had been trying to criticize these ideas straightforwardly for some time, and I was being told either that I didn't understand them, I just didn't know how how how the system worked. I had people cloning my family members social media accounts and and messaging me. people, trying to find out who I was being funded by via my accountant, was being funded by anybody, I'm particularly concerned about the illiberal anti-woke backlash that is, is coming from the right. there's just a kind of counter authoritarianism that then wants to to punish people and cancel them and shut them down and not that and speak. this would actually be good for the white children because it would be a learning opportunity. And they said, take that out because you're centering white people's needs again. Hello and welcome to awake at the wheel. So today we are joined by Helen Pluckrose! Helen is an author, political and cultural commentator, liberal humanist, as well as a political and cultural speaker. She has an academic background in late medieval and early modern women's religious writing, and gained gained notoriety through her work with the Grievance Studies Affair, Where Helen and her colleagues purposefully sent shoddy and unethical papers to academic journals that were specializing in identity based cultural studies. So welcome, Helen. Thank you for having me. It's lovely to be here. So I know my introduction only scratches the surface of the many different works that you've done. So can you tell our listeners a little bit more about yourself? Yeah. So I entered into that project. I got quite concerned about, the use of sort of post-modern derived theories in the field of English literature when I was, I was studying there as a mature student, and at the same time, I noted activism that I'd previously been in support of liberal feminism, particularly, was getting very, very identity focused, intersectional in ways that I didn't think were accurate and that I didn't think were ethical. And so these two things came together. So I started writing about that. I took part in the project to show the problem in academic journals, and I wrote some cynical theories, which, sort of breaks down the evolution of those thoughts from post-modern ideas into contemporary critical social justice activist and and since 2020, I've been helping individuals and organizations in threat of cancellation. With my organization counterweight and in my most recent book, how how do you push back at this from the inside? So can you tell our listeners a bit more about what a liberal humanist is, what that paradigm is, and what drew you to that? Well, I, in that broadest definition of liberal, I would say is encapsulated by somebody who believes that we should let other people believe, speak, live as they see fit, provided it does no harm to anybody else, nor denies them the same freedom. As a humanist, my my worldview is secular and I am focused on, the well-being of, of humanity, universalism, our shared humanity, and how we can, we can sort of talk to each other across all kinds of identity or political divides. So on that note, over the time that you've been working in that space, have you seen a shift in this paradigm, specifically with all the changes in politics? And I think what liberal used to mean maybe isn't what it means now. Has that changed the way that you view that paradigm? Yes. Well, I, I think we we've become increasingly illiberal. And this is, causing a problem, particularly in, in countries where the world liberal has come to mean, left only as it has in the US and in Canada, whereas in Australia it now means right. It's associated with conservatism. So this really does get in the way as associate of trying to talk about that, that very basic sort of freedom orientated philosophy which underlines the US Constitution in particular and, and the development of liberal democracies in sort of the English tradition as well. So I normally I think there's very little point in trying to reclaim words, but with liberalism there's a whole concept and a cluster of them of developing thought over the modern period that we cannot afford to to let our understanding of democratic processes, individual liberty, the importance of viewpoint diversity just kind of, disappear. We need words for that. So I still, I'm still trying to to get people, to accept that liberalism is not a political position on the left or right, but a philosophical stance about freedom. And this this has changed. People have become more polarized. There is more, left, right. A sort of opposition. Going on where people are speaking past each other. But you have the gender critical feminists and the trans activists are very good examples of that. They don't fit neatly into left and right, but they're very much in a polarized, position where they're they're kind of creating narratives about each other, misogynist, transphobic, and where we're sort of and then there's all the liberals in trying, trying to get to saying, but we want people to be able to live as they see fit, but not when it's doing things that harm other people, because biology, biological reality, also exists, and people need to be able to to see what they actually think. So trying to break through, or if they say, I think we're entering into a stage where narratives are really sort of defining and dominating the political moment and trying to, to to break through them, look at points that are being made, arguments as they really are, is getting increasingly difficult. So kind of on that same note, I think we can all agree that there's been some positives that have come out of social justice movements, but also there's many of them that have been poorly executed. So from your view, how can social justice in these shifts that are happening in the political climate and just in the way that we're viewing the world, how can those coexist and can translate into positive change with all this divisiveness, kind of happening in the background? But, I mean, think there's certainly a kernel of truth in the, in the critical social justice movement, and that is that culture exists, that it affects the way that we think about things, that having had experience of something may give you a certain perspective on it, which is different to someone who hasn't had, experience of it. But I these one that's, denied by anybody in the first place. So I would say that the shift towards the critical social justice movement, which really does, sort of deny the objectivity of truth and the, the idea that we can, as individuals, evaluate ideas for ourselves, decide, which we agree with and which we don't, which really holds that we're all socialized into believing certain things. And only this enlightened view, appropriately named, nicely named, the woke can see through it and, and help us all to dismantle our white supremacy, detoxify our masculinity, decolonize our thinking, etc. so I don't really see anything positive there. I do see, of course it at the end aims to reduce racism, to reduce sexism, to reduce homophobia. Yes, these are very, very good. But these were happening in in, in liberal feminism, in liberal LGBT activism. This was this idea is that sort of comes down to, you know, some people are gay. Get over it. The colorblindness principle, we we don't judge people by the color of their skin. This was making some strides. It was not doing perfectly. And this is why the critical social justice movement