Arab-Muslim Leaders: Episode of Sham and Drudgery by Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

Foes Not Friends

The Israeli war on Gaza and other parts of Palestine portray a trajectory of deceit and defeat for the Arab-Muslim leadership. History offers lessons to change and reconstruct thinking and strategic priorities for sustainable future-making. The Arab-Muslim leadership failed to adapt new thinking and reasoned priorities to protect the public interests and defend the masses. The 21^st century Western leaders exploit oil exporting Arab leaders for money laundering and weapon sales. Arab-Muslim leaders detached from reality and divided for individual survival appear delusional and defeated.

People once colonized, remain colonized. To buy wisdom with money is a delusional scenario. None of the Arab-Muslim leaders seek expert advice from people of knowledge and integrity. They live in darkness of Western illusions of dubious friendship. In crisis, intelligent leaders opt for facts of life and when facts warrant a change, responsible leaders pursue a navigational change. Public advisory is rare and non-existence across the Arab-Muslim governance. The overwhelming reality of war in Palestine reflects a cataclysm that afflicted the entire Arab-Muslim world. When hope is replaced by tyranny and terror, people lose sense of rational thinking and direction. The US-Israel war has broader strategic objectives to conquer the Arab world and make Israel a mini superpower of the Middle East. Despite the crimes against humanity and genocide by few Israeli leaders, most West European nations and some of the Arab States continued friendly relations with Israel. How Israeli leaders capitalized massive weapons sales after destroying Gaza and killings of innocent 70K people? Media reports indicate some 15B worth of increased Israeli weapon sales by making Gaza as a lab experiment. The oil exporting Arab leaders and people live in a fantasy of their own imagination – a fallacy of truth telling. Spectators and onlookers they watched the planned massacres, bombing of places of worship, hospitals, planned starvation of the civilians in Gaza, yet continued their relationships with Israel as a new normal against the interest of their masses. All monsters of history claimed good intentions and righteous ambitions but inflicted horrors, deaths and destruction on fellow human beings to achieve individualistic ambitions of power and glory. If you don’t believe in the encompassing truth, just view the real “genocide pictures” presented by Editor Antonio Rosa (Transcend Media: 11/10/25), exposes the reality of the on-going genocide in Gaza and other parts of Palestine: “Genocide in Pictures: Worth a Trillion Words.” https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/11/genocide-in-pictures-worth-a-trillion-words-74/

The American-Israeli collaborative war on Gaza and its immediate consequences made the Western world and all of its institutions shamefully redundant and void in the 21^stcentury global norms of civility, human rights, freedom, justice and safety of civilians- whereas crimes against humanity are captured in obscure impulses and indecision and deliberate inaction by the UN Security Council.

Insane Leaders Bomb the Living Earth and Humanity Demands Accountability

The Earth provides you - the human being from birth to sustenance of life, yet the ignorant and unjust monsters bomb the mother earth. It extends all of your needs for progress and prosperity. Israel so far has dropped more than 90,000 tons of bombs on Gaza - three times more insane than what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Perhaps, the Israeli and American leaders do not believe in life and death and accountability to God for all of their actions. The Torah and Bible fully reflect on this core human responsibility and punishment to those who violate the Divine Covenants. The Earth is not a property of the US or Israel but a Divine hub of human Life, Survival and a Trust, those bombing and destroying it are mentally sick and defy the Divine Truth. It looks as if the US and Israeli leaders do not believe in life and death and accountability. The earth is a living entity 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 Sun 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. The Earth exists and floats without any pillars in a capsule by the Will of God, so, ”Fear God Who created life and death.” Is human intelligence still intact to understand this reality? Wherever there is a trust, there is an accountability. (The Quran: 22: 66):

It is God Who gave you life
Will cause you to die
And will again give you Life;
Truly man (human being) is a most ungrateful creature!
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.

The Trump Peace Plan has paused the war but bombing, displacement and killing of Palestinian continues unabated. What a shame, what a disgrace to the Arab-Muslim countries and so-called leaders having armies, resources and opportunities to defend Palestine, besieged masses of Gaza and their rights, dignity, and sustainable future. Yet they all turned out to be inept puppets of the US and Israel. Do the Arab-Muslim leaders have a future with honor and accountability? Please see: https://realovi.wordpress.com/2025/10/06/the-fallacy-of-gaza-peace-plan-and-failure-of-arab-muslim-leadership-by-mahboob-a-khawaja-phd/

---

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!

