Katherine Brodsky Is Not Sorry

An interview with the tough liberal writer of the anti-woke book 'No Apologies'

Ukraine-born Katherine Brodsky (@mysteriouskat on Twitter), is a liberal, but she has no patience for Woke Moose and Squirrel shenanigans

Last year in Budapest, the think tank for which I work, the Danube Institute, received a new visiting fellow: Katherine Brodsky, a Canadian writer. I was intrigued, in part because I knew her from her online reputation as a big ol’ liberal. Why was she coming for a spell to a conservative think tank? But Katherine has a reputation for standing up to cancel culture, and doing so from the Left. And she says in her writing that she is motivated by “curiosity, not ideology.” Naturally she wanted to come to Hungary to see what she could learn from the other side.

As it turned out, we became pals. She’s really smart, and funny, and strongly principled. In spite of my troglodytic pravoslavnie ways, I was delighted to find in her a friend who will always judge you not on your politics, but on the content of your character. That, and your interest in varenniki, the cherry-stuffed boiled dumplings beloved by Ukrainians.

Brodsky, who emigrated to Canada as a child from the Soviet Union, recently published No Apologies: How To Find And Free Your Voice In An Age Of Outrage — Lessons For The Silenced Majority, a book of practical advice for standing up to woke cancel culture. It’s a collection of interviews with a wide range of people who faced down the political mob, and held on to their integrity. For me, reading it was a stark reminder that the lessons these North Americans learned from experience are pretty much exactly the lessons that the Soviet dissidents in Live Not By Lies learned under Communist persecution. Indeed, Katherine says her parents warned her early on that what was rising in the West was like what their family fled, but she didn’t take this caution too seriously — and then it happened to her.

I spoke to Katherine recently from her home in Canada:

RD: This book is not just a matter of journalistic interest for you, but grew out of your own experience being cancelled. What happened?

KB: You’re right. A few years ago, I, too, went through the experience of an attempted “cancellation” and mobbing. My desire to write this book came as a response to not only my own experience, but also the many letters I got from others sharing both their own experiences with the righteous vigilante mob as well as the fear they experience when it comes to speaking out. There’s really no guidebook when it comes to dealing with experiences, but all of us who have been through it have learned a great deal—and by collecting their lessons, feelings, and experiences in a book, I hope it gives readers a greater sense of understanding of the issue itself, the importance of speech, and how they might deal with these situations themselves.

In my case, I was targeted in a private journalism group on Facebook that I ran. The group had over 30,000 members and focused on providing employment opportunities in the media for women, as well as resources and mentorship. But when a group member posted a job at Fox News, they were outraged and started attacking her. I chimed in asking members to refrain from personal attacks and keep away from politics. The whole thing exploded from there. I was called a “white supremacist” (even though I’m quite sure actual white supremacists aren’t particularly fond of the likes of me) and I was told that I’d just as soon let the KKK recruit through my group. I was sent threats and harassed. Doxxing attempts were made. People tried to reach out to my editors to tell them not to hire me again. There were many promises of destroying my career. I was called out during public panels, on social media, and more.

It was a deeply emotional and disturbing time.  I never anticipated anything like this, and I like to get along with people. But this experience definitely put me through it. It’s distant now, to some extent and I think I came out of it stronger, but I’m not going to lie and say that it was painless. It really hurt me and betrayed the trust I had in humans. Very few were willing to stand up for my publicly, even though privately they sent messages of support. Many distanced themselves not because they agreed with the accusations, but for self-preservation. Later, they acted like nothing ever happened.

But I found within myself a level perseverance and a backbone I didn’t know I had. I didn’t cower to the mob. I stood up to them, and wrote about my experience with the online bullies—and the importance of a respectful exchange of ideas—for Newsweek.

Today, I feel like I’m just able to be much more outspoken and direct about what I think, and I have more authentic relationships as result. I’ve been transformed by the experience and I learned that when it comes to certain principles, I’m willing to risk a lot more than I ever thought.

RD: One of the historical lessons that you say is once again playing out is that the silence of the majority allows a tiny minority of motivated bad actors to triumph. What do you mean?

KB: Look at our society. When comes to science—whether something like vaccines, or climate change (which I use as examples in my book)—there’s a fear of going against the grain. It’s the same with things like conversations around gender, diversity, and geopolitics. The problem is that as a society, we do not know if we are making the right decisions on these fronts, or are even presented with all the relevant information because there’s this silencing culture where the moderate voices are too often afraid to speak due to the heavy consequences for doing so, and those on either extreme of an issue have a monopoly on the discourse, because they are loud and aggressive. Are these really the people we want to be dictating our decisions and policies as a society? I certainly don’t.

RD: By the time I got to the end of your book, I was really struggling with contempt for all those people who would whisper to your interview subjects how they secretly stood with them, but would not come forward, though it might have done some good. What would your message be to the silent, decent majority in such cases?

