One Humanity and the Paradox of Global Peace and Conflict Resolution by Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

From Reason to Insanity

We, the people of knowledge and vision, have intellect and abilities to distinguish right from wrong and help others to avoid preposterous and erroneous myths of peace and conflict management. Contemporary leaders professing to be wise turned out to be foolish. A mythological criteria of exclusive power and false proclamations is at work to disguise the real agenda of the few despotic tyrants.

A comparative analysis of superpower’s role in global affairs could reveal truth and falsehood. The end of 2025 and beginning of 2026 offers no optimism for sustainable change. Be it the US or Russia both appear indifferent to peace making. Why? The leaders propel their own agenda of political power reflecting a complex nature of cataclysm against people of Earth. They lost sense of rational thinking, humanity, peace, futuristic calamities and accountability to God.

Many false leaders perpetuate chaotic and subversive acts as evidence of tragic abnormality. After four years, Ukraine and Russia still engaged in fierce battles. Despite two years of barbaric bombardments, Israel could not subdue the people of Palestine. Truth is not transient or adaptable except Israeli extremist leaders could not govern without war and hatred of Palestinians. Arab-Muslim leaders proved to be inept figures just paper-boys not mediators or leaders of moral and integrity. They watched and witnessed crimes against humanity without any remedial action. Their oil-driven modernity is just a misleading conception of life and normalcy. None of the Arab-Muslim leaders showed courage and determination to challenge Israel and its plan of Arabian conquest. The real agenda exposes the Israeli plan to expel the indigenous people of Palestine to embark on making a Greater Israel. The Arab-Muslim authoritarian leaders failed to grasp the ultimate Israeli plan for Gaza. Professor Michel Chossudovsky ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/artificial-intelligence-in-support-of-israeli-intelligence-the-planning-of-genocide-what-will-gaza-look-like-in-the-future/5896117:GlobalResearch:12/29/25),warns the humanity of a detailed Israeli intelligence and military agenda to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”, planned well in advance on October 7, 2023. “The Voluntary Immigration Plan” (VIP) referred to by Gilial Gamliel opens up a Pandora’s Box. “Israeli Intelligence Ministry Policy Paper (IIMPP) on Gaza’s Civilian Population”, October 2023, the stated objective of which was to “Expel All Palestinians from Gaza” under Option C. This Plan to “Expel All Palestinians from Gaza” was known to Israel’s allies, including the U.S. and  NATO. US. Intelligence was routinely collaborating with Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence. It should be understood that  Israel’s [so-called] “Secret” Intelligence Memorandum (which was made public) was accompanied by numerous classified memoranda pertaining to different operations in the conduct of the genocide including the “Mass Famine Agenda”.The official “secret” memorandum authored by Israel’s  Ministry of Intelligence had recommended the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, namely to a refugee camp in Egyptian territory. This was by no means “Voluntary.”There are indications of Israel-Egypt negotiations as well as consultations with the US.

War against Humanity and Earth

The Earth exists in space on the command of God and is a trust to mankind, not exclusive property of any states, superior ethnicity of white or black or corporations. War is a crime in a civilized context. What is the cure to raging indifference and cruelty to the interests of the whole of mankind?The 21^st century new-age complex political, economic, social and strategic challenges and the encompassing opportunities warrant new thinking, new leaders and new visions for change, conflict management and participatory peaceful future-making. The Divine knowledge offers the logical substance of reality to be reckoned with: (The Quran 44:38-39):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.

Denial of truth, the encompassing universe and floating Earth in space demonstrates that people deny the knowledge about God -The Creator of the worlds and life in all galaxies. Could learning the facts of life change our thoughts, behavior and pursuit of peace and conflict resolution? Would you think critically at the following Divine message (The Quran: 33:72):

“We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth
And the mountains but they refused
To undertake it, being afraid thereof: But man undertook it;
He was indeed unjust and foolish.”

The Israelite followers of Moses and progeny of Jacob - are reminded by God (Quran 2: 84-85):And remember, We took a Covenant from the Children of Israel (progeny of Jacob), Worship none but God; ….shed no blood among you, Nor displace people from  homes: and Ye solemnly ratified, And to this ye can bear witness…. It was not lawful for you to banish another party, then it is only a part of the Book that ye believe in…. And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty, For God is not unmindful what ye do. 