arose. After all those big legal changes had been made. They felt, wrongly, that that's not going to get rid of all kinds of prejudice. We do actually now need to address attitudes, but of course, the way that they have gone, attitudes, by telling other people what they must think because of what their identity is and how they must dismantle it according to their theories, has been very, very counterproductive. It's caused a great big backlash, not only against the political social justice theories themselves, but against their causes. So we're now seeing an increase of really misogynistic accounts, on social media, a sort of outright, racism opposition to, you know, support for same sex marriage has has fallen in the US, 7% across across the board because that people are that clashing against the groups that these movements claim to speak for. Even though I think a majority of all groups never wanted them to and was never represented by it. So Oren, did you want to jump in? I have I have one more question, but it's like probably a lot more details. If you want to jump off something with that, go ahead. Or just if I want to pick up on one thing, Helen, said I. It's a two part question. So, or it's really one, which is I just heard a libertarian speaking the other day saying is, as you were saying, it's not about left and right, ok? It's about really, it's about liberalism is about, freedom versus authoritarianism. Right. And I think that people are sort of losing the plot there. They're not realizing that it really is, you know, because as you're saying that, you know, the woke or whatever we want to call them, they're trying to impose a certain system on people rather than trying to find a way to change a system that people will accept, or that will work for most people, not just for their, you know, standpoint or from their standpoint. So, that that's a statement. So what I want to ask you was when you were describing, liberal, humanism. I just want to ask you just I'm curious, the real human to, humanism. Libertarianism. What would you see as the difference between the two? I said libertarians are probably the most sort of pure form of liberalism, so they are certainly liberals. But they are, they tend to have a negative but the negative, focus only with the other people alone, and they tend to, focus a lot on markets as well, and the freedom of markets and that kind of economic liberalism. So they, they're, they're certainly, part of who I'm speaking about with, with, with liberals. But, as a liberal liberal humanist and sort of more tuned into social issues, we can have liberal leftists, as well, who, and even liberal socialists who don't agree with the libertarians on economic issues but are very focused on individual liberty and then and leaving people, alone on that social sphere. And we can have liberal conservatives who are people who are really trying to conserve, a lot of the traditions and customs as, as then of their country, of Western civilization. And they're including liberalism among that. So I accept that liberal liberal is that broad umbrella. But when we're we're looking at what is at the root of liberalism, libertarians, are at that root. Okay. Thanks, I just started yeah. I want to clarify that. Okay. So now yes, it's very difficult with the terminology. And then people sort of misunderstanding me because I'm, I haven't set out my what, what I'm talking about with liberalism. So I think you've painted a pretty clear picture as far as like what likely inspired the, grievance studies, project that you worked on. But how did you guys come up with that idea? I read about this in a little bit more detail the other day, and I was just so fascinated by, like, what sparked that? Well, my, my motivations for joining it was that I had been trying to criticize these ideas straightforwardly for some time, and I was being told either that I didn't understand them, or them, and I just didn't know how how how the system worked. And, and I really wanted to, to get in there, I wanted to show that I do understand how the theories work. I want you to get them published in the journals that were publishing that. I mean, particularly Hypatia, the leading feminist journal, is where a lot of this is coming from. And we got one accepted and one was, under revised and resubmit when we got found out. So, so just kind of, getting into that system, seeing how it worked and then being able to bring everything together so that the best source of our papers now is that all of our citations are absolutely accurate. They're, they're they're cited them in context. So if anybody wants to go and look at a school of thought around something like epistemic justice, you can go to one of our papers and you can find a summary, essentially, of the worst ideas we could find in there and the sources, for that, so that this now makes it harder, I think, for people to say that I just don't understand, what the theories are saying, and, and then I can hopefully and we can just kind of show because people are also saying, well, this is, this is just a few fringe lunatics. It's, it's it's just there's always some mad papers getting published, but I think we need to show the volume of it and also show how we were directed when we wrote anything to them at all, to to bias and things more in this direction. Sometimes when we thought we'd gone too far and they couldn't possibly accept this. So, for example, when we, we worried a bit about adjudicating, putting white kids on the floor in chains as a form of existential reparations, we thought, well, nobody's going to accept that. So we made an argument saying that this would actually be good for the white children because it would be a learning opportunity. And they said, take that out because you're centering white people's needs again. So they didn't it. In white dots. So and so I have to ask because I mean, that's of course, that's when you first burst on the scene, with Peter and James. And it was, you know, you guys did the rounds and it was quite shocking. And then there was the backlash where. And it's so hard today where, you know, everyone seems to be watching the same screen, two different movies. You know, some people are saying this, you know, this exposed academia and the rotten or whether it's about feminism or about, you know, whatever narrower field. And others said, no, this was overstated, was overblown. They were rejected from these journals. And, you know, you know, that their claims are overstated, basically. So, you know, it's been a few years now. So looking back, where would you say, like what we and where would you place your great hoax that the three of you, and what actually did happen and what is the impact? And has there been any positive change, would you say, based on what you guys exposed? Well, I'm not sure. I think that there has been some positive change. People are now more willing to accept what will get published. In these areas, and they are more likely to to see it as a problem. I was trying to really convince the liberal lefties who weren't, into critical social justice. Ideas themselves, but generally thought it to be a more benign thing than it really was. So I think we did make some some headway there. But I would say, our project wasn't, isn't best understood as a hoax because we were producing the kinds of papers that were already getting published. So the journals weren't tricked into accepting them. We