Social (In)justice: Why Many Popular Answers to Important Questions of Race, Gender, and Identity Are Wrong--and How to Know What's Right: A Reader-Friendly Remix of Cynical Theories

by Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, Rebecca Christiansen

This is a book about ideas.

Specifically, this is a book about the evolution of a certain set of ideas, and how these ideas have come to dominate every important discussion about race, gender, and identity today.

Have you heard someone refer to language as literal violence, or say that science is sexist? Or declare that being obese is healthy, or that there is no such thing as biological sex? Or that valuing hard work, individualism, and even punctuality is evidence of white supremacy? Or that only certain people—depending on their race, gender, or identity—should be allowed to wear certain clothes or hairstyles, cook certain foods, write certain characters, or play certain roles? If so, then you’ve encountered these ideas.

As this reader-friendly adaptation of the internationally acclaimed bestseller Cynical Theories explains, however, the truth is that many of these ideas are recent inventions, are not grounded in scientific fact, and do not account for the sheer complexity of social reality and human experience. In fact, these beliefs often deny and even undermine the very principles on which liberal democratic societies are built—the very ideas that have allowed for unprecedented human progress, lifted standards of living across the world, and given us the opportunity and right to consider and debate these ideas in the first place!

Ultimately, this is a book about what it truly means to have a just and equal society—and how best to get there.

Cynical Theories is a Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Publishers Weekly bestseller. Named a 2020 Book of the Year by The Times, Sunday Times, and Financial Times, it is being translated into more than fifteen languages.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, History

249 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 18, 2022

About the author

Helen Pluckrose is a British author and cultural writer known for critiques of social justice and promotion of liberal ethics, most notably in the grievance studies affair.

Pluckrose completed a degree in English literature at the University of East London and a master's degree in early modern studies at Queen Mary University of London,[6] with a particular focus on "the ways in which medieval women negotiated the Christian narrative".

She now focuses primarily on postmodernism and Critical Social Justice scholarship and activism and their negative effects on the humanities and the political left. Helen took part in the "Grievance Studies Affair" with James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. She is the editor-in-chief of Areo, a digital magazine focused on politics, culture, science and art.

Reviews

[Peyton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read Cynical Theories (CT) which is spot on from what I studied in college. I've dipped in and out of this book and it's close, but I feel like a watered-down version of CT for the masses. This is good because CT was high-level.

I think this book will resonate with a lot of people, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on (or if you're apolitical). The authors really understand what liberalism means and how it has been treated in the modern (post-modern) era.

I read a lot of Wittgenstein, so taking in all the critical theory stuff makes sense from his linguistic standpoint. The authors of this book do articulate the problem of language with critical theory as well.

This is a book I'd give someone new to the topic who is seriously studying critical theory, critical race theory, or journalism even. If you have read CT and understood it at that level, this book won't be much of a challenge for you. It's less theory and more the latest debates applied to critical theory. However, it's a much faster, smoother read! I guess the next iteration would be a graphic novel on the subject, but this book in its own right is a gem.

[Eben Holwick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent explanation from a liberal perspective on how society has come to the point of living in non-reality. Queer theory, critical race theory, and Critical theory in general. Very insightful, and important for everyone to read, in order to avoid getting sucked into the chaos and used as a pawn to upend order and any possible solutions.

[Leonor Dargent · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gostei muito deste livro, mas estava à espera que confrontasse as minhas ideias. Em vez disso, senti que os autores criticam ramos radicais das teorias que pretendem atacar e os tomam como "a maioria das pessoas".
Sinto que o livro teria mais impacto caso eu defendesse efetivamente estes ramos mais radicais, ou caso estivesse tão afastada dos temas de Justiça social que conseguisse acreditar, como senti que pretendem os autores, que toda a gente à minha volta se está a radicalizar. Como não estou em nenhuma destas situações, o livro pareceu-me defender coisas muito razoáveis (ainda que duma forma ligeiramente alarmista). Ou talvez seja apenas um livro mais virado para realidades relativamente distantes de mim como os Estados Unidos, o Reino Unido, e, em especial, o meio académico nestes países.
Achei muito interessante a história do desenvolvimento destas teorias, as suas raízes em questões de epistemologia e o seu reflexo no discurso (nomeadamente, na forma como escrutinamos o discurso alheio).