The Western imperial networks export wars and sectarian conflicts across the oil producing Middle East countries. The contemporary Arab leaders live in darkness about Palestine and Israel and what future options could be imagined for peace and security. Wars, deaths and destruction are at the top notch agenda items in relations between the West and the Arab world. Was the discovery of “oil” was a conspiracy (“Fitna”) to forfeit the Arab culture and Islamic civilization? Arab -Muslim leaders lacked a sense of urgency and capacity to deter Israeli aggression and crimes against humanity. The UNO and all the Western world appeared dubious, treacherous and insane toward the sufferings of Palestinian people.They supported the rights of Palestinians but armed Israel to kill the innocent people. What do such crimes indicate about the nature of the society in which bloodbaths are taking place under the aegis of economic development and militarization? Do the paranoid Arab authoritarian rulers envisage an advanced culture of “modernity?” Wars are killing the people, destroying the planet and those who possess power exhibit no wisdom to dream of triumph and glory over human mind and soul. The on-going war between Russia, Ukraine and NATO, and the war-torn Middle East overshadowing the common citizens of the world feeling incapacitated and dehumanized to share a terrible sense of helplessness and wonder how to save the humanity from the scourge of imperial led war racketeering and the consequences of man’s intransigence, triviality and viciousness against his own existence and future on Earth.

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. NEW eBOOK,
Wars on Humanity:
Ukraine, Palestine and the role of Global Leaders
HERE!

Flame Subtropics #Poem by Abigail George

in the silence
in this, this lonely hour
Gaza falls
like the neck of a wildflower falls
this too shall pass
do you remember the past
your past
i am in the cave again
how your voices warm my heart
how your voices comfort me
a bird spilled out of me
i am 19 years old
getting on a bus to Johannesburg
not knowing I will go mad there
that it will be six months
before I will see the sun again
the leaves are sad for me
this singing forest, my mother
there is a terror inside of me
the voices murmur something
something about a baptism
i am only a passenger
a passenger who lost her mind
the marbles rock the children to sleep
the children i will never have
the son and daughter i will never have
speak, memory of light, of war
before I disinherit you
summer. salt. tears
the highway falls through the sky
i read everything
i can even read your mind,
this silence
this perception and topography of light healed all my wounds
bloodless grass
flame
tomato seeds plastered on my tongue
tasting of summer in the salad
droplets of seawater
against my skin
cold. wet. plasma
the shake of the fish seismic
these pills fill me or are they peas
please fix me, i cried
my mother doesn't love me
i doubt she ever has
perhaps when i was a baby
no
perhaps when i cried
in her own mother's arms
i don't know
perhaps when she knew
that i was going to be a writer
at eight
well, maybe
at twelve, when the typewriter appeared
perhaps when she
bought adult diapers for me
but she never told me,
her manic depressive daughter
in so many words
that she loved me
i am still crying
middle-aged i am still crying
please, please fix me
fix what is broken
make me whole again
bring my father back to life
i'm changing
i'm changing
watch how proteas grow
out, yes, out of my fingers
watch how they hiss,
snake and groove
just look at how perfect the day is

Smoke without fire by Timothy Davies

Don’t let Marjorie Taylor Greene’s latest attitude trick you. The sudden softening of tone, the selective outrage, the occasional performance of reasonableness are not evidence of growth. They are tactics. Greene did not wake up one morning having discovered nuance, empathy, or truth. She remains what she has consistently shown herself to be: a self-centered fascist, xenophobe, homophobic, Islamophobic bigot who has simply learned that volume control can be as effective as a bullhorn.

This is not a story of transformation. It is a story of rebranding. When the temperature changes, opportunists adjust their wardrobe. Greene’s latest posture is less about conscience and more about convenience. Extremism, when it threatens to isolate its own messengers, often dresses itself up as common sense. The ideas do not change; the delivery does. And Greene has always been acutely sensitive to attention, relevance, and power.

Her political career was never rooted in public service. It was built on provocation, grievance, and spectacle. She rose by attacking the vulnerable, mocking the dead, flirting with conspiracy, and framing cruelty as courage. Immigrants were not people but threats. Muslims were not citizens but suspicions. LGBTQ+ people were not neighbors but punchlines. Violence was winked at. Democracy was treated as optional. None of that disappears because the rhetoric briefly shifts from shouting to smirking.

What we are seeing now is not moderation but calibration. Greene has learned that outright extremism can carry costs when donors, leadership, or media access are at stake. So she experiments with plausibility. She borrows the language of populism without its responsibility, of patriotism without its pluralism, of concern without compassion. It is the same politics, stripped of its roughest edges, hoping fewer people notice the blade.