The name on the wall by Kingsley Cobb

The quiet act of workers adding Donald Trump’s name to the façade of the Kennedy Center without meaningful institutional approval was not merely an administrative irregularity. It was a small but telling rehearsal for a political culture that treats public institutions as personal billboards and democratic process as an inconvenience. That moment, subtle as it may seem, carries the unmistakable odor of authoritarian habit: act first, legitimize later, and silence dissent in between.

Public buildings are not neutral stone and glass. They are shared symbols, collective property, and living archives of national values. The Kennedy Center in particular stands as a monument to artistic freedom, cultural dialogue, and the uneasy but essential relationship between power and creativity. To stamp a politician’s name onto such a space without transparent consent is to misunderstand, or deliberately ignore, what the building represents. It turns a civic landmark into a campaign prop, and culture into collateral damage.

What makes the episode especially disturbing is not just the name itself, but the method. Opposition voices were shut out, bypassed, or dismissed, while a small circle of loyalists pushed the change through. This is governance by shortcut, a tactic that thrives on fatigue and confusion. When people are excluded from decisions about shared spaces, it sends a clear message participation is optional, obedience is not.

This behavior fits neatly into a broader pattern. Throughout Trump’s political life, institutions have been treated less as guardians of continuity and more as obstacles to personal will. Norms are tested not to improve them, but to see how easily they bend. Rules are not broken loudly at first; they are nudged, quietly, until resistance feels futile. A name on a wall may seem trivial but symbolism is never trivial to those who understand power.

Yet there is another layer to this story, one that looks beyond the present and into the long shadow of aftermath. History is rarely kind to leaders who confuse dominance with legacy. When the scaffolding of power is removed, what remains is memory, and memory is ruthless. Names that are forced into public view rarely stay there with honor. They are scraped off, defaced, mocked, or left behind as warnings rather than tributes.

Trump’s defenders may believe that visibility equals permanence, that repetition carves admiration into stone. The opposite is often true. The more aggressively a name is imposed, the more eagerly it is erased once the imposing force is gone. After his term fades into the archive of past presidencies, his name is unlikely to linger as a mark of respect. It will either vanish quietly from walls and plaques, or survive only as something people point to with embarrassment, disbelief, or outright disgust.

Cultural memory has its own immune system. It eventually rejects what feels false, coerced, or corrosive. Art institutions, universities, libraries, and public spaces are especially sensitive to this process. They outlast administrations precisely because they are meant to reflect something larger than any one leader. When they are temporarily hijacked, they tend to snap back with force once pressure eases.

There is also a deeper irony at play. John F. Kennedy whose name the Center bears, symbolized an aspirational vision of public service, flawed yet forward-looking, rooted in the idea that culture elevates democracy. To append Trump’s name to that legacy without consent is not an honor; it is a provocation. It highlights the gulf between public-minded leadership and self-centered rule.

In the end, this episode may be remembered less for the act itself and more for what it revealed. It exposed how fragile institutional norms can be when confronted by entitlement and loyalist machinery. It also hinted at the future reckoning to come. Power can command walls, workers, and silence for a time. It cannot command history’s verdict.

When Trump’s era is studied years from now, these small transgressions will matter. They will form a pattern, a texture, a sense of how democracy was strained not only by grand crises, but by petty assertions of ownership over what was never his to claim. And when his name is removed, as names like his so often are, it will not be an act of erasure. It will be an act of cleaning.

That quiet removal, whether literal or symbolic, will say more than any plaque ever could. It will confirm that institutions endure, egos fade, and that the public ultimately reclaims what was briefly misused, restoring meaning where spectacle once stood alone.

Illusions of disclosure by John Reid

The Trump administration’s long-awaited release of the Epstein files arrived with the fanfare of supposed transparency and the hollow echo of a locked door. Survivors hoped for clarity, accountability, and a public reckoning that might finally name names and expose the machinery that protected a serial abuser for decades. What they received instead was a carefully trimmed dossier that felt less like disclosure and more like damage control. The omissions were not subtle. They were glaring, strategic, and revealing in their absence.

