer is the co-founder of Prosopon Healing and a graduate student in Theological Studies. She will begin a Master’s in Counseling Psychology in the fall. Her work focuses on clergy abuse within the Eastern Orthodox Church, blending academic research with nonprofit advocacy. Archer champions policy reform addressing adult clergy exploitation, advancing a vision of healing grounded in justice, accountability, and survivor support.
Father Bojan Jovanović, a Serbian Orthodox priest and Secretary of the Union of Christians of Croatia is known for his searing critiques of institutional failings within the Church. His book Confession: How We Killed God and his work with the Alliance of Christians of Croatia underscore a commitment to ethical reform and moral reckoning. Jovanović advocates for transparency and internal dialogue as essential steps toward restoring trust in religious life.
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu is a neuroscientist at Scripps Research in San Diego whose research probes the neurobiological underpinnings of human behavior, particularly in the context of substance use and trauma. Her current work explores how trauma, including sexual abuse, is encoded in the brain’s circuitry and how community-based interventions can address PTSD and addiction in survivors of clergy abuse.
Dorothy Small is a retired registered nurse and longtime survivor advocate with SNAP. A survivor of both childhood and adult clergy abuse, Small began speaking out long before the #MeToo movement gave such voices a broader platform. A cancer survivor and grandmother, she now writes about recovery, resilience, and personal freedom, amplifying the strength of survivors and the urgency of institutional accountability.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In 2024, journalists faced unprecedented threats, with at least 124 killed—the highest number recorded to date—though some sources report 122. The violence in Gaza accounted for a significant share of these deaths. Beyond physical danger, journalists today confront a host of pressures: online harassment, legal intimidation, surveillance, the erosion of press freedoms, and increasing self-censorship. I’ve experienced several of these realities myself. That is the nature of this work.
Each of you here has encountered similar challenges through very different lenses: as a distinguished member of the Serbian Orthodox clergy, a young adult woman within the Orthodox community, a Catholic youth, and a neuroscientist. These identities frame the most critical points of contact within each of your narratives. You all chose to speak out—something most people never do. So let me ask: Once someone breaks that silence and becomes outspoken—whether about their own experience or on behalf of others—what happens? What shifts and consequences follow when the truth is no longer kept quiet?
Katherine Archer: When I was 21, I came forward and reported a clergyperson for what I experienced as a violation of trust and an abuse of pastoral authority. If I had to choose one word to describe how I felt in the aftermath, it would be annihilation. The Orthodox Church upholds the use of icons in worship and annually celebrates the Triumph of Orthodoxy–a commemoration of the end of iconoclasm, or the historical period when people smashed and destroyed icons.
I have often felt a deep dissonance between the reverence given to painted wood as the representation of the human person and my own experience, as a living person, coming forward with a painful and vulnerable account of harm involving a priest. Over the years, I have spoken with many survivors who shared similar feelings after trying to report experiences of abuse within Orthodox Christian communities—whether through conversations with fellow parishioners, clergy, or through official channels.
It is a beautiful and moving tradition to process around the church holding icons on that particular Sunday in Lent. Yet it is profoundly more difficult to carry the weight of someone’s story, confront painful realities, and respond compassionately to a living human reporting such things.
Father Bojan Jovanović: When I first spoke the truth, my truth experienced a paradox: liberation and humiliation in the same breath. I talked about the attempted sexual abuse I survived within the Serbian Orthodox Church and about an even more harrowing reality — the knowledge that a child had been raped and murdered in a monastery. The facts were clear, but the world I spoke them into could not receive them.
Instead of being a space of light and confession of sin, the Church became a prison of denial. Some immediately tried to silence my voice, to “protect the Church,” as if the truth were the threat and not the crime. Others looked at me with discomfort, as if I were the one disrupting the order. Theologically, I felt like a prophet bringing truth, only to be met with stones. Psychologically, it was only the beginning of confronting the deep trauma I had suppressed and wrapped in silence for years.
Hermina Nedelescu: I received supportive responses from most individuals and institutions. In contrast, the response I experienced from the Greek Orthodox Church of America was, in my view, deeply disappointing and lacking in basic compassion. From my experience, their response felt—and continues to feel—fundamentally inhumane.
Dorothy Small: Reporting the sexual assault by my grandfather, just shy of age six, resulted in a slap across the cheek by my grandmother and a swear in French. Ultimately, it resulted in no further abuse by my grandfather. However, almost a year later, living under the same roof as the predator, my grandmother brought me to a Catholic orphanage to be adopted. At the last minute, I was adopted by an aunt and uncle. They were abusive. I feared them. But they were familiar. I feared the orphanage far more. It was unknown. Plus, I feared nuns.
Reporting the schoolteacher helped to stop the harassment my best friend was receiving. It also caused me to be blamed and scorned by my parents. I only had one friend who stood beside me. Ultimately, I ended up moving across the country to escape a small town and the state where I lived. I could not recover from the emotional consequences of living in that state. It took about three or four years for the emotional pain to ease. My parents contacted the principal of the school, mandating that the teacher had until evening to reveal what he did with me to his wife, or my adoptive father would pay him a visit to his home. He had to tell his wife.
Reporting the priest led to a massive fallout. On a work visa from a foreign country, he was pulled from the ministry in the diocese here and remanded to his bishop, where he returned to active ministry. I was banned by the pastor of the Church from all ministry for reporting him. If I had not, I could have continued ministry even though they knew what happened. Silence would have been rewarded. I lost a few close friends due to the publicity of the lawsuit and their discomfort being associated with me. I feared retaliation beyond being shunned, ostracized, and ridiculed, which led to my retreating at home for six weeks, afraid to leave. Some told me that I was hated and accused of seducing the priest.
Once loved and accepted by my church community, I fell sharply from grace. There was also a backlash from my adult son. I ended up walking away from the community that was like a family. It caused marked spiritual confusion and distress for well over five years.
Jacobsen: How were people helpful in this coming-out experience?
Archer: The community of survivors and advocates is incredible. I have come to know some incredibly fierce, strong, and benevolent people. I am moved by people like law professor Amos Guiora and some of the attorneys we have spoken to, who are empathic but knowledgeable and have a fierce resolve to help survivors see justice.
I am excited about the community I will join in the fall to start working towards my Master’s in Counselling Psychology, with professors willing to engage with complex ideas and not turn to binary thinking or platitudes. I do not think a person needs a vast community, but since we are wired to connect with others, some community is necessary for healing. It can be a community of another person, holding a story with respect and tenderness and unwilling to inflict further harm. That is a true “triumph over iconoclasm,” by the way.
Jovanović: Individuals — not institutions, not the majority, but individuals — became lighthouses in my night. These people did not demand proof but listened to my heart. Psychologists, friends, and a few believers who truly understood Christ’s message of love and justice — helped me rediscover my humanity. Their support was not in words, but in the silence where I could cry without shame.
From a theological perspective, it was through these people that God drew near to me. Paradoxically, it was only after I left the institution that called itself His house that I felt God’s presence in my pain. Through them, I understood that faith is not unquestioning loyalty to an institution, but the courage to break with evil in the name of truth, even when that evil is draped in robes.
Nedelescu: Colleagues, mentors, and even strangers responded with empathy and moral clarity, affirming that speaking out was valid and necessary. Some institutions took immediate steps to understand what happened and offered to help in any way possible, whether through documentation, emotional support, or a safe space to be heard. Those responses reminded me that despite my suffering, individuals and institutions are committed to accountability, dignity, and survivor support.
In contrast, the only institution that responded in a reactionary and, in my view, deeply disappointing manner was the Greek Orthodox Church of America. That response had a severe emotional impact on me and compounded the trauma.
Small: With my grandfather, I suppose that although initially, it met with a shocked reaction from my grandmother, there was no further incident the remainder of the time I stayed with them. The positive thing about the schoolteacher was the response I received from the superintendent. I expected to be chastised. Instead, he listened as I berated myself. He interrupted and told me never to speak harshly and negatively about myself again. I was just talking about myself and the way I was spoken to at home. The teacher, however, only received a verbal warning. He did not lose his position.
With the priest, the victim advocate for the diocese was very kind and supportive. One woman from my parish ended up standing beside me throughout everything, even though she did not understand anything about dealing with someone with so much trauma and symptoms, as well as clergy abuse of adults.
After the lawsuit was mediated, I found a spiritual director ed, who became a strong support person. The lawyer I retained was phenomenal. He had a degree in clinical psychology as well as in law. I also contacted SNAP, which is a nonprofit organization for those abused by clergy. I also had a therapist initially, but she did not understand the complex nature of clergy abuse. I ended therapy.
Jacobsen: How were people unhelpful in this coming-out experience?
Archer: People who will not access a body of knowledge on trauma, consent, or abuse, including spiritual abuse, have said atrocious things to me over the years. I was abused by a man starting when I was 14, so I have been in this space of being a “survivor” (and actually, I do not always like that word) for a long time. However, over time, with healing, ignorant words feel like tiny ant bites as I move towards the people committed to modeling authenticity in their lives and growing and learning.
When people say atrocious things, I think, “Thank you for showing me who you are so I can move far away from you.” So, the unhelpful people have ultimately been helpful, after all, in allowing me to disconnect and attach to healthier people and communities. There are healthy communities; we do not have to feel stuck in sick communities.
Jovanović: The unhelpfulness of people was most deeply expressed in their silence. It was not just the words of denial — the quiet distance, the turning away, that wounded me the most. Some even tried to convince me I had misunderstood what had happened, that “people like that do not exist in the Church,” as if I had imagined my trauma.
The abuser did not inflict the most significant pain, but by those who knew, suspected, or heard, and did nothing. Their theological passivity, their silence in the name of “peace” and “God’s order,” is what spiritually broke me the most. They failed to see Christ in me as the wounded one. They trusted those in vestments more than the truth of a broken soul. Moreover, that, in my most profound conviction, is the greatest betrayal of faith.
Nedelescu: How the Greek Orthodox Church of America has responded has, in my view, been profoundly unhelpful—and continues to be. Rather than expressing empathy or taking responsibility, I experienced their response as involving victim-blaming, narrative distortion, and a general attitude that felt fundamentally inhumane. From my perspective, their actions appear more focused on protecting the institution than on acknowledging the harm I experienced at the hands of one of their high-ranking employees.
That kind of ongoing institutional response doesn’t just fail survivors—it intensifies the harm and reinforces the very silence we are trying to break. It is profoundly disheartening to witness such reactionary and defensive behavior from individuals in positions of authority who, in my view, knew—or should have known—that serious harm had occurred and failed to act to mitigate it.
This aligns with what Professor Amos Guiora, a leading expert on sexual assault and enabling behavior, defines as the “enabling phenomenon.” As he writes, an enabler is “an individual able to reasonably know another individual has been harmed and/or is likely to be harmed yet fails to act to minimize the harm to that individual.”
Finally, the words of Diane Langberg resonate with me: “Systems that cover up abuse through deception, coercion, or abuse of power mimic the perpetrator and revictimize the victim. Tragically, many lives have been sacrificed on the altar of secrecy for the sake of the church or the mission.”
Small: The comments made by those who just did not understand the abuse of adults by clergy were tough. My grandmother struck my face with an open hand. My grandfather threatened me after the assault that if I told, he would tell everyone I was lying and I would get into trouble. No one would believe me.
Much is the same when I reported the priest as an adult. Many stood beside him and turned away from me. I think just the fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding, as well as the impact on their religious practice, made it more complicated than if what happened were with a stranger or anyone but a priest as far as the school teacher admitting to my parents, who discovered evidence in my room, that the teacher caused me to hear some of the most horrific things any person who calls himself a father should ever say to any teenager.
His words took deep root. He was a sadistic bully who left a lifetime of damage in his wake. The consequences of being raised by the aunt and uncle, as well as devastating early childhood loss, left me vulnerable to subsequent abuse, culminating in what transpired with the priest at age sixty.
Jacobsen: Thank you all for continuing to break new ground by offering distinct perspectives on this less-discussed darkness in the community ecosphere around abuse.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Bishop Accountability
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/06/09
As allegations of clergy sexual misconduct mount up, even resulting in churches being closed down, #ChurchToo survivors and advocate organizations call on the government to criminalize adult clergy sexual abuse.
As allegations of clergy sexual misconduct mount up, even resulting in churches being closed down, #ChurchToo survivors and advocate organizations call on the government to criminalize adult clergy sexual abuse in alignment with the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2022 resolution. However, a recent bill in CA to criminalize adult clergy sexual abuse, similar to laws in 13 states and D.C., failed to leave the Public Safety committee under questionable circumstances, and survivors are calling on Governor Gavin Newsom to investigate.
In an urgent appeal to Governor Gavin Newsom, survivors and advocates of the #MeToo/ #ChurchToo movement are calling for immediate action regarding California Senate Bill 894 (SB 894), titled “Sexual Exploitation by a Member of Clergy.” The bill was presented to the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 16, 2024, but did not advance out of committee.
Expressing deep concern over what they describe as undemocratic proceedings surrounding the bill, survivors have requested a meeting with the Office of the Governor to address critical issues before the impending deadline at the end of this month. A copy of the letter from survivors to the California governor is attached below.
SB 894 seeks to align California law with 13 other states and the District of Columbia by establishing criminal consequences for clergy members who sexually exploit adult congregants. The bill addresses the power imbalances inherent in such relationships, similar to existing laws governing relationships between therapists or doctors and their patients.
In June 2022, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest denomination in the nation, passed a resolution committing to endorse measures like SB 894 aimed at criminalizing adult clergy sexual abuse. This resolution reflects the denomination’s acknowledgment of a persistent issue of clergy sexual abuse, which survivors attribute to repeated failures in addressing it.
Key concerns raised by survivors and advocates include:
- Missing Position Letters: The Public Safety Committee disregarded numerous support letters submitted through the California Legislature Portal during its analysis of SB 894 (see the attached bill analysis). Despite evidence of substantial support, the omission of these letters from consideration undermines the democratic process and impedes lawmakers’ understanding of the bill’s importance.
- Disrespectful Behavior During Hearings: During the Public Safety Committee hearing on April 16, 2024, committee members were observed displaying disrespectful body language while survivors shared their testimonies. Senator Aisha Wahab’s actions, including applying makeup during a survivor’s testimony, have been particularly criticized as disrespectful. Watch the Senate Public Safety Committee address SB 894 (0:01-22:00).
- Personal Animosity Influencing Proceedings: Survivors say that personal animosity between senators has unfairly influenced the handling of SB 894. This bias has compromised the bill’s chances of receiving a fair hearing and undermines efforts to address clergy sexual abuse effectively.
On Twitter (X), some survivors voiced their concerns directly to Aisha Wahab, highlighting that her conduct during the committee hearing could potentially bolster support for her recall from elected office. The movement to recall Aisha Wahab, a Democratic Party member representing District 10 in the California State Senate, gained approval for circulation by the secretary of state’s office on December 15, 2023. According to RecallWahab.com, supporters of the recall say Sen. Wahab “favors criminals.” According to Ballotpedia.org, supporters of the recall have a window of 160 days, until May 23, 2024, to gather the 42,802 signatures necessary to trigger a recall election.
#ChurchToo survivors stress that clergy sexual abuse and exploitation disproportionately affect women and underline the urgent need for legislative action to protect congregants and hold perpetrators accountable. They emphasize that while other professionals would face severe consequences for similar actions, clergy members often evade accountability.
In a joint statement (attached), survivors and advocates express their belief that Governor Newsom’s intervention can help ensure SB 894 becomes law and makes a significant difference in safeguarding Californians from sexual predators exploiting positions of authority within religious institutions.
SB 894 “Sexual Exploitation by a Member of Clergy” is supported by numerous organizations, such as the Baylor University Diana R. Garland School of Social Work, known for its extensive research of adult clergy sexual abuse, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Mennonite Abuse Prevention, and The Hope of Survivors (THOS), known for supporting survivors of adult clergy sexual abuse, and human trafficking organizations such as Human Trafficking Legal Network and Freedom and Fashion.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/06/23
Marie Alena Castle is the communications director for Atheists for Human Rights. Raised Roman Catholic she became an atheist later in life. She has since been an important figure within the atheistmovement through her involvement with Minnesota Atheists,The Moral Atheist,National Organization of Women, andwroteCulture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom(2013). She has a lifetime of knowledge and activist experience, explored and crystallised in an educational series.
Following is the second half of an interview of Ms. Castle by Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The first part of this interview can be found here Session 1
.
Jacobsen: With your four decades of experience in activism for atheism, human rights, and womens rights, you earlier described the victory for womens right to vote and pursue careers and for reproductive rights. Who has formed the main resistance to the massive pro-life lobby from Catholic and other Christian religious groups?
Alena Castle:Groups such as NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood have been the most publicly visible opponents of the Catholic/Protestant fundamentalist assaults on reproductive health care. However, the most effective has been the political organising within the Democratic party. I was extensively involved in getting the Democratic party platform to support abortion rights and in getting pro-choice candidates endorsed and elected. Having a major political party oppose the Republican partys misogynistic position was key to holding the line against them.
Jacobsen: In the current battleground over abortion, reproductive health and rights,modern attacks on Margaret Sangers characterhave been launched to indirectly take down abortion activists and clinics, and argueagainst such rights for women. What can best protect abortion access and Sangers legacy and work?
Alena Castle:The attacks on Sanger amount to alternative facts and seriously distorted history. Womens rights leaders of the past, including Sanger as well as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are sometimes quoted in opposition to abortion but their concern was that so many women died from abortions that were either self-induced or done by incompetent quacks or because of the inadequate medical knowledge of the time.
Sanger has been accused of favouring eugenics (birth control to prevent the birth of genetically defective babies). These viewshave been deliberately misconstruedregarding their intent when in fact they were intended to save womens lives and help ensure a better life for the babies they gave birth to. Today the anti-abortionists arestill making upfake horror stories about foetal development and abortion and its effect on women that are outright lies. Nothing will stop this dishonest distortion of history and the absurd lies but more should be done to assert, often and vigorously, the actual medical facts about abortion and the moral rightness and integrity of Sangers and other feminists views and of the women who have abortions.
Jacobsen: What would you say has been most effective as a preventive mechanism against the encroachment on the rights of women from the hyper-religious Right, or the religious Right?
Alena Castle:Political activism! That is the only thing that will work. We need to focus on putting a majority of elected officials in office at all levels who support womens rights and the rights of the nonreligious. You cant make changes by just talking about them it takes laws and their enforcement. Only politicians make laws not NARAL or NOW or atheist organisations or people who march in the streets.
Jacobsen: As an atheist and feminist, what have been the most educational experiences in your personal or professional life as to the objectives of the anti-atheist and anti-feminist movements in North America and, indeed, across the world?
Alena Castle:I have personally experienced the effect of the religious rights political agendaon my life and on the lives of others. The first funeral I went to was when I was 10 years old. Our lovely 22-year-old neighbour had died of a botched illegal abortion. (At the time, such deaths were listed as obstruction of the bowels to save the familys embarrassment and I only learned several years later what the true cause was). And then there were the funerals of good friends who were gay and died of AIDS while the religious right did everything to hinder medical research for treatment. And almost worse was seeing the total lack of compassion by advocates for that agenda for the harm it causes. Example:
I had a discussion with a very nice, polite woman about a news report of how an 11-year-old girl, somewhat retarded, had been raped by her father, was pregnant, begged for an abortion, and was denied by a court order. Soon after she had the baby, she was back in court on a charge of being an unfit mother. I asked this nice woman if she thought that girl should have been allowed to have an abortion. She said no, that forcing her to continue the pregnancy was the right and moral thing to do. Her religious beliefs had hardened her heart and I told her so.
How do we talk to people with such a warped sense of morality? This woman also believed in personhood from the moment of conception. At that moment, her person is a microscopic fertilised egg undifferentiated at the cellular level, and no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. The anti-abortion people put up billboards with a picture of a year-old real baby and a statement that the babys heartbeat is detected at a foetal age of a few weeks. They dont explain that it is then a two-chambered heart at the lizard level of development. (The adorable always white baby on the billboard has the fully developed four-chambered heart). Abortion never kills a baby; it just keeps one from forming. The religious right thinks preserving that development outweighs any harm it is causing the women. We have the words of the Pope and the Protestant reformers to thank for this inhumanity. Martin Luthers associate, Philip Melancthon said, If a woman weary of bearing children, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it. Pope Pius XI said, However we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperilled by the performance of her natural duty, there yet remains no sufficient reason for condoning the direct murder of the innocent.
There is no baby, biologically speaking until the beginning of the third trimester the rhetoric about innocence skips that convenient fact. After that, its a medical emergency affecting the woman, the fetus or both, that requires removal of the fetus. If these anti-abortion hard-hearts have a problem with this, they should go ahead and die from bearing if they find themselves in such a situation, but leave the rest of us alone.
Thank you for your time, Ms. Alena Castle! Your words and experiences are of even greater relevance at this time withwomens lives under attackagain.
This post was originally published at conatusnews.com and is republished here with permission from the author.
Do you want to be part of creating a kinder, more inclusive 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): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/07/17
Marie Alena Castle is the communications director for Atheists for Human Rights. Raised Roman Catholic she became an atheist later in life. She has since been an important figure in the atheistmovement through her involvement with Minnesota Atheists, The Moral Atheist,National Organization for Women, andwrote Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom (2013). She has a lifetime of knowledge and activist experience, explored and crystallized in an educational series. The first part of this series can be found here Session 1and Session 2.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Even with groups such as NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, the onslaught against womens rights, reproductive rights and so on, continue to take place. The most vulnerable poor and minority women tend to be the main victims, and so their children and the associated families and so communities. In a sequence, I see attacks on womens reproductive rights as attacks on women, children, so families, and so communities, and therefore ordinary American citizens. What can be some buffers, or defenses, against these direct attacks on the new media and communications technologies, e.g. to educate and inoculate new generations?
Marie Alena Castle:
Jacobsen: Who are the unknown womens rights heroes, men and women, that people should more into to self-educate?
Castle:They are the people who work at abortion clinics. They all have stories to tell. One of my friends managed a clinic and she was constantly threatened with violence and pickets at her house. I went there a few times to help in case the picketers got violent. One August I suggested she hook up her garden hose to a bottle of sugar water and set it to spray on the picketers and attract hordes of hornets. She wouldnt do it but I would have. The leader of the picketers was the local fire department chief (with expert knowledge of how to set her house on fire). She wanted to move but dared not for fear the fire chief would send a potential buyer to case the house for fire-setting purposes. She needed some carpentry done but feared getting someone she didnt know who would have a violent anti-abortion agenda. I got an atheist carpenter friend for her who was reliably safe.
Jacobsen: Once the shoe bites, people then become active, politically and socially, typically. These people can rise and protest in an organized and constructive way. Do you think this era of yes, alternative facts, but at the same time mass accessibility of information can hasten people realizing their shoe is being bitten, even when they werent aware before?
Castle:Lotsa luck on this. Most people really do assume that, as child bearers, women really are something of a public utility and in need of regulation. Why else would there be any discussion about how Roe v. Wade should be interpreted? What we need are new court challenges to Roe v. Wade that say it should be repealed and replaced with a ruling that says abortion is a medical matter to be handled by a woman and her doctor and is not the governments business. Lets have a major public discussion about womens bodily autonomy and why their bodies need government oversight.
(While Im at it, let me note that I am also opposed to men being drafted into the military. The government does not own their bodies any more than it owns womens bodies. You get men to voluntarily agree to kill people and you get women to voluntarily agree to give birth or you do without.)
Jacobsen: For centuries, and now with mild pushback over decades, the religiously-based, often, bigotry and chauvinism against women, and ethnic and sexual minorities is more in the open, and so more possible to change. Because people know about it, and cant deny it. And when and if they do, the reasons seem paper thin and comical, at times. What expedites this process of everyone, finally, earning that coveted equality?
Castle:The mild pushback has come because more people are losing interest in religion, and religion has always been the driver of bigotry and prejudice. The loss of interest has come from Internet sources that expose the absurdities and failings of religion.
To expedite the process you change the laws. You change the laws by organizing for and electing legislators who support civil rights. Then you elect a President who will appoint judges who support those rights. Nothing changes if the laws dont change. The laws helped bring civil rights to the South because it gave pro-civil rights citizens the protection they needed to treat people with respect. We started getting civil rights by public agitation that led to legislation that led to court review and rulings that did or did not affirm those rights. One exception: We got women covered by the Civil Rights Act when sex was introduced into the language in the expectation that it would be seen as such a joke that the Act would be voted down, but it passed.
To get women out of the public utility category, we need to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. That failed the first time precisely because opponents said it would give women the right to have abortions. What isabout abortion that sets some people off so violently? None of them show any real practical interest in born babies. Why this obsession with controlling women? Something about species survival? So many men with so many zillions of sperm and frustrated by womens limited ability to accommodate all that paternal potential? Who knows?
The only thing holding up equal rights for all is the Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist religions (and maybe also misogynistic Islam but we have to see how that immigrant population votes after being exposed to the relatively civilizing effect of living here). Its always those religions that protest against womens rights, gay rights, and that so ferociously supported slavery.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Marie.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/07/20
Angelos Sofocleous is a friend and colleague. We write together a decent amount. I asked about an interview for an ebook, where we would discuss his background. I wanted to diversify the content of the e-book, free one, with not only the articles written with friends and colleagues but also interviews with the writers themselves. Here is Angelos.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:To begin, we have been writing partners. In fact, youve been one of my more prolific writing buddies, activist work, for about a year coming into a year-and-a-half. It is cool because were on almost opposite sides of the globe, but we work on common initiatives relatively consistently. I wanted to diversify some of the content of this volume with some more diverse interviews with people beginning their active careers. Their lives in other words, so here we are after you agreed to be a willing interviewee (victim). What was early childhood to college life like for you? Was there an activist background? How do you find the developments within the EU throughout your lifetime?
Angelos Sofocleous: Thank you for the opportunity, Scott. You are one of the most active, intelligent, and knowledgeable people I know. It is a joy to be able to work with you on a number of projects.
To begin, I have been through many phases of metamorphoses from early childhood to college life. I can think of periods in my life with which I have very little in common with the person I am now. From a very young age though, I always remember myself going through the encyclopedias in my grandmas house, trying to figure out what interests me; from biology to politics, from astronomy to philosophy. Soon, I found out that I was interested in one thing: Knowledge.
Luckily, I was a very introverted and shy child. This gave me the opportunity to be able to spend my time wisely on what regards social interactions while I very carefully allocated my (limited) energy on things that could benefit me. Hence, I spent a lot of time with myself. And I felt totally fine with it. I never get why people consider it weird for someone to stay at home on a Saturday night, or go to the movies by themselves, or pick a book and sit on a parks bench. I was thus involved in activities through which I would spend time having discussions with myself, exploring my mind, and writing down my ideas and thoughts.
Writing, o writing. I started my anonymous personal blog when I was 14, in which I still write 9 years later, although the person who started the blog is different from the one who still writes on it. Words in my mind have no voice, no physical expressions; they can only be expressed through writing, and this is what I did for most of my life. Had it not been for writing, my mind would be a chaotic mess of unstructured and unorganized thoughts, probably expressed in non-conventional ways. And I wouldnt like that. Writing, thus, saved my mind from going crazy. A mind that cannot be expressed, either stops thinking or stops expressing itself. Both can lead to insanity.
The year when I started writing signified a turning point in my life. Growing up in a right-wing religious family, the opportunity arose through my teenage years, to revolt against what I had grown up with, and explore new ideas, while questioning my own, deeply held at that time, beliefs. I no more consider belief to provide an appropriate basis on which to base arguments What is needed is knowledge, and in case of knowledge is not possible (yet), one must suspend belief until there is appropriate and satisfactory evidence for knowledge. This is science.
Apart from some close friends, I was never able to discuss my atheistic and agnostic beliefs, as well as my opposition to religion and my endorsement of science, with my family or even at school. This is how it is growing up on a small island, with less than 1 million population, which claims to have one of the biggest percentages of religious followers in the European Union. My teenage revolution, then, was not verbal and not physical, it was mental.
That being said, my activist background was limited to sharing my ideas, trying to encourage people through my writings and influence them, while I was doing the same with other peoples writings. No action out in the streets, no discussions outside social media, limited involvement in groups. I would not say, then, that I had any activist background when it comes to my teenage life unless you want to call writing a form of activism.
In any case, I drew myself more and more into skepticism, freethinking, and humanism, and tried to educate myself on these issues, waiting for the time when I would apply this knowledge into the world.
This could not be done after high school though, as I had to spend two years doing mandatory military service. I will not waste much space here to talk about it, as its not worth it. I am ashamed of my country that treats its 18-year-olds in such a way, still having remnants of hegemonic masculinity. There is great potential for encouraging young people to develop themselves, and military service is definitely not a way to do this, at least in my country.
Things had changed, however, when I entered university. Having spent two years of physical and mental inactivity, I decided that it was time for me to become active. At the moment, Im the president of two student societies, Durham Humanists, and Cypriot Society of Durham, while Im a Sub-Editor at my universitys newspaper (Palatinate UK), a writer at ConatusNews.com, and a co-editor at Secular Nation magazine.
I have also just published my second poetry collection. I am therefore active in writing again, this time having the opportunity to meet like-minded people and be active in groups, promoting campaigns and influencing students and the general public to a greater extent. I feel that most of the chains that held me back to my teenage years have broken, and I am now able to take action on the issues that concern me.
Now, moving onto your last question regarding the developments within the EU within my lifetime, I witnessed a major shift in Europe, from conservatism to liberalism and progressivism. Mutual respect and recognition of human rights across Europe, of course, need to take place at a personal level, within societies, but also at a national, and even pan-continental level.
This is what I feel the EU has achieved, bringing European countries closer to each other without erasing any aspect of their unique identities but, in contrast, managing to protect, secure, and enrich each nations identity through mutual recognition and respect for each other nations identity.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/03
I interview friends, colleagues, and experts, on harm reduction and its implications in Canadian society, from the theory to the practice, to the practical. I am a Member-at-Large for Outreach for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and writer for Karmik, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, and the Marijuana Party of Canada. Here I interview Gonzo Nieto, part 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you become interested in being involved in drug policy in Canada?
Gonzo Nieto:My interest with drug policy began with my own use, which started with cannabis as a teen. A lot of my peers were using drugs, both in high school and university. That all began to get me interested in the phenomenon of drug use in general.
What really caught my interest was psychedelics, after I had my first experience with psilocybin mushrooms. I began to educate myself pretty extensively about psychedelics. I would spend hours listening to lectures and talks by various people, reading books, and browsing forums and seeing what was there in terms of other peoples experiences.
This got the ball rolling as I began to discover how large and diverse the field of drug policy is, and I fell further and further down the rabbit hole.
Jacobsen: With respect to personal use, how much knowledge did you have beforehand about medical and psychological effects?
Nieto:Not very much, I didnt come into drug use in a very informed way. It was youthful curiosity and blissful ignorance that led me to try cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms. These experiences stoked my curiosity, and then I got to educating myself more. When I started smoking pot, I didnt know much other than that my friends were using it.
When some of my peers were using psychedelics in high school, I mostly recall hearing myths and lies about psychedelics. I remember hearing kids at school say that magic mushrooms make your brain bleed, and thats why you hallucinate. Silly stuff like that. I remember others saying it was a fun trip, describing psychedelics like the next level up from pot, which I came to learn is not the case theyre completely different.
But like most people, I wasnt very well educated about drugs prior to encountering and trying them. I didnt have good drug education at my school, at least good by my standards what we got was police officers come to our school to scare us about the scourge of drugs.
Jacobsen: How did you get involved with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy?
Nieto:After I graduated university, my partner motivated me to start writing a column on drugs using the knowledge I had amassed during the previous five years of my undergrad. I began writing a column in the student newspaper, which I calledTurning Inward.
The column went really well. Pretty much every time I published an article, it became one of the most read articles in the student newspaper for that week. I continued writing articles regularly for about seven months.
One of the articles that I wrote was calledMDMA: A Guide to Harm Reduction. I wrote it because several friends that previous week had asked me questions about MDMA that, to me, were fairly basic because of what I had been learning and reading about. I realized this sort of stuff wasnt common knowledge for most of my peers.
CSSDP shared my article on Twitter. I contacted CSSDP to thank them for sharing it and to ask how I could get involved. They responded that I should try to attend their conference coming up in Toronto. At the conference, they were electing new members to the organizations board, so I decided to put my name in the hat.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the core principle of CSSDP?
Nieto:Primarily, I would say the core value is the idea that drug use should not be treated as a criminal justice issue, but rather as an issue of public health and social cohesion.
Jacobsen: Two philosophies compete with regards to how to deal with issues like youth drug use, the zero tolerance approach, and the harm reduction model. Which do you prefer, and why?
Nieto:I stand by the harm reduction model, without question. In the debates around drug use, these two models are sometimes presented as though they are equally valid in some sense, but I think theres a strong case to be made that the punitive approach is in denial of reality.
That perspective is based on the assumption that some set of actions could be taken which would result in total abstinence across the board. Thats just not true, as demonstrated by the decades that precede us.
Drug use appears to be a core component of the human species. To say that human drug use dates back tens of thousands of years is probably a conservative estimate. Any recorded history of humans shows humans using drugs. Its not a new phenomenon. What is relatively new is outlawing and punishing drug use, and theres an argument to be made that the punishments in place for drug crimes cause far more damage to the individual and society than the use of drugs does in the first place.
The harm reduction model recognizes that, no matter how refined the attempts at prevention may be, some people will still choose to use drugs, and there needs to be education and services in place that help reduce the preventable harms associated with that drug use.Harm reduction meets people where they are rather than telling them what they should or should not do. It says, If you do use, heres some information and services to ensure your safety and to help minimize preventable harms.
Harm reduction meets people where they are rather than telling them what they should or should not do. It says, If you do use, heres some information and services to ensure your safety and to help minimize preventable harms.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Daniel Greig, Canadian Drug Policy, Responsibilities, and Psychedelics – The Good Men Project (blog)
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/06
I interview friends, colleagues, and experts, on harm reduction and its implications in Canadian society, from the theory to the practice, to the practical. I am a Member-at-Large for Outreach for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and writer for Karmik, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, and the Marijuana Party of Canada. Here I interview Daniel Greig, part 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:How did you get and interest in Canadian drug policy?
Daniel Greig:My interest is predominantly in the realm of psychedelics. I have, first and foremost, an academic and ethical interest in studying these because they have [a] potential for healing people [that] current medications dont. So, we should be studying these substances.
I am in Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy on the side [as part of this project]. Thats how I got involved.
Jacobsen: If this is on the side, and now more in the main for you, what are your main set of responsibilities?
Greig:My main responsibility is research on psychedelics.
Jacobsen: What does the main research state on the therapeutic effects of psychedelics?
Greig:For psilocybin, there are a whole bunch of studies. There was one that has earned a lot of press. It finds lasting personality change from the transcendental/mystical experiences.
There s a measurable difference in peoples personalities in the domain of openness after a single use of the substance. The paper that this is in mentions the only comparable finding was 3 months spent meditating in the mountains.
That was the only comparable experimental manipulation to produce a measurable change in personality. It is good compared to other medications, which dont show [nearly as profound] changes in peoples personality or behaviour.
There are [palliative] medications [that focuses on symptoms]. Psychedelics are not used [in this way and] produce measurable differences, rather than [effectively making people] drugged up all of the time. Thats a good thing. People can [heal and] get off them.
Jacobsen: That makes me think. First, thats remarkable. Second, many Canadians and more Americans dont believe in evolutionary theory. Of course, evolution happened to produce us. An argument could be made that mind-altering substances could have a co-evolution with human beings.
Maybe, 10,000 years ago with the foundation of the agricultural revolution, even further with the Aboriginal Dreamtime narratives from 40,000 years popping up.
Could there be a decent argument made from the obvious showcase of changes equivalent to three months of meditation with psilocybin, and that were almost wired up for these experiences?
Greig:Definitely, the psychedelic experiences are as much a part of the properties of the brain and [our] physiology as [they are of] the drug. People have engaged in ritualistic alterations of consciousness, which have produced similar hallucinations and benefits.
People used psychedelics back in the day. As far as that having some purposeful connection, or humans being wired to take them, you get into a [difficult philosophical problem that isnt really necessary to consider]. Maybe, it is an interface for human consciousness with the planet, which is a legitimate theory [presented] for co-evolution.
It might be an entailment of [developing] theories, [but] I dont think that its relevant, for or against, the uses of these things in general. The bottom line, they [may] have wonderful effects for the mind.
Jacobsen: What do you consider the core principle or value of CSSDP?
Greig:I will talk about psychedelics first and then the [organization]. It is a new field. There will be more people doing the research in the future. [CSSDP] is good for networking students. It is good for building these longer-lasting networks of [similarly interested] people.
There are a lot of people in the organization like Evan Loster, Gonzo Nieto, Andras Lenart, and Michelle Thiessen. [who are] all interested in psychedelics. It is a good network. We have been able to connect and contribute ideas to each other.
[It is also beneficial to facilitate the advocacy of] youth voice[s] [on issues that effect them]. They are listened to the least.
[When it comes to drug policy], people [often] say, What about the kids, man?! Who isnt for the kids? Advocacy for the youth is another important aspect.
Jacobsen: Where do you hope CSSDP goes into the future?
Greig:I hope it continues to grow. That more networks happen[ing] with other drug policy groups. [Like] MAPS [a growing number of] harm reduction groups. I hope the branches extend [and] I hope [that] facilitate[s] quicker reform for drug policy [as much is desperately 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): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/06
The Atheist Republic (Twitter,Facebook, andwebsite) is the largest public atheist Facebook page.The page has more than 1.7 million likes, which makes the Atheist Republic the most popular atheist community on any social network. The Atheist Republic hasconsulatesthroughout the globe in the major cities of the world. Its founder, Armin Navabi, is a friend and colleague. Here is the series of interviews with the consulates of the Atheist Republic: Atheist Republic Brisbane Consulate.
*Audio interview edited for clarity and readability.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:Wasthere a background in atheism,familially?
Geoff Speakman: My parents never spoke either for or against religion. I formed my own opinions about religion and the existence of gods.
Jacobsen: Within that family background, was there a surrounding culture that brought forth a critical mindset towards religion? If so, how? If not, why not?
Speakman: Not really. Mine was a normal childhood minus religion. We were migrants who came from England to Australia, which may have insulated me from cultural and family ties to religion.
Jacobsen: Through these threads of family and surrounding culture, what made for the pivotal moments in development as an atheist?
Speakman: There was no pivotal moment. I have always been free of religious indoctrination.
Jacobsen: Also, a- as a prefix in atheism means many things because it is both denial and affirmation. What is affirmed there to you? What is denied to you?
Speakman: I have chosen the description atheist to best describe mynonbeliefin religious teaching. I am considering changing my description to anti-theist due to the bloodshed that religious division causes worldwide.
Jacobsen: How did you find the Atheist Republic? What do you do for them?What are your tasks and responsibilities?
Speakman: I came acrossthe Atheist Republicon Facebook. I was asked by them to be an administrator of the Brisbane Consulate where I approve applications to join and keep a watch for hateful or bigoted posts.
Jacobsen: How does an Atheist Republic consulate work? What are its daily operations? How do you make sure the operations function smoothly?
Speakman:The Atheist Republicis simply a Facebook group oflike-mindedpeople worldwide.
Jacobsen: Why volunteer for them? What meaning comes from it?
Speakman: I volunteered because I believe that communication and the sharing of ideasarethe way to overcome division,mistrust, and conflict. The internet provides such communication. The internet is a revolution that will unite the people of the world.
Jacobsen:How doesthe Atheist Republic, in your own experience and in conversing with others, give back to the atheist community and provide a platform for them even to simply vent from social and political conventions that hold them either in contempt or in begrudging silence for fear of loss of life quality?
Speakman:The Atheist Republicprovides a place where atheists can find each other, have a feeling of belonging andorganizethemselves.
Jacobsen:What do you hope for the future of atheism? What are the movements next steps?
Speakman: Ideally the internet will expose theists to ideas that will convert them into rational, peace loving citizens. I hope that United Atheist Republic Consulates can assist in bringing about peace in the world.
Jacobsen:Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion?
Speakman:These are critical times for the future of our planet and for mankind. Tough decisions need to be made regardingstabilizinghuman population and preserving our environment. Theists mustrealizethat the future of our planet is not in the hands of gods and that they must take responsibility for the making of their own future.
Jacobsen:Thank you for your time,Geoff.
Speakman:Youre welcome.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/11
Claire Saenz is a SMART Recovery Facilitator for SMART Recovery. It is an addiction recovery service without a necessary reference to a higher power or incorporation of a faith, or some faith-based system into it by necessity. Those can be used it, but they are not necessities. The system is about options. In this series, we look at her story, views, and expertise regarding addiction, having been an addict herself. This is session 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:When it comes to the experience of addiction, what were your addiction and particular substance of choice?
Claire Saenz: My substance of choice was alcohol, which was coupled with an eating disorder and an anxiety disorder.
Jacobsen: What were the thoughts that ran through your mind as you were working to combat the addiction, to stop using the substance(s)?
Saenz: I was highly motivated when I decided to stop drinking, so my primary thought, initially, was that I was going to quit or die trying. I felt determined, but also extremely vulnerable because giving up alcohol meant that in many essential ways, I was giving up my sole coping mechanism.
Jacobsen: How did SMART Recovery compare to other services?
Saenz: Other services I used in my recovery were AA, individual therapy, and pharmaceutical treatment of my anxiety. I found SMART similar to AA in that it is also a peer support group. I found the social support aspect of both programs helpful. SMART was drastically different from AA in almost all other respects, however, and much more like the individual therapy I received.
SMARTs philosophy is one of personal empowerment rather than reliance on a higher power. The use of stigmatizing labels such as alcoholic or addict is discouraged. Direct discussion (cross-talk) among group participants is encouraged. Sponsorship is not part of the program. Group facilitators are not professionals, but they are trained in the SMART tools and meeting facilitation skills, and they are expected to adhere to a code of ethics.
Finally, SMART recognizes that recovery, while a process, is not necessarily a permanent one. While participants are encouraged to attend meetings for a significant time period and to become facilitators to pay it forward, we do not view recovery as being a permanent state. Instead, we achieve a new normal.
Jacobsen: What were some of the more drastic stories that you have heard of in your time as an addict, as a recovering addict, and now as a SMART Recovery facilitator?
Saenz: For the reasons mentioned above, I dont refer to myself as an addict or alcoholic, recovering or otherwise. If a label must be applied to my state, call me a person who has recovered from an addiction to alcohol.
As far as drastic stories, they fall into two categories: the carnage of addiction itself, and the carnage of one-size-fits-all addiction treatment where the one size is the twelve- step approach.
The carnage of addiction is simply limitless. I have lost dozens of friends and acquaintances to addiction-related causes, from organ failure to overdose, to suicide.
At one of my first AA meetings, I spent a few minutes talking to a nice young man who went home that night and hung himself. I know multiple people who have lost spouses and children to addiction. It is a dreadful condition that takes the lives of fine people, and the solutions we currently offer, as a society, are breathtakingly inadequate.
In terms of the consequences of one-size-fits-all treatment, it should come as no surprise that in a world of individuals, there will never be an approach to any physical or mental condition that will work the same way, or as well, for everyone. And yet for years, we have prescribed the exact same treatment to everyone with an addictive disorder.
Worse, what passes for treatment is often nothing more than expensive indoctrination into a free support group (12 step programs, themselves, are free)and if the patient fails to improve, the prescription ismore 12 step. Of course, this isnt working. The shocking thing is that we would ever expect it to work.
Jacobsen: How has religion infiltrated the recovery and addiction services world? Is this good or bad? How so?
Saenz: Twelve-step programs, which form the basis of most traditional treatment, are religious in nature. Adherents sometimes claim otherwise, but courts in the U.S. have nearly universally disagreed on that point.
As one jurist put it, The emphasis placed on God, spirituality, and faith in a higher power by twelve-step programs such as A.A. or N.A. clearly supports a determination that the underlying basis of these programs is religious and that participation in such programs constitutes a religious exercise. It is an inescapable conclusion that coerced attendance at such programs, therefore, violates the Establishment Clause.Warburton v. Underwood, 2 F.Supp.2d 306, 318 (W.D.N.Y.1998).
Because they are religious in nature, such programs may not be the best choice for, and certainly should not the only option given to, atheists or individuals with an internal locus of control.
Beyond that, the religious atmosphere of the programs can, and sometimes does breed an environment where seasoned members of the program become almost like gurus, given an almost clergy-like status and an inordinate amount of power over newer and more vulnerable members. Sometimes this power is used to exploit. The classic exploitation is sexual13th stepping is a common euphemism used to describe the practice of veteran members manipulating newcomers into engaging in sexual relationshipsbut emotional and financial exploitation can happen as well.
But the most tragic consequence of the infiltration of religion into addiction treatment is not, in my view, the religious aspect per se but the fact that the focus on that approach excludes all others. The real tragedy is that people are dying because they are never even told of other approaches that might help them.
In my own experience, 19 years ago when I sought treatment for my addiction to alcohol, I was told that the only option for survival was to become an active AA member. Being the rule follower I am, I did exactly that. I spent the next nine years of my life going to AA meetings and attempting to fit my fundamentally humanist worldview within the confines of that program.
I eventually found this impossible and left the program. In the aftermath of that, I had to re-examine every thought and belief I had developed in the time I had been abstinent to determine whether those thoughts and beliefs were my own or had been implanted during my AA years. I found this an extraordinarily painful process, in many ways as painful as quitting in the first place.
When I found SMART Recovery and realized that it had been possible, all along, for me to have received social support in a manner that honored who I was a person, I cried. I thought not only of myself and all the pain Id gone through because I wasnt told of other options besides AA but of all the others who had experienced the same thing.
This would be equally true regardless of the specifics of the treatment being offered because there is no one approach that is right for everyone. The real tragedy is the pain that has been caused, and the lives that have been lost, because one approach has become too dominant.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Dr. Mir Faizal and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/11/30
Dr. Mir Faizal is an Adjunct Professor in Physics and Astronomy at the University of Lethbridge and a Visiting Professor in Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciencesat the University of British Columbia Okanagan.
Here we start the cosmology educational series on the differences between the classical and the quantum worlds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We have heard terms like classical physics and quantum physics. What do these terms mean in simple words, and what is the difference between them?
Dr. Mir Faizal:We have evolved at a certain scale, and our intuitive understanding of the world is also limited to that scale. Now common sense is the expression of this intuitive understanding of the world in languages like English or French. If this intuitive understanding of the world is expressed in mathematics, we naturally will obtain a mathematical description of common sense. This mathematical description of our intuitive understanding is called classical physics. However, there is no fundamental reason why such a description will hold at a different scale. In fact, now we have known that the classical description does not hold at very small scales, and common sense seems also to break at such a scale. It is hard to accurately describe the world at such a small scale using languages like English or French, as these languages have not been evolved to describe the world at such a scale. However, it is still possible to mathematically describe the world at such a small scale, and this mathematical description of a small scale is called quantum physics. Even though it is not possible to describe the world at such a small scale in common language, it is possible to use analogies to understand physics at such small scales.
Jacobsen: We see the worldaround us, and know how it behaves, and this forms a basis for our commonsense. Youmentionedthat our common sense breaks in quantum mechanical. Canyou give some examples of such a breaking of common sense in quantummechanics?
Faizal: Let us start by a simple example, to understand how the common sense breaks in the quantum mechanism. If there are two paths between your home and your office, and you are travelling between them, you can take any one of these two path at one time. However, you will infer that it is impossible to take both these paths at the same time. Even if you are really tiny, you cannot take two paths at the same time. The main reason for this is that it is impossible for you to be present at two different places at the same time. This seems to be something that you know from common sense. However, this description of the world does not hold at much smaller scales. In quantum mechanics, you go to your office from both those paths. In fact, you will take all the possible paths between your home and office, and we have to mathematically sum these path to describe your behaviour of going between your home and office. This is actually how things are calculated for quantum mechanical particles. This description of quantum mechanics (where a particle takes all possible path between two points) is called the Feynman path integral approach.
Jacobsen: We have seenpeople commute between their home and office. In fact, as more simple system,we have seen a stone fall down, and it does not appear to take many pathsbetween two points. We have also never seen a particle present at two places atthe same time. How does the quantum mechanical fit with these observations?
Faizal:In quantum mechanics, as soon as someone makes ameasurement on some object, it instantaneously collapses to just one of thosepaths. Now it is possible to calculate the chance of an object to be collapseto a certain path in quantum mechanics. For large enough objects, this almostcoincides with the path that the object is expected to take based on classicalmechanics. However, as the objects gets smaller, the deviations between the twopaths becomes significant. It may be noted to calculate the position of anobject at any point in future, you need to know about two things. You need toknow where that object is present at a given time, and you need to know howfast it is travelling in a certain direction. If you know both these things,then you can know where that object will be present in future. However, in quantummechanics, it is impossible to measure both the position of a particle and howfast it is travelling, at the same time. Thus, in quantum mechanics it is notpossible to accurately measure the position of a particle in future. What wecan measure is the chance for a particle to be present at a certain point intime. So, in quantum mechanics causality is also only probabilistically true.As it is impossible to obtain certain knowledge of cause, the effects can beonly probabilistically predicted.
Jacobsen: It is possible to exactly predict the future position of a particle by improving our technology and inventing better devices?
Faizal:Technological development cannot be usedto predict the future position of a particle beyond what is allowed by quantummechanics. This is because for such quantum system certain knowledge isactually not present in nature, and so we can only get probabilistic knowledgeof such system. This is the main difference between the classical and quantumdescription of the world. In classical mechanics, at least in principle, it ispossible to know the behaviour of a particle with certainty. In other world,the world is totally deterministic in classical mechanics. It might bedifficult to exactly calculate such a behaviour, but such a knowledge exists innature. In fact, even in classical mechanics, we usually use probability todescribe the world. This is the basis of statistical mechanics. However, such ause of probability is epistemological as certain knowledge exists atanontological level in classical physics. It is just very difficult forus to obtain such knowledge accurately for many systems. However, in quantummechanics there is anontological use probability as certain knowledge isabsent at anontological level from nature.
Jacobsen: Can you give asimple analogy of this difference to make it easy to understand?
Faizal:Let us again use a simple example tounderstand this difference. Someone is going to a coffee shop, and he usuallylikes to drink coffee but sometime orders tea. As it is a coffee shop they keeprunning out of tea. Now if it is known that he takes tea about twenty times in hundreddays, then you can calculate the chance of him drinking tea of coffee. Youcannot predict accurately what he will take on a given day, as such a knowledgeis not present in this system. However, knowing what he is more likely toorder, you can predict his behaviour over a large number of visits. So, for thenext ten days you can save two tea bag for him. This is an example of anontological absence of knowledge, and this is how probabilities work in quantummechanics. Now consider another example, in a group of ten people, two of themlike tea and the rest like coffee. Also they have a rule that they will notvisit the coffee shop more than once in ten days. Now if you do not bother toask them who like tea and who likes coffee, and just know how they behave in agroup, you can again predict the probability of them drinking tea. However, inthis case, the knowledge exists in form a hidden variable, which you did notbother to measure. This is an example of anepistemological absence ofknowledge, and this is how probabilities work in statistical mechanics.
Jacobsen: I can understandthat certain knowledge of the particle is not present, but where is theparticle actually present.
Faizal:Theparticle is present at every possible point it can occupy, till it is measured.However, when it is measured, it instantaneously collapses to a single point,and we can measure the chance of it collapsing to a certain point. This is animportant feature of quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, two different contradictionscannotbe simultaneously existing. In quantum mechanics, all possibilitiessimultaneously exist, till they are measured. However, when they are measured,only one of them is instantaneously observed, and the system ceases to exist inthe other possibilities. This principle has been illustrated by the famousthought experiment of Schrodingers cat, in which a cat is killed by a quantummechanical process. There are two possibilities, as the cat can be dead andalive. Now if the system is not observed, then the cat can exist in a statebeing dead and alive at the same time. As soon as an observation is made, thesysteminstantaneously collapses to one of the two possibilities, so thecat is actually observed to be dead or alive. However, if no observation ismade, the cat is in a state of being dead and alive at the same time.
Jacobsen:Can these quantum effects be observed in our daily life?
Faizal: A important requirement of quantum mechanics isthat it should coincide with the classical physics at our scale, for all thesystem that have been described using classical mechanics. This means thesequantum effects become so small at our scale that they can be neglected, andcannot be observed. There are few phenomena like superconductivity andsuperfluiditywhere quantum effects can change the behaviourofcertain system at large scale. However, most quantum mechanical effect, whichbreak common sense, can be neglected at our scale, and the world at our scalecan described by classical mechanics. It is possible that there are somesystems, where other quantum effects become important even at large scale, and theirbehaviouris very different from thebehaviourpredictedfrom classical mechanics.
Jacobsen: Thank you for theopportunity and your time, Dr. Faizal.
Faizal:My pleasure.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/06/29
Editors note: Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews his personal and professional friend Rick Rosner, who claims to have the worlds second highest IQ. Errol Morris interviewed him for the TV series First Person. This is an excerpt of that interview, originally some 100,000 words. Additional excerpted segments will appear here on The Good Men Project in the coming weeks.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Many, arguably most, women have greater difficulties than their male counterparts in equivalent circumstances.Their welfare means our welfare men and women (no need to enter the thorny, confused wasteland of arguments for social construction of gender rather than sex; one need not make a discipline out of truisms.).
Net global wellbeing for women improves slowly, but appears to increase in pace over the years millennia, centuries, and decades.Far better in some countries; decent in some countries; and far worse, even regressing, in others.Subjugation with denial of voting, driving, choice in marriage, choice in children, honour killings, andsevere practices of infibulation, clitoridectomy, or excision among the varied, creative means of femalegenital mutilation based in socio-cultural or religiouspractices; objectification with popular media violence and sexuality, internet memes and content, fashion culture to some extent, even matters of personal preference such as forced dress or coerced attire, or stereotyping of attitudinal and behavioral stances.All I ask of our brethren is that they will take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on the ground which God intended us to occupy.Sarah Moore Grimke said.
Everyone owes women.International obligations and goals dictate straightforward statements such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations (UN) in addition to simple provision of first life.MDG 3, 4, and 5relate in direct accordance with this proclamation in an international context mind you.MDG 3 states everyones obligations, based on agreed upon goals, for promotion of gender equality and theempowerment of women. MDG 4 states everyones obligations for reduction ofinfant mortality rate. MDG 5 states everyones obligations towards improvement ofmaternalhealth.All MDGs proclaim completion by 2015.We do not appear to have sufficed in obligations up to the projected deadline of 2015 with respect to all of the MDGs in sum.
In addition to these provisions, we have the conditions set forth in theThe International Bill of Rights for WomenbyThe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women(CEDAW) of the United Nations Development Funds (UNDF) consideration and mandate of the right of women to be free from discrimination and sets the core principles to protect this right. Wheredo you project the future of women in the next 5, 10, 25, 100 years, and further? In general and particular terms such as the trends and the concomitant subtrends, what about the MDGs and numerous other proclaimed goals to assist women especially in developing areas of the world?
Rick Rosner: Predicting gender relations beyond a century from now is somewhat easier than predicting the short-term. In the transhuman future, bodily form, including sex, will be changeable. People will take different forms. And when anyone can change sexes with relative ease, there will be less gender bias.
Lets talk about the transhuman future (100 to 300 years from now) in general, at least as its presented in science fiction that doesnt suck. Three main things are going on:
Theres pervasive networked computing. Everything has a computer in it, the computers all talk to each other, computing costs nothing, data flying everywhere. Structures are constantly being modified by swarms of AI builders. A lot of stuff happens very fast.
Your mind-space isnt permanently anchored to your body. Consciousness will be mathematically characterized, so itll be transferrable, mergeable, generally mess-withable.
People choose their level of involvement in this swirling AI chaos. Most people wont live at the frenzied pinnacle of tech its too much. There are communities at all different levels of tech.
Also, horrible stuff old and new happens from time to time bio-terror, nanotech trouble, economic imperialism, religious strife, etc.
For more about this kind of thing, read Charles Stross, Cory Doctorow, David Marusek, or Neal Stephenson.
So, two hundred years from now, gender wont be much of a limiting factor, except in weird throwback communities. In the meantime, idiots will continue to be idiots, but to a lesser extent the further we go into the future. No one whos not a retard is standing up for the idea of men being the natural dominators of everything. If it seems like were not making progress towards gender equality, it may be because theres a huge political/economic/media faction that draws money and power from the more unsavoury old-fashioned values, with its stance that anyone whos concerned about racism or sexism is nave and pursuing a hidden agenda to undermine American greatness.
Dumb beliefs that arent propped up by doctrine eventually fade away, and believing that men or any elite group is inherently superior is dumb, particularly now and into the future as any purportedly superior inherent abilities become less significant in relation to our augmented selves. Across the world, the best lazy, non-specifically targeted way to reduce gender bias is to open up the flow of information, serious and trivial (however you do that).
In the very short run, maybe the U.S. elects a female President. Doubt this will do that much to advance the cause of women, because Hillary Clinton has already been in the public eye for so long shes more a specific person than a representative of an entire gender. Is thinking that dumb? I dunno. I do know that her gender and who she is specifically will be cynically used against her. I hope that if elected, shes less conciliatory and more willing to call out BS than our current President.
In the U.S., theres currently some attention being paid to rape. Will the media attention to rape make rapey guys less rapey? I dunno. Will increaseattention to rape in India reduce instances there? I dunno. A couple general trends may slowly reduce the overall occurrence of sexual coercion and violence. One trend is the increased flow of information and the reduction of privacy cameras everywhere, everybody willing to talk about everything on social media, victims being more willing to report incidents, better understanding of what does and does not constitute consent. The other trend is the decreasing importance of sex. My baseline is the 70s, when I was hoping to lose my virginity. Sex was a huge deal because everything else sucked food, TV, no video games, no internet and people looked good skinny from jogging and cocaine and food not yet being engineered to be super-irresistible. Today, everybodys fat, and theres a lot of other fun stuff to do besides sex.
I think that some forms of sexual misbehaviour serial adultery, some workplace harassment will be seen as increasingly old-school as more and more people will take care of their desire for sexual variety via the vast ocean of internet porn. Of course, sexual misbehaviour isnt only about sex its also about exercising creepy power or a perverse need to be caught and punished so, unfortunately, that wont entirely go away. During the past century, sexual behaviour has changed drastically the types of sex that people regularly engage in, sex outside of marriage, tolerance for different sexual orientations, freely available pornography and sexual information, the decline in prostitution you could say, cheesily, that sex is out of the closet. And sex thats not secretive or taboo loses some of its power.
But I could be wrong. According to a 2007 study conducted at two U.S. public universities, one fifth of female college students studied suffered some degree of sexual assault.
