War on Humanity and Earth and the US-Israeli Moral, Intellectual and Political Bankruptcy by Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

The US-Israel War on Mankind and Fear of the Future

Wars are paradoxes of conflicting political and individualistic interests - gains in the present and loss in the future. At times America supports Israel’s war on Iran and the Arab world as if a child of a surrogate mother but knows little of what puzzles are in play by PM Netanyahu’s naive egoism. The unwarranted war has global consequences of systematic socio-economic and political destabilization and degeneration. The war unleashed dreadful tragedies which could result in goading humanity unthinkably to catastrophic ends. Wars and continued conflicts are lifelines for the Israeli leadership. It is widely reported that the current war against Iran was instigated by PM Netanyahu for his own political survival and re-election Israel.

After Gaza, occupied West Bank territories, border towns of Syria, Iran and Lebanon are the latest victims of collaborated hegemonic war by Israel. The ceasefire and protection of civilians are daily violated by Israel without any check. The people and nations once colonized remain colonized forever in time, traditions and history. A recent revelation by American ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee (interview with Tucker Carlson, 02/22/26), exposes the monstrous claim: “Israel would be justified in taking over a vast stretch of the Middle East on Biblical grounds.... from Nile to Euphrates.”Tucker Carlson, asked Huckabee whether Israel had a right to an area which the host said was, according to the Bible, "essentially the entire Middle East". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5gkkgdzkyo

The ruling Arab elite have no idea of whether living in the present, past and how the future is going to be sustainable? Instigating the unwarranted war on Iran, America and Israel would entice and entrap the oil producing Arab states of UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to react with military actions against Iran. They would watch and coordinate as America occupied the Arabian states with its own military bases causing deaths and destruction of the whole Arab region. America and Israel would not put boots on but conspire to engage Arab-Iran battles. Huckbee would be foretelling the outcomes as Arab and Iran could go on fighting and ending in demise of the Muslim world. Israel’s death grip (AIPAC) on the US political system is also documented in “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

An Israeli Professor and Rabbi of Philosophy and Religions narrates his story to this author, why he left Israel seeking a new life in Canada.There was no peace and normalcy in life.... Jews are divided, atheist, secular, Zionists and lost precepts of the faith of Moses - the Divine Judaism. Israeli leaders are misleading people for their own political power, not for the good of Israeli masses or for peace or a sustainable future. Israel, to the Rabbi, could be at an edge of unknown disasters of survival in the Middle East unless it rethinks and reshapes its policies and practices to co-exist with the people of Palestine.

Israel Pursues Political Objectives by Military Assaults

The UNO was supposed to be the body to stop this war to ensure civilian safety and security and try to embark on a peaceful resolution. But it working is at standstill as the US and Israel have made it impotent to play any useful role in global peace and security. Gaza and West Bank territories are the scene of insane cruelty and daily killings by the IDF. Suspicious and embittered PM Netanyahu unleashing violent assumptions of hatred, animosities for his own political survival, Are the Israeli leaders purging America and its history of national freedom and democratic values?

America and Israel are fearful of the phenomenon of change as it could make them obsolete and misfit for the future even with all the imaginary power and monetary influence. They are bewildered with no sense of time, strengths and weaknesses - how to collaborate for an uncertain future. Do civilizations grow out of moral mire, tyranny and military conquests? America according to its thinking hubs lost more than it gained by supporting Israel unequivocally.Sigmund Freud(Civilization and its Discontent, 1930), noted that: “the inclination to aggression is an original self-subsisting instinctual disposition in man, and that it constitutes the greatest impediment to civilization.” Consequent to the Israeli bloodbath of civilians in Gaza, all futuristic imagination of peace with Arabs is gone. Was the discovery of “oil” an obsession - a stigma, a conspiracy (“fitna”) to forfeit the Arab culture and Islamic civilization? Please see: “How Arab Leaders Betray Islam and Defy the Logice of Political Change, Peace and Security.” https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2023/10/07/how-did-arab-leaders-betrayed-islam-and-defied-the-logic-of-political-change-peace-and-security.php