This was never just about paperwork. It was about power. Epstein did not operate in a vacuum; he thrived in rooms full of it. The promise of the files was that the public would finally see how influence insulated him and how proximity to the powerful translated into impunity. When those connections are selectively obscured, the message is unmistakable, the system still knows how to protect itself. Survivors are asked, once again, to accept partial truth as justice.

What makes the release especially cynical is the pretense that it settles anything. The idea that the Epstein stigma will simply dissipate with a curated dump of documents misunderstands how truth works. Stigma fades only when accountability replaces denial. When names are redacted, timelines softened, and photographs conspicuously absent, suspicion hardens rather than dissolves. Silence is not neutral; it is an argument in favor of concealment.

The political calculation is transparent. Epstein’s social orbit overlapped with wealth, celebrity, and office, including figures who later insisted they barely knew him. Yet images, flight logs, and testimonies have long suggested otherwise. To pretend that the remaining sealed material does not disproportionately implicate powerful men, some of them still active in public life, is to insult the intelligence of anyone paying attention. The refusal to fully open the record does not protect reputations; it corrodes them.

For survivors, the harm is doubled. First came the abuse, facilitated by indifference and intimidation. Then came years of legal maneuvering that treated their lives as collateral damage. Now comes the spectacle of disclosure without disclosure, a reminder that even in moments marketed as progress, their needs rank below the comfort of elites. Transparency that stops short of discomfort is not transparency at all.

The defenders of the release argue that law, privacy, and due process require restraint. Those principles matter. But they ring hollow when invoked selectively and late. Due process did not seem to weigh heavily when Epstein received a sweetheart deal that shielded co-conspirators and muzzled victims. Privacy did not trouble institutions that enabled him while smearing accusers. To deploy these values now, only when exposure threatens the powerful, is not principled restraint; it is opportunism.

There is also a deeper cultural failure at work. America loves the theater of revelation more than the labor of accountability. We cheer the opening of files as if the act itself were justice, as if sunlight alone could substitute for consequences. But sunlight filtered through a political lens becomes stage lighting, illuminating what is safe while leaving the rest in shadow. The result is cynicism dressed up as closure.

If the aim was to close the chapter, the release has done the opposite. It has widened the gap between official narratives and lived reality. Every withheld page invites speculation. Every missing image raises questions about who benefits from the silence. And every insistence that this is all there is only confirms that it is not.

The Epstein scandal will not be laundered away by time or paperwork. It lingers because it speaks to a durable truth: abuse is enabled by networks, not monsters alone. Until those networks are named and confronted, the stain remains. The administration may hope that partial disclosure dulls public outrage. Instead, it sharpens it, reminding us that power still expects exemption.

Survivors were not asking for spectacle. They were asking for honesty. They were asking for a reckoning that treats their testimony as more than an inconvenience. Anything less is an illusion of justice and illusions have a way of collapsing under their own weight.

What endures, then, is a choice. Leaders can continue to ration truth, hoping fatigue will replace anger, or they can accept that credibility is rebuilt only by risking embarrassment and consequence. The public, too, must decide whether it will settle for managed transparency or demand the unvarnished record. History suggests that secrets age poorly. When they surface, they indict not only the guilty, but everyone who helped keep them buried. Silence eventually condemns the silent as well.

For the Moment 137: Lift With Your Legs #Cartoon by Patrick McWade

 

"For the Moment" is a cartoon series
with contemporary issues.
For more 'For the moment' HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Ma-Siri & Alexa #115 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Ma-Siri is a mother and a grandmother with a mechanical companion
searching for the meaning of life.

For more Ma-Siri & Alexa, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Borderfire without purpose by Mary Long

The artillery thunder rolling across the Thai–Cambodian border feels less like a military strategy and more like the sound of two governments shouting past reason. Along an 800-kilometre line drawn decades ago by colonial maps and political convenience, shells now land where farmers once walked, and forested hilltops have become symbols of pride worth dying for. What is unfolding is not a war of necessity but a war of stubbornness, fuelled by history, nationalism, and a dangerous lack of imagination.

On paper, the balance is clear. Thailand commands the skies, flying unchallenged over Cambodian territory, striking at targets that cannot strike back. Cambodia, lacking meaningful air defences or a credible air force, responds with what it has, BM21 rocket systems that are terrifying more for their randomness than their precision. These rockets do not choose soldiers over civilians. They fall where gravity and chance decide, killing a civilian here, wounding families there, turning evacuation plans into grim confirmations that the worst was always expected.