were just exploring the system and seeing how it worked. And so was personally. So we we described it as a kind of reflexive ethnography. Essentially, we wanted to go in there. We wanted to try and give them what they wanted, have them tell us what they wanted, see how it worked. So I would say it was an exploratory thing. Big claims have been made for it, which shouldn't have been. People had said that we've undermined the the whole sort of concept of peer review. That isn't true. Peer review is as good as the reviewers are. Now, if you look at what the criteria these reviewers were going on, I would say that this is bad for academic standards, but that's an argument that I make. I'm showing what is there. So a lot of people did say yes. Well, these were just bad journals. And well, in that case, please discredit everything else that has come out of these journals because that's where most of it is coming from. And other people were saying, let's these, these papers were good. But you, you put in some, some false data. All of that data should have been recognized as highly implausible. And we also didn't read it correctly. And so you've just kind of tricked them into accepting it. So it doesn't count for anything. It does because we're copying what is is already there. So and all of our citations are accurate. So I would say, but I would, I would say that people should not read. You know, we have not demolished academia what the study is then others, you know, women's rights or anything else along those, those lines. And that's what we, we put in our I said a breakdown of it. Don't be too much into this. A lot of the scholarship that is out there is still very good. This kind isn't. And we're setting out why we don't think this particular type of theory is. And, you should be concerned that we managed to get seven papers accepted, and particularly that it only took an average of two weeks to write these papers because I'm just sort of getting these ideas, recycling them and then putting them in another context and, and churning them out again. And this, this isn't academic scholarship. You shouldn't be able to do that. So we really just wanted to see that this was a problem. Having seven of them accepted and seven under resize and resubmit with with five of them with a very good chance of being accepted in the very near future. This this is a problem and it's not the only problem that exists. There are other problems in psychology, in in science, in other fields. And people have to address those problems all the time. So that that was, what I put the limitations on that. Okay. And for you, if I, if I, if I can ask like afterwards because again, I follow the story, in, in the media. But for you personally, in the years following that, I know that you were an editor in chief at, Areo Magazine, which had some emails like I was reading those article. It was like very long form, not your typical 140 or 280 characters. He was in, you know, deep dives and some just heterodox thinking and just some like I it really opened my eyes to a lot of different concepts. So I know you were editor in The Chief for a while, and you have the other program. Oh my gosh, I'm I'm blanking on it. That you stopped last couple of years. Right. Sorry. Counterweight. Counterweight. Thank you. That's where. Yes. So that's professionally, let's say. But personally, what has, you know, being sort of thrust on the stage like this on the grand stage. What is that done for you personally and how does it change your perspective on life? And so as humans. Yeah, so I, I, I'm, I'm very, very much a yeah, I'm much more of a private person really when it, when I entered in on the grievance studies affair, the understanding was that the other two would do the public, things. I would be in the background writing and researching and checking things theoretically. And then I came out after it came out, a lot of people wanted to speak to me, particularly like, I think this was because a lot of it was critical of feminism, and a lot of people doing interviews and podcasts didn't want to have two straight white men, talking about if there was a woman available to to say that I do consider myself a feminist. I'm critical of this kind of feminism. So I started to speak more then. And then I found that I was getting more comfortable with public speaking, but I still, prefer really to be a writer or do sort of small with that sort of that small but quiet podcast, not to big public events or or Joe Rogan or something. I, you know, I let the other two go on on that because that was just a little bit three hours of it was a bit much. So it was stressful, to, to do, to do that. And a lot of that, that there was a lot of very personalized, and targeted abuse. I had two people who, who seemed to make it their full time job to, interrogate absolutely everything I said twisted, misrepresented. I had people cloning my family members social media accounts and and messaging me. I had I had people, trying to find out who I was being funded by via my accountant, and my, my, my, my bank was being funded by anybody, and, and it did get really very, very nasty. A lot of the stalking I did, I did talk to the police at one point, but it, it seemed clear that the two sort of main still because I had were in the US, which is not, anything they can, can do anything about. So I gathered this from the spelling and so the I and I don't think there is only one that was considered a credible a threat. And he, he was in the UK and they were already on him and he was targeting other people more so that that was quite, quite difficult. Yeah. I'm sorry to hear that. It's it's ridiculous. So yeah. Imagine I had each of those. I say the primary people, who were either stalking or targeting or, you know, made it their life's mission to make your life miserable. If they came to therapy. And I had them lying on my couch. Okay. And I'm asking them deep down, like, you know, and they're being as honest as possible. What is your motive? Why are you going after her? You know, they all have the same one. Would they be five different one thing? What? What do you think? I think because that there was was one individual. Who was it? He wasn't. I don't think he was involved in, in trying to sort of hold my family members accounts or anything like that, that he, he was particularly sort of the sort of targeting officer and I, I did address him him publicly because he was, making accusations of a sexual misconduct, at some of my, my male, colleagues, and they weren't true, so I did. Then I did speak to him publicly about his his stalking of one of my colleagues. And he actually said at that point, well, if he if he wasn't, if he wasn't going on about gender studies like this, he wasn't attacking gender studies, I wouldn't have to make this stuff up. And I thought a good and that was then saying publicly that he had said this and we were able to keep that is as his evidence and it did damage his reputation. So I won't mention his name and damaged any further. But, that, that I think encapsulated it essentially this is the ends justify the means because we criticize these particular theories. We are therefore the enemies of racial equality. The sex equality, you know, the freedom to, to sort of be attracted to people of the same sex and have relationships. So where we're just generally very bad, sort of reactionary right wing people who are trying to hurt marginalized, vulnerable