[Adolfo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exposition of the flawed logic behind the different branches of Critical Social Justice Theory. It ends with a defence of liberal values and proposes that a return to those same liberal values would be an effective counter measure against far right politics. I found it to be interesting that the authors where honest enough to admit that there may be kernels of truth in some arguments of CT while simultaneously dissecting the many fallacies and dangers of this movement.

[Ron Housley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Social (In)justice — Why Many Popular Answers to Important Questions of Race, Gender, and Identity Are Wrong, and How to Know What’s Right
(A Reader-Friendly Remix of Cynical Theories, adapted by Rebecca Christiansen)

Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, ©2002, 248 pages

a short Book Report by Ron Housley (2.9.2023)


Here we have yet another book explaining what the Postmodernist academics call “Theory,” with a capital “T.” Just Theory. How smug.

This review is largely my report on what I have learned from this book about Theory, about its iterations, about its tenets and about its activism in our midst.

HERE ARE THE BASICS
What’s at play here is a set of academic ideas, crafted during the last hundred years, starting in the early 1920’s with the Frankfurt School and evolving beyond late 20th century Postmodernism and into the 21st century.

The set of ideas at issue here amounts to a fundamental denunciation of the “Age of Reason” Enlightenment ideas embraced by Western Civilization since the Renaissance — with reason, science, individualism and the equal rights of man as the leading concepts.

By the 2020s, respected and revered Enlightenment ideas were on the chopping block, being replaced by the “new” academic ideas — which were rampaging through the culture like a mob during a revolution, shouting down and destroying those who wouldn't toe the line, leaving them in the dust: demoted, fired, deplatformed, silenced, cancelled.

These academic ideas are referred to as “Theory,” of which there are many subgroups: critical race Theory, critical legal Theory, critical gender Theory, postcolonial Theory, postmodernism, poststructuralism, deconstruction, queer Theory, feminist Theory, intersectional feminist Theory, disability and fat studies.

Further, the political activism arm of these Theories is referred to as “Social Justice,” or “Critical Social Justice;” and the activists themselves are the “Social Justice Warriors.” All those who are awakened to the contentions of these Theories (i.e., awake to “systemic injustice”) are referred to as “Woke.” Those who write endlessly about Social Justice activism refer to their own writing as “Social Justice Scholarship.” (I haven’t seen much to support the case that what they have to say could qualify as “scholarship,” rather than as convoluted rantings.)


“CYNICAL THEORIES”
Back in 2020 Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay published their landmark “Cynical Theories,” their comprehensive book about Theory — its history, its nuances, its major contentions, its substantial and ongoing impact on our culture. This current volume, “Social (In)justice,” is presented as a distillation of that former work. I found “Social (In)justice” useful not only as a summary but as a vehicle to summarize and emphasize what’s actually important for us, as Theory continues to dominate all of our lives


POSTMODERNISM — THE IDEAS
The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of Postmodernism tells us that it is…

“…a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.”

Postmodernism’s vast academic literature relentlessly focuses on questioning Knowledge and Power. Its scholars and activists are obsessed with power, language, knowledge, and the relationship among them. Their worldview sees everything as a political struggle revolving around identity markers like race, sex, gender, sexuality.

Postmodernism first showed its face in mid-century in the arts and literature, but by the late 1960s it had reached the humanities and social sciences, including fields like psychoanalysis, linguistics, philosophy, history, and sociology.

Postmodernism’s claim to fame was their invention of the “Social Construct” — which was basically a concept excused from abiding by the rules of concept formation, a concept which was then able to take on new meaning in accordance with anyone’s whim of the moment. They were using the same vocabulary as before, but now they were attaching brand new definitions.

When, for example, Postmodernism severs the connection between “race” and biologic phenotype, it then turns around and contends that race is now a Social Construct identifying a conflict between oppressors (white) and the oppressed (black). Suddenly, social power dynamics is essential to the framing of race itself.

By eliminating the requirement that a legitimate concept must reflect observed similarities and differences, they are able to invent a Social Construct to take its place — where, for instance, a boy can be a girl by just making a declaration of feeling; or a girl can be a furry animal. The magic trick here is that the majority of academics have embraced replacing a legitimate concept with an arbitrary Social Construct, and the great unwashed unthinkingly follow suit.