KB: Look, I understand their fears. I had it too. To some extent, I always will. And it’s especially difficult when it comes to those who have dependents. So I never tell people what to do or put them down, because only they know their situations. But I’ll say this: What is it that you’re prepared to live with? What principles are non-negotiable? Are you okay seeing a friend you know doesn’t deserve to be destroyed…be taken out? Who are you if you can just watch that happen in silence? That’s a conversation each person has to have with themselves. It’s very clear that we got to this point in very large part because of the silence of others. We’ve tolerated this kind of bullying culture.

When I was a teen, I was bullied a lot. One particular incident sticks out because I had two friends next to me. And two bullies. I’m the only one who stood up for myself. Later, they apologized and shared with me how ashamed they were, but also how scared they were.

This is no different than what we’re seeing in culture today. At least the teenage bullies didn’t pretend it was for some virtuous reason.

But what would have happened that day if my two (now ex) friends had stood up for me?

RD: You talk to cancelled people from all walks of life about their experiences. It is striking how the main thing they all have in common is, to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, a refusal to live by lies. Last year, interviewing Czech anti-communist dissidents in Prague for the documentary we’re making, one old man seemed bemused that we Americans though him brave. He said something to the effect, “If you just set your mind to doing the right thing, everything is easy.” Is it as simple as a matter of having an unbreakable character?

KB: I think it’s a big part of it. I think you’ll find that a pattern amongst the people featured in my book emerges. It’s not that they are particularly courageous…they just can’t imagine doing things differently because of the principle of it. They are principled individuals. Well, most of them. That’s definitely something I’ve found to be quite consistent and really noticed as I was speaking with them for the book.

RD: Another thing that comes through strongly is the importance of having a sane community that keeps faith with you, no matter how small. This is something the Soviet-era dissidents told me as well. Why is this important?

KB: Community is one of those things that I’ve been thinking about a lot over the last number of years. I think we’ve lost a sense of community in large part and it’s behind many of the issues we’re facing today. I think people belong to tribes a lot, which require a cult-like adherence in their thinking. But when you curate your own community of people that match your values—like openness, kindness, willingness to engage in different ideas and forgive transgressions, think critically—whatever is important for you, it really protects you and gives you a sense of belonging that many of us are missing. One thing that is important, in my view, in the community you build, is healthy disagreement. I see a lot of freethinkers end up with many “yes men” and I think it causes them to become more extreme over time… I think you want, especially if you’re someone more public, to really encourage people to thoughtfully and politely disagree with you. And you should be willing to share when you’ve changed your mind or made an error. 

But beyond the broader public, I have a small community around me. They are friends I can trust and who have my best interests at heart. I can say something offensive or stupid (hopefully not often) and I’ll know that they won’t misinterpret it because they understand who I am at my core and that I don’t want to intentionally hurt anyone. We all have different views on things, life experience, etc, but we assume the best in each other and value an open exchange of ideas and feelings. Even if that’s two people, that can be enough.

RD: The destructive social dynamic you examine is ever-present in human community. What is it about the Internet that has boosted its power so much?

KB: I could write a book on this, but I think the biggest aspect is dehumanization. It’s just so much easier to write your own description of someone you’ve never met, and you can’t see their reactions—like when they feel hurt.  There’s little possibility of true empathy on the Internet, especially if you just see someone as an avatar. Most of the horrible things that get said online would never be uttered in person. And there’s also little consequences to someone insulting or dehumanizing someone on the Internet. You don’t have to face that person. So you don’t have to view them as a human. And add to that the viral nature of the Internet and how quickly you can amass a large group with pitchforks — it’s a problem. 

I’ll also add that pre-Internet, if you had a scandal, you could move to a new town. If it made it into the paper, it would be tossed aside soon enough. But today, you’ve got a massive digital footprint. We all do. So those of us who have engaged in any digital warfare now have it follow us everywhere. It doesn’t help when it comes to employment.  People don’t have such long memories, but the Internet does. This is a modern problem.

RD: You make an important observation: that we don’t need formal, top-down, state totalitarianism to achieve totalitarianism, if people are willing to police themselves for Bad Thoughts. Explain what you mean.

KB: There’s no need for overt state enforcement if people voluntarily conform to oppressive ideologies and behaviors, policing themselves—often defined by those in power, even if not directly.  And like we discussed earlier, power isn’t always about the state—it’s also those on the fringes who are willing to, essentially, bully others into submission. They don’t necessarily need to use force. We are social creatures, so social ostracism, condemnation, and shaming are all really powerful tools when it comes to suppressing dissenting views that might goes against a seemingly prevailing ideology.