people. Therefore, we are in a war and it is acceptable to attack us in any way that that it's likely to to work. And that includes character assassinations, myths, representations. And I'm really trying to, to, to mess up our lives. Right. And again, that goes back to what we're saying about, you know, about liberalism truly is about freedom versus authoritarianism or tyranny. When people are portraying you this way and as you say, the ends justify the means because you must be such terrible people. Therefore you must be stopped by any means necessary. I mean, you know, people just lose sight of I mean, it's the they can't see the hypocrisy. There's. Yeah, actually, there's so many times the people who claim to be the most compassionate, the most empathetic, the most humanistic are sometimes the some, you know, they evince some of the worst qualities and behaviors you can imagine. And they don't see it. They truly don't see it because they have portrayed themselves as the hero who are going to conquer the villain. So how did it feel being the public villain? You know, not. And I'm wondering whether the people who knew you, whether they started drifting away and saying, we don't want to catch the shrapnel, or if they truly believe that you were a terrible person, or if they said, these people have no idea what they're talking about, we stand by you. What would you say was the overall effect? Personally? Well, I think because I'm kind of a quite a reclusive person, I really have a few sort of solid, friends and, and connections that, that I feel, that I feel closely connected to. And the people, those, those people stood by me and I, they told people that this was this was nonsense. This wasn't who I was. I felt very supported by my, by the people I chosen to, you know, be connected with, of course. So on, on the broader scale, there was a lot of, a lot of nastiness coming from. So I think my, my university, for example, I don't think it likes me very much anymore. The, the professors there whom I had done, I had liked and the, I had worked with, I don't think they do either. So. So there's, there's there's something there. But mostly the nastiness was, was coming from the worst of it was the people who are really very rhetorically skilled and who can, engage in, in great sophistry and who can take something that is almost my point and then twist it to being something which is so totally opposed to my point that I then have to I feel I have to, untangle it. And and so, no, this is not what I said. And you can see this quite clearly. And then they would twist something else, and I would come back and I would do that again. And this was what caused me to have a nervous breakdown in the end. And see a clinical psychologist myself. We were working together on these people's perception and creation of a version of you cannot actually affect who you really are. I was feeling almost like these versions of me that, that were being created could have some ability to taint me and is and you must that you had to sort of have a strong sense of yourself. You know that you don't believe these things. You know that these aren't your motivations trying to to learn to shrug off people who clearly aren't arguing in good faith, to trust that people who are paying attention will know what my views really are, and not almost like an OCD response. I think it was as though if I set my ideas up carefully, it's like I've arranged ornaments on a shelf, and then someone comes in a messy, small lap and I feel like I have to jump up and put them straight out. And then they come in and they mess it up again, and I feel I can't, I can't rest, and until I get absolutely exhausted and the idea of, I was treated for OCD in my 20s, so kind of using the same techniques, there is a kind of acceptance. These people have said this. I'm not going to react to it. I'm going to observe that they've done that, observe that they're wrong, and going to to let it go. The anxiety will come down again. So that was was quite a good technique there for for dealing with that, for not feeling like I have to tidy messes that are being made of my ideas and my character all the time. And how terrible. I mean, this is one of the one of the many drawbacks, I guess, of online interactions. While it's great that we can have a father reach, with all these online platforms, I think what's lost in that is people forget that they're targeting real human beings who have real consequences, like you did. I'm so sorry to hear that. That's how severely it impacted you. But at the same time, I'm not surprised, unfortunately, because like you said, these were character assassinations and complete misrepresentations of who you are and what your intentions were. I think some some people did did recognize this because I disappeared entirely for nine months. I got rid of all my social media accounts. I got a job, in in social care where I work, and I wasn't intending to to come back when I eventually did because I found my extra opinion becoming too strong again. I did get some positive, so one academic who really had been quite nasty and and dishonest and sort of said it, commented to say that she was glad that I was back and that, that I was feeling better. And she toned herself down then. And one particular stalker who really had been quite unhinged, wrote me a public apology, saying that she had been mentally ill at that time, and she had done she had attacked me and really made my life very difficult, and she regretted it. So. But okay, so, so that there are there are people there who can see that the people they're attacking all are humans and may not be evil. That it did build up again, but fortunately my, my, my Twitter account had, which had 90,000 followers at the time, had died. And I've not let it get too big again, because I know that I don't want to be in. And I also my friend manages the account for me now because it's it's just very, very difficult not to, to, to keep correcting, the false accusations I find about the people who get off very, very well. I don't find that that that's so easy for me. Yeah. And that's kind of what my next question was, is what do you think you could have done differently? Or is there anything you're done differently? Looking back on the situation? I think I, I could have got some, some support a little bit, a bit earlier recognized that I was I was getting sucked into this argument and that with people who weren't talking, speaking in good faith and felt more confident in myself, which I can see for other people. I will, say to other people who are going through this, I've just dropped them a note saying that all of us who are honest and actually paying attention can see what you're actually saying. The people who are claiming that you are a young white supremacist, patriarchal, imperialist or whatever, I'm not responding to anything you've said, and we can see this. Don't feel as though you have to to keep, justifying yourself to keep correcting because you will burn yourself out. We see it, you know. If so, a couple of things. Yeah. What you were saying earlier, I see, you know, I see this with many patients, different variations. But I say, like, you know, you don't let either this person or in general, other people's neuroses or projections of their own insecurities or bigotry or whatever, define you. Okay? And that's sort of what you came to have to come to. You know, you come to terms with basically, I can't let them define my reality. Right. Because. Right. Especially when A is distorted and B, it's not coming from good faith. Right. So that's an important you know, that's for anybody. I think it's so important for people to sort of to try to really grasp easier said than done of course. But that's what we aim for. And then second, you know, just maybe we can talk about what you are doing now professionally or behind the scenes or trying to sort of promote the same type of, let's say, philosophy or ideals that you were trying to do before. And then third, just talk to that because I just I don't want to forget it. You know, I know that you work toward trying to, like, help people. Let's say, let's say, see other people's perspective, like, how do we encourage dialog when two people are very diametrically opposed to certain topics? If we can sort of just touch upon all those, I threw them out, setting the agenda there, if that's okay. Yeah. So, I'm, I'm mostly now writing, on Substack. I'm, I'm particularly concerned about the illiberal anti-woke backlash that is, is coming from the right. So I've been addressing that as well, because, as somebody who I think could rightly be described as an anti-woke, I think there are there are ethical ways to ethical and honest ways to do this. And then there's just a kind of counter authoritarianism that then wants to to punish people and cancel them and shut them down and not that and speak. And, and it's really very irrational. So I'm trying to, at the moment get people who are anti-woke to make sure that they maintain their principles, remember those good arguments that they made against, cancellation, against censorship. When it was coming from the woke and oppose people who are trying to do that to people, aren't the people who could be considered woke, or people who are on the left, or even people who are just women or black or gay, you know, because that's, that that's what's worrying me. And that's what's always worried me that there would be a, an illiberal anti-woke backlash and that it would set back advances that we had made. And I think that has happened. So I'm addressing that. I'm still working with, with organizations, who are having a problem with authoritarian critical social justice or woke activism in their midst. And I'm trying to prioritize, the sort of medical, social and, humanitarian and charitable, the fields with that, with doing that, they've had a particular problem. A lot of very well-intentioned people have taken on critical social justice ideas, and it tends to then paralyze the, the organizations. So, and I'm working with, with three big organizations and now one in the field of clinical psychology, one in humanitarian need and one in affective communications to try and and sort of roll this back in their organization so it doesn't get bogged down. We didn't stop being, effective. So that that's, I think, very important. Okay. This sort of ties to then my other question, which is, let's say when you go into these organizations and I'm not sure if you can specify because that clinical psychology, it the interest, of course. I'm wondering, you know, because I've had so many people ask me, like, what do we do about this? And the amount I've talked about this all the time, like, how do we make change? So for you, you go in there, is it education? Is it like how do you facilitate that kind of change that needs to happen? Well, the thing that that I've been helping me, clinical psychologists this particular group with is, a kind of assault on from, indigenous knowledge. So this, this has been been coming in a claim that clinical psychology being focused on evidence based outcomes, empirical research and scientific practitioners, as they they say it is a Western white masculinist, approach to psychology. And instead we need them indigent. We need to decolonize that, get indigenous ways of knowing in that. And so my I psychologists are arguing that no get get people you can has a great deal of respect for other cultures you can enjoy and these sort of cult cultural artifacts at. But when it comes to patient or client outcomes, then you really need to go with some evidence based research. So they are making good arguments. From that, that perspective. And they're getting quite, quite a lot of support because particularly because there, there are indigenous, psychologists among them saying that this this is not this isn't this is not what they that they are they find to be helpful. So we're we're hoping that that will then. Well, it seems to be so what what's happening at the moment was that that we thought that, that this group was just going to be squashed out of existence, but now communications are happening. Some other sort of senior members of, of the profession are REM, backing it. And so we're really very hopeful there's going to be a tide turning there. Really fascinated by that. And perhaps this is a question for another day, but what do you think is fueling that push? I mean, I'm not surprised to hear that because I think to some extent there's some of that happening here where we practice. But why why dismantle something that our profession has worked so long to gain credibility and have all of these really, like strong evidence based methods and strategies at work for people? I think it is because of the post-modern basis that, that, that is, that is underlying this and the power that a few activists can has because the, yeah, the beliefs are that that knowledge is a constructive power. The powerful get to decide what is true. And then they they develop ways of talking about things, which convinces everybody else that that it's true. And then we need to deconstruct and dismantle this. And a way of doing that is other ways of knowing, which include the lived experience, minority groups. And it also includes, indigenous and sort of that post-colonial subjects. Their, their approach to things. And there's there's something very well-intentioned in there, but it does also recreate colonialist narratives, because what we're seeing across them is this we had this colonialist idea that the white Western society was rational and scientific and liberal, and then it needed to colonize. Oh, the everywhere else for its own good, because it was, irrational and superstitious and myth based. And then we had a kind of rise out of them, a liberalism which held. Well, no, everybody science can, be used by everybody. It has been historically. It still is being people can be anti-scientific, irrational as well in in white Western civilizations. And they they certainly are. And you know, it works where, wherever you are. This is the good thing about the scientific approach. It doesn't care. We're going to the same principles are going to to be there. And then when the sort of critical social justice approach rose, then it went back to the colonialist thing. Except instead of saying we are rational and and liberal and scientific and that is good. It was we are rational and liberal and scientific, and that is bad because we have oppressed these other groups here. So there's a kind of post-colonial guilt or a settler colonial guilt, depending what country are in and what context you're in that that is at play here. And then so there are very sort of well-intentioned people, and I think a lot of progressives do, not to to gravitate towards the, the talking professions. And so once a few, activists get in there