There is a familiar rhythm to this maneuver. History is full of demagogues who discover, mid-career, that survival requires appearing sane. They do not abandon their worldview; they disguise it. They speak of “questions” instead of accusations, “concerns” instead of slurs, “tradition” instead of exclusion. Greene’s recent tone fits neatly into that pattern. It is not an apology to those she has harmed. It is a strategy to keep harming with less resistance.

The danger is not that Greene has changed. The danger is that people want to believe she has. Fatigue sets in. The constant outrage exhausts audiences, and exhaustion breeds forgiveness without accountability. A calmer voice is mistaken for a better idea. But politics is not therapy, and optics are not ethics. The absence of screaming does not equal the presence of principle.

Greene’s record is clear and unambiguous. She has consistently aligned herself with authoritarian impulses, elevating loyalty over law and identity over equality. She has treated democratic institutions as obstacles rather than safeguards. She has framed diversity as decay and pluralism as weakness. These are not youthful mistakes or stray comments. They are the spine of her political identity.

Calling this out is not incivility; it is clarity. Words like fascist and bigot are not insults when they accurately describe behavior and belief. They are warnings. To pretend otherwise is to participate in the laundering of extremism, where repetition dulls memory and familiarity replaces scrutiny.

Free journalism does not exist to soothe power. It exists to interrogate it. And interrogation requires refusing the easy narrative of redemption when there has been no reckoning. Greene has not taken responsibility. She has not corrected the damage she has helped cause. She has not demonstrated solidarity with those she dehumanized. She has simply adjusted her tone and waited to see who will clap.

We should not. Democracy depends on memory. It depends on recognizing patterns, not performances. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s latest attitude is not a breakthrough; it is a mask. And masks, however polished, do not change the face beneath them.

The responsibility therefore falls on voters, journalists, and institutions to resist the seduction of lowered volume. Accountability is not canceled by composure. If anything, it becomes more necessary when extremism learns to whisper. We should judge politicians not by their latest clip but by their consistent values, alliances, and consequences. Greene’s consistency lies in exclusion and spectacle, not service. Until that changes in substance, not style, skepticism is the only rational response. Anything else rewards manipulation and invites repetition. The lesson here is simple and urgent: do not confuse quieter cruelty with kindness, or strategic restraint with growth. Democracy is eroded not only by those who shout lies, but by those who calmly expect us to forget them. And we must.

2nd opinion, quarantined! 26#01 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Seriously, a human hater self-centred agoraphobic in quarantine!
I think you’ll need a second opinion after this.

For more 2nd opinion, quarantined!, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Waiting for the sirens by Edoardo Moretti

The question has always been framed as whether China will invade Taiwan. That debate is now largely academic. The more honest, and more unsettling, question is this, when China moves on Taiwan what exactly will the United States do?

For years, strategic ambiguity was treated as wisdom. Washington spoke softly, armed Taipei quietly, and hoped deterrence would hold. Beijing denounced, rehearsed, and waited. That era is ending. China’s military preparations are no longer theoretical demonstrations of power; they are rehearsals with a calendar somewhere behind them. Taiwan is no longer a distant possibility but a looming inevitability. The ambiguity that once prevented war now risks inviting it.

America’s dilemma is stark. Defend Taiwan, and risk a catastrophic war between nuclear-armed powers. Stand aside, and accept the collapse of credibility that underpins every U.S. alliance from Tokyo to Warsaw. There is no elegant escape hatch; no clever diplomatic phrasing that dissolves this choice. The moment China crosses the strait, the United States will be judged not by statements, but by actions taken in the first hours and days.

Those who argue America would stay out underestimate what Taiwan represents. This is not just an island; it is a symbol of whether U.S. security guarantees mean anything in the twenty-first century. If Taiwan falls without resistance, allies will not wait for explanations. Japan will accelerate militarization. South Korea will rethink nuclear options. Europe will quietly question whether Washington would really show up when the stakes are high. Deterrence, once broken, is not easily repaired.

Yet those who assume automatic U.S. intervention ignore how unprepared America is for the consequences. War with China would not resemble Iraq or Afghanistan. It would disrupt global trade overnight, collapse markets, shatter supply chains, and likely drag in multiple regional powers. American cities would not be immune to cyberattacks or economic retaliation. The cost would be immediate, visible, and politically explosive. Any president ordering intervention would be gambling not only with global stability, but with their own domestic legitimacy.