Every beginning has its end but nothing in sight how America wants to end the war and how Israel prefers its own agenda to surprise the American political intellect.  Jerome Irwin (“America Is Israel, Israel Is America, and the Military-Industrial Corporate Fascism Is What It Is”: Global Research: 3/01/24), author of The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey, a  criminology professional and a Canadian-American former CIA agent explains: https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-israel-israel-america-military-industrial-corporate-fascism/5851096 What is happening today to the Palestinians in their former homelands of Palestine can be likened to what happened to indigenous Indians, Black slaves and Mexican peasants in the 18^th & 19^th century history books of America and Canada’s Wild West or Southern ante-bellum states. ......Yet now in 2024, thanks to America’s latest shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel’s settler-colonial racist apartheid state, its Zionists are able to even more effectively kill or wipe out whole families, villages, refugee camps and settlements of Palestinians; ruthlessly pushing aside, or totally removing, whatever still recalcitrant defenders still remain in their former territories.

The Earth is a  Divine Trust to Humanity Those Bombing the Earth are Ignorant and Insane People

The earth is living and spins at 1670 km per hour and orbits the Sun at 107,000 km per hour. Imagine, if this spinning fails, what consequences could occur to the living beings on Earth. Think again, about the average distance of earth from moon is 93 million miles -the distance of Moon from Earth is currently 384,821 km equivalent to 0.002572 Astronomical Units. Earth is a “trust” to mankind for its existence, sustenance of life, survival, progress and future-making. Wherever there is a trust, there is accountability. The Divine warning (Chapter 7: 56: The Quran), warns:Do no mischief on the Earth after it hath been set in order, but call on God with fear and longing in hearts; For the Mercy of God is always near to those who do good. (44:38-39), the reminder is explicit: We created not the Heavens and the Earth; And all between them merely in idle sport. We created them not, Except for just ends. But most of them do not understand. The Divine Message  (Quran:40:64),clarifies:   It is God Who made for you the Earth as a resting place and the sky as a canopy; And has given you shape and made your shapes beautiful, And has provided for your Sustenance, of things pure and good; Such is God your Lord. So Glory to God, The Lord of the Worlds.

And killing of innocent people is prohibited in the Ten Commandments (Torah):

'Thou shalt not kill' (Exod. 20:13; also Deut. 5:17). Jewish law views the shedding of innocent blood very seriously, and lists murder as one of three sins (along with idolatry and sexual immorality), that fall under the category of yehareg ve'al ya'avor - meaning "One should let himself be killed rather than violate it."According to Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague: ‘Jewish law forbids the killing of innocent people, even in the course of a legitimate military engagement.

The War on Gaza is a stigma of political survival for PM Netanyahu as the Ultra Nationalist groups aligned with him continuously violate the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Arab-Muslim leaders are simply the spectators watching the provocations. Please see: “Al-Aqsa Mosque Waiting for the Arab Leaders.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57491.htm 

Intelligent leaders always heed voices of reason and rational advice but American and Israeli’s  warmongering and crimes against humanity are contrary to the Nature of Things. Netanyahu and Trump both lack the capacity and foresight to end the war or win the unthinkable consequences. Our failure to grasp the compelling realities of Israeli atrocities against the helpless 2.5 million civilians of Gaza makes us feel to be standing at some of the darkest timeline of history. The time and opportunities call for urgent rethinking and reshaping  of new visions and creative ideas to reject violence, genocide and vengeance as contrary to the nature of humanity, peace and intellect. We, the People of Global Conscience and thinkers share seamless common bonds of truth, universal morality and being One Humanity and must reject tyranny of war and genocide as a means to solve political problems and stand united to facilitate dialogue and globalization of one people for conflict resolution and peace-making.

---

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution and has spent several academic years across the Russian-Ukrainian and Central Asian regions knowing the people, diverse cultures of thinking and political governance and a keen interest in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including: Global Humanity and Remaking of Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution for the 21st Century and Beyond, Barnes and Noble Press, USA, 2025 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/global-humanity-and-remaking-of-peace-security-and-conflict-resolution-for-the-21st-century-and-beyond-mahboob-a-khawaja/1147150197 and We, The People in Search of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Kindle Direct Publishing-Amazon, USA: 2025 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F6V6CH5W

---

Check Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD. eBOOK,
Wars on Humanity:
Ukraine, Palestine and the role of Global Leaders
HERE!