and they, they start making these claims, then it becomes very difficult for the general body of the psychology, sort of scientists of any kind to say, well, I don't think that's, that's, that's a good idea. I think that that sort of scientific and empirical research is, is successful because it works. And we really need to focus on what works because then they they fear that they will be seen as being racist, as having an imperialist attitude. So what I'm trying to help people to do when they're coming up against this is to show that they are actually opposing a colonialist narrative they are making, say, indigenous or previously colonized people. These, they have this particular kind of knowledge. It's it's very surprising, for example, to a lot of, Indian Brits, who have come over and that are four times more likely to be medical doctors and the rest of the population to be told that Western science and medicine is not for them. And they they have a completely different way of knowing it's insulting. And it's, it's colonialists with with that that attitude that we have this way of knowing, you have this other way. So by kind of giving people ways to speak about this, to defend science and empirical research, and to see people as individuals who can choose to use scientific and evidence based epistemology is or not to and that this is not geographically specific. Then they feel more confident that they can make a case for this which is which sounds principled, which sounds knowledgeable, which is less likely to be mistaken for racism. Yeah. And it's so odd to me and I, I always tiptoe around things like this because I'm always shocked to learn, like these huge shifts. I've been a psychotherapist for a decade now, and in that decade I've seen. So my training was, you know, have cultural competency, understand people's lived experiences. View things through that lens, but also be scientific about what we're doing. And then I'm hearing you say this. And to be honest, I had no idea that this was the shift and or and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know if it's it's. Quite. To that extent here, but I'm just I'm I'm flabbergasted to hear what you're describing here. Yeah. Well, just yeah, I've got to be careful just because of things that have been happening. But, there has been at least in academia as well, a shift to trying to again, let's say, promote indigenous ways of knowing, and trying to replace, it's it's again, it's not just it's not sort of incorporating and having a space for it. It's replacing for all the reasons that Helen said. So there is that shift, at least in academia. I'm seeing that, and I haven't seen as much in the, in the psychology field. But, you know, but everything that Helen said about, like, the intent of recognizing how colonialist a patriarchal and everything that we are, that, of course, has permeated our, professions. So I've got to ask you, Helen. So this again, goes back to my previous question, which is, well, actually two things. One, we had of someone on early, the other week, a journalist, Barbara K, and I use the word cowardice. I talked about the cowardice of people in charge who allowed this to happen. Okay. And she didn't like that word because she thought, you know, they they have professions, they have careers, they have families they have to raise if they see this wave coming and they're sort of hunkering down like they're not trying to they're not trying to be a bulwark against it. They're just allowing it to happen because, you know, they they don't want to be, I guess, swept away or, you know, devastated by it. And so she didn't quite see it as cowardice. Point taken, I appreciate that. I still do, quite frankly. When you have people like that in charge, whether it's cowardice or simply just wanting to keep their jobs or keep the status quo, whatever, how do you break through? It's not just with evidence. You were talking about a strategy. You were talking about framing, I guess. Does it really boil down to a kind of framing that they can't assail, or how do you penetrate? Yeah. Well, that that's what I got in my last book, because that's a very practical guide. And the Counterweight handbook, it, it's called then Principled Strategies. And this, this is what we do. So it depends on what I do when I help somebody or an organization is look at what is happening in the, in the management in the HR department, so that if you can get the difference, that if you've got true believers in there who really want to revolutionize everything, then you're in a very difficult situation. There are certain things that you need to do. Then you need to to sort of monitor what's going on very carefully. Then you need to relate it to the laws of employment in your country, so that you can, can see you, you can make complaints go over their heads if, if need be. But it's really very difficult. But often what you have instead is what I've called the buzz word waffler. And these are people who don't entirely buy into this. They may not even know what it is exactly, but they have to take certain boxes and activists are making it very difficult for them. They are making a nuisance of themselves. So what I am helping people to do is make a nuisance of them selves, because this is what this is the way to go. When you have somebody who is doing this because they want a quiet life is to be politely, patiently persistent and, pointing out the flaws with everything, writing. So there's notes and letters to them in a, in a group, ideally asking to for meetings. I always advise letters if possible because always you have to have a meeting, then write it up afterwards and send it in. So there's a a record of that. And essentially making it so that the, your manager or your HR people will back down because it is actually too much trouble for them now. And of course, this varies. According to country, in the US we have the biggest problem because there are no cause firing laws. The UK has some protection of philosophical beliefs that people can lean on. Canada, I believe has has protects religious beliefs. And philosophical beliefs vary from from region to region. Products, province. So we have to kind of look into to what what is going there, but trying to to make a nuisance of yourself in a very polite, principled and knowledgeable way is the best thing for getting these people who aren't completely committed, to, to back away from what they were saying. I mean, in one particularly ridiculous situation, when we had an employee, tell his HR people that Robin D'Angelo, who they were advocating, had said that all white people were racist. And he thought that that was was racist and that that went against policy a company and, and and that Kendi, Ibram X Kendi had said that there is no such thing as non-racist, you're either racist or anti-racist. And they came back to him saying, oh, these are rightwing speaking points. They don't say anything of the kind. And he then sent them evidence of them saying precisely that. And it was again, he was told that he, that this, this was, this was just right rightwing speaking points that that wasn't what was happening. So we had to to push very persistently to, to say, no, look, here it is, this, this is what they're saying. Here are the organizations saying what they are saying. You are putting this in there and I want to know, do I have the right not to believe this? And particularly when it depending on