This is why Washington keeps talking itself in circles. Publicly, it pledges commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Privately, it hopes deterrence works long enough that the decision never has to be made. But hope is not a strategy, and Beijing knows it. China is watching not just U.S. military deployments, but American politics: polarization, election cycles, isolationist rhetoric, and fatigue from endless foreign entanglements. From Beijing’s perspective, delay favors China. Time erodes American resolve faster than it erodes Chinese ambition.

When the invasion comes, the United States will likely respond first with force short of war: sanctions, cyber operations, naval positioning, and frantic coalition-building. These steps will be described as measured and responsible. They will also be insufficient. China will not halt an invasion because of strongly worded condemnations or incremental pressure. At that point, Washington will face the real decision it has postponed for decades: escalate or concede.

If America fights, it will do so not because Taiwan is perfect or democratic or strategically convenient, but because retreat would redefine the global order. If America does not fight, it will signal that power, not principle, ultimately rules international affairs, and that U.S. leadership is conditional and reversible. Neither outcome is clean. Both are dangerous. One is simply more honest about the costs of preserving influence.

The tragedy is that this reckoning could have been prepared for more openly. Instead of ambiguity, the United States could have built overwhelming deterrence, clearer red lines, and a domestic consensus about sacrifice. Instead, it outsourced the hardest conversation to the future, assuming time would solve what courage avoided.

When China invades Taiwan, the United States will act, not from clarity, but from momentum, fear, and reputation. The decision will be made under pressure, amid chaos, and without consensus. That is the true danger. Not that war is inevitable but that when history finally demands an answer, America may discover it spent too long pretending the question was hypothetical.

And yet, pretending neutrality would itself be a choice, one that future generations would live with long after the smoke cleared. Empires do not usually fall in dramatic collapse; they recede through moments like this, one decision rationalized, one risk deferred, one ally quietly abandoned. Taiwan is not the cause of America’s decline, but it may be the mirror that reveals it. When the siren finally sounds across the Pacific, the United States will not be deciding Taiwan’s fate alone. It will be deciding what kind of power it is.

Oddly bound together by Howard Morton

JD Vance and Elon Musk look like men from different planets. One rose from Appalachian poverty into the halls of political power, speaking the language of grievance, tradition, and national rebirth. The other built his myth in silicon, rockets, and spectacle, presenting himself as a prophet of the future who answers to no one. Yet if either wants a real future in the United States, they depend on each other more than they probably care to admit. Not by ideology, not by friendship, but by consequence. And that dependency is entirely of their own making.

Vance has tethered his political rise to a vision of America at war with its own elites. He speaks for people who feel abandoned by institutions, mocked by culture, and hollowed out by economic change. Musk, despite his outsider persona, is the embodiment of elite power: immense wealth, technological leverage, and direct influence over communication, transportation, and even national security. On paper, they should repel each other. In practice, they are locked in a mutually reinforcing loop.

Vance’s brand of politics needs figures like Musk. Populism requires villains, but it also requires trophies. It needs proof that power can be bent, that the mighty can be coerced into the tribe or at least into transactional alignment. Musk, with his restless need for relevance and conflict, provides exactly that. When he signals sympathy for populist anger, he lends Vance’s movement something it otherwise lacks: a sense of modernity. Rockets, AI, and social platforms make resentment feel futuristic instead of nostalgic.

But the dependence cuts the other way just as sharply. Musk’s businesses do not float above the nation-state. They are welded to it. Government contracts, regulatory tolerance, labor markets, infrastructure, and public legitimacy are not optional extras; they are oxygen. The fantasy of total independence collapses the moment policy shifts, subsidies vanish, or political hostility hardens into law. Musk needs a political climate that treats him as indispensable rather than suspect. Vance’s America offers that bargain, as long as Musk performs cultural loyalty.

Here is the trap they built together. Vance cannot fully turn against Musk without turning against the very idea that American greatness still flows through bold industrial ambition. Musk cannot fully reject Vance’s politics without alienating a base that increasingly views institutions, including corporations, through a lens of suspicion and revenge. Each has backed himself into a corner where opposition feels existential.