Rollercoaster #poem by Abigail George

“Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind.
The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind.”
Henry James

Dear King,
You’re made of glass
Glass toes

Glass hands
Glass elbows, glass neck
your nose is a lake

You play with the duck
in the blue lung of bathwater’s
wet molecule

You follow my instructions
call me teacher
and something

quietly erupts within me
fades away into dark chocolate

You wail, Vertigo!
and reach for the Starship Enterprise
of my mother

Tourist, your shoebox
of toys turns into hours of silence
A white bunny

on a shelf
You read the ingredients on the back
of the petroleum jelly label

(six verses follows on next page)
You wipe a sea
of brown sticky fingers
on my dress

in the runny apricot
jam tin a cloud nestled in subtle orange light

The wood is salt,
a map, a fire extinguisher

Inside your brown eyes, exists a ballroom
your tears, salt, light

I want you to remember
that you summoned the ancestors

with the wave
of your little hand, that is all it took
for democracy

The persistence of belief by Abbie O'Connor

It is one of the more perplexing features of modern American politics that Donald Trump continues to command fierce loyalty from millions of voters despite a record that, to his critics, appears riddled with contradictions, failures, and moral dissonance. The explanation is not simple ignorance, nor is it purely ideological alignment. It is something deeper, more emotional, and far more resilient than facts alone.

For many supporters, Trump is not merely a political figure, he is a symbol. Symbols are powerful precisely because they are not easily dismantled by evidence. When critics point to economic instability, controversial foreign policy decisions, or legal troubles, including convictions and associations that raise ethical questions, supporters often interpret these not as disqualifications but as attacks from a system they already distrust. In this framing, every accusation reinforces the narrative that Trump is an outsider under siege.

The paradox becomes even sharper when examining the values often attributed to him: Christian, family-oriented, patriotic. These are not casual labels; they are identity markers deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of many American communities. Yet the tension between these ideals and Trump’s personal history is frequently dismissed or rationalized. Why? Because for his base, these labels are less about personal conduct and more about perceived alignment in a broader cultural struggle.

Trump speaks in a language that resonates emotionally. He frames issues in stark, binary terms: us versus them, strength versus weakness, patriotism versus betrayal. This rhetorical simplicity cuts through the noise of complex policy debates and appeals directly to people who feel overlooked or dismissed by traditional political discourse. In doing so, he offers not just political positions, but validation.

There is also a sense of defiance embedded in his support. Backing Trump has, for many, become an act of resistance against elites, political, media and cultural. Criticism from these institutions often has the unintended effect of strengthening his appeal. The more he is condemned by figures perceived as part of the establishment, the more his supporters feel justified in standing by him.

None of this means that facts are irrelevant. Rather, it highlights a fundamental truth about human behavior: people do not make decisions based solely on evidence. Identity, emotion, and belonging often outweigh objective analysis. When political allegiance becomes intertwined with personal identity, changing one’s mind is not just an intellectual shift, it feels like a betrayal of self.

This is the challenge facing those who oppose Trump. Simply presenting more evidence or amplifying criticism is unlikely to sway those who view him as a champion of their values and grievances. If anything, it may deepen the divide.

Understanding this dynamic does not require agreement, but it does demand recognition. Trump’s enduring support is not an accident or a mystery. It is the result of a political environment where trust is fractured, identities are entrenched, and belief, once formed, proves remarkably resistant to change.

AntySaurus Prick #129 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Dino is a vegetarian virgin dinosaur and his best friend is Anty,
a carnivorous nymphomaniac ant.
They call themselves the AntySaurus Prick and they are still here
waiting for the comet to come!

For more AntySaurus Prick, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

A superpower’s uneasy mirror by Thanos Kalamidas

There is a pattern in Donald Trump’s posture toward Europe that is too consistent to dismiss as improvisation. The troop reductions in Germany, the tariff threats against European industries, the rhetorical jabs at Spain and Italy, even the theatrical suggestion of siding with Argentina over the Falklands. These are not isolated provocations. They form a worldview. And at its core lies something less strategic than it is psychological, a deep discomfort with a Europe that acts as one.

Trump’s politics have always thrived on asymmetry. He prefers bilateral relationships where leverage can be applied directly, where pressure can be personalized, where outcomes can be framed as wins or losses. A fragmented Europe fits neatly into that approach. A united Europe does not. The European Union, for all its bureaucratic inertia and internal disagreements, represents something Trump instinctively resists, a rules-based bloc that negotiates collectively, sets standards, and dilutes the kind of transactional bargaining he favors.