what kind of rights you have nearly everywhere processes that protects religious freedoms, for example. So the idea that everybody is unavoidably socialized into, into white supremacist beliefs can be countered quite effectively by pointing out that this requires people to deny the, beliefs in all three of the Abrahamic religions, in God given free will, that you can evaluate things yourself. You can reject when you believe racism is a sin, you reject that. So it is a really a very strategic approach. Knowing what kind of problem you've got, whether it it's a true believer or a box ticker. And then what is the best way to get around that. So that's what we learned over sort of two year baptism of fire really because counterweights started up when the the the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. And we're getting hundreds of people and we just kind of pulled them into a, a discord server and just tried to triage as much as we could. So we it kind of developed letters and strategies that that work now. And it's one that's very, not very concise here, but it's not very satisfying to some people who want to see a big fight and a defeat that quite often, I mean, what I'm doing most of the time is, is helping people pull their organization back from the brink and and get the workplace culture to be more inclusive of just the three points, using communication. And that really is is very effective. But it's not so satisfying for people who really want to be clash and for the woke to be defeated and fired and vilified unit. And I think, you've answered my question. So with this podcast, we always try to summarize with like, what can people do on an individual level regarding these problems? So I think what you're saying is, you know, have some degree of impact within the organizations that we, they work within. What else would you say people can do on an individual level to make an impact? I think, on that. Have a have a good understanding of what kind of a problem you have. A lot of times people react to words like diversity and inclusion, but a lot of organizations now are still using these terms, but in a much more genuinely inclusive of diversity points way. So make sure you read everything and you're you're not reacting to a discourse rather than what's actually there. Then take a sort of the the minimum force approach. If, if you see a problem arising, be very, very firm, very clear, put things in writing, have a strong sense of what your own principles are. Why do you think this is wrong? So if you're asked to be a firm that that sense that you are racist because you are white, then you might think, well, no, I believe that I can evaluate and reject racist ideas, and I think I have a moral responsibility to do that. I don't accept that. So when you've got that idea, then you can, can respond on that level above. So what I would recommend people to do is not fall into the trap of arguing within the economy of the critical social justice activists. It's much like, if if somebody is saying to at work and you, you can't be gay because the Bible says it's a sin, then you have the right to you wouldn't. Then I'll give you the Bible. So there's another part. So with Jonathan, David, it seems like it's quite good. You can just say, I am not a Christian and I don't have to be a so. And that's what I would advise people to do in a workplace when it come, when they come up against this, don't try and and sort of well no not the all white people aren't, aren't racist. And, and some people don't believe in gender identity and that's not transphobic. Instead just say I understand that you hold these these beliefs and I would want you to be able to do that. I hold differently, so I oppose racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination, from a different, philosophical standpoint, how can we work together, without either just trying to impose our ideas on each other in this way? You're then forcing the, you know, your manager or whoever at the top to either say, okay, you can have your own ideas and, we can we can work together or literally say to you, well, you can't, you can't hold your liberal, conservative, libertarian, Christian, Jewish, whatever I did, you can't hold them. You have to believe in this one thing. Once they had said that, then, you know, of course they can legal argument. But I find in most cases they draw shy of saying that you can often make people realize that they are trying to make you pretend to believe something you don't by by putting them in that position, and then they become. Yeah. And it's it's essentially I respectfully agree to disagree with the strategy behind it, that if they respond in a certain way, they can get themselves into some trouble. Yes. So, you know, and this is something whether it's about these issues or about something entirely different, I've talked with so many people, in, let's say, either broken organizations, corrupt or toxic, however you want to phrase it, where I always say to them, if you are going to try to advocate for yourself, the number one thing, there's a few things I say, but you have to be prepared to keep going higher. But you can't stop at this level. You have to be prepared to go. Not to war, to destroy, but to or to save yourself. Basically. Like, you know, if because people live in these little fiefdoms and they believe that if they are in charge and there's, you know, and no, they may know there are people on top of them, but they think that there's a layer that, you know, that that prevents the others from above from seeing. So I said, we're trying to pull calls, and the only way to do that is to either circumvent or to escalate, you know, through the procedures that are available in your organization. So I've said that to many people, some people do follow through and they do keep going higher and higher, and they do find that there is recourse, because, you know, again, they're not backing down the way that you say. So I'm wondering whether you in the with people that you've worked with, it's not just putting the words on the paper. It's encouraging. It's motivating. It's inspiring them to have the courage to actually take those steps. Have you found that there's something specific, whether it's a, it's an approach or a framing or something that that can actually get those people to take that? Or is it simply that some people are able to do it and others just don't have the wherewithal? And in coming in to do it. I think I think so, yes. I mean, one of one of the strategies that that I've, I've set out, it looks at, how it encourages people to, to look at the ways in which they can push back. So how secure is their job? And what's, what kind of personality do they have? And so then I would argue that that too, that we've had these approaches which, rent, a stealth, the gentle, firm and, and hardened public how you're going to go at this and, where you are. So I would say if you all say a tenured professor, then you have some security here. And I would then urge them to use that, forum, you know, to, to stand up so that it's for your, your junior colleagues. But if it's somebody in particular, it has been students, master's students, particularly in psychology and social work and these fields and teaching, that they have to have the stealth approach here because it is much better for your field if you don't get kicked out of your course to study before you qualify. So in these cases, I