This is not a partnership of shared values. It is a pact of survival. Vance’s movement feeds on the perception that traditional America is being erased by unaccountable forces. Musk’s public persona feeds on the idea that he alone defies control. When these narratives collide, they do not cancel each other out; they fuse. The result is a volatile mix of grievance and power that thrives on constant tension. Neither man benefits from stability. Both benefit from permanent crisis.

Yet that same dynamic limits their futures. Vance cannot govern a complex nation on outrage alone. At some point, he must answer for results, not rhetoric. That means relying on precisely the kinds of technological and economic systems his movement loves to denounce. Musk, meanwhile, cannot play revolutionary forever. Empires that depend on public trust eventually need legitimacy, not just attention. The United States is not a neutral playground. It demands reciprocity.

Their shared weakness is arrogance. Both believe they can control the narrative indefinitely. Both underestimate the country’s capacity to turn on figures who overreach. America tolerates disruption, even celebrates it, but it punishes those who confuse influence with ownership. When voters or regulators decide someone has become too central, too loud, or too untouchable, the correction is swift.

If there is a future for either man in the United States, it lies in recognizing this interdependence honestly. Not as a culture war stunt or a temporary alliance, but as a sober acknowledgment that power here is relational. You do not dominate America alone. You negotiate with it. Vance and Musk may despise that truth, but they are bound by it. They built the cage themselves. Now they have to live inside it.

History suggests this story rarely ends cleanly. Mutual dependence curdles into blame, then fracture. When it does, neither populist fury nor technological bravado will offer shelter. The United States outlasts personalities by design. It absorbs them, reshapes them, or discards them. Vance and Musk are not exceptions. They are case studies unfolding in real time before an impatient, watchful public.

When punishment politics backfires by Mia Rodríguez

Donald Trump has long framed himself as the champion of the forgotten American, the outsider who would bulldoze elites and deliver tangible gains to ordinary people. Yet one of the most revealing contradictions of his political style has been his willingness to punish entire states and cities for voting the “wrong” way. Through veto threats, funding freezes, and selective hostility toward Democratic-led areas, Trump has embraced a form of governance rooted less in policy than in grievance. And that approach, increasingly, has begun to unsettle even parts of his own fiercely loyal MAGA base.

For years, Trump’s supporters accepted, and often celebrated, this scorched-earth tactic. Owning the libs became not just a slogan but a governing philosophy. If California burned politically or New York suffered financially, that was framed as poetic justice. The problem is that federal money does not wear a party label. Disaster aid, infrastructure funding, healthcare subsidies, and education support flow through Democratic cities because that is where millions of Trump voters also live, work, and rely on the same systems to survive.

That reality is finally cracking the illusion. When Trump vetoes relief packages, delays rebuilding funds, or threatens to cut payments that stabilize hospitals and schools, the pain does not stop at blue state borders. It ripples outward. Rural communities dependent on urban medical centers feel it. Red counties tied economically to blue cities feel it. Even conservative families who once cheered the punishment now find themselves asking why their lives are collateral damage in a partisan vendetta.

What makes this moment different is not moral awakening but material consequence. The MAGA movement has always thrived on symbolic warfare, but symbols lose their power when they disrupt paychecks, clinics, and roads. Trump’s insistence on personal loyalty from geography itself has exposed a brutal truth: his version of populism is conditional. You are supported only if you vote correctly, praise loudly, and never fall on the wrong side of his grudges.

This governing style resembles punishment more than leadership. Rather than persuading or improving lives, it seeks to discipline dissent. In doing so, Trump has turned federal authority into a weapon of political theater. That may thrill crowds at rallies, but it corrodes trust in the basic idea that government exists to serve everyone. For a movement that claims to love the Constitution and states’ rights, the embrace of selective federal retaliation is a striking contradiction.

The backlash within Trump’s own ranks is subtle but real. It does not always appear as public defiance; it shows up as discomfort, rationalization, and quiet frustration. Supporters bend themselves into knots trying to justify why helping hurricane victims or funding transit projects is suddenly a betrayal. The mental gymnastics are exhausting, and fatigue is a dangerous thing for a movement built on emotional intensity.

Trump’s strategy also misunderstands how interconnected modern America is. Cities are not foreign enemies; they are economic engines whose collapse drags surrounding regions down with them. Cutting off resources to spite mayors and governors ultimately harms the very voters Trump claims to defend. The fantasy of isolating punishment collapses under the weight of shared supply chains, labor markets, and public services.