This is where the moral argument collapses entirely. When inherently inaccurate weapons are used near civilian areas, and when air superiority is exercised without restraint, the conflict stops being about security and starts being about indifference. Each side claims defence, yet each action deepens the wound it claims to be stitching shut. The forested hilltops now soaked in blood offer no strategic value proportional to the lives being spent to control them. They are trophies of ego, not assets of survival.

The tragedy is amplified by how predictable this escalation was. Border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia are not new; they are ritualistic. They flare, cool, and flare again, usually wrapped in the language of sovereignty and honour. But honour has become a hollow word when it is invoked to justify artillery exchanges across villages and bombing runs against a neighbour with no capacity to respond in kind. Strength, in this context, is not measured by how hard one can hit, but by how wisely one chooses not to.

What makes this confrontation particularly grim is its asymmetry. Thailand’s freedom to operate in the air is not a sign of tactical brilliance; it is simply a reflection of imbalance. Cambodia’s reliance on crude rocket fire is not courage; it is desperation. When one side dominates and the other flails, the outcome is not victory but prolonged suffering. The death toll climbs, the wounded overflow medical facilities, and the language of “no obvious end” becomes an accepted background hum, as if endless violence were a natural state.

Nationalism, of course, is doing what it always does in times like these. Flags are waved, histories selectively remembered, and any call for restraint branded as weakness. Leaders speak of resolve while families bury their dead. The border becomes a stage where politicians perform toughness for domestic audiences, gambling with lives they will never personally risk. In such moments, escalation is easier than compromise, because compromise requires admitting that pride is a poor substitute for policy.

The international silence surrounding this conflict is equally damning. Because it does not neatly fit into the narratives of great power rivalry, it is treated as a regional scuffle, a regrettable but manageable affair. Yet for those living near the border, this is not a footnote. It is the sound of rockets at night, the fear of aircraft overhead, and the slow realisation that their safety is negotiable.

Wars rarely end because one side finally proves it is tougher. They end when exhaustion sets in or when leaders choose reason over rage. Right now, neither condition appears imminent. The shells keep falling, the bombing continues, and each new casualty hardens attitudes further. Without a conscious decision to step back, to accept mediation, or at the very least to prioritise civilian lives over symbolic terrain, this conflict will grind on until its original causes are buried beneath its consequences.

The border will still be there when the guns fall silent. The question is how many lives will be lost before someone remembers that lines on a map are not worth more than the people who live beside them.

History will judge this moment harshly, not for the ferocity of the fighting, but for the emptiness of its purpose. When the smoke clears, neither side will be able to claim moral high ground, only graves and grievances. Peace will come eventually, as it always does but it will arrive late, expensive and stained with avoidable regret remembered long after excuses and speeches fade.

How many graves before peace matters in Sudan? By Eze Ogbu

Is peace possible for Sudan, or are we content to let its people die quietly while the world scrolls past? This is not a rhetorical flourish meant to provoke polite debate. It is a blunt question carved from mass graves, bombed neighbourhoods, and cities emptied of life. Sudan is bleeding, and the most horrifying part is not only the violence itself, but how easily it has been absorbed into global indifference.

Sudan’s war is not a sudden tragedy. It is the predictable collapse of a state hollowed out by decades of corruption, militarization, and international neglect. Two armed giants, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, are tearing the country apart in a grotesque power struggle that has nothing to do with protecting civilians and everything to do with control, profit, and ego. Khartoum, once a chaotic but living city, has become a battlefield of snipers, airstrikes, and looting militias. Darfur, a name already synonymous with horror, is again witnessing ethnic cleansing while the world pretends it is surprised.

Peace, in theory, is always possible. In practice, peace requires something far rarer: genuine pressure, sustained attention, and moral clarity. Sudan has received none of these. What it has received instead is silence punctuated by vague statements of “concern,” carefully worded so they offend no one with power. Innocent people die while diplomats speak in passive voice.

Let’s be honest about why Sudan is ignored. There is no easy narrative. No single villain neatly packaged for headlines. No geopolitical payoff large enough to force urgency. Sudan is not a trendy war. It does not threaten global oil supplies in dramatic ways, nor does it sit at the center of a Cold War chessboard. Its victims are poor, Black, displaced, and far from Western capitals. Their suffering does not interrupt stock markets, so it does not interrupt attention.