then sort of help people to see how they can, try not to contribute to the environment that they can get through their their course of study. They can qualify. And then once they are there, they can can make a difference. They can stop pushing it back. So I think I don't try to inspire people to go in harder than they would otherwise do. If they are an A really did it, they, they they certainly want to. They see the problem. I help them feel more confident. They are right in seeing that problem, and to feel more confident of their ability to push it. But I would be wary myself of saying to somebody, well, you, you need to be braver. You need to get out there. I mean, is, is it's verbal argumentation. So a lot of people, particularly I found in the emergency services, they tended to react quite angrily. But they and they, they had had a more sort of, blunt and proactive psychology, which I think you probably need to do if you're going to go into the fire service or the police or something in that, that area. And this often led to quite intemperate speech. And so I'd say, if you are not naturally a diplomatic, person who is good at making these kind of arguments and keeping your cool, you know, put things in in writing, do it in a group, whatever. You have to sort of work out what is best for for you as well as, run works with your personality and your skills as well as what will work if it has a very long winded answer. No. It's great. I mean, I mean, and we're going to put your, like your, their books and everything in the description so people can see that because, I mean, a lot of what you're saying is captured in, especially in the last book. So, so I'm gonna ask you one last thing, sort of. Ali, if I can just ask, I'll try to be brief. But, Well, here is the heart. The sad thing is, you know, whatever the profession is, many of my patients, you know, even in the, in the field of teaching or, of, of medicine or any where else, they know for a fact that even once they get into the field, even once they, you know, they've got the credentials, there really isn't much that they can do there. You know, they speak out. They're never going to be hired for this position. There are never going to be given a promotion. They'll you know, they can't get a job or so on. So to the people who truly are going to have to be working in an environment or in the field that they don't agree with the ideologies and they're seeing it and they're there's literally nothing they can truly do because they just don't have that impact. No matter what they do. It's not going to change anything. What would you say to someone to help them sort of come to terms with that? I would I would say that they're there is always something you can do. It can be very, very, difficult to sit. But the, the, the options, sort of keep your head down and go along with it or throw yourselves on the grenade. So for one, one client, it was an absolutely brilliant thing. So I always give her as an, as an example, she was dealing with a sort of post-colonial, theory in, in her, her work workplace, and she was quite a non-confrontational person, and she did not feel she could speak up at all. And she probably you couldn't. But what she actually came to which that I, I've just been using this language of decolonize and I don't believe this. I'm what am I saying? And so she then started not to use this language herself. Not to contribute to the to the pressure for preference falsification. She, she started then when she was speaking to use language a little bit more of than a viewpoint diversity to only the tiniest bit. And then another colleague came and sounded her out very carefully, and they kind of danced around each other for a while. And then they found that they were both on the same page, and then together they found some other, other people, and they found that the number of people in their organization who were genuinely committed to this were much lower than they they thought it. It was. And they did manage to make a substantial change to the workplace environment. So I would say, don't feel, at the, at the very, at the very least don't contribute to the environment. If you feel like you can't speak up at all, at least try not to speak into it and give other people the impression that have a have a look around to see if there are other people there who you seem to be uncomfortable. You know, get some you know, I've got I've written more about this, but get get other ideas in there just to at least start to, to sort of then circulate some of these ideas about being able to, to think for yourself, appreciating people with different philosophical and cultural and religious and political worldviews and try just these little sort of tests and you you may well find that, that there are more people who will support you and you can make a difference if you really if you if you really can't, if you're in a totally critical, social justice dominated environment, I would I would just advise, to get out really, because we've seen so many people have complete breakdowns and, and really not be able be able to function. So if it's not eating into your life and, and destroying you, just just try and find another, another job. I like your approach, though. I think that it's anchored in respect. And that's kind of been the theme throughout a lot of the, ways you've approached things and that you're recommending others approach things is, start with respect. And I think that we can get a lot farther that way than being combative right off the bat. Relentlessly assume that whoever you're talking to will not want to deny your freedom of belief in speech, even if they really seem like they want to just speak to them as though they are not, and make them spell it out if they are, because that becomes much more apparent to everybody else. Yeah, well, maybe we can talk with her about this for hours and hours and same topics, and I'll be mindful of this. So I think we're coming toward the end. And one thing, by the way, the last that Helen was saying about sort of finding like minded people and so on, Molly, I've talked about that, quite often in different contexts, like with schools and so on, like, like parents and everything. So I think it's such sound advice, right? Because otherwise people feel so isolated. I'm the only one. I'm the nail that sticks out that's going to get hammered. And they're terrified. There is strength in numbers. And, you know, there are far more people who share your views potentially, than you may see. So I think it's excellent. You know, a guidance that you're providing. So thank you for that and for all the other stuff you said as well. That's I hope it gives some people heart and gives them some thought about strategies on how to combat what truly are toxic, toxic environments, that are being created, under the guise of, you know, compassion and empathy and decolonization etc.. So it's yeah, so. Can be very dehumanizing. For sure. So, Helen, yes, I'll echo everything that orange just said, but, I think you've given us and our listeners tons to think about and just a different perspective on how to approach these, very real and very difficult situations that are arising more and more. So thanks for your wisdom and for your time with us today. Thank you. Thank you for having me on. It's been good talking to you. All right. So, on that note, until next time, keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.