There is also a deeper cultural cost. When a president openly treats aid as a reward for loyalty, citizenship itself becomes transactional. That message seeps into civic life, teaching Americans that compassion is conditional and solidarity optional. Over time, this erodes the social fabric that binds communities together, replacing it with suspicion and resentment.

Ironically, Trump’s hardline approach may accelerate the very disillusionment he claims to fight. As benefits vanish and infrastructure decays, voters do not necessarily turn left, but they do turn skeptical. They begin to question whether endless conflict actually improves their lives. Populism without delivery eventually reveals itself as spectacle, not substance.

The danger for Trump is that resentment works best as a spark, not as fuel. It can ignite movements, but it cannot sustain them when daily life deteriorates. Roads still need repairs. Floods still destroy homes. Children still need schools that function. When leadership chooses to withhold help as a message, voters eventually hear a different one: that their struggles are secondary to a political performance. This realization does not instantly dissolve devotion, but it plants doubt. And doubt spreads quietly, through conversations at kitchen tables and in workplaces, where slogans matter less than stability. In that space, the mythology of infallibility weakens, replaced by a more practical question: who is actually making my life better? That question lingers, uncomfortable and persistent, long after rallies end and social media fades, demanding answers grounded in results rather than rage from leaders who claim to serve the people faithfully always.

Trump built his movement on the promise of strength, fairness, and putting people first. Yet by weaponizing federal power against Democratic states and cities, he has undermined that promise in plain sight. The growing unease among his own supporters suggests a simple truth: punishment politics has limits. When ideology starts hurting families, loyalty wavers. And in that moment, even the loudest cult of personality begins to crack.

Fika bonding! #114 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Fika is a state of mind and an important part of Swedish culture. It means making time for friends and colleagues to share a cup of coffee and a little something to eat.

For more Fika bonding!, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

A toast by Thanos Kalamidas

I have tried quite consciously, to avoid the Happy New Year editorial these last few years. It feels like a ritual that has outlived its honesty. After twenty-two variations of the same text, published only in Ovi, and with decades now pressing on my shoulders rather than lining up politely behind me, “Happy New Year” has acquired new semantics. Heavy ones. Almost cynical ones. Words that once carried hope now limp along like tired slogans dragged out of storage once a year because tradition demands it.

And how exactly does one wish a Happy New Year after 2025?

After a year soaked in wars broadcast live, in hunger turned into statistics, in death reduced to scrolling numbers, in thousands of refugees transformed into political inconveniences, and because reality always insists on satire, Donald Trump once again in power, a bad sequel nobody asked for. In such a context wishes for health, prosperity, and peace sound embarrassingly small. Poor words. Underfed words. Words trying to do humanitarian work with empty pockets.

We say “peace” while financing war.
We say “prosperity” while normalising obscene inequality.
We say “health” while treating human beings as disposable units.

So yes, forgive me if I find the ritualistic optimism of the New Year editorial hollow. Not wrong ...just insufficient. Like offering a plaster for a haemorrhage and congratulating yourself for your compassion.

And yet, refusing empty optimism does not mean surrendering to despair. Cynicism is not intelligence; it is laziness in a black turtleneck. And this is where contradiction enters, because despite the global mess, despite the political farce, despite the industrialisation of suffering, 2025 has been quietly, stubbornly, a good year for Ovi magazine.

Not a spectacular year. Not a triumphant year with fireworks and self-congratulation. A solid year. A honest one.

New contributors joined us, not because Ovi is fashionable, profitable, or algorithmically seductive, but because they still believe words matter when written without permission. Writers who are allergic to obedience. Thinkers who refuse to polish reality until it becomes harmless. People who understand that culture is not decoration; it is resistance with better grammar.

The Ovi History eMagazine, an idea born out of my ...stubbornness more than strategy, seems to have found its readers. Not the mass audience addicted to intellectual fast food but those who still prefer slow reading, uncomfortable questions, and historical context that doesn’t flatter modern arrogance. History, when done properly is not nostalgia, it is an accusation. And accusations, apparently still have an audience.

Readership is moving up. Slowly. Unevenly. Not yet back to what it once was. We are still some distance from Ovi’s former self, but for the distance feel measurable, not infinite. I feel confident, not because optimism is fashionable, but because persistence has its own quiet logic.

This matters.

Not because Ovi is special in a narcissistic sense but because independent platforms surviving in this climate is a political act. In an era where discourse is either monetised, weaponised, or infantilised, simply continuing to publish thoughtful, uncomfortable material is a form of dissent. We are not competing with noise; we are refusing to become it.