This is why the economic argument, often cited by Trump himself, feels incomplete. Yes, trade imbalances matter. Yes, American administrations across party lines have long criticized aspects of European trade policy. But Trump’s rhetoric goes further. It is not merely about correcting terms; it is about undermining the structure that allows Europe to negotiate as a peer. Tariffs, in this context, are less about steel or cars and more about signalling that the United States will not passively accept a competitor that can match its regulatory and economic weight.

There is also a strategic layer that is harder to ignore. A more cohesive Europe, especially one that deepens its defence coordination, inevitably raises questions about NATO’s future balance. For decades, American power has been amplified by alliances in which Washington sets the tone. A Europe that invests seriously in its own security architecture and speaks with one voice, introduces a subtle shift. It becomes less dependent, less predictable and from a certain perspective, less controllable.

Trump’s instinct, then, is not necessarily fear in the traditional sense. It is resistance to a redistribution of influence. His foreign policy has consistently favoured a hierarchy with the United States at the unquestioned top. A united Europe complicates that hierarchy. It does not replace American leadership, but it demands negotiation rather than deference. For a leader who measures success in dominance rather than balance, that distinction matters.

At the same time, it would be a mistake to romanticize Europe’s position in this dynamic. The European Union has often struggled to articulate its own strategic identity. Internal divisions, over fiscal policy, migration, defence spending, have made it an easy target for external pressure. Trump’s approach exploits those fractures. His criticisms resonate in part because they touch on real inconsistencies within the European project. The challenge for Europe is not merely to respond to American pressure but to resolve its own ambiguities.

What makes this moment particularly striking is how openly the tension is expressed. Previous administrations might have pursued similar objectives, pressuring allies on spending, pushing for better trade terms but they did so within a framework that emphasized partnership. Trump strips away that language. He frames allies as competitors, agreements as zero-sum, and diplomacy as a series of transactions. In doing so, he reveals a belief that alliances are valuable only insofar as they reinforce American primacy.

So the question is not whether the United States needs Europe. It clearly does, economically and strategically. Nor is it whether Europe depends on the United States. That interdependence remains undeniable. The real question is whether the relationship can evolve beyond a model rooted in post-war assumptions. Trump’s answer appears to be no. He does not seek adaptation; he seeks recalibration in America’s favour.

If there is unease in Washington about a united Europe, it is not because such a Europe would destroy the American economy. It is because it would force the United States to share the stage in ways that feel unfamiliar. And for a political philosophy built on winning, sharing has always looked suspiciously like losing.

Uninvited guests by Mia Rodríguez

Two US citizens, reportedly tied to the CIA, die in a car crash in northern Mexico and suddenly the silence that usually cloaks intelligence work gives way to something louder; anger, suspicion and a familiar sense of intrusion. The operation they were linked to, an anti-drug raid in Chihuahua, was apparently unknown to Mexico’s own federal government. That detail alone tells you almost everything about why this incident has struck a nerve.

Sovereignty, after all, is not an abstract principle. It is the basic expectation that what happens within a nation’s borders is not orchestrated by outsiders acting unilaterally, however noble their stated aims. When that expectation is violated, even in the name of fighting drug cartels, the message received is not one of partnership but of disregard. Mexico’s reaction, particularly from its president, has been predictably sharp, but also justified. This is not simply about two lives lost in a tragic accident. It is about a pattern.

The CIA carries with it a long, complicated reputation in Latin America, one that is not easily softened by time or rhetoric. From Cold War interventions to more recent allegations of covert influence, the agency has often operated in ways that blur the line between cooperation and manipulation. In that historical context, even a narrowly focused anti-drug mission begins to look less like assistance and more like a familiar script being replayed. The suspicion is not that every operation is malicious, but that the logic behind them rarely prioritizes local autonomy.

What makes this case particularly combustible is the lack of transparency, not only after the fact, but beforehand. If Mexico’s federal authorities were indeed unaware of the raid, then the issue is not miscommunication; it is exclusion. That exclusion undermines trust, and without trust, cross-border cooperation becomes performative at best. It also raises uncomfortable questions about accountability. Who authorized the operation? Under what legal framework? And perhaps most importantly, who gets to decide what risks are acceptable when those risks unfold on someone else’s soil?