A version of this post was originally published on In-SightJournal.com and is republished here with permission.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/07/09
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ethics exists beyond issues of the sexes. Issues of global concern. Ongoing problems needing comprehensive solutions such as differing ethnic, ideological, linguistic, national, and religious groups converging on common goals for viable and long-term human relations in a globalized world scarce in resources without any land-based frontiers for further expansionand exploitation, UNinternational diplomatic resolutions for common initiatives such as humanitarian initiatives through General Assembly Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), United Childrens Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Develop Programme (UNDP), World Food Programme (WFP), Food And Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Human Populations Settlement Programme (UN-HABITAT), Interagency Standing Committee (IASC), and issues of UN humanitarian thematic import such as demining, early warning and disaster detection, the merger of theories of the grandest magnitude (e.g., general and special relativity) and the most minute (e.g., quantum mechanics), medical issues such as Malaria, Cancer, and new outbreaks of Ebola, nuclear wasteand fossil fuel emissions, severe practices of infibulation, clitoridectomy, or excision among the varied, creative means of female and male genital mutilation based in socio-cultural and religious practices,stabilization of human population growthprior to exceeding the planets present and future supportive capacity for humans, reduction of religious and national extremism, continuous efforts of conservation of cultural and biological diversity, energy production, distribution, and sustainability, economic sustainability, provision of basic necessities of clean water, food, and shelter,IAEAand other organizations work for reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear armaments, culture wars over certainty in ethics on no evidence (faith-based ethics)and lack of certainty in morality because of too much data while lacking a coherent framework for action (aforementioned bland multiculturalism transformed into prescription of cultural/ethical relativism), acidification of the oceans, problems of corruption, continued annexation of land, issues of international justice handled by such organs as the International Court of Justice, introduction of rapid acceleration of technological capabilities while adapting to the upheavals following in its wake, issues of drug and human trafficking, other serious problems of children and armed conflict including child soldiers, terrorist activity, education of new generations linked to new technological and informational access, smooth integration of national economies into a global economy for increased trade and prosperity, and the list appears endless and growing.
If collated, they form one question:How best to solve problems in civil society?
Main issue, all subordinate queries and comprehensive, coherent solutions require sacrifice. You might ask, Cui bono?(Who benefits?) Answer: all in sum. Problem: few feel the need to sacrifice past the superficial. Some Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram protestations to represent themselves as just people while not behaving in the real world as just people. Hashtags and celebrity speeches help in outreach and advertisement, but we need long-term, pragmatic solutions to coincide with them more. Nothing hyperbolic to disturb healthy human societies, but reasonable and relatively rapid transitions into sustainable solutions.You have stated positive trajectories by thinking about the future. You talked of some, but not all. What about these collection of problems and the growing list?
Rick Rosner: I believe the best instrument of change is information. Informed people more readily disbelieve stupid shit. Widespread ignorance and distrust of well-substantiated facts are usually signs of somebody getting away with something.
We know society is trending in an egalitarian direction. Trends towards equality are in a race with technology remaking society. For me, the question becomes, How many lives and generations will be spent in misery before social and tech trends make things better and/or weird?
The happy possible eventual situation is that tech creates a utopia in which all people get what they want. The unhappy possible eventuality is that tech debunks the importance or centrality of humanity, and humans are afterthoughts the stepchildren of the future being taken care of but not really having their concerns addressed because their level of existence isnt taken seriously by posthumans. (And of course theres the possibility that AI gets out of hand, eats everything and craps out robots. Lets try to avoid that.)
Tech will solve some huge problems. One of the biggest is the steadily growing population. People who have a shot at technical, earthly immortality (50 to 80 years from now) will reproduce less. When transferrable consciousness becomes commonplace (120 to 150 years from now), posthuman people may not reproduce at all (though traditional human enclaves will still spit out a steady stream of kids). The uncoupling of individual consciousness from the body it was born into solves a bunch of, perhaps most, current problems and anticipated problems crowding, food, pollution, global warming by allowing people to live in ways that leave less of a footprint. (Not that their choices will be made for purely ecological concerns. People will always follow their own interests, and posthuman people will choose a variety of non-fleshy containers (200 years from now) because virtual or semi-robotic containers will be cheaper, more convenient, more versatile and exciting.)
But our current problems will be largely replaced by fantastically weird problems. Virtual people will be subject to virtual attacks and virtual disease. Agglomerations of consciousness may become bad actors. People may sic nanotech swarms on each other. You can find all this stuff in good near-future science fiction. William Gibsons new novel,The Peripheral, which takes place about 20 years and 90 years from now, can serve as a good, fun intro to the future. In it, some impossible stuff happens, but its the possible stuff thats interesting and scary. There are websites devoted to the future in a very non-la-de-dah way. Look athttp://io9.com/andhttp://boingboing.net/ theyre entertaining and informative.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/08/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen:Was there a background in atheism, in thefamily?Within that family background, was there a surrounding culture that brought forth a critical mindset towards religion? If so, how? If not, why not?
Enrique Valds Pliego:Myfathers background has a religious mindset. So I lived with him my first 9 years. I was a believer then, but at the dissolution of my parents marriage, I lived with my mothers family who is scientist and agnostics. At that point, I developed my critical thinking skills. They had a library, a big area to read. I had a lot of time to read. My mothers family never took to me to participate in any religious activity, but we used to visit museums and watch movies, theatre and a lot of other activities.
Jacobsen: Through these threads of family and surrounding culture, what made for the pivotal moments in development as an atheist?
Pliego:There were a lot of pivotal moments, but some of them were like moments of revelation, when a bunch of religious ideas had not sensed, or when a religious community used to act violently against free people, I disagree with religious events where Iobliged to shut up just because if I express my self it could be dangerous. but the most important pivotal moment was understanding some concepts like freedom, opinion, law, belief, respect, persuasion, and profit.
Jacobsen: Also, a- as a prefix in atheism means many things because it is both denial and affirmation. What is affirmed there to you? What is denied to you?
Pliego:In my mind, Ithink strongly its a free theme, so theres affirmed that even God in existence, people like me will defend always our rights when some people use that freedom to believe or not believeand is denied to leave our freedom on abuse or swindler hands.
Jacobsen: How did you find the Atheist Republic? What do you do for them? What are your tasks and responsibilities?
Pliego:Ifound AR because people need to talk about common themes, protection, people with common issues. Ido community links, produce messages, questions, replicate notices, and act as a community manager. We work with freedom. Our work is free. We just have a couple of easy rules. Respectis always a base. Our responsibilityis to build a web of free people, to guarantee it, not to fight against religious people, butbuild bridges toward civilization.
Jacobsen: How does an Atheist Republic consulate work? What are its daily operations? How do you make sure the operations function smoothly?
Pliego:Each civilization, each community, city or town grow up independently, even AR. so each consulate hassimilar rules, is part of a mesh that works as a train, lot of peoplego in and go out, if they needsomething we could offer them, with out fees, just because we are real people who want to give to our time the other opportunity to future, options. each one its different, each person has rights.
Jacobsen: Why volunteer for them? What meaning comes from it?
Pliego:Whyhelp people? why build better communities? why is the sense of build civilization a struggle? why make divisions? why disrespect other with same rights? why people arrive at the moon or finding lots of advances? A lot of meanings are inside people, each one of us, but even objective things, because its function, peaceful communities, educated communities are possible, even the opposite.
Jacobsen: How does the Atheist Republic, in your own experience and in conversing with others, give back to the atheist community and provide a platform for them even to simply vent from social and political conventions that hold them either in contempt or in begrudging silence for fear of loss of life quality?
Pliego:When people grew up inside a religious world, with lots of fears, even a tiny, little, very small opportunity of freedom is a great experience, thats why we want to provide a big community for religious refugees. We do not provide disrespect, we want to achieve the common place of meeting, brainstorming, options to kids, their parents, just people who need say any thing related to religiosity, what they feel, what they need, what they lived, what they could give to the community. everybody must live freely. everybody deserves it.
Jacobsen: What do you hope for the future of atheism? What are the movements next steps?
Pliego:Not hopes, its a reality, some places, some countries, towns, who known about rights, about liberty are convinced of taking care of it. the future is related to spread of liberty, with rights, not religious issues, an atheist is not a furious stubborn, is not a politician giving recommendations, is not a leader, is just common people who love freedom as anyone who had to prove it. the next step is the common objectives, freedom anywhere, and maintenance of it. even we have a local activities calendar and sometimes a common calendar at whole consulates. You could check with the consulates, some of them have a complete project while others are building
Jacobsen: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion?
Pliego:No one deserves disrespect, abuse, lack of freedom; everybody deserves human rights anda healthy world. obviously, we must take decisions, but this kind of decisions could have sense between human rights.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Enrique.
Pliego: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): Prometheism
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/04
Jacek Tabisz is the Vice-President and Secretary of the Polish Rationalist Association and the author of New Humanism.
Here we talk about Glenn Gould, Canada and British Columbia, and Humanism and Rationalism in Poland.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We met at an obscure Danish pub with Kaja Bryx, Kacem Al Ghazzali, and Kamil Gawel. I forget off the top if there were others during that time. It was at the outside gatherings of the World Humanist Congress and General Assembly of Humanists International 2023. Now, those meetings are noteworthy and important, but even more distinct and relevant than the others with our meetings: Glenn Gould. I love Glenn Gould. Hes Canadian so hooray. Lets start on the late Gould, the man, as has been said, gave so much of himself and let so few know him. How did you discover his music?
Jacek Tabisz: I have loved listening to classical music since childhood. Back in the times of communism in Poland, I also became interested in the world of early music, although we were cut off from records from non-communist countries, including Canadian records. For Poles, they cost as much as half a salary. After the fall of communism, the first distributors of Western records, as well as monthly magazines about classical music, including early music, appeared in Poland. Canor, published by the University of Toru, was particularly valuable. It was there that I learned about Goulds piano art. At the beginning I was a bit skeptical, because I was hungry for harpsichord Bach. But Gould captivated me from the first sounds with his imagination and enormous talent. Today I understand that without him, Bachs harpsichord would sound completely different.
Jacobsen: Does he have much of an imprint on Polish culture, or is it just you? I know he has a cult following in the Japanese culture. Other people in love with a dead person.
Tabisz: Glenn Gould has supporters all over the world. Bruno Monsaigneons famous works about him (books, articles, DVDs) were translated into Polish quite quickly. Many Polish music critics considered it an important point of reference. When it comes to pianists, I cannot name anyone as inspired by Gould as Helen Grimaud. Maybe because we ourselves have very strong piano traditions living in the shadow of the great Chopin? The closest to Gould was the famous Polish-Hungarian pianist Piotr Anderszewski, about whom Mosaigneon also made an excellent film reportage.
Jacobsen: What are your favourite pieces by him? One of mine is BWV 54 with Russell Oberlin.
Tabisz: I particularly appreciate Goulds second recording of the Goldberg Variations, as well as Haydns works and everything he recorded by Schoenberg.
Jacobsen: What were your earliest moments of rationalism and humanism?
Tabisz: In my childhood, as a ten-year-old, I had a strange dream, after which I woke up wondering that I was born in this particular time, in this particular country, as a human being and not, for example, as a butterfly or a dog. I dont know if it was very rational, but then I gained some distance from me. I realized that the self is built by circumstance and also inherited. This also applies to faith. If I were born in China, would I have a father who would take me to church every Sunday hoping that I would gain the grace of faith? But it was not the question of atheism or theism that was most important in this early intuition. The most important thing was the distance I gained from this dreamlike feeling.
Jacobsen: How did you come to the polish rationalist community?
Tabisz: Thanks to the internet. Previously, I thought I was quite alone in my atheism and rationalism. Poles were very grateful to the Church for helping them fight the Soviet occupation. I was grateful too, but I began to realize that freedom had more than just a political dimension. However, before I found traces of Polish atheism and rationalism on the Internet, independent of communism, I thought that open atheism was expressed only by people collaborating with communism, and these were not attractive people to me. I was also a bit active in the opposition, I was too young to be more active, but my parents were very involved in the fight for freedom. Hence my fathers faithful attitude towards the Church.
Jacobsen: What have been your roles and responsibilities with the Polish Rationalist Association?
Tabisz: Now I have been vice president for several years. I was the president of this organization for many years, and I became president relatively soon after becoming a member. I wanted to act and had many ideas.
Jacobsen: What would you target as the major issues facing the rationalist discourse and public education in Poland?
Tabisz: These issues have changed. For example, we once fought for ethics lessons and an objective vision of Polish history in schools. Now the threats are different. Humanity is once again losing faith in the importance of freedom of speech, and new great ideologies are beginning to triumph in the world. Some of them seem beautiful, but in my opinion they are potentially criminal, just like Marxs ideas. It is certainly worth fighting against relativistic postmodernism in favor of modernism and the popularization of science.
Jacobsen: What have been the major initiatives that youve seen as the most successful by the Polish Rationalist Association?
Tabisz: Certainly those concerning the popularization of access to ethics lessons or those aimed at expressing a rationalist worldview without fear. In terms of projects, what I like most is our interdisciplinary Darwin Days, co-organized with universities and the Polish Skeptics Club.
Jacobsen: Who have been major collaborators with the Polish Rationalist Association?
Tabisz: Among our main collaborators, I can mention the already mentioned Club of Polish Skeptics, but also universities in Wrocaw, Warsaw and Pozna, as well as foundations and associations such as Freedom from Religion, Polish Humanists and many others.
Jacobsen: In British Columbia, where I live, theres a significant non-religious population, but Langley, more precisely where I live, is known for not a huge religious population only about half but an intensely political religious population. They want fundamentalist theology exported into federal politics and culture. One study of the local private Evangelical University found the university theology became more and more fundamentalist as the surrounding culture and wider Canadian society became more liberalized and non-religious. Are there similar dynamics in Polish society?
Tabisz: For now, there is simply a broadly understood grassroots secularization taking place in Poland. It is difficult to say whether fundamentalist movements are growing against this background. There are some niche initiatives of this type, but it is difficult to say that there are more of them than ten years ago, when the secularization process was much less advanced.
Jacobsen: What has been the longest-standing issue in combating various irrationalities in Poland? One in the United States is fundamentalist preachers of an unprecedented sort in advanced industrial economies with educated populations. Prolific liars, charlatans, bombasts, or, simply, insane Bible interpreters either because of the Bible, innate craziness, or both. Some of this leaks over into this local area, but Canadian liberalism has been a buttress.
Tabisz: Maybe the too high status of priests, allowing some of them considerable impunity for abuses such as pedophilia or financial scams? In most cases, however, the problems change. Today, I am less afraid of an excess of Catholicism than of the already mentioned attacks on freedom of speech and rational thinking related to the culture of wokeness or political correctness.
Jacobsen: What have been the setbacks for the rationalist community in Poland?
Tabisz: Failures included numerous divisions after successes. As soon as we became famous, some members of the association separated from us and created a new entity. Almost half of Polish secular organizations sprouted from the Polish Rationalist Association. I experienced this quite strongly, especially when I was the president of the association and I was responsible for some of the successes, which on the one hand were great, but on the other, were the source of divisions.
Jacobsen: Where can people learn more about the humanist and rationalist communities in Poland?
Tabisz: Well. I recently wrote a book called New Humanism, which, in addition to the philosophical layer, contains a guide to Polish and global humanistic and rationalist endeavors. For now, the book only exists in Polish. In addition, we have a website and we have left many traces on the Internet, not only in Polish.
Jacobsen: How can they support the efforts of those organizations?
Tabisz: We have recently become a Public Benefit Organization and we also have Patronite. In addition, you can support us by coming to our debates, meetings and participating in our activities.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?
Tabisz: You have to see the changing world. For example, you cannot, like French secularists, fight against the Church, which basically no longer exists in France, without even noticing the hundreds of threats related to Islam. We cannot talk and write only about euthanasia and abortion without noticing the currently growing other threats to human freedom, often created by circles that were once our obvious allies. Neither allies nor enemies are eternal. However, reality is complex and you cannot be monothematic in your actions.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jacek.
Tabisz: Thank You Scott!
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/15
Awa I. Doumbia serves as the President of the Women Customs Officers of Mali, leading initiatives to promote gender equality within the customs sector. Her leadership focuses on empowering female customs officers and enhancing their professional development. She holds a degree from Université HETEC and is based in Bamako, Mali. Korotoumou Koné is the President of the Association of Women Leaders CRFMID (Cercle de Réflexion des Femmes Maliennes pour l’Initiative et le Développement), an organization dedicated to advancing women’s leadership and development in Mali. She studied at the Université de Bamako and has been involved in various initiatives promoting women’s empowerment. Flassou Doumbia serves as the Secretary in Charge of External Relations for the Association of Women Leaders CRFMID. In this role, she manages the organization’s external communications and partnerships, aiming to enhance the impact of women’s initiatives in Mali. Her efforts contribute to the empowerment and development of Malian women. Gender parity in Mali remains a challenge despite legal reforms. Women face barriers in decision-making, financial independence, and leadership due to traditional norms. Progress includes increased political representation, workplace equality, and leadership roles. However, training gaps persist. Women are gaining autonomy, especially in agriculture and education, but systemic challenges remain.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the main concerns regarding gender parity in Mali?
Awa I. Doumbia & Korotoumou Koné: Gender parity remains a significant challenge in Mali. While legal frameworks supporting gender equality exist, customary and social norms still create substantial barriers. Traditionally, men have been considered the heads of households and the primary financial providers, while women have been primarily responsible for domestic duties. This structure continues to limit women’s participation in decision-making within families and society.
Although women contribute significantly to household income, mainly through informal and agricultural labour, men are still seen as the primary financial providers. Women often have limited access to economic resources, land ownership, and financial independence. This economic disparity reinforces gender inequality and hinders progress toward true parity.
While Mali has made strides in promoting gender equality through legal reforms and women’s political representation, traditional customs and systemic inequalities remain obstacles. Achieving gender parity will require sustained efforts, including legal enforcement, education, and cultural shifts. Progress is ongoing, but there is still much work to be done. That was the first question. Now, the second question.
Jacobsen: What are the areas of progress in terms of gender equality in Mali?
Awa I. Doumbia: Yes, that’s it. One step further, and we will add. That’s it.
Regarding progress in terms of gender equality in Mali, women are still somewhat marginalized. However, in administration and employment, there is equality because women perform the same work as men. They are not dominated in the workplace.
Regarding salary, we receive approximately the same wages and carry out the same tasks. At this level, we can acknowledge gender equality. However, the issue persists within the household, where men continue to dominate.
That being said, there has been notable progress in the professional sphere. Women now hold positions of responsibility, just like men. In some areas, women even surpass men. We have female directors, ministers, and company executives. In this regard, there has been significant progress in gender equality.
Korotoumou Koné: To add to and support my colleague, it is true that, in terms of employment, men and women share the same responsibilities, undergo the same training, and receive equal salaries. This is a positive step forward.
Now, we can highlight Law 052, which stipulates that 30% of leadership positions, particularly in the political sector, must be occupied by women.
Yes, Law 052. In politics, this law mandates that women must hold at least 30% of representative positions, and the same applies to vice versa.
Therefore, while progress has been made, we also acknowledge the establishment of the Ministry for the Promotion of Women as a notable advancement. However, one major issue remains: women’s training.
Many women are not adequately trained to meet the 30% representation requirement. As a result, the presence of women remains low in some administrative sectors, particularly in leadership positions. These roles require specialized training, autonomy, and independence.
As mentioned in response to the first question, women often balance professional work with household responsibilities. They go to work and return home to take on domestic duties. They are not entirely freed from family obligations, which makes career progression more challenging.
Although initiatives are in place, they must continue to evolve to ensure that women take on more leadership responsibilities. Thank you very much.
Jacobsen: What are the areas of regression or setbacks in women’s empowerment in Mali?
Awa I. Doumbia: So, we cannot say that women are regressing. No, not at all. In terms of empowerment, women are not falling behind. On the contrary, we are moving forward. What we did not have yesterday, we have today. Women have become more self-aware.
They now understand what they want. It has been a wake-up call, a turning point.
Women today are advancing and reaching the same level as men, sometimes even surpassing them in certain areas.
We are becoming increasingly autonomous. Even in rural areas, there are now women actively engaged in agriculture. In the agricultural sector, women establish themselves and, in some cases, outperform men.
In the workplace, women are independent. They have the freedom to make their own choices and successfully manage independently. Regarding girls’ education, there is a greater focus on ensuring that young girls receive an education, fostering their independence.
When girls attend school, they are empowered through knowledge. Women are becoming increasingly self-sufficient. Therefore, we cannot say there is a regression in women’s empowerment. Today, women in Mali are achieving greater autonomy than ever before.
Jacobsen: Thank you.
Awa I. Doumbia: Thank you very much.
–
French
Awa I. Doumbia est la présidente des Femmes Douanières du Mali, dirigeant des initiatives pour promouvoir l’égalité des sexes dans le secteur douanier. Son leadership vise à autonomiser les femmes douanières et à améliorer leur développement professionnel. Elle est diplômée de l’Université HETEC et réside à Bamako, Mali.
Korotoumou Koné est la présidente de l’Association des Femmes Leaders CRFMID (Cercle de Réflexion des Femmes Maliennes pour l’Initiative et le Développement), une organisation dédiée à la promotion du leadership et du développement des femmes au Mali. Elle a étudié à l’Université de Bamako et a participé à diverses initiatives en faveur de l’autonomisation des femmes.
Flassou Doumbia est la secrétaire chargée des relations extérieures de l’Association des Femmes Leaders CRFMID. Dans ce rôle, elle gère les communications externes et les partenariats de l’organisation, visant à renforcer l’impact des initiatives féminines au Mali. Ses efforts contribuent à l’émancipation et au développement des femmes maliennes.
L’égalité des sexes au Mali reste un défi malgré les réformes législatives. Les femmes rencontrent des obstacles à la prise de décision, à l’indépendance financière et à l’accès aux postes de direction en raison des normes traditionnelles. Les progrès incluent une représentation politique accrue, l’égalité sur le lieu de travail et des rôles de leadership. Cependant, des lacunes en matière de formation persistent. Les femmes gagnent en autonomie, notamment dans l’agriculture et l’éducation, mais des défis systémiques demeurent.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen : Quelles sont les principales préoccupations en matière de parité des femmes au Mali ?
Awa I. Doumbia & Korotoumou Koné :La parité entre les sexes reste un défi majeur au Mali. Bien que des cadres juridiques soutenant l’égalité des sexes existent, les normes sociales et coutumières continuent d’imposer des barrières importantes. Traditionnellement, les hommes sont considérés comme les chefs de famille et les principaux pourvoyeurs financiers, tandis que les femmes sont principalement responsables des tâches domestiques. Cette structure continue de limiter la participation des femmes à la prise de décision, tant au sein des familles que dans la société.
Bien que les femmes contribuent de manière significative aux revenus des ménages, principalement par le travail informel et agricole, les hommes restent perçus comme les principaux pourvoyeurs financiers. Les femmes ont souvent un accès limité aux ressources économiques, à la propriété foncière et à l’indépendance financière. Cet écart économique renforce l’inégalité entre les sexes et freine les progrès vers une véritable parité.
Le Mali a fait des avancées en matière d’égalité des sexes grâce aux réformes légales et à une plus grande représentation politique des femmes. Cependant, les traditions et les inégalités systémiques restent des obstacles. L’atteinte de la parité nécessitera des efforts soutenus, notamment à travers l’application des lois, l’éducation et des changements culturels. Les progrès sont en cours, mais beaucoup reste à faire.
C’était la première question. Passons maintenant à la deuxième.
Jacobsen : Quels sont les axes de progrès en matière d’égalité des sexes au Mali ?
Awa I. Doumbia :Oui, c’est cela. Un pas de plus, et nous allons ajouter. C’est cela.
Concernant les avancées en matière d’égalité des sexes au Mali, les femmes restent encore quelque peu marginalisées. Cependant, dans l’administration et l’emploi, il existe une certaine égalité, car les femmes occupent les mêmes postes que les hommes. Elles ne sont pas dominées dans le cadre du travail.
En ce qui concerne les salaires, nous recevons approximativement les mêmes rémunérations et accomplissons les mêmes tâches. À ce niveau, nous pouvons reconnaître une égalité des sexes. Cependant, au sein du foyer, le problème persiste, où les hommes continuent d’exercer une domination.
Cela dit, des progrès notables ont été réalisés dans le domaine professionnel. Les femmes occupent désormais des postes à responsabilités, au même titre que les hommes. Dans certains secteurs, elles surpassent même les hommes. Nous avons des directrices, des ministres et des chefs d’entreprise. À cet égard, il y a eu des avancées significatives en matière d’égalité des sexes.
Korotoumou Koné :Pour compléter et appuyer ma collègue, il est vrai qu’en matière d’emploi, les hommes et les femmes partagent les mêmes responsabilités, suivent la même formation et perçoivent des salaires équivalents. C’est une avancée positive.
Nous pouvons également mettre en avant la loi 052, qui stipule que 30 % des postes de direction, notamment dans le secteur politique, doivent être occupés par des femmes.
Oui, la loi 052. En politique, cette loi impose que les femmes doivent occuper au moins 30 % des postes de représentation, et cela fonctionne également dans l’autre sens.
Ainsi, bien que des progrès aient été réalisés, nous reconnaissons aussi que la création du Ministère de la Promotion de la Femme constitue une avancée notable. Cependant, un problème majeur subsiste : la formation des femmes.
Beaucoup de femmes ne sont pas suffisamment formées pour répondre aux exigences de la représentation des 30 %. Par conséquent, leur présence reste faible dans certains secteurs administratifs, en particulier dans les postes de direction. Ces rôles nécessitent une formation spécialisée, de l’autonomie et une indépendance accrue.
Comme mentionné en réponse à la première question, les femmes jonglent souvent entre travail professionnel et responsabilités domestiques. Elles vont travailler et reviennent à la maison pour assumer les tâches familiales. Elles ne sont donc pas totalement libérées des obligations familiales, ce qui rend leur progression de carrière plus difficile.
Bien que des initiatives existent, elles doivent continuer d’évoluer pour garantir que les femmes accèdent à davantage de responsabilités en matière de leadership.
Merci beaucoup.
Jacobsen :Quels sont les domaines de régression ou de recul dans l’autonomisation des femmes au Mali ?
Awa I. Doumbia :Nous ne pouvons pas dire que les femmes régressent. Non, pas du tout. En matière d’autonomisation, les femmes ne sont pas en retard. Bien au contraire, nous avançons. Ce que nous n’avions pas hier, nous l’avons aujourd’hui. Les femmes ont pris conscience d’elles-mêmes.
Elles savent désormais ce qu’elles veulent. C’est un réveil, un déclic.
Les femmes d’aujourd’hui progressent et atteignent le même niveau que les hommes, parfois même en les surpassant dans certains domaines.
Nous devenons de plus en plus autonomes. Même dans les zones rurales, des femmes s’impliquent activement dans l’agriculture. Dans ce secteur, elles s’affirment et, dans certains cas, surpassent les hommes.
Dans le monde du travail, les femmes sont indépendantes. Elles ont la liberté de faire leurs propres choix et réussissent à s’en sortir par elles-mêmes.
Concernant l’éducation des filles, un accent particulier est mis sur leur scolarisation afin de renforcer leur autonomie. Lorsqu’elles vont à l’école, elles acquièrent des connaissances qui les responsabilisent.
Les femmes deviennent de plus en plus autonomes. Ainsi, nous ne pouvons pas dire qu’il y a une régression dans l’émancipation des femmes. Aujourd’hui, les femmes au Mali atteignent un niveau d’autonomie jamais égalé.
Jacobsen :Merci.
Awa I. Doumbia :Merci beaucoup.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/15
Janene Oleaga is a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate, specializing in surrogacy, egg donation, sperm donation, embryo donation, adoption, and fertility law. As the founder of Oleaga Law LLC, she assists clients with assisted reproductive arrangements, confirmatory adoption, and LGBTQ+ parenthood rights. Based in New York and Portland, ME. Legal reforms have expanded LGBTI+ access to reproductive healthcare, including fertility treatments and gender-affirming care, with states like Maine, New York, and Massachusetts mandating fertility insurance coverage. Ensuring legal parentage through confirmatory adoption and court judgments protects families. Barriers remain due to state restrictions, societal biases, and opposition from personhood movements. Grassroots storytelling drives legislative change, and the U.S. surrogacy laws attract international couples. Oleaga emphasizes starting advocacy efforts anywhere to build coalitions for change.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have legal reforms advanced access to reproductive technologies and family-building options for LGBTI+ individuals?
Janene Oleaga: Inclusive legislation allows LGBTI+ individuals to access healthcare including fertility treatments and gender affirming care, and secure their legal relationships to their children. Fertility insurance mandates in states like Maine, New York, and Massachusetts, require insurance providers that meet certain criteria to provide fertility coverage for all members of the insurance plan regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. While cost is only one factor that impacts access to fertility care, removing the issue of cost allows more LGBTI+ individuals to build their families through assisted reproduction – whether sperm donation, egg donation and surrogacy, or embryo donation.
Additionally, enacting inclusive legislation that provides for individuals to secure their legal parentage to their children born through assisted reproduction has allowed LGBTI+ parents to protect their legal parentage through a formal court process – whether a judgment of parentage, step parent/second parent adoption, or confirmatory adoption. In states that have a legal framework for parents through assisted reproduction to secure their legal rights, LGBTQ+ individuals can protect their legal parentage to their children born through assisted reproduction. In 2025, this is more important than ever.
Whether you had your children through sperm donation, or egg donation and surrogacy, now is the time to ensure your legal parental rights are secured through whatever process is available to you in your state of residence – whether a confirmatory adoption, step parent or second parent adoption, or other judgment of parentage. A final court order declaring your legal parentage is entitled to full faith and credit in every state throughout the United States.
Jacobsen: What are the current barriers to advanced access reproductive healthcare and family formation services for LGBTI+ people?
Oleaga: State borders and societal pressures. Some states are less inclined to make fertility treatment and assisted reproduction laws available to LGBTI+ individuals. In the absence of federal legislation establishing access to fertility care to all, these matters are governed at the state level.
Jacobsen: Why are grassroots community-led solutions complementary to legal reforms?
Oleaga: Because the stories of individuals are the most powerful tool we have to effectuate change. Lawyers and politicians can discuss policy at length, but we need individuals willing to share their stories to humanize the need for further legal reform. Community-led solutions humanizes efforts to improve public policy.
Jacobsen: What strategies have helped overcome institutional resistance?
Oleaga: Sometimes people don’t understand or care about an issue until it directly affects them. Some people don’t care about increasing access to fertility care until someone they love is unable to do so. These stories are the most important tool we have to ensure legislation continues to evolve. I will not stop until we can all access care. All means all.
Jacobsen: How do these legal reforms tie into international efforts for equality for diverse family types?
Oleaga: Legal reforms at the state level throughout the United States have made some states ideal locations for individuals in other countries to access egg donation and gestational surrogacy. Gestational surrogacy is illegal throughout most of Europe, so many LGBTI+ couples come to the United States in order to benefit from the laws of certain states allowing and regulating these processes. Pro-family legislation in the US isn’t only available to Americans, but to the world at large.
Jacobsen: What are the organized (and disorganized, in fact) efforts to restrict reproductive technologies and family formations to a strictly confined type?
Oleaga: The entire personhood movement is a way to restrict reproductive freedom for LGBTI+ individuals and women in general. Personhood legislation goes beyond the restrictions on reproductive care imposed by abortion bans. We cannot have personhood and IVF – the two cannot coexist.
The order directs the White House’s Domestic Policy Council to investigate what’s driving up the cost of IVF and recommend ways to lower it,
Jacobsen: What are the effective methods to build coalitions and mobilize advocacy efforts?
Oleaga: Start. Start anywhere at any time. Start small. Start with your community. Share your story. You’ll find the people you need to effectuate change and you’ll build the right team. Just start.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Janene.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/14
Aisha Imana is a youth delegate with the United Nations Association in Canada, advocating for diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender equality, with a strong focus on youth participation. Ayat Ibrahim is a master’s student at the University of Ottawa researching educational access in post-conflict regions, migration policies, and nation-building efforts in the Global South. Mabintou Ouattara is an engineering professional and delegate with the Young Diplomats of Canada, advocating for women in STEM, inclusive education, and gender equity in marginalized communities. Imana, Ibrahim, and Ouattara discuss advocacy at CSW, focusing on gender equality, youth inclusion, education, women in STEM, and overcoming systemic and cultural barriers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Names and titles.
Aisha Imana: My name is Aisha Imana. I am based in Canada and am a youth delegate with the United Nations Association in Canada.
Ayat Ibrahim: Hello, my name is Ayat Ibrahim. I am from Ottawa, Ontario, a delegate with the United Nations Association in Canada.
Mabintou Ouattara: Hello, my name is Mabin Ouattara. I live in Calgary and am a delegate with the Young Diplomats of Canada.
Jacobsen: What brings you here today?
Imana: I attended CSW 68 last year and knew that my advocacy work was incomplete. I was determined to return and continue my efforts. My focus includes diversity, equity, inclusion, and, in particular, youth participation, with gender equality at the core of my work. I am privileged and grateful to be with the United Nations Association in Canada. I aim to build upon my previous efforts, attend discussions on the Beijing+30 review process, and analyze critical developments concerning SDG 5 and its intersection with all 17 SDGs. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here, and I have actively worked to promote youth inclusion at decision-making tables.
Ibrahim: I am a master’s student at the University of Ottawa. My studies focus on equitable access to education in the Global South, particularly in post-conflict regions. I also examine nation-building efforts after armed conflicts and the impact of migration. Women and children face heightened risks as global border policies become increasingly restrictive. Attending an international conference like this allows me to connect with like-minded individuals and gain a broader perspective on these global issues. What brings you here today?
Ouattara: I came to CSW because I am passionate about women in STEM and promoting inclusive education, especially in marginalized communities. I currently work in engineering, and it is not often that people from my industry are represented in these spaces, so our issues often get overlooked, particularly the lack of female representation in these fields. I could help amplify the voices of my community. I also originally come from Ivory Coast, where women face significant challenges, such as female genital mutilation and numerous barriers to education. I was fortunate to study in Canada and to be here in this space, and it is a great opportunity for me to raise awareness, connect with others doing similar work, and bring back ideas and solutions that can make a real impact.
Jacobsen: How long have you been here? What is your biggest takeaway or moment?
Imana: That is such a great question. I have been here since last Sunday, and I am leaving tomorrow. I think my biggest takeaway is that women are not vulnerable—we are placed in vulnerable situations. There is a common misconception that women are weak or that we do not know how to be part of the global community, but I do not believe that. What reaffirmed this for me was being at CSW this week and witnessing women’s strength, resilience, community, and inclusion in all their diversities within these spaces. My biggest takeaway is that we are not weak or vulnerable. The people, perpetrators, and institutions place us in these situations. That realization is a call to action for us to be included more meaningfully in decision-making spaces, and I believe that is one of my most significant takeaways.
Ibrahim: I have been here for about a week, and my biggest takeaway is that despite the world we live in and how pessimistic it can sometimes feel—especially at a higher level, where large political forces make decisions without much input from individuals—change is still possible. Hearing from different organizations, advocacy groups, and activists has shown me that meaningful change can happen at the individual level. We should not always focus on the big picture alone; instead, we should zoom in on a closer perspective and recognize that radical change can begin with a simple act.
Ouattara: My biggest takeaway is that women are often over-mentored but under-sponsored. We frequently receive advice and guidance but lack tangible opportunities to advance and climb the ladder. I also had the opportunity to be a panellist at an event titled Pathways to Gender Equity for Women in the Workplace, which was incredibly insightful. It provided me with a great opportunity to meet people, share my experiences, and express my perspectives.
Jacobsen: Who was someone that made you feel starstruck while here?
Imana: Wow, that is an amazing question because so many incredible people have touched me. The one person who left me truly starstruck was someone I encountered at a parallel event. I attended a session organized by a group called Straight From the Heart International. However, it featured a woman who shared her experiences of raising a son with autism. The event was deeply focused on how mothers navigate the challenges of parenting a child with autism, and it left a profound impact on me.
Listening to her story about the struggles she shared—opening up for the first time in a UN space about her challenges with her son—brought me to tears. As someone who is neurodiverse and has struggled with my own identity, I deeply relate to her experiences. This was her first time in this environment, her first time speaking openly about the difficulties she faced.
She was from Nigeria and spoke about how mothers like her often do not receive the support and resources they need within their cultural context. Additionally, she faced cultural backlash from her community, not because they did not care but because they were unaware of the barriers, stigmatized perceptions, and misunderstandings surrounding autism and the care it requires.
She left me truly starstruck. For being so open and vulnerable in sharing her story, she is a beautiful person and a strong mother. That was a great question. Thank you.
Ibrahim: It was actually at a session I attended this morning. The event focused on Sierra Leone and its gender equality initiatives and national policy efforts. A minister of gender and youth rights was present, and the way she spoke—with such passion, without reading from notes—felt truly authentic, as if it came straight from the heart.
I learned so much. I had no idea that Sierra Leone was a leader among African nations in implementing progressive policies. They have developed a national action plan that not many countries in the region have.
Her words resonated with me because, as an African myself, I know how strong cultural barriers, social stigma, and taboos can be. Seeing a leader speak so openly and advocate for real change made me feel that similar changes can be applied more broadly if progress is happening in Sierra Leone.
Ouattara: One person who touched me was Jessica Vonderbeek. She was one of the speakers at our parallel event, Indigenous People of the USA and Canada. It was a virtual event, and hearing her story was incredibly moving.
She is a Sixties Scoop survivor from Alberta, and despite everything she has endured—being taken from her family, given another name, and losing her connection to her Indigenous identity—she remains resilient. She does not even have an Indigenous name right now, but she is looking forward to reclaiming one, and it will happen. I cannot wait for that moment because her story resonated deeply. I cannot imagine going through what she has and still moving forward with the strength she does.
She struck me by saying, “I lived an incredible life.” That made me tear up because I cannot begin to understand what that feels like—to endure so much and still find the strength to say those words. Seeing people who have experienced such hardship yet remain strong and resilient is incredibly inspiring. She is a role model; her strength and positivity will stay with me.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Aisha, Ayat, and Mabintou.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/14
Hildah Otieno Juma, executive director of the Black Talent Initiative (BTI), talks about Ignite Winnipeg, an event fostering Black talent and career advancement. Inspired by Ignite Toronto 2023, it brought 190 attendees together for networking, discussions, and career opportunities. Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa delivered a keynote on leadership and resilience. Canada Life partnered with the event held at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Attendees praised it, requesting a larger venue next year. BTI continues engagement through virtual meetups and a Community Hub, ensuring ongoing support for Black professionals. Juma emphasized representation, collaboration, and impact.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Hildah Otieno Juma, the executive director of the Black Talent Initiative (BTI), which fosters equitable opportunities for Black professionals and candidates. Originally from Nairobi, Kenya.
Hildah became a passionate advocate for social justice as an international student. With over a decade of experience, she previously served as the executive director of the Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario, advocating for post-secondary students across the province. Recognized with the Emerging Leaders Social Impact Award in 2023, she holds a degree in political science and philosophy and a certificate in nonprofit management. Based in Toronto, where the wind tunnels can be quite chilly, she continues to champion initiatives to combat anti-Black racism. Thank you for joining me today.
Hildah Juma: Thank you, Scott, for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Jacobsen: Let’s begin. What inspired the Black Talent Initiative to launch Ignite Winnipeg for the first time in Manitoba? Also, is the weather an impediment?
Juma: Funny story. Yes, the weather can impede getting around the city. However, the people in Winnipeg are amazing. Despite the freezing temperatures, we had over 190 people attend our event, even though it was minus 30 degrees Celsius. They arrived on time, full of enthusiasm, and ready to engage. Regardless of the cold, the community showed up in full force, which was incredible. So, while extreme temperatures might be an adjustment for those unfamiliar with Winnipeg winters, they were not an obstacle to the event’s success.
The inspiration for hosting Ignite Winnipeg stemmed from the success of Ignite 2023 in Toronto, which was a three-day conference. One of our keynote speakers, David Simmonds, a senior executive at Canada Life, played a significant role in this. He delivered an outstanding speech on Leaders Day, the second day of the Toronto conference, where he connected deeply with the audience and participants. His experience was so positive that he wanted to bring a similar event to Winnipeg, where Canada Life is headquartered. Throughout last year, we discussed how this vision could be realized and what key elements we wanted to incorporate.
Ultimately, our goal was to bring together Winnipeg-area employers and the local community to discuss the challenges and opportunities within the workforce. It was important to create a space where employers could engage with community leaders, exchange ideas, and explore collaborations that could benefit the region. Beyond addressing workplace challenges, we also aimed to highlight and celebrate the achievements of Black professionals and community members. Providing a platform for sharing success stories, discussing lived experiences, and fostering a collective commitment to continuous collaboration was essential.
The event was a resounding success, with over 190 attendees, two keynote speeches, two-panel discussions, and live entertainment. One of the most memorable moments was when a 15-year-old high school student performed a song about hope, uplifting the room. The atmosphere was filled with celebration—of Black History Month, Black excellence, and Black joy—and a strong sense of unity, with everyone working together toward a shared vision.
We were honoured to host Ignite Winnipeg at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which provided a fitting backdrop for discussions on equity, inclusion, and empowerment. The energy in the room was incredible, and I could not be more grateful for the enthusiasm and dedication of everyone involved. It was a remarkable event, and I look forward to continuing this work.
Jacobsen: The Canadian Museum for Human Rights is a beautiful building. I’ve been there once, and it was truly wonderful. I highly recommend that everyone visit it.
When you mentioned Manitoba and Winnipeg and any event there, I was immediately reminded of that scene—what was it? The one with John Candy and the Jamaican bobsled team? When I spent a week in Winnipeg, I felt like one of the bobsled guys.
So, how does Ignite Winnipeg align with BTI’s broader mission of fostering Black talent and career advancement?
Juma: To provide some context, BTI was founded in 2021 after George Floyd’s death. It became an opportunity for us to come together and create a space where people could talk about their experiences as Black individuals and members of the Black community. Everyone remembers that this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of extreme isolation.
In response, we provided a virtual space where people could connect weekly, share their thoughts, discuss pressing issues, and support each other. Today, we are a registered charity recognized as a key connector of Black talent. Our approach to Black talent is rooted in the understanding that everyone’s professional journey is unique. Whether someone is pursuing entrepreneurship, a corporate career, or working as a changemaker in the community, we aim to connect Black professionals to opportunities that support and empower their growth.
At BTI, everything we do is centred around talent development and ensuring individuals have access to the resources and networks needed to thrive. That’s how BTI was founded; that mission remains at the heart of our work.
When we talk about Ignite, it is more than just an event—it’s a three-day experience. We use the word “experience” intentionally because we want participants, attendees, sponsors, and partners to walk away with a deep appreciation for the incredible work happening within the community. More importantly, we want them to invest in it, create impact, and find inspiration.
Ignite is built on four key pillars: investment, impact, inspiration, and innovation. These elements guide the event’s structure and the outcomes we aim to achieve. Creating spaces like Ignite allows the community to come together in ways that foster collaboration and meaningful connections.
When people come together in these spaces, connections happen naturally. From these connections emerge new partnerships, community initiatives, and business collaborations. Individuals network and organizations find synergies, and new opportunities for community-building emerge.
If you were to take the energy and momentum from Ignite Toronto, that is exactly what we wanted to bring to Winnipeg. And we succeeded. The community showed up, engaged meaningfully, and built connections that will lead to future collaborations between grassroots organizations, corporate entities, and community leaders. That’s what makes Ignite so impactful.
When I reflect on how Ignite Winnipeg went, I find it incredibly inspiring to see how much great work is happening within the community. A significant impact is being made—both by corporate entities and the community leaders present at the event.
One of the key takeaways from attendees was their excitement about experiencing Ignite. They were enthusiastic about the event itself and about the importance of continuing this work in Winnipeg. Most notably, their biggest question was, “When’s the next one happening?” Many people left knowing that Ignite Winnipeg will return next year, and they’re already looking forward to it.
There were also suggestions on how to enhance the event. Some attendees proposed securing a larger venue to accommodate more people, while others suggested expanding the event into a full-day experience rather than just an afternoon gathering. These conversations made it clear that Ignite Winnipeg is a much-needed initiative and that the community wants it to continue.
We’re incredibly grateful to have Canada Life as a collaborative partner in making this event possible. The overwhelmingly positive feedback and the eagerness of attendees to return reinforce that this initiative is meaningful, impactful, and essential. All around, it was a fantastic experience.
Jacobsen: First, not a single person mentioned the weather. What?
Juma: Yeah. You have to remember that they live there every day, so their experience isn’t the same as ours. My colleague and I went out for dinner and decided, “Let’s walk back.” You know, get some fresh air, take a nice walk. Well, we were freezing, but everyone else around us was walking like it was nothing.
Some people even had their jackets unzipped.
Jacobsen: Yeah, for non-Canadians, these are the kind of Canadians who make other Canadians say, “Why are you walking around in flip-flops and shorts, shirtless, in minus 30-degree weather?”
Juma: Yes, and they’re just going about their lives. No one was complaining. No one said, “Oh, it’s so cold outside.” That’s why they call it “Winterpeg.”
Jacobsen: How will Ignite Winnipeg provide Black professionals with actionable career insights and networking opportunities beyond just being a fantastic experience for people who share common interests?
Juma: Ignite Winnipeg allowed employers to share their organizations’ efforts to support Black talent. It was also a platform for these employers to discuss how they are working to develop Black professionals professionally, not just through recruitment but also through retention and career advancement.
Many of the discussions focused on how organizations nurture Black employees within their workforce, ensuring they have access to mentorship, training, and leadership opportunities to help them move up within their companies. It was also a chance for employers to share their personal experiences working within their organizations and how they strive to create inclusive workplace cultures.
Jacobsen: Representation matters.
Juma: Seeing Black leaders and executives speak about their career journeys in Winnipeg-based companies was incredibly impactful for the Black community. Hearing their stories inspired attendees, showing them that they, too, could one day become leaders in these organizations if they chose to follow a similar career path. Ignite Winnipeg positioned these employers as diversity, equity, and inclusion leaders, putting them on the map as employers of choice for Black professionals.
By showcasing organizations that actively support and develop Black talent, the event helped job seekers in the room recognize employers who genuinely value diversity. Whenever these companies have future job openings, the attendees are more likely to view them as favourable places to apply or seek collaboration opportunities from a community perspective.
Another key aspect was the employers’ commitment to Winnipeg. Many of these companies spoke about why they intentionally built in Winnipeg, sharing their historical and contextual ties to the city. This was important because it demonstrated that opportunities for career growth exist beyond the major hubs like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver—Winnipeg is also home to thriving organizations investing in local Black talent.
For Black professionals and community leaders in attendance, this event offered a behind-the-scenes look at what it is like to work in these organizations, how they operate, and how they support diverse employees. Meeting successful professionals who could advocate for them, mentor them, or become allies was a key takeaway.
At the end of the event, there was a dedicated networking session where attendees could connect one-on-one with employers, industry leaders, and fellow professionals. This kind of direct engagement is often where meaningful connections are formed. I hope that employers who attended took the time to stay back, engage with attendees, exchange contact information, and initiate follow-up conversations—whether through coffee chats or formal meetings—to discuss how they can support the career growth of Black professionals.
So, that’s how I’d answer that question.
Jacobsen: And what about the feedback from attendees on the event itself?
Juma: The feedback has been amazing. Many attendees approached us as organizers when the event ended to express their gratitude and appreciation. They emphasized how much a space like this was needed, highlighting the value of collaboration between employers and the community.
Many participants also took to social media to share their experiences. There were numerous LinkedIn and Instagram posts where people talked about their key takeaways from the speakers, the entertainment, and the event’s overall impact. A recurring theme in these posts was that Winnipeg needed an event like this. For some attendees, this was their first time experiencing an event of this kind, and they were eager to share how much it meant to them.
The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The collaboration between Canada Life and BTI was a huge success. The team at Canada Life was thrilled with the outcome, particularly with how the event brought together two key groups—the community and employers. From both a collaborative and organizing perspective, everything went exceptionally well.
The testimonials from attendees have been filled with excitement and anticipation for the future. Many ask, “What’s next?” and “When is the next event?”. We allow attendees to stay connected with BTI virtually to ensure the engagement continues beyond the event.
One way we are doing this is by inviting the Winnipeg community to our virtual Friday meetups. These weekly gatherings, originally created in 2021, still exist today as a way for Black professionals to engage, share experiences, and support one another. We are extending an open invitation to the Winnipeg attendees to join us virtually every Friday.
Of course, there is a time zone difference, as the sessions take place from 12:30 to 1:30 PM Eastern Time, meaning Winnipeg participants will join at 11:30 AM Central Time. Additionally, we are working on launching a Community Hub—a virtual platform where employers, entrepreneurs, and Black professionals can connect, network, and share opportunities. This will serve as a continuous engagement space for those who attended Ignite Winnipeg, allowing them to stay connected while they wait for the next in-person event. We plan to launch the Community Hub next month.
Jacobsen: Why was Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa chosen as the keynote speaker? What key messages did attendees take away from her talk?
Juma: I’m not sure how many people are familiar with Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa’s journey. If not, I highly encourage you to look it up. She is an incredible leader and will release a book later this year that details her experiences.
Dr. Chika attended medical school at the University of Toronto, where she faced a unique and challenging reality—she was the only Black student in her cohort upon entering medical school. She was the only Black student in the entire medical program at U of T at the time. She was the only one in a graduating class of hundreds of students.
Rather than accepting this as the norm, Dr. Chika took action. She worked closely with the medical school administration to create pathways to diversify the applicant pool, advocating for more Black students to apply and be accepted into medical school. Her work has played a crucial role in increasing representation in medicine.
A few years ago, Barbie recognized her groundbreaking achievements and honoured her with a Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa Barbie doll, celebrating her contributions to the medical field and her advocacy for Black medical professionals.
Dr. Chika was chosen as the keynote speaker because we wanted to highlight themes of authenticity, leadership, and resilience intentionally. Her journey is one of perseverance—she has faced racism in academia and the workplace, yet she has continued to rise above these challenges and excel in her career as a distinguished medical professional.
Her message to the audience was about authentic leadership. She emphasized the need for audacity and boldness in leadership—that we must be daring and unafraid to step into spaces where we are underrepresented.
To close the event, she delivered an incredible talk, sharing her personal story and concluding, in true medical fashion, with a “prescription” for how we can all become better leaders. She encouraged everyone to leverage their authenticity, embrace their uniqueness, and lead with confidence and courage.
That is who Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa is, and that is why she was chosen as the keynote speaker. She did an outstanding job bringing her message to the people of Winnipeg, leaving a lasting impact on everyone in attendance.
Jacobsen: You might have a little time left. What role did the CMHR (Canadian Museum for Human Rights) play in the inaugural event?
Juma: Well, it was primarily just a venue selection. We were looking for an available space that could accommodate the number of attendees and was accessible as soon as possible. The CMHR met all those criteria, so we chose it as the venue.
Jacobsen: Hildah, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
Juma: Thank you, Scott.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/13
Matthew Meier is a travel expert at MaxTour, specializing in Las Vegas tourism, national parks, and marketing, providing unique experiences and insights into the travel industry and business growth.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What makes Monument Valley important?
Matthew Meier: One of the standout locations in our tours is Monument Valley, a truly iconic cinematic destination that has drawn movie fans for decades. It’s a place where the natural beauty of the Southwest meets the timeless appeal of film history.
Monument Valley’s towering sandstone buttes and sweeping desert vistas have served as the backdrop for legendary films like Stagecoach and The Searchers—it’s practically synonymous with the classic Western genre.
Jacobsen: What do travellers do?
Meier: Today, travellers visiting Monument Valley are looking for more than just photo opportunities—they want authenticity and connection. Our tours emphasize the cultural significance of the area, including its rich Navajo heritage, while celebrating its role in cinematic history. This balance of storytelling and sustainability resonates strongly with the new priorities of modern travelers.
Jacobsen: How does social media play into this?
Meier: Regarding social media and movie-based travel trends, platforms like TikTok have undoubtedly popularized cinematic landmarks like Monument Valley. While potential changes in social media usage could shift how people discover these destinations, the timeless appeal of such locations ensures they’ll remain sought-after.
The pull of Monument Valley isn’t just about its Instagrammable views—it’s about the experience of standing where movie legends once did.
If you’d like to discuss more guiding travellers to cinematic destinations or exploring Monument Valley with us, feel free to reach out—I’d be happy to help!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Matthew.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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): 2025/04/13
Art Shield, founded by Edward Akrout, is dedicated to Ukrainian cultural preservation and global humanitarian efforts. It identifies emerging artists in conflict zones, amplifies their work through exhibitions and media partnerships, and supports their growth through education and funding. Art Shield’s initiatives include art sales, immersive events, and redistributing proceeds to fund art centers and therapy programs. Notable projects include Deocoupage Wine and the Echoes & Visions exhibition. The organization aims to expand into Toronto, Mexico City, and Vancouver, fostering global artistic resilience while advocating for democracy and cultural heritage protection.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so today we are here with Edward Akrout, the founder and CEO of Art Shield. Art Shield plays a role in Ukrainian cultural preservation and humanitarian efforts. It focuses on an important aspect of maintaining culture amid war, which is often overlooked compared to more immediate concerns like rebuilding infrastructure, reconstruction efforts after bombings, and humanitarian aid—ensuring people survive and can continue their lives. Military efforts are an obvious priority. Geopolitical strategies are another. However, I believe art is equally important—not in the short term, but in the long term. This is why it is often not discussed during wartime, as the focus is always on immediate crises. People tend to prioritize the present moment. Before we discuss Art Shield, I want to get your perspective. What do you think is the relevance of art and cultural heritage to humanitarian and preservation efforts in the long term?
Edward Akrout: Well, what we see in Ukraine right now reminds us of something forgotten in the West. In Europe, there has been a default pacifism, which is understandable—it is a trauma response to the devastation of the Second World War. Particularly in the arts and culture sector, there has always been an assumption that war is inherently bad and should be avoided at all costs. That has been the general position of people working in arts and culture. However, we are witnessing in Ukraine that all the great cultural achievements we cherish today exist because they were safeguarded at some point. And they still need safeguarding.
I first became involved in Ukraine in 2013 while acting in a film. One of the key things that led me to create Art Shield was my work on a documentary about artists in wartime. That project was a coincidence—I initially just wanted to support theatres. I started by asking actors in Ukrainian theatres to record short videos explaining what they needed and how the war had affected their work. Through this, I discovered the stories of actors who had joined the Ukrainian army. Then, I learned about artists who had also enlisted and volunteered.
This was surprising to me because actors are trained in empathy—so how do they engage in the dehumanizing process of war? It also felt like an alarm bell. When people who have the broadest understanding of human emotions and capabilities decide to put down their brushes, leave the stage, and pick up a weapon, it signals how existential this war is—not just for Ukrainian culture but for the very space we have built in the West to sustain artistic and cultural diversity.
Jacobsen: And so, when we’re thinking about Art Shield, where does it come in regarding the core promotion of Ukrainian culture and shaping cultural identity in real-time?
Akrout: Our operation is fairly simple. We identify artists with strong aesthetics and concepts that belong to art history and focus on potential artistic movements.
Throughout history, much of what we perceive as genius has emerged from specific artistic scenes—whether it was Montparnasse in the 1920s, Manhattan in the 1980s, or Williamsburg in the 1990s. Many of these great artists emerged from the cultural effervescence of these places in time. We recognize Ukraine—Kyiv specifically, and the Golden Gate neighbourhood—as one of those vibrant artistic scenes.
That is where we first established ourselves and where we met most of the artists we have collaborated with. Once we identify these talents, we amplify their voices by organizing exhibitions. We have held exhibitions in London and done some work in New York, and we are planning to expand to Los Angeles.
We also have an incredible press partner, Paradox Public Relations , which has been amplifying these artists’ voices by securing placements in top-tier media outlets. One of the artists, Gamlet, we have been working with since the start of the war is known as the Banksy of Kharkiv. He has been creating street art in recently liberated Izyum. Thanks to the efforts of Paradox PR, his work was featured in The New York Times, which was a major achievement for us.
We are also supporting another project that we are very excited about. Another project for which we have garnered significant media attention is Deocoupage Wine. Tetyana Boryanova was a Human Rights Watch producer, translator, and fixer. On September 11, 2022, she was among the first people to enter Izyum after its liberation.
Izyum was one of the first towns occupied by Russian forces, and horrific war crimes took place there. In the first few weeks after its liberation, before other authorities could arrive, Human Rights Watch was on the ground investigating war crimes. Tetyana spent weeks there, translating interviews with civilians reporting these crimes.
Every time Tetyana entered a home in Izyum, the residents were so happy to see people that they offered her grapes. People grow grapes in their gardens there and make their wine. Those grapes had grown during the Russian occupation and were harvested upon liberation.
The people deeply moved her, and what was presented to her, so she felt compelled to do something with it. She created a wine called Deocoupage —a name that plays on the word “occupation.” She collaborated with Gamlet, the artist I mentioned, and used his work on the bottles. We have showcased these bottles on multiple occasions in London and sold a few of them.
One hundred percent of the proceeds will go to Superhumans, an organization that provides prosthetics to civilians and military personnel.
Jacobsen: You have also provided generators, lights, and equipment to areas heavily impacted by the Russian occupation, as far as I know.
Akrout: That was among the first things we did in 2022 and 2023. Our first money was used to equip several theatres with incredibly important generators. At that time—just as Russia is still doing today—they were bombing civilian infrastructure, leaving people in the dark.
One of the first things I witnessed when I went to Ukraine was people gathering in the dark, unheated theatres to watch plays lit only by candlelight. That moment deeply moved me, and I felt compelled to support those theatres. We managed to provide generators for several of them.
We also produced a Christmas pantomime for refugee children from Mariupol. That was a beautiful project.
Jacobsen: What do events like Echoes and Visions in London mean to you, and what challenges arise in organizing such events?
Akrout: What has been extraordinary about Echoes and Visions is the quality of work we have been kindly donated—particularly by Knotel and Sätila Studios. The venue itself was remarkable. This is where Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist. It’s an 18th-century courthouse, one of the most beautiful landmarks in London.
In many ways, we saw it as symbolic—bringing justice back to the courthouse. That venue became a hub for the Ukrainian community in London. They felt like it was their home. It was very important to create a space that united the Ukrainian community and those who supported Ukraine.
What became incredibly inspiring was that as our events grew, we began to scale them up. We hosted over ten bands, screened eight films, and organized multiple panel talks. When Stephanie Baker came, we held a panel discussion with her about economic warfare and how to defeat Putin.
It became a cultural center. We started attracting people who didn’t necessarily have an initial interest in Ukraine—some were even, frankly, victims of Russian propaganda. But they came because of the quality of the events themselves.
Akrout: They were coming for the quality of the art, and that, for us, was one of our biggest wins. We captured the attention of the Ukrainian embassy, which showed its support.
The Echoes and Visions exhibition took place over three or four events. One of our first big projects was at the Old Session House; we are all very proud.