And let’s be clear, culture and democracy are under attack. Not dramatically, not with tanks, but with boredom, algorithms, and moral cowardice. Nuance is treated as weakness. Complexity as elitism. Thoughtfulness as delay. The world doesn’t want opinions anymore; it wants slogans that can be worn like football jerseys.

Ovi does not do jerseys.

So no, this is not a Happy New Year editorial in the traditional sense. I am not here to sprinkle optimism like confetti over a burning building. But I will say this, as long as there are people willing to write without fear, read without shortcuts and think without supervision, the year is not lost.

2025 has reminded me of something ...unfashionable, progress is not always loud. Sometimes it just refuses to die.

Raise no champagne glass for this. Just keep your eyes open, your pen sharp, and your tolerance for bullshit low.

That, at least, would be an honest wish for the New Year.

#eBook The Informant by Richard Stanford

The phone started up again. One…Two…Three rings. Not another conversation. His throat was dry. His ear felt like it was pressed flat against his skull. Four…Five.

The still humid air, the sweat dripping down his back, the thought of standing up was painful. Nine-thirty. Through the open windows he heard the idle chattering from Market Square where couples walked in slow-motion under the glittering streetlamps. Six…Seven, screeching now. The teletype machines joined in, clattering bulletins from London and Paris.

His notebook was full of shorthand transcripts of phone conversations. It had been one of those ‘nothing-is-ready-days’, panic to deadline, reporters lost in traffic. But they had managed to put the late edition to bed.

Richard Stanford, "When I’m not writing short stories and essays or producing documentary films in Montréal, I can be found mucking about in my gardens trying to create the perfect eggplant."

Ovi eBooks Publishing January 2026

The Informant

Read it online or download HERE!
Read it online & downloading it as PDF HERE!
Or enjoy reading it online & downloading it as PDF HERE!
All downloads are FREE!

---

For more eBooks check Ovi eBookshelves HERE!

Manish Zodiac Predictions for January 2026 #Horoscope by Manish Kumar Arora

Aries ( 21 March – 19 April ) – The urge to develop your personality, appearance and personal skills brings a greater need to be more successful and independent. A strong, healthy self-image makes you more productive, which in turn encourages you to treat others with more generosity and sensitivity. Networking will pay off and your increased drive to attain personal goals will be very useful. Pleasures are bound to be more deeply felt, although a certain light-heartedness may be missing.The charm of your personality, willingness to cooperate with others and sense of humour will make a big difference in the way things turn out.Favorable Dates :Jan 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 20 Favorable Colors : Red & Yellow

Taurus ( 20 April – 20 May ) - Expect a big career move this month. Financial priorities will be high and some powerful forces are acting on your income and long-term plans. You'll need to control wastefulness and lost energy, be wary of perverted moral attitudes and avoid the lure of those who find success in evil deeds. This especially applies to negotiations, the law, partnership issues and dealings with those with whom you are intimately involved.You can explore and develop inner strengths and gain a deeper understanding of your childhood conditioning, subconscious mind, fears, and dreams. Favorable Dates: Jan 1, 7, 10, 16, 19, 27 Favorable Colors : White & Green

Gemini ( 21 May – 20 June ) - You can develop inner strength and power through expanding your psychic energy, intuitive ability and overcoming hidden fears and worry. The maturity and experience behind your actions is the key to their successful outcome.Circumstances may require you to discuss, or perhaps even defend or reassess your priorities and values.You can grow into a more mature, productive individual with a definite idea of where you need to go.You must face your fears and worries, resolve issues from the past that continue to weaken you and deal responsibly with loss and disappointment. Favorable Dates: Jan 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, 27 Favorable Colors : White & Blue

Cancer( 21 June – 22 July ) - This time will bring a need for a thorough reassessment of your personal priorities and value system. If you have been thinking about a new business venture or achieving some physical goal, you are likely to put plans in motion.Creative juices flow during this time and romantic notions, inspiration and imagination spark artistic endeavours. Activities related to children claim your time and attention. Partherships and marriages will take on a more open aspect, with the potential to take great strides in spiritual development. Affairs in distant, romantic places are quite likely too. Favorable Dates: Jan 3, 4, 12, 13, 21, 22 Favorable Colors : Red & Yellow