There is a tendency in Washington to view the fight against narcotics as a shared battle that justifies extraordinary measures. But shared battles require shared decision-making. Otherwise, they are simply unilateral campaigns dressed up as collaboration. Mexico has its own institutions, its own strategies, and its own political realities. Ignoring those in favor of covert action does not strengthen the fight against drug trafficking; it complicates it, introducing diplomatic friction where coordination is most needed.

At the same time, it would be too simple to reduce the situation to a morality play of foreign overreach versus national dignity. Drug cartels operate across borders with a fluidity that governments struggle to match. They exploit legal gaps, corrupt officials, and move with a speed that bureaucracies cannot easily replicate. This creates a constant pressure for more aggressive, more unconventional responses. Intelligence agencies thrive in that space. But thriving there does not absolve them of the consequences when their actions collide with political realities.

The crash in Chihuahua has, in a grim way, forced a conversation that might otherwise have remained buried. It has exposed the fragile architecture of U.S.-Mexico cooperation, where public agreements coexist uneasily with private operations. It has also reminded both countries that even the most secretive missions can have very public repercussions.

In the end, the question is not whether intelligence agencies should be involved in combating transnational crime. They already are, and likely always will be. The question is whether they can do so without eroding the very partnerships that make such efforts sustainable. If the answer continues to be murky, then incidents like this will not be anomalies. They will be symptoms.

The breakaway barrel by Zakir Hall

A major Gulf producer stepping away just as global oil markets are rattled by conflict in Iran and threats to the Strait of Hormuz feels, to many observers, less like coincidence and more like strategic choreography. But that interpretation may be too clean for a world where energy politics is rarely that neat.

In reality, the UAE’s exit is less about a sudden reaction to war and more about a long-building fracture within OPEC itself. For years Abu Dhabi has signalled frustration with production quotas that it sees as increasingly misaligned with its expanding capacity and investment ambitions. The UAE is no longer simply an oil-dependent state seeking price stability; it is a capital-rich, globally integrated economy that views oil as one lever among many. Leaving OPEC is therefore not an emotional break, but a structural one.

Still, timing matters in geopolitics even when it is not the primary driver. The current turbulence in global energy markets, driven by disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and heightened regional conflict, has created exactly the kind of volatility where independent producers gain leverage. By stepping outside the cartel, the UAE frees itself from collective output discipline at a moment when flexibility is most valuable. That does not automatically mean it will flood the market or crash prices but it does mean it can respond faster than OPEC-bound competitors.

The irony is that this move may weaken the very stability OPEC was designed to protect. For decades, the organization functioned as a pressure valve, smoothing supply decisions among members who often had competing national interests. The UAE’s exit exposes how fragile that consensus has become. If one of the largest and most technologically advanced Gulf producers no longer sees value in coordinated restraint, others may begin to question it as well.

Yet it would be simplistic to frame this as OPEC’s collapse or the UAE’s opportunistic “walkout” in response to war-driven price spikes. Oil markets are not chessboards where a single move dictates outcome. They are layered systems shaped by investment cycles, shipping routes, financial speculation, and geopolitical fear premiums. The Strait of Hormuz crisis may amplify prices today, but structural shifts like this redefine how those shocks are absorbed tomorrow.

There is also a subtler strategic calculation at play. Independence from OPEC allows the UAE to pursue long-term production goals without negotiating internal compromises. In a world where energy demand remains uneven but persistent, being unconstrained may be more valuable than being coordinated. The country is effectively betting that agility will outperform cartel discipline over time.

So the “strange timing” is not necessarily evidence of orchestration. It is evidence of convergence, where long-developing internal tensions meet external crisis and appear suddenly synchronized.

What looks like a dramatic exit in the middle of a storm may, in fact, be a state choosing to sail on its own course precisely because storms are now expected, not exceptional.