The international community prefers conflicts where outrage can be monetized and resolution can be branded as success. Sudan offers neither. It offers moral discomfort. It forces the world to confront how selectively it values human life.

Meanwhile, Sudanese civilians are trapped between bombs and betrayal. Hospitals are attacked. Aid convoys are looted. Women are raped as a weapon of war. Children die from dehydration not because water doesn’t exist, but because militias control access to it. This is not collateral damage. This is the systematic dismantling of civilian life. And still, the world hesitates, as if waiting for a clearer signal that this matters.

Peace talks come and go, staged more for international optics than for real outcomes. Agreements are signed, broken, and forgotten. Armed leaders are invited to negotiation tables without consequences, reinforcing the lesson that violence is a viable political strategy. Why stop killing when it gets you recognition?

The tragedy is compounded by hypocrisy. Many of the same countries wringing their hands over Sudan continue to indirectly fuel the conflict through arms sales, regional alliances, and strategic silence. They call for restraint while shaking hands with those who profit from chaos. They speak of stability while enabling instability because it is convenient.

So is peace possible? Yes, but not under the current global logic. Peace will not emerge from empty statements or performative diplomacy. It will not come from pretending that Sudan’s war is too complex to address. Complexity has become the favourite excuse for inaction.

Peace would require consequences for war criminals, not future invitations to power-sharing deals. It would require sustained humanitarian access enforced, not negotiated away. It would require listening to Sudanese civil society, not sidelining it in favour of men with guns. Most of all, it would require the world to care even when there is nothing to gain.

Ignoring Sudan is not neutrality. It is a choice. A choice to accept that some lives are disposable. A choice to normalize mass death as background noise. A choice to let history repeat itself because intervening is uncomfortable.

Every day this war continues without real pressure, the message is reinforced: you can kill thousands, displace millions, and still be treated as a legitimate actor. That message does not stay in Sudan. It travels.

Peace is possible, but only if silence ends first. And the longer the world remains quiet, the more honest the answer to the question becomes. Not because peace cannot exist but because we have decided it does not matter enough to pursue.

Smoke screens and sacrificial names by Robert Perez

There is a familiar smell whenever power feels threatened: not accountability, but smoke. Thick, intentional, disorienting smoke. The renewed noise around the Epstein files has that scent again and at the center of it sits Donald Trump not necessarily because of what is known but because of what must be avoided at all costs,  sustained attention on his proximity, his past, and his pattern of surviving scandals by detonating larger distractions.

When danger approaches Trump, it rarely meets him head-on. It is rerouted. Deflected. Outsourced. And this time, the tactic appears brutally simple: bury his presence by overwhelming the public with other, louder names.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Bill Clinton are convenient sacrifices. They are known quantities in the Epstein story, already stained in public imagination, already half-convicted in the court of opinion. Dragging them back into the spotlight costs nothing politically. In fact, it helps. Their names are headline-friendly, internationally recognizable, and emotionally loaded. They trigger outrage without requiring new evidence. They keep the story moving just not forward.

This is not about justice. It is about narrative control. Trump’s political machinery does not need to prove innocence; it only needs confusion. And confusion thrives when culpability is spread so thin that it dissolves into spectacle. If everyone is guilty, no one is accountable. If the room is on fire, no one notices who lit the match. What’s more revealing is not who is being named loudly, but who is being handled quietly.

Michael Jackson and Bill Gates hover in the background like shadows, never fully accused, never fully defended. Their names are released not as declarations but as whispers. Dark rumors. Suggestive hints. Enough to poison the air, not enough to demand follow-up. This is strategic ambiguity; deploy the implication without accepting the burden of proof. Let conspiracy-minded audiences do the work for you.

Jackson, long dead and endlessly controversial, is the perfect ghost. Gates, powerful and polarizing, is the perfect distraction. Neither needs to be proven anything; their presence alone widens the fog. And fog is the ally of the guilty.

This is how power protects itself: not by denying facts, but by flooding the conversation until facts drown.

Trump’s lackeys, media surrogates, political influencers, outrage entrepreneurs, understand this instinctively. They don’t argue details. They don’t clarify timelines. They don’t ask who did what, when, and with whom. They ask instead: “What about him?” “What about her?” “Why aren’t we talking about this name?” It is rhetorical arson disguised as curiosity.