In the last 60 years, Theory has spread through governments, corporations, media and through all of education, K thru Ph.D.


DENOUNCING REASON
The Postmodernists began promoting the notion that the attraction to reason and science was wrong because it marginalized nonrational, non-scientific knowledge production. As a result Postmodernism began to denounce and devalue white, Western “ways of knowing,” and to endorse marginalized, nonrational forms of knowledge in order to equalize the power imbalances between rational and nonrational. Sadly, no objective voices in the culture were able to mount a defense of rational philosophy in the face of Postmodernism’s onslaught.

Postcolonial Theory is an activism-oriented category within Postmodernism which focuses on offering “alternative ways of thinking” — for instance, suggesting that witchcraft and tribal folklore, or emotion, or interpretations of “lived experiences” be taken seriously in academia, and be given equal status with reason and logic.

Along with the postcolonialist Theory’s effort to expunge reason’s monopolistic hold on what qualifies as Knowledge, they promote the notion that Knowledge comes from the “lived experience” of the author’s identity group, as “differently positioned in society” to see different aspects of society. The Postmodernists promoting that outlook call themselves “decolonial scholars;” then they use their activism (e.g., smashing statues; tearing down paintings; rewriting history) in their quest to transform the culture — nudging all of us to rely on their version of Theory.

Postcolonial Theory regards Knowledge as a mere Social Construct of power maintained by language; and they see evidence and reasoned arguments as Western Social Constructs which are therefore oppressive and evil. In 2017 Time Magazine ran a cover-story: “Is Truth Dead?” The entire culture was taking the Postmodernists seriously(!).


HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
In the universities the “high deconstruction” phase, often called just “postmodernism,” blossomed in the period of the 1960s – 1980s. This is when academics began to mix their cultural critiques with the notion that everything we know is “socially constructed,” that knowledge is formed in order to keep the oppressors in power over the oppressed. They never saw any contradiction between contending that objective knowledge was unattainable, while at the same time contending that certain knowledge is constructed in the service of power.

Applied postmodernism’s “critical constructivism” phase played out from the 1980s to the mid 2000s, giving us a number of branches, including: postcolonial Theory, critical legal Theory, critical race Theory, critical gender Theory, queer Theory, etc.

Today’s reified postmodernism appears to be a flowering of these branches, meaning that the various theories and hypotheses from the past are now suddenly embraced and adopted as incontrovertible truths.

We have gone from early postmodernism arguing as skeptical relativists that objective truth is unattainable, to the present day position arguing that Critical Social Justice is certain and true, including:

(*) that segregated graduation ceremonies at prestigious universities (Columbia, Berkley, etc.) are a necessary accommodation to allow healing from racism;

(*) that separate black and white dormitories are necessary for the same reason;

(*) that we must treat all adolescent sexual questionings as signals of clinically confirmed gender dysphoria;

(*) that we must give boys access to girls’ locker rooms if they claim to identify as a girl;

(*) that we must house a convicted rapist in a female prison if the convict suddenly “identifies as female;”

(*) that we must support corporate bragging about diversity while firing employees who have a different outlook.

SOCIAL JUSTICE — THE ACTIVISM
“Critical Social Justice” believes that rights belong to groups, not to individuals. Along with their belief in “group rights,” the Social Justice worldview dismisses merit, truth and objectivity as mere tactics which have been adopted to consolidate power for cis-gendered white males. The Social Justice movement’s full-throated revolt against the “Age of Reason” has received widespread embrace by America’s early 21st century culture.

The authors caution us to note that the modifier, “critical,” in “Critical Social Justice” and in “critical Theory,” has a specific academic meaning related to “critique” and thus does not imply objective analysis as in “critical thinking.” Instead, “critical” denotes identifying problems in order to bring about revolutionary political change.

Many of us can sense that something has gone wrong, as the Critical Social Justice movement has rampaged through our lives without serious opposition. “Everyday citizens are increasingly confused about what’s happened to society and how it happened so quickly.” (p. 45) We are bombarded with demands to accept riots as if they were peaceful protests; with demands that we regard individualism itself as an ideology of racism (DiAngelo); with demands to accept that only white people can be racist.

The mental process of the Critical Social Justice movement asks us to remove critical thinking from the process of promoting critical Theory.



THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS
It was Theorist Herbert Marcuse’s intent back in the early 1970s that his students would insert themselves into all fields of study and into all fields of endeavor ---- spreading the ideology far and wide. The later postmodernists even articulated the metaphor of “infecting and spreading like a virus.” Their explicit goal was to take over the institutions of liberal society from within.

Now half a century after Marcuse’s marching orders to invade the cultural institutions, his deliberate activism project is nearly complete.

The Theorists have captured the commanding heights of education: K thru Ph.D.

The Theorists have carefully developed and nurtured a vast literature, formerly cloistered in the universities, whose activism has been successfully unleashed into the culture at large.

The Theorists must be gleeful that they have duped generations into denouncing legitimate concepts in favor of their socially constructed concoctions.

The Theorists have taken over institutions and education with legions of DEI officers enforcing race-based social edicts.

The Theorists have gained access to the world’s most productive enterprises by inserting rase-based ESG scoring criteria to govern corporate investing.

The Theorists are hoping that their “critical Theories” will continue to replace critical thinking long enough for revolutionary fervor to irreparably change the entire culture.

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay have made one more small effort, with this book, to foil the plan by exposing Theory to sunlight. Their effort may be too little, too late.

[Juny · Rating 3 out of 5]

No tengo mucho que decir. Fue una simple reescritura y un resumen bastante buenos de Cynical Theories. Sigo prefiriendo Cynical Theories porque proporciona más contexto, no omite detalles cruciales y es más formal.

- - -

(English)

I don't have much to say. It was a simple rewrite and a pretty good summary of Cynical Theories. I still prefer Cynical Theories because it provides more context, does not omit crucial details, and is more formal.

[Peter Hansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m glad this exists, it’s a more digestible form of cynical theories. I’m for anything that takes a stand for liberal principles, against the illiberalism on the left without embracing the illiberalism on the right.

[Caitlin Merritt · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book, because I largely agree with parts of the author's thesis: I do think that many of the now orthodox point of views in modern critical theory are too dogmatic, rigid and dismissive of nuance and dissent.

On a lot of levels, this book does work. It's accessible to the non-academic reader, it's thesis and arguments are cogent and clearly laid out and it's written persuasively. Unfortunately, I found it suffered from many of the same problems which it ascribes to the theories it critiques which undermines its usefulness.

The author's thesis posits that "critical social justice" in it's current form is hugely influenced by postmodernism and a consequential rejection of modernist or liberal theory.

I don't know a ton about postcolonial theory or queer theory (which are the first two major "theories" the author seeks to explain and delegitimize - these aren't areas I've studied, and so I found myself largely agreeing with the author's take that these theories lack cogency and are ultimately unhelpful in promoting scholarship, debate or activism in the areas they purport to try to understand and the communities they are meant to support.

But then I got to the chapters on critical race theory, feminism and gender studies, and ableism and fat studies, and started to recognize the articles, books and theorists the author is citing in support of her thesis - many of which I have read. In at least 25% of the cases, the author was either cherry-picking and deliberately misunderstanding or misstating the sources cited, or was correctly citing sources that are considered radical within those schools of thought and describing them as mainstream pedagogy. It may be higher than 25% - I haven't read all of the primary sources the author refers to. In at least two instances, the deliberate misunderstanding descended to the level of the author creating a straw man of the cited author's argument, which obviously undermines Pluckrose's credibility as an academic and trustworthy source of information.

As an example only, Pluckrose cites Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility, which is a book I've read multiple times and recommended - and deliberately misstates the central premise. DiAngelo states: "Being good or bad is not relevant. Racism is a multilayered system embedded in our culture." What DiAngelo is trying to do is separate morality from being complicit in racist structures that permeate society. Her point is that white people typically equate good with being not racist and bad with being racist, and so every time a white person is challenged on a position/idea/statement they have that is potentially racist, they feel as though their moral character is being attacked and respond defensively, which makes it really hard to have a productive conversation about racism in society and white people's role in perpetuating and/or dismantling it. This is what DiAngelo means by white fragility.