Berserk Alert! #103 #Cartoon by Tony Zuvela

 

Tony Zuvela and his view of the world around us in a constant berserk alert!
For more Berserk Alert! HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Sigmund Freud: A Sense of Mission in Troubled Times by Rene Wadlow

It is then, a commonplace that the psychoanalyst must be aware of the historical determinants of what made him what he is before he can hope to perfect that human gift: the ability to understand that which is different from him.”
                                                  Erik Erikson (1902-1994)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) whose birth anniversary we note on 6 May, had a sense of mission in an increasingly troubled time.  He needs to be seen as challenged by the issues of his time and yet also dealing with aspects of the human condition that are “timeless” − thus his use of Greek myths to illustrate continuing relations among people.  Freud's sense of mission also was reflected in his desire to have close “co-workers” and so the development of a close circle.  The influence of Freud is seen in the lives and activities of those of his circle. Some, like Carl Gustav Jung and Wilhelm Reich, went on to other approaches.  Some such as his daughter Anna developed specific applications of Freudian thought, in her case, childhood development. Erik Erikson, one of the few non-medical members of “the circle” developed a cycle of life approach that is an important contribution both to individual growth and to the making of social policy.

The cycle of life is the most universal structure for societies worldwide. All societies recognize that there is a progression from birth toward sexual maturity which results in some form of marriage union, moving on to old age and death.  At each of these stages, there is a form of public recognition that the person has reached this stage.  There are often rituals which accompany the shift from one stage to the next.

These rituals have been stressed by one of the 'fathers' of European anthropology, Arnold Van Gennep (1873-1957) in his 1909 study Rites de passage. (1) There is a need for rituals  as the progress from one life stage to the next is always resisted.  While the next stage of life usually has higher prestige and power, there is also a sense of loss of the comfort ot the earlier stage − what has often been called a “mid-life crisis” as older men look longingly at younger women. The life-cycle approach also highlights the linked nature of economic and social issues such as those of women attempting to combine family and marriage, work and possible activities in the wider community.

In terms of social policy, awareness of the cycle of life encourages flexible but secure labor policies such as phased retirement, better integration of women into the workforce and men into the lives of families so as to promote gender equality, inter-generational care and opportunities for resourceful aging. (2)

Erik Erikson has been a leading writer on the psychological aspects of each stage of life, developing an eight-stage cycle of life approach. One of Erikson's most widely-read books is Gandhi's Truth. (3) Erikson had been invited to India to lecture on his cycle of life approach in the light of the classic Hindu model which does not make as many sub-divisions between childhood and marriage. The categories of adolescence are a modern and largely Western concept. Nevertheless, adolescence is one period on which Erikson has focused. (4) In the first part of Gandhi's Truth he sets out both the traditional Hindu and his own divisions. It is interesting to study the two life-cycle divisions and the appropriate values for each period of life.

Erikson was part of the circle around Sigmund Freud in Vienna after the First World War. Originally, he was part of the circle as a teacher of the children of psychoanalysists working with Freud and the children of clients who had come to Vienna from other countries to be treated by Freud and his collaborators. Erikson had been trained in the Montessori techniques of early childhood education.

Anna, the daughter of Freud, was particularly interested in the psychological development of children and came to admire Erikson's teaching methods. She suggested to Erikson that he become a psychoanalyst for children and that she would do his psychoanalysis, a necessary first step before being able to practice as a psychoanalyst.

By the mid-1930s, many in Freud's circle saw the dangers of the growing Nazi ideology and started leaving Austria and Germany. Although Erikson did not think of himself as Jewish and had no religious practice of any sort, his mother came from a well-known Danish Jewish family and his stepfather was a Jewish medical doctor. The Nazis had a wide definition of who was a Jew. Therefore Erikson and his Canadian wife left Europe for the United States.

Although he had no medical degree − in fact no university degree of any sort − being part of the Freud circle opened doors. He was invited to teach and do research at the Harvard Medical School. He later taught at Yale. (5).  At these universities and as he was increasingly invited to speak at conferences, Erikson met the leading figures in both psychoanalysis and in the study of human  development.

For Erikson, each stage of life presents certain challenges which must be faced.  Each distinct stage of the life cycle is characterized by the ambiguous transitional period in which an individual becomes a more integrated member of the community.  No society allows an individual to confront the tensions, fears and anxieties posed by this transition.  However, for Erikson, transition is not only a moment of anxiety and of 'identity crisis'  but there is always a potential for growth, for moving to a higher level of consciousness. If there is not this psychological-spiritual growth, the person may be deformed by what Erikson called “the curse of unlived potentialities.”