Taken a step further, with “cancel culture,” there’s also the threat of a person not adhering to some rigid standard of language and behavior losing their career or reputation they’ve carefully established for years. Some people, I think, don’t even allow themselves to consider ideas outside those echoes within their own echo chamber because they know that some of them won’t stand scrutiny, and it’s easier to just go along to get along…so they shut down their critical thinking faculties. All of this has a chilling effect on speech and the exchange of ideas. And, as you know, shutting down dissent is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship and totalitarianism.

RD: One of the most important things you discovered is the importance of making friends and allies across ideological boundaries. The soft totalitarianism of wokeness has enabled me to make friends on the pro-liberty left that I might not have otherwise done. One well-known gay journalist told me that they never imagined they would be on the same side as right-wing Christian me on anything, but here we are, standing shoulder to shoulder, against the woke mob. What lessons have you learned on this front?

KB: Yes, I ended up talking to people I never imagined as result of this too. I think initially I really embraced all of those who were speaking so freely and standing up to “wokeness” but I’ve learned to be more cautious over time. I try to look at people not from a point-of-view of ideology, but rather principles. I saw people who were fighting “woke” using the same tactics and engaging in the same behaviors as the people they were opposing. That doesn’t sit well with me.

So I look now at how people behave more than just their views. Are they willing to engage in good faith with anyone who also does? Do they maintain a certain moral decorum even when others don’t, or do they sink to the same lows? Do they crave power and attention? Are they willing to change their minds and publicly admit it? Are they only drawn to populist narratives at the expense of all else that perhaps has a great impact on our society? Are they willing to acknowledge when “the other side” makes a good point or does something right? Are they willing to criticize their own? Do they stand by people? Are they honest?

Those are just some of the criteria I look for these days. I’ve seen some people truly stand up for the principles I value, but also have heard a number openly admit that the only reason they want freedom of speech is because they are the ones being suppressed, and once they have control, they want to curb it in the way they think is best. That terrified me, but also taught me a lot about human nature and power.

RD: It was so depressing to face, in the testimonies of some of your subjects, how very lost both journalism and publishing are to woke conformity. What does this make you think of the future of writers like yourself, a curious and open-minded liberal?

KB: I’m not going to lie — it’s very difficult for someone like me. I’m not willing to tow anybody’s line. But not just that, I’m not willing to engage in sensationalism. So on the one hand, if I want to write what I want to — there really are not many places for me to go.  But a vast majority of those who have gone the fully independent way and succeeded financially? To some extent, I find that they are either captured by their audience, or an ideological perspective that’s popular. I find that readers who are willing to pay are often keen on supporting causes rather than just curious, non-partisan journalism. I understand that to an extent, but it makes it difficult for those who are in my category. 

There are, of course, exceptions and something like The Free Press tries maintain a certain balance. But it’s not an easy path. I have an idea for a venture, which may or may not end up working. But I hope to see the institutions change too. It’s a tough road ahead, but I know for a fact that I’m not the only liberal journalist who believes in curiosity and pursuit of truth as the North Star. We just need more of them to fight for it and openly speak up—especially those in positions of some influence — like editors. I try to maintain hope because the alternative sucks.

Oh, and check out my Substack.

RD: Finally, the title of your book, No Apologies, sums up the main message: never apologize if you think you have done nothing wrong. Many of us have the sense that we should apologize, even if we think we did nothing wrong, as a gesture of conciliation. But over and over, your subjects say that we are facing a new religion here, one in which there is no redemption.

KB: I’ll start by saying that I’m an utter people pleaser. But I can also be stubborn. For me, apologizing is easy if I’m at fault. And, I mean, I’m Canadian. But when it comes to apologizing when I don’t feel I’ve done anything wrong — I definitely have some weird stubbornness there. You’ve cited Alexander Solzhenitsyn earlier, “live not by lies.” I think that’s where it comes from for me: I cannot stand to lie. Like anyone, I’m capable, but I really really have a hard time tolerating it—especially when it comes to something important.

But many people do tend to apologize, even when they don’t think they are wrong, because they think that they will be spared. If they take on what they are accused of, they think they’ve appeased their accusers. But that’s rarely so. You’ve now given them tremendous power over you. Willingly. Now they see you as weak. And they view themselves as both right and powerful — which means that once they are done with you, it will only get worse for the next target.

Consider this: What kind of person demands or feels entitled to an apology for something that wasn’t even done to them? By answering that question, you’ll begin to understand who you’re really dealing with. It’s not about accountability, redemption, self-reflection, or protecting society. It’s about power.

---

You can buy No Apologies in both hardcover and Kindle format by clicking here, though why not go to your local bookstore? Also, you can subscribe to Katherine’s Substack here, and follow her on Twitter here. I think she’s on Instagram too, but I refuse to believe that anybody uses Instagram, so you’ll have to go find her there your own self. That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it, and I ain’t sorry one bit!