Leo  ( 23 July – 22 August ) Formal agreements, diplomacy, contracts or other legal matters produce long-lasting, successful results. Your efforts to bring organisation and stability to social groups will not go unrewarded. This period shows a fabulous potential for romance. If you are already involved with a loving partner, you can deepen the relationship and overcome some of the deeper obstacles that may have been bugging you recently. Love relationships from the past can intrude in some way. Religious or spiritual issues will be thrown into prominence, bringing increased personal interest and progressive changes in these areas. Favorable Dates : Jan 1, 5, 10, 14, 19, 23 Favorable Colors : Red & Blue

Virgo( 23 August – 22 September ) - You are apt to be more of a doer than a thinker-- eager to turn your ideas into physical reality, more than ready to speak your mind. If words will not suffice, you will not hesitate to use physical means to express yourself. Romance and friendships now are based on mutual commitment and responsibility, along with love and affection. Others are attracted to your maturity and accomplishment.Greater spiritual awareness, loftier ideals and inspiring cultural pursuits come to the fore. New roles may suddenly begin, while old ones abruptly come to an end.  Favorable Dates: Jan 2, 5, 11, 14, 20, 23 Favorable Colors : Red & Yellow

Libra( 23 September – 22 October ) - This is a time for sweeping away the debris and making a new beginning. If you have been thinking about a new business venture or achieving some physical goal, put such plans in motion.Energy and enthusiasm for your career or other long range goals is overflowing.Your social contacts are more intense, while romantic and sexual encounters are most fascinating, especially from the standpoint of the psychological motivations involved.You may become interested in the activities of charitable organizations, hospitals, prisons and institutions concerned with minorities and the underprivileged. Favorable Dates: Jan 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23 Favorable Colors : Red & Yellow

Scorpio ( 23 October – 21 November ) - This is a period to look for opportunities that expand your spiritual and artistic awareness and allow you to develop and use your intuitive abilities.Any benefits or gains you make during this period may be hidden, or at least not obvious to others.Expect some troubles with your health, which doctors may not adequately be able to deal with to your satisfaction. Emotional problems will arise, especially through relations with women. Romantic escapades will be troublesome and damaging to partnerships and close relationships; joint financial speculation will be very risky, though potentially profitable. Favorable Dates: Jan 5, 8, 14, 17, 23, 26 Favorable Colors : Red & Green

Sagittarius( 22 November -21 December ) - The influence you exercise over other people and your ability to elicit their cooperation occupies your mind. Physical efforts turn to financial and business matters, bringing more organization to your bank and financial papers.  Gaining personal power and greater control is the object of this period and there is no better place to start than by gaining a deeper understanding of yourself.Romantic notions are apt to be physically carried out. Artistic endeavours are inspired and imaginative.Joining organizations and participation in group activities can be very rewarding.Favorable Dates : Jan 3, 4, 12, 13, 21, 22 Favorable Colors : Blue & White

Capricorn ( 22 December – 19 January ) -Good fortune comes to you, both in relationships at work and a financial turn for the better. Your career moves in a happier direction and hard work begins to pay off.Energy and enthusiasm center around partnership and other alliances, cooperative efforts and interaction with others in general. Others stimulate you to physical action. You get the attention of others by emphasizing whatever is most attractive about yourself: physical beauty, artistic talent, or a charming personality.Your recuperative powers, should you need them, are at a high level. Favorable Dates : Jan 1, 3, 10, 12, 19, 21 Favorable Colors : White & Red

Aquarius ( 20 January – 18 February ) - It is an auspicious time to initiate projects geared toward bringing benefits at a later time in your life. If you have been thinking about a new business venture, or achieving some physical goal, this is a time when you are likely to put such plans in motion.The physically energized atmosphere surrounding you brings more than the usual volume of communications and activities, especially with siblings and neighbours. Swamped with information and ideas, you can come up with an increasing number of your own. Favorable Dates: Jan 7, 9, 16, 18, 25, 27 Favorable Colors : Yellow& Red

Pisces ( 19 February – 20 March ) - Your schedule may become overloaded, making it necessary to place some restraints on the number of activities and people you decide to accommodate. You are also likely to be concerned with legal matters, contract negotiations of one kind or another, public relations, the income of a relative, and various situations in which you must seek as well as offer cooperation. Matters that you thought were securely concealed may pop up to haunt you and secret activities or clandestine relationships will be troublesome at this time.Favorable Dates: Jan 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 20 Favorable Colors : White & Red