Instead of engaging with DiAngelo's argument that being racist is often unintentional and does not mean a white person is bad, and therefore when confronted with their own unconscious biases, white people should try to respond to criticism without becoming defensive, Pluckrose deliberately mischaracterizes the point as meaning "disagreement is not allowed."

That fits in well with Pluckrose's overall perspective and argument but comes across to me as obtuse at best and dishonest at worst.

What kills me about this book is that I'm not sure the author is wrong. In fact, she makes a lot of good points and I'm sure she's onto something, but she ultimately undermines her argument by trying to make ALL of critical theory fit into her narrow thesis...as a result, I suspect this book is only going to be convincing to people who haven't meaningfully engaged with the critical theories she is critiquing and further the divide between people who the "woke left" and the people who despise them.

[Chris Hansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

An explanation of the conflict - recommended reading

Liberalism and post-modernism are at odds. This text directs the post-modern belief system in comparison with traditional liberalism. It is an excellent read with significant references.

[Sandra]

Things continue moving in all the stupidest directions and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGEAF...

[Donald Arteaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

(This book is an abridged, much more accessible version of "Cynical Theories". This is the book version I'd recommend to the layman.)

What is “being Woke”?

If you’re befuddled at hearing words like "problematic", "oppression", “white privilege”, and “intersectionality” being used so often, this book is an brief introduction behind the intellectual origins of these terms.

But I must tell you upfront: the ideologies you will learn about in this book are needlessly convoluted and obscure. And this has little to do with the authors of this book. Lindsay Pluckrose and James Lindsay have done extensive research on the subjects they're sharing and provide a HUGE service shining a light on their problems.

Just take the inspiration of a few postmodern thinkers (e.g. Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Kimberle Crenshaw), add a dash of Marxist class struggle, add the commandment "thou shall not take someone's lived experience in vain" (standpoint theory), and take it upon yourself to be a disciple purging the world of anything you declare "problematic". There's a reason modern critics have compared wokeness to a secular religion.

The biggest problem is the ideologies themselves, ideologies that WANT to be needlessly confusing for the sake of political subversion. Unfortunately, individuals in the general public have come to believe these ideas are far more profound and insightful than they actually are. But when you break them down, boil down the primary ideas and arguments, many of them are quite simple, shallow even, and at outright illogical!

If I could summarize what you’ll read about in this book it would be: pretentious.

Truly, the Emperor has no clothes. And this book is a friendly reminder that just because someone uses big words and sounds "deep" doesn't mean they are. There’s a quote from Einstein: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩.” This quote wholeheartedly applies here.

One reason I read this book is because I’m seeing these ideas actually being taken seriously, not only in certain areas of academia but also in today’s social justice activism. To emphasize, this is NOT the social justice activism of Martin Luther King Jr. that embraced liberal values and progress through focusing on our common humanity.

This new Woke social justice (which the book terms "Critical Social Justice") is openly anti-liberal, revolutionary, echoing sentiments eerily similar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution. It’s an ideology which encourages people to see everyone through a lens of zero-sum power struggles. It’s an activism which encourages people to see everyone through a Freudian lens, but instead of being about unconscious sexual repression it’s now about unconscious racism (Critical Race Theory), unconscious heteronormativity (Queer Theory), unconscious patriarchy (Feminist Theory), unconscious colonialism (Postcolonial Theory), unconscious ableism (Fat Studies), etc.

This ideology is not a worldview that searches for truth. It searches for what it WANTS to be true. It starts with propositions (“Society is systemically racist!”) and then only seek evidence to confirm them, even when that evidence is based upon mere assumptions (“He said I am cute, therefore my lived experience says he has deeply-engrained sexism, which supports my belief that we live under a patriarchal capitalist society.”)

I recommend this book because, as the authors note, in order to combat bad ideas we need to fully understand the ideas we wish to combat. Whether Liberal or a Conservative, I recommend everyone give this book a read to make sense of it all..

Excerpt from the book:
“𝘈 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 ‘𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴,’ 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.

𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘺𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 — 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘰𝘣𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘰-𝘴𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘴𝘦𝘹, 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴.

𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘎𝘉𝘛 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺, ‘𝘊𝘺𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴’ 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘎𝘉𝘛 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘪��𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 [𝘞𝘰𝘬𝘦] 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴.”