 ********************************************

Notes and further readings
1) Arnold Van Gennep. Rites de passage
2) See Theodore Litz. The Person, his development throughout the Life Cycle.
3) Erik Erikson. Gandhi's Truth
4) See Erik Erikson. Childhood and Society (1950) and Erik Erikson. Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968). See also for a related approach: Jules Masserman. Youth – a transcultural psychiatric approach.
5) For a good biography of Erikson written by a fellow put younger psychoanalyst, see Robert Coles. Erik Erikson (l970). See also Robert Wallerstein and Leo Goldberger (Eds) Ideas and Identities. The Life and Work of Erik Erikson

 ********************************************

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Marx cousins #026 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Groucho Marx attempts to seduce Karl Marx’s beard,
only to be met with a scathing analysis of capitalism
disguised as a poorly-aimed spittoon.

For more Marx Cousins, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The convenient fiction of “outside forces” by Eze Ogbu

Recent findings of a commission appointed by Tanzania’s president, Samia Suluhu Hassan, are a case in point. More than 500 people, it concludes, were killed in violence surrounding last October’s election. That number alone is staggering. Yet what is more striking than the figure is the explanation offered, “trained agitators,” aided by vague “outside forces,” are to blame.

This narrative is as familiar as it is convenient. It shifts responsibility away from the state and onto shadowy, undefined actors. It reassures supporters that the government remains fundamentally innocent, merely reacting to chaos instigated by others. And it attempts to close the door on further scrutiny by offering a seemingly definitive account. But such explanations rarely withstand serious examination.

Human-rights groups and opposition figures paint a starkly different picture. They argue that the real death toll is likely much higher and that the majority of victims were killed not by rogue agitators but by the very security forces tasked with maintaining order. If that assessment is even partially accurate, the implications are profound. It would mean that the state was not a bystander to violence but its principal agent.

The commission’s framing raises immediate questions. Who exactly were these “trained agitators”? Where were they trained? What evidence links them to “outside forces”? The absence of specificity is telling. Vague accusations are politically useful precisely because they are difficult to disprove. They create an atmosphere of suspicion without requiring substantiation. In doing so, they allow governments to claim both victimhood and authority at once.

But ambiguity cannot mask reality indefinitely. Tanzania, once regarded as a relatively stable and moderate political environment in East Africa, has in recent years shown troubling signs of democratic backsliding. Elections have grown more contested, opposition voices more constrained, and the space for dissent increasingly narrow. In such a climate, it strains credibility to suggest that large-scale violence erupted primarily due to external manipulation rather than internal repression.

There is also the matter of accountability. A commission appointed by the very leadership under scrutiny is unlikely to deliver conclusions that fundamentally challenge that leadership. This is not a reflection on the individuals involved so much as on the structural limitations of such inquiries. True accountability requires independence, not just in name but in practice. Without it, investigations risk becoming exercises in narrative management rather than truth-seeking.

President Hassan came to power with cautious optimism surrounding her leadership. She was seen by many as a potential reformer, someone who might steer Tanzania toward greater openness after years of increasing authoritarianism. That promise now hangs in the balance. Leadership is tested not in moments of calm, but in moments of crisis, particularly when the state itself stands accused.

Dismissing criticism as politically motivated or externally driven may offer short-term relief, but it comes at a long-term cost. Trust, once eroded, is difficult to rebuild. Citizens who believe their government is unwilling to acknowledge wrongdoing are less likely to accept its authority, even in legitimate matters. The result is a deeper fracture between state and society.

The international community, too, faces a familiar dilemma. Strategic partnerships and regional stability often temper the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Yet silence, or tepid responses, can be interpreted as tacit approval. If over 500 people have indeed been killed and if credible voices suggest the number is higher, the issue demands more than polite diplomacy.

Ultimately, the question is not only what happened during Tanzania’s election violence, but whether the truth will be allowed to surface. Blaming “outside forces” may serve as a temporary shield, but it does little to address the underlying issues. If anything, it risks compounding them.

History has shown that narratives built on deflection rarely endure. The demand for accountability has a way of resurfacing, often with greater intensity. For Tanzania, the path forward will depend on whether its leaders choose to confront that demand or continue to deflect it.