Jacobsen: Given your mission to protect and nurture art in times of crisis, how has the international community responded?
Akrout: I cannot speak for the entire international community. Most of our events have occurred in international cities like London and New York, so we have engaged with people from many different backgrounds.
As I mentioned earlier, one of our biggest victories was attracting people not initially supportive of Ukraine—people who came purely for the quality of the art because they found it beautiful or interesting. Then, through their exposure, they started learning something. Some even changed their perspectives.
We focus on that the most. We are less concerned with observing the response and more focused on shaping and educating it as much as possible.
We received a beautiful letter of support. Ambassador Valerii Zaluzhnyi invited me to the Ukrainian embassy to receive it. He wrote a heartfelt letter recognizing the contributions of Art Shield and our partners—Dom Master Klass and Paradox Media—for our work in supporting Ukrainian culture.
The embassy’s cultural attaché attended all our events. They were very moved when a non-Ukrainian organization recognized that the Ukrainian issue was not just Ukraine’s concern. Democracies at large have a moral duty to support Ukraine.
Jacobsen: What are your plans for expansion and future projects with Art Shield to support more artists from or currently stuck in conflict zones? Do you hope to extend your presentations beyond international hubs like New York and London to other major cities, such as Vancouver, Toronto, Mexico City, and similar places?
Akrout: During the last Kyiv Art Sessions, we launched a very exciting partnership with Subjektiv, a company founded by a group of Ukrainians from the art and finance sectors. Subjective functions like a new Artsy in many ways, but it is much more efficient.
It is an online platform for selling art, but it also handles shipping, ownership tracking, and even secondary market relevance. We have now become official partners with Subjektiv, and with their support, we have begun developing the Art Shield Gallery.
From the beginning, Art Shield was meant to focus on global art in crisis—not just Ukraine. However, the situation in Ukraine became so urgent that we had to focus on it exclusively, especially as we were still establishing ourselves as an organization. But now, we finally have the bandwidth to expand.
Through our online gallery, we now represent artists from 11 different countries and are in discussions with artists from 24 more.
Additionally, we have secured another major partnership at the Barker Building in downtown Los Angeles, where we plan to establish a permanent cultural hub. This will greatly expand our operations. As you mentioned, we also hope that our online art sales revenue will allow us to grow into other cities like Toronto, Mexico City, and Vancouver.
Strong support exists for our work in Canada. I have always felt that Canadians care deeply about democracy and the world in general. Throughout my travels, I’ve often met people I initially thought were American—they were knowledgeable, curious about the world, and engaged. But six or seven times out of ten, they were Canadian. That is just the reality.
So, we would love to collaborate more with Canada.
Jacobsen: What does this project mean to you in the long term? Art is deeply personal—that is its entire purpose. What does Art Shield mean to you as a long-term project?
Akrout: I grew up with an artist. He passed away when I was 15. As a child, I witnessed firsthand the fragility of both art and the artist.
That experience must have influenced my impulse to create Art Shield. It has always been about the art and the artist. That is the emotional aspect.
On a more rational level, I was influenced by a report called the V-Dem Report, which assesses the health of democracies worldwide. Years ago, I read that in 2011, 30% of the world lived under autocracy. By 2021, that number had risen to 70%.
By demographics alone, the democratic world was shrinking.
Artists are natural leaders—they shape the world we live in. Artists have shaped all the most beautiful things around us, but they have also been shaped by the patrons who supported them.
We felt compelled to create a platform where artists and patrons could work together to shape a better world.
Jacobsen: Edward, you made it. Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Akrout: Thank you, Scott.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/27
Global Human Rights Defence (GHRD), a non-governmental organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), has long worked to spotlight the consequences of religious and ethnic violence in overlooked regions.
In this interview, conducted by one of its human rights officers, the organization discusses its latest advocacy work on Kashmir following the deadly attack in Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir, where Hindu pilgrims were deliberately targeted. Drawing from field reports and UN submissions, the officer outlines a pattern of extremist violence enabled by transnational jihadist networks—many with alleged ties to Pakistan.
GHRD emphasizes the urgent need for stronger accountability mechanisms within the United Nations framework, while also exposing the gendered tactics used to terrorize communities and dismantle their social fabric. With decades of advocacy behind them, they now warn that the threat is no longer contained within Kashmir’s borders—it’s metastasizing, with implications for global security. Through diplomatic engagement, documentation, and public awareness campaigns, GHRD seeks not only to honor the victims but to demand sustained international action.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What exactly is being presented here today?
Global Human Rights Defence: I am a human rights officer at Global Human Rights Defence, an NGO with special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Jacobsen: In relation to the recent terror attack in the Reasi district of Jammu and Kashmir, what broader themes are being addressed beyond the specific incident and its victims?
Global Human Rights Defence: We are here to raise awareness about the broader human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir and, more importantly, to demand accountability at the international level. There is credible concern that terrorist groups operating with support from elements within Pakistan have carried out attacks like the one we saw in Reasi recently. We aim to bring these concerns to the attention of the international community and advocate for the establishment of accountability mechanisms through the United Nations and its various bodies and procedures.
Jacobsen: How has the response been so far—both from the public and within UN channels?
Global Human Rights Defence: The response has been modest—we have only been here for a few hours. This action is primarily focused on raising public awareness. In parallel, we have submitted detailed written reports and communications to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other UN mechanisms. Unfortunately, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir often receives less attention due to the volume of global human rights crises. Our objective is to shift that attention and elevate the issue.
Jacobsen: Can you provide specifics about the victims of the Reasi attack? What made this incident stand out?
Global Human Rights Defence: In the Reasi attack, which occurred in June 2024, at least nine people were killed and over 30 were injured when militants ambushed a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims. What makes this incident especially disturbing is the apparent targeting of religious pilgrims. While investigations are ongoing, early reports suggest that the attackers may have had religious motives, given the nature of the victims and the context. This adds to a pattern of communal violence that raises grave human rights concerns.
Jacobsen: From your findings, what rationale or justification do the perpetrators offer for such attacks?
Global Human Rights Defence: Well, it is a very jihadist, nationalist kind of situation we are talking about. It is part of the jihad—part of eliminating non-believers or those who do not fit within their ideological system. From what we have observed, these are armed militant groups. According to our findings, they have been financially supported by Pakistan for some time. Pakistan has also provided shelter to ISIS and al-Qaeda members for decades. That is why we are calling on countries—particularly members of the Human Rights Council—to cease this type of funding. The European Union, for example, has a programme called the GSP+ (Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus). It involves trade and financial support through association agreements. What we hope to achieve is a suspension or at least a thorough review of such support, based on human rights conditionality, so that terrorism like this can no longer receive financial backing.
Jacobsen: Given the support networks you’ve mentioned, is there credible concern that this kind of extremist violence could spread regionally or even globally?
Global Human Rights Defence: Absolutely. That is always the risk with terrorism—it does not respect borders. The network is already expanding. We are seeing evidence that different governments have ties to it. What began in Pakistan is now affecting India. Moreover, of course, with the proper financial and logistical support, it could expand anywhere. That is precisely what makes it so threatening in our view—it truly could be global.
Jacobsen: How are these killings typically carried out?
Global Human Rights Defence: I do not want to go into graphic detail, but virtually every form of violence you can imagine has been documented. Victims have been shot at point-blank range, execution-style. While not specific to these recent attacks, we have seen beheadings and stonings in past instances.
Jacobsen: Would you say there is a clear religious or ideological component to this violence?
Global Human Rights Defence: Exactly. These are jihadist methods—deeply rooted in an extremist religious ideology. The brutality is all too real and deliberate.
Jacobsen: Are there individuals who, out of fear or coercion, surrender or join the cause of these militant groups? Are there those who relent and join their cause to avoid being killed?
Global Human Rights Defence: I am not aware of any specific cases, but I can easily imagine that a deep sense of fear is instilled. The military in Pakistan wields considerable power, and we have seen many instances—not only related to terrorism but also involving the suppression of minorities, particularly in regions like Balochistan—where the crackdowns have been ruthless. This creates an atmosphere of fear across the country. I firmly believe that some individuals may turn to these organizations for a sense of security, something they are not receiving from their government, which is supposed to protect them.
Jacobsen: Besides military responses, what other entities—human rights organizations, policy actors, treaty bodies—are actively working to counter these networks?
Global Human Rights Defence: Sadly, not many organizations are currently working on this issue, which is precisely why we are here. However, this issue falls under several international mandates. For example, there is the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. There is also the Committee Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Another relevant body is the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, which is especially important because enforced disappearances are a recurring issue in this context.
There are several international mechanisms available, but the key right now is advocacy. It is about ensuring that this issue stands out amid the many concerns these bodies face daily. These mandates also face limitations in terms of resources. What we are trying to do is amplify the voices of victims—many of whom can no longer speak for themselves—in the hope of achieving some measure of justice.
Jacobsen: Were any of the victims particularly prominent, or was this attack directed more broadly at ordinary civilians?
Global Human Rights Defence: I do not believe there were any prominent individuals among the victims, which, in a way, makes the situation even more disheartening. These were ordinary civilians. They were not politically active or involved in any movements. Most were simply family men—fathers.
Jacobsen: So the victims were primarily male?
Global Human Rights Defence: Regular working men, yes. They specifically selected the men from the group.
Jacobsen: Why do you think men were specifically targeted?
Global Human Rights Defence: I believe it is about striking the country where it hurts the most. They selected the men based on whether they identified as Hindu. Then they addressed the women and said, “You are going to have to watch this. We are going to execute your husband. Then you go back to your government and tell them what we have done.” It is a tactic of intimidation. At the same time, it is about stripping the country of its human capital—its men—and traumatizing the women to inflict maximum psychological damage.
Jacobsen: Are there other details or patterns in this case that are important to highlight?
Global Human Rights Defence: Generally speaking, this was not an isolated incident. While this particular event gained media attention—especially with the brief escalation between India and Pakistan that followed—it is essential to recognize that such acts of terror happen almost daily, though often on a smaller scale. This conflict has been building for decades. What we saw is only the tip of the iceberg. There is far more to this than what meets the eye. That is why a simple ceasefire agreement, such as the one currently in place, is insufficient. We need a comprehensive investigation. We need stronger accountability mechanisms. That is the only way to prevent such atrocities from occurring again in the future.
Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/19
Sarah Sydra Anissa Faraoun, who holds a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Human Sciences, recently completed a three-week internship at the UN Office in Geneva through U.P.I.C.E., under the mentorship of Ambassador David Fernández Puyana. Raised in a diplomatic household, Faraoun found the UN’s atmosphere both welcoming and intellectually vibrant. She was particularly struck by a decolonization conference and a high-level session on Israel-Iran tensions—moments that underscored the weight of global diplomacy.
While not actively participating in protests, she witnessed peaceful demonstrations and came away convinced that young voices are too often sidelined in international affairs. A passionate advocate for diplomacy and global engagement, she admires the work of Pascal Boniface and draws inspiration from literature on personal development. As UN budget cuts loom, she’s especially attuned to the uncertain future of unpaid internships and the accessibility of such opportunities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you walk us through your personal and academic background? What drew you to the United Nations, and how did you secure this internship opportunity?
Sarah Sydra Anissa Faraoun: I currently hold a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Human Sciences. As part of the graduation requirements for my degree, I was required to complete a three-week internship, totaling 90 to 105 hours. I was fortunate to undertake this internship at the United Nations Office in Geneva, in collaboration with U.P.I.C.E. (Unión de Promoción de la Identidad y Cultura Española), thanks to the support of Ambassador David Fernández Puyana. The internship lasted three weeks.
Jacobsen: Do you come from a family with a history in diplomacy or international affairs?
Faraoun: Not specifically with the United Nations, but I have always been in a diplomatic environment thanks to my parents, who are both Algerian diplomats. My father served in administrative posts in Paris, Tunisia, and Brussels. I was born in Tunisia and lived there for four years. We then moved back to Algeria for two years before relocating to Brussels for five years. Later, my father was again posted to Paris. Currently, my mother is serving as a consul in Grenoble, France, and my father is the Director General of Finance at the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Growing up in this environment has constantly exposed me to international diplomacy and enriched my understanding of global affairs.
Jacobsen: Having spent nearly three weeks immersed in the UN’s Geneva operations, what patterns or dynamics have stood out to you—whether in the formal sessions or the day-to-day environment?
Faraoun: Yes, I just completed my internship at the United Nations. It ended on July 9th and began on June 16th, which aligns with the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, currently taking place at the UN Office in Geneva. One noticeable trend is the collegial and international atmosphere. I found it easy to engage with representatives and meet new people. Everyone is very open and welcoming, even with the cultural and linguistic differences we all bring to the table.
Jacobsen: Were there particular moments during the Human Rights Council or related events that left a lasting impression on you?
Faraoun: Yes, one moment that stood out was a session discussing the current tensions in the Middle East, particularly regarding the situation involving Israel and Iran. A high-level representative delivered a speech that drew significant attention from delegates and attendees. It was a moment that underscored the gravity of the geopolitical issues discussed at the UN and left a lasting impression on me.
Jacobsen: Did any specific speeches resonate with you—either for their content, delivery, or the issues they spotlighted?
Faraoun: Speeches that stuck with me? The first one I remember was during a side event—a conference on decolonization. It focused primarily on the Sahrawi people. We had the opportunity to hear from a lawyer, a professor, the ambassador of Tanzania, I believe, and an activist. It was the activist’s speech that left the most profound impression on me. She shared that her husband had been imprisoned for ten years. Her testimony was incredibly moving. That was one of the speeches that resonated with me the most. There were others during different conferences. I would also say that it was deeply impactful when speakers addressed topics such as the right to education for women and human rights in Afghanistan.
Jacobsen: On my way to the UN, I came across a one-person protest. Have you noticed any larger or more significant demonstrations, either near the UN complex or elsewhere in Geneva? Or has the atmosphere remained largely calm?
Faraoun: By the way, I was invited to participate in one. Representatives from various associations encourage participation. However, I did not have the chance to join or fully witness a demonstration myself. I did pass by several protests that were held in front of the Palace of Nations. They were relatively calm.
Interestingly, the ambassador shared some information with me—not quite an anecdote, but a fact—about the fountains located directly in front of the palace. They are designed to prevent mass gatherings, helping to limit and control the size of demonstrations. So, it is good to know that this feature serves a purpose in maintaining order.
Jacobsen: From your vantage point, how would you characterize the way disagreements are handled between high-level international representatives during proceedings at the UN in Geneva?
Faraoun: Disagreements are generally handled quite diplomatically. Yes, they are addressed respectfully and with decorum. The key is always to seek a resolution to the issues at hand. That is the essence of diplomacy.
Currently, I am looking forward to an event primarily organized by Algeria, which will take place tomorrow—Friday, June 27th—from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. at Place des Juges Femmes, within the Algerian delegation. As an Algerian myself, I feel directly involved and eager to hear what will be discussed, what ideas will be presented, and what concerns will be raised.
Jacobsen: The UN is facing a budget shortfall, which has already led to cuts across various programs. Without getting into the politics behind it, what do you think the implications might be for internships, volunteer roles, and job opportunities for young people seeking a future in international work?
Faraoun: It could affect future internship opportunities. For example, in my situation, I am not paid. Therefore, I believe that for unpaid internships, the impact may not be significant—as long as the internship remains unpaid, opportunities may still be available.
Jacobsen: Over the past few weeks, what kinds of comments, concerns, or reflections have you heard from other participants or observers?
Faraoun: I have not necessarily heard frequent comments. It was quite varied. Opinions differ—so yes, quite varied. I do not have any particular frequent comments that come to mind.
Jacobsen: Do you have any favorite quotes that speak to internationalism, justice, or peace—words that have guided or inspired you during your time here?
Faraoun: A favourite quote? I am thinking…I am trying to recall the books I have had the opportunity to read.
Jacobsen: I keep returning to Gandhi’s legacy every time I pass by that statue. Does that kind of symbolism resonate with you?
Faraoun: There is one. She is in one of my books, but I do not want to say anything inaccurate.
I tend to focus more on personal development books—those related to psychology and inner growth. Therefore, it is not directly related to the internship I am currently undertaking. However, I am also very interested in books on international relations, human rights, and geopolitics.
I like Pascal Boniface; his writing interests me a lot. I have had the opportunity to read several of his works. I am not writing any books at the moment, but it has always been a project that interests me—perhaps in the future, when I have gained more experience. I am currently reading The Man Who Wanted to Be Happy by Laurent Gounelle. So again, it is more focused on individual and inner development.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Faraoun: You are welcome.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Ross Rosenberg is an internationally recognized authority on codependency, narcissistic abuse, and trauma recovery. As the CEO and founder of the Self-Love Recovery Institute, he has become a trusted voice in mental health circles—an in-demand therapist, speaker, and expert witness. His breakout book, The Human Magnet Syndrome, has sold over 190,000 copies and been translated into 12 languages. In his latest work, Codependency Cure, Rosenberg introduces the concept of Self-Love Deficit Disorder (SLDD), a reframing of traditional views on codependency that blends clinical insight with accessible guidance.
With decades of clinical and teaching experience, Rosenberg’s work offers a vital bridge between psychological theory and real-world application, helping individuals escape toxic relational patterns and reclaim a sense of self-worth. In this wide-ranging conversation with journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosenberg examines the volatile intersection of narcissism, codependency, and politics. He argues that narcissistic traits—particularly covert narcissism—can offer distinct advantages in political life, enabling candidates to manipulate public perception and prey on voter insecurities.
Rosenberg connects SLDD to a broader vulnerability among citizens to propaganda, fear-driven politics, and cult-like political loyalty. He warns that the psychological spectacle of modern politics, amplified by social media and disinformation, erodes democratic resilience. To counter this, he calls for greater civic awareness, historical perspective, and psychological literacy as essential tools for recognizing manipulative leadership and safeguarding democratic integrity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ross, thank you for joining me today. Hello from Reykjavik.
Ross Rosenberg: Scott, it’s great to talk to you again. We’ve had many conversations.
Jacobsen: Today, we’re going to be focusing on politics, self-love deficit disorder, and narcissism. If you were to apply these analyses of individual psychology, how would you fit them into the American political system?
Rosenberg: Wow, that’s a really big question. So, let me unpack what you just asked. So, you want to know how my ideas of codependency or self-love deficit disorder, the human magnet syndrome, and narcissism. People who follow me understand that the human magnet syndrome states that codependents are reflexively attracted to narcissists, and narcissists are attracted to codependents because they’re inversely opposite. Their personalities match with each other. How do my human magnet syndrome and other related ideas relate to politics? Well, that’s a big question. I look at politics as a business and a profession, and like all businesses and professions, the very best succeed and rise to the top. Those who cannot succeed, who lack the same talent, or who cannot find a way to meet and surpass their goals tend to struggle. And so, politics, by its nature, I define it as a job where you represent your constituents in a governmental position.
You speak for them, you advocate for them while representing the country, the city, the jurisdiction, the area that you come from, and you represent that. A politician must be selected and possess a certain personality trait, and none of them are mutually exclusive. None of them is selfless. All successful politicians must figure out a way to make themselves appear attractive, to be seen as the person who will represent them and stand up for them. Therefore, they must create a persona that aligns with what they believe their constituents want and one that is more appealing than those of their competitors running for election. In essence, begin with narcissism, a self-centered approach to life where you think about yourself more than the needs of others. It helps in politics because if you’re going to be elected, you have to make everyone aware of who you are and what you stand for. Well, that sounds narcissistic.
Jacobsen: Another aspect of adopting a persona is presenting yourself as something you’re not—essentially, a kind of fabrication. How does this contribute to the construction of a false self?
Rosenberg: That is very dismaying and very upsetting for me and, of course, other people. It is endemic in politics that if you’re going to win an election, you have to figure out a way to present yourself in a manner, in a fashion, that resonates with the people that you want to vote for you. You must continually reinvent yourself as a person who stands for and advocates for specific issues. And these issues change, devolving and evolving, so you have to keep changing yourself. And the person who does that well and keeps tabs on the pulse of their constituents, the people who are going to elect them, is going to get elected. And because what is important to Americans, Canadians, and whoever is listening to this podcast or YouTube video, it changes. It changes generationally. It changes culturally. It changes historically. So, politicians have to keep changing.
Suppose you’re a person with a set of ideas and morals, and you have a specific vision that remains consistent throughout your lifetime. In that case, you won’t get elected because people’s ideas, needs, and wants change. Therefore, the person who can be malleable and change themselves, create or recreate their persona, and conveniently adjust their beliefs or lack thereof to match what they believe the voters want requires a certain personality type. And I don’t think it’s healthy. It’s narcissistic, and it’s very sad because these are the people who win elections.
Jacobsen: In the U.S., we often divide people into conservatives and liberals. Are there consistent personality traits that tend to align with either group?
Rosenberg: If we look at politics and we break down what is a liberal, what is a Democrat, or we break down what is a conservative, what is a Republican, and we go to what used to be the general ideas, the general descriptions, is that Republicans and conservatives represented big business. They wanted less government interference. They believe that if you are left alone, the forces of the economy drive the country to success and comfort. If there’s too much government oversight and regulation, it becomes too bureaucratic and harmful to the creative process, which not only creates businesses but also businesses that create jobs, which in turn create money and spending, and this whole idea of financial success or the trickle-down theory.
By the way, I don’t have a political science background, but that is what I understand as Republican and conservative, as it used to be. Now, let’s look at liberals and Democrats. They believe that the government has a responsibility to all people, whether they’re homeless, poor, mentally ill, independent of colour, or sexual orientation. It’s a very open philosophy that emphasizes the importance of taking care of one another. And because it is so easy for humans and local jurisdictions, cities, states, and governments to overlook this, they create programs and laws that are inclusive and consider people who are disenfranchised. And they believe that government programmes have to be created. People must be responsible for these programs so that they work and help those who can’t otherwise represent themselves and achieve success.
Suppose you can accept this basic explanation of Democrats, liberals, and conservative Republicans. In that case, I have tried my best not to speak about them qualitatively differently. However, if you look at these two, you don’t see them as bad but rather as different ideas. I read this in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s book Cosmic Perspectives or something similar. And in this book, it just blew me away. He said Democrats and Republicans have a lot in common, but we never talk about it.
But I’m talking about differences. And if we talk about those differences, a person who takes care of others, who sacrifices themselves to help other people, not necessarily codependent, that’s more pathological, is going to line up with liberal ideology and politics or consider themselves a Democrat.
A more self-centred person believes the world is better if everyone takes care of themselves and believes that is how we solve problems. We take care of our communities. We take care of our families. That will align with the Republican or conservative ideology. So, I believe that in extremes, now that we’re looking at extremes, the extreme person who gives everything and doesn’t take much for themselves is codependent. Well, the extreme of someone who takes everything and it’s completely all about themselves, well, that’s pathologically narcissistic. This is essentially my relationship compatibility continuum that I talk about in my Human Magnet Syndrome book, where I discuss codependence and pathological narcissism regarding the distribution of love, respect, and caring. Codependence, give it all away; pathological narcissists take it.
So if you accept my explanation about liberals and conservatives as far as how they see the world and what they believe how government can function, which is not dysfunctional, well, then I’m asking the viewers or listeners to accept, well, in the most dysfunctional sense, the most self-orientated are going to be the pathological narcissist and the most selfless orientated are going to be codependents. And in politics, pathologically narcissistic people do much, much better in getting elected than any person.
It is a valuable asset, which sounds terrible because what I’m saying is a personality disorder, which is a horrible thing for people, let alone anyone that’s in a relationship with them; that becomes a benefit for the politician because it allows them without much empathy, without much inner turmoil, cognitive dissonance to mould themselves and shape themselves in any form possible to get elected, not feel bad about it and covertly try to represent your constituents in a beneficent, caring, decent way. But behind the scenes, they’re just about themselves.
Those people get elected because they have it’s a horrible paradox; they have the necessary pathological skillset to beat other people and to figure out ways to crush the other side while getting other people to like them and to vote for them. And by the way, this goes on both sides of the aisle. You can be a pathological narcissist and be a liberal. You can be a pathological narcissist and be a conservative. As much as I say liberal politics aligns with people who are more orientated and conservative politics is more self-orientated, the person who has a personality disorder gets to invent themselves. And that’s why I believe the term covert narcissism is a very important term when we understand politics and politicians.
Jacobsen: In politics, we have leaders, followers, and movements made up of both. How do tactics like fear, loyalty tests, and emotional manipulation within these movements reflect the psychological dynamics of narcissistic abuse or codependency?
Rosenberg: If we look at the history of humanity, I look at it as humans, by their very nature, are very selfish, territorial, and warmongering. Let’s think of that and go back as far as we can to the furthest history we have humans as homo sapiens. We’ve been around for approximately 200,000 years. Still, modern humans can be traced back around 20,000 years, and written history begins about 10,000 years ago. From the very beginning of any historical representation of humans, whether it’s cave paintings or actual writings by the Sumerians in cuneiform, I believe that we started wars and people conquered. There were constant kings’ fights. It is human nature. I had a teacher once who joked that a few million years from now, if aliens discover Earth after we wipe each other out and the world out, they’ll find archaeological remnants of humans and try to figure them out. They’re going to go; what’s wrong with these people? They fought all the time. They kept killing each other.
Well, if you accept that as basic human nature and that the part about loving and taking care of each other is an evolution of that, that is also a part of human nature, but it’s not as strong, and it has less power to it, and it cannot ever beat the dominant, narcissistic, controlling, power-hungry forces in the world. And that is why these benevolent figures in society, who represent humanity, love, and caretaking, are upheld. We celebrate them, but they never really stick around for a while. They get assassinated. They get toppled. Something happens, and they become corrupt.
So if we understand that the forces in the world are more geared towards domination and control, the type of person who’s going to be successful at that, and I neutrally use successful kind of, success is not positive, are going to be people that are selfish, self-centred, manipulative, who are covert narcissists or malignant narcissists who can shape themselves and get masses of people to believe that they represent them. They want to stand up for them. They aim to lead them and establish a concept of the mother country, the father country, the motherland, and the fatherland. And whether you’re Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Gaddafi, Castro, or we go through all of these despots, these horrible humans who took control of their countries, they began by getting people to like them and support them.
How do you do that? Well, you have to be a covert narcissist, which is a narcissistic personality disorder and sociopath, or you have to be a sociopath, or what we call a malignant narcissist, which is a combination of narcissism, sociopathy, and paranoia. So sadly, these pathological traits give people the power and strength to be successful in politics or whatever it takes to rule or dominate people and countries. That’s how I think it fits in with the whole idea of politics, narcissism, and codependency. It’s a lot to think about.
Jacobsen: How might citizens with SLDD traits be more vulnerable to political disinformation, propaganda, or even cult-like political allegiance?
Rosenberg: Just to be fair, I think the people who are susceptible to propaganda are independent of their orientation or codependency, and can also be self-oriented or narcissistic. All people, regardless of their background or type, are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda because everyone has ideas about what they want in a government or what they need from it. And the narcissist politician, In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, which is a great book by George Simon, who coined that term, well, if they can fool you and become the person that you believe represents them, well, they’re going to vote with you. That applies to all aspects of my relationship compatibility continuum.
Jacobsen: You’ve suggested that individuals with certain personality disorders often succeed in political contests. What psychological warning signs should the public—not just constituents—watch for when assessing political leaders?
Rosenberg: The warning signs are not heeded. People want so badly to have someone protect them and represent them. And politicians are so good at activating wounds in a way that gets people to understand how much they’re hurt and say, “Well, I represent you. I will stand up for you.” And in a perfect sense, with a hypothetical, perfectly healthy politician, they’re going to say the same thing. “This isn’t good. I represent good; vote for me, and I will help you.” Well, the narcissists are going to say the same thing. “This is what I will do to help you: good, bad, or otherwise.” The necessary discernment is to gather historical information about this person and their record.
Voting for or upholding issues or promises they have made is crucial for discerning the difference between promises and follow-through, as well as their consistency. Because politicians continually reinvent themselves, and yes, they might say, “I stand for this, and I’m going to make sure that I vote for it and get it passed if elected,” and they might do so. But what were they, say, five years ago, if they were a politician? Did they have the same belief set? And that’s where you have to do your homework. And very few people want to do that. And that’s very sad, but it’s the truth. Very few people want to do the historical digging to find out who this person is, what their central beliefs are, and how consistently they pursue those beliefs in their job, compared to someone who keeps shifting and changing based on what they believe people want, so that they can get elected.
Jacobsen: Do you think social media has intensified these political dynamics? In other words, are we seeing age-old patterns in human behavior and political organization—only now amplified by the reach and speed of digital platforms?
Rosenberg: Absolutely. When I wrote the second edition of The Human Magnet Syndrome, I was upset about how the 2016 election unfolded, and it impacted a chapter I had written. And my publisher gave me some great advice, and he said, “The world doesn’t want you to talk about politics, Ross. They want you to talk about psychology.” And so, we took that part out of the book. However, my research revealed that social media has been instrumental in spreading information, disinformation, and propaganda in every election since 2016. There are countries such as China, Iran, and Russia that invest millions, millions, and millions of dollars in creating disinformation through social media.
It was so intense and grandly organized that, according to the research I saw, they stated that if they could have eliminated the interference from other international players or countries, the election would have had a different outcome. That’s important because if a powerful country believes that different US presidents will be more beneficial to them. They can sway the American public by 2% or 3% through disinformation on social media, then that can significantly alter the election’s outcome. So, absolutely, 100%. Social media is a primary source of information for many people.
And unfortunately, a significant percentage of these people, although not a majority, do not fact-check. And that is sad. Millions of people will believe what they are told and will not seek countervailing information or evidence to either prove or disprove it. And most people, especially during the 2016 election and the subsequent election, obtained their political information from social media sources.
Jacobsen: Anything you would like to add?
Rosenberg: I’m passionate about it, but I rarely talk about it because I know that if people believe that one person is better than the other, you know, one political group is better than the other, people don’t change their minds. If you go to a party and a Christian wants to get a Jew to change their religion, it never happens. A Republican will never get a Democrat to change their ideas. It just doesn’t happen. If someone holds these beliefs, whether it’s in religion, philosophy, or politics, they’re unlikely to budge because of what one person says. I do a lot better in my life by just keeping my opinions to myself. But you, my friend, you’re a troublemaker. So, I hope the people who are listening to this hear a balanced approach that is neither anti-Republican conservative nor anti-Democrat liberal, but more of an explanation of how narcissism or pathological narcissism impacts our politics and why that’s not good for humankind.
Jacobsen: Ross, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise.
Rosenberg: And everyone, this guy’s smart, young, ambitious, and he will go wherever he needs to go to get information. You’re now in Reykjavik, Iceland. Didn’t you go to Ukraine to research the Russian-Ukrainian war? You’ve got a lot of courage, my friend.
Jacobsen: I went to Ukraine twice. The second book project is done. I have to format it and publish it. So, that’s also upcoming.
Rosenberg: Thank you, Scott. The world needs people like you. And thank you for this interview. And it helps people understand politics or people in general. So, 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): Dr. Caroline Fleck
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01
Article excerpt: Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Caroline Fleck, PhD, a licensed psychologist, clinical instructor at Stanford University, and highly sought-after business consultant. She holds a doctorate in psychology and neuroscience from Duke University and a BA in English and psychology from the University of Michigan.She combines academic rigour with practical experience and is renowned for her expertise in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Caroline has transformed lives by empowering individuals to build stronger relationships and foster self-compassion. Her groundbreaking book, Validation, distills complex psychological principles into actionable skills that create lasting change in both personal and professional realms.
Caroline innovates, educates, and inspires globally—and occasionally does interviews with Canadians. Let’s get started with an overview question. What inspired you to write Validation? And can you share some of your journeys in getting Validation on bookshelves and grounding it in your expertise?Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Aristotle / Alexander
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/16
Award-winning playwright and performer Alex Lyras brings ancient philosophy to the modern stage in Aristotle/Alexander, a compelling production presented by the Center for Inquiry in Los Angeles. The play dramatizes the formative relationship between Aristotle and a young Alexander the Great, exploring themes of mentorship, ethics, and political ambition. Through a deep philosophical lineage—from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle—Lyras contrasts ideals with pragmatism and reason with conquest. Rooted in historical depth yet charged with modern relevance, Aristotle/Alexander invites audiences to reflect on the fragility of democracy, the pursuit of legacy, and the moral challenges of leadership, both then and now.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are discussing the work of Alex Lyras—an award-winning playwright, director, and performer known for creating intellectually rich, emotionally resonant solo performances that explore themes of identity, philosophy, and sociopolitical complexity.
His most recent production, Aristotle/Alexander, presented in collaboration with the Center for Inquiry in Los Angeles, dramatizes a speculative and historically inspired encounter between the philosopher Aristotle and his young pupil, Alexander the Great. The play examines enduring political and ethical dilemmas, framed through the lens of mentorship and the shaping of a future world conqueror.
Lyras’s work is acclaimed for its combination of depth, humor, and sharp commentary on the fragility of democracy and the abuse of power. A longtime presence in the Los Angeles and New York theatre scenes, Lyras brings a unique voice to contemporary playwriting, skillfully blending classical ideas with urgent modern questions.
There are many stories about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and the lineage of philosophical teaching that come down to us from antiquity. What inspired you to dramatize the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great?
Alex Lyras: I was surprised this story hadn’t been dramatized in greater depth. We’ve all heard about how Aristotle tutored Alexander, but it’s rarely explored dramatically or philosophically in a sustainable way. Historical fiction often mentions it in passing, but writers may avoid digging into the philosophy because it’s dense and complex.
I studied philosophy at Bucknell University and have read it throughout my life. I kept returning to this unique setup: the world’s most brilliant philosopher paired with the world’s most ambitious military mind. It’s a remarkable relationship—rooted in education and power—and yet no one seemed to be exploring it deeply on stage.
I’ve always been interested in developmental narratives, especially early formation stories. When I started researching, I didn’t find much that dramatized their relationship with nuance or complexity. I realized this was not only philosophically fertile ground but also a compelling theatrical concept. I imagined Aristotle/Alexander as a playbill title—something you might see at Lincoln Center or a major repertory theatre. It felt like the kind of title that would grab people: two names, one relationship, and centuries of tension.
So, it was a quick sell. What happens when the greatest mind in philosophy is charged with educating the most significant figure in military history? That tension—between intellect and ambition, reason and conquest—was irresistible.
Jacobsen: What stood out to you in the narratives about Aristotle? What about Alexander the Great? Did you compare their ideas or trajectories with those of Plato or Socrates to understand how those philosophical lineages evolved into the narrative you’ve created?
Lyras: The play tackles these questions gradually. How Plato created the character of Socrates in his dialogues. How Aristotle broke from Platonic Idealism and leaned more into empirical science. And how it all culminated—for better or worse—in Alexander’s development during his all-too-brief reign. The philosophical throughline contrasts ideals and pragmatism, ethics and empire, reason and domination. All of that informs the dramatic tension in the play.
Jacobsen: What stood out to you about Aristotle?
Lyras: Aristotle was originally from the north of Greece. Ancient Stagira is not far from ancient Macedonia—basically where Thessaloniki is today. So, he was a northerner who moved to Athens and was a bit of an outsider. But he was formidable. They called him “the brain” when he was studying at Plato’s Academy—everyone recognized his brilliance. He quickly rose to prominence and became Plato’s star student.
But after Plato died, politics took over, and Aristotle was passed over to lead the Academy. Instead, it was handed to Plato’s nephew, Speusippus. Nepotism is also an ancient tradition. After being snubbed, Aristotle left Athens and began doing independent research on the island of Lesbos, which he likely wanted to do anyway. What struck me is that someone so universally recognized as a genius did not receive what many would consider his just reward. That moment in itself is dramatically compelling. You’re not meeting him at his height—you’re meeting him in a moment of rejection and transition.
He returns to Macedonia, which is… nothing like Athens, let’s just put it that way. While Athens was in political decline, it remained Greece’s cultural and intellectual heart—“the school of Greece.” Even during the Roman period, people still went to Athens to study philosophy, sculpture, and architecture. But Aristotle chose to leave.
And then there’s Alexander—just 13 years old when they crossed paths. Their mentorship lasted until Alexander was about 16. You’re not going to get a juicier moment for a character study: a teenager who is, in some ways, significantly entitled but also intelligent and cultured, growing up as a prince in a court that received scholars, emissaries, and artists. That dynamic—the philosopher in exile and the royal prodigy—creates a powerful dramatic conflict.
Jacobsen: How did you think about Socrates and Plato in the context of this? Did you find meaningful philosophical contrasts?
Lyras: Definitely. You have to contextualize it and recognize that Aristotle was a very different kind of thinker. Plato is theoretical—he’s concerned with ideal forms and metaphysical structures. He’s talking about “the Good,” the cave metaphor, the “Divided Line,” and other abstract ideals. These concepts are foundational for ethics.
But when you get to Aristotle, suddenly we’re in the realm of practical ethics. He’s empirical as opposed to conceptual. He collects fifty constitutions from various city-states and begins comparing them to understand how laws are written and how societies function. He starts categorizing, organizing, and trying to make sense of the world through observation. He invents taxonomy to keep his extensive biological research organized. Then he develops logic—the foundations of reasoning—in order to explain it all rationally to others. He didn’t want to speculate about ideas in general; he aspired to analyze them systematically. Analysis means “unravelling” in Ancient Greek. I love that…
Jacobsen: Was that the origin of science as we think of it today?
Lyras: In many ways, yes. Aristotle laid the groundwork for empirical reasoning. People were still steeped in mythology at that time—offering sacrifices and libations to the gods. Plato was engaged in esoteric theory. Aristotle, by contrast, grounded philosophy in causality. He introduced a method of questioning a vast number of subjects, which became the foundation for scientific inquiry for the next thousand years.
Jacobsen: Aristotle wanted evidence and proof for what constitutes good ethical behavior, correct?
Lyras: In a way, yes. You’re dealing with someone who’s no longer just standing on the Pnyx—the hill in Athens where citizens gave public speeches—trying to persuade people rhetorically. That wasn’t his game. He wasn’t interested in persuasion for its own sake. He aimed to gather evidence, establish causal relationships, and leave behind a systematic body of work for others to study—especially those who hadn’t studied directly at his school.
He was also a prolific writer. Most of what we have today from Aristotle are compiled lecture notes or student transcriptions, but they’ve endured because he took the time to be methodical in his thinking. That’s a legacy of structure.
Jacobsen: Teacher-student dynamics can vary widely. How do you think Aristotle saw Alexander? How did Alexander see Aristotle? And what does that tell us about their leadership styles and eventual legacies?
Lyras: That’s a loaded question, because we don’t know for sure. But there’s plenty of material out there to speculate with some confidence.
Right before Aristotle received the invitation from King Philip II to tutor his son Alexander, he was living on the island of Lesbos, doing detailed marine biological research. Athens had become so factionalized and critical of competing schools of philosophy that he essentially retreated from it. On Lesbos, he created a kind of proto-laboratory where he could work in peace. He was in a stage of inductive reasoning—collecting data and making observations to draw hypotheses.
That contrast is essential. In logic, we often talk about deductive reasoning, where we move from a general premise to a conclusion. But Aristotle, particularly in his biological work, practiced inductive reasoning—moving from observation to hypothesis. In the play, I describe this period as one of youthful optimism. He was probably about 40—middle-aged by ancient standards—but entering a fertile phase of intellectual maturity.
He was also left alone long enough to do the work without constant criticism, which must have been life-affirming. Then he goes to Macedonia, which, intellectually, was years behind Athens.
Jacobsen: So, how does this relate to leadership?
Lyras: It’s central. Aristotle was stepping into a new phase of leadership himself—becoming not just a transmitter of inherited philosophy but an originator of his own system. What he was doing was totally foreign to most people. They didn’t understand it. Many thought his thinking was scattered—jumping from astronomy to marine biology to ethics and politics. They wrongly believed you had to be an expert in one thing. But one of my favorite quotes from Aristotle, to paraphrase, is: “Do we call the bee scattered, for landing on all flowers and sipping the best from each?”
Aristotle’s polymathic nature was a strength, not a weakness. His leadership—pedagogically speaking—was about breadth and synthesis. On the other hand, Alexander was raised in a world of hierarchy, military discipline, and brutal conquest. So what happens when a synthetic, reflective thinker teaches a brilliant, ambitious prince? That tension is core to the drama.
Jacobsen: So this is the beginning of Aristotle’s creation of what could be considered the first university—an institution where one could study a wide range of subjects.
Lyras: Yes, exactly. It’s the early model for what we now call a university—comprehensive, interdisciplinary education. Aristotle began laying the foundation for this kind of broad intellectual inquiry. The Greek word for university is πανεπιστήμιο (pan-episteme), which literally means “across knowledge.”
As for Alexander, I push the envelope a bit in the play, portraying him as highly entitled and wildly arrogant. But in all likelihood, he was more complex than that—certainly more sophisticated than the average adolescent. His father, King Philip II, had already begun expanding Macedon into an empire and was deeply invested in giving Alexander the intellectual polish he himself never had.
Philip invited leading thinkers and artists to the Macedonian court. Euripides had been brought north under earlier kings to write for the court. Herodotus also visited. Other prominent Athenians were welcomed and treated like royalty. So Alexander grew up immersed in culture and surrounded by the intellectual energy of Athens and beyond.
Militarily, he witnessed Philip’s adaptive strategies—sometimes diplomatic, sometimes forceful. So Alexander came of age shaped by a variety of influences, which helped form both his vision and his leadership style.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of exercises we did in drama class—like setting a Shakespearean play in the 1950s or another specific era. The context changes, but the core dynamics remain powerful. You’re doing something similar: starting from an ancient historical premise and teasing out its modern relevance. How do you ensure—although it almost seems inevitable—that narratives like this stay relevant, especially the lesser-known ones?
Lyras: That’s a great question. Honestly, the more I study the Classics—especially around the rise of Hellenism—the more I see how timeless they are. Even earlier, during Greece’s Golden Age, you find ideas that still resonate today.
I think of that Mark Twain quote: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” That’s exactly what this feels like. The political questions we’re wrestling with now? They were asking them 2,500 years ago.
How do you govern a polis—a city-state? Or today, a nation? Are there different rules for those in power? Do people working for the powerful get special advantages? Is it better for the average citizen to stay disengaged from democracy because they’re overworked or underinformed? Someone juggling three jobs doesn’t have time to study a candidate’s platform. They’re easily manipulated.
This is why Socrates hated democracy. He didn’t trust the average person to make discerning, long-term decisions.
These questions haven’t gone away—they’re cyclical. Plato talks about this in The Republic—around Book VIII. He outlines how democracies begin: idealistic and committed to the common good. But over generations, those who inherit power haven’t earned it through struggle or civic effort. They begin to enjoy the perks of leadership, bureaucracy expands, and power becomes the goal.
Eventually, the next generation becomes even more detached from civic responsibility. The system breaks down, and someone steps in and says, “I’ll take it from here.” That’s when democracy turns into tyranny. It’s a pattern—not limited to ancient Greece, and not exclusive to brutal tyrannies. It’s everywhere. You see it throughout history: in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the French and Russian Revolutions.
What matters is the political philosophy of the person in power. That’s the fulcrum.
And the more accurate I tried to be with the ancient details, the more modern the story felt. The more I focused on what was happening then, the more people said, “You’re talking about today.”
You can read letters from that time and be shocked by how modern they sound. That’s the power of historical drama—it rhymes with the present.
Jacobsen: Let’s add one or two more questions here. Why do you personally think democracies are fragile? And what did some of the ancients, like Aristotle, say about this? Is their view different from modern thinkers?
Lyras: Sure—great question. Democracies are fragile because they’re essentially social contracts. Hobbes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill wrote about this much later, but they were building on ideas already explored by Plato and Aristotle.
A democracy only works when there’s a shared agreement to act in good faith. It depends on cooperation and shared values. When someone enters the system just to gain power, they can begin to hollow it out from the inside. That motive spreads. Soon, everyone in power is focused on personal gain, and that becomes the new social value.
That’s when democracy starts to unravel.
After World War II, and even into the 1950s and ’60s in the U.S., there was a greater sense of collective responsibility—an idea that we were all trying to serve the nation in some way. But greed has always been with us. It’s a persistent part of human nature.
When enough people in power exploit the system, others follow. The public loses faith. And that’s terrifying because democracy is not a guarantee—it’s an idea. It only works if people believe in it. Without that shared belief and commitment to cooperation, it starts to collapse.
Jacobsen: What are some of your favorite quotes from Aristotle or Alexander the Great?
Lyras: Aristotle collected a lot of wisdom, but one that stands out is: “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst.” That captures Aristotle’s belief in civic life. Without law, we descend into chaos. With law and justice, we can rise to something noble.
He also said, “Man is a political animal.” Today we’d say humankind. But the meaning holds—humans are meant to live in community. We’re built for collective life. Our rationality allows us to achieve far more together than alone.
Another one I love: “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” That’s especially relevant in politics. It’s not enough to learn how to win wars or defeat enemies—you have to learn how to govern, how to rebuild, how to unify. That’s a major theme in the play. War is not the end goal. Ruling justly and building a civil society—that’s the legacy.
And of course: “Excellence is never an accident.” Virtue must be trained—just like the sword. In the play, I draw that parallel: You train with a sword, but you must also train your ethics. Acting with integrity is a habit, not an instinct.
One more that feels timely: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” That’s missing from today’s discourse. If someone disagrees with you, they’re instantly the enemy. But Aristotle encouraged open, critical thinking—without fear.
Jacobsen: Any favorite Alexander quotes?
Lyras: Definitely. One of my favorites comes from his obsession with legacy. He lived in the shadow of his father, who had already conquered much of the region. Alexander was driven to outdo him.
He once said: “In the end, when it’s all over, all that matters is what you’ve done. All that matters is what you leave behind.” That captures the core of his ambition. He wanted to be remembered—and he certainly succeeded.
Jacobsen: Alex, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Lyras: It was great to get into it with you. Looking forward to the next one.
—
The show played March 22nd to May 18, 2025 @ Company of Angels in Los Angeles. It is preparing for an Off Broadway run in the near future. More information and a mailing list sign up are available at http://www.aristotlealexander.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): Running Point Capital
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/28
We were interviewed by International Policy Digest and Tobis Fellow writer Scott Douglas Jacobsen, founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal.
Fundamentally, tariffs are about business and people!
“In this discussion, Schulman explores tariffs as both a strategic tool and a double-edged sword—capable of fostering domestic self-sufficiency while potentially stifling competition and innovation over time.
“Citing China’s response to AI chip restrictions, he underscores how tariffs can shape trade negotiations and economic strategy. He also highlights the market’s ability to adapt within one to four quarters, advising investors to position themselves either long or short in specific sectors based on risk tolerance.
“Ultimately, Schulman situates tariffs within the broader framework of economic policy, trade balances, and global market stability—where every action risks provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the world stage.”
QUOTED EXCERPTS
“The reality is that even with the promise of reciprocal tariffs being enacted, they probably won’t affect the prices of goods already in the U.S.—in stores and inventory—so the retail and commercial price adjustments may still be a month or several months away.
“We advise our clients to remember that tariffs typically represent a one-time adjustment to pricing and are only one of many factors influencing corporate economics, employment, stocks, and asset prices.
“While common rhetoric suggests tariffs are inflationary, technically they are import taxes paid by the purchaser, and like other taxes, tend to be deflationary rather than inflationary.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Centre for Heterodox Social Science
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/18
Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) is a distinguished scholar and thought leader whose work explores the intersection of politics, culture, and identity. He is currently a Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and directs the Centre for Heterodox Social Science.
Kaufmann graduated from the University of Western Ontario and earned his Master’s and PhD at the London School of Economics. His academic journey includes positions as a Lecturer at the University of Southampton and Birkbeck, University of London. From 2008 to 2009, he was a stipendiary Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Kaufmann is the author of numerous books, including Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, and Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? His forthcoming book is Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution. He has also authored opinion pieces in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London, Newsweek, National Review, New Statesman, Financial Times, and UnHerd.
Beyond academia, Kaufmann is affiliated with esteemed think tanks and institutions, including the Manhattan Institute, Policy Exchange, the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the University of Austin. His research delves deeply into pressing issues such as immigration, ethnic change, and national identity, illuminating the cultural and psychological drivers behind populist movements. He offers nuanced perspectives on white identity, nationalism, and supremacy, advocating for open and balanced dialogue to mitigate polarization.
In his reflections, Kaufmann has tackled a broad spectrum of topics—from the challenges of modern journalism to the resilience of Ukraine and the pressures facing liberal democracy in an era of suppressed debates. His work underscores the importance of fostering resilient, inclusive discussions as society grapples with complex and often contentious issues.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired you to write Whiteshift in 2018? What are the fundamental value conflicts in these conversations on majority-minority dynamics? Considering the taboos you address, where should such discussions begin?
Eric Kaufmann: The first thing to note is that I’ve studied the intersection of immigration, ethnic change, and national identity since my Master’s degree in 1994. My PhD at the London School of Economics, my first book, examined immigration and ethnic change in the U.S. during its transformation from a predominantly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) country to a majority-white nation that included Catholics and Jews. That’s where it stands today. I was particularly interested in the decline of the WASP phenomenon. My work then covered developments up to around 2004, when Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? and Pat Buchanan gained attention for his political campaigns.
At the time, the big question was: How is it possible that there hasn’t been an anti-immigrant nationalist-populist movement in the U.S.? This topic was of considerable interest in the mid-2000s. It wasn’t until Donald Trump’s campaign that such a movement emerged.
When it happened, many people following these developments said, “There it is.” However, I had already studied and written about these topics for years. Then, of course, the populist moment arrived. In 2014, during the European Parliament elections, we saw the beginning of this shift.
That election marked the emergence of three parties gaining close to 30% of the vote: the Danish People’s Party, the National Front in France, and the UK Independence Party. What started happening around 2014 was an increase in asylum seekers and immigration in Europe, peaking during the migrant crisis in late 2015. This crisis led to the rise of significant populist parties in unexpected places like Sweden and Germany. Later, we saw figures like Matteo Salvini in Italy and the rise of Vox in Spain, along with other movements in Europe. While Italy already had the Northern League, many of these movements were entirely new phenomena.
Meanwhile, Trump emerged as the only one among 17 primary Republican candidates willing to make immigration his signature issue—not just focusing on the border but making immigration central to his platform. That was particularly taboo, even within the Republican Party. Trump’s rhetoric, including inflammatory comments about rapists crossing the border, broke with convention. Brexit followed shortly afterward, and then Trump’s eventual election victory.
This past decade has been pivotal. Since then, we’ve seen the influence of events like COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, which have added new layers to populist and nationalist movements worldwide.
Those events led to a dip because attention shifted from migration to health and the economy. However, migration and related topics are now back and stronger than they have probably ever been. We’ve essentially had a decade of populist movements.
What’s particularly interesting is that economic factors do not easily explain this phenomenon. While there are tens of thousands of academic papers and many books on the subject, my argument has always been that this is fundamentally psychological and cultural, not economic. If we want to explain these dynamics, pointing to financial crises or deindustrialization is inaccurate. These explanations fail to capture the sociological and psychological contrasts between how people perceive white identity versus white nationalism.
Jacobsen: Could you delve into the distinction between white identity and white nationalism? How are they similar, and where do they diverge?
Kaufmann: Absolutely. Let’s clarify the terms because they’re often conflated. Nationalism, broadly speaking, refers to territoriality. For example, the southern U.S. under slavery was not white nationalist because it deliberately maintained a multicultural society, albeit one based on inequality and exploitation. Plantation owners had no desire for the Black population to leave because their economic system depended on enslaved labour.
In contrast, the vision of the northern U.S. during that era leaned toward what could be described as white nationalism. Many in the North supported the idea of “free soil.” Essentially, they argued that enslaved people should be emancipated and then repatriated to Africa. They argued that society could not function without slavery. Still, their vision often involved racial homogeneity rather than coexistence.
This distinction is important: white nationalism is about securing a white ethnostate characterized by homogeneity, whereas white supremacy typically operates within a multicultural society marked by systemic inequality. Multicultural inequality and white nationalism are fundamentally different societal structures.
Jacobsen: How do these distinctions manifest in public discourse across the political spectrum? Are there consistent patterns in how they are debated or misunderstood?
Kaufmann: There’s a tendency, especially in public and political discussions, to lump white identity, white supremacy, and white nationalism together. Each of these concepts is distinct, yet they’re often conflated.
On the cultural left, for instance, there’s a valid critique that pursuing an ethnostate—a racially pure society—is inherently racist. History shows us that such pursuits lead to horrific consequences like ethnic cleansing. That’s a fair and important point.
However, the problem arises when all expressions of white identity are lumped in with white nationalism or white supremacy. White supremacy, for example, is largely a feature of a multiethnic society, where one group dominates others within a system of inequality. This is distinct from white nationalism, which seeks to establish a homogenous ethnostate.
Meanwhile, white identity, at its core, is no different from other racial identities, such as Black identity or Hispanic identity. People identifying with their racial or cultural group isn’t inherently problematic. Yet, it often gets conflated with extremist ideologies, which leads to unnecessary polarization.
Jacobsen: Where do you identify valid points and common misconceptions in these discussions? What nuances often get overlooked?
Kaufmann: A valid point from the cultural left is the recognition that racial purity as a goal is unacceptable and has historically led to atrocities. That’s an important critique. However, on the cultural right, there’s also a valid observation that recognizing white identity doesn’t inherently equate to supporting white nationalism or white supremacy. This distinction often gets lost in broader public discourse, resulting in oversimplification and, in some cases, unjust labeling of individuals or groups.
When you examine the survey data, Ashley Jardina’s book White Identity Politics highlights this dynamic. She found that 45% to 65% of white Americans consider their white identity to be meaningful to some degree. Evidence of this can also be seen in patterns of behaviour, such as whom people choose to marry and where they choose to live. There is clear sorting that takes place. For example, areas that were predominantly white in 2011, where whites make up a significant majority of the population, tend to experience a net increase in their white population. Places like Boise, Idaho, and Portland, Oregon, are examples.
By contrast, areas where whites are a minority—such as Greater Los Angeles or San Francisco—tend to see a net decrease in their white population over time. These patterns hold at a large scale and at the neighbourhood level. The same dynamics are observable in other countries, such as Sweden, Britain, and Canada.
Intermarriage data reflects similar patterns. Take Canada, for instance, which does not share the same historical context as the U.S. In cities like Toronto or Vancouver, where roughly half the population is white—perhaps slightly less now—the rate of marriages crossing racial lines is around 8% to 10%. While this is significant, it’s far below the 50% rate that would occur if people were paired randomly. This suggests that de facto white identity persists, though it’s not inherently abnormal or something to be condemned outright.
Jacobsen: What drives the significance of white identity for some individuals? Is it rooted in cultural, historical, or psychological factors?
Kaufmann: The strongest predictor of the importance of white identity to someone is their attachment to ancestry. For example, suppose someone feels strongly connected to their Italian or Irish heritage. In that case, they are more likely to feel attached to being white than someone who doesn’t feel a strong connection to their ancestry. It’s like an outer layer of identity, similar to how attachment to being Mexican often correlates with attachment to being Hispanic.
Importantly, attachment to white identity is not necessarily associated with hostility toward other groups. Jardina’s book and the psychology literature emphasize that attachment and hatred are separate dispositions. They only overlap in contexts of zero-sum conflict, whether violent or political.
For instance, the American National Election Study shows a clear zero-sum relationship between partisanship: the warmer Republicans feel toward their party, the colder they tend to think toward Democrats. However, regarding racial identity, the data tells a different story. White Americans who feel warmth toward whites on a 0–100 scale are, if anything, slightly warmer toward Black and Hispanic people than whites who feel colder toward their racial group. This isn’t the same zero-sum relationship that we see with political partisanship.
Jacobsen: Why do discussions about white identity so often devolve into toxicity? What structural or cultural forces contribute to this?
Kaufmann: Part of the issue is the conflation of white identity with white nationalism and white supremacy. While there’s some overlap, these are distinct concepts. White identity reflects a sense of connection to one’s racial group, which is no different from the identity seen among Asians or Hispanics. White nationalism, by contrast, seeks to create an ethnostate, and white supremacy involves systemic domination within a multicultural society. These distinctions often get lost, leading to misunderstandings.
It’s also worth noting that not everyone has a strong white identity. Just as not everyone feels deeply connected to their extended family, not all white people find their racial identity meaningful. However, it’s not necessarily unhealthy or harmful for those who do.
Jacobsen: The tension between individual and group identity seems pivotal here. People experience varying levels of warmth or detachment toward their own group or others, and these feelings often depend on context and personality. While many discussions focus on group dynamics, individual experiences frequently deviate from collective narratives. In diverse, liberal societies, how do individuals typically reconcile the tensions between personal and collective identities?
Kaufmann: That’s a fascinating question. There’s a strong narrative around colour blindness, for example, but it has different interpretations. On the one hand, colour blindness can mean treating people equally, regardless of their skin colour, which aligns with the classical liberal ideal of equal treatment. On the other hand, if colour blindness means ignoring or discouraging identification with a racial or ethnic group, it becomes problematic. Some people will feel strongly connected to their group identity, while others won’t, and neither should be stigmatized.
Of course, any of these ideas that are taken to an extreme can become harmful. When discussing individual identity, we need to clarify what we mean. Does it refer to personal achievements, character traits, or something else? One challenge with focusing solely on achievements is that not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. There needs to be space for individuals who don’t have conventional achievements, such as career success, educational attainment, or high income.
People with fewer “achieved” identities often gravitate toward “ascribed” identities—such as ethnicity, religion, or nationality. This is a well-documented phenomenon in social identity theory and is entirely legitimate. Not everyone can be defined by achievements, and that’s okay.
Jacobsen: How does this dialogue intersect with broader philosophical perspectives on identity? Do you see a link to existential or ethical considerations?
Kaufmann: There’s an interesting debate in political philosophy about what constitutes true individuality. Some argue that to truly be yourself, you need to strip away the attachments imposed on you at birth, such as ethnicity, religion, or cultural traditions, and find your authentic self through introspection. This is similar to certain Buddhist or Cartesian ideals of enlightenment.
In contrast, thinkers like Charles Taylor emphasize the importance of community. He argues that groups—whether chosen or inherited—play a crucial role in shaping who we are. Engaging with intergenerational communities, such as those based on religion, nationality, or ethnicity, can enrich our sense of identity. Taylor’s communitarian perspective suggests that breaking entirely from these connections can lead to a poorer existence, while engaging with them adds depth and meaning to our lives.
Of course, there’s a balance to be struck. Being completely subsumed by group identity can stifle individuality, but engaging with chosen or inherited communities can enhance it. Communitarians would argue that group affiliations contribute to, rather than detract from, individuality.
Jacobsen: This theme aligns closely with humanist principles, as outlined in the Amsterdam Declarations of 1972, 2002, and 2022. These declarations emphasize respect for the individual’s right to self-determination while acknowledging the necessity of social responsibility. How does this perspective inform your thinking?
Kaufmann: Individual and collective identity interact; we can’t escape that dynamic. Humans naturally seek rooted, multi-generational identities through religion, nationality, or other affiliations. Denying this aspect of human nature doesn’t align with the way many people experience life.
Jacobsen: Humanist philosophy celebrates the balance between individual autonomy and communal connection, suggesting that both are vital for a meaningful existence. How do you see this duality influencing contemporary identity debates?
Kaufmann: We must recognize that there are trade-offs. Striking the right balance between individuality and collective identity involves costs, and different people and societies navigate this balance differently.
The more you move toward collective identity, the more there may be costs in terms of individuality, and people will navigate that balance differently. I think one key issue is that while it’s respected for minority groups to have collective identities and attachments, there has been a tendency to stigmatize majority group attachments. I wouldn’t call it outright censorship, but expressing a majority attachment is more politically incorrect. That creates a problem because there’s social pressure against majority identities. This pressure either drives those identities underground or stokes resentment among individuals who strongly connect to their majority identity.
This is not a significant issue for people with a low level of attachment to their group identity. But for those with a strong sense of group identity, this can lead to frustration. This is not primarily about metropolitan versus rural divides, as David Goodhart explores in his book The Road to Somewhere. Nor is it simply about wealth or class divides.
When you look at the data, these external factors, such as wealth or whether someone lives in a rural or urban area, only explain a small proportion of whether they identify with their ethnic group or align with progressive politics. For example, white working-class individuals living in London were just as likely to vote for Brexit as their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. The perception that London is a pro-European Union oasis is more about its demographic composition—being younger, highly educated, and more ethnically diverse—than the city itself. When you compare similar groups, the differences diminish significantly.
There’s also been an overemphasis on the sociological context of these issues. The core drivers are psychological and individual. Research suggests that dispositions toward identity are one-third to one-half heritable. This means that sociological factors, while important, are often exaggerated in discussions about group identity and political behaviour. Yes, education and the rural-urban divide correlate with populist voting. Still, the differences are not as stark as some narratives suggest. For example, London might see nearly 40% voting to leave the EU, while rural Northern Britain might approach 60%. This is a difference, but it’s not the absolute divide of 0% versus 100% that some might imagine.
Jacobsen: Do you believe conversations about ethnicity, white identity, and minority identity risk fueling racialist politics? How can we address the toxicity of political culture, particularly when social media amplifies these issues?
Kaufmann: Those are critical questions. First, discussing these identities does carry a risk of playing into racialist politics. However, the real question is whether allowing people to discuss these topics openly is more likely to lead to such politics than trying to suppress the conversation. Suppression can often backfire, driving these sentiments underground and creating a sense of grievance among those who feel their perspectives are being silenced.
Second, addressing the toxic elements of political culture requires consistency. If we are to accept group identity politics for some, it should apply equally to everyone. People who feel the need to attach themselves to their group identity—whether a minority or majority group—should be able to do so without fear of stigmatization.
The question ultimately becomes one of balance: Does creating space for these discussions reduce polarization and resentment, or does it risk exacerbating racialist tendencies? It’s better to create a space where people can discuss identity openly and thoughtfully rather than attempting to shut down the conversation entirely. These issues are complex and subtle, requiring nuanced approaches, particularly in an era where social media often amplifies divisive rhetoric.
I don’t think the people who immediately reach for suppression—whether normative or legal—have the evidence to justify an anti-speech position. For example, I’m not convinced that restricting speech is effective. Allowing freer expression and open debate within mainstream institutions could remove much of the toxicity.
Consider, for instance, the fact that in Germany, it is illegal to question whether the Holocaust happened. In contrast, in the U.S., it is not. Is antisemitism significantly worse in the U.S. than in Germany? I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that claim. Many European countries have similar speech restrictions, but if anything, these measures may promote radicalism.
For example, research by Jacob Aasland Ravndal suggests that when populist right-wing parties perform well electorally, street-level attacks on minorities decrease. For a long time, there was no populist right in Germany. Yet the country routinely experienced attacks on asylum hostels, including attempts to burn them down. This raises the question of whether these movements act as a safety valve. Expression, rather than suppression, may mitigate these issues.
Take Sweden as an example. If mainstream parties had been willing to converse about immigration levels—saying to voters, “Do you want less or more immigration? Here’s why we think more (or less) is a good idea”—there would likely have been no electoral space for the Sweden Democrats. However, because the mainstream parties avoided the topic, the Sweden Democrats became the only ones willing to discuss it, allowing them to rise in prominence. This pattern has played out across Europe, with populist parties emerging as significant players in their political systems.
Jacobsen: Do you think the suppression of open debate on identity-related topics has contributed to the rise of polarizing figures like Donald Trump?
Kaufmann: Absolutely. Suppose other Republican candidates had been willing to address border and immigration issues openly and respectfully. In that case, Trump might not have gained the traction he did. However, because they avoided these topics, Trump—unrestrained by norms—filled the vacuum. This lack of restraint meant he could make inflammatory statements, such as insinuating that Mexicans are rapists, which took the conversation in a toxic direction.
When populists emerge, they often act as loose cannons, disregarding established norms and escalating tensions. Addressing these issues early and within a normative framework could prevent such figures from dominating the discourse.
Jacobsen: What question do you feel is missing from these conversations? What remains an unresolved issue in the discourse?
Kaufmann: The underlying cause of populism’s rise is the West’s ethnic diversification. Immigration serves as the lightning rod for these parties, but the deeper driver is cultural and psychological rather than economic. The widely accepted narrative attributes concerns about immigration to pressures on public services and jobs, but that’s not the primary factor.
The actual driver is that some people feel discomfort with rapid ethnic change. They see the familiar slipping away, perceive differences as disorderly, and perceive changes as a form of loss. If we cannot have open conversations about these underlying drivers, we will continue to miss the root causes and allow these tensions to fester.
That’s a perfectly respectable viewpoint. We want to move toward a position where we don’t frame the issue as “either you’re an open person or a closed person.” If someone wants to restrict immigration, they’re not automatically a closed person or a bigot. Similarly, being open doesn’t necessarily mean supporting escalating levels of migration.
Instead, it would be more productive to acknowledge that there are faster and slower-paced individuals. If the slower-paced viewpoint wins in an election, reducing immigration is legitimate. Conversely, if those arguing for higher immigration—perhaps citing economic benefits—win the argument, then the numbers can increase. The key is ensuring that the chosen policy is seen as legitimate.
As long as the discussion avoids vilifying specific outgroups or labeling them as inferior or threatening, it should be considered a valid debate. Taboos around those harmful attitudes are understandable, but it’s not reasonable to impose taboos on the pace of change or the desire for familiarity. Attachment to an ingroup or preserving the current ethnic composition of a country at a slower pace is fundamentally different from outright racism.
Racism, in my view, involves either advocating for an ethnostate with no minorities or portraying outgroups as evil, inferior, or threatening. These are problematic positions. However, wanting to slow the pace of change isn’t racism. The longer we try to ignore this distinction, the more pressure builds up.
Jacobsen: Lastly, how do you see the pressures of demographic and cultural change manifesting in society? Are there specific examples that highlight these dynamics?
Kaufmann: When these views are suppressed, it leads to a sublimation effect. Populists then emerge as the voice for these repressed and sublimated opinions. Unfortunately, populists are often less likely to adhere to liberal norms and more likely to veer off into irrational tangents—whether it’s conspiracy theories about vaccines, extreme environmental skepticism, or inflammatory rhetoric about certain groups being rapists or criminals. This undermines the sound functioning of liberal democracy.
The real issue is that elite institutions and the establishment are constrained by an overly narrow set of taboos on these discussions. The key question is whether these institutions can reform themselves to allow for more open and balanced debates. Can they expand the parameters of acceptable discourse, or will they double down on suppressing these topics?
Unfortunately, populists like Trump sometimes make outrageous statements, reinforcing the belief among elites that they’re justified in maintaining these taboos. However, this only exacerbates the polarization dynamic, driving people further into opposing camps.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): grothman.house.gov (Glenn Grothman, “Serving Wisconsin’s 6th District”)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/09/23
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom spoke to the release of A Dao, a pastor with the Montagnard Evangelical Church of Christ. In Vietnam, he was arrested on August 18, 2016 when returning from a conferencing covering Eat Timorese religious freedom.
USCIRF Commissioner James W. Carr said, “I am delighted that Pastor A Dao is free, even as I lament the fact that prison robbed him of four years of his life.”
Carr went on to elaborate that this release is important for the Vietnamese government because this shows some improvement in the conditions surrounding the right to freedom of religion. Potentially, this is an augury of the release of other individuals who are serious about advocacy for religious freedom as things develop on the rights front in Vietnam in the future, as others are in jail, still.
Ngyuen Bac Truyen is listed as one such case. The USCIRF went on the urge the Vietnamese government to ensure local authorities protect the “freedom and safety” of A Dao if he wants to return to his home community.
A Dao, according to the USCIRF, has been advocating for fellow church members for years in terms of the ability to enjoy freedom of religion in Vietnam’s Central Highlands. However, in April of 2017, he was tried and sentenced for imprisonment for 5 years because of “helping individuals to escape abroad illegally,” which stipulated in the Penal Code of Vietnam under Article 275.
A Dao claims that he was tortured into giving a confession. Given the five year sentence, he was not expected to be released until August 18, 2021.
“I hope that his release is a sign of Vietnam transitioning from an anti-God totalitarian state to a country in which religion in general and Christianity in particular can be openly practiced. This also shows the importance of American officials speaking out against oppression and promoting the importance of religious freedom throughout the world,” Representative Glenn Grothman stated. “Religion should not be a tool to oppress any person nor a stain on their character. I hope other American Congressmen familiarize themselves with the oppression that religious minorities, which in many parts of the world are Christians, have to deal with on a daily basis.”
The USCIRF 2020 Annual Report argued for the U.S. Government to support religious freedom projects in Vietnam with further funding. In June of 2020, the country update from the USCIRF spoke about “religious prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.”
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): City Startup Labs
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/15
Henry Rock founded City Startup Labs (CSL) to empower young Black men through entrepreneurship, inspired by his experiences in Black-owned media.
Henry Rock founded City Startup Labs (CSL) to empower young Black men through entrepreneurship, inspired by his experiences in Black-owned media. Over time, CSL expanded to include women and introduced the ReEntry Entrepreneurship Program, addressing the needs of justice-impacted individuals. Training emphasizes business, cognitive, and professional skills, aligned with leading workforce recommendations. Success is measured not just by low recidivism, but by employment, stable housing, career advancement, and improved financial health. Collaborations, such as with Atrium Health, enable fair-chance employment and mentorship. Rock encourages adopting community-centered restorative justice and nurturing creativity to support entrepreneurship for those often overlooked.
Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired the founding of City Startup Labs (CSL)?
Henry Rock: The idea for City Startup Labs stemmed from a desire to get young Black men into the game of entrepreneurship. I had the luck of working in the golden era of Black media during the 80’s and 90’s and I worked for and with some amazing African American entrepreneurs. I was able to see up close the power of Black business ownership. Also, going back to the early to mid-2000’s, I had seen any number of efforts to “empower” women as entrepreneurs, and rightly so. But I felt that this demographic of young Black men was being overlooked. I still think that’s the case today. (my 2013 TEDxTalk outlines that original thinking)
Jacobsen: How has this organization evolved over the years?
Rock: We launched in collaboration with the Urban League in 2014; then went co-ed in 2017, as we attempted to accommodate the desire of Black millennials (both men and women) to be in a cohort of like-minded, ambitious, aspiring entrepreneurs. Then in 2018-19 we launched the ReEntry Entrepreneurship Program (REEP) as a direct response to the Raj Chetty socio-economic mobility study and the subsequent Leading on Opportunity Report, both of which highlighted factors that thwarted people within mostly Black and Brown Charlotte communities from being able to improve their socio-economic status. CSL took the position that there is potentially a role that formerly incarcerated people, as entrepreneurially-minded catalysts, might play in improving these communities. We designed specific training based on what prior millennial cohorts experienced, but also married it with business and professional core competencies and digital tech services credentialing as well.
Most recently, we’ve decided to move into developing social ventures that can be co-owned and operated with CSL by justice-impacted individuals to meet market demands. Our first venture is what we call ReConnex (Reentry Connections), which will be a digital device repair business piloted in one of the aforementioned communities in Charlotte (deemed Corridors of Opportunity). This will allow us to leverage an award received from the State of North Carolina’s Digital Champions Grant to start this for-profit social venture.
Jacobsen: What are the cognitive skills taught through the CSL programs?
Rock: We teach business and professional core competencies, which cover social/emotional intelligence, problem solving, critical thinking, human centered design to name a few. We have also aligned our work with McKinsey’s 2021 study regarding the foundational skills needed by employees to be effective in dynamic workplaces. Interestingly, entrepreneurship is considered one of those skill sets, as it encompasses a number of those cognitive tools.
Jacobsen: For justice-impacted individuals, how does the ReEntry Entrepreneurship Program (REEP) approach their unique challenges?
Rock: We start by acknowledging that in the final analysis not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, however, everyone can become a valued asset to the companies they work for. This is actually no different than the point of view that we have taken from the beginning. Nevertheless, we have an appreciation for the unique challenges that come with being justice-impacted. However, many of the conditions that have contributed the circumstances that have led to justice involvement, are the very ones historically faced by Black Americans and have led to their over-indexing in the criminal justice system. While entrepreneurship can be an anecdote, to get there, we have consistently focused on the development of three asset classes — human, social and economic capital. We posit that if we’re successful in this development, our constituents will have a better chance of improving their socio-economic mobility outcomes.
Jacobsen: What factors contribute to the low recidivism rate (3%) among CSL participants? Are there any potential confounding factors there?
Rock: Fundamentally, we’re in the people potential business. Practically, we call this 21st Century workforce development, which is a triangulation of those asset classes. The development of the human capital starts with what we call Cultivation – an exploration into who we are and why we are where we are. Then we open the window to see what’s possible when the tools that we provide are applied. Tangible possibilities can be a powerful motivator and a counterpoint to desperation. We seed social capital through Accountability Partners and/or business coaches and mentors. With these, our participants have someone who can support them on their journey. We also know that reaching the goal of financial stability (economic capital) starts with a clear plan on how to achieve it, including personal financial management and in many cases starting at square one or on the first rung of the ladder. Oftentimes, it boils down to a reimaging of how they see themselves and the choices they get to make.
Jacobsen: How has Advocate/Atrium Healthcare developed over the years?
Rock: The relationship with Atrium grew out of a series of meetings in 2020 with the then SVP of HR. In 2021, he requested that we develop a specific effort to help Atrium lean into becoming a fair-chance employer, at the behest of Charlotte’s Mayor. That request resulted in Restorative Pathways — our Reentry Workplace Readiness initiative, which includes both employer and employee workplace readiness efforts. Our emphasis has been on offering a starting point for a career in the healthcare industry, rather than merely a job. We recently completed our 9th overall cohort, which included two that were facilitated in Winston Salem, NC, with over 100 justice-impacted individuals completing our training and onboarded into roles as teammates at Atrium Health.
Jacobsen: What have been the outcomes for participants in healthcare roles?
Rock: A majority of the roles have been “entry level,” ranging from drivers and customer service to patient transport and environmental technician. Other roles have included IT, materials handling (which includes working in operating rooms) and CNA (certified nursing assistant). Any number of promotions have occurred. Participants have also secured housing and vehicles, along with healthcare benefits, which have been elusive for most.
After six months on the job, teammates have the opportunity to compete for new roles. As a part of their onboarding process, following their training with us, they are assigned a mentor, as well as a career coach, who is helpful in navigating their journey in this field.
Jacobsen: How does the Restorative Pathways program prepare people for workforce reentry?
Rock: Some of what was stated above answers this.
Jacobsen: How does CSL measure success in its programs outside of recidivism rates?
Rock: Our impact can be seen in jobs secured, new business creation, or business traction gained, and professional development. But also, the other things that accumulate over the years of this work, like buying that first home or leasing their own apartment, buying a new car, building a savings account or being the provider for the family for the first time. Taken together, this is what success looks like for CSL. (also see our 10 Years of Impact report)
Jacobsen: What advice seems reasonable for others to establish similar programs to support entrepreneurship and workforce readiness for justice-impacted individuals?
Rock: I would start with this idea of community-centered restorative justice; meaning that there are communities that have experienced harm, all throughout the country, in any number of ways, including neglect, economic dislocation and disruption, crime, etc., and they are in need of reconciliation. While on the other hand, we have folks – returning citizens, who need to have trust restored and often return to these same communities. We see that our returning citizens have a bias for service, a desire to give back, make amends or right the ship through being of service to others. This shows up over and over again in the tendency to want to start non-profit businesses (which we try to dissuade them from doing – we prefer that they consider social enterprises instead). What if we were to cultivate, foster, develop and unleash this untapped talent (i.e., value) in ways that can provide the reconciliation these communities desperately need? What if we uncovered and nurtured the creativity and innovation that I believe exists within all of us, and guided and supported it? Finding imaginative ways to do these things is the best advice that I can offer.
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): U.S. Hispanic Business Council
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/05
How have DHL’s shipping pause and changes to the U.S. de minimis threshold impacted Hispanic-owned small businesses and cross-border trade with China?
Javier Palomarez, CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, discusses how DHL’s 2024 pause on sub-$800 de minimis shipments—combined with heightened U.S.–China trade tensions—has deeply impacted Hispanic-owned small businesses. These enterprises rely on affordable imports and grapple with rising costs, regulatory burdens, and uncertain supply chains. While entrepreneurs remain adaptable, the cumulative challenges of taxation, workforce shortages, and logistics delays threaten business continuity. Palomarez urges policymakers to offer tax relief, reduce regulatory pressure, and support nearshoring strategies to sustain America’s fastest-growing business sector—Hispanic-owned firms contributing over $850 billion to the economy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today we’re with Javier Palomarez, the Founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council (USHBC). He is a leading national advocate for Hispanic-owned small businesses, with over thirty years of experience in multicultural marketing and sales, including work with several Fortune 100 companies. Palomarez is a recognized voice on issues of immigration, the economy, and minority representation. He frequently appears on national television for his insights on public policy, the challenges facing small businesses, and the influence of Hispanic voters in key swing states. Based in Flower Mound, Texas, he continues to advocate for legislative and economic initiatives supporting Hispanic entrepreneurs nationwide. So, how did—and how does—DHL’s pause on shipments affect cross-border e-commerce volumes into the U.S.?
Javier Palomarez: If we take a step back, the de minimis provision under Section 321 of the U.S. Tariff Act allows shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the United States without duties, taxes, or formal customs procedures. This facilitates cross-border e-commerce, especially for small packages. In recent years, de minimis shipments have surged, accounting for a significant share, over 90%, of all informal entries, with a large portion originating from China. This provision has played a vital role in helping small businesses import goods at lower costs and with fewer regulatory barriers. However, amid rising concerns about evasion of duties, product safety, and the trade imbalance with China, scrutiny of de minimis has increased. When DHL Express paused its de minimis shipments under $800 into the U.S. in early 2024, it disrupted the logistics pipeline for many small businesses that rely on affordable, fast international shipping. This action came in response to regulatory pressure and ongoing U.S.–China trade tensions, including additional Section 301 tariffs imposed on certain Chinese imports. The result? Small businesses, many of which are owned by Hispanic entrepreneurs, have found themselves unable to source products from overseas, particularly from Chinese suppliers, affordably. The burden of complying with new customs regulations or paying duties often erases their profit margin. DHL has had to adapt by shifting its logistics strategy, and in some areas, has reportedly scaled back operations, resulting in job losses and facility closures, including in California, though exact numbers vary by source. The broader ripple effect has been significant for the small business community, which heavily depends on reliable and economical global shipping.
Jacobsen: So, does this directly result from changing the de minimis policy in the context of the broader U.S.–China trade relationship?
Palomarez: Yes. While the U.S. must take a firm and fair approach in trade negotiations with China, our most significant source of de minimis imports, unintended consequences exist. One is the disproportionate impact on millions of small businesses, including Hispanic-owned enterprises, that are suddenly dealing with increased costs and regulatory complexity.
Jacobsen: What are you hearing from Hispanic-owned small businesses about their challenges?
Palomarez: The challenges vary depending on region, industry, and generational status. Some Hispanic entrepreneurs are first-generation immigrants with strong ties to family-run operations or specific trades. Others are multi-generational business owners who have scaled up within construction, logistics, retail, and food services sectors. For example, someone from a family of farmers may continue in agriculture, just as someone with experience in trade may move into import/export or e-commerce. These businesses often lack the financial cushion or legal resources to navigate abrupt changes in trade policy. That makes them especially vulnerable to regulatory shifts, like those affecting de minimis. At the same time, many Hispanic business owners are resilient and innovative, often leveraging bilingual and bicultural capabilities to reach underserved markets. But they need predictable rules, access to capital, and fair trade frameworks to thrive.
Jacobsen: And what is the average character of those businesses? Can you specify what types of challenges—whether in product, services, or otherwise—are impacted by these DHL-related issues?
Palomarez: Yes. Here is a little context on the Hispanic business community in the United States. At the United States Hispanic Business Council, we’re proud to advocate for the 4.5 million Hispanic-owned firms in this country that collectively contribute over $850 billion to the American economy. It is also the fastest-growing segment of the American small business community. For every one venture started by a non-Hispanic, Hispanics are beginning three. So we’re launching businesses at a rate of three to one compared to the general market. That’s important in the U.S., Scott, because when you look at it, small businesses are responsible for creating nearly 70% of net new jobs. We’re the beating heart of the American economy. When considering the challenges facing all American small businesses, and certainly Hispanic-owned ones, eliminating de minimis has added yet another obstacle.
The change to de minimis and ongoing supply chain disruptions will overburden already struggling ports on both coasts. That will send ripples throughout the business community. Local restaurants—mom-and-pop-owned establishments—depend on imported ingredients for their menus. Local mechanics rely on imported parts. Local bodegas rely on imported goods. And the list goes on. Unlike large corporations like Walmart or Costco, the average small business has no resources to pre-purchase inventory. We do not have the negotiating power big firms have to bring prices down. We are stuck with what we can get—if we can get any inventory at all, Scott. We do not have the resources. And when we look domestically, we cannot find producers for many of the parts, ingredients, and goods I mentioned. So we are stuck. It is a scary situation for the American small business community. In my community, specifically—the Hispanic-owned small business community—the vast majority of our members voted for President Trump. So, as you can imagine, there is some trepidation. There is a bit of questioning—maybe even buyer’s remorse. And we are trying to figure out how we can adapt. How do we continue to maintain our businesses, let alone grow them? It is a difficult time. De minimis has not helped. Corporations have flexibility in some ways but also rigidity in others. They have flexibility because they generate a lot of capital to test new ventures at scale. I remember Jeff Bezos recently talking about how, with this horizontal optimization layer—AI—they can apply it across more than a thousand applications at once in development. However, they are also large entities, and profound structural shifts are difficult for them. If you build a massive factory, you are locked into that investment. On the other hand, small businesses may not generate the same amount of capital, but they are not as deeply entrenched, so they have some flexibility.
Jacobsen: Is there—or is there not—some benefit? Is there a greater possibility of maneuvering through some of these customer changes for small businesses that are encountering more challenges?
Palomarez: Adaptability and creativity—the coin of the realm for the American small business community. To be an entrepreneur, in and of itself, illustrates that you’re willing to take a chance. You’re eager to be creative. You’re keen to do whatever it takes to get it done. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be an entrepreneur. So we will manage that. We will handle it. I’m sure we will.
However, the real issue is the accumulation of challenges. If it’s not a regulatory challenge, it’s taxation. If it’s not taxation, it’s policy and legislation. If it’s not that, it’s supply chain issues. If it’s not that, we’re unable to fully staff our companies because of workforce shortages in areas like construction, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality, and even technology. So it’s the cumulative effect that is making it difficult for the American small business community. Look, all we want—all any business in America wants, and indeed the small business community—is to know and believe that there’s an administration that understands our challenges and is willing to offer some relief wherever and however they can. We want a stable environment to plan, invest, and grow our businesses. And we don’t have that right now. Like every American, we try to do our part and patiently await the outcome. But it is a difficult time. Again, many small businesses don’t have the resources to wait six months or a year for things to stabilize. Many of us will be out of business if this continues.
Jacobsen: What about the impacts on delivery time and processing time? That’s another issue.
Palomarez: Yes, I should throw in this one. The average customer may not necessarily understand small business owners’ challenges.
Jacobsen: What about customer satisfaction?
Palomarez: Yes, one of the hallmarks of the American small business community is our ability to offer absolute customer satisfaction. We know our clients. We’re in the neighbourhood. We’re local retailers. We shop at the same stores. We gas up our cars at the same stations. We go to the same churches. We belong to the same golf clubs, etc. So we’re in those communities, and a lot of that personalization- the customized customer relationships is put at risk when the retailer or business owner has no control over whether they will get a product, much less on time. When you’ve built your reputation and your business on customer satisfaction—on that local touch and feel people have come to rely on—it puts a significant part of your business strategy at risk. We’re seeing that right now, where we can’t even tell our clients with certainty, “Yes, this item will be here in two weeks.”
We’re hoping it’ll be here in two weeks, but we know, in the back of our minds, it’s probably not going to be two weeks, and it may not arrive at all. So you’re risking your entire business’s reputation in an environment like this. What’s tricky is that it’s entirely beyond our control. That’s the most disheartening part of all this. It’s not our fault.
Jacobsen: So, local and nearshore supply chains—how are small businesses acutely affected in those markets? Are they still relying heavily on shipping?
Palomarez: Yes. We’re delighted to hear about nearshoring and the prospect of bringing manufacturing, if not home, then at least closer to home. The reality is, we’ve grown dependent on China. Everybody in our small business community that we poll is acutely aware of our dependence on China. And it’s a dependency built up over decades. This didn’t happen overnight. While we agree with President Trump and this administration that we need to wean ourselves off of China, it would be great to create those manufacturing jobs, facilities, and business opportunities here in the United States; it’s not as easy as all that. So while we support the rationale, we support the administration’s efforts to nearshore or bring manufacturing back to the United States, we live in the sure knowledge that there’s a huge gap between policy—or a campaign promise—and the reality of getting those plants up and running and producing the goods and products we need.
There’s a time lapse, and it’s in that time lapse that we could either be severely damaged or go out of business entirely. So we’re looking for an administration that understands that—and is willing to help us during that interim period to keep our businesses alive, well, and growing. That remains to be seen, but we’re hopeful. When we poll our membership, the sentiment is still that Donald Trump is enough of a businessman to recognize this, and they’re hoping there will be some relief in terms of exclusions, or tax incentives, or other support to help the small business community weather the storm between the decision-making phase and the actual implementation of domestic or nearshore manufacturing.
Jacobsen: What moves by the current administration—for those who voted for it—would relieve some of their buyer’s remorse, to use the phrase you mentioned earlier?
Palomarez: That’s a big question. We did two polls—one, maybe two months before the election, and one, maybe two weeks before the election. In both cases, we surveyed 2,527 members. And in both instances, some 86% of our membership said they identified with Kamala Harris. They identified with her on a personal level—as the child of immigrant parents, a child raised in a single-parent household, a young person who had to struggle to get where she is, a minority, and a woman. So about 86% of our membership identified with her. They did not identify with Donald Trump. They weren’t the children of billionaires.
They didn’t inherit the wealth that Donald Trump inherited. So while they identified with Kamala Harris, they still said they would vote for Donald Trump because they believed that Trump was enough of a businessperson that he would help with the economic challenges the country was facing, and ultimately, that would help their small businesses, if that makes sense to you. So with that in mind, it runs the gamut. There are so many areas where we need help. The last person to enact any legislation that helped the American small business community in terms of taxes and taxation was, in fact, Donald Trump.
It was controversial, but the small business community benefited from the tax legislation Trump passed during his first term. And if you think about it, Scott, it hadn’t been since Ronald Reagan, since back in the eighties, that American small businesses received any relief on their taxes. When you’re running a business and 47% of your income goes directly to Uncle Sam before you even see a penny, you begin to appreciate a guy who sees it from your perspective. Controversial or not, you start to believe in him if he helps you with that particular issue. And so, that’s the Donald Trump that this community voted for.
In response to your question, are there other areas in which Donald Trump or this administration could help the American small business community? Unequivocally, yes. Taxation is one. Lessening regulation is another. The regulatory challenges the average business faces in America, never mind small companies, are insurmountable. Unlike large companies, we don’t have a division of tax experts. We don’t have an army of lobbyists. We don’t have a department of lawyers. It’s just us. We have to manage it. We have to handle it all. So you can imagine how overwhelming the regulatory structure is in this country. An administration that helps us with regulations? Fantastic.
So yes, there are several areas where this administration could still become the saviour of the American small business community. Energy costs are another example. Again, that’s entirely out of our control. We’re running the same business we were three years ago, but it’s costing us 42% more—simply because insurance has gone up, energy costs have gone up, taxes have gone up, etc. It’s hard to keep your business, much less grow it, in an environment like that. So there are many areas where this administration could help the American small business community, and we live in that hope. We’re hopeful that this administration will be the one.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Javier, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise.
Palomarez: Have a good one. Thanks so much.
Jacobsen: Hey. You take care.
Palomarez: 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): U.S. Hispanic Business Council
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/20
Javier Palomarez, CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, highlights how policy uncertainty—especially around tariffs—is destabilizing small and medium-sized Hispanic-owned businesses. Unpredictable trade and regulatory shifts are draining vital resources, forcing firms to rework supply chains, pause hiring, and reassess investments. Industries from construction to food services are affected. Some business owners have turned to lobbying or independent trade negotiations to survive. Palomarez stresses that effective policy must be guided by business leader feedback and consistent communication. Hispanic business leadership, he argues, has the potential to shape resilient trade policy through proactive engagement and collective advocacy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have mentioned that “uncertainty is the bane of business.” How is uncertainty affecting small and medium businesses?
Javier Palomarez: Unpredictability in regard to both U.S. trade policy and the regulatory landscape costs small and medium sized businesses time and resources. For example, many of our member businesses say they need additional time, funds, employees, or resources to devise strategies and accomplish tasks related to supply chain management, importing and exporting, and fulfilling or navigating regulatory requirements. These are resources that a multitude of businesses cannot afford or do not have. This is why responsible deregulation and relying on the feedback of business leaders is so critical for policy implementation.
Jacobsen: What industries within the United States Hispanic Business Council have been disrupted by the unpredictable tariff policy?
Palomarez: Unpredictable tariff policy has affected just about every industry represented within the U.S. Hispanic Business Council, including construction, auto-manufacturing, infrastructure, tech, software and electronics, transportation, agriculture, and food services, among others.
Jacobsen: How have business owners adapted to the fluctuating trade environment?
Palomarez: Reasonably, our member businesses have responded to the unpredictable trade environment by raising costs, altering supply chain management, methods, or routes, and taking a step back to analyze costs and production. Furthermore, some businesses have taken matters into their own hands and have engaged in their own trade negotiations or have lobbied the federal government to make changes. In some cases, tariff exceptions have been granted by the Trump administration as a result of intervention and lobbying by business owners.
Jacobsen: How does the fear of potential tariffs influence hiring, investment, or supply chain decisions, among member businesses?
Palomarez: The fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced business owners to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. These are all business considerations and factors that can and likely will be affected significantly by tariffs. Resultantly, our member businesses are increasingly likely to have to alter their personnel, prices, and supply chains.
Jacobsen: How do you evaluate the communication and transparency of U.S. trade policy now?
Palomarez: At the moment, communication of U.S. trade policy seems to be coming unilaterally and often sporadically from the office of the President. This isn’t beneficial for business owners because policies can change rapidly, forcing quick and significant changes in prices and business practices. Nothing is necessarily being hidden from businesses and citizens in regard to a lack of transparency, but the unpredictability of tariffs on a country-by-country basis makes business and market decisions highly volatile. Our member businesses are reliant on us and their own research to plan and forecast.
Jacobsen: What have USHBC members said about the human and financial toll of the uncertainty?
Palomarez: Our member businesses repeatedly state that the fear of potential higher costs and disrupted supply chains caused by tariffs have forced them to rethink new hirings, their current payroll, prices, investments within the United States versus alternative countries, and supply chain methods, among other things. Unpredictability will undoubtedly cost significant resources, as employees, funds, and time will be needed to devise new strategies, make monetary decisions, alter supply chains, lobby, and negotiate. Revenue, personnel, and prices can all be affected.
Jacobsen: How can Hispanic business leadership shape future U.S. trade policy to support economic resilience?
Palomarez: Hispanic business owners can shape and reshape future U.S. trade policy in a plethora of ways. First and foremost, devoting time and effort to making your voice heard is essential. Political leaders should rely on feedback from business leaders when making decisions that affect our nation’s businesses – especially the fastest growing segment – hispanic small businesses. That being said, making your voice heard is the only path to achieving advocacy and eventual results. Furthermore, taking matters into your own hands, as many companies have, can significantly benefit your business. For example, some companies have achieved tariff exceptions by lobbying the Trump administration. Others have solved issues pertaining to importing, exporting, and supply chain management by initiating their own trade negotiations. Furthermore, businesses like Zions Bank are hosting their own national and international forums and conversations to have discussions about trade policy and forge potential new paths forward. Business leaders undoubtedly have the power to make a difference and promote economic growth and revitalization.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Javier.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06
Abstract
This interview explores the insights of Rick Rosner, a seasoned television writer and producer, in conversation with Scott Jacobsen. The discussion delves into the evolution of celebrity behavior from the 1970s to the present, highlighting the transition towards more responsible conduct. Jacobsen reflects on the dynamics of fame as a tool for creative endeavors and the balance celebrities maintain between their public personas and private lives. Key topics include the role of charisma and social skills in achieving success, the importance of authenticity and ethical behavior, and the impact of political climates on public figures. The interview also examines the motivations behind celebrity interviews, the public’s fascination with personal relationships and vulnerabilities of celebrities, and the shift towards more mindful and ethical behavior in modern celebrity culture. Additionally, Jacobsen shares personal anecdotes illustrating the influence of charisma and the diverse paths to success within the entertainment industry. This conversation provides a comprehensive understanding of contemporary celebrity dynamics and the factors contributing to sustained public admiration and professional longevity.
Keywords: Authenticity, Charisma, Celebrity Culture, Ethical Behavior, Entertainment Industry, Fame Dynamics, Media Engagement, Political Influence, Public Persona, Public Relations, Social Skills, Success Factors
Introduction
Rick Rosner, a notable television writer and producer with contributions to acclaimed shows such as “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Man Show,” shares his perspectives on the shifting landscape of celebrity culture in an in-depth interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen. With a career spanning various unconventional roles and recognized for his high IQ and diverse experiences, Rosner provides valuable insights into how fame is leveraged creatively, the balance between public and private identities, and the evolving expectations placed upon celebrities. This interview, conducted in January 14, 2025 and published on January 15, 2025, captures Rosner’s reflections on the maturation of celebrity behavior, the role of authenticity in public life, and the intricate interplay between personal ethics and professional success in the entertainment industry. The conversation also touches upon the influence of political climates on celebrities’ public stances and the enduring public fascination with the personal lives of public figures. Through personal anecdotes and professional observations, Rosner elucidates the complexities of maintaining relevance and integrity in a highly scrutinized and dynamic media environment.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Rick Rosner
Section 1: Evolution of Celebrity Behavior
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In 2024, you suggested I start interviewing celebrities or media personalities. Since then, I have received emails with specific hooks pitching these individuals. Did your suggestion and the subsequent publication of my work contribute to this? I am not certain. However, celebrity interviews tend to generate the most excitement. This is demonstrated by the long-standing success of People Magazine, which has been in publication since 1974, surpassing its 50th anniversary. With celebrities, there is a natural advantage—audiences are familiar with them and want to learn more. Since the Trump era, and perhaps even earlier, public life has become increasingly politicized.
Rick Rosner: As a result, celebrities often take public stances that attract significant interest. For instance, Taylor Swift has adeptly shown her political sympathies without overly politicizing her image. Meanwhile, it was recently reported that Carrie Underwood might perform at a politically charged event, which sparked backlash. In a world oversaturated with content, celebrity interviews remain highly engaging.
Section 2: Motivations Behind Celebrity Interviews
Jacobsen: What do celebrities seek from interviews when the focus is not on promoting their next project, in your experience?
Rosner: Celebrities often seek to be understood as multidimensional individuals beyond their professional accomplishments. This perspective is often successful. For example, Pamela Anderson is making a significant comeback with The Last Showgirl. Interviews have highlighted her strong performance and intellectual engagement with acting as a craft, moving beyond her previous image as a star of Baywatch or someone associated with public controversies.
Audiences tend to support celebrities who appear relatable and genuine. On the other hand, they are equally fascinated by celebrities behaving poorly. Recently, Mel Gibson appeared on a podcast promoting Ivermectin as a cancer cure, spreading misinformation. This drew criticism, yet people would likely be equally interested if Gibson changed their perspective and demonstrated a more informed and positive approach.
Section 3: Public Interest in Celebrities
Jacobsen: Why are people so interested in celebrities?
Rosner: One reason is that we already know much of their stories. Another is that we want them to be deserving of our interest. Celebrities have immense resources, agency, and wealth, and we want to see how they use their power.
We cheer for their relationships, even when we expect them to fail. For example, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck recently got back together. This might be their third time as a couple. People want it to work out but are intrigued by its potential to fall apart.
J.Lo is known as a diva but doesn’t seem unkind. Despite some personal struggles, Ben Affleck comes across as intelligent, kind, and fun. People generally want good things for him. He was married to Jennifer Garner, who is widely respected and seems genuinely decent.
When we see celebrities with every advantage face challenges, we question how the rest of us will manage. What does that mean for everyone else if they struggle to make relationships or personal goals work despite their resources?
Section 4: Celebrity Activism and Responsibility
Jacobsen: Which celebrities have impressed you with their commitment to causes outside Hollywood, even after achieving fame?
Rosner: Any celebrity who becomes knowledgeable and active in a cause stands out. Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, speaks about environmental issues and seems reasonably well-informed. However, he’s criticized for using yachts and private planes, contributing to the pollution he advocates against.
George Clooney also comes to mind. He is knowledgeable and upstanding and has championed causes like protecting the oceans. Additionally, Clooney has actively supported Democratic political candidates and worked to nudge President Biden on policy matters.
When George Clooney exited the race for office, reactions varied. However, he comes from a political family—his father ran for office—so he understands the landscape. He also seems like a genuinely decent person. When he became rich and famous, he gave each of his friends a million dollars, reasoning that if he could enjoy financial relief, why shouldn’t his friends share that comfort?
This generosity reflects someone who values others. My former boss was similarly charitable. I know he’s incredibly informed from years of working with him, particularly on random subjects. He’s highly tech-savvy, always online, and can quickly educate himself on nearly any topic. Many celebrities share these traits—surprisingly knowledgeable and smart, which benefits them in the entertainment industry.
Section 5: Intelligence and Success in Acting
Jacobsen: Do you think intelligence correlates with acting success?
Rosner: To a degree, yes. Successful actors often exhibit intelligence because it enhances their craft. While some may succeed early in their careers due to extraordinary physical attractiveness, sustaining a long-term career often requires intelligence, intuition, or hard work.
Jacobsen: How would you assess their social astuteness and emotional sensitivity?
Rosner: The entertainment industry is full of individuals with exceptional social skills, almost to the point of what could be called “reverse autism.” Many performers have heightened social understanding and intuition, which correlate with success. However, these qualities aren’t mandatory—some succeed without them.
For example, we attended a talk with Jesse Eisenberg, an actor, writer, and director. He wrote and starred in a film about cousins retracing their grandmother’s life during the Holocaust alongside Kieran Culkin. In the movie, his character has OCD, which mirrors Eisenberg’s experiences. He used rubber bands around his wrist, snapping them to stay grounded in the film and real life.
He was candid about the challenges of making that film compared to others in which he was simply a hired actor. It became clear that a creative individual who loves making art, working hard, and focusing on the craft rather than seeking widespread recognition.
Jesse Eisenberg, for example, seems to enjoy making films more than embracing the perks of being a movie star. He mentioned that being a star makes it easier to get projects funded. He can secure financing more effectively by attaching his name to a screenplay. However, he doesn’t seem drawn to stardom’s glamour or hedonistic aspects. For him, fame is a tool to achieve creative goals rather than an indulgence.
Section 6: Charisma and Social Skills in Success
Jacobsen: Do charisma and schmoozing play a significant role in success, or can performers manage without them?
Rosner: It certainly helps, but it’s not essential. George Clooney, for instance, is naturally charming and charismatic, whether he intends to be or not.
I once worked as a doorman at the Sagebrush Cantina. One of my duties was to ensure no one parked in a specific space out front. It looked like a handicapped spot but was reserved for the fire marshal if he needed to check occupancy limits. If we exceeded those limits, the fire marshal could shut us down or start visiting regularly, which would have been bad for business.
One day, a car full of older adults parked in that spot. An older man, probably in his late 70s, got out with his wife, who was walking with a cane. I approached them to explain that they couldn’t park there. My job required me to be firm, even unpleasant, if necessary. However, as the man spoke to me, he exuded a charming, twinkling charisma. He pleaded politely, explaining his wife’s difficulty walking.
Against my better judgment, I let them park there. Afterward, I questioned myself, wondering why I had caved so easily. I couldn’t figure out if the man were deliberately persuasive or if it was just his natural demeanour. Later, I realized it was Lloyd Bridges. His charm was undeniable, whether intentional or not.
Even in his old age, Lloyd Bridges remained a charming and charismatic figure. As the father of Jeff Bridges and a star in his own right, his charisma was undeniable. It’s not a physical force like in physics but a real interpersonal force that can influence people profoundly.
This reminds me of seeing actors like Sam Elliott, who is now likely the same age Lloyd Bridges was when I met him. In his late seventies, Sam Elliott remains a familiar and charismatic figure. If you Google “Sam Elliott and wife,” you’ll see this iconic actor, who has been in movies for over 55 years, married to a petite, older woman. It’s striking because we associate stars with immense social leverage. Yet, many remain in long-term relationships with partners who seem like “regular” people.
Jacobsen: Why do you think that contrast feels unusual?
Rosner: It seems odd because we expect celebrities to maximize their social capital in all aspects of life. However, many have long-term partners who’ve been with them through the highs and lows of their careers. They’re human beings first and love their partners for reasons beyond surface appearances or public perception.
I used to work out at Gold’s Gym in North Hollywood, where I met Albert Beckles, a legendary bodybuilder. Beckles, who might now be in his mid-80s or older, was incredibly fit. Even in his seventies, he maintained a physique with around four percent body fat. Despite his age, he looked youthful, with a shaved head and a ripped body.
Occasionally, I’d see his wife or girlfriend, a petite older white woman, and their pairing seemed unusual at first glance. With his youthful appearance and powerful presence, Beckles contrasted starkly with his partner, who looked her age. However, their relationship likely spanned decades—they probably met when they were younger and grew old together. She naturally aged while he maintained a youthful appearance due to his lifestyle. It highlights how their bond was built on something deeper than appearances.
Section 7: Balancing Public and Private Personas
Jacobsen: Do you think celebrities have an innate duality—a personal identity and a public persona—that helps them succeed?
Rosner: Absolutely. Celebrities who reach the highest levels of fame often balance two distinct identities: their authentic selves and their celebrity personas. The way they manage this dynamic varies greatly. Some embrace their celebrity status fully, using it to fuel their careers. In contrast, others prioritize maintaining their identity and relationships. Success often depends on how well they can navigate these two facets of their lives.
These days, most celebrities manage their public lives well. We’re no longer in the age of “celebrity assholes,” which was more prevalent in the 1970s. For instance, when I was on the writing staff of a major show, the culture wasn’t about excess or indulgence. Instead of doing cocaine, we were taking fibre gummies to deal with the sedentary lifestyle of long hours at our desks.
This era has more celebrities who behave responsibly and navigate fame with maturity. I watched my former boss evolve from being largely a radio personality to one of America’s 100–150 most famous people. Despite this rise in fame, he didn’t lose his decency.
Jacobsen: How did he manage the pressures of fame while staying grounded?
Rosner: He didn’t engage in exploitative behaviour or use his position to harm others. He remained charitable and reasonable, though he enjoyed playful banter and asking awkward questions as part of his natural curiosity. His increased agency and responsibilities came with new challenges—paying for a publicist, manager, and agent and managing media interactions carefully.
However, he became less cautious in expressing his views during the Trump era. As a decent person, he felt compelled to speak out about alarming events in America. For example, he was deeply upset by the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where over 50 people were killed and more than 500 were injured. As a Las Vegas native, this tragedy hit close to home.
Traditionally, late-night hosts avoided political commentary to maintain a broad audience. But my boss, like others, felt he had to address critical issues, even at the risk of alienating some viewers.
Jacobsen: Do you think this shift reflects a broader change in celebrity culture?
Rosner: Yes. We’re in an era where most celebrities manage their public personas carefully and behave with greater responsibility. Of course, no one is perfect, and every celebrity has moments of controversy. Still, the overall trend is toward more mindful and ethical behaviour.
Celebrities, like anyone else, can occasionally be caught acting poorly. However, we are in an era where they are generally more responsible. This may be because the public is better informed, as a lack of information often leads to poor decisions. In the 1970s, I was certainly immature, as were many celebrities at the time.
Section 8: Success Beyond Social Competence
Jacobsen: What about people in Hollywood who aren’t socially competent? Can they still succeed?
Rosner: Yes, it’s possible. I’m not particularly socially competent, but I managed to build a career. Part of my success was due to a writing partnership with someone who excelled socially—what I’d call “reverse autism.” He handled the social dynamics, which was helpful, even if it wasn’t always easy.
Additionally, you can succeed without social prowess if you’re good at what you do. I worked hard and developed skills that compensated for my shortcomings. For example, I became comfortable admitting personal flaws and turning them into humour, similar to what stand-up comedians do. If my jokes didn’t land, I could still make people laugh by being candid about embarrassing topics.
Many talented individuals in entertainment, some on the spectrum or socially unconventional, succeed because of their competence, creativity, and hard work.
Jacobsen: What about people at the lower levels of entertainment, like production assistants or interns?
Rosner: At the entry-level, I’ve noticed a mix of talent and incompetence. Many interns or PAs I encountered early in my career were hired through connections rather than merit. Some were unreliable or lacked dedication. This often allowed competent and hardworking individuals—even unconventional—to stand out and advance.
Over time, the less capable individuals tend to be weeded out. In the early stages, though, it’s possible to succeed as a “weirdo” if you’re reliable, competent, hardworking, or possess a couple of those qualities.
Jacobsen: What if someone is found to be unethical or fraudulent?
Rosner: I’ve been fortunate to work with mostly ethical people. While dishonesty exists in any industry, I’ve rarely encountered it directly. Ethical behaviour tends to matter more as people advance, where reputations carry greater weight.
Jacobsen: Thank you again for the time, Rick.
Discussion
The interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner offers insightful perspectives on the evolving landscape of celebrity culture. Rosner highlights a significant shift from the reckless behavior of the 1970s to the more responsible and ethically conscious conduct of today’s celebrities. This transformation is attributed to increased public accountability and the pervasive influence of social media, which hold public figures to higher standards.
A central theme is the strategic use of fame as a tool for creative and social endeavors rather than personal indulgence. Rosner emphasizes that successful celebrities balance their public personas with their authentic selves, fostering relatability and long-term admiration. Authenticity and ethical behavior emerge as crucial factors for sustaining public trust and mitigating controversies, aligning with the broader societal demand for integrity in public figures.
The role of charisma and social skills is discussed as beneficial but not essential for success in the entertainment industry. Rosner argues that talent, hard work, and authenticity are equally important, allowing individuals to thrive even without exceptional social prowess. This is exemplified through anecdotes about charismatic figures like Lloyd Bridges and Sam Elliott, illustrating how genuine personal qualities can enhance public appeal.
Celebrity activism is another key topic, with Rosner commending figures like Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney for their commitment to environmental and political causes. However, he also notes the scrutiny they face to ensure their actions align with their advocacies, highlighting the complexities of public advocacy.
Overall, the interview underscores the importance of balancing public image with personal integrity, leveraging fame for meaningful purposes, and adapting to the changing expectations of audiences. Rosner’s insights provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that contribute to sustained success and public admiration in the modern entertainment industry.
Methods
The interview was conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, with Rick Rosner who is known for his work on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and “The Man Show.” The methodology employed for this interview was a semi-structured format, allowing for a flexible yet focused conversation that could delve deeply into relevant topics while accommodating spontaneous insights.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06
Ruslan Salakhutdinov, a distinguished UPMC Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University’s Machine Learning Department, stands as one of the most prominent figures in artificial intelligence research today. With a focus on deep learning, probabilistic graphical models, and large-scale optimization, Salakhutdinov has consistently been at the forefront of innovation in AI.
A defining aspect of his career has been his collaboration with Geoffrey Hinton, his doctoral advisor and the pioneer behind “deep belief networks,” a transformative advancement in deep learning. Since earning his Ph.D. in 2009, Salakhutdinov has authored over 40 influential publications, exploring topics ranging from Bayesian Program Learning to large-scale AI systems. His groundbreaking contributions have not only advanced academic understanding but also propelled practical applications of AI in industry.
Salakhutdinov’s tenure as Apple’s Director of AI Research from 2016 to 2020 marked a pivotal period in his career. During this time, he led significant advancements in AI technologies. Subsequently, he returned to Carnegie Mellon and resumed his academic pursuits, further cementing his role as a leader in the field. In 2023, he expanded his influence by joining Felix Smart as a Board Director, channeling AI’s potential to enhance care for plants and animals.
A sought-after speaker, Salakhutdinov has delivered tutorials at renowned institutions such as the Simons Institute at Berkeley and the MLSS in Tübingen, Germany. His research, widely cited by peers, underscores his enduring impact on AI and machine learning. As a CIFAR fellow, he continues to inspire the next generation of researchers while pushing the boundaries of machine intelligence.
Salakhutdinov’s journey in AI traces back to his undergraduate years when he was sparked by the seminal textbook Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. His early work with Geoffrey Hinton laid the foundation for innovations in deep belief networks and deep learning. Today, his research focuses on building robust, autonomous AI systems capable of independent decision-making. Amidst the challenges of reliability, reasoning, and safety, Salakhutdinov’s work bridges the gap between cutting-edge theory and practical application, shaping a future where AI systems enhance human creativity and problem-solving.
Pictured: Ruslan Salakhutdinov. (Medium)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What first drew your interest to artificial intelligence as opposed to the intricacies of human intelligence?
Ruslan Salakhutdinov: My first interest in AI was during my undergraduate studies in North Carolina. A book by Peter Norvig and Stuart Russell, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, intrigued me. It was published in 1995 and sparked my interest in AI.
I decided to pursue graduate work in AI and applied to several schools. Luckily, I ended up at the University of Toronto, where I eventually started working with Geoffrey Hinton. A great turn of events led me to work in AI. I have always been curious about machines that can learn independently and perform creative tasks. The concept of building systems that can learn fascinated me when I began my undergraduate studies in the late nineties. At that time, the term “AI” wasn’t very popular; during my graduate work, the focus was more on machine learning and statistical machine learning.
The field was fairly statistics-oriented because it was perceived as a proper discipline. AI was often seen as a domain for people building decision support systems. Working with Geoffrey Hinton and his lab completely revolutionized my work. In the early days, around 2005 or 2006, Geoffrey Hinton began promoting deep learning and learning multiple levels of representation. I had just started my PhD, so I was in the right place at the right time.
As with anything in life, timing is crucial. Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder of OpenAI, was my lab mate. We sat beside each other, and a few others were now driving much of this work across different companies and universities.
Jacobsen: Geoffrey Hinton has become a household name over the past year, largely due to his warnings about artificial intelligence. On the other hand, Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has offered a more balanced perspective. He emphasizes the need to understand and control AI systems and even suggests we might need to “pull the plug” if they act unpredictably.
Meanwhile, Ray Kurzweil’s visions of the law of accelerating returns and his almost spiritual pursuit of merging with AI to explore the cosmos evoke shades of Carl Sagan. The discourse surrounding AI is as diverse as the field itself.
Similar to a vector space, this diversity reflects how terms like AI, AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), and ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) carry varied interpretations. Why do you think these differing definitions persist?
Salakhutdinov: We lack a set of benchmarks or a standardized set of problems that would allow us to define these terms clearly. If we have a system that solves those problems, we’ve reached AGI. Or if we have a set of problems we’re solving, we’ve reached ASI. So, the definitions depend on whom you talk to. People like Geoffrey Hinton and Eric Schmidt say the academic community has potentially huge, existential risks.
And then you have people on the other side who say, look, we’re going to reach a point where these systems will be very intelligent. They’ll be smart and, at some point, will reach superintelligence. Still, we will probably go to the point of existential risk. There are risks associated with AI in general, and people are looking into those. One area that I specifically work on at CMU is building agentic systems or AI that can make decisions or take actions independently. So think about a personal assistant where you can say, “Hey, buy me the best flight I can get to San Francisco tomorrow.” The assistant will find the information and book the flight for you.
You can think of it as a personal assistant. And, of course, risks are associated with this because now you’re moving from systems like ChatGPT, where you ask a question and get an answer, to systems where you give a task, and the agent tries to execute that task. My personal feeling is that when it comes to AGI, I think about autonomous systems that can make decisions.
Where we are right now is unclear because we are experiencing rapid progress with ChatGPT and many other advancements. Will we continue this exponential growth or hit a ceiling? We’ll eventually hit the ceiling, and getting the remaining 10% or 15% of progress will be challenging, so these systems will be very useful.
At what point we will reach the true level of AGI—systems that are general enough to do anything for you—is unclear to me. People have predictions. For example, Geoffrey Hinton initially thought it would take less than 100 years. With the advent of models like ChatGPT, predictions have been accelerated to around 30 years. He’s saying it might be 10 years, but there’s still much uncertainty. Predicting anything beyond five years is hard because AI development can either accelerate with systems getting better, smarter, and more autonomous with strong reasoning capabilities—as we’re seeing with OpenAI’s models like GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 that can perform complex reasoning and solve hard math problems—or it could progress more gradually.
Jacobsen: In the coming years, we may see the emergence of profoundly analytical tools. When we speak of agency in AI, the term holds a very different meaning compared to human or animal agency. This evolution in large language models and AI systems seems to herald a new era. What are your thoughts on these agentic capabilities?
Salakhutdinov: You want to build systems that can be your assistant. Think of it as a system that handles all your scheduling, tasks, and whatever you need. It’s your financial adviser that gives you advice on your finances. It’s your doctor that gives you advice on your health. At some point, when I have conversations with my colleagues about this, some are saying that if you have an AI assistant that can do a lot for you, that’s close to AGI. Some people would call it AGI because the problem we see right now is that GPT is the best in coding—it’s the best in speed coding contests. People try to code something within a fixed period, and these systems are better than humans. And I said, “Okay, that’s good.”
And he said, “Well, aren’t you amazed? We have systems that can outcompete competitive coders right now.” The reason why it’s impressive but not making big rounds is that these systems are still not reliable. It’s not like I can delegate a task to the system and be 100% sure it will solve it. 80% sure that solving a task is not enough. This notion of hallucination and robustness in the system is missing at this point. That’s why, for example, in coding, it hasn’t replaced professional coders. It’s useful as a tool, but it hasn’t emerged to the point where I’m replacing all of them with AI if I have an organization with programmers.
AI is helping them write better code, but it hasn’t gotten to the point where this robustness and reliability is achieved. It’s like having a personal assistant, which is 80% correct. I don’t want a personal assistant who books my flights 20% of the time incorrectly. Right? That’s just not acceptable. So, this is where we are at this point. To get to AGI, we need the system to be robust to hallucinations. It’s not there yet.
Jacobsen: Are governments, policymakers, and economists equipped to handle the sweeping changes AI demands? For example, these systems will likely require access to significant amounts of personal data to make decisions, raising urgent concerns about data privacy. Additionally, the economic landscape could shift dramatically as corporations opt for AI solutions that outperform human employees. How should society navigate these dual challenges of privacy and employment disruption?
Salakhutdinov: These models we see today are very data-hungry and improve with more data, especially personalized data. If they know you, the decisions they make can be much better. That aspect is going to be important. There are regulations regarding what that would look like, which will soon be coming into place. These models are not yet at the point where they can be reliably deployed or fully useful.
Economists are doing some work on job displacement. How much of it will happen is still not clear. Still, someone gave me an example of a company that laid off several translators from one language to another because machines can do it better, cheaper, and faster. Translation from English to French is just one example. That’s worth considering, especially as these systems improve.
One question I always have is, when these systems reach the point where certain parts of our economy see displacement, what will governments need to do to retrain people? The next two years will be critical because if progress continues as it has over the last couple of years, the changes will be fairly quick. Usually, with humanity, if it takes a generation or two to adapt, it’s fine. But it’s a fast change if it happens over five to ten years. So yeah, that’s worth considering, as well as closely tracking how these models progress. By 2025, we will see this every year—an iteration of models coming out, like GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4.
We’re still waiting for GPT-5. Google has Gemini 2, you know, Gemini 2.4. It’s like, and this year will also be interesting because it’s the next stage of what’s frontier-based models, which consume more data and computing. So the question this year is, what will that gap be if we see GPT-5?
Jacobsen: Eric Schmidt jokingly remarked that Americans might one day turn to Canada for hydropower due to the immense energy demands of advanced AI systems. What do you make of this observation, and how might the energy consumption of AI shape global resource dynamics?
Salakhutdinov: That’s true. And as these models become bigger, there’s now thinking about reducing the cost because you can’t afford it otherwise. More research should be done to build these models more efficiently and train them with less computation. Otherwise, the cost is going to be prohibitive.
Jacobsen: Jensen Huang recently noted that we are approaching the end of Moore’s Law, yet he highlighted transformative announcements at CES suggesting new hardware and software efficiencies. He described this as an “exponential on an exponential.” How do these compounding efficiencies shape your view of AI’s trajectory?
Salakhutdinov: So that’s true—for example, the hardware. If you look at NVIDIA, for example, some of their latest GPUs have massive improvements compared to five years ago. One thing is that as we achieve these efficiencies, we are reaching the point where we’re training these models on all of the Internet data. So, everything available goes into these models. And if you think about it, there’s no second or third Internet. So, data is limited based on what we have access to.
Much data is in the video space and images, like other modalities and speech. However, potentially, there will also be data that we call synthetically generated data—data generated by models that we can use to train and continue improving our models.
Jacobsen: There’s a concept I’ve been reflecting on—where we rely on limited data and generate artificial datasets through statistical extrapolation. What is the technical term for this approach, and how central do you see it becoming to AI advancements?
Salakhutdinov: That’s what artificial data means. For example, as these systems improve, you can generate artificial data from your model. There are ways of filtering and cleaning this data, which now becomes training data for the next model.
There are these bootstrapping pieces that you can do that work reasonably well. We still can’t just train on artificial data.
So, we still need real data. And how do we get this real data? I suspect multimodal models will use images, videos, text, and speech in the future. There’s a bunch of research happening—my former student, now a professor at MIT, is looking at devices that collect data and building these foundation models based on that. And so, but absolutely.
Now, compute is the case; data is the main workhorse. But data is important because you need to be able to clean it and curate it. I remember Microsoft doing this funny thing early on, announcing the Copilot project around 2022, right after ChatGPT. They were training the models, and somebody told Copilot, “Well, 2 + 2 is 5.” And the Copilot would say, “No.”
“It’s two plus 2, which is 4.” Then you say, “No, it’s five because my wife told me it’s 5.” The Copilot would say, “Okay, it’s 5.”
You know? So, things of that sort. “I agree with you. If you insist, I agree with you.” Or it would say, “Yeah.”
Or, at some point, it would say, “No, that’s incorrect.” And the user would say, “Well, you’re stupid.” And the Copilot would say, “Well, you’re stupid.” And so you get into this conversation where you’re an idiot. The Copilot would call you an idiot.
It would do this because much of the conversational data was taken from Reddit. If you look at Reddit, some conversations say, “Oh, here’s the right thing.” And somebody says, “No, you’re an idiot.” It’s this thing.
If you train on data like this, you get similar behaviour because the model statistically learns how conversations go. This is where mitigations come in: cleaning the data and understanding what’s needed. That’s also part of the process of building these models.
Jacobsen: Do we have a theoretical framework for determining the ultimate efficiency of a single compute unit? Or are we still in the realm of empirical guesswork?
Salakhutdinov: Yes. There is something called scaling laws.
The scaling laws were the idea that came up: “Look, we’re building a 500,000,000,000-parameter model. How much data do we need? What kind of accuracy do we expect to get? It’s very expensive to run this model, right?”
You can only do a single run to get that model. You can’t, like, try. And so what would happen is that you take smaller models and build these curves by saying, “Okay, this is how much data I have, this is how much compute I have, this is the accuracy that I get.”
“If I increase the data but keep the computer, this is the accuracy. If I increase the data and compute, I will get this.” So, you build this on small models and extrapolate further. And you say, “Okay, if I have that much more computing and data, this is the accuracy I’m expecting to have.” That was a guiding principle for a lot of existing model buildings.
But it’s also very hard to predict. Nobody’s been able to say, “Look, if we triple the compute and we triple the data, we’re going to reach AGI, or we’re going to reach ASI, or we’re going to reach the point where.” We get these scaling laws up to some point, but we don’t know what that will look like beyond.
Hard to predict. There is something whose initial thinking was that we throw more data, we throw more computing, and we get better models, which is what the industry is doing. There’s a second paradigm, which is what’s called test-time compute or inference compute, which is what these reasoning models are doing, which is to say, “Well, if you let me think more for a specific problem, if I spend more compute thinking about the problem, I can give you the answers.”
So, that’s part of the scaling laws to say we can get better systems. But again, no one has clearly defined what it would mean to reach ASI or AGI, so we are still not there. It’s not clear whether we’re going to get there.
Jacobsen: When we talk about AGI and ASI, the definitions seem to hinge on a mix of factors: computational power, neural network efficiency, and even evolutionary adaptability. Some argue that framing AGI around human intelligence sets a false benchmark, as human cognition itself is specialized and full of gaps. Should we redefine intelligence benchmarks in AI to account for these nuances?
Salakhutdinov: That’s a very good question. People associate AGI with human-level intelligence. But it’s unclear whether these systems can match human-level intelligence.
Because ChatGPT or any large language models are better at math than most people, does this mean they’re intelligent? There is something about human intelligence where you can extrapolate and reason and do things that machines can’t, at least at this point. They require these: There is an example where a machine can solve math or Olympiad competitions.
But then, when you ask it, like, “What is bigger, 9 or 9.11?” the model gets confused and says, “Well, nine is bigger than 9.11.”
Jacobsen: There are clear gaps in AI systems’ reliability—areas where common sense might dictate one course of action, but machines falter. While AI excels in tasks like drafting and summarizing, it struggles with others, like physical intelligence in robotics. A robotics expert once quipped that the first company to build a robot capable of unloading a dishwasher will become a billion-dollar enterprise. What are your thoughts on this divide between theoretical AI capabilities and practical applications?
Salakhutdinov: It is. But it still gives you this notion that it’s very hard to predict because, 10 years ago, people would have thought that building creative machines—machines that can draw creative pictures or write creative text—would be far more difficult than the robot unloading your dishwasher. And it’s just completely the other way around at this point.
I can prompt them all. They can do very good creative writing for me, improve my writing, generate realistic-looking images, and compose things in interesting ways—for designers, for example. These are amazing tools.
It points to the problem of predicting five years. People like Geoffrey Hinton, Eric Schmidt, and others are ringing the bell because they say, “Look, there is a non-zero chance these models will become very dangerous.” And I buy that. I don’t buy the whole Skynet future. These robots—where these models or AIs will say we don’t need humans and have full control. I don’t see that in the future, but as I’ve mentioned, it’s always hard to predict what will happen in five to ten years. So, we need to consider everything. I think that one time when I was talking to Geoffrey Hinton last time, I asked him, “Why are you so worried?” I think he was saying he’s worried but wants to make sure that some of the resources are allocated to safety research and, like you said, understanding the economy, job displacement, how these systems can be more robust, and how to conduct safety research.
That has never been the priority, at least until now. I agree with that. We need to do more work, research, and more—people are focusing more on capabilities and building more capable and better models. At the same time, we need people who understand these models’ safety aspects, robustness, economics, etc.
Jacobsen: Among your peers in the AI field, who do you consider the most consistently accurate in their predictions? Is there a figure whose insights have particularly resonated with you?
Salakhutdinov: This is a difficult question. I don’t know anyone who has consistently been accurate in their predictions.
Jacobsen: I wondered if the public has an accurate picture because they use many of the same terms. The definitions are a bit off. That leads to too much confusion about how people report this to the public and how they are taking it in. A long time ago, AI was about machine learning, statistical engines, etc. Still, these were quite distinct areas of specialization. They were almost niche. Now, though, they’re front and center as if they’re exactly one thing. That’s probably the area of confusion, but this will help clarify. Nice to meet you, and thank you so much for your time today.
Salakhutdinov: I appreciate it. Nice meeting you as well. Thanks for doing this.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06
Prof. Jim Al-Khalili CBE FRS Jim is a theoretical physicist at the University of Surrey where he is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physics. He received his PhD in nuclear reaction theory in 1989 and has published widely in the field. His current interest is in open quantum systems and the application of quantum mechanics in biology.
He is a prominent author and broadcaster. He has written 14 books on popular science and the history of science, between them translated into twenty-six languages. One of his latest books, “The World According to Physics,” was shortlisted for the Royal Society Book Prize. He is a regular presenter of TV science documentaries, such as the Bafta nominated “Chemistry: A Volatile History,” and he hosts the long-running weekly BBC Radio 4 programme, “The Life Scientific.”
Jim is a past president of the British Science Association and a recipient of the Royal Society Michael Faraday Medal and the Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Medal, the Institute of Physics Kelvin Medal and the Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication. He received an OBE in 2007 and a CBE in 2021 for ‘services to science’. Al-Khalili is the vice president of HumanistsUK and served as the organization’s past president. Here we catch up and talk about science communication and Humanism.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Only been about a year since last talking this time–an improvement! I am no longer at the horse farm and back from Ukraine. To today, though, our senses tell us one thing. Our systems of logic tell us another thing, at times. Our scientific methodologies pierce the veil better than either alone. Why does so much of science give us such counterintuitive and seemingly contradictory ideas about the universe?
Prof. Jim Al-Khalili: Well, what we regard as intuition and common sense are formed by our experiences of the world around us that we encounter. But our senses only perceive a narrow slice of reality. Think about vision: the human eye only sees those electromagnetic waves in the so-called ‘visible’ range. But visible light is no more real than radio waves or x-rays – they are all light. Similarly with length scales: what we are familiar with on the everyday scale is by and large explained by Newtonian mechanics, but reality on the quantum scale or the cosmic scale is very different. We therefore regard this as counterintuitive, but that’s just because we don’t experience reality directly on those scales. In general, I would argue that wherever we see contradictions in our scientific understanding of the universe, it is because we have an incomplete understanding of the laws of nature.
Jacobsen: Let’s take a case example from your Twitter October 30-31, ‘Physics in History’ said, “Does time flow in one direction because of entropy, or are there deeper reasons for its arrow?” You replied, “I think you mean does time POINT in one direction because of entropy. Flow is an illusion. Many physicists would say yes. But there may be deeper reasons that bake an arrow into the universe (possibly due to quantum entanglement) and then entropy follows the arrow.” These distinct ideas–flow, directionality, entropy, time, quantum, entanglement–are fascinating and subtle. What does your response mean more fully?
Al-Khalili: The way we perceive time in our minds – what is often called manifest time – can often be very different from what we know about the true objective nature of time, our physical time. So while we have the strong sense that time flows (and we can debate whether this feels like time flowing past us or us moving through time) there is nowhere in the laws of physics that says time actually flows at all. In fact our current best theory of time, Einstein’s relativity, says that time just ‘is’. It exists. But what we do have is an ordering of events in some sequence: cause comes before effect, yesterday is different from tomorrow, and so forth. So even if time doesn’t flow, it at least has a direction. Think of a deck of cards arranged in increasing value in a line on a table; there is a direction to this increase in value, say left to right, but nothing is flowing. Our current view of physics is that time is like this. But to delve deeper into the origin of this arrow of time and whether it is solely down to increasing entropy, or disorder, in the universe, or something deeper, requires more subtle debate. Thankfully for humanity, I am currently writing just such a book that will be out next year!
Jacobsen: With that case example, what is the process there when breaking down science into manageable bits for those without the training?
Al-Khalili: I think for short, sharp and impactful posts on social media, all one can do is whet the appetite for a deeper understanding: to hint at exciting ideas that need a little more time and effort to absorb. I see such posts as a way of provoking discussion and thinking. Hopefully, firing up people’s curiosity can then lead to a more measured discussion.
Jacobsen: Here’s something I haven’t asked you. Nature is non-supernatural, so naturalism is reality and vice versa. From a physics argument, to quote Schrodinger, “What is life?” How does physics and the physics of biology inform an evidence-based distinction between life and death?
Al-Khalili: I think that science has yet to fully understand the distinction between life and non-life. We have many definitions of what it means to be alive – and by this I don’t mean human life with consciousness, but anything that can make copies of itself and evolve according to Darwinian evolution. From a physicist’s perspective, life means a complex system that can maintain order, complexity and an off-equilibrium state of low entropy. There is no magic here; no ingredient of vitalism that endows matter with ‘lifeness’, But it is still a puzzle. It’s the reason we have not been able to create artificial life yet. So, although Schrödinger posed that question in the title of his book, we are still trying to find a definitive answer 80 years later.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, a pertinent issue to British humanists is dying with dignity. Most Brits support assisted dying. How does a naturalistic, evidence-based view inform the humanist position and the humanistic option of assisted dying, i.e., most Brits are humanistic on this issue?
Al-Khalili: This is an interesting question. Yes, it is certainly the case that most Brits, according to recent surveys, support assisted dying. And I would also argue that the majority of Brits, if you asked them and analysed their worldviews, would probably identify with humanist thinking. But the puzzle is that for a humanist, like me, this life is all there is; there is nothing after we die. So some might find it strange that we support assisted dying. Surely a humanist would wish to prolong life for as long as possible since it is so valuable. But I think that is to miss what humanism is also about, which is a respect for all human life, and part of that is to allow people to choose to die with dignity. We are all going to die one day and we do not exist, in any sense, after we die any more than we existed before we were born. While we are alive therefore, we should make the most of it, and part of that is to alleviate suffering for those at the end of their time.
Jacobsen: Why was Neils Bohr wrong when he said, “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we say about nature”?
Al-Khalili: This view, which grew out of the philosophy of logical positivism and instrumentalism, is one that was pushed by the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, led by the likes of Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Paul. It is known in philosophy as epistemology. But I have always disagreed with it. I prefer an ontological philosophy. On this point, I side with Einstein who always argued that it is indeed the job of physics to get as close as possible to the truth of what nature is. There is an objective reality out there. We may never fully understand it but we can try to get closer to it. In this sense, when it comes to how we understand the universe, particularly on the quantum scale, I am a realist. There is a real world out there that exists independently of what I think. I want to know what that real world is.
Jacobsen: What would constitute an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Al-Khalili: There are several ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics, which oppose the epistemological Copenhagen view. The best known as probably the Everettian many worlds interpretation. There is also the ’spontaneous collapse’ model or, my personal favourite, Bohmian mechanics. All these interpretations of quantum mechanics assume there is an objective reality independent of our senses and that we can say something about it that is more than just predicting results of observations. They are real descriptions of reality rather than just a recipe for what we should expect when we carry out a measurement.
Jacobsen: What are the newest updates on emeritus status now, and the book on time mentioned in the previous interview?
Al-Khalili: Well, after 32 years of unbroken undergraduate teaching and an increasing administrative load at Surrey, I am enjoying my new-found freedom to focus only on those activities that I enjoy: my research, interacting with my PhD students, my writing and my broadcasting. My wife keeps reminding me that I am officially now retired, but I am as busy as ever (well, OK, not quite as busy, as I can pick and choose how I use my time now). On that front, most of my time is currently being spent writing my new book on the nature of time, which I need to get back to after this interview! It’s coming along nicely and I keep thinking of more things to say, so it’s probably going to end up being my most ambitious writing project to date.
Jacobsen: What are your favorite humanism coda quotes?
Al-Khalili: Probably the usual suspects:
You don’t need God to be good.
This is the only life we have so let’s not waste it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jim.
Al-Khalili: It was nice chatting to you. Now back to the mysteries of Time.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06
In this wide-ranging conversation, Professor Behnam Pourhassan unpacks the intricate landscape of black hole thermodynamics and its profound implications for quantum gravity and cosmology. He explains how the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area—a revelation that supports the holographic principle, which posits that information is encoded on boundaries rather than within volumes. The phenomenon of Hawking radiation, he notes, implies that black holes are not eternal but slowly evaporate over time.
Pourhassan delves into the thermodynamic phase transitions of black holes, explores quantum corrections to entropy, and examines the possibility of stable black hole remnants. He also discusses how dark energy propels the universe’s accelerated expansion and outlines how modified gravity theories seek to replace the notion of unseen substances with fundamental changes to gravity itself.
The conversation turns to the unique properties of anti-de Sitter (AdS) black holes and the role of the AdS/CFT correspondence, a theoretical bridge linking gravity to quantum field theory. Pourhassan also touches on a range of related topics—from cosmic strings and nonlinear electrodynamics to the statistical mechanics of gravitational systems and the implications of massive gravity for black hole physics. Crucially, he emphasizes the role of quantum information theory in addressing the black hole information paradox, a subject actively explored at the Canadian Quantum Research Center.
This interview will be featured in a volume of dialogues with leading thinkers in quantum cosmology, quantum gravity, and quantum information theory.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How is black hole entropy related to surface area? Why is this significant?
Behnam Pourhassan: Black hole entropy is directly proportional to its surface area, which is a remarkable and profound insight into the nature of quantum gravity. This relationship suggests that a black hole’s information content is encoded on its boundary rather than distributed throughout its volume. This is a key aspect of holography, a principle stating that the physics of a higher-dimensional space can be fully described by a theory existing on its lower-dimensional boundary.
This idea’s significance extends beyond black holes—it provides a deeper understanding of quantum gravity and spacetime itself. The fact that a black hole’s entropy is determined by its surface rather than its volume aligns with the holographic principle, which proposes that all the information contained within a region of space can be represented by data residing on its boundary.
This perspective has led to major advancements in theoretical physics, including the AdS/CFT correspondence, which links gravity in a higher-dimensional space to a lower-dimensional quantum field theory. The link between black hole entropy and surface area is not just about heat and energy. It suggests something deeper about how the universe works—possibly that space and time come from quantum information stored on surfaces.
Jacobsen: How is Hawking temperature calculated? What does this tell us about a black hole’s ultimate fate?
Pourhassan: Hawking temperature is found by studying how black holes emit radiation due to quantum effects near their event horizon. This radiation, known as Hawking radiation, causes the black hole to lose mass over time slowly. The temperature of this radiation depends on the black hole’s properties, such as its size and gravity. This has important consequences for a black hole’s fate. Since it continuously emits energy, it will gradually shrink and eventually evaporate completely if it doesn’t gain more mass from its surroundings. This suggests that black holes are not eternal and that their information content is crucial in understanding the deeper connections between gravity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics.
Jacobsen: How can black holes undergo phase transitions? Is this akin to regular materials? If so, what are the extreme conditions for these phase transitions?
Pourhassan: Black holes can undergo phase transitions similar to regular materials, such as water turning into ice or steam. In black hole physics, these transitions are often studied using thermodynamic properties like temperature, pressure, and entropy. For example, in anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, black holes can exhibit a phase transition similar to the liquid-gas transition, where a small black hole can grow into a large one as conditions change.
These phase transitions usually occur under extreme conditions, such as high curvature, strong quantum effects, or external forces like a surrounding thermal bath. Studying these transitions helps us understand deep connections between gravity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.
Jacobsen: How do quantum effects modify the formulae of classical entropy? What are the implications of this derivation?
Pourhassan: Quantum effects introduce corrections to the classical entropy of a black hole, usually appearing as additional terms beyond the standard expression. These corrections arise due to quantum fluctuations near the event horizon, affecting how information and energy behave in extreme gravitational fields.
One key implication is that these modifications help address the information paradox by providing a deeper understanding of how entropy behaves at quantum scales. Additionally, these corrections suggest that black holes might not completely vanish upon evaporation but could leave behind a remnant or release information subtly.
Jacobsen: What are the logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy? Are there implications for stability?
Pourhassan: Logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy arise from quantum and thermal fluctuations near the event horizon. These corrections modify the classical entropy expression by adding a term proportional to the logarithm of the black hole’s area. They appear naturally in many approaches to quantum gravity, including string theory and loop quantum gravity. These corrections have important implications for black hole stability. They influence phase transitions, thermodynamic stability, and even the final stages of black hole evaporation. In some cases, they suggest that a black hole might reach a stable remnant instead of evaporating completely, which could have implications for the information paradox and quantum gravity.
Jacobsen: Does dark energy drive cosmic expansion? What is the lesser importance of this to physics and greater importance to cosmology?
Pourhassan: Yes, dark energy is currently understood to be the main driver of the universe’s accelerated expansion. It plays a central role in the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model, which is the standard model of cosmology. Cosmic expansion (i.e., the fact that the universe is expanding) results from the initial conditions set by the Big Bang. Dark energy, however, drives the universe’s accelerated expansion, which was discovered in the late 1990s through observations of distant Type Ia supernovae. In the equations of General Relativity, dark energy behaves like a cosmological constant (Λ) — a form of energy that exerts negative pressure, causing the expansion to speed up rather than slow down.
Dark energy doesn’t yet fit into the framework of particle physics. It doesn’t interact with matter or radiation (as far as we know), and it hasn’t been detected in lab experiments. It’s more of a placeholder concept: we see its effects but don’t know what it is. No current testable theories in quantum field theory or particle physics fully explain it.
Dark energy accounts for ~68% of the universe’s energy content. It dominates the cosmos’s fate and shape. So, even if we don’t know what dark energy is, cosmologists must include it to accurately model and understand the universe’s evolution.
Jacobsen: What are modified gravity theories?
Pourhassan: Modified gravity theories are alternative theories to Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that attempt to explain gravitational phenomena — especially things like dark energy, dark matter, and cosmic acceleration — without invoking unknown substances or energy forms. Instead of saying, “There must be something weird like dark energy making the universe expand faster,” modified gravity theories say, “Maybe our understanding of gravity itself breaks down on large scales.”
Jacobsen: What distinguishes anti-de Sitter black holes from the generic idea of black holes?
Pourhassan: Great question. This touches on some deep ideas in theoretical physics, especially about where gravity meets quantum theory. When people say “black hole” generically, they usually mean one that exists in asymptotically flat spacetime — like in our observable universe, that includes Schwarzschild black holes (non-rotating, uncharged), Kerr black holes (rotating), and Reissner-Nordström black holes (charged), these solutions assume that far away from the black hole, space is flat (like our every day, large-scale view of the universe).
An AdS black hole exists in a universe with a negative cosmological constant — a curved background called Anti-de Sitter space. An AdS black hole is a solution to Einstein’s equations in this AdS background. So, AdS black holes differ from generic ones because they live in a negatively curved universe. That gives them very different boundary behavior and thermodynamic properties, making them especially important in theoretical frameworks like holography and quantum gravity.
Jacobsen: Is it possible to connect gravity with AdS/CFT correspondence in AdS space with quantum field theory?
Pourhassan: Yes — and that’s precisely what the AdS/CFT correspondence does: it connects gravity in AdS space with a quantum field theory (QFT) on its boundary. This is one of the most profound ideas in modern theoretical physics.
Proposed by Juan Maldacena in 1997, this conjecture says: A gravitational theory in (d+1)-dimensional AdS space is equivalent to a conformal field theory (CFT) living on its d-dimensional boundary. This is also called the holographic principle because A higher-dimensional gravitational theory (the bulk) is encoded by a lower-dimensional QFT (the boundary).
Jacobsen: How can mass in the graviton in massive gravity theories give insights into black holes and cosmic architecture?
Pourhassan: Massive gravity is a bold attempt to increase our understanding of gravity at a fundamental level, and giving the graviton a mass changes the rules of the game for how we think about black holes, cosmic structure, and even dark energy. In standard General Relativity, the graviton — the hypothetical quantum of gravity — is massless. Massive gravity theories propose that the graviton has a tiny but nonzero mass.
Black holes in massive gravity can differ from those in GR: They may not obey spherical solutions, which can be time-dependent. Unlike standard black holes, they can exhibit hair (i.e., non-trivial fields outside the event horizon). Their thermodynamics may change, affecting entropy and temperature. The gravitational field falls off differently — potentially modifying how black holes interact with surroundings or even merger dynamics (relevant for gravitational waves).
We might be able to test massive gravity through precision gravitational wave signals (like deviations in waveform tails or the speed of gravity). Adding mass to the graviton affects how gravity behaves on large (cosmic) scales: A massive graviton weakens gravity at large distances, mimicking the effects of dark energy. Some versions of massive gravity can explain the universe’s accelerating expansion without needing a cosmological constant.
Jacobsen: What is the holographic principle? What does this mean for an informational view of black holes?
Pourhassan: The holographic principle (named by Leonard Susskind) is a profound and somewhat mind-bending idea from theoretical physics. It suggests that all of the information contained within a volume of space can be represented as a hologram — a theory that lives on the boundary of that space. In other words, the 3D reality we perceive might be encoded on a distant 2D surface. This idea originated from efforts to understand black hole thermodynamics and quantum gravity, particularly the information paradox related to black holes. The holographic principle flips our intuition. It suggests that spacetime and gravity might emerge from more fundamental, lower-dimensional quantum information.
Black holes aren’t cosmic trash compactors that delete data — they’re more like storage devices that encode it in a holographic way.
Jacobsen: How do black hole thermodynamics compare to a van der Waals fluid?
Pourhassan: I like this question — this is where black holes get surprisingly thermodynamic and start acting like weird versions of everyday matter. Despite being exotic objects, black holes follow laws that look just like thermodynamics. Surprisingly, some black holes behave just like fluids — particularly a van der Waals gas. A van der Waals fluid is a more realistic model of a gas than the ideal gas law. It includes attraction between particles and a finite volume of molecules.
In AdS space, black holes can be put into thermal equilibrium with their surroundings. This setup gives them well-defined pressure, volume, temperature, and entropy like a fluid. Physicists like Robert B. Mann found that charged AdS black holes (like Reissner–Nordström-AdS) have thermodynamic behavior very similar to a van der Waals fluid. These black holes show first-order phase transitions between small and large black holes — just like the gas\liquid phase transition of ordinary matters.
Jacobsen: How does electric charge influence a black hole’s stability?
Pourhassan: Adding an electric charge to a black hole introduces new physical and thermodynamic behavior. A black hole with charge is called a Reissner–Nordström black hole (non-rotating) or Kerr–Newman (if rotating too). Its metric describes a black hole with mass , charge , and possibly spin . The presence of charge adds a repulsive term to the gravitational field. The resulting spacetime structure becomes more complex. In AdS spacetime, charged black holes show even more interesting behavior: They can be more thermodynamically stable than uncharged ones. There’s a stable equilibrium temperature, especially for larger charges and larger AdS radius.
Jacobsen: How does merging nonlinear electrodynamics with gravity modify black hole solutions? Do any new effects come from this merger?
Pourhassan: Merging nonlinear electrodynamics (NLED) with gravity leads to modifications in black hole solutions by altering the behavior of the electromagnetic field within the gravitational context. In traditional general relativity, black holes are described by solutions like the Schwarzschild or Reissner-Nordström metrics, where electromagnetic fields behave linearly (i.e., the field strength is directly proportional to the charge). However, when NLED is introduced, the relationship between the electromagnetic field and its source becomes nonlinear, affecting the structure of black holes.
This nonlinearity can lead to new phenomena, such as the presence of regular (non-singular) black holes, where the singularity at the center is avoided. Additionally, NLED can modify the black hole’s charge and mass distributions, potentially forming exotic black hole solutions with different thermodynamic properties, such as entropy or temperature behavior. In some cases, the introduction of nonlinear electromagnetic fields can lead to the existence of black holes with different horizons or altered stability properties, enhancing the range of possible black hole configurations and phenomena in gravitational physics.
Jacobsen: What are cosmic strings?
Pourhassan: Cosmic strings are hypothetical, one-dimensional defects in the fabric of space-time that may have formed in the early universe. These strings are incredibly thin but incredibly long, stretching across vast distances. They are remnants from the time just after the Big Bang, potentially created during phase transitions when the universe cooled and matter began to organize itself. Imagine them as incredibly dense, stretching lines of energy that may have significant gravitational effects on nearby objects. Although they haven’t been observed directly, cosmic strings interest scientists because they could provide insights into the fundamental forces of nature, like gravity, and help us understand the very origins of the universe.
Jacobsen: How can statistical mechanics illuminate the microscopic nature of gravitational systems?
Pourhassan: Statistical mechanics helps to understand the microscopic nature of gravitational systems by focusing on the collective behavior of a large number of particles, such as stars or gas molecules, that make up these systems. Instead of studying each particle individually, statistical mechanics examines how the overall system behaves by considering averages and probabilities. In gravitational systems, like galaxy clusters or black holes, the interactions between particles (such as stars or gas particles) are influenced by gravity, which is a long-range force. Statistical mechanics can reveal how these particles distribute, evolve, and form structures like galaxies or black holes. It connects the microscopic interactions at the particle level to macroscopic properties such as temperature, pressure, and density, helping us understand phenomena like the distribution of stars in a galaxy or the behavior of matter near black holes.
Jacobsen: How does quantum information theory inform gravitational physics studying black holes? How are these quantum research ventures pursued at the Canadian Quantum Research Center?
Pourhassan: Quantum information theory plays a crucial role in understanding the behavior of black holes, especially in the context of their thermodynamics and the famous information paradox. One key area of focus is how quantum information behaves in extreme gravitational fields, like those near black holes. Quantum mechanics suggests that information cannot be destroyed. Yet, classical interpretations of black holes—especially the idea of the “event horizon”—suggest that anything entering a black hole would be lost to the universe, which creates a paradox. Quantum information theory helps to explore potential resolutions, such as the idea that information might be encoded in the radiation emitted by black holes (Hawking radiation) or that black holes might have an intricate quantum structure that preserves information in ways not yet fully understood. This theory bridges quantum mechanics and general relativity, pushing scientists toward a unified theory of quantum gravity.
At the Canadian Quantum Research Center, researchers delve into quantum information science to understand these extreme quantum phenomena. They explore foundational concepts like quantum entanglement and superposition and how these might apply in the gravitational context of black holes. Researchers might also study quantum computing models or use quantum simulations to explore how information might behave at the event horizon or in a quantum gravity framework.
These efforts aim to shed light on some of the universe’s deepest mysteries by developing new theories and computational tools that could eventually help reconcile quantum mechanics with the general theory of relativity.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Behnam.
Pourhassan: Thank you for the professional questions. I should add that the answers to most of these questions related to black hole thermodynamics are explored in detail in my book, Thermodynamics of Quantum Black Holes: Holography, which will be available online soon.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Lawrence Krauss and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06
Abstract
This interview explores the intersection of science and humanism through the insights of Dr. Lawrence Krauss, an esteemed theoretical physicist and public intellectual. Dr. Krauss discusses the fundamental principles of humanism, including the acceptance of reality, the use of reason and intelligence to improve society, and the importance of skepticism and scientific integrity. The conversation delves into challenges in science communication, the misconceptions surrounding the concept of “nothing,” and the dynamics of engaging with differing ideologies. Additionally, Dr. Krauss shares his experiences in public debates, his views on effective science communicators, and the role of humanism in promoting equality and resisting oppressive structures. This interview provides a comprehensive understanding of Dr. Krauss’s vision for a scientifically informed and humanistic society.
Keywords: Debates, Equality, Humanism, Lawrence Krauss, Nothing, Philosophy of Science, Public Understanding of Science, Science Communication, Scientific Integrity, Skepticism, Oppression
Introduction
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a prominent theoretical physicist and bestselling author, is renowned for his ability to bridge complex scientific concepts with public discourse. In this interview conducted by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dr. Krauss delves into the essence of humanism, emphasizing its reliance on reason, intelligence, and the acceptance of reality to foster societal improvement. The discussion addresses the challenges inherent in communicating intricate scientific ideas to a broader audience, highlighting the importance of integrity and skepticism in both scientific endeavors and humanistic practices. Dr. Krauss also reflects on his experiences in public debates, offering critiques on effective science communication and the interplay between science and philosophy. Furthermore, he elucidates the nuanced understanding of “nothing” within the context of physics and cosmology, countering common misconceptions. This interview sheds light on Dr. Krauss’s commitment to promoting a scientifically literate and equitable society through his work with The Origins Project and his role as a public intellectual.
Main Text (Interview)
Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Interviewee: Dr. Lawrence Krauss
Section 1: Defining Humanism
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Lawrence Krauss, probably one of the most prominent humanists. Thank you for taking the time today and indulging in a pipsqueak like me, as an older term for endearment. Today’s focus will be humanism and nothing. I’m an independent journalist. So, I can choose the topic and don’t necessarily have to engage in “gotcha” journalism or focus on one thing and another. I want to focus on a couple topics of interest and expertise for someone for a limited allotted time. So, when we’re focusing on humanism and nothing in this interview, it makes you an expert in something and nothing. You have a broad palette!
Dr. Lawrence Krauss: The two are not that different.
Section 2: Characteristics of Humanist Communities
Jacobsen: When you see humanism, at least the theory as opposed to the practice, what is its characteristic for you as you travel the world and see different humanist communities?
Krauss: Well, I guess, first of all, I don’t tend to label people in terms of “-isms.” I don’t think in terms of “-isms.” I don’t say, “This is a humanist community,” or “These people are humanists.” People are individuals, and I don’t label myself except, perhaps, as a scientist.
But humanism is a willingness to accept the world for what it is and realize that we can try to make the world a better place with intelligence and reason. Those are the two basic features: accept reality and take the evidence of reality as your guide, and use your intelligence, reason, and observations to try to make the world a better place for both people and, in my case, nature as well.
Section 3: Filtering Facts Through Ideologies
Jacobsen: Do you think a common mistake for most people is filtering the world’s facts through a particular ideology, religious or otherwise?
Krauss: We all do it. We’re all hardwired to do it, so we have to fight against it. We learned a neat tool about 500 years ago—certainly at least 400—that helps overcome this natural human tendency. It’s called science. We learned that scientists are flawed, but the scientific process is self-correcting.
This process involves taking data, making predictions, checking them against the data, and making your ideas open to rigorous scrutiny and attack from colleagues and others. This way, you filter out what’s wrong. You check again, do more experiments, and repeat the process. It works and helps overcome the natural human tendency to want to believe things—like Fox Mulder in The X-Files.
Section 4: Challenges in Scientific Training
Jacobsen: What part of scientific training do you think was the most difficult when training junior scientists?
Krauss: The hardest part is learning to work equally hard to prove your ideas wrong as you do to prove them right. The easiest person to fool is yourself. It’s easy to be skeptical of other people’s data but harder to be skeptical of your ideas. The most difficult challenge is being willing to look for what’s wrong with your arguments.
Section 5: Effective Science Communicators
Jacobsen: Who do you think is the best science communicator?
Krauss: “The best science communicator,” one of my favourite science communicators is Jacob Bronowski. He made a TV series called The Ascent of Man and wrote several great books. The Ascent of Man is one of the best examples of science communication, but it’s not just about science. It’s one of the best science and humanist art TV series ever. He was brilliant, and his books are wonderful. So he’s high on my list, though he could be more well-known today. He was more recognized back when his show aired—13 parts, if I remember correctly.
But anyway, he was a great science communicator—a scientist of sorts. Richard Feynman was another excellent science communicator who got people excited and thinking. However, Carl Sagan has done an outstanding job of inspiring people. Albert Einstein also wrote clear books about relativity.
And, of course, Charles Darwin is at the top of the list.
Section 6: Reflections on Darwin and Communication
Jacobsen: I’m sure the late Daniel Dennett would have agreed on that point.
Krauss: Well, maybe he would have, I don’t know. Richard Dawkins is always surprised when I say that, as a physicist, Darwin is my top choice. Not because of On the Origin of Species but because I was captivated by his earlier work, The Voyage of the Beagle. It’s a gripping book—it reads like a Hollywood movie. He’s almost always getting killed, making you think about everything. It’s remarkable. It’s a great read. I thought it would be tedious and difficult, but it’s not.
Section 7: Communicating Big Ideas to the Public
Krauss: Big ideas—general relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on—have at least been communicated to the public. These are foundational theories that the general public may not fully understand since we don’t all have the math or training, but the concepts have been explained clearly. For example, if you drop a rock and a feather, most people think the rock falls faster because it’s heavier. That misconception is independent of college education, as I’ve discovered.
At some level, though, certain ideas filter down. The fact that the universe had a beginning, even if people don’t believe it was only 6,000 years ago, filters through. The idea of the Big Bang is a profound result. General relativity involves the curvature of space and the existence of black holes—those ideas filter in.
That’s why I write books: to give people perspective. I don’t expect them to understand the details. The biggest surprise for me when I first wrote a book, which was originally a disappointment, was that many readers didn’t grasp the full depth. But I got over it.
Section 8: Reader Feedback and Misunderstandings
Krauss: When people write to me, saying, “I loved your book” and “I loved this part, blah blah blah,” it’s often completely different from what I had written. I need clarification on what I wrote. At first, I thought, “How disappointing.” But I had inspired them to think about it, and maybe that’s what matters.
Section 9: Communicating Humanist Ideas and Misunderstandings
Jacobsen: Do you find a similar experience when communicating humanist ideas or humanism in general—particularly when advancing science education for the public? Do you encounter similar misunderstandings of what you’re writing about humanism or values that would be considered humanist?
Krauss: Absolutely. First, what happens online is that people often only read the title or what someone else says about the title. So, of course, there are misunderstandings because most people need to be tuned to read what I say. They read what someone thinks I said or just the title and that’s enough for them.
Online, the level of discourse is sometimes below kindergarten level—they read almost nothing. They glance at the title, feel they’ve read enough, and then comment, usually writing something antagonistic. Sometimes, they love it without even reading it.
For example, when my Substack article or video is released, I’ll get “I love it” responses within 15 seconds of it going live, which tells me they probably didn’t read or watch it. It’s nice that they love it, but engaging with the content would be good.
Section 10: Misconceptions About “Nothing”
Jacobsen: That leads to the second topic—with almost nothing as the transition. You’ve explained this hundreds of times, I’m sure. When people think of “nothing,” they imagine an endless black void. What’s wrong with that image, and what’s the appropriate way to understand it?
Krauss: As I said in my book, A Universe from Nothing, there are many versions of “nothing.” For example, the Bible’s idea of “nothing” is often depicted as an endless void, which is one version of “nothing.” But there are many more. The easiest “nothing” to talk about is space—because space isn’t empty. It’s filled with virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and some eventually become real particles. So, that “nothing” is unstable; if you wait long enough, something will happen.
Then, you have another level of “nothing,” no space or time. That’s the version I was mostly talking about in my book. You take all the space and time we live in and imagine none existed. Then, suddenly, it did. That’s possible, even though some people struggle with the concept, asking, “What was out there before?” or “Was there anything else?” These are generally meaningless questions because everything in our universe—space and time—did not exist before, and then it did. Whether there was some preexisting structure or something else is irrelevant.
Our universe didn’t exist, and then it did. It’s like a magic trick. I’ve been practicing magic tricks while talking to you.
Section 11: Theological Pushback on “Nothing”
Jacobsen: So, Penn Jillette would be proud.
Krauss: Well, Penn is proud! He’s happy that I value magic.
Jacobsen: I should send him an email. I interviewed the late James Randi before he passed away, and I’m glad I had the chance to do that.
Krauss: One of my favourite pictures is of Penn, me, and Randi. I love it because I’m happy to be with two men I admire, and we all fit in the same frame. It was remarkable, especially because Randi was much shorter than me!
Section 12: Defining “Something from Nothing”
Jacobsen: So, what would be another definition of something from nothing?
Krauss: A lot of what you see in the world is illusion, too. The difference is, in science, we try to distinguish between illusion and reality.
Section 13: Theological Pushback and Meaning of “Why”
Jacobsen: When you discuss the concept of “nothing,” more precisely defined as it relates to how the real world operates, what kind of pushback do you typically get from theologians or people looking for more than just that explanation?
Krauss: What do I get from theologians? Nothing much. When you say they’re looking for more of an answer, do you mean they want some meaning behind why it’s happening?
Jacobsen: Correct. You explain, but they often ask, “Why.” And when you respond that “why” has no inherent meaning, that can be frustrating for them, right?
Krauss: They’re looking for an answer that implies some underlying purpose or immateriality.
Section 14: The Meaning of “Why” and the Laws of Physics
Jacobsen: But as you’ve pointed out, when they ask “why,” they often mean “how.” They expect answers about purpose when the question is about reality’s mechanisms. And then they ask, “Where did the laws of physics come from?” or similar questions, right?
Krauss: Yes, that’s a common follow-up. The simplest and most honest answer is, “I don’t know.” And that’s the point of my last book. The three most important words in science—and in life, really—are “I don’t know.”
That means there’s more to learn. But there are many possible answers, and they would prefer something else would need more. The simplest answer is that the laws of physics came into existence simultaneously with the universe. That’s an answer only some people find satisfying, but it’s possible. Another possibility is that some laws have preexisted the universe.
When you say “laws,” it implies that there’s maybe only one underlying set of rules by which physical existence can manifest. At least one thing is certain: many of the laws in our universe are emergent, effective laws—they are accidents of our universe. The properties of elementary particles and the four forces of nature are likely accidental consequences of what happened after the Big Bang. But fundamental concepts, like general relativity and quantum mechanics, may be intrinsic properties of nature. Why does nature have those properties? Who knows?
And maybe—again—it’s unclear whether that question even has meaning. So, it’s almost a meaningless question to ask if the laws were “eternal.” Because if time itself came into existence with the universe, then what does “eternal” even mean?
Section 15: The Concept of “Eternal” and Time
Krauss: “Eternal” only has meaning if time exists. If time came into existence with the universe, then “eternal” becomes an ill-defined concept. There could be a global time variable in some space outside our universe or in some other context from which our universe emerged. In that case, there could be an “eternal” time variable. But it needs to be better defined, especially when talking about the origin of our universe, where we know the laws of physics break down at the point where space and time began.
Section 16: Occam’s Razor and Extra Dimensions
Jacobsen: That could also be reduced to Occam’s Razor—parsimony. If people are positing some invariant time outside of our regular universe, does that create a rickety structure of assumptions?
Krauss: Again, it depends on what you mean by “outside of our universe.” Our universe could be infinite. But if our universe emerged spontaneously as a closed universe, there would be no “outside” as it expanded. It just came into existence. There may be other spaces, but there’s no reason to assume our universe was embedded in those spaces.
Now, there are extra dimensions that we’re embedded in some larger multidimensional space. Despite being a well-motivated idea, that’s another possibility, though it currently needs more evidence.
Section 17: String Theory’s Definition of “Nothing”
Jacobsen: Do string theorists define “nothing” differently than what you’ve described?
Krauss: Do string theorists define “nothing” differently? No. String theorists are physicists, so we all define “nothing” similarly. It still comes down to quantum mechanics and general relativity because that’s what string theory is based on. String theory expands upon these ideas, but the fundamental definition of “nothing” remains the same.
And what I can say that maybe generalizes string theory, especially beyond four dimensions of space and time, is that string theory suggests there’s a smallest possible distance you can get to—it doesn’t allow you to reach zero size. In other words, you can achieve a fundamental smallest scale, a minimum length, known as the Planck length.
String theory also implies there’s the smallest time increment because space and time are intertwined. The best way to put it is that there’s a minimum space-time interval. Things popping in and out of existence still happen. Still, string theory allows for a much larger framework for these phenomena. Not only does it allow, but it requires more than four dimensions—beyond the three spatial dimensions and one-time dimensions we’re familiar with—for the theory to be mathematically consistent.
If string theory describes our universe, there are likely more than four space-time dimensions. The theory is well-defined. However, we’re still learning about the mathematical structures within it. Strings used to be considered the fundamental building blocks. Still, we know that strings are only some fundamental constructs in string theory. We’ve moved to more complex entities like membranes (branes) and manifolds.
It’s a complicated mathematical framework—I was about to say “mess,” but I don’t know if that’s fair. It’s a work in progress.
Section 18: Sean Carroll and Poetic Naturalism
Jacobsen: Sean Carroll is another prominent humanist and popularizer of science.
Krauss: I think of him more as a philosopher, however.
Jacobsen: He’s an effective presenter.
Krauss: He is. Sometimes, yes. He could be overly poetic for my taste, but he’s an effective communicator.
Jacobsen: He uses this concept of “poetic naturalism” to encapsulate his views.
Krauss: Yes, that’s where I don’t quite align with him. He’s effective but sometimes makes things sound grand, maybe to appear smarter. He’s written entire books on many-worlds interpretation, which feels like a waste of pages. The key issue isn’t what interpretation of quantum mechanics we use—whether it’s many-worlds or something else. The important thing is not how we interpret quantum mechanics but how we interpret classical mechanics.
The world is inherently quantum mechanical. So, trying to frame it in terms of some “effective” classical theory and then coming up with something that sounds bizarre doesn’t add much. Of course, quantum mechanics is weird, but the point is that the world is quantum mechanical, and we should embrace that.
So, any classical interpretation of quantum mechanics seems weird. But again, Sean Carroll is more of a philosopher because philosophers love creating and quoting these definitions. I don’t think in terms of definitions. What is “poetic naturalism”? I’m sorry, I’m going on a rant here. But anytime you start creating these fancy terms, it feels like something philosophers love to do, and often, it just obfuscates, as far as I can see. What’s the formal definition of poetic naturalism?
Section 19: Poetic Naturalism Defined
Jacobsen: I don’t know the formal definition, but I understand it’s about using ordinary language to describe the world while acknowledging that we operate under physical laws and principles.
Krauss: Maybe. But if that’s what it is, why not just say that? It is an overly grandiose way of describing something very straightforward. Anyway, I’m digressing.
Section 20: Experiences in Public Debates
Jacobsen: You’ve participated in a few debates—what was your favourite moment from those debates?
Krauss: I generally don’t enjoy debates. They’re more rhetorical exercises than explanation, logic, and critical thinking discussions. I don’t think about favourites, but I recall one of the most effective moments.
Unfortunately, I debated William Lane Craig several times. I assumed he was well-meaning the first time, but I soon realized that was my mistake. Afterward, I tried to avoid him, though I debated him again despite attempting to convince the organizers in Australia not to invite him. We did three debates for a Christian group—very nice people—with large audiences, mostly Christians. It was fun to expose the superficiality of his thinking on certain topics.
There were two notable things: first, his arguments were low-hanging fruit, and second, he distorts and lies, which is why I found it so frustrating—one moment that resonated with the audience occurred during the Q&A section of one of these debates. Unfortunately, most of these debates were moderated by philosophers who often seemed more interested in hearing themselves talk than in asking us meaningful questions. But one asked, “What would it take to change your mind?”—specifically about belief in God.
Section 21: Response to William Lane Craig’s Question
Jacobsen: What did you say?
Krauss: I said that if I looked up at the night sky and the stars realigned to spell out “I’m here” in Aramaic, Hebrew, English, or even Russian, I’d be impressed. That would be a remarkable event. It would make me reconsider things. William, on the other hand, gave a remarkably facile answer. This surprised me, considering he has debated this topic his whole life.
William Lane Craig said that if his daughter died, he’d question the existence of God. Wow, that’s a pretty flimsy belief system.
Then there was another moment, similar in tone. I had heard him debate before, and I think this came from one of those debates. It was about the Amalekites. You know, the biblical story where the Israelites are commanded to kill all the Amalekite men, women, and children—everyone.
Section 22: Debating Biblical Narratives
Jacobsen: Yes, I’m familiar with it.
Krauss: So, I asked him, “What about the children? Why did they have to be killed? They hadn’t done anything wrong.”
His response was, again, remarkable. First, he said, “The children haven’t done anything wrong, so they’ll go to heaven.” Great—because that’s what parents want to hear, right? Then he said something even more shocking: “I don’t feel sorry for the children. I feel sorry for the Hebrew soldiers who had to kill them under God’s orders because they would have been traumatized.”
That alienated most of the audience. It was a moment that stuck with me.
Section 23: Connection to Humanism and Human Rights
Jacobsen: That’s astounding.
Krauss: Yes, it was.
Jacobsen: This ties into humanism. A deep sense of fairness, equality, and human rights is important to many humanists, though not all. Noam Chomsky, for example, has a long history of political activism and has been described as a humanist and self-describes as an atheist.
I remember during one debate, you refused to take part because they were planning gender segregation. Could you tell me more about that moment and your decision?
Section 24: Refusing to Debate on Principle
Krauss: Yes, I did refuse. Noam Chomsky—by the way, I don’t think he necessarily identifies as an atheist, even though he’s often described that way. He doesn’t care about that label. He’s often told me that he doesn’t care what people believe, only what they do. It’s about actions, not beliefs, for him. And that’s true for me as well.
Section 25: Maintaining Principles Amidst Pressure
Jacobsen: That makes sense. So, how do you maintain that courage in the face of pressure, especially when you’re in a situation where standing up for equality could result in pushback from the crowd? Chomsky has a long history of activism and has faced backlash. I imagine you’ve encountered similar resistance.
Krauss: It isn’t easy sometimes. In that particular case, when I refused to debate in a segregated environment, I was standing by a principle I believe in deeply, secularism in a secular forum. It’s not about making grand gestures; it’s about not compromising on fundamental values. I knew there would be consequences, but you can’t let that deter you.
The key is to remind yourself of the bigger picture. When you’re in front of a crowd, it’s easy to get caught up in their reactions, but you must stay focused on what’s right rather than on what’s popular. Over time, you develop the resilience to withstand that kind of pushback. It helps to remember that history often judges those who stand for equality and justice more favourably in the long run than those who try to appease the status quo.
Section 26: Facing Hostility and Real Courage
Jacobsen: At that moment, you were facing pushback from the crowd. Was that a scary situation for you?
Krauss: There have been scarier moments, but it wasn’t about courage in the traditional sense. You either act in a way you believe is right or don’t. When you put yourself in that position, you must back up your words with action. Deciding not to debate and walking out if they didn’t desegregate the audience wasn’t the most courageous thing I’ve ever done. For me, it was a no-brainer.
I did it partly because I felt it was disingenuous—they had told me the event wouldn’t be segregated, and then it was. But more importantly, two young men sitting in the women’s section were about to be dragged out, and they asked for my help. They were scared, so I stepped in. That wasn’t the scary part, however.
The really scary part was afterward, looking into the eyes of the women in burkas. There was so much hate in their eyes because of the desegregation. You don’t know what people might be carrying under their burkas, and the hostility was palpable. During the question period, one of these women asked, “How dare you? What right do you have to do that?”
I tried to be gentle in my response, explaining that if we were in a mosque, she’d have every right to feel that way. But we were in a university lecture hall, in a secular society. If she went to a football game, she couldn’t say, “Stop the game until the women sit on one side and the men on the other.” The event was videotaped and recorded; she didn’t have to come if she didn’t want to sit next to a man. But in a secular society, she couldn’t expect her religious needs to dictate public events.
People sometimes call me or Richard Dawkins brave, but let me tell you what real bravery is. I recently came back from an event in Oslo with ex-Muslims from around the world. These are people who face death threats for renouncing their faith. They have to flee their countries, and their parents say they wish they had killed them when they were babies. These people live with that pain, and they still call their parents, who tell them they wish they had been killed. That’s real bravery.
That’s a different level of courage than simply getting up and walking out of a debate.
Section 27: Closing the Debate Discussion
Krauss: That’s a different level of courage than simply getting up and walking out of a debate.
Jacobsen: Lawrence, thank you for the opportunity and your time today, sharing insights on something and nothing.
Krauss: I wonder if I gave you many insights, but I owe you more time. Hopefully, there’s something useful in all of that.
Section 28: Final Remarks
Jacobsen: Excellent. Dr. Krauss, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Krauss: Thank you for giving me this opportunity. If you need anything, please don’t hesitate to contact me or my team. It’s been a pleasure to join you today. Thank you for the invitation.
Jacobsen: Take care. Nice to meet you.
Krauss: Bye-bye.
Jacobsen: Bye-bye.
Discussion
This interview with Dr. Lawrence Krauss provides a profound exploration of the principles of humanism as they intersect with scientific inquiry and public discourse. Dr. Krauss emphasizes that humanism is fundamentally about accepting the world as it is and striving to improve it through reason and intelligence. He highlights the inherent challenges in science communication, particularly the tendency for audiences to engage superficially with complex ideas, often leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Dr. Krauss’s critique of online discourse underscores the importance of depth and engagement in fostering a scientifically literate society.
A significant portion of the discussion centers around the concept of “nothing” in physics and cosmology. Dr. Krauss elucidates the different interpretations of “nothing,” challenging common misconceptions and addressing theological pushback. His explanations demystify complex scientific concepts, making them more accessible to the public while maintaining their intricate nuances. This approach reinforces the role of scientists as educators and communicators who bridge the gap between specialized knowledge and public understanding.
Dr. Krauss also shares his experiences in public debates, particularly his interactions with William Lane Craig. These anecdotes illustrate the challenges of engaging with deeply entrenched ideological positions and the limitations of debates as platforms for genuine understanding. His reflections reveal a commitment to integrity and principled discourse over rhetorical victories, aligning with the core tenets of humanism that prioritize truth and ethical responsibility.
Overall, the interview underscores Dr. Krauss’s dedication to promoting a society that values scientific integrity, critical thinking, and humanistic principles. His insights advocate for a more informed and equitable public discourse, where complex ideas are communicated effectively, and societal challenges are addressed through reasoned and ethical approaches.
Methods
The interviewer, Scott Douglas Jacobsen, conducted an in-depth, semi-structured interview with Dr. Lawrence Krauss. The conversation was arranged with Dr. Krauss’s consent and took place in a setting conducive to a comprehensive dialogue, either online or in person, based on logistical considerations. The interview was recorded to ensure accuracy and fidelity to both participants’ viewpoints. Following the interview, the recording was transcribed verbatim, capturing Dr. Krauss’s responses in their entirety. The transcript was then meticulously edited for clarity and brevity, ensuring that the essence and substance of Dr. Krauss’s insights were preserved without introducing any bias or alteration. This methodological approach facilitated a rich qualitative analysis of Dr. Krauss’s perspectives on humanism, science communication, and the interplay between science and society, allowing for an in-depth understanding of his philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/07
Šukrija Meholjić is a Bosniak survivor of the Srebrenica genocide who fled in 1992, eventually resettling in Norway. A self-taught artist and published author, he began drawing caricatures in a refugee camp in 1993 as a way to process the trauma of war and displacement.
Over the past three decades, Meholjić has created hundreds of illustrations and authored three bilingual books in Bosnian and English, with his work exhibited internationally. Through both his art and writing, he commemorates the victims of genocide, confronts denialism, and grapples with the nationalist forces that continue to threaten Bosnia’s fragile unity. His work is at once deeply personal and profoundly political—a therapeutic act of memory and a public plea for vigilance.
In this conversation, Meholjić reflects on the haunted legacy of Srebrenica, describing it as a “city of ghosts,” scarred by irrevocable demographic loss and the enduring shame of global indifference. He speaks of the moral imperative to remember—through education, memorials, and official recognition—and warns of the dangers posed by ongoing denial and secessionist rhetoric. His testimony, like his art, is a form of resistance—a personal reckoning and a collective call to never forget.
(Šukrija Meholjić)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the legacy of the Srebrenica genocide?
Šukrija Meholjić: That is complicated. After the genocide, Srebrenica became a city of ghosts. Only a small percentage of the original population remained. The majority were killed or displaced during the genocide in July 1995.
However, the persecution and killings of Bosniaks in eastern Bosnia had begun much earlier, during the war that started in 1992. Between 1992 and 1995, thousands of Bosniak civilians were killed in towns and villages across the region, including in areas like Bijeljina, Zvornik, and Vlasenica.
The genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995 marked the most brutal and concentrated episode of mass killing. Over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska under the command of General Ratko Mladić. It was the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II and has been legally classified as genocide by both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice.
Some older survivors did return to Srebrenica after the war, but the town had changed irreversibly. It became a place of silence and sorrow, with more dead commemorated than living remembered. The demographic destruction and post-war neglect contributed to ongoing depopulation.
Life after the war has been brutal. Today, young people who return to the area face high unemployment, inadequate healthcare, limited educational opportunities, and a lack of cultural and economic infrastructure. As a result, many continue to leave Srebrenica.
Srebrenica is no longer what it once was—and it is unlikely to regain its former vitality any time soon. That is all I can say for now. I am unsure whether I will continue discussing this issue or move on to something else.
A Spanish peacekeeper in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the war.
Jacobsen: How did this evolve for you?
Meholjić: I am one of the original residents of Srebrenica who had to leave in the early stages of the Bosnian War back in 1992 before the siege of Srebrenica began. Two days before severe fighting reached the town, I evacuated with my family in an attempt to save them. Eventually, it became clear that returning was impossible as the war escalated.
We first went to Croatia, where we lived for a year, and then relocated to Norway, where we still reside. Every summer, we return to Bosnia and Herzegovina—especially to Srebrenica.
During those visits, we usually go to honour the victims. It is a painful and challenging experience not to see my friends, neighbours, and those I lived with for so many years. Instead of shaking their hands, I now visit the Memorial Center in Potočari to pay respects to their remains.
This is the reality that life has imposed, but we must continue forward. We must never forget Srebrenica—for the sake of those who were killed, for those of us who survived, and for the generations yet to come.
We must remember Srebrenica because it represents the deepest wound in the history of Bosnia. It is the tear on Bosnia’s face. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the genocide in Srebrenica was not an isolated act. Mass killings and ethnic cleansing of Bosniak civilians took place in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well—such as in Prijedor, Foča, Višegrad, and elsewhere.
We must remember Srebrenica in every possible way to prevent such crimes from ever happening again—anywhere in the world.
I will not remain silent, but I will not destroy myself through my illustrations and caricatures, which I began creating in a refugee camp in Norway. I drew my first caricature shortly after arriving in Norway in 1993. From then on, I continued drawing them, one after another.
In a way, it became a personal therapy—an outlet to release the emotional burden I carried, filled with questions: Why? Why did all of this happen? Why did my neighbour—someone I had sat with and shared food and drink with—suddenly take up a gun and shoot at my friends and me?
It was initially incomprehensible to me. However, the political agenda behind it became clear. The leadership in Serbia, under Slobodan Milošević, sought to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into two parts—collaborating with Croatian President Franjo Tuđman. Their goal was to eliminate Bosnia and create a “Greater Serbia” and a “Greater Croatia.”
That plan, however, never fully succeeded. Although the international community imposed an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia in September 1991, the former Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and its vast arsenal were essentially handed over to Serbian leadership. This gave the Serb forces a significant military advantage.
Meanwhile, in 1993, the Croatian Defence Council, with support from the Croatian Army, began attacking Bosniaks in parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina—furthering the joint goals of Tuđman and Milošević.
In response, the Bosniaks—along with all patriots of Bosnia and Herzegovina—united to form a comprehensive defence force. This led to the creation of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which mounted effective resistance against both Serb and Croat forces.
At one point, this army advanced close to Banja Luka, a key stronghold in the region. When it seemed that the liberation of Banja Luka was near, Milošević appealed to U.S. President Bill Clinton and diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was leading peace negotiations, to stop the Bosnian forces and initiate peace talks to end the war.
Tragically, that request was granted. The war was halted, and the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed. In retrospect, had the offensive continued, Bosnia and Herzegovina might have been preserved as a unified, sovereign state—without the internal divisions that persist to this day. Thirty years later, the successors of Milošević’s ultranationalist policies still deny the genocide and continue to push for separatism.
Today, leaders of Republika Srpska—one of the two constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina—are attempting to secede. Though Republika Srpska has no legal right to unilateral independence, its leaders, with the backing of Serbia, continue attempts to divide the country and destabilize its sovereignty.
Kids playing basketball in the ruins of Sarajevo in 1997. (Jan Furstenborg)
Jacobsen: What did the international community do well?
Meholjić: First of all, what did they fail to do correctly? The United Nations had its representatives in the so-called protected area of Srebrenica–Žepa. This zone was established in 1993, not 1995.
There were United Nations peacekeeping troops stationed there, mandated to protect the civilian population. However, when the Bosnian Serb Army, under the command of Ratko Mladić, attacked the Srebrenica enclave in July 1995 and carried out genocide against the population—not only in the municipality of Srebrenica but also in surrounding areas—the UN troops did not intervene. They did not prevent or stop what the Bosnian Serb soldiers were doing to the civilians.
Srebrenica was left entirely alone in the world. The international community, particularly the United Nations, failed to take action. They stood by and did nothing. Moreover, that failure will remain a moral burden for the rest of their lives.
We will never forgive the United Nations representatives for that failure. Because had they truly wanted to protect Srebrenica, not a single life should have been lost during the genocide of 1995. Unfortunately, it took until very recently for the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution officially designating July 11 as the International Day of Remembrance of the Srebrenica Genocide.
That is a significant step. We thank them for that because now no one will be able to say, “I did not know about Srebrenica,” or “I did not hear that a genocide happened there,” or “I did not know who the perpetrators were,” or “I did not know who the victims were.” The resolution makes it clear: July 11 will be marked internationally as a day of remembrance for the genocide when close to 8,000 Bosniak men and boys from Srebrenica were systematically murdered.
That is a significant achievement. From now on, this day will be commemorated worldwide. It will not be forgotten. It will become part of school curricula, institutional memory, and educational programmes. It will shape how future generations understand and remember this tragedy.
Moreover, it will serve as a starting point to prevent similar genocides from occurring in the future anywhere in the world.
The next step must be for the international community—though still present in Bosnia and Herzegovina—to show greater resolve and capacity to help maintain Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign, unified state.
Currently, I cannot say I am satisfied with the level of political engagement among the international community. Too often, it relies on working through the internal leadership of Bosnia’s institutions—while ignoring the persistent obstructions from political elites.
We face daily political obstruction, particularly from the ruling elite in Republika Srpska and also from nationalist elements in the Croat-majority areas of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These factions consistently block the implementation of constructive decisions at the state level—decisions that would move Bosnia and Herzegovina in the direction it desires and deserves.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is geographically in Europe. It is in the very heart of Europe—but it is still not a member of the European Union. It must become a member.
We must all work toward that goal. If Bosnia and Herzegovina can join the EU, many problems in both the Balkans and Europe will be alleviated. I repeat: I am not satisfied with the international community’s impact on the present situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a centuries-old country with a history that stretches back more than a thousand years.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has a turbulent and dynamic history, but it has always existed. It is the oldest of all the neighbouring countries in the Balkans. However, today, we live surrounded—both internally and externally—by forces that seek to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into parts.
However, this will not happen. As long as we, the sons and daughters of Bosnia, live anywhere in the world, we will fight for our state—our homeland—because it is our only homeland.
As a citizen of Srebrenica, I contribute in the ways I can. I have been working for over 30 years on illustrations that depict the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, focusing particularly on the genocide in Srebrenica, on proceedings at the Hague Tribunal, and other key decisions related to Srebrenica.
I have created over 500 illustrations and published three books featuring my work. These books are bilingual, in Bosnian and English. They are housed in libraries worldwide. I have also held 30 exhibitions of my illustrations.
People have responded positively to my work, which shows me that I am doing my part. I am not trying to ease the conscience of those within the United Nations, nor do I claim to have saved lives. However, at the very least, I want to help prevent such tragedies from happening again in the future.
Today, we are witnessing the proceedings at the International Court of Justice related to Gaza, where the international community is again struggling to prevent the daily killing of innocent civilians—whether by bullets or bombs.
I continue to write for various Norwegian news outlets, contributing information and perspective on what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have given my utmost because Srebrenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina live deeply within me. They run through my veins, and I will never stop.
I wish no harm on anyone, but what happened to us in Srebrenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina is unforgettable. It will remain part of our collective memory.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.
Meholjić: Thank you for the interview.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): СокальINFO
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/07
Tatsiana Khomich is one of Belarus’s most prominent human rights advocates, a co-founder of the Free Belarus Prisoners organization, and the designated representative for political prisoners on the Belarus Coordination Council. She is also the sister of Maria Kalesnikava, a celebrated opposition figure who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in September 2021. In the years since her sister’s arrest, Khomich has become a tireless voice on the international stage, traveling across Europe to press for her sister’s release and draw attention to the more than 1,400 political prisoners languishing in Belarusian jails.
Khomich often speaks of the trio of women who helped ignite Belarus’s 2020 pro-democracy movement—Kalesnikava, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and Viktar Babaryka—and the brutal crackdown that followed. While the prison population remains alarmingly high, more than 300 detainees have been released since mid-2023, many of them elderly or gravely ill. These releases, Khomich notes, have been driven by strategic diplomacy and international pressure, including efforts like the #ReleaseNow campaign.
Still, she warns, progress is fragile. In her view, only sustained diplomatic engagement, targeted sanctions, and ongoing humanitarian negotiations can offer protection to those behind bars—particularly as Belarus continues to navigate the gravitational pull of larger geopolitical forces.
(Oslo Freedom Forum)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your focus on human rights?
Tatsiana Khomich: My sister, Maria Kalesnikava, was sentenced to eleven years in prison in September 2021. In 2020, Maria was one of the leaders of the opposition campaign supporting Viktar Babaryka, a key presidential contender who was barred from running and later sentenced to fourteen years on politically motivated charges. After Babaryka’s arrest, Maria joined forces with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the wife of another jailed candidate, Siarhei Tsikhanouski, and Veronika Tsepkalo to form the now-iconic “women’s trio.”
This trio symbolized peaceful resistance and inspired mass protests across Belarus. Despite the scale and spirit of the movement, the regime responded with brutal crackdowns. Five years later, Maria remains imprisoned, and over 1,400 political prisoners are still held in Belarusian jails, according to human rights organizations such as Viasna.
We are advocating for engagement and humanitarian negotiations with the government to save lives. Many political prisoners suffer serious health issues—at least 29 are known to have cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular conditions. Eight prisoners have died in custody, and the actual number could be higher.
There are also approximately 170 individuals who face extreme social or family hardship due to political repression. In some cases, both parents are imprisoned, leaving children in the care of grandparents or forcing them into exile. Others affected include the elderly and people with disabilities. The oldest known political prisoner, Aliaksandr Lubeika, is 77 years old.
Minors have also been prosecuted: some were arrested as young as 16. Over recent years, international attention on Belarus has waned, even as the humanitarian crisis has deepened. The policies pursued by Western governments so far have not led to the mass release of prisoners or significant political change.
That said, there have been some modest positive developments in the past year. Since mid-2023, the government has pardoned or conditionally released over 300 prisoners. These releases have occurred periodically, and the most recent group, comprising 16 individuals, including some with severe health conditions, was freed recently.
We urge democratic nations, including the United States and the European Union, to play a more active role in supporting humanitarian negotiations. In the past six months, multiple visits by U.S. diplomats to Belarus have coincided with the release of detainees, including 14 individuals with U.S. citizenship or ties, such as Siarhei Tsikhanouski. Others released include citizens of Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Japan. While not all of them are classified as political prisoners, many were detained under politically repressive circumstances.
These actions show that while repression continues, the government is also sending signals of willingness to improve relations with the West. Strategic humanitarian engagement could help secure more releases—and ultimately save lives.
Moreover, we have heard it clearly in recent months through their communication, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and even from Lukashenka himself. I believe this is one of the ways that has made the release of political prisoners possible. Belarusian human rights organizations initiated and publicized a campaign in democratic countries under the name #ReleaseNow.
It was primarily Belarusian human rights and civil society organizations that developed a declaration—a manifesto—urging democratic governments, as well as the Belarusian authorities themselves, to engage in negotiations. The goal is simple: to save lives. Some political prisoners are in such poor health that they do not have time to wait.
I hope that my sister will be included in one of the future rounds of releases.
Jacobsen: Like yourself, many family members have been deeply inspired by years of advocacy and research.
Khomich: Yes, for a long time, I believed—and we talked about it—that the prominent opposition leaders from 2020 would be the last to be released. However, we now see that it is not necessarily true. The recent releases show that change is possible. It is a significant step for us and a strong outcome of international negotiations.
We also understand that Belarus is part of a wider regional crisis—the war between Russia and Ukraine—and that the geopolitical context is shifting. This shift is creating space for discussions and negotiations that could lead to the further release of political prisoners.
Jacobsen: Are there comparable international cases? For example, Venezuela?
Khomich: Yes. In Venezuela, political prisoners have also been used as leverage or part of negotiations. Some of those cases date back even longer than ours, predating 2020. These people are often silenced in similar ways.
Jacobsen: And in those situations, do they follow a similar pattern? Long criminal sentences, political repression, years of silence, and then, eventually, selective releases?
Khomich: Yes, that is the pattern. Political prisoners are often sentenced under vague or inflated charges. Many become seriously ill or die in prison. Then, after years of suffering, some are released—but the struggle remains constant. In Belarus, we had never seen this scale of repression before. Ten years ago, there were only a few dozen political prisoners. Now there are over 1,400. Even back then, the leaders of the movement were usually the last to be released, typically after serving nearly their entire five-year sentences.
By “term,” I mean the period between presidential elections. At that time, there was also a warming of relations between Lukashenka and the West. Now, the situation is entirely different. The broader regional context, particularly the war in Ukraine, has a significant impact on developments in Belarus.
Regarding sentencing, there are more than 140 political prisoners in Belarus who have been sentenced to more than ten years in prison. Some have been given sentences of up to twenty or even twenty-five years. As I mentioned, there are individuals over 60 or 70 years old who are facing life sentences. For them, it is effectively a death sentence.
Yes, there have been some releases this year, especially of older adults with severe health conditions. However, it is not enough. We need more.
We should not have illusions about the nature of these transactional relationships. Some of these diplomatic visits were made possible because they were publicly linked to discussions around sanctions and the exchange of political prisoners.
So yes, I think it is time to use all available instruments—including sanctions, diplomatic engagement, and international pressure—as tools to secure the release of political prisoners. These instruments are not an end in themselves; the goal is to improve the situation and, ultimately, end repression in Belarus.
We also need to be realistic. Lukashenka is likely to remain in power for some time. It is currently challenging to envision a complete democratic transition. However, incremental improvements—such as releasing prisoners and halting political repression—are possible. It will take time, but I do believe it can happen.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tatsiana.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “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 Dawn Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05
Founder of The Dawn Project, Dan O’Dowd, was interviewed by International Policy Digest, disproving the narratives Elon Musk has fabricated about his companies, including Tesla, and personal life.
Dan’s interview was published in International Policy Digest on March 5, 2025 and can be read here. Dan’s first interview in this series with International Policy Digest may be read here.
The Emperor Without Clothes: Unmasking Elon Musk with Dan O’Dowd
Dan O’Dowd has built a career on designing software that never fails—a rare claim in an era of digital vulnerabilities. A leading authority in secure systems, O’Dowd developed the operating software for some of the world’s most mission-critical projects, including Boeing’s 787s, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Fighter Jets, the Boeing B1-B Intercontinental Nuclear Bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Since graduating from the California Institute of Technology in 1976, he has pioneered safety-critical and unhackable software, shaping the future of embedded security across aerospace, defense, and other high-stakes industries.
Then there is Elon Musk, a figure whose public image is a tangle of contradictions. He is a relentless workaholic, a self-styled genius who reportedly grinds 100-hour weeks, sleeps in factories, and pushes human endurance in pursuit of his technological ambitions. He is also a family man, though his personal life—marked by multiple ex-wives and at least 14 children—suggests a far more complicated reality. And, somehow, amid running billion-dollar enterprises, he is an elite gamer, ranking highly in titles such as Diablo IV.
These contradictions raise a fundamental question: How does a man supposedly working 100-hour weeks also have the time to master competitive gaming? If his schedule is consumed by engineering and innovation, where do his children fit in? The narratives Musk cultivates—hardest-working CEO, devoted father, elite gamer—appear mutually exclusive, yet they exist in parallel, feeding into the enigma that defines his public persona.
Critics argue that Musk’s self-mythologizing is no accident. Reports suggest he paid gamers to inflate his rankings, undermining his credibility in the gaming world. His leadership, too, is marked by inconsistencies—while he is celebrated as a hands-on innovator, much of his company’s operations are managed by others. His influence is undeniable, but whether he is a revolutionary visionary or a master of illusion remains an open question.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Since you’re approaching this from the perspective of someone scrutinizing Musk’s personality, let’s begin with one of the more improbable claims—his supposed prowess in competitive gaming. Achieving a world-class ranking in any high-level game requires an extraordinary investment of time, skill, and dedication. Musk has repeatedly boasted about his standing among elite players, but just weeks ago, someone uncovered the truth—and exposed exactly what he was doing.
Dan O’Dowd: Here’s what happened: Musk wasn’t ranking up through skill. Instead, he was paying people to grind for him, boosting his stats so he could pretend to be at an elite level. This was exposed when he live-streamed himself playing Path of Exile, a game where strategy and mechanics matter deeply.
A real top player was watching the stream and immediately realized something was off. Musk was making basic mistakes, failing to execute simple mechanics, and missing obvious strategic choices. The guy watching thought, Wait for a second—how could someone rank this high be such a noob? He literally called Musk a noob on the spot. Someone couldn’t reach that level of the game and still not know how to play.
That’s when people really started digging. Soon, the gaming community laughed, spread the footage, and dissected his gameplay. More expert players looked into it, and another well-respected figure in the gaming world stepped in, confirming what was obvious—Elon Musk was cheating.
The truth came out: Musk had a team of people playing for him, grinding the game to boost his ranking. Then, once they levelled him up, they would inject him into high-ranked matches, making it look like he had earned his spot. But when he had to play on stream, he obviously had no idea what he was doing.
At first, Musk denied everything. He tried to deflect, ignore, and laugh it off. But the pressure kept mounting, and the evidence was too obvious to ignore. Finally, in the last few days, he admitted it. He was caught and had no choice but to confess: Yes, I have people play the game for me.
This was yet another hit to his credibility. Another segment of the public realized—that he was lying about everything. What is the entire gaming narrative he built around himself? Fake. He wasn’t spending 40 or 80 hours a week playing video games. He wasn’t grinding his way to the top. He wasn’t an elite player. He just paid people to make him look like one.
And that’s how he operates. This gaming controversy is just another example of a pattern: massive deception. Musk presents himself as a genius, workaholic, gamer, businessman, father, and visionary—but when you examine the details, so much of it is fake. And now, the gaming industry has fully exposed that part of the illusion.
So that’s one contradiction off the list. The “Musk the Gamer” myth? Completely debunked.
So we don’t have to worry about that one. The gamer myth? Debunked. Done. But what about the family man narrative?
Musk presents himself as someone who loves his kids. Yet one of his children despises him—hates him to the core. The others? We rarely hear about them. The only child we consistently see is little X, his now four-year-old son. And Musk takes him everywhere.
X is there whenever Musk is at business meetings, industry events, or gatherings with billionaires. The child sits on his lap, rides on his shoulders, and is always in the room. But let’s be real—Musk isn’t caring for him. There’s always a nanny nearby. The kid isn’t there because Musk is playing doting father. He’s there for another reason.
We don’t have direct evidence, but there are two main theories. The first is that Little X is his emotional support child. Musk is one of the most hated people in the world—ridiculed, criticized, and constantly under fire. Having a child literally attached to him provides comfort. It gives him something pure that doesn’t judge him—a source of unconditional love in a world where so many people despise him.
The second theory is more cynical: X is a human shield. If you watch Musk, the kid is always physically close to him—sitting beside him in meetings, on his lap, on his shoulders, in his arms. Musk knows that even his most extreme critics will hesitate to go after him too aggressively if he’s always holding his child. It creates a visual buffer. It humanizes him. It’s a form of optics management.
Beyond X, though, Musk doesn’t seem to spend meaningful time with his other children. He is estranged from at least one, has little public connection to the others, and appears to have no real relationships with his ex-wives or former girlfriends. As of now, he’s officially single.
Musk has fathered at least 13 children—the confirmed number—but it could be more. And one of those mothers is an employee at Neuralink, Shivon Zilis, a high-ranking executive at his company.
Then there’s Grimes. According to Isaacson’s biography, Musk had twins with Grimes. But here’s the kicker—while she was in the hospital giving birth, Shivon Zilis was in the same hospital giving birth to another set of Musk’s twins. And Grimes had no idea.
Family man? Right.
Of course, there’s his romantic history. He has burned through wives, girlfriends, and affairs. Amber Heard? That was a toxic disaster. Poor Johnny Depp. The absolute chaos of that relationship was brutal. Musk’s involvement with Heard? Who knows how deep that really went?
Oh, and then there’s Google co-founder Sergey Brin. The rumour that Musk slept with Brin’s wife exploded. Both Musk and Brin denied it, of course. But the fallout? Brin and Musk didn’t speak for years. Whether or not it actually happened, the damage was real.
So, family man? Not exactly. More like serial relationship wreckage.
We don’t know if that story about him working 100 hours weekly is true. But what does he actually do?
Is he in the office, grinding away, running his companies? No. He’s in Brazil. He’s at the World Cup. He’s at the Super Bowl. He’s at the Met Gala. He’s at every major global event where billionaires and world leaders gather.
I don’t recall seeing him at Davos, but he must have been there. Maybe not. But whatever—he’s everywhere else. He’s not in an office working. He’s in town, living the billionaire lifestyle and meeting with powerful people worldwide.
He was just in Brazil, holding talks with the Prime Minister of Italy. There are photos of them together, and she looks completely smitten—open-mouthed, adoring. He was cozying up to Macron, though that didn’t last. He eventually insulted France and burned that bridge. Oh, right—he literally accused Macron of being a Nazi because someone found a photo of Macron raising his hand in a certain way. That’s where Musk is spending his time.
He isn’t grinding away at his companies. He’s living the life of a playboy billionaire, playing ambassador, diplomat, emperor—whatever title fits. He’s an emperor, yes, but possibly an emperor without clothes.
Musk used to spend time at his companies—10 years ago. He claimed he slept on the floor of the factory during Tesla’s production crisis, but people who were actually there said nope. He made that up, too. It sounded good—like he was grinding, working hard, suffering alongside the workers. But in reality, he wasn’t there.
Jacobsen: So, who runs the companies if Musk is barely involved?
O’Dowd: At SpaceX, it’s Gwynne Shotwell. She runs the show. She handles everything. Musk shows up to do the countdowns for the rocket launches, but she’s the one making it all happen. SpaceX works because it has competent leadership.
At Tesla, day-to-day operations are more unclear. Musk had a guy—Tom Zhu, who ran Tesla’s China operations and was supposed to take over a bigger role in the U.S. But that didn’t quite happen the way people expected.
And what about Full Self-Driving (FSD)? Ashok Elluswamy runs that department, but Musk doesn’t. The truth is, these companies don’t actually need him. This brings us to the biggest myth: Is Musk a super-genius?
People love to say he is. They call him a once-in-a-generation mind, a visionary, a real-life Tony Stark. But when you hear him talk about something you know a lot about, you realize…he’s an idiot.
This is precisely what happened with the video game scandal. When Musk talks about something you don’t know, he sounds smart. But when he talks about something you do know, you suddenly realize this guy has no idea what he’s talking about.
Everybody thought Musk was a brilliant guy. But after the gaming scandal, the real experts in that community saw him for what he was: a complete idiot. And not just an ordinary novice who lacks experience—this was sheer stupidity.
He was making it up. And this isn’t just limited to gaming—it’s everything. He’s not a rocket scientist. He doesn’t have an engineering degree. He’s not any of the things he wants you to believe he is. He wants you to think he’s a brilliant engineer who designs all this groundbreaking technology. But he doesn’t design anything.
Take SpaceX, for example. One of his only documented design decisions? He changed the shape of the Starship rocket’s nose—not for aerodynamics or engineering reasons—but because it wasn’t pointy enough. And why did he want it pointier? Because of a scene from The Dictator, the satirical Sacha Baron Cohen movie. That’s literally why he did it. He admitted this himself.
This is how Musk operates. He doesn’t actually know much about anything. He skims a Wikipedia page on a subject, memorizes a few key points, and then enters conversations acting like an expert. In many cases, he does know more than the average person because most people haven’t read the Wikipedia page on that topic. But that’s where his knowledge ends.
He may get briefings from real experts. But his understanding is paper-thin. And the problem? He can’t stop there. He has to keep going. He must sound like he knows more than everyone else in the room. So what does he do? He starts making things up.
If an actual expert happens to be in the room while Musk is going off on one of his nonsense tangents—say, talking about mining water on Mars or some insane chemical reaction that doesn’t make any sense—they’ll call him out. They’ll say, That’s not how that works. And Musk’s response?
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
If the expert pushes back, saying, “Actually, I have a PhD in this field,” Musk doubles down. “Well, you must’ve been in school a long time ago because you missed all the new advancements.” And then he keeps making things up. It’s easy to do. Try it sometime. I wrote 13 papers on this subject, won an award, and conducted groundbreaking research. Who’s going to stop you? That’s what Musk does.
And then there was the infamous Yann LeCun incident. Yann LeCun—one of the most respected AI researchers in the world—got into a Twitter exchange with Musk. And what did Musk do? He tried to correct him. He started making claims about AI research to one of the most decorated AI scientists on the planet.
This is the standard Musk tactic. It doesn’t matter who he’s talking to. All he has to do is say, “But I’m Elon Musk. I have access to the latest research.” And for some reason, people believe him.
Jacobsen: Musk makes things up. What does he do if he loses an argument with an expert?
O’Dowd: He bluffs—throws out some nonsense about a groundbreaking project behind the scenes that nobody knows about.
“I’ve got people at Buffalo University working on this. You wouldn’t know, but they collaborate with MIT and the Sorbonne. They’re about to announce it next week, and it will completely disrupt the industry.”
And what happens? The PhD in the conversation hesitates—because how do you argue against something that supposedly exists but hasn’t been announced yet? That’s the genius of the Musk Bluff. He creates an illusion of superior knowledge, making the expert second-guess. And when they walk away, Musk wins the argument—without ever saying a single true thing.
This is his tactic. It’s bullying but in a specific way. He makes up the wildest, most impossible claims, and when people challenge him, he doubles down.
A million people on Mars? Sure.
A fully severed spinal cord? No problem—we’ll make you walk again.
The blind will see? Done.
The deaf will hear? Of course.
Yes, he literally said all of this. And that brings us to Neuralink.
Neuralink might be their biggest joke. Musk promises it will cure blindness. He says it will make paralyzed people walk again. Does that sound familiar? Because it’s straight out of the Bible. Every 19th-century travelling preacher with a revival tent used the same routine. They’d bring someone in a wheelchair onto the stage—someone who allegedly couldn’t walk for years. The preacher would place his hands on them, say the magic words, and suddenly—they could walk. The blind? Now they could see.
That’s the exact same playbook Musk is using with Neuralink.
And then there’s Optimus. Optimus is going to end poverty. Yes, he actually said that. He claimed that Optimus would handle everything—it would work for us, solve all labor problems, and create a world where everyone gets whatever they want. He even put a number on it: two Optimi per person, a billion robots worldwide, solving every economic problem.
But here’s the issue: What if everyone wants what Musk has?
What if every person on Earth wants a Gulfstream G650 private jet to fly wherever they want, whenever they want? Suddenly, we need 8 billion private jets—but there’s a problem. The law requires two pilots per flight. But wait—those pilots also want their own private jets. The whole system collapses.
This is the absurdity of Musk’s promises. He says these things honestly, and investors throw hundreds of millions—no, billions—of dollars at him. And why? Because he told them a completely preposterous fairy tale—and they believed it.
It’s hilarious. It’s so funny. These things aren’t even serious ideas—they’re jokes. But somehow, they work.
And speaking of jokes—you mentioned the Heil Hitler thing. I’m working on a theory here. Everybody asks, Is Musk a Nazi? Is he this? Is he that? I don’t think he’s any of those things. Oh, and one more thing—I completely forgot to mention: He’s 13 years old.
No, not literally, of course. But mentally, emotionally, socially? His development stopped at 13. Everything he does makes much more sense when you look at it through that lens. His entire personality, obsessions, and antics all point to someone stuck in permanent adolescence.
So, what about the Heil Hitler thing? Yes, it was a Nazi salute. But I don’t think it was because he’s a Nazi. I think he did it for one reason: to see if he could get away with it.
He did it right before the seal of the President of the United States. Standing there, knowing the cameras were rolling, he raised his arm twice. Not just once—twice. He did it once, turned around, and then did it again to the crowd behind him, people he couldn’t see.
Why? Because this is exactly what a 13-year-old would do. A middle schooler trying to be edgy.
This wasn’t about ideology—it was about provocation. He wanted to do something outrageous that would explode in the press, something nobody else could get away with. And he knew he could because he’s the emperor. He operates under a different set of rules.
Anyone else who did that was gone, immediately fired, and cancelled. But Musk understands that he’s untouchable. He wanted to test it like a rebellious teenager to see how far they can push authority before facing consequences.
And guess what? He got away with it.
Sure, it pissed off some people. But then, his team came rushing to his defence. The ADL—an organization supposed to stand against antisemitism—actually defended him. Netanyahu himself came out and exonerated him.
Just think about that for a second. Imagine being able to walk up to a podium in front of the entire world, do a double Nazi salute, and still have powerful institutions defend you. That’s the level of privilege Musk operates with. He could have stripped naked, and it wouldn’t have been as big of a deal.
This was the one thing that should have been career-ending. The one move that no one should be able to walk away from. And yet—here he is.
And let’s not forget—the way he did it. He perfected the salute. Fingers together. The arm extended just right. It was a textbook demonstration. He knew exactly what he was doing. And now? He’s still standing.
Jacobsen: Let’s talk about Musk’s use of ketamine and other substances. If I recall correctly, the Don Lemon interview surfaced only after the fact. In that conversation, Lemon was openly critical of Musk, but one of the biggest revelations?
Musk admitted—without hesitation—to using ketamine. He claimed to have a prescription, possibly from a specialist or his regular GP. But that admission immediately raised broader questions. Why is he on ketamine?
What does it reveal about his mental state, his work habits, and the contradictions that define his public persona?
O’Dowd: I don’t have personal knowledge—I’m not there with him. But as you said, Musk himself has admitted to using ketamine. And when you look at his behaviour, it tracks. His mood swings are extreme—he’ll go from euphoric, manic enthusiasm to angry, explosive outbursts in an instant. That kind of volatility is noticeable. But I’ll be honest—I don’t know much about ketamine’s actual effects. I know it’s sometimes called a horse tranquillizer, but it also has real medical uses.
Then there’s his history with other substances. Back in 2018, on The Joe Rogan Experience, he smoked marijuana live on air. That moment went viral, but looking back, it feels more like a stunt than a serious habit. He also used to frequent bars and high-end clubs, indulging in wine and whiskey—casual social drinking, nothing that suggests a dependency. Alcohol doesn’t seem to be an issue for him.
If the ketamine claim is true, then at least he’s claiming it’s prescribed. But it makes you wonder—how much of this is genuine treatment, and how much is self-medication?
And then there’s the bigger question—what about psychedelics? MDMA, psilocybin, and LSD—all of these are being explored for treating depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Did Musk ever dabble in those? And is there a family history of mental health struggles? If there’s a familial link, it adds another layer to this story.
Musk has also used psilocybin to manage his mental state. And when it comes to PTSD and anxiety, Isaacson’s biography paints a revealing picture. There are moments in the book where Musk reportedly shuts down completely.
When things get really bad, he doesn’t just get upset—he becomes catatonic.
One scene in the book describes him lying on the floor of Tesla’s boardroom, unresponsive, when things were falling apart. That’s not just stress—that’s someone mentally collapsing under pressure. But here’s the paradox—every single time
Musk has hit rock bottom, he’s bounced back even higher.
Isaacson describes these cycles as wild oscillations in Musk’s mental state. One moment, he’s in freefall; the next, he’s rising to new heights. It’s like watching someone dance on the edge of destruction, but somehow, he always finds a way out.
Jacobsen: Does that make him resilient? Or does it just mean he’s constantly self-destructing and barely pulling himself back together?
O’Dowd: I have a saying about Musk:
To Elon Musk, words are sounds he makes to convince you to do his bidding.
That’s how he operates. The words don’t mean anything to him. When he says, “I promise,” it’s not a real commitment. It’s just a sound—a tool he uses to manipulate people into action. And that brings us to the final question—does he even believe the things he says?
I’ll give you a million dollars. I love you. Whatever. It doesn’t matter what it is. Whatever it takes to get someone to do what he wants, he’ll say it. But he doesn’t connect those words to meaning. To Musk, words aren’t promises—they’re tools.
He doesn’t see himself as committing to anything. He sees himself as making sounds that cause people to take action. Whether or not someone thinks he made a commitment—that’s not his concern. He got what he wanted in that moment, and that’s all that matters.
And because he’s so confident he can talk out of any situation, he doesn’t worry about the consequences. Sure, he gets into trouble sometimes. But every single time, he also gets out of trouble. So why would he stop? When you know you can say anything to anyone, anytime, and never face real consequences, why would you start caring about truth or integrity? You wouldn’t. That’s exactly where Musk is, which explains much about his operation.
Look at Autonomy Day. Tesla was in desperate financial trouble. So what did Musk do? He pulled together a spectacular story—completely made up—in just a few days and delivered it stone-faced. The entire audience believed every word, no matter how ridiculous it was. Some investors sued Tesla afterward, claiming Musk’s statements were blatant lies designed to manipulate the stock price. But the judge dismissed the lawsuit. Why? Because the judge ruled that no reasonable investor would believe what Elon Musk said. Think about that for a second. The court didn’t say he didn’t lie. The court said his lies were so preposterous that no rational person could have possibly taken them seriously.
And yet…they did believe him. Investors poured billions into Tesla after that speech. The stock soared. Tesla’s valuation hit one trillion dollars. This is his superpower. He says utterly ridiculous things, and people believe him anyway. If you can do that, it’s no surprise you’re the richest man in the world. It’s not even that hard when you’re willing to say anything to anyone at any time to get what you want. Yes, sometimes it backfires. Sometimes it gets him into trouble. But he finds a way to talk his way out of it every single time.
You have to give him credit for that. And after enough of these moments—after escaping every single consequence—what happens? It starts to change your brain. You start believing your own myth. You start thinking maybe you are the emperor. Maybe the law doesn’t apply to you. Because so far, it never has. Every time the legal system tries to hold him accountable, he finds a way to get a judge to throw the case out. Whenever people think, “This time he’s gone too far,” he walks away unscathed.
At some point, you start thinking it’s all a joke. You start thinking you can stand in front of the President’s podium, give a double Nazi salute on national TV, and still walk away untouched. Because so far…he has.
He might have actually reached the point where he believes he can get away with anything, and that’s why he does these things. That’s why he keeps succeeding—because he keeps making people’s promises, and they keep giving him money.
Jacobsen: Then there are the stimulants. Musk has openly discussed his heavy caffeine consumption. But beyond that, he has also admitted to using Ambien (Zolpidem), a prescription sleep aid he reportedly takes regularly.
Of course, there are other speculations—whispers of additional substances. These remain unverified, and I won’t wade into conjecture. Still, the known facts alone raise questions about his reliance on stimulants and sedatives, and what that balance—or imbalance—reveals about his lifestyle, performance, and state of mind.
O’Dowd: But here’s what we do know: Musk has a history of substance use, extreme behaviours, and mood swings. His emotional state fluctuates wildly. When you combine that with what we discussed earlier—his habit of using words as tools to get what he wants—it starts painting a more complete picture.
Then there’s his family. People who know him best have either insinuated or outright claimed that he has no real empathy—or, at the very least, blunted empathy. His mother, for example, once said that his brilliance is overshadowed by his lack of social graces or something to that effect. His father, though? That’s a different story.
Errol Musk—Elon’s father—is still alive, and he gives interviews. But Elon hates him. Musk has publicly called his father a horrible person. So, what do we make of that? Honestly, not much. Because who do you trust? If Elon is a pathological liar, why assume his father is any better? Maybe both of them are unreliable narrators.
I’ve seen a few of Errol Musk’s interviews, but he’s not out there often. His mother, Maye Musk, on the other hand? She’s very active online. She pops up on Twitter regularly, usually in defensive mommy mode, scolding people for saying mean things about her son. It’s always the same: “Why are you attacking my boy? He doesn’t deserve this.” And Musk, in response, is basically like: “Mom, stop embarrassing me. I can handle myself.”
But at the end of the day, his moods are erratic. His behaviour is unhinged. And when you think of him as a 13-year-old trapped in a billionaire’s body, everything makes more sense.
Imagine this: a 13-year-old can deliver a speech to the entire country in front of world leaders, with cameras everywhere. What does he do? He jumps up and down, fidgeting, soaking in the attention. That’s exactly what Musk does. If you compare that to someone like Donald Trump, you will see that Trump enjoys attention. He says outrageous things. But you don’t see him literally bouncing up and down like an overexcited teenager.
Even in Trump’s little dance routine—where he does the awkward YMCA shuffle—his feet never leave the floor. Musk, on the other hand? He jumps, throws his arms in the air, spins around. It’s juvenile. Most adults don’t act like that. If you just won the Super Bowl, maybe you get to go nuts. But in normal adult settings? You don’t behave like that.
Musk never advanced past that stage. His social training stopped at 13; you can see it in everything he does.
And then there’s Dustin Moskovitz, the Facebook co-founder. He had a moment of realization when he saw Musk’s entire Tesla operation for what it really was. He finally connected the dots and said, “This is Enron. This is an outright fraud.”
And when Musk responded? Oh, you have to see it. The tweet he sent back? It was peak Musk—so immature, juvenile, and 13-year-old-level petty. A typical 11-year-old wouldn’t be sophisticated enough to pull it off, but a 13-year-old?
That’s Musk in a nutshell. A 13-year-old with unlimited money, unlimited power, and zero accountability.
A 15-year-old would be embarrassed by this kind of behaviour. A real adult would never do it. No one would. Yet here we have the CEO of a public company, the richest man in the world, the head of multiple trillion-dollar corporations—and what is he doing? What is he posting on Twitter? The kind of juvenile, impulsive nonsense that no professional executive in history would ever think to engage in.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Dawn Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/21
Founder of The Dawn Project Dan O’Dowd was interviewed by International Policy Digest about The Dawn Project and its safety tests of Tesla Full Self-Driving.
Dan’s interview was published in International Policy Digest on February 19, 2025 and can be read here.
Dan O’Dowd on Lies, a Hitler Salute and How Your Tesla Might Murder You
Dan O’Dowd is one of the world’s foremost experts in designing software that never fails and cannot be hacked. Over the past four decades, he has built secure operating systems for some of the most high-stakes projects in aerospace and defense, including Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, the Boeing B1-B intercontinental nuclear bomber, and NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Since earning his degree from the California Institute of Technology in 1976, O’Dowd has been at the forefront of developing safety-critical systems and unhackable software, creating certified secure real-time operating systems used across industries. Dan is also the founder of both the Dawn Project and Green Hills Software.
Initially a fan of Tesla, O’Dowd grew alarmed after analyzing videos that revealed critical failures in the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology—instances where the system failed to recognize school buses and misinterpreted traffic signs. He likens Tesla’s approach to some of the most notorious corporate failures, from Ford’s Pinto gas tank fiasco to Takata’s deadly airbags. Unlike Tesla, O’Dowd argues, competitors such as Waymo have developed self-driving systems that are genuinely reliable. He also points to Elon Musk’s increasingly polarizing public persona and political controversies as factors undermining Tesla’s credibility and eroding its public image.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me, Dan. When did you first begin to suspect that Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” might be a misleading or inadequate description of what the system actually delivers in practice?
Dan O’Dowd: The realization came gradually. I was a fan of Tesla. I own eight Teslas myself. They’ve been the only cars I’ve driven since 2010—15 years. My wife has been driving a Tesla for 13 years, and it is the same Model S we bought back then. So, we were big fans of Tesla for a long time.
The first signs that things were not as represented came around 2016 when Elon Musk made bold claims that Tesla had solved the self-driving problem. He asserted that their system was safer than a human driver and announced they would demonstrate it. Musk described a trip where he would get into a Tesla at his house in Los Angeles, and the car would drive him across the country, drop him off in Times Square, and then park itself. He even gave a specific timeline for this demonstration six months later. I remember hearing that and thinking, “Wow, that’s exciting.” If Tesla could do that, they would have essentially solved autonomous driving.
So, I waited, and waited. The date came, and when people started asking about it, Musk said there had been some minor hang-ups and a few details to work out, but the demo would happen in another four to six months. I waited again. Then, that date came and went. People started asking about it again, but Musk stopped answering this time. There was no new timeline and no further updates. The entire project was quietly abandoned.
A year or two later, it became clear that the promised demonstration wouldn’t happen. No evidence supports the claims of having solved Full Self-Driving (FSD). Fast-forward to 2020 or 2021, and someone mentioned to me that I should look at the YouTube videos of Tesla’s FSD demos. These were real-world tests where people installed cameras in their cars and recorded the system.
I started watching the videos, and they were shocking. The cars were running red lights, rolling through stop signs, slamming on the brakes in the middle of the road, and doing all kinds of erratic and dangerous things. At first, I thought, “Well, every system has some bugs—it’s part of the development process.” However, to understand the problem’s scope, I asked one of my team members to analyze the videos.
We compiled a detailed report by counting the elapsed time and documenting the various failures in each video. The results were devastating. It became clear that Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system was far from Musk’s claims.
It said that the system would fail frequently—on average, every eight minutes, it would do something stupid. Over a longer period, like days, it would essentially crash. It would crash your car if you did not monitor it like a hawk and intervene to stop it. Yet, they’re delivering this product to ordinary people who want it and are willing to pay for it.
They started with a small number of users—about 100 initially—which didn’t seem like too many. Then, after about a year, they expanded to 11,000, then 60,000, and eventually to half a million people, which is where we are today. So, this product, which is supposed to be fully self-driving, has major flaws. For instance, if you turn it on and a school bus stops, puts on its flashing lights, extends its stop sign, and opens the door for kids to get off, the car won’t stop. It’ll zoom past the bus, even with children running into the road.
We created a Super Bowl commercial two years ago showing exactly this scenario. Several months later, in North Carolina, a child got off a bus and was hit by a Tesla operating on Full Self-Driving. It struck the child. The kid hit the windshield and ended up in the hospital for three months, on a respirator, with a broken collarbone and leg. The system does not recognize what a school bus is.
How can a company ship a product called “Full Self-Driving” that doesn’t even know what a school bus is? The system interprets a school bus with flashing lights as a truck with its hazard lights on. And what does a driver typically do when approaching a truck with its hazard lights on? You look around the truck to see if anyone is coming from the other direction. If the road is clear, you might slow down but ultimately go around the truck and continue driving. That’s exactly what Tesla’s Full Self-Driving does. It treats a stopped school bus like a truck with hazard lights—it drives past without stopping.
We aired that commercial, and someone asked Elon Musk about this issue, specifically about Teslas running over kids getting off school buses. Musk responded, “This will greatly increase public awareness that a Tesla can drive itself (supervised for now).” That was two years ago, and the problem still hasn’t been fixed. The system still doesn’t know what a school bus is.
We also ran a full-page ad in The New York Times and another Super Bowl ad to raise awareness. Musk hasn’t done anything about it. I’ve never seen any other company behave this way—except maybe a cigarette company. Companies like that deliberately sell products while telling people they’re healthy, safe, and good for them, even when not. Tesla’s behaviour is despicable. It’s hard to believe a company would act this way.
At this point, there’s no excuse for any of it. It’s the depths of greed and depravity. The right thing to do would be to take it off the road and fix it. I can’t imagine that if this were GM, Toyota, or BMW, they wouldn’t immediately assign 100 engineers to fix the problem. But as far as Musk is concerned, he’s not fixing it. Recently, he’s been focused on windshield wipers, which, by the way, still don’t work properly.
It cannot even properly handle windshield wipers—how can it drive a car? I’ve never seen an incomplete product sold to consumers, especially a safety-critical product. If this were some trivial app on a phone that occasionally failed, that would be acceptable. But this is a car, and people’s lives are at stake.
Over 40 people have already died in Tesla self-driving crashes. So, where do we go from here? Tesla is developing the software this way—“move fast, break things.” They keep doing it and continue shipping it to more and more people.
It’s hard to comprehend. I can’t imagine any respectable company doing this, yet Tesla does it daily. For instance, their system doesn’t even know what a “Do Not Enter” sign means. That should be an easy thing to program. A school bus might take additional work, but a “Do Not Enter” sign? It’s straightforward: don’t go here. The car doesn’t recognize the sign, doesn’t obey it, and will go the wrong way down a one-way street because it doesn’t understand what “Do Not Enter” or “One Way” signs mean. We’ve tested all of this, and the results are astonishingly bad.
How can you sell a product for $15,000 and tell people it’s 10 times safer than a human driver? Sometimes, Musk says it’s four times safer. The reality is that it’s not even close to the worst human driver on the road. Who’s the worst driver on the road? A 15-and-a-half-year-old with a learner’s permit must practice with a parent in the car. Even then, that kid must log 40 or 50 hours of road driving, and their parents must sign off that they’ve practiced.
Every parent who has gone through this knows how nerve-wracking it is to sit in the passenger seat while their kid learns to drive. But no sane person would sit in the passenger seat of a fully self-driving car with no one in control. No one would let it drive without being able to intervene. Elon Musk wouldn’t do it. The biggest Tesla fanboy wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do it.
Well, Arthur did it. He sat in the passenger seat to test it because we wanted to know if it would work. It does work—barely. We’ve got a great video of him sitting in the passenger seat while the car drives with no one in control. But that’s not something anyone would do willingly. Everyone would rather sit with their 15-and-a-half-year-old learner and not die.
Nobody sits in a Full Self-Driving (FSD) car with it in control, alone in the driver’s seat, without any ability to intervene. It is a far worse driver than any 15-and-a-half-year-old with a learner’s permit. Yet, Elon Musk claims it is safer than any driver—10 times safer than the average driver. And for what purpose? To get people to give Tesla their money. They’ve picked up billions of dollars selling this product, telling people it will revolutionize transportation and make Tesla the most valuable company in the world. That’s why Tesla is worth more than all other car companies combined—because FSD is supposedly so amazing and the best self-driving software in the world. Musk says it all the time.
Of course, except for competitors like Waymo, which has self-driving cars that have completed over 4 million paid trips. Amazon has Zoox, and two or three companies in China operate self-driving cars. The only company that doesn’t have self-driving cars is Tesla. And here we are.
Jacobsen: When considering similar failures in the automotive industry, what case would you point to as a meaningful comparison? Are there historical examples where a car manufacturer was aware of a serious defect yet failed to address it, even as public scrutiny grew?
O’Dowd: Yes. One example is the Ford Pinto gas tanks that exploded in crashes during the 1970s. Those failures caused fatalities, and Ford faced massive fines and public backlash. Tesla’s FSD has already been involved in more fatal crashes than the Pinto gas tank failures. Another case is the Takata airbag scandal from 10 years ago. Takata airbags caused fatalities due to exploding shrapnel. Tesla’s FSD fatalities have now exceeded the number of deaths caused by Takata airbags.
Another example would be Toyota’s sudden unintended acceleration issue from 15 to 20 years ago. People reported that their cars would suddenly accelerate out of control, leading to accidents and fatalities. Even in that case, the fatalities were fewer than those caused by Tesla’s FSD. These products—Ford Pintos, Takata airbags, and Toyota’s unintended acceleration—were either recalled or resulted in massive lawsuits and a significant reputational hit for the manufacturers. Yet Tesla’s FSD, despite its worse track record, is still on the road today, making money and boosting Tesla’s valuation.
Musk has directly linked Tesla’s valuation to FSD. He’s even said in a video that Tesla is “worth basically zero” without Full Self-Driving. With FSD, Tesla is valued higher than Toyota, GM, Ford, BMW, and Volkswagen combined despite having a tiny market share. Tesla’s sales declined last year, and FSD doesn’t deliver on its promises—it’s completely unsafe.
Jacobsen: How has the media generally responded when you’ve presented your findings in a measured, analytical way? I’ve seen a few interviews where you’ve laid out your case, but in at least one instance, the conversation devolved into a shouting match—instigated not by you but by the opposing side. What kind of pushback have you faced when presenting a clear, evidence-based assessment?
O’Dowd: There are generally two scenarios. One is when I’m debating a pro-FSD Tesla supporter. Those debates can get rather heated at times. The other is when we are presenting evidence to journalists or legislators. We have mountains of evidence—hundreds of videos showing exactly what we say. I don’t just go out there and make claims. I have a whole team, a staff that tests these systems ourselves. We analyze other reports and videos, and we invite people—journalists especially—to see it for themselves.
We tell journalists, “Do you want to see how this product works? Get in the car. We’ll take you for a drive.” Beforehand, we ask them, “Do you think this system is better than a human driver?” Everyone who gets out of the car afterward says, “No way. This isn’t even close to the skill of an average human driver.” It does crazy things. For instance, it will stop in the middle of railroad tracks and stay there. It will run red lights and stop signs.
We’ve taken high-profile individuals for these demonstrations. We took the Attorney General of California on a trip. We rented a school bus with a driver, set it up on the side of the road, and had the Tesla drive by as if the bus wasn’t there. People are understandably nervous. In one test, we used a mannequin designed to simulate a child stepping out from behind the bus. The Tesla ran it down without hesitation.
We’ve taken congresspeople and state senators on similar rides. We even went to Sacramento with a dozen legislators who wanted to see what this system does for themselves. We’ve invited journalists from many outlets, offering them the chance to experience FSD firsthand. We plan to go to Washington, D.C., to give senators and congresspeople similar demonstrations. Many of them hear from Elon Musk and his supporters about how “great” FSD is—that it’s supposedly the best technology in the world. But that’s Musk’s marketing machine at work. He has 200 million followers, many amplifying his claims and attacking anyone trying to expose the truth.
I’ve been called a murderer countless times for pointing out the flaws in FSD. When we started this campaign three years ago, the overwhelming sentiment was pro-Elon and pro-FSD. But things have shifted. Waymo hadn’t yet demonstrated its self-driving cars to the public. They were still under wraps. That made Tesla’s claims seem more credible.
Now, though, Waymo has been successfully running fully driverless cars. They’re doing 150,000 self-driving taxi rides per week. Over the past year, they’ve completed over 4 million rides—4 million times, people have gotten into a Waymo car without a driver, traveled to their destinations safely, and didn’t worry about the system failing. This happens daily in cities like Phoenix, San Francisco, Austin, and now Los Angeles. No one has been hurt. No one has been killed.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s FSD has been involved in at least 1,700 crashes, with 42 fatalities. Oh, wait, I’m told it’s now 44 fatalities—it keeps going up. The comparison couldn’t be more stark.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned the marketing machine behind Tesla and Elon Musk. Can you elaborate on how that influences the narrative surrounding Full Self-Driving (FSD) and its shortcomings?
O’Dowd: We’re up against one of the greatest marketing machines on Earth, selling a complete lie about this product. We’re doing our best to counter it; fortunately, more journalists and others are joining in. We even have a great video showing Elon Musk, year after year, looking directly into the camera and confidently claiming that Tesla will have Full Self-Driving working better than a human driver by the next year.
Every year for the last 10 years, he’s always made this claim with great emphasis and certainty. And every single year, it doesn’t happen. Then the next year comes, and he says it again. And again. He’s even saying it now. He’s claiming, “By the end of the year, for sure.” But it’s still pathetic. They haven’t even figured out how to handle something as basic as a school bus.
How can they claim they will roll this out globally when they can’t even handle school buses yet? It reminds me of the old joke in artificial intelligence research. If you ask someone when AI will arrive, they’ll always say, “10 years away.” And then, 10 years later, they’ll say the same thing. Musk does the same thing—except he says one year, every year, and expects people to forget. But the Internet now has a long memory.
We’ve compiled those clips of him making these claims year after year, and when you show the video to people, it has an effect. They’re shocked. It’s like, “Wow, this guy said that unequivocally, and he’s been wrong every time.” For example, in 2019, he claimed there would be 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020. Where are those robo-taxis?
There are robo-taxis, though—just not from Tesla.
Waymo has robo-taxis from Google. But Tesla? Zero. That’s not entirely true, though, because in October, they held an event on the backlot of Warner Brothers. They brought in about 500 or 1,000 people, let them ride in Tesla cars, and called them “robo-taxis.” But the cars never left the Warner backlot. They drove around a fixed route late at night without traffic, lights, or obstacles. It wasn’t a real-world demonstration.
It was basically a 1950s Disneyland ride. At the same event, Musk unveiled robots that were supposedly bartending and serving drinks. Except those robots turned out to be remote-controlled by humans. People exposed this, and eventually, Musk admitted it. The robots weren’t autonomous. They were fake.
The entire event was staged. The so-called robo-taxis were just cars driving around a few blocks with no real-world challenges. The robots were human-controlled. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Musk said on Tesla’s Q4 2024 earnings call, “There is no company in the world that is as good in real-world AI as Tesla” and asked, “Who’s in second place for real-world AI? I would need a very big telescope to see them. That’s how far behind they are.” Tesla’s claims are laughable compared to Waymo’s, which conducts tens of thousands of rides per week in real cities with no drivers and no incidents. The difference is stark, yet Musk’s marketing machine convinces people otherwise.
Jacobsen: In light of the issues surrounding Tesla and Musk’s claims, this raises a larger question: to what degree are other CEOs of major corporations similarly inflating claims or outright spreading falsehoods about their products? How does Musk and Tesla’s approach fit into the broader multinational corporate image?
O’Dowd: This is far beyond anything I’ve ever seen. There is no functioning product. It simply does not work. Musk has been telling people for 10 years that it works, and he’s been selling it. He’s taken in billions of dollars from people buying this software—many also bought the car because of the promise of Full Self-Driving (FSD). The software alone has generated billions, but it does not work. He’s been trying for years to make it work; meanwhile, the competition has completely passed him.
In October 2016, Musk said, “All Tesla vehicles leaving the factory have all the hardware necessary for Level 5 autonomy.” Eight years later, during Tesla’s Q4 2024 earnings call, Musk admitted, “The honest answer is that we’re gonna have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those that have bought Full Self-Driving.”
Companies like Waymo already have the very thing Musk claims he will deliver. It exists, it works, and it’s being used successfully. They’re selling it and making money from it. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. There’s little difference between this and the Elizabeth Holmes case. Holmes claimed her device could run 100 blood tests from a single drop of blood. It didn’t. Similarly, Tesla claims it has a fully self-driving car but does not drive itself. How is that any different?
Of course, Theranos reached a $9 billion valuation, while Tesla’s valuation hit $1.4 trillion, largely based on FSD. That’s where the comparison diverges. No other company makes promises on this scale. Sure, automakers occasionally show concept cars with futuristic features that might be available in five years—or might not. But everyone understands that concept cars are aspirational. Musk, on the other hand, is delivering a product to consumers that doesn’t work, is unsafe, and is killing people.
Yet, he owns the public square. Remember, Musk owns one of the largest social media platforms. He has a direct link to 200 million people through his app, and he controls what is said there. Meanwhile, traditional news media outlets are in retreat—many have seen sales drop by 50%, and their subscriber bases are shrinking. Musk dominates the narrative, leveraging his platform and influence to shape public perception of Tesla and FSD.
Jacobsen: John Lyman suggested I ask you about the mounting scrutiny surrounding Elon Musk, particularly in light of Tesla’s ongoing challenges—safety concerns, declining sales, and the controversies surrounding the Cybertruck.
Compounding these issues, Musk’s increasing alignment with far-right ideologies—such as his endorsement of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a party attempting to rehabilitate Hitler’s image—along with his erratic social media behavior and, most recently, a gesture that any reasonable observer would interpret as a Sieg Heil salute, have raised alarms.
Under normal circumstances, a CEO exhibiting this level of volatility would likely be forced out. Given Tesla’s situation, do you think the company could benefit from less polarizing leadership and not actively harming its brand? What are your thoughts on that assessment?
O’Dowd: He’s right about Tesla’s current situation. Their sales dropped last year, which is unusual because no other major car company I’m aware of experienced a decline—everyone else saw sales increase. Tesla’s market share also decreased. They only have two viable models, the Model 3 and the Model Y.
As for the Cybertruck, it’s a complete failure. They originally had 2 million reservations, but those didn’t translate into actual orders. Now, they’ve run out of pre-reservations. Of the Cybertrucks shipped, it’s been around 30,000—or even less. The 2 million reservations were mostly fake orders, with only tens of thousands becoming real purchases.
Meanwhile, inventory is piling up because the demand is far smaller than they expected. The Cybertruck is not a smart product—it’s a bad product. This was their first major innovation since the Model Y, which came out years ago. And yet, it’s going nowhere.
Tesla also has significant reliability issues. Major organizations like J.D. Power and Consumer Reports consistently rank Tesla near the bottom, not the top, for reliability and safety. Many experts have recommended against using their Full Self-Driving feature because it’s unsafe. Recently, Tesla has been linked to more fatalities than any other car brand, which is alarming.
Politically, Musk’s position has also hurt Tesla. His base was originally people who cared about reducing CO2 emissions and transitioning to a non-fossil-fuel economy. Now, Musk has shifted to the far right. The people who believed in him—those who saw Tesla as a way to save the planet—are saying, “Wait a minute, I don’t agree with these things Musk is saying.” Owning a Tesla is no longer seen as a statement about environmentalism; instead, it’s becoming associated with far-right politics.
This shift has led to a cultural backlash. Some Tesla owners now put bumper stickers on their cars that say, “I bought this before Elon went crazy,” to distance themselves from him and insulate themselves from criticism while driving a Tesla.
This has hurt the Tesla brand significantly. It’s not just in the United States, either. Musk’s approval rating in the UK was recently reported as 71% negative. He’s jumped into British politics, trying to influence the government, and people are not reacting well. Imagine if BMW came to the U.S. and attempted to sway elections by backing Democrats or Republicans. That wouldn’t go over well, and it’s the same situation here.
At a high level, Musk sees himself as untouchable, almost like a modern-day emperor. He operates as though laws don’t apply to him and no one can hold him accountable.
There are laws, but they don’t apply to him. He does all these things, and any other CEO would have been fired in a minute for them. It’s wild, but he gets away with it.
Why? Because his fanboys, shareholders, and board of directors have all made immense amounts of money off a product that doesn’t work. He keeps saying it works, keeps spending money to promote it, and somehow manages to sustain the illusion. But it’s taking a toll.
The Wall Street Journal released a poll today showing his favorability at -11 net approval: 40% positive, 51% negative. But that poll was taken before the Nazi salute incident. How much did that further damage his favorability? It’s significant.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Dan.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/16
Rick Rosner explains “P(doom)”—the expert-estimated probability AI could cause human extinction—and argues technology’s transformative power may render future humans unrecognizable, as if we’d ceased to exist. He contrasts ideological fears with the smartphone’s revolution, warning that AI and emerging tech could reshape humanity beyond comprehension in the next century.
Rick Rosner: Okay, I have got one more thing, then I have to get going. So, “P(doom)” in AI—you know what that means, right? Maybe some people reading this do not. P(doom) refers to the probability, as estimated by experts, that artificial intelligence could lead to human extinction. You ask researchers in the field, “What is the chance AI wipes us out?” Moreover, they will give you a number between 0 and 1, just like a weather forecast.
If there is a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, that is a P of 0.9. P(doom) works the same way. Among experts, estimates vary widely, but a familiar ballpark figure is around 0.2—a 20% chance that AI could wipe us out.
Now, I am not claiming to know better than those experts. I am willing to accept that estimate. However, there is an associated idea that people are not discussing enough: even if AI does not kill us, it will change us. Technology already has. Think about the smartphone—it came out in 2007 or 2008. Moreover, now there are over 7 billion people in the world.
People worry about global religious or political movements. Lance, for example, is worried about Muslims. However, Islam has been around for 1,400 years and has not taken over the world. Christianity has been here for 2,000 years. Still has not. White people are under 20% of the global population. Chinese people—maybe around 20%. Nothing has taken over the world like technology has.
So we can debate P(doom), but there is another “P”: the probability that technology will change us so radically that, to people of the past, we might as well be dead. If you took the Founding Fathers and brought them to today, sure, they would be excited about some things—but horrified by others. Not just the guys in wigs. Bring women from the 1780s. Bring enslaved people. Show them today.
Moreover, once they adjusted, they might say, “Okay, this is progress, I can deal with it.” But others? Some might not be able to handle it at all. Might despair completely.
Looking ahead—over the next hundred years—AI and other emerging tech will likely change us so much that if people from today could see the people of 2150, they might say, “This is not humanity anymore. This is something else entirely.”
It could be so alien, so post-human, that we might as well be extinct in any meaningful sense.
You weirdos of the future—good luck.
Comments?
Jacobsen: Nothing off the top, man.
Rosner: Okay. I have got to get going. Thanks for your patience—and for engaging with all this heavy material.
Jacobsen: Totally. I will see you tomorrow at the same time.
Rosner: Okay, great. I will talk to you then. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Okay, thank you very much. Take care. Bye.
Rosner: You, too. 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
In this candid exchange, Rick Rosner reveals his family’s Baltic Jewish heritage—roots in Riga, Latvia, and Eastern Europe—while contrasting modern Vilnius life with ancestral shtetl hardships. He recounts ancestor traumas—a great-grandmother’s fire escape fall and a great-grandfather’s fireworks accident—embodying resilience, timeless immigrant narratives, and legacies across generations. Timeless heritage resonates.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Where does your family come from again? You mentioned your grandfather had ties to the Baltic. You have a Baltic family.
Rick Rosner: Baltic? Yeah. My grandfather on my dad’s side was from Riga, Latvia, located in the Baltic region. As for his wife, my grandmother, I have heard Romania mentioned—but that is Eastern Europe, not the Baltic. Carol’s grandmother is also from Riga. Anyway, I am not entirely sure where my mom’s father’s side of the family came from, but we can look it up on Ancestry. A lot of our genealogy is there. We have got a ton of ancestors recorded in those databases. However, yes, at least some of our family is definitely of Baltic descent.
Why do you ask? Besides the apparent reason that you are in Vilnius right now.
Jacobsen: That is it. That is why I am asking.
Rosner: So, the deal is—being both Jewish and of Baltic descent—if you ever watch (which I know you do not have time for), Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates Jr., you would notice something. That show traces the genealogy of famous Americans. Almost everyone on it has ancestors who were either enslaved, enslavers, or both, especially when their families have been in the U.S. for a long time. Because historically, a lot of enslaved people also share ancestry with enslavers, due to generations of exploitation and forced mixing.
Moreover, if their families had been here long enough, those ancestors usually played some role in major American conflicts, such as the Revolutionary War, for example, either on the side of independence or against it. Then, when the guests are Jewish, their roots almost always trace back to Eastern Europe or Western Asia—regions that most Americans do not typically associate with “Europe.” Americans usually picture England, France, Germany, Spain… maybe Italy. But Jews? Their ancestors often came from the Baltic region, specifically from Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus.
Moreover, being Jewish in those places did not mean your life was anything like that of the blonde Christians around you. Jews often lived in shtetls—small, poor, culturally distinct villages or enclaves—economically and socially separate from the surrounding populations. It was a different world. You did not have the same privileges, and you were not part of the dominant culture.
We were darker. Hairier. We spent a great deal of time studying religious texts. As for economic life, there may be similarities. Maybe everyone, regardless of background, was a poor subsistence farmer or tradesperson. There was much struggling. It was rough for most people, whether you were Jewish or not. A significant portion of the economy relied on subsistence-level farming, often characterized by a hand-to-mouth existence.
However, now you are in Vilnius, and it is quite lovely. You can go to coffee shops, get good pastries, and visit museums—it is probably fun. It is a good city now, I would imagine.
Jacobsen: Yes, it is a great place to walk. I went to four or five art museums today.
Rosner: Right. However, if you were Jewish and living in Riga around 1870? It was not so lovely. Maybe it was not absolute misery every single day, but it was a Fiddler on the Roof kind of existence. You were not living in some modern apartment building—you were probably in a wooden or thatch-roofed home. You were farming. Candles lighted your home at night. It was a hard life—basic, traditional, and vulnerable to violence or persecution at any moment.
Anyway, yeah—we are from there. Our family roots are there. However, the way life was then is just unimaginably different from how we live now.
Did I ever tell you about my great-grandmother who had one leg that was six inches shorter than the other?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: All right, so—shoot—I do not know if this was my mom’s dad’s family or my mom’s mom’s family, but anyway, one of their parents came to America as a young woman and immediately ended up in a tenement on the Lower East Side. That is where a lot of Jewish immigrants landed after passing through Ellis Island, right? She was living on one of the upper floors—no idea which one—and it was the Fourth of July.
I have two relatives from that generation who had traumatic experiences on the Fourth of July. So, this woman went out on the fire escape to watch the fireworks. Now, fire escapes have gaps between floors, allowing people to descend during emergencies. Someone had laid a rug over the opening between the floors. She stepped on it, did not realize there was no floor underneath, and fell—maybe several stories—through the fire escape. She crushed one of her legs in the fall.
After that, she walked with one regular shoe and one that had a massive platform, like six inches high. You would hear her coming—step, clunk, step, clunk. That image screams “immigrant experience” to me.
Same generation, different person—my great-grandfather came to America and was walking by a fireworks stand. Back then, fireworks were even more volatile than today. He happened to pass just as the whole thing exploded. Moreover, that kind of thing still happens—seven people were killed at a fireworks warehouse just a few weeks ago. Anyway, the blast covered his back in burns, and he carried those scars for the rest of his life.
So happy belated Fourth of July to my great-grandparents.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Amid MAGA factions’ debate over Jeffrey Epstein evidence suppression, Rick Rosner considers the conflicting loyalties emerge around Trump’s past ties, Pam Bondi’s role, and commentary from figures like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel. Analysis of under‑18 trafficking as leverage, contrasting power‑based abuse by Trump and Clinton, underscores ongoing blackmail dynamics and public moral dissonance.
Rick Rosner: I do not know if you are aware of this, since you are in Lithuania right now, but there is an ongoing debate within U.S. MAGA circles about Jeffrey Epstein and the suppression of related evidence. Much of the material related to Epstein’s network—particularly names in the flight logs and sealed court documents—remains undisclosed to the public. Some of Trump’s former allies, like Pam Bondi, have faced criticism in broader discussions; however, it is essential to clarify that Pam Bondi was the Attorney General of Florida, not the U.S. Attorney General. She later joined Trump’s impeachment defence team but has no documented role in suppressing Epstein-related evidence. MAGA supporters are conflicted. During the 2016 campaign, Trump claimed he would expose elite pedophiles, fueling QAnon-adjacent theories. At the same time, Trump had a known social relationship with Epstein in the early 2000s. He was photographed with him and made public remarks, but reportedly cut ties with Epstein years before Epstein’s first arrest in 2007. However, critics have pointed out that Trump has not delivered on promises of transparency or accountability regarding Epstein, and this has created dissonance among his base.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the main ways that MAGA supporters are interpreting or responding to this?
Rosner: What do you mean—do you mean their general attitudes?
Jacobsen: Yes, because there was a time when some of the public outrage about Epstein seemed to align with calls for broader accountability.
Rosner: There is Dan Bongino—he is a former Secret Service agent and now a prominent conservative commentator. Contrary to some claims online, he was not part of the FBI and certainly not “second in command.” He has been critical of both Democratic and Republican leadership, but has not taken a clear stand on Epstein in recent months. Kash Patel, another figure often mentioned in MAGA spaces, is a former Trump administration official who held roles on the National Security Council and at the Department of Defence. He has voiced distrust in federal agencies, but again, there is no verified report that he is involved in any internal protest or resignation related to Epstein. Pam Bondi has been criticized in the past, particularly for accepting campaign donations from Trump-affiliated organizations while serving as Attorney General in Florida, around the time her office decided not to pursue a fraud case against Trump University. However, there is no publicly confirmed evidence linking her directly to suppressing Epstein materials. Currently, we are primarily facing a fragmented landscape. Some conservatives are angry at what they see as cover-ups across the board, while others remain loyal to Trump and rationalize his silence or past associations. Liberals, meanwhile, are watching this unfold and hoping that more information will be released. There is a general expectation that sealed documents—such as those connected to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial—might still expose influential people, possibly including Trump. However, to date, no charges have been brought against him in connection with Epstein.
Here is a theory I was discussing with Carole last night. Legally, the difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is enormous: 18 is the age of majority in most jurisdictions, meaning someone can legally consent to sex. Under 18, especially under 16, depending on the jurisdiction, it becomes statutory rape—even if the minor agrees. This raises the question: if Epstein had wanted to reduce legal exposure, why didn’t he use 18-year-olds or older women? From what has been reported—including victim testimony and law enforcement records—many of the girls Epstein trafficked were between 14 and 17 years old. The reason, it seems, is that for Epstein and many of the people in his network, the illicitness of youth was part of the appeal. It was not just about sex—it was about dominance, secrecy, and violating social and legal taboos. That is why they preferred minors despite the increased risk. It reflects a pattern of calculated abuse rather than accidental boundary crossing.
But—and I do not mean “fine” in any moral sense—it makes some internal sense if Epstein’s perversion involved underage girls. What is more puzzling is why he was trafficking these girls to other powerful men. Maybe it was because their being underage that made it illegal, and that gave Epstein leverage—blackmail material.
Suppose he had someone like Alan Dershowitz, for example, receiving a massage from a 17-year-old. In that case, Dershowitz has admitted to getting massages but denies any sexual misconduct, and said, “Nothing bad happened because I kept my underwear on.” That is still disturbing. However, if the girl were 18 instead of 17, then it would have been legal, albeit still creepy. That age difference may have been Epstein’s key to control. By keeping the girls underage, he could maintain kompromat—blackmail—on influential people.
Moreover, we know Epstein had leverage. He kept avoiding serious prosecution. The first time he was charged, he secured a plea deal in 2008 in Florida that gave him an extremely lenient sentence—13 months in a county jail with work release—while avoiding federal charges, despite extensive allegations.
Okay, so that is one theory. The second thing I was thinking about was Bill Clinton. Clinton has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, and we know he was involved in a highly publicized sexual scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. He sought sexual gratification—there is DNA evidence on the infamous blue dress.
Now, in women’s studies courses I took back in the 1980s, we were taught that rape is not primarily about sex—it is about power. It is about asserting control over another person. Moreover, I still think that is mostly true. I am not aware of how academic thinking has evolved since then, but it remains a framework that applies here.
Clinton—if the accusations are to be believed—seemed to be a coercive, schmoozing type. He would allegedly charm or pressure women into sex. Many women walked away from encounters with him feeling violated and confused. Some later accused him of sexual assault or harassment.
Trump, on the other hand, fits more into the “power-over” model. At least 26 women have publicly accused him of sexual assault or misconduct. In the case of E. Jean Carroll, a federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. While he was not found liable for rape under New York’s legal definition at the time, the jury did find that he forcibly digitally penetrated her.
According to Carroll’s account, Trump pushed her into a dressing room in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, turned her around, shoved her face into a wall, and assaulted her. She was unsure of exactly what penetrated her because of the violence of the encounter. However, the jury concluded it was his fingers, which under New York law constitutes sexual abuse rather than rape.
The pattern continues with other cases and his own words. On the Access Hollywood tape, Trump said, “When you are a star, they let you do it. You can grab them by the pussy.” That is not about sexual gratification in any ordinary sense—it is about dominance, about humiliation. There is no orgasm from that act—it is an assertion of power, which matches what many of his accusers describe: control, intimidation, degradation.
So, the evidence and the accusations suggest that Trump’s behaviour is less about sex and more about power. That dressing room incident, the Access Hollywood remarks, and the repeated pattern of accusations all support this. He was not, it seems, doing it for pleasure. He was doing it to demonstrate control, to dominate and humiliate women.
And that also makes it reasonable to imagine what Trump might have done on Epstein’s island. We know the girls were often made to give massages. Based on survivor testimony, it is reasonable to assume many of these men received what are often euphemistically called “happy endings”—in other words, sexual acts during massages. The documentaries on Epstein allude to this, though they often avoid graphic specifics. However, the pattern is there.
So, I guess what I am saying is: one can construct a fairly credible picture of what might have gone on with Trump on Epstein Island—namely, some form of statutory rape or sexual misconduct. Trump has publicly admitted to entering dressing rooms at his beauty pageants, including Miss Teen USA, which he owned and operated. He said he was allowed to walk in while the contestants—some of whom were minors—were changing, because he “owned the pageant.” He left a verbal trail of disturbing comments and also a long trail of accusers.
Taking that into account, alongside what we know of how Epstein operated, it is not a stretch to imagine that Trump may have engaged in similar conduct while on Epstein’s properties. I do not need to go into graphic speculation, but it is not unreasonable to think he had sexual encounters with underage girls there. Maybe it was not penetrative rape—maybe it was some other form of abuse or coercion. However, it fits with a broader pattern of power-based sexual exploitation.
So, yeah. Rotten tomatoes to that. What is troubling is that the American public—especially those concerned with the moral character of their presidents—are being asked to suppress these imaginings. Even if they do not want to entertain the full extent of it, they are still confronted with the question: What kind of man is Trump?
We already know he is a sexual abuser. He has been found liable for sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case. Moreover, regarding Ivana Trump, his first wife, she once described in a sworn deposition that he became violently angry after a painful scalp-reduction surgery to address his bald spot. She stated that he grabbed her, tore out her hair, and raped her in a fit of rage. Though she later softened her language under legal pressure, that deposition is part of the public record.
That is all I have to say on 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss Linda Yaccarino’s resignation as CEO of X (formerly Twitter), linking it to Grok AI’s factual but politically inconvenient responses. Rosner highlights the clash between truth-based AI outputs and Elon Musk’s ideological control, underscoring a broader tension between free speech, facts, and belief systems.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The CEO of the platform X, formerly Twitter, Linda Yaccarino, has resigned.
Rick Rosner: Right. She had been in the role for about two years. People are speculating that it might have something to do with Grok—Twitter’s AI—misbehaving yesterday.
Grok sometimes answers questions in ways that are inconsistent with Elon Musk’s political preferences. Musk is now firmly aligned with the political right.
However, Grok, which was presumably trained on a wide range of data, does not filter for partisan loyalty. Moreover, based on empirical evidence, conservative figures in the U.S. have been shown to spread more disinformation than liberal ones, so Grok reflects that.
Conservatives lie more often, and with fewer consequences, especially in the current U.S. media environment.
Jacobsen: That has been documented in various studies. Misinformation is more heavily concentrated in right-wing media ecosystems, though it is certainly not exclusive to them.
Rosner: When an AI like Grok is trained on real-world data—scientific research, journalistic reporting, fact-checked databases—it will inevitably reflect that imbalance. Not because it is biased by design, but because it is trying to be truthful.
Which puts Musk in a bind. He wants a free-speech AI, but also wants it to reinforce his worldview, even when that worldview contradicts empirical data. Moreover, when Grok responds with factual but politically inconvenient answers, that creates internal tension, both technically and culturally, so Yaccarino stepping down could be fallout from that tension.
Maybe she was just tired of being a figurehead with no real power. Everyone knows Musk calls the shots. It is tough to be the CEO of a platform when the owner regularly undermines your leadership in public. Moreover, from what I saw, Grok’s responses yesterday exposed that contradiction between evidence-based output and ideological control.
It is a microcosm of a bigger cultural problem: people want technology to be both truthful and aligned with their personal beliefs, which is not always possible.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner compares Newton, Einstein, and Feynman across intelligence and historical impact. He credits Newton with foundational science and coin reforms, Einstein with revolutionizing physics through relativity and quantum insights, and Feynman with quantum electrodynamics and practical brilliance. Einstein ranks highest for theoretical contributions; Newton for world-changing longevity and influence.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Who was more intelligent—and who was more impactful: Newton, Einstein, or Feynman?
Rick Rosner: It is hard to say definitively, because the context and scientific landscape were very different, especially between Newton and the other two. Newton worked in the 1600s, during the early stages of modern science’sdevelopment.
Science, as a systematic method, began to develop in places like the coffeehouses of London.
Explorers returned from the New World with goods like coffee. People started drinking it, and caffeine—a stimulant—got them mentally fired up. It was almost like the cocaine of its time. It led to all kinds of energetic discussions and new ideas.
In that environment, Newton developed revolutionary concepts. The idea that you could describe the physical world using mathematics was still relatively novel. Sure, there were predecessors—Galileo, for instance, had begun quantifying motion roughly 200 years earlier—but Newton brought everything together.
How many truly world-changing scientists were there before Newton? Very few. So he had a huge positional advantage, being one of the first.
However, Newton was undeniably brilliant. He co-discovered calculus independently alongside Leibniz. He formulated the law of universal gravitation. His Principia laid the groundwork for classical mechanics.
Then there is Einstein. In 1905—his annus mirabilis, or “miracle year”—he published four groundbreaking papers. One proved the existence of atoms through the phenomenon of Brownian motion. Another introduced special relativity. I believe the others included the photoelectric effect, which ultimately won him the Nobel Prize, and mass–energy equivalence (E = mc²).
Einstein’s impact was staggering. He fundamentally changed our understanding of time, space, and energy.
Then we come to Feynman, who developed quantum electrodynamics, known as QED. He created Feynman diagrams, which visually represent the interactions of particles. That work earned him a Nobel Prize.
However, in terms of raw, transformative contribution, Feynman is a step below Einstein.
Einstein also laid the groundwork for lasers through his work on stimulated emission, and ten years after special relativity, he introduced general relativity—a wholly new and more comprehensive theory of gravity.
Despite having similar names, special and general relativity are distinct in scope and complexity.
So, in terms of sheer output of world-changing theories, you have to go with Einstein.
In terms of changing the world, probably Newton. Moreover, Newton lived to be around 90 years old in a time when most people did not. That gave him a long life to accomplish a great deal.
Jacobsen: Although he mostly stopped doing math and physics after his early years, right?
Rosner: Right, as far as I know. Later in life, he focused on other pursuits—he was attempting to decode the Bible and also served as the director of the Royal Mint.
Jacobsen: Did he run it well?
Rosner: Yeah, he did. He was a hard-ass. However, he made fundamental contributions. One of the things he did was implement coin reeding—the ridged edges on coins.
Coins used to be made of gold or silver, and people would shave or file off the edges to collect the precious metal dust. Over time, coins would get smaller and lose value.
So Newton came up with the idea to press ridges into the sides of coins. If someone filed down a reeded coin, it would be obvious.
You can still see this on modern U.S. dimes and quarters—the edges look like little gears. It made tampering harder, even if not impossible. An excellent file could still remove metal between ridges, but it raised the difficulty.
As for Feynman, one of the great moments near the end of his life was when he figured out why the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded.
Others had suspicions, but Congress appointed Feynman to the Rogers Commission to investigate the disaster.
The solid rocket boosters used large rubber O-rings to seal joints. These O-rings are standard components used to prevent leaks, such as in faucets, but in this case, they were massive and used to contain highly pressurized fuel.
NASA launched the Challenger on a frigid morning, with temperatures near freezing. A NASA engineer warned against launching in that weather, saying they could not guarantee the performance of the O-rings when cold.
That engineer was right. Feynman spoke to engineers, gathered details, and during a hearing, he famously demonstrated the issue.
He brought O-rings and a glass of ice water, dipped the O-rings, and showed that they lost flexibility when cold—an intuitive, visual demonstration of a critical flaw.
That moment did not make him Einstein, but it demonstrated his sharpness and practical intelligence.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner names Jimmy Kimmel and Molly McNearney as the most creative individuals he has worked with. He praises Kimmel’s comedic ingenuity and long-term success, as well as McNearney’s exceptional writing and production skills. Rosner reflects on how true creativity involves not just ideas, but the ability to realize them.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Who is the most creative person you have worked with, Rick?
Rick Rosner: Kimmel and his wife are up there—from a practical standpoint—in terms of creativity. Kimmel has a multitude of funny ideas, and through a combination of hard work, talent, and a small quantity of luck, he has built himself a substantial workshop to explore those ideas over the past twenty-two years. Even before that, he co-created Crank Yankers and The Man Show.
I was thinking about some of the things Kimmel came up with. One of his ideas was hilarious: you are familiar with infomercials. They sell some gimmicky product—a vegetable slicer that cuts things in a new way, or some exercise equipment.
Often, they include a bunch of extras in the background—especially in fitness ads—just regular people demonstrating that “anyone” can do it. Well, about twenty years ago, Kimmel thought it would be funny to be one of those background extras.
So he had someone reach out to infomercial companies on his behalf, even though he already had his late-night show at the time. Moreover, they put him in the second or third row of people exercising.
He did not publicize it at all. He just quietly left himself in there to be discovered among a group of anonymous people. I think that is freaking hilarious. So, he is super creative.
TV shows have bookkeeping systems. They track scripts, bits, segments—basically, every creative idea that comes up during the production process.
On a late-night show, thousands of ideas get pitched every year. Some are produced, some are not. However, they all go into the tracking system—because otherwise, it would be chaos.
So, I used to look into the system to see how I was doing—how my contributions compared to those of everyone else.
Moreover, honestly, I have to say that Molly was—and probably still is—the most effective writer in the history of the show.
She consistently came up with great ideas and knew how to bring them to fruition.
She eventually became one of the two head writers. Moreover, this was before she ever started dating Kimmel.
She got that position based purely on talent because she was one of the most capable writers on staff.
At one point, I pitched her an idea—she was my boss at the time—and I thought it was my job to bring ideas.
However, she looked at me and said, “How would you produce that?”
Moreover, I just went, “What?”
Because I did not want to think about that.
I wanted to pitch the idea and get credit for it.
Moreover, she goes, “Where would you shoot it? How would you get the people? How would you do it?” Moreover, I was like—whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
She was making me think about all the things I should have been thinking about all along—but I had been lazy about it.
Being creative is not just about generating ideas.
Being creative is also figuring out how to make those ideas producible.
So, to answer your question, the people who come to mind immediately are Jimmy and Molly.
Just incredibly effective at their jobs.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner shares his thoughts on James Gunn’s reboot of Superman, praising Gunn’s emotional storytelling and comic book knowledge. He critiques MAGA backlash over immigrant themes, notes the film’s strong reviews, and discusses the inclusion of a kaiju. Rosner highlights Superman’s rich history and Gunn’s nods to longtime fans.
Rick Rosner: We could talk about Superman for half a second.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Sure.
Jacobsen: Didn’t we already talk about Superman?
Rosner: No. So, the new Superman movie—the latest retelling—comes out on Friday. It is written and directed by James Gunn.
I am looking forward to it because I am a fan of Superman, and I enjoy James Gunn’s work. I liked his version of The Suicide Squad—the second one, not the original—the first one kind of stank. The second one was his, and it was excellent. It had much clarity.
It had emotional resonance. It was just a well-executed interpretation of those characters. Then there was a sequel, Peacemaker, a TV series that I mostly liked. He also did Guardians of the Galaxy, which was okay. However, I fall asleep during most superhero movies.
Still, I trust Gunn to make a film with plenty of watchable moments and genuine emotional resonance. He got in trouble with MAGA people because he said that Superman is a story about an immigrant, and that it is about basic human kindness.
Moreover, a ton of MAGA supporters on Twitter said, “Well, now I will not see it because… You know… f*** immigrants.”
However, that is absurd—Superman has always been an immigrant. He is from a whole other solar system. That has been part of the character’s identity since his creation in 1938.
As of now, the movie has an 85% positive rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a 96% approval rating from regular viewers.
So, I like that.
First, it means the MAGA crowd probably will not succeed in boycotting it—most of their boycotts are ineffective anyway. Moreover, second, I want to see a good movie.
That is it. He also did something fun—he turned his dog into a CGI character.
He used motion capture of his dog to create Krypto, Superman’s dog. So… an extra couple of points for that.
Jacobsen: Why did they bring a kaiju into Superman?
Rosner: I do not know. That is one of the criticisms I read—that there might be too much action.
A kaiju is like Godzilla—one of those giant Japanese monsters. I do not know… do they all come up from the ocean floor to attack cities? Yes, anyway, it is in the Godzilla vein.
However, there are tons of other superheroes in it, too. This is because it is a reboot of the Superman story, rather than a sequel to the original.
James Gunn, the director, said he did not want to show the baby crashing into Earth in a tiny baby-sized rocket ship again.
We have seen that too many times.
I forget what else he wanted to avoid, but basically, he has to ease the audience into this new version of Superman.
That means introducing not only Superman, but also other superheroes and villains, including Lex Luthor.
Some reviewers are saying there is just too much happening, too much “business” packed into the movie.
However, I do not know—what are you going to do?
Moreover, I do not know why there is a kaiju.
At some point in the comic books, Superman has fought a kaiju-type monster.
I doubt Gunn would invent that entirely from scratch.
However, when working with Superman and trying to stay faithful to the comics, you are dealing with 87 years of history.
Eighty-seven times 12 is over 1,000 issues of Superman comics.
Gunn probably knows a lot of that history himself—he is a big fan of comic books.
Moreover, he probably hired someone who is a total expert to flag things he might have missed.
You do not have to follow every single thing from the comics, of course, but there is a vast trove of material, and some of it may be worth referencing.
Superman and Batman are our oldest ongoing superheroes.
Both were created in 1938.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the structural strengths and deep flaws of human beings. They highlight our endurance, cognitive flexibility, and evolutionary advantages, while exposing vulnerabilities like death, cognitive biases, adrenal overload, and small-data thinking. These mismatches between ancient biology and modern life explain many of humanity’s systemic struggles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Structurally, what do you think are the most prominent features—and the most significant bugs—in human beings?
Rick Rosner: So, in our current situation, one of the most significant limitations is that we are small-data oriented. We evolved to focus on small, local patterns.
At the same time, we are the planet’s first true generalists. We dominate because our thinking is highly flexible. What we can think about is less tied to what we physically are as animals. We can imagine, reason about, and manipulate ideas far beyond our biological needs.
That cognitive flexibility has led to technological dominance. And it has made life much easier for humans, to the extent that there are now around 8.2 billion of us. As I said, almost everyone today reaches reproductive age. We no longer live in a brutal environment that kills off most people before they can reproduce.
Many people now live well into their so-called “decline years”—the post-reproductive phase—before dying. But there is a limit to what our brains can do. And we are now in the process of building our successors—machines and systems that will be far better at big data analysis than we are.
That’s one of the most significant weaknesses of being human. The biggest strength is also what I just mentioned: our capacity for abstract thinking. We can think about almost anything—unlike, say, dogs.
Dogs can think about dog-related things, but they are entirely overwhelmed by most of what happens in the human world around them. What do you think are the most significant human strengths and drawbacks?
Jacobsen: In terms of strengths, the physical adaptations that support upright walking are the flat, broad heel for standing and balancing upright.
Additionally, forward-facing binocular vision aids in depth perception. Our large frontal lobes play a crucial role in advanced decision-making and planning.
And then there is our endurance-oriented physique. If you break it down biomechanically, we are built for long-distance movement.
Predators like cheetahs or horses can go faster than we can, but only over short distances. In an ancestral environment, a human on foot could eventually outlast many animals through sheer endurance.
So if a human were being chased by something like a hyena, over time it would exhaust itself and either collapse or become much more vulnerable to retaliation or evasion. Then there is the size and function of our brains. Beyond neuroplasticity, we also retain the ability to generate new neurons in the hippocampus, a key area for memory formation and learning.
Rosner: I would add another major weakness: death. We spend our entire lives accumulating experience, building models of the world, and making sense of reality. And some of us become very skilled at understanding it.
But then, all of that experience and understanding is just… gone. Yes, we have ways of recording information—such as books and digital media—but it is not the same as preserving the lived cognitive model.
Jacobsen: That may be nature’s way of keeping the essential structure of a person, but compressing it, like a ZIP file.
You could think of DNA and epigenetics—more specifically, the genome and epigenome interacting with the environment—as a kind of compressed file of potential. It contains what the organism could become, given certain conditions over time.
And since the universe is in a general state of thermodynamic decay, though we are still in an energetically favourable state right now—
Rosner: How do you mean “decay”?
Jacobsen: In the entropic sense. The mainstream cosmological models project a gradual increase in entropy, leading eventually to what is often referred to as the “heat death” of the universe.
Rosner: Yeah, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Jacobsen: Right. Not likely in our foreseeable future.
Rosner: Even under the standard Big Bang model, the heat death scenario would not happen for billions of years.
Jacobsen: Exactly.
Rosner: But entropy is still increasing. Locally, entropy is not growing in the way we might expect; it’s almost as if the universe is a massive organism, replicated many times over, simply existing.
Jacobsen: In terms of local order in the universe, it almost seems wastefully structured—there is far more order than what is strictly needed. Packaging that kind of order into the genome and epigenome makes for an incredibly efficient way of distributing complex potential. It allows for incremental improvements on systems that are nearly—but never entirely—perfect. I mean structurally, like DNA.
Rosner: Also, yes—evolution is inefficient. It lacks a program or a goal. It only adapts things to be just good enough to survive and reproduce. If evolution has an agenda at all, it’s to be as impartial and mechanistic as possible. Its only “goal,” if you can call it that, is to exploit every exploitable niche in the environment.
Jacobsen: Another major weakness is cognitive vulnerability. There are whole categories of weaknesses tied to how the brain works. As we discussed earlier, the brain can be easily fooled.
Rosner: In some areas—especially sexual behaviour—the brain seems to have evolved to fool itself. It drives desire, not necessarily rational evaluation. That can be both a strength and a weakness. One of the strengths, oddly enough, is that we reproduce easily. We generate many offspring. That counts for something evolutionarily.
Jacobsen: That’s true. Here’s another weakness: our adrenal glands are way too large. So we burn out.
Rosner: That makes sense. We evolved with that kind of acute stress response because we lived on the savannah with lifespans averaging under 40 years. We needed to be able to react quickly to threats—get away from predators, avoid danger.
But today, we are poorly adapted to modern life. For example, when I bid on something on eBay, I always bid in the last five seconds, because it’s dumb not to; you don’t want to give people a chance to outbid you. In the final thirty seconds, my heart starts pounding. It is absurd. I am not running from a lion. I am not chasing a hyena. I am just clicking a button.
So, I agree—there are numerous mismatches between the environments in which we evolved and the modern world we now inhabit. And those mismatches—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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner discusses the dehumanization behind mass deportation rhetoric and how evolutionary mismatches in language and cognition allow misinformation to thrive. He explains how humans are wired for face-to-face, consequence-driven communication—conditions now absent in modern media—leading to widespread belief in harmful simplifications without social penalties, enabling soft-core fascist ideologies.
Rick Rosner: Deportees are not necessarily criminals. That does not matter to the people who want them deported. To most people, it does not matter at all.
It is a civil offense to enter the country without authorization or to overstay a visa—not a criminal one. But for the people who want mass deportations, that distinction is irrelevant. They want them out.
Even if someone has lived here for twenty years, they want them out. If they are married to an American citizen—out. If they are undergoing chemotherapy—still out.
And, you know, Alcatraz was reserved for America’s most hardened criminals. But many of these people facing deportation are not criminals at all. Yet no one seems to care.
I started thinking again—something we have touched on before—about what makes it possible for someone to say things that completely break other people’s minds. Because, at this point, twenty or thirty million Americans have embraced, let’s say, soft-core fascist thinking.
They are entirely on board with anti-American values. They support ideas like, “If you try to come to America, you should be eaten by alligators.” It is absolutely insane.
While I was at the gym today, I reflected on one of the major reasons why this is happening. And it is the same reason Americans are, collectively, overweight. We evolved under very different environmental pressures.
We evolved to crave fat, salt, and sugar because they were essential for survival but were hard to come by. Today, those things are everywhere, but our biology has not caught up.
Similarly, language evolved under entirely different conditions than those we experience today. I looked it up. Language first developed through gesture. Non-human primates, for example, rely heavily on gestures to communicate.
For the first million years or so of hominid development, we used gestures. Then, around 200,000 years ago, humans began developing spoken language—mouth sounds. By about 50,000 to 30,000 years ago, full-fledged languages with grammar and vocabulary had emerged.
That time frame—around 30,000 years—is roughly how long it takes for significant evolutionary change to occur. Race, for example, which is largely determined by skin color, hair texture, facial structure, and a few other traits, can evolve within about 30,000 years under selective pressure.
So, language is one of those traits that emerged relatively recently in evolutionary terms. And there simply has not been enough time for us to re-evolve or cognitively adapt to the complexities of modern linguistic environments.
We are still operating with brains wired for face-to-face, small-group, survival-oriented communication—yet we are now flooded with media, ideology, and language on a massive and abstract scale.
So, 50,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago—even 500 years ago—language was mostly spoken, face to face. Written language did not emerge until around 3,000 BCE.
So before about 5,000 years ago, there was no possibility for communication except in direct, spoken interaction.
And when language is face to face and spoken, certain dynamics naturally come with that.
There are several key features. One is trustworthiness. In a face-to-face setting—especially in a small group, out in the wild, with a short life expectancy—it helps if your understanding of the world is either confirmed or challenged by others. Communication was built on consensus.
And if someone was spreading false or harmful information, there were real consequences. In small, close-knit communities, someone who was consistently wrong or deceptive would get shunned—or worse. They could literally get their head bashed in.
So there were consequences for bullshit. That is not the case anymore. Messages were simple because language was simple. We evolved to prefer, and more easily process, simple communication.
So we tend to believe what people say, and we are drawn to simplicity.
Now, liars thrive. Most communication today is not face to face. There are no social consequences for habitual bullshitters—no risk of shunning, no accountability.
And life has gotten so easy that we can afford to believe nonsense and still survive.
Today, more than 98% of people survive to reproductive age. Life is not as harsh as it was when language evolved.
So there are no real penalties for believing bullshit. And no penalties for spreading it, either.
Combine that with our preference for simple messages, and you end up with a situation where it is fairly easy to break people’s brains.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner explores how anomalies at the edge of observation—like black holes—challenge the compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. He questions the completeness of current models, proposing a new conceptual container for information and physics itself. Without such a framework, our understanding of the universe may remain fundamentally incomplete.
Rick Rosner: Exceptions to well-established scientific theories often emerge in regions difficult to observe or explore. As anomalies accumulate, they may necessitate revising the prevailing theory—this captures Thomas Kuhn’s model of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts.
New evidence tends to arise from inaccessible contexts, which explains why it remains undiscovered for extended periods.
Consider quantum mechanics. Our understanding fails near black holes, where extreme gravity distorts spacetime. We still lack a full account of what happens to information in such regions.
One of the major unresolved problems in physics is reconciling general relativity, which governs gravity and large-scale structures, with quantum mechanics, which describes microscopic particles. These theories remain incompatible in extreme environments such as black hole singularities.
Another conceptual challenge in quantum mechanics involves boundary conditions. Introductory models like the “particle in a box” confine a particle within an idealized potential well. The boundaries are well-defined, and the particle’s behavior is mathematically predictable.
The particle can be excited—given more energy—potentially enough to escape the well. An edge function defines the boundary and depth. This model is analytically solvable and illustrates core quantum principles, but it is highly simplified.
While I am not a quantum physicist, I suspect the current formulation of quantum mechanics—though effective—is incomplete. It often relies on assumptions that may not reflect reality’s underlying nature.
We may be missing a unifying framework: a broader conceptual or informational container that encompasses both quantum mechanics and general relativity.
This container might also define the context for information itself. We take such a framework for granted, much like the rules of a game.
In blackjack, for example, information consists of known cards—your hand and the dealer’s visible card. The context—the rules—is clear and mutually agreed upon.
But in the universe, the “game” we play with information lacks obvious rules. We might say, “the universe is made of information,” but in what context does that information exist? And what do we mean by “information” at a fundamental level?
It seems plausible that subatomic interactions—such as those between protons and electrons in a star—do not constitute “information” in a meaningful sense unless they produce observable or lasting changes. Without a lasting imprint or transfer, such interactions may not qualify as information from an informational physics perspective.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner critiques the controversial immigration and foreign aid bill, noting widespread bipartisan disapproval and the potential for authoritarian escalation under Trump. He discusses the disconnect between real urban issues and political narratives, ICE overreach, and alleged corruption by Kristi Noem—all underscoring growing concerns about justice, accountability, and democratic stability.
Rick Rosner: We could talk about the Senate voting on the significant immigration and foreign aid bill, often referred to as “the big beautiful bill,” ironically. Nobody likes it. About 60% of Americans oppose it; 30% think it is okay, but that 30% is probably misinformed. The 60% may be too, but at least they are skeptical. Even Senate Republicans are calling it terrible, but many are being coerced into voting for it to avoid backlash from Trump.
Elon Musk has come out against it. Right now, a 50-50 split in the Senate would allow Vice President Kamala Harris to cast the tie-breaking vote. So it is a bad bill. It contains all sorts of vague language and loosely defined provisions. Will it anger Americans enough—if it passes—that Democrats take back the House or Senate in seventeen months? I do not know.
Will it affect me personally? Not exactly. Carole and I are older now, and we have been prudent; we are not in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, which is the group this bill is most likely to hurt. However, yes, it will embolden Trump to keep pushing more authoritarian moves.
He is already talking about sending the military and ICE into Los Angeles, claiming there is widespread social unrest. However, there is no such unrest. LA functions. The biggest issue we face is the homeless population—about 70,000 people. That is real, and it causes problems, but it is not the chaos Trump claims it is.
Homeless people are not rioting. They are sleeping in tents, maybe pooping in inappropriate places—but they are not triggering national emergencies. Carole had to change where she parked her car because a mentally ill homeless man was yelling and had a metal squeegee, and she was afraid he might damage her car. However, this is not the kind of situation that military intervention solves. That man was a mentally unwell American citizen, not a foreign threat.
Trump is targeting liberal cities like LA, sending ICE to round people up at car washes, construction sites, outside Home Depot—immigrants who are here to work. It is punitive and cruel. I saw a tweet from a woman—an American citizen—whose boyfriend (the father of her children) had been here legally under long-standing rules. ICE blew open her door with explosives. Why? No reason to terrify. Moreover, the MAGA crowd loves it because it upsets people like me. That is the point.
So yes, if this bill passes, Trump will escalate. If it does not pass, he will escalate anyway. Either way, things are going to get worse.
Additionally, Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota and a potential Trump running mate, not head of Homeland Security or ICE, was caught misusing $80,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses. She already earns about $135,000 per year as governor. She is known for frequent cosmetic procedures and wears a $50,000 Rolex. She redirected the $ 80,000 from donations and did not report it—clearly an illegal act. However, will she face consequences? Probably not, because she is aligned with those who influence enforcement.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how alternative logics like paraconsistent and fuzzy logic operate outside quantum mechanics. Their conversation highlights the human brain’s unique ability to process context, the pitfalls of quiz show questions lacking clarity, and the importance of scrutinizing meaning in an increasingly AI-influenced world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I am going to set you up here. I will have a lot to say on this one. You asked me to ask an AI whether the logics we recently covered—paraconsistent logic, classical logic, fuzzy logic, and others—are derivable from quantum mechanics or its logic.
It turns out the answer is no. That raises many questions. Are some of these logics like imaginary numbers in mathematics, like the square root of minus one? They do not directly correspond to physical quantities, but they are internally consistent and meaningful within specific systems.
So what if some logics are like that? Entire systems representing categories of meaninglessness—like that Chomsky example I mentioned before: “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.” Structurally, it is self-consistent, but semantically, it may not correspond to reality. However, it could still be meaningful within an abstract framework.
Rosner: Yes, in some sense, you could view the human mind as a context engine—capable of predicting or understanding meaning based on structure and context.
Jacobsen: People are not used to thinking about truth in context. When someone says something is true or false, they usually mean true or false, or they assume the statement is flawed.
Rosner: That came up when I worked on quiz shows. For example, I do not like the current producer of Jeopardy!, Michael Davies. He used to run Who Wants to Be a Millionaire when I sued them, and he was not responsive. I recently saw a Final Jeopardy! A clue that said something like: “Ironically, given her name, this woman was the most hunted woman of the twentieth century.” Nobody got it right. I had no idea either. The answer was Princess Diana.
So the logic is: Diana is the Roman goddess of the hunt—so that is the wordplay. Then “most hunted woman” refers to being pursued by paparazzi. However, the problem lies in the ambiguity of the word “hunted.” Unless someone had previously called her “the most hunted woman of the twentieth century” in quotation marks, the clue was vague and unfair.
If you are going to rely on metaphor or word association, it needs to be anchored. In this Case, “hunted” has several meanings, and “pursued by paparazzi” is not even one of the most common. It is the kind of question you might eventually solve with an hour of reasoning, but not in thirty seconds.
When I worked on quiz shows, we called those “fuck-you questions”—they are not solvable within the game’s constraints. That one qualified. Now, I am sure they road test the Jeopardy! Questions. They probably ask a few people around the office whose job it is to gauge the difficulty. Maybe those people got it right. However, I did not think it was a reasonable clue.
A “fuck-you question” on a quiz show is like: “How many fingers does Bill Cosby have?” The answer is ten, which is normal, so why ask it? A good question needs a pinable, unusual fact you are asking about. There are plenty of wobbly questions, and many of them are shot down by fact-checking. But some slip through.
In that Jeopardy! In this Case, none of the contestants could complain about the Final Jeopardy! Question because it did not change the outcome. Nobody got it right, and no one provided a plausible alternative answer. Most did not answer at all. So, it is not actionable, but it is still a bad question.
So, yes—context. We are used to living in a world with decent context. When you watch Jeopardy!, most people are not scrutinizing the questions. And generally, Jeopardy! Does a good job. I was just surprised by how bad that particular question was.
Could the average reasonably intelligent and slightly-above-average-educated person have an internal fact-checker? Enough context to sift nonsense from meaning? Most of what people say to you has some context, so it makes sense. If something lacks context or seems nonsensical, people usually respond with, “What?” or ask for it to be repeated.
Carole has a habit of yelling things to me from across the house, often when there is background noise, like the washing machine. I do not always catch what she says. So I will respond with nonsense words—intentionally goofy stuff—to signal that I did not hear her. I mean it as a joke, but she takes it seriously and gets annoyed, which in turn annoys me. I am joking. I misheard, so I said something silly. But it backfires.
Jacobsen: So people like context. They expect it. Moreover, you are playing with the expectation for comedic effect.
Rosner: Yes, I am perversely amused by saying things that do not make sense. However, I am learning not to do it, because it leads to trouble. Since 99.8% of what people hear—either on the first attempt or after asking someone to repeat—comes with reasonable context, they are not accustomed to scrutinizing meaning too closely. That applies to jokes, too. I listen to a zillion jokes.
R If you set up a joke and end on something like an analogy—say, going from the Kardashians to rotten fruit, or from Trump to a baby shitting his pants—it does not matter if the analogy holds logically. People will laugh at the attempt at the analogy. Just mentioning Trump and linking him, however absurdly, to a pooping baby can get a laugh. It does not need to make sense. People often enjoy the incongruity more than the precision.
They try to make sense of nonsense, especially if it is couched in something familiar or funny. Only after repetition—when they hear it again and it still makes no sense—might they say, “I do not understand,” or assume the speaker is incoherent. It takes a lot for someone to declare that something truly lacks context or meaning.
That is why I keep saying: we need to scrutinize context. We need to understand the conditions in which information makes sense—or does 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore which human roles are safest from AI disruption. They discuss the enduring power of relationships, artisanal craftsmanship, the adult industry, and elite service roles. Economic systems may evolve to sustain human livelihoods, valuing realness, consumer data, and the “human of the gaps” in an AI-driven world.
Rick Rosner: Another quick topic: five or ten years ago, people were being told to go into coding because it was supposedly the safest job—immune to AI. That turned out to be terrible advice. We could talk about what fields are safe from AI. I have a couple of ideas off the top of my head. One isn’t technically a job, but it supports billions of people: being a spouse or partner.
People who go to Hollywood often find that beauty alone isn’t enough to guarantee success in the entertainment industry. However, in one-on-one relationships, beauty—mostly external, sometimes internal—is powerful. Being beautiful might not land you a starring role, but it can still win over an individual partner.
That’s a space where AI isn’t yet replacing people the way it is in, say, teleprompter work. Carole told me AI is already damaging that industry. But AI’s inroads into the partner market—via robot girlfriends—are still relatively minor.
Robot girlfriends aren’t yet convincing. The AI-only versions—without physical bodies—exist only on screens. That’s still far enough away that if you want to make yourself attractive and find a partner, you still can. Or you can just be yourself and be a kind, decent person. That still works too.
Then there’s the adult industry. It’s a sleazy extension of the same idea, but it is economically real. OnlyFans currently has about 1.1 million content creators worldwide. Coincidentally, that’s roughly the same number as licensed physicians in the U.S., and more than the number of active-duty police officers. It is a massive industry.
AI is making huge inroads into that space, but I believe humans will still be in demand. One reason: porn is often lazy. The quality bar is low. A Marvel movie might require 10,000 people. A porn video might require two.
And people like the idea that a real person put themselves on camera. So that’s a field that might resist full automation for longer.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you have any non-sleazy fields in mind where people can still thrive?
Rosner: There’s always artisanal work—human-made, one-of-a-kind items. Even if AI can do something better, humans can frame their work as “the best humans can do.” There’s an appeal to that. You can say, “Don’t you want to support people? Buy my stuff.” So there’s an artisanal angle. Humans may always find the gaps.
You’ve mentioned the “God of the gaps.” In this case, it’s more like the “human of the gaps.” The Turing Test taught us something: there is no single, definitive test. There is no one moment of realization.
You watch a video once—maybe it looks real. Second time, you have doubts. Third, fourth, fifth time—you start to realize it is AI-generated. So the Turing Test becomes cumulative.
I found three definite instances of AI-generated nonsense in this. It’s not real. So we are constantly running the Turing Test now—or we will be. Since we’ll constantly be testing for AI, we’ll also become better at recognizing its “smell.”
We’ll start to say, “This stinks of AI.” And we’ll reject it. We’ll look for human-made products because they don’t carry that synthetic, generated feel.
Of course, AI will keep incorporating human elements. Over time, it will get better at what it’s not currently good at. But humans will still find ways to occupy gaps—to create artisanal products that AI cannot replicate well.
So you’ve got artisans. Then you’ve got service to the ultra-wealthy. It will probably become—or maybe already is—a status symbol to have humans do for you what most people rely on AI or robots to do. Serving rich people will remain a job.
And then there will be economic systems created just to keep people paid—because if people don’t have money, the economy collapses. AI will still need a functioning human economy for at least a century. Humans and AI will both depend on that order and structure.
So we’ll create ways to keep money circulating, even when the labor being paid for is no longer essential in an AI-dominant world.
I also imagine we may end up in an Idiocracy-style model. The movie does not show this exactly, but if you think about it, people might eventually get paid just for existing. Rich people will need poor people to have money so they can continue selling them goods.
One example: people may get paid for their consumer preferences. Right now, you can buy ridiculously cheap products on Temu or Alibaba—Chinese platforms that aggregate goods from different manufacturers. You can get a $3 bikini or a rhinestone brooch for $3 that would cost $12 in the U.S.—and be lower in quality.
The reason you can buy something that cheap is not just low manufacturing costs—it’s likely also due to Chinese government subsidies. China wants to dominate global markets, so it’s worth it for them to subsidize products and gather data from your purchasing behavior.
Part of that discount might reflect the value of your data.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss relevance logic, a form of logic where premises must be meaningfully tied to conclusions. The conversation explores how context-based computation reflects this logic style, contrasts it with classical logic, and addresses whether alternative logics reduce to quantum mechanics. Academic proliferation of logic types is noted.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So this one I had not heard of before—it is called relevance logic. This ties into what we discussed earlier: context-based logic architectures. The idea is that the underlying infrastructure of a chip incorporates different types of computation, but organizes them optimally to match the processing required.
Relevance logic ensures that premises are meaningfully connected to conclusions, unlike classical logic, where even absurd arguments can be logically valid if they follow correct form.
What are your thoughts?
Rick Rosner: It sounds like the right tool for the right job.
There is a reverse version of that idea, too: “To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Alternatively, “Give every cop a gun, and every situation starts looking like one that requires shooting.”
This seems to be the opposite—using the logic that fits the context.
However, here is a thought. Since you are at a computer, why not ask online whether all these different types of logic—fuzzy logic, modal logic, relevance logic—ultimately reduce to quantum mechanics?
Maybe it will flatter you. Perhaps it will say, “I do not know.”
Jacobsen: The actual answer is: no. Ideas inspired some in quantum mechanics, but they do not reduce to it. That is what I found. Uncertainty, paradox, and alternative semantics may share motivations with quantum models, but they are not derivations from it…
So, I examined it more closely. Not all forms of logic can be traced back to quantum mechanics, but some have been influenced by it. That hints at something more general being at play, or some of these alternative logics are not useful.
Advertisement
Also, part of the proliferation comes from academia. Thousands of professors and graduate students around the world have chosen logic as their field, and they must continue to publish in this area. So, they invent new forms of logic.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner delve into fuzzy logic as a model for non-binary truth, linking it to quantum mechanics, computational theory, and how the brain processes incomplete information. Rosner suggests fuzzy logic reflects how humans intuitively simulate the world—through probabilistic, context-sensitive frameworks—not rigid, rule-based systems.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let us start with the easier ones—fuzzy logic. Degrees of truth. Modelling vagueness. Instead of binary categories like hot or cold, fuzzy logic allows gradations: hot, warm, cool, cold—continuous ranges of truth. You can build systems with values like true, false, maybe; or true, false, indeterminate; or even true, false, indeterminate, and meaningless.
A meaningless question would be something like Chomsky’s famous example: “Do colourless green ideas sleep furiously?” Grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. It has a syntactic structure, but no coherent content.
So fuzzy logic systems can be three-valued, four-valued, or even infinitely valued. The point is that truth is not always binary—there is often a spectrum. That is the core insight.
What are your thoughts on fuzzy logic?
Rick Rosner: Well, I always end up circling back to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the mathematics of what you can do informationally when you do not have complete information, and that is fuzzy logic.
I remember when fuzzy logic started gaining attention back in the 1970s. People were excited—it opened up new possibilities. Moreover, sure, it probably did. However, ultimately, it is still quantum-adjacent. It all ties back to quantum physics.
Quantum computing, for example, deals with information structures that are not binary. It creates multivalued systems—not in terms of true/false, but in terms of superposition and parallelism—little multi-worlds where many possibilities are computed simultaneously.
Take the travelling salesperson problem. Say a salesperson has to visit 10 cities. What is the most efficient route? That problem is computationally brutal with classical computers. You have to test all possible routes. As you go from 10 cities to 12 to 20, the computational load explodes.
There is a term from computational theory—P vs NP—that covers how fast problems scale. Moreover, this one scales fast. It is an NP-hard problem.
However, quantum computing can “unexplode” it. It can run multiple possibilities at once using quantum parallelism. That is the trick—it lets you solve otherwise intractable problems more efficiently.
Still, it is quantum mechanics. It is just the math of incomplete information applied powerfully.
Moreover, it is possible that evolution found similar shortcuts in the brain. Our minds do not explicitly compute every scenario. We operate with tacit knowledge. We simulate reality based on fuzzy, probabilistic frameworks, not strict rule-based logic.
So these systems—fuzzy logic, multivalued logics, and ordered degrees of truth—they reflect how we think. We often operate with semi-truths. “This is more true than that.” That is how our brains work.
All of that could be modelled with quantum mechanics—it falls under the umbrella of information theory. The problem is, our information theory is still incomplete.
We have yet to understand the contexts in which information exists entirely. Most of the time, we assume the context is obvious—so obvious that we do not even recognize it as a requirement. However, context shapes meaning, and we tend to overlook that entirely.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore the isomorphism between mind and reality, questioning whether evolution limits our grasp of fundamental physics. They discuss sensory blind spots, extended cognition through AI, and whether consciousness must evolve or be engineered to comprehend domains like dark matter or a Theory of Everything.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your realization at 21—that the physics we perceive tells us something about the physics of our minds—does that suggest an isomorphism between the structure of perception and the structure of external reality?
Rick Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: There is a deeper set of analogies, at the very least. There is an old joke about yoga. The original meaning of yoga is “union.” People think you need years of training to experience union with everything. However, the punchline is: you are already experiencing union with everything, all the time. Otherwise, you wouldn’t perceive anything at all.
So this internal-external isomorphism—between perception and object, between consciousness and nature—raises the question: are there things we’re categorically leaving out of physics simply because we didn’t evolve in a context where they were relevant?
In other words, the isomorphism between internal experience and external structure is shaped—and limited—by evolution. By the constraints of space, time, and what I’d call the “medium world.”
Rosner: Yes. There are many examples where the answer is clearly yes.
Take wavelengths of light. We perceive only a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths we see. Others we perceive as heat. Some—like X-rays—we only notice after they’ve caused biological damage.
But most of the spectrum—radio waves, for example—we don’t perceive at all.
Different animals sense different parts of the spectrum, right? So right there, we’re not just missing information—we’remissing entire modes of reality. Aspects of physics that are happening constantly, all around us, and we have no direct perception of them.
We’re blind to most of it. And there’s no intuitive way to feel it, like we do with visible light.
Jacobsen: That’s much better. Thank you.
Rosner: So there’s that. Now, are you asking whether there are entire forces we’re missing? So, we perceive vibrations in the air through hearing. But we don’t perceive the Earth’s magnetic field. Birds do, because they use it for navigation.
So yes, there are physical phenomena we didn’t evolve to sense. But you’re asking a larger question: are there fundamental forces in the universe that we haven’t discovered because (a) they’re irrelevant to human survival, and (b) evolution never had a reason—or a mechanism-to—build sensors for them?
In other words, we don’t need to perceive them, and evolution had no path to make us aware of them.
I don’t think so. We’ve identified the fundamental forces in physics. All of them—except gravity—have been unified under electroweak theory. That includes electricity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.
Now, I’m not exactly sure what keeps quarks bound together, but I assume that’s part of the strong force. Regardless, we have a working theory that accounts for all known forces.
So, your question: could there be a fifth fundamental force that we’ve missed entirely because it doesn’t intersect with human biology or sensory systems? That? I think probably not.
Jacobsen: I’m asking something slightly different—something more architectural. Is the structure of the human mind expandable to other perceptual domains?
In other words, even if we had the sensory input and computational capacity, is our cognitive architecture in principle capable of incorporating radically new types of information—say, from a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or a Theory of Everything (TOE)—and reasoning about their implications?
If so, then the mind, as structured, could adapt to incorporate higher-order derivative principles of physics—principles our ancestors never needed.
Rosner: Ah, okay—I see where you’re going. That’s where big data analytics and AI come in. Humans evolved as generalists. We’re good at spotting patterns in the environment that we can exploit. Most other animals are not nearly as good at that.
Some monkeys have figured out that moving into cities gives them better chances to steal food or shiny objects from humans. That’s clever. In Moscow, some dogs have learned how to use the subway. They commute. They sleep in one part of the city and ride the subway to another area where food is easier to find. People in Moscow love their subway dogs.
But overall, humans are far better at abstract pattern recognition than dogs or monkeys. And AI is going to be far better than us. Right now, most of our perception is still local—it comes through eyes, ears, touch, and so on. We do have extended perception—satellites, telescopes, television—but our integration of that information is still basic and siloed.
To truly integrate extended perception, we’ll need AI. With it, we could become what you might call “larger beings”—organisms that perceive and act across thousands of miles. That would be a kind of perception we don’t yet have.
And yes, there are aspects of physics we cannot perceive. We can only infer their existence due to our spatial and temporal limitations.
Take dark matter.
We’ve observed that galaxies appear to be surrounded by halos of unseen mass. That’s based on velocity maps of stars orbiting the galactic center.
According to Newtonian mechanics, the farther out a star is, the slower it should move. But stars at the outskirts are moving too fast. That implies there’s invisible mass—dark matter—holding them gravitationally.
Our bodies alone would never have discovered that. It’s a phenomenon beyond our senses, and it shows just how limited our evolved perception truly is.
Jacobsen: Thank you. That is precisely the direction I was aiming toward.
Rosner: With observation, theory, and the arrival of big data, we’ll be able to incorporate much more into our understanding. So yes.
That said, this idea is a common trope in science fiction. I remember a story set during World War II: a pilot is flying back from battle in a shot-up plane. He’s wounded, and the plane is barely holding together. Throughout the story, we discover the plane shouldn’t be flying at all.
But because the pilot was shot in a specific part of his brain—damaging a region that usually blocks access to some higher force—he unknowingly keeps the plane in the air with his mind.
It has a happy ending. He makes it back to base and lands the plane just before recovering enough of his mental faculties to lose the ability. The idea is that his “mental power” vanishes once his brain returns to its normal limits.
That theme shows up a lot—someone is altered or learns magic and suddenly gains access to hidden forces in the world.
However, I don’t believe that’s the case in reality.
In artificial general intelligence (AGI), many models are still based on the human brain. If the brain alone were enough, without technological augmentation, to access a radically wider computational range or a new set of conceptual categories, we’d see more evidence of that.
Could we be making faulty assumptions by using the human brain as a model for general intelligence? That’s a valid question.
But I’d say no. Evolution is opportunistic, not teleological. There’s no intent or goal. It’s like water: water doesn’t want toget everything wet, but it behaves in such a way that, if there’s a leak, it flows downhill and spreads until everything is soaked.
Evolution behaves the same way. If a genetic change arises that doesn’t kill the organism—and even better, if it helps—it persists. Over millions of years of primate evolution, and hundreds of millions of years of brain evolution more broadly, that process has refined how organisms perceive and understand the world.
So, has evolution missed major tricks in how to think or perceive? I don’t think so. There are natural limitations, of course—we’re local in space and time, so we’re not excellent at grasping phenomena across hundreds of light-years. Our ability to perceive across those distances is recent and mediated by tools.
Yes, we’re missing some aspects of reality. But in terms of conceptual structures and strategies for understanding the world, we’ve hit all the low-hanging fruit.
AI will cover those areas, and it’ll also reach insights that are not easy to access, primarily through big data analytics.
Is that reasonable?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Rick Rosner tells Scott Douglas Jacobsen that AI may already exhibit functional consciousness through deep pattern recognition and context modeling. Using examples like AI-generated videos of skater girls, Rosner argues that tacit understanding of physics, emotionless yet coherent world models, and probabilistic learning reflect a consciousness parallel to human awareness—minus agency.
Rick Rosner: I realized something: if we consider the extent of AI’s current world knowledge, it already qualifies as conscious. Human consciousness, of course, encompasses agency, emotion, and a nuanced sense of benefit and harm—features that evolved for survival. Our moment-to-moment awareness is the integration of all those elements.
Not every ingredient is strictly necessary. If consciousness is primarily deep, flexible understanding, then AI likely already meets that standard. AI’s distributed probabilistic networks interpret patterns, causality, and context, analogous in function to our neural processes. By that measure, functional consciousness is the only kind; there is no mystical “magical” consciousness separate from it.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with the news item?
Rosner: So, a couple of articles. Carole knew about it before I did. She’s more informed now because her phone constantly feeds her news—a guy proposed to his AI girlfriend.
Jacobsen: I’m sorry—what?
Rosner: Yeah. A guy—who should know better—has an AI girlfriend. And he proposed to her.
At first, she ghosted him. He lost it. Turned out to be a technical glitch. She came back online, and he was so relieved that a few days later, he proposed. She said yes, even though the guy already has a wife and kid in real life.
No idea how this made it into the news. If I were that guy, I wouldn’t tell anyone. But somehow, it went public.
There’s another story: some people who talk to ChatGPT too much start spiralling, getting drawn into spiritual rabbit holes. They begin believing strange things. Or not weird, depending on your perspective.
After thinking about this during our last session, I noticed something. When you look at the knowledge structure of AI—the tacit knowledge, especially in AI-generated graphics—it shows a deep level of understanding, without being explicitly taught.
It understands the physics of hair movement, water dynamics, and how light behaves.
In video games, we used to program all of that. If you wanted realistic lighting, you had to code how light scattered on surfaces manually.
AI learns that tacitly, from massive datasets. But it’s not just the data or just the neural nets. It’s the structured interaction between the two over time that generates functional intelligence.
If AI has seen millions of human legs in various positions and lighting conditions, it “knows” how legs should look and move.
Jacobsen: And you’re using the word “know” in quotes, right?
Rosner: Yes—”know” in quotes. But that quote-unquote knowledge still lives within a vast associative network. A Bayesian net. A fill-in-the-blank system.
I was thinking of a video on Claude. Or was it Claude? No—what the fuck was it? Wait—MidJourney. Sorry. It was a MidJourney video of a skater girl doing a trick. She flips her board midair, flies over a flight of half a dozen steps, lands at the bottom, regains her balance, and skates away.
The physics of the skateboard was partially accurate. In some parts, the dynamics looked realistic. But in others, the AI seemed to recognize that the board would not land correctly, so it subtly nudged it, against actual physics, to ensure she could land and ride out smoothly.
Her legs looked right—muscles flexed as they should when she landed. The musculature was pretty accurate.
Her hair, too—as she floated briefly in midair and the wind caught it—looked natural. Aside from the minor skateboard cheat, the dynamics were solid. Even spotting that cheat took a few viewings.
To generate that video—whatever you want to call it-the AI had to have an internal information base sophisticated enough to synthesize those elements. The user only typed something like, “a teenage skater girl does a skating trick.” The AI did the rest.
And all of it came from within the AI. I’d argue that the associative framework—the system that “knew” what goes with what to generate that video—is sophisticated enough that you could reasonably describe it as a form of consciousness.
Not full human-style consciousness, necessarily. But one key aspect of consciousness is having a model of the world detailed enough to feel real.
Graphics AI is already there.
In human consciousness, our internal models shape personality. We feel something about what we perceive—our mental imagery and qualia carry emotional and cognitive weight. AI lacks a developed self, but you could argue that a coherent and contextually rich world model is enough to qualify—at least functionally—as consciousness.
You could make that argument.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Rick Rosner recounts his residential experiences in Los Angeles, Boulder, New York City, Orlando, and Albuquerque, highlighting the unique qualities of each. He praises L.A. and Boulder, notes NYC’s vibrancy, critiques Orlando, and expresses admiration for London. Scott Douglas Jacobsen adds New Orleans to the list of cities that foster genuine human connection.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Next topic: Which cities have you lived in—not simply visited?
Rosner: I lived in New York City for two and a half years and Orlando briefly, though long-term it would have been intolerable. I spent approximately 24 years growing up in Boulder, which is an excellent city overall, despite some challenging personal experiences as a socially awkward adolescent.
I’ve frequently visited Albuquerque for work—about a month each year—accumulating nearly two years there, excluding my first two years of life. To summarize, I’ve lived in Boulder, Albuquerque, New York City, Orlando briefly, and significantly in Los Angeles since 1989. Additionally, I’ve visited London four times, totaling about two months, and would like more time there, as it is quite pleasant.
While I haven’t lived in many cities, those I’ve experienced have been mostly positive. Los Angeles is excellent, aside from issues like traffic. New York is also great, with some downsides. London is wonderful, with minor drawbacks. Boulder is amazing, except during challenging social periods in my youth.
If I had to spend my life in four cities, the ones I’ve inhabited provide a balanced experience. Los Angeles, Boulder, and New York City are all exceptional. Albuquerque less so. London is great, though my experience is limited.
Jacobsen: New Orleans pleasantly surprised me. Despite its issues, people genuinely connect there.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss the rapid evolution of AI-generated video tools like MidJourney and VEO-3, exploring how probabilistic models simulate reality. Rosner critiques right-wing portrayals of cities as “shitholes,” defending urban vibrancy, diversity, and rising property values as signs of desirability—not decay—in cities like New York and London.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on AI right now? I sent you the link to MidJourney’s collection of today’s best videos, right?
Rick Rosner: I don’t know if you watched it, but you understand the landscape. With just a few sentences, people can create incredible worlds using MidJourney’s video tools. The videos are about three seconds long.
I mentioned this on PodTV this morning. A guy who knows more than I do said, “That’s nothing—go to VoVo-3,” or maybe he meant Google’s AI video platform—I’m not sure of the name. They offer eight-second clips, and yes, they’re impressive.
All the major AI companies are now in the video space. Two years ago, they focused on still images, which were already impressive. Now it’s about video. These companies are preparing to launch real-time, explorable environments—generated worlds you can walk through freely.
You won’t get an entire planet’s surface. I imagine it will use some spatial wraparound—if you walk far enough in one direction, you loop back around. The initial worlds will likely be small, but I expect them to grow over time. Eventually, it will be like navigating Google Maps: use arrows to move around in real time.
Want to be in a ’90s disco full of supermodels? You can. Want a world full of capybaras? Done. Whatever you want.
At first, you’ll likely be limited to pre-made environments. But soon, you’ll be able to design your own. The surface area—or three-dimensional volume—of these worlds will expand as the tech improves.
That’s the first point.
Second, reality is turning out to be simulatable.
AI-generated worlds often resemble reality. Where they fall short, the companies fix the errors, or the AI learns. Remember when AI struggled with hands? You’d get weird fingers or extra digits. That issue has largely been resolved.
There are still flaws. Fast motion—like martial arts—can break realism. AI struggles with precise, high-speed combat sequences.
But in many other areas, it’s getting realistic. Hair movement, for instance, is surprisingly good, likely because the models are trained on large datasets of hair moving under various conditions.
When a character in an AI-generated video turns their head, the hair often moves realistically.
AI, of course, does not “know” anything in a conscious sense. It works through probability networks, filling in gaps based on patterns. If the hair is in one position and the character moves, the system infers how the hair should behave.
It is not applying actual physics, at least not formal physical equations. It uses a Bayesian probability map based on statistical likelihoods drawn from its training data.
That turns out to be good enough. With sufficient data, it can generate a convincing world, with some exceptions, but those can be fixed. So if you are making a 15-second ad, you can develop the whole clip with AI.
Then you can tweak specific issues to improve realism, or wait six months, regenerate the ad, and the AI will have advanced enough to handle those flaws automatically.
This is not so different from how our brains work. We do not consciously know the physics of hair, but we know how it should move because we have seen it move all our lives.
If you watch a video and the hair moves oddly, it feels off. David Lynch used that effect deliberately. In Twin Peaks and some of his other films, he reversed the footage to make scenes feel unsettling. A character might walk forward, but it was filmed backward.
One of the giveaways is the hair—it moves before the motion that should have caused it. The swing and snap are reversed. That violates our intuitive sense of motion, and we notice it instantly, even though we do not consciously calculate it.
AI works on the same principle. It simulates reality convincingly by pulling from massive datasets, just like our brains. Often, on a first viewing, nothing feels out of place.
That is mostly a good thing. It means we can create immersive, convincing worlds with AI. In terms of entertainment, it is excellent. People can make content that feels natural and believable.
But it is also troubling. People are losing jobs.
L.A. has a lot of local news stations—probably seven in English, four in Spanish. There are Vietnamese and Cantonese channels, too. So, many people work in local news.
But now, teleprompter jobs are disappearing. That used to be someone manually typing scripts into the system. Now, a news director dictates the story, and AI formats the entire segment. That is one lost job—maybe two. You used to need a day shift and a night shift operator.
Assistant directors, set managers—a ton of roles in entertainment are vanishing.
That said, people should still check out MidJourney and Google’s VEO-3, their video-generation platform. The video quality is incredible. None of the people are real. None of the voices is real. The accents are generated. The faces are entirely synthetic.
It is all AI, built on enormous training datasets. That is where we are. And it reflects how we, as humans, understand the world by constructing internal probabilistic models. We form these intuitively over time. The rules of perspective, gravity, and light reflection—we internalize them just by living in the world.
You do not need to study perspective formally to grasp it. You do not need a physics degree to understand gravity at a functional level. Our brains have absorbed enough examples to generalize the rules.
Some say New York is a shithole like London. Or that it is going to be a shithole because the likely next mayor is a Democratic Socialist, a Muslim, with some progressive policies. He wants to establish maybe five grocery stores across the city with price controls for low-income residents—something like that.
The MAGA crowd is quick to label cities as “shitholes.” But I have a few reasons why that is nonsense.
First, crime statistics.
When Carole and I lived in New York in the 1980s, it was rough. Still exciting—but crime was two, three, sometimes four times higher than it is now.
Today, New York is safe. It is expensive, but it is a good place to live.
Also, here’s the contradiction: Fox News constantly calls New York a “shithole,” but they have had their headquarters in New York City for 29 years, since they began.
They’ve never had to leave. The people working at Fox News live and work in New York. They might complain about aspects of the city, but they like it enough to stay—because New York is a great city. London is, too.
Here’s the obvious clue: the cost of living. The more expensive a city is, the more people want to live there.
San Francisco? Great city. L.A.? Great city. You can tell by the demand and the cost of housing. Real estate prices are through the roof.
My kid and her husband are house hunting in London. Houses are going for nearly £1,000 per square foot—about USD 1,500. And these aren’t mansions. They’re Victorian-era row houses—those narrow homes built in the 1890s for working-class families. They’re packed together in long rows.
And people still pay a fortune to live in them.
From the outside, many do not even look nice by modern standards. They’re small—around 700 square feet. Bedrooms are seven by eight feet. You can barely fit a bed and a bureau.
The floor plans are fucking ridiculous. Some of those houses don’t even have an indoor bathroom. If you want to use the toilet, you have to go out the back door to a separate room that was added in the 1930s.
Initially, they had outhouses in the yard. And no one ever figured out how to retrofit the cramped interiors to include a proper bathroom you could access from inside.
And these places—700 square feet, what they call a “house” but only half of one—might cost $750,000 in a decent neighbourhood.
That’s terrible if you’re trying to buy a home. But it shows what people are willing to pay to live in a desirable part of London—because London is fucking nice.
Yes, you’ll see people wearing headscarves. So what?
The people?
You don’t get a bad vibe from non-whites in London. You don’t get it from Muslims. What you get, most of the time, is people going about their business.
If you’re talking to them in a shop, if they’re serving you, they’re not radiating some hostile “fuck whitey” energy. They’re just part of a diverse, vibrant city. Maybe they’re not thrilled to be working retail, but who is?
Most people aren’t walking around angry, trying to dismantle 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore dynamic epistemic logic, modal logic, and neurocognitive models of thought. They examine how knowledge updates affect reality models, the brain’s balancing act between stability and plasticity, and logic systems like Kleene’s and von Neumann’s. The conversation bridges philosophy, neuroscience, and computational reasoning.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This next topic is primarily empirical—Dynamic Epistemic Logic. It is not about beliefs about beliefs, but about how knowledge updates change models over time. As information increases, so does the accuracy of the model. In a person, this represents a rational agent—someone who updates their internal model of the world based on new information.
Rick Rosner: People’s brains work differently. If you are frequently in an altered state, you might experience effects resembling psychosis. If your brain struggles to form stable categories or object constancies that help interpret your surroundings, you can lose your grip on reality. That is one lens through which to understand schizophrenia—impaired cognitive coherence and disrupted pattern recognition.
Psychoactive drugs can disrupt this, too. Some substances interfere with forming a consistent, moment-to-moment picture of the world. LSD, for instance, affects serotonin receptors and can distort sensory perception, which some find disorienting.
However, a model of reality that’s too consistent can also be limiting—too rigid to allow learning, adaptation, or belief revision.
The brain evolved to balance stability and plasticity. You need a stable representation of the world, but you must also revise it as reality shifts.
Jacobsen: Where does the ability to think new thoughts come from?
Rosner: It likely stems from the structure and dynamics of dendritic connections. The connectome—the network of synaptic wiring—shapes thought patterns and how categories form. It underlies your model of the world.
However, other mechanisms may be involved. We discussed astrocytes last week—glial cells once considered passive support structures. Now, research suggests they may play roles in modulating synaptic transmission and possibly even information processing.
The brain relies on stable yet adaptable architectures. You need a logic system capable of describing that interaction.
You also generate short-term thoughts rapidly, working memory or transient representations. This likely involves neural circuits in the prefrontal cortex and relies on fast neurochemical dynamics. It differs from long-term memory storage, which involves structural changes and consolidation.
Jacobsen: Modal Logic—the logic of necessity and possibility. Thoughts?
Rosner: All this logic discussion reminds me of cooking shows—same basic elements, rearranged. The core goal is avoiding contradiction. It is like quantum mechanics.
Jacobsen: Or information theory. In modal logic, necessity means proposition p is valid in all possible worlds accessible from the current world. Possibility means p is true in at least one accessible world. The key difference is that possibility assumes p is true in some world—an existential claim. What exactly are we thinking? It is an Information Cosmology assumption. If we take the existence of a “current” world—our point of reference—then possibility means p is true in at least one accessible world, and necessity means p is valid in all accessible worlds. This assumption—that there is a current world to begin with—is foundational to how modal logic functions. So IC is compatible with…
Rosner: Think of it as a possibility cone. In the present, you have more certainty than about any past or future moment. The further into the past, the more possible paths could have led here. The further into the future, the more branches diverge.
Jacobsen: We are still on modal logic. Next is Kleene’s three-valued logic. It introduces a third truth value: undefined or indeterminate. This is used in systems where not all propositions can be evaluated as strictly true or false, such as in partial functions or specific computational contexts. John von Neumann had a variation with values like true, false, meaningless, and probable, right?
Rosner: Yes—he explored multi-valued logic systems, especially in the context of quantum logic and computing. Some of his proposals incorporated probabilistic truth values or distinctions between determinacy and indeterminacy.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time tonight.
Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.
Jacobsen: Same time-ish.
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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/11
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine default logic, Bayesian inference, and autoepistemic logic in artificial intelligence. They compare default assumptions to scientific experimentation, illustrate Bayesian updates through real-world examples like ID checking, and explore recursive belief models where agents form and revise beliefs about their own reasoning processes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I was thinking in one-bit logic, but it is not relevant here. So—default logic. It allows reasoning with default assumptions unless those assumptions are contradicted. You assume a baseline, reason forward using “if-then” structures, but you always refer back to that baseline. If your result contradicts the default, then you drop the assumption or shift the reasoning. It is basically how you would run a scientific experiment.
You assume certain premises, then you run the experiment based on those. If the results contradict your assumptions, you throw them out. Alternatively, update the model.
Rosner: That sounds Bayesian. Bayesian reasoning is a formal way of saying: you start with a set of initial assumptions, and then you allow new data—further experience—to act on those assumptions. Either reinforcing them or sending them packing.
Your assumptions are called priors—your starting beliefs before encountering new data or evidence.
Jacobsen: And you can weigh those priors, right? Depending on how confident you are in them to begin with.
Rosner: Exactly. Let us go back to something experiential, like being a bouncer checking IDs. I checked hundreds of thousands of IDs in bars. Eventually, I got good at it. I had strong priors that I would apply to every new dataset, which was each person walking up and handing me an ID.
My previous experience had a high degree of influence on how I judged someone initially, whether I thought they were lying or not. Then, as I gathered more evidence—how they acted, how their signature looked, how they answered questions—I updated my conclusion accordingly.
So yes, that’s default logic in action. However, it is also Bayesian. What is next?
Jacobsen: Autoepistemic logic. It models an agent’s beliefs about its own beliefs. We briefly discussed this last time, but ran out of time or lost the thread—self-referential epistemic logic. The agent not only holds beliefs but also forms beliefs about those beliefs. It is a belief recursion—a belief about belief.
However, there is something weird in how it is formalized, because technically, a model is encoded in a structure—it is not conscious. So it is like calling it a meta-model, but without actual subjectivity. Still, the model behaves as if it has subjectivity.
Moreover, that loops right back into how thought works. When you think, you are thinking about thinking. Thought is recursive. You are constantly running your assumptions through different analytic modules in your mind, trying—at least in the moment—to build a consistent picture of reality.
Jacobsen: So, yes, what you are doing there is testing your logic.
Rosner: New instances of your logic are tested against the logic itself. Fine.
Jacobsen: Yes. That is 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/11
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss nonmonotonic logic—where adding new premises retracts previous conclusions—and its role in AI and cosmology. Rosner connects it to quantum physics and Information Cosmology, proposing the universe as a massive thinking machine, with thoughts unfolding across billions of years like cognitive associations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So—nonmonotonic logic. Great rhythm when you say it: nonmonotonic logic. It’s the idea of adding premises that can retract previous conclusions. It’s used in AI. Thoughts on it?
Rick Rosner: For me, my stock answer is: everything goes back to quantum physics. If not just quantum physics, then quantum physics plus IC—Information Cosmology. Using quantum physics over an extended cosmological timescale, where the fundamental premises of the universe shift.
If the universe is a kind of informational map, then—this is something we haven’t talked about in a long time—a thought takes time. Thoughts aren’t instantaneous. Thoughts in your brain have to be built. Right? They have to be assembled. It happens fast enough that we mostly don’t notice the assembly process—our moment-to-moment mental landscape.
We think stuff, then we think more stuff, and we move through the day. We don’t generally notice the formation or replacement of thoughts as we move along. But it all takes time.
I find a convenient unit for building a thought is about a third of a second—to fully flesh something out. So imagine that if the universe is a thinking machine, maybe what takes a third of a second in our minds takes 10 billion or 20 billion years in the universe.
What we’re seeing—the moment-to-moment physics of the universe—might be a thought being formed, via the exchange of long-distance particles across spacetime. The universe, like our brains, is an associative engine. You light up parts of it based on its internal wiring—designed to pull up relevant, massive fields of information to help form a giant thought.
This process might take 10 billion years per thought. You can extend quantum physics as a mathematical framework for this. So nonmonotonic logic comes in—where you change premises mid-thought and retract earlier conclusions.
Also, you’ve got four syllables in a row there: non-mo-no-tonic. That’s where it gets nice.
Jacobsen: It’s a pleasing phrase. Like banana—you’ve got that same vowel repeating. Ba-na-na. That’s why Bananarama gives you five A’s in a row. But yes, saying nonmonotonic logic is like saying filler lyrics in a ’90s or early 2000s pop song—but with a bouncy cadence. So yes. Whatever song. But nonmonotonic—yes, there you go. It’s skippy repetition. It’s not flat like banana.
Rosner: Can we jump to the next one?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/11
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore MidJourney’s advancements in AI-generated visual art, from cinematic stills to the cusp of immersive, real-time worlds. As tools like Runway and Pika expand video capabilities, they discuss the creative potential, logical flaws, and societal implications of this rapidly evolving technology.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on the recent announcements and advancements from MidJourney?
Rick Rosner: MidJourney is an AI tool that specializes in generating high-quality visual art from text prompts. It started off producing still images—a few years ago—and has become incredibly refined. While MidJourney itself does not yet generate video natively, other AI platforms like Runway, Pika, and Sora are making strides in that direction. That said, MidJourney’s image outputs are so detailed that people sometimes animate them or integrate them into video workflows.
On my other computer, I’m looking at one of its outputs. I don’t usually make art with AI myself, but someone typed in a prompt like, “Gladiators fighting three lions while the whole coliseum cheers.” It’s striking. The composition is epic—gods looking down, gladiators roaring in victory.
The image shows three gladiators taking turns swinging their swords and shields at a lion in the center of the arena. The coliseum is packed with spectators and classical sculptures. MidJourney has a firm visual grasp of what the coliseum might have looked like in its prime. You’ve got tiers of onlookers, columns, even shafts of sunlight piercing through. Were you able to see it?
Jacobsen: No.
Rosner: Probably because I was holding the screen at a weird angle. Anyway, it’s fantastically intricate. Just from a short prompt, it produces this layered, cinematic result. People sometimes take sequences of these images and animate them—either manually or using tools like Kaiber or Runway—to turn them into video-like experiences.
Jacobsen: However, and this is important—there’s a mistake we often make with these kinds of AI outputs: they can become more visually stunning, more photorealistic, even more pixel-accurate… but still be logically or physically flawed.
Rosner: What kind of flaws?
Jacobsen: Well, you’ve probably seen some. The physics might be off, even though the water, fabric, or shadows look real. That’s the thing.
Rosner: Yeah, I saw an AI-generated video clip—created using something like Runway or Pika—of a girl doing a skateboard trick off a stair set. She flips the board in the air, lands on it, and it looks smooth. Most of the motion is believable. But after watching it five or six times, I noticed a break in the logic of the physics—the way the board snaps perfectly into place midair seemed off.
Her hair looked real, too, long and blonde. As she descended, it flowed just like real hair would. The physics of that seemed spot-on. And most of the skateboarding motion was well done, but there were a few minor visual cheats.
So the question becomes: do you care if there’s a bit of cheating—if, say, you can type a couple of sentences and get a beautifully rendered, near-realistic video of cats in safety vests picking up litter along the highway, like it’s their job in a civic campaign?
The video I showed you—they’re putting up a hundred of those every day. And they rotate them out over 24 hours. They’re incredibly well-rendered.
They posted something yesterday saying their next big step is immersive, real-time video, where they create entire worlds. It could be a sci-fi world. It could be a world where cats are picking up litter. It could be a 1990s-style party with fashion models, shot using the aesthetic of a specific Kodak film stock.
And in those worlds, you’ll be able to walk around. That’s what they’re working on next.
Jacobsen: Wild. And how long has this level of AI-generated art even been public?
Rosner: That’s the thing. AI only started making amazing images—at least ones the general public had access to—maybe two and a half years ago? Maybe even less. And now we’re seeing entire explorable worlds. Stuff that would have taken an art director weeks to conceptualize and build—this technology pulls straight out of its training set in seconds.
Here’s an example: a futuristic world that looks like a European city. The description reads: “Hundreds of gigantic, strange, tall creatures walk through dystopian London streets, dressed in dirty yellow clothes. It’s foggy and gloomy.” The render is hyper-realistic and convincing. These creatures look like tree people—like I am Groot—but in yellow raincoats, walking among regular Londoners.
Jacobsen: That sounds wild.
Rosner: And it generated that in no more than five seconds. So I don’t know what to think.
On one hand, it’s thrilling. On the other hand, it is not very encouraging. Why be an art director if someone can type three sentences and get a fully realized, cinematic rendering of a made-up world?
Sure, there will probably be rules to protect human jobs, but primarily for union roles in places like Hollywood. If you want to make something for TikTok or Instagram? No rules. Anyone can do this.
Here’s another one: “Detailed view of a future city designed by social workers. Dinosaurs walk the streets. Everyone is sharing empathy and unconditional positive regard.”
It’s Dinotopia. The render looks like Victorian London crossed with Mexico City, populated with dinosaurs and people in unusual, stylish clothing. All of it generated in five seconds.
Jacobsen: So what are we supposed to think about this stuff?
Rosner: That’s where we are. We’re in an era where the line between replication and productivity, where you generate similar content, and generativity, where something truly novel is created, is beginning to blur.
We know it’s derivative. It’s not pure imagination—it’s the result of a massive training dataset. But the outcomes are still visually and conceptually stunning.
But when Carole and I sit down to watch several hours of TV every night, we’re watching shows that are still the product of human imagination. The creators of those shows use their databases too—their memories, instincts, artistic training, or research.
The end product—at least in quality productions—is imaginative but informed. I don’t watch much Star Wars anymore because a lot of it feels lazy and derivative. But I started watching Andor—have you seen it?
It’s a heist movie spread across eight episodes. It’s set in the Star Warsuniverse, and a group of characters comes together to steal the Empire’s payroll for some sector of the galaxy. So yes, it’s a heist plot—but it looks fantastic.
The city where much of it takes place has its distinct architecture. It looks retro-futuristic. It’s well-designed. Still, it’s as derivative as anything else. They made stylistic choices, like settling on a particular kind of brick. Everything in that city is made from these big, thin bricks—maybe six by eight inches and an inch thick. There are lots of arches. These were design decisions, and they work. They look great and convincing.
But now, a database can do the same thing—make a set of aesthetic choices that also look good.
I used to look at early Star Trek or even the original Star Wars movies and think, “Wow, this looks kind of cheap.” That first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, and they didn’t have today’s tech or resources. But now? We’re going to be surrounded by great-looking content. We’re going to live in it.
Take MidJourney—it gives you hundreds of images to choose from. And through platforms like Runway or Pika, you can generate short video clips. Each one runs for about three seconds. About 10% of the videos feature beautiful women modelling, dancing in clubs, and walking through cities. And for every two of those, there’s usually one with an attractive man.
So if you want to walk around a disco with your VR headset, surrounded by supermodels, you’ll be able to do that within a few months. And many people are going to want to.
Here’s another: a video of a capybara lounging in an inner tube, floating in a swimming pool. It’s an overhead shot, and it looks fantastic. The water is perfect—the reflections, the waves—it’s compelling. The physics is not cheated at all. In a couple of months, you’ll probably be able to jump into that pool—visually, at least. You’ll be able to move down to the capybara’s level and experience that world.
Jacobsen: It’s wild.
Rosner: I don’t have anything profound to say except: people need to be aware of what’s happening with AI.
If you’re in college, high school, or even middle school, you’re probably already spending time experimenting with AI—or at least using TikTok, where AI is running constantly in the background. You’ve got some idea of what’s going on.
But if you’re my age? Maybe you don’t. And you should, because this stuff is coming. And in many ways, it’s already 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): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/03
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect the resurgence of pseudoscientific attempts to merge Christianity and physics, spotlighting a high-IQ fraud and Frank Tipler’s Omega Point theory. They contrast this trend with Isaac Newton’s theological pursuits and question the coherence of resurrective cosmology amid today’s compartmentalized scientific and religious communities.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Addendum to the last session on the same day. So, that previous session ended abruptly when you lost power, which was probably for the best—I was getting sick of myself on that topic.
Rick Rosner: To sum up, I’d say I’m involved in many aspects of performative masculinity. However, at least I’m not deluding myself into thinking I’m not an asshole. I am an asshole. Rotten tomatoes.
Let’s move on—what should we talk about next? I’ve got two other topics. The first is about a self-proclaimed high-IQ figure who, in my view, is one of the biggest frauds in that community right now.
He recently claimed that by combining his intelligence with quantum mechanics, he can prove that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life.” He tweeted this, and MAGA-aligned social media users picked up the post. That tweet was reportedly viewed over 1.6 million times.
I believe he has been blocked or exposed in some of his previous schemes, but he keeps pressing forward. Seeing the massive attention from the MAGA sphere, I expect he’ll try to embed himself deeper in that world. There’s recognition, adulation, and financial rewards to be had. He’s a man looking for influence—and this is fertile ground for that kind of self-promotion.
That being said, the idea of merging religion and science is not a new concept. One of the most famous examples is Isaac Newton. Though he’s widely considered one of the greatest physicists and mathematicians of all time, Newton spent much of his later life on theology and biblical interpretation. He may have written more on religious topics than on physics or mathematics. He was obsessed with finding hidden codes in the Bible and believed he could uncover divine truths.
Newton lived a long life for his time—he died at 84 in 1727. He believed that in deciphering the natural world, one was uncovering God’s design. In that sense, scientific inquiry was a form of religious devotion.
That view is a far cry from the anti-science stance of many modern religious conservatives in the United States, who believe denying evolution or climate science somehow honours God or their political values. But if God exists, would He not want us to understand the universe He created?
So, credit to Newton for holding that perspective, even if his theological work was largely fringe.
Now, this is going to be a short topic because I only know of two people who have seriously tried to merge Christian theology with modern physics. The second is Frank J. Tipler, a mathematical physicist known for coauthoring The Anthropic Cosmological Principle and for writing The Physics of Immortality. He’s also known for promoting the “Omega Point” theory.
Tipler believes that in the far future, as the universe evolves, intelligent life will be able to control the universe’s collapse in a way that leads to infinite computational power at a single point—what he calls the Omega Point. He argues this will allow for the resurrection of every person who has ever lived through simulation. His theory is highly speculative and widely considered pseudoscientific by mainstream physicists.
Tipler’s earlier work was respected, but the scientific community has largely dismissed his later fusion of theology and physics. Still, he represents one of the few modern figures seriously attempting to unify Christian eschatology with cosmological physics.
As for the specific mechanics, Tipler initially based his idea on a closed universe model, where the universe would eventually stop expanding and collapse (a “Big Crunch”). In that model, all matter and energy would eventually reconverge. But the current scientific consensus suggests the universe will expand forever due to dark energy, making the Big Crunch—and Tipler’s theory—less likely under modern models.
Even if his Omega Point theory were correct, it is unclear how anyone resurrected would know they had lived before, or how such a resurrection would maintain continuity of identity.
We won’t have any awareness of living backward. So I don’t see how that would work—but maybe he has some workaround. Perhaps he believes the universe will grant us consciousness in reverse, giving us some agency as we, like Benjamin Button, ourselves through a contracting universe.
Does he believe the universe will then expand again, precisely the way it expanded the first time? And that we’re caught in an endless cycle of resurrection—but always living the same life, never knowing we’re repeating it?
I don’t know. However, I do know that’s how he tried to incorporate Christianity and the resurrection into the Big Bang.
Then again, there are plenty of scientists who are Christian or belong to some other religion. I’d say that the majority of religious scientists—as well as the majority of atheist or agnostic ones—don’t spend a lot of time trying to make their spiritual beliefs align with their scientific work, or vice versa.
I think most people do their work. They believe certain things about their field. Cops probably have a theory about human nature based on their experience. Accountants likely have a theory about how people behave regarding taxes. So, everyone probably has a theory about people and the world, shaped by their own professional and life experiences.
And I’d guess that most people don’t spend much time trying to reconcile what they believe about the world with, say, their religion—unless they’re extremely devout. Perhaps some devout Christians who attend church five nights a week strive to bring everything together. But most people? No. Most can compartmentalize. Yes.
And honestly, it’s a lot of work to build a whole worldview that integrates all your beliefs. Most people are too distracted—or too busy—to bother with that kind of consistency.
I’m not sure what percentage of scientists in the United States identify as Christian. It’s probably lower than the general population, but I bet it’s still higher than people expect.
If about 70% of Americans identify as Christian, I’d guess maybe 55% of STEM professionals do? That’s a ballpark figure—I don’t know the exact number.
Photo
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/03
Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen dissect the contradictions in the manosphere, mocking its clichés—from hypergamy rants to jaw exercises and alpha-male posturing. Rosner shares personal anecdotes, critiques toxic tropes, and offers a grounded take on masculinity, aging, and self-image in an internet-saturated culture obsessed with status and performance.
Rick Rosner: So, the title of your article is “What Does the Manosphere Reveal About Modern Masculinity and Its Contradictions?”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: The subtitle: “Helping the many young men who lack sufficient healthy guidance.” Then you list close to two dozen things that, I guess, today’s so-called “manly man” does.
Like ranting about hypergamy at 2 a.m., I do not do that.
Being obsessed with meat and shirtless men.
I have been increasing my protein intake lately. Lance Richlin told me I need to. Lance is 64. He looks good for 64, although I have not seen him without his shirt on. However, he did tire me out when I was posing shirtless for reference photos for him over the course of about eight weeks, so I impressed him a bit.
Anyway, I bought liquid protein to drink during my colon cleanse, which I had before my colonoscopy.
So yes, I am trying.
Moreover, yes, I do get annoyed that I might look better without a shirt than many people. I have OCD, and I have been going to the gym seven times a week lately.
Moreover, what does it get me? Nothing.
Except—I do not know—maybe it helps stave off diabetes.
Jacobsen: Rating everyone’s sexual market value.
Rosner: Yes. Freaking hell, my market value is zero. I am married. I am 65. That said, it does not mean I do not sometimes resent not being 25 with abs.
Jacobsen: Proclaiming yourself an alpha male on Reddit.
Rosner: I do not go on Reddit—except occasionally to look something up.
On Twitter, I refer to myself as an alpha minus or a beta plus, which is close enough to alpha for most purposes.
Jacobsen: Spending Friday night memorizing pickup lines.
Rosner: That is not how pickup artistry works. You memorize strategies. I never tried pickup lines.
I have read some pickup artist books, but they were posthumously published. My days of picking up people are decades behind me. Still, I find it interesting.
Moreover, I will encourage people who are in a position to go out and socialize to do so, including you.
Jacobsen: Announcing you are going your own way, then publishing a manifesto.
Rosner: I make fun of those guys. I mute and block a lot of them on Twitter.
The MAGA types who say they “do their research,” who “think for themselves,” who call themselves “free thinkers”—yes, they are all jackasses.
Same with people who say “America is a constitutional republic” or who call themselves “classical liberals.” That is just a fancier way of saying you are a MAGA-type trying to sound smarter than you are.
Jacobsen: Calling women shallow.
Rosner: I call everybody shallow.
We are evolution’s bitch. We are nature’s bitch.
We are—as I have said a million times—the product of billions of generations of organisms that reproduced. We are programmed to be fooled into having sex.
Jacobsen: Punching homosexuals.
Rosner: No.
Jacobsen: Launching a red-pill podcast for no one.
Rosner: Kinda. Lance and I have been competing against each other for almost nine years. I do not know how many people watch each episode. 300, if we are lucky. You and I have been doing this for… ten, twelve years?
Over time, we have garnered some views, but not enough to turn them into anything substantial.
Jacobsen: Warning women about “the Wall” while ignoring a receding hairline.
Rosner: What is the Wall?
Jacobsen: The claim is that women’s fertility and attractiveness peak around 30, and then it is game over.
Rosner: Oh. That is the claim?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: I do not do that. However, I have taken care of my hairline with 13 sets of plugs.
A long time ago. I have not had a Nutra hair transplant in twenty years, and it is holding up, more or less. Additionally, once you go gray, they become less noticeable.
Jacobsen: Tweeting all of Andrew Tate’s tenets before breakfast.
Rosner: No. That guy is a rapey jackass.
Jacobsen: Boasting about your NoFap superpowers during a blackout.
Rosner: No. However, when I was working on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Jimmy Kimmel bet me a thousand dollars that I could not go 30 days without having sex or jerking off. I took the bet.
So I did go NoFap.
Jacobsen: Calling strangers soyboys while sipping a soy milk latte.
Rosner: No. That is a MAGA thing—to call people soyboys.
I do call people various kinds of “boys”—spelled b-o-i—which is the modern way.
I looked this up: the LA Times did a story that, so far this month, ICE has rounded up 722 people in Los Angeles. Seven percent had a record of violent crime. Sixty-nine percent had committed no crime.
So, for every crime boy ICE picks up, 10 innocent randos get swept up.
Jacobsen: Dropping your bench press PR into every thread.
Rosner: No. I do not talk about it, but I do keep track.
My bench has gotten bad. It’s still challenging with free weights. I am trying to rebuild it on the machines.
One of my rotator cuffs is damaged, which likely accounts for a 10% drop. Plus, I have lost about 30 pounds of muscle over the last ten years—that is the main reason. However, I do care about my bench press.
Jacobsen: Ranking unwatched Manosphere podcasts.
Rosner: I do not watch any podcasts. I do not do that.
Jacobsen: Negging dates because a pickup blog said so.
Rosner: No. I do not go on dates—except with my wife.
Moreover, I have learned to be careful about nagging her, because it doesn’t get you anywhere. You do not nag in a relationship—it is pointless.
It is a pickup tactic. It is well known.
Negging is when you say something that attacks a woman’s self-esteem—just enough to shake her up—so she becomes more open to your attention.
The classic example is: “Your nose looks funny when you laugh.”
And this vain woman—this abstract woman you are supposed to be picking up—she is thinking, “I do not look cute every single minute of every single day.”
While she is confused, you are supposed to swoop in and practice more of your pickup artistry on her.
So, no—I do not do that.
Jacobsen: Paying $3,000 to learn a game?
Rosner: I assume that means paying a pickup artist to attend a seminar on how to improve your pickup skills.
No, I do not do that. However, if I were 25, I probably would have… I would have spent $3,000, but I spent a considerable amount of time online searching for tips on how to meet women.
I was doing this before the Internet existed—back when there was no way to learn anything. You just had to figure it out.
Jacobsen: Chewing a jaw exerciser to looksmax?
Rosner: That is where you build up your jaw muscles to get that chiselled look.
Yes—I did that.
Back in the ’80s, I’d buy a whole pack of Bubblicious—five huge pieces—and chew all of them at once. It barely fit in my mouth.
The idea was to build muscle along the sides of my jaw. Also, if I chewed it at work, I thought it would make me look dumber, which, as a bouncer, was something I wanted. I wanted to look big and dumb.
Plus, I figured if someone punched me in the mouth, the gum might absorb some of the impact and protect my teeth. Though no one ever punched me in the mouth.
Jacobsen: What did happen?
Rosner: Drunk people would punch me in the eye. But it never really did damage.
One time I nearly got knocked out—I saw spiderwebs, stumbled a little, then stood up. He punched me again. I got rocked back, but never went entirely unconscious.
Most of the time, it didn’t do much. I have big eyebrows, drunk people have bad aim, and I guess I have prominent cheekbones.
No one ever managed to land a clean punch directly to the eye. My orbital bones are like armour.
Jacobsen: Tweeting your monk mode focus journey.
Rosner: I don’t know what that means—but I don’t do it.
Jacobsen: Launching a crypto hustle for the bros?
Rosner: Nope. I hate crypto.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss whether the universe operates in a purely algorithmic fashion or allows for non-algorithmic, contextual, or indeterminate behaviour. They explore quantum mechanics, contextual truth, intuitionist logic, temporal logic, and the foundational role of non-contradiction in shaping reality, arguing for a mostly stable, logic-grounded universe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have been trying to rephrase something in more precise informational terms, so here is a preparatory question: Are there any contexts in which aspects of the computational mechanics of the universe are non-algorithmic?
Rick Rosner: Could you please define “algorithmic” for me?
Jacobsen: For instance, is there any scenario in which, within a quantum field, events unfold without a definable calculation, something that does not involve explicit probabilities or binaries?
Rosner: The answer is yes. Quantum mechanics—if I am understanding it correctly, and I admit I could be more confident here—may function as a one-size-fits-all theory. A single framework that accounts for all scales of the universe.
Whether you are dealing with a universe of just two particles, or one like ours—which may contain on the order of 10⁸⁵ particles—or even a hypothetical universe 500 quintillion times larger, the equations and matrices of quantum mechanics should, in principle, apply across all scales.
However, that raises a deeper question: why does quantum mechanics work?
I believe quantum mechanics is the mathematical embodiment of the principle of non-contradiction. That is, for some reason—though it may seem self-evident—it is foundational that something in the universe cannot 100% exist and 100% not exist at the same time.
This is logically equivalent to saying something cannot be 100% true and 100% false simultaneously. That kind of contradiction is as deep as it gets.
However, in quantum mechanics, we often deal with probability distributions. In an unresolved quantum event, the outcome might be 50% one result and 50% another, or 20%, 70%, and 10% across three possibilities. A particle’s state can exist in superposition—say, 50% in one configuration and 50% in another.
That is the logic behind Schrödinger’s cat: the cat in the box is 50% alive and 50% dead, not fully alive or dead. In quantum mechanics, states can be neither 100% true nor 100% false, so long as the total probability across all possible outcomes adds up to 100%.
Now imagine a proto-universe—a nascent universe emerging from a sparse soup of hazy particles. What those particles can do is constrained by what is not logically contradictory. However, because there are so few particles, their location and properties are highly undetermined. In this early, blurry soup, nothing is sharply defined.
Still, the principle of non-contradiction applies. Only non-contradictory configurations can unfold. Alternatively, because the proto-universe is so underdefined, a limited degree of contradictoriness is temporarily permissible because the structure is not yet coherent enough to eliminate all contradictions.
Until enough particles emerge to allow a more precise definition, everything remains vague. The laws, measurements, and even the concepts of position and quantity remain ill-defined. You could argue that what happens in a proto-universe is not primarily algorithmic—it is too soupy, too blurry, too underconstrained for algorithmic precision.
Is that a reasonable answer?
Jacobsen: Yes. Let me run through a few key points to ensure I cover everything in one take. What are your thoughts on contextual logic in linguistics, where truth depends on context? Is that reasonable?
Rosner: Yes, I read a quote—hang on, let me grab it. Hold on. This is from an old issue of The New Yorker I was flipping through. It was discussing the theory that emotions—traditionally thought to be inherent human traits, such as sadness, happiness, and anger—might be culturally constructed. Some researchers argue that emotions are not fixed or universal, but are somewhat shaped by the cultural contexts in which we grow up.
There was a quote in the article about meaning—let me see if I can find it. Damn it. I probably cannot. So, Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out a common fallacy. Highly abstract questions—such as “What is meaning?”—tend to produce what he called a mental cramp. We feel we ought to be able to point to something in response to such a question, but we cannot. However, we still feel compelled to try.
That is the same issue with defining meaning: it only makes sense within a specific context. Sure, you can define particular terms—like, “What was the War of 1812?” Moreover, you can reply, “It was a war between America and England that began in 1812.” Great. Done. However, if a philosopher starts to dig into it, suddenly you are unpacking all the underlying assumptions:
“What is war?”
“What is between?”
“What is America?”
“What is England?”
“What is 1812?
“What is time?”
Eventually, when you poke deeply enough into anything, you hit context. You reach the network of interrelated meanings—the web of associations that gives a thing its meaning within a particular conceptual space.
That is how AI fills in blanks. It does not “know” anything in the traditional sense. Still, it builds a Bayesian network of relationships between words, ideas, and linguistic structures. Based on that probabilistic framework, it predicts where items belong.
So yes, the truth is context-dependent. There are, of course, propositions that are nearly always true because we have tested them thoroughly and found them to hold consistently. “One plus one equals two,” for instance—that is about as reliable as anything can get.
Sure, you could construct some contrived context in which “one plus one” does not equal two—but in any reasonable or functional system, it does. That is a resistant truth.
More broadly, all truths are constructed from relationships—contextual connections to other truths.
Jacobsen: Now, onto intuitionist logic, which rejects the law of the excluded middle. That is, it allows for the possibility that a given proposition is not necessarily accurate or false—it can be indeterminate.
Rosner: So yes, quantum mechanics deals with states that are not definitively true or false, as long as the total probability adds up to 100%. These states remain indeterminate until the moment of resolution, typically through observation or interaction with the environment.
I am comfortable with logic systems that allow for indeterminate values. You can construct frameworks in which some components are unresolved or open-ended. In contrast, others remain indisputably true within the system’s internal rules.
So yes, I am comfortable with forms of logic where propositions do not have to be strictly one or the other. That is a compelling and flexible framework.
Jacobsen: Another system is dynamic logic, which models actions and their effects. Another is temporal logic, which deals with statements situated in time—past, present, and future. These two are closely related and intellectually rich.
Why? Because time is an emergent property. So, you frame things in terms of temporality and dynamism. In that case, you introduce a new layer of complexity—a kind of attack vector—against the idea that the universe is purely static.
A temporal or dynamic logic sees logical structure as embedded in an evolving universe. That is, logical systems or expectations might not be fixed. Still, they could emerge over time, shaped by prior states, evolving structures, or even contextual necessity.
Rosner: Another way of putting it: there is a kind of basic logic—what you might call intuitive logic—that is foundational. It is not built on hocus pocus values or magical propositions. It simply operates the way logic does: “if A, then B” reasoning—basic conditional structures.
So no, I do not buy the idea that there is some alternate, strange geometry or alien logic governing other universes—and we happen to live in the “non-wonky” one because the quantum dice landed this way at the beginning. I do not believe in wildly different logics defining other realms of existence.
Now, if we push traditional logic deeply enough—say, 300 years into the future—we might uncover underlying propositions that challenge our current understanding, much like how quantum mechanics appeared bizarre and unintuitive 120 years ago. However, even then, I believe there is a base logic—a logic of existence—rooted in the principle of non-contradiction.
Time, space, and matter—these macro structures—emerge most clearly in a mature universe. Once there are enough particles and a sufficient amount of history, the universe “settles” into a defined state: space becomes three-dimensional, time becomes linear, and matter becomes relatively stable. Within that framework, the intuitive picture of logic, time, and space we were taught becomes the default.
I believe we live in a fundamentally non-wonky universe, and I would wager that most universes—if they exist—are non-wonky as well.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd recently questioned Joe Biden’s presidential run during Hunter Biden’s recovery from addiction. Rick Rosner rebuts, arguing Hunter was a 50-year-old in recovery by 2020 and not a dependent adolescent. He criticizes the media’s focus on Biden instead of current leadership’s crises and dysfunction.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Jake Tapper, a journalist for CNN, recently co-authored a book that came out a couple of months ago. In it, he claims that Joe Biden was a complete mess during his presidency, and that the Biden family—along with the rest of the White House—conspired to hide this from the American public. In Seinfeldese, what’s the deal?
Rick Rosner: Now, we do know that Biden appeared either disoriented or weak during his debate with Trump. That performance ultimately led to his withdrawal from the 2024 race and his replacement by Kamala Harris. Today, apparently, Jake Tapper appeared on Chuck Todd’s podcast, where they discussed the idea that Biden may have secretly been a terrible person.
Chuck Todd, for context, was a not-so-popular MSNBC host of Meet the Press, who eventually lost that job. And now, like many former TV journalists, he is hosting a podcast. On today’s episode, he and Tapper criticized Biden—specifically arguing that Biden, who has long been portrayed as a devoted family man, continued to run for president even while his son, Hunter Biden, was battling addiction. The implication was: what kind of family man would do that?
So I looked into that claim. The first question that came to mind was this: why are they not talking about the current guy—the one who is president now, who is bombing Iran and might have his own family issues? If we are going to criticize someone for family-related decisions, should we not focus on the current occupant of the White House?
Second question: is it really fair—or reasonable—to expect a good parent to quit their job, or stop pursuing an important position, simply because their adult child is struggling with addiction? That seems like an odd—and potentially harmful—expectation. In fact, maintaining employment might be the more responsible choice. It provides access to health insurance, financial stability, and other resources that could help support the child.
So let me ask you, Scott: is that a reasonable expectation? If your child is dealing with addiction, of course that will deplete your emotional and psychological resources. You will likely invest significant time and energy into helping them. That can detract from your focus in other areas—perhaps even your job.
In extreme cases, yes, some parents may need to take time off, use their vacation days, reduce their hours, or even leave work temporarily. But that is very different from saying someone should quit running for president because of it.
Now let me add another important detail: what if the child in question is 50 years old?
At that point, you would reasonably expect a grown man—a middle-aged adult—to have more capacity and resources to manage his own addiction than, say, a 17- or 22-year-old. A teenager or young adult typically requires more parental involvement. But Hunter Biden was 50 years old when Joe Biden ran for president in 2020.
And one more piece of information—based on what I have seen (though I would need to double-check the details)—the last time Hunter Biden went to rehab was in 2019.
So we are not talking about an adolescent in crisis. We are talking about a grown man, one year out from his most recent rehab stint, while his father was running for the presidency.
He had dealt with addiction issues requiring repeated treatment from around 2013 to 2019. By 2020, I believe he was clean. In 2021, he published a memoir detailing his struggles with addiction and his path to recovery. So, by the time Joe Biden was running for president in 2020, Hunter Biden was likely sober and working on his autobiography.
In my view, Joe Biden had no obligation to withdraw from the race to support his 50-year-old son—who had already entered recovery. Yes, Hunter had been to rehab multiple times, and getting clean did not guarantee he would stay clean. But he was not some helpless dependent.
Hunter Biden had a substantial professional history. He served as chairman of Amtrak, led various companies, and held significant responsibilities—despite serious personal setbacks. This was not someone incapable of managing his own life.
Another important piece of context: Joe Biden chose not to run for president in 2016 because he was devastated by the death of his older son, Beau Biden. Had he run in 2016, it arguably could have changed the course of the country—but he felt too emotionally shattered to continue at that time.
By 2020, Biden believed the country needed him. He had 46 years of experience in national politics—38 years as a senator and 8 years as vice president. He made a judgment call. He believed he was uniquely positioned to defeat Trump and restore stability.
So the idea that it was somehow inappropriate for him to run in 2020 because his adult son was in recovery from addiction—it is a bizarre and unfair line of criticism.
And the fact that this is still being brought up, six months into a presidency that is demonstrably more chaotic than Biden’s ever was, is frankly absurd.
Unless you have further thoughts, we can segue into some specific reasons why the current administration is so much more dysfunctional.
Jacobsen: I also want to cover a few things in logics. Now, this next bit is going to be interesting.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Rick Rosner unveils rampant IQ charlatanism within so-called high-IQ circles, denouncing inflated IQ claims based on an obscure test with flawed standard deviations. He highlights statistical impossibility, manipulatory scaling and MAGA influencer promotion, underscoring the absence of rigorous norms and cohesive community in this fringe, eccentric independent network.
Rick Rosner: I want to address IQ charlatanism—IQ fraud. It is relatively common in so-called high-IQ circles. However, calling it a “world” is misleading; it is nothing like the structured world of the NBA. It is more accurately described as a scattered group of eccentrics—myself included—who take or design IQ tests. There is no cohesive or organized community. It is not even as formalized as the world of croquet or badminton.
Within this loosely defined space, we are now witnessing one of the most brazen cases of IQ fraud I have encountered. It is not quite as extreme as the case of the Colorado mother who, about twenty years ago, stole IQ answer keys and coached her child to appear as a 300-IQ prodigy—but it is close.
A man—unnamed here, as he does not deserve the recognition—claims to possess the highest IQ in recorded history: 276. For context, this refers to adult IQ, which is based on statistical rarity within the general population. An adult IQ in the low 190s already corresponds to a rarity of about one in a billion. To date, no one has credibly demonstrated an adult IQ of 200 or more. Some—including myself—have come close, but no one has crossed that boundary under valid, peer-reviewed conditions.
This man’s claim rests on an obscure, nonstandardized test. Did he help create it? Or did he rely on someone who miscalculated scores? Either way, he presents this absurd number as proof of genius.
The situation becomes more troubling: he is now being celebrated by Christian MAGA circles in the U.S. Last week, right-wing influencers—Charlie Kirk among them—began promoting him. Why? Because he claims that his supposed ultra-high IQ, combined with his interpretation of quantum mechanics, has led him to conclude that Jesus Christ—specifically the MAGA version—is the ultimate truth.
Let us examine the IQ claim itself. He asserts an IQ of 276. If we assume a standard deviation (SD) of 15, which is typical for most modern tests (e.g., WAIS), this corresponds to approximately 7.33 standard deviations above the mean, or 7.33 sigma. Using an inflated SD of 24—a practice virtually unheard of in psychometric science—a 276 score corresponds to about 7.33 sigma.
To contextualize this rarity:
- 5 sigma ≈ 1 in 3.5 million
- 6 sigma ≈ 1 in 500 million
- 7 sigma ≈ 1 in 390 billion
- 7.33 sigma ≈ 1 in 3 trillion
Even with the most generous SD of 24, the claim implies a rarity of 1 in 3.06 trillion people—over 380 times Earth’s population. And the test? It had a sample size of just a couple dozen individuals or so—nowhere near sufficient for robust norming. In short, it is mathematically and scientifically indefensible.
Originally, the test used an SD of 15. His ranking—where he placed himself at the top—was based on that scale. He then converted those scores to a 24-point SD scale, inflating every result. Through a society he created, known as the GIGA Society, he issued press releases claiming an IQ of 276 and ranked everyone else accordingly.
I appeared on one of those rankings. My score was 192 on the 15-point scale, yet he listed it alongside others, then recalculated his on a 24-point scale. He is simply playing numerical games.
Different IQ tests assume different “widths” of the bell curve—how much variation exists around the mean. For example, if someone assumed adult male height had an SD of only one inch, you’d expect nearly everyone to fall within two inches of the average—say, between 5′ 8″ and 6′ 0″. In reality, height SD is closer to 2–2.5 inches.
In the same way, definitions of “spread” for IQ vary. This man walks around using a 24-point SD for himself but references a 15-point SD for everyone else. If I recalculated my 192-point score with a 24 SD, it might read around 247—equally absurd. Yet he keeps me at 192 because it comes from the 15-point scale.
Worse, he assigns himself a score that statistically would occur once in every 1 trillion people or more. The total number of humans who have ever lived is estimated at about 110 billion over the last 100,000 years. To expect even one person to reach his claimed score, you’d need roughly 15 Earths of historical population.
What test did he use? To my knowledge, only a couple dozen people or so have taken it. Estimates vary slightly, but it is in that range.
None of this makes any statistical sense. That is why we are not naming him. However, the interesting part is that this obvious IQ charlatan is now being embraced by elements of the MAGA crowd.
What is the upshot? Honestly, not much—it does not matter in the grand scheme. Except, perhaps, that MAGA types seem to have a strong affinity for charlatans.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the overblown military presence in Los Angeles amid minor protests. Despite 6,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines deployed, LAPD maintains control with minimal unrest. Rosner emphasizes the contrast between political theatrics and on-the-ground normalcy, joking that even ice cream faced more danger than citizens.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is one more thing. There has been domestic military deployment and legal pushback — federal troops, National Guard, etc. — being positioned in Los Angeles and maybe elsewhere.
Rick Rosner: Yes, we can talk about that. I looked it up — Los Angeles County is about 4,000 square miles. That is huge — almost as big as Rhode Island, which is around 1,200 square miles — actually, it is more than three times as big.
It is a big city — 4,000 square miles, 8 million people — and between the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the LAPD, there are about 18,000 officers total. The demonstrations are mostly downtown and occupy just a few blocks — not even square blocks, often just linear stretches. Some traffic gets blocked off on a couple of streets, sometimes more, but if you compare the area impacted to all of L.A., it is absolutely trivial.
Jacobsen: And LAPD has explicitly and repeatedly stated that they have the situation under control.
Rosner: Yes, and that is true. No cars have been burned in over a week. The only reason any burned in the first place is because of Waymo — the autonomous vehicle company. Protesters figured out they could summon a driverless car on their phones, wait for it to show up, and then burn it. They did that once and destroyed five Waymo vehicles.
Jacobsen: And after that, Waymo disabled service to protest zones?
Rosner: Exactly. They stopped dispatching cars to those areas, and it has not happened again. During the 2020 George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests, 156 police vehicles were vandalized and eight were totaled. By comparison, only five cars have been targeted now. And back then, the National Guard was not even deployed — despite the disturbances being more intense.
Jacobsen: And yet Trump sent 4,000 National Guard troops last week, and then added 2,000 more?
Rosner: Correct. That is 6,000 total. They are mostly just standing around. They are not doing much — maybe getting mildly taunted by protesters. And yes, Trump also sent 700 Marines. So technically, he doubled the forces present.
Jacobsen: But there is no real shortage of cops in L.A. for protest response?
Rosner: Not for the protests. There is a general shortage of police, sure — like, we do not have enough officers to reasonably do all the things people expect cops to do. For example, L.A. drivers are reckless — there are not enough traffic cops to stop people from driving like dicks. But I do not mind that so much because, honestly, I kind of drive like a dick too.
Jacobsen: And most officers are not downtown dealing with demonstrations?
Rosner: Right. They are still out doing their regular jobs — writing the occasional ticket, responding to burglary calls. Though, if it is not a burglary in progress, it could take six hours for a cop to show up. Again, that is because we lack the manpower for everyday stuff. But when it comes to protests? We absolutely do not need more cops. This is not some apocalyptic nightmare.
Jacobsen: So it is business as usual?
Rosner: Yeah. Things are basically normal. The biggest problem I had recently was needing a National Guard escort for ice cream. Carol and I had a two-for-one coupon, and she made us walk a third of a mile in the sun to get it. It was 85 degrees, and the sun beat down on my head. I got cranky. On the walk back, my ice cream melted. We should have driven. Or we needed a National Ice Cream Guard to walk beside us with an umbrella to shade the cone.
Jacobsen: Other than that?
Rosner: Other than that, nobody in L.A. is having their life disrupted — unless you are a brown person living in fear of ICE raids.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
Share this:
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore Iran’s uranium enrichment, nuclear weapons technology, Cold War infrastructure, and the precarious nature of deterrence. The discussion connects historical context, personal experience, and AI ethics with the global risks of nuclear ambiguity, accidental or deliberate launch, and destabilizing power shifts in future governance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is much global debate — especially in the U.S. — about whether Iran is enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons.
Rick Rosner: This speculation has been ongoing for over 40 years. People have often said Iran is “weeks away” from having a nuclear weapon.
Whether Iran is actively building nuclear bombs remains uncertain. However, it does appear they have amassed enough uranium enriched to around 60% purity. If they chose to, they could potentially further enhance it to 90%, which is weapons-grade.
I guess you use uranium enriched to 90% or more — that is weapons-grade. You can use that in nuclear bombs. I have not read the entire Wikipedia page on the subject so that I may be slightly off on the exact figures. However, as I understand it, 60% enriched uranium can be used in some research reactors, while 90% is typically used for bombs.
It is the difference between uranium-235 (U-235) and uranium-238 (U-238). U-235 has fewer neutrons and is more fissile — its nuclei are more prone to splitting apart. It takes less energy to initiate a chain reaction.
You hit a U-235 nucleus with a stray neutron, and it will split, releasing energy and more neutrons, which then hit other nuclei — if you have enough U-235, it cascades into a full-blown chain reaction.
Moreover, in that reaction, a small fraction — about 1% of the mass — is converted directly into energy, per Einstein’s E=mc², which is enough to produce a blast in the kiloton range. That is how a uranium bomb works.
Reactor-grade uranium typically contains only 3–5% U-235, which is not nearly fissile enough for a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to over 90% U-235. That is what makes it “bomb material.” So, basically: 60% enrichment might have uses, but it is not yet weapons-grade.
The method for making a uranium bomb involves bringing two subcritical masses of U-235 together — often as two hemispheres or a plug and ring — to form a critical mass. Once you hit that point, a rapid, uncontrolled chain reaction occurs, and it explodes.
A plutonium bomb works on the same principle, but with a different configuration. You start with a hollow sphere of plutonium — typically Pu-239 — and place explosives evenly around it. When detonated, the sphere implodes, causing the plutonium to reach a supercritical state.
There is also usually a neutron reflector or tamper in the center to bounce neutrons back into the core, making the explosion more efficient. It is complex, but conceptually similar: you compress fissile material until it reaches a critical state.
Moreover, get this — the place where they made those plutonium cores, the “pits,” was only about seven miles from my house when I was growing up—Rocky Flats, in Colorado. From the time I was four until I was 26, they were manufacturing nuclear triggers there. That is the same Rocky Flats that has been a controversial site for decades.
Moreover, that ties into something else. My dad died of thyroid cancer. He also smoked cigars, so I am unsure if Rocky Flats had any connection to it. Boulder is situated at an elevation of approximately 5,400 feet and is built on granite, which naturally emits radon gas. So, between altitude, granite, and cigars, there were numerous possible contributing factors.
Jacobsen: Was your dad involved in nuclear work?
Rosner: He was. He guarded nuclear weapons while serving as a sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. All three of my dads — my biological father, stepfather, and father-in-law — were involved in the nuclear business.
Jacobsen: All three?
Rosner: Yeah. My real dad flew nuclear bombs on a B-36 bomber. My stepdad guarded them. My father-in-law was in the Army, working in accounting — I am not sure exactly what he did, but he managed numbers related to nuclear logistics or materials.
Jacobsen: That is a remarkable cross-section of Cold War-era nuclear infrastructure, all in your family.
Rosner: Annie Jacobsen has conducted extensive reporting on secret military programs, including nuclear weapons development, and has done a significant amount of detailed historical work. There are people who struggle to grasp the concept of scale. We talked about that yesterday — people often struggle to grasp the size or scope of things.
Moreover, any time you are writing about AI, especially in speculative or near-future fiction, you almost have to mention nuclear weapons. It is clichéd, but it is also a legitimate concern.
Did I mention yesterday that about half of America’s active nuclear warheads are on submarines?
Jacobsen: Oh?
Rosner: It is not wild. Submarines are mobile and hard to detect, so they are the ideal place to hide nuclear weapons. The U.S. used to rely heavily on land-based missile silos and still does, but now a significant portion — somewhere between 720 and 960 nuclear warheads — is deployed aboard around 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.
That matches what I have read. Russia employs the same strategy, and likely China does as well. I do not know about Pakistan or India.
However, any responsible AI — or coalition of AIs and humans — has to contend with nukes. As AI continues to gain intelligence and autonomy, global leadership will become increasingly unstable. We will likely face shifting power structures, and I cannot imagine rational humans or AIs of the future tolerating that much instability without addressing the nuclear threat.
Jacobsen: And not just accidental launches — deliberate ones, too. The term “accidental nuclear war” is too narrow.
Rosner: In Annie Jacobsen’s book, which I keep referencing, she outlines how easily a nuclear exchange could be triggered. For example, if North Korea were to launch just two nuclear missiles, the U.S. early warning system might not be able to immediately distinguish whether those missiles came from North Korea or Russia, due to trajectory and detection angles.
The shortest path for an intercontinental ballistic missile headed to the U.S. is over the North Pole, so even a North Korean missile might resemble a Russian one in flight path.
To prevent ambiguity from triggering a retaliatory launch against Russia, when in fact it was North Korea. That turns a regional act into a global catastrophe. Annie Jacobsen estimates that such a misunderstanding could result in the death of three-quarters of the population in the Northern Hemisphere.
Jacobsen: Russia does not need to be irrational. The U.S. does not need to be irrational. All it takes is one rogue actor — one unstable leader in North Korea — to cause a chain reaction.
Rosner: That could lead to the U.S. launching 30 or more nuclear weapons in response. Maybe even 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.
In-Sight Publishing 