And the public, exhausted and cynical, often plays along. There is something deeply unsettling about the ease with which reputations can be burned to keep one man insulated. Andrew and Clinton may not be innocent figures, but they are useful ones. Their involvement, real, alleged, or adjacent, functions as ballast, weighing down scrutiny before it drifts too close to Trump. The irony is that Trump once openly socialized with Epstein, joked about him, praised his taste for “younger” women. These are not hidden facts. They are archived quotes. Yet they rarely anchor the conversation. Why? Because the noise is engineered to ensure they don’t.

This is not a coordinated conspiracy in the cinematic sense. It’s worse. It’s a reflex. A culture of power that knows how to survive by feeding on chaos. Trump thrives in this environment because he understands something fundamental, scandal is not fatal. Focus is.

As long as attention is scattered, across princes, presidents, pop stars, billionaires, Trump remains just another name in a long list, rather than the subject of sustained examination. He doesn’t need to be erased. He just needs to be blended.

And that blending comes at a cost. Not just to truth, but to victims. Every time the narrative shifts from accountability to spectacle, survivors become props in someone else’s damage control strategy. Their suffering is flattened into talking points, weaponized and discarded.

In the end, the Epstein files are not just about who appears in them. They are about who benefits from how they are discussed. And right now, the loudest fires are being set precisely so one shadow can remain comfortably intact.

Smoke is not innocence. It’s evidence of fear.

Screws & Chips #117 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

In a galaxy far, far away, intelligence demonstrated by screws and chips,
boldly gone where no robot has gone before!

For more Screws & Chips, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Exploring Technology, Mind, and Health with Global Academy by Yoshika Nundkoomar

The Technology Mind Health half-day summit, hosted by the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) and its partners, brought together interdisciplinary leaders, researchers, and thinkers to explore the intersection of digital technologies and human psychological well-being. Reflecting the Academy’s foundational mission to enhance the development of governments, businesses, academia, civil society, and consumers through ethical and human-centered deployment of technology, the event underscored that technological progress, when governed thoughtfully, can strengthen individual and collective mental health rather than undermine it.

What made this event truly unparalleled on a global scale was its extraordinary diversity; uniting every geography and every generation under the Global Academy’s platform. No other gathering brings together both the developing and the developed world in such a format—not only in its audience but also among its speakers.

The summit indeed offered a genuinely equal platform across continents and age groups: from seasoned experts and leading professionals to the youngest participant, just 11 years old. All stood side by side, engaged in a shared mission to confront one of the most urgent issues of our time, the relationship between technology, mind, and health, and to collectively explore the challenges and chart future pathways.

Or, as the Development-8 Secretary-General, Isiaka A. Imam, urged previously, the emerging digital world must be co-written by all nations, not inherited by a few. These are words that were further detailed by Charles Oppenheimer, who warned that AI is a new primordial fire, powerful enough to uplift humanity or to undo it. 

Mission and Framing

Founded to advance the ‘3M’ matrix (maximum good for maximum species over maximum time), mindful, measurable, and mutually beneficial technological integration across sectors, the Global Academy for Future Governance promotes sustainable progress free of hidden social, environmental, and health costs. Its interdisciplinary, multispatial, cross-sector mandate aligns with pressing global needs to distinguish substantive technological challenges from hype and to strengthen frameworks that enable early identification and mitigation of risks.

The Technology Mind Health summit of early December 2025 opened with a warm introduction delivered by Dr. Philippe Reinisch, GAFG co‑founder. He highlighted this gathering as the inaugural event for the newly created GAFG, and emphasized the importance of bridging technology and society with human enhancement, including human mental wellness.

Acting as the GAFG host, Jesinta Adams, Assistant Director-General of GAFG, spoke passionately about the central role different generations play at the intersection of technology and mind health. 

Voices from Leadership and Thought

The event began with a prerecorded (unauthorized) address of Dr. Khaled El‑EnanyEzz, a candidate for UNESCO Secretary‑General. This powerful note reflected on humanity’s current crossroads amid rapid technological change, underscoring rising challenges related to health, wealth inequality, and psychological well‑being. He emphasized education as the essential tool for guiding technological deployment with wisdom, extending beyond technical mastery into cultural and ethical literacy. His message was clear: “Use technology as a tool rather than a master.”

Following this, Vladimir Norov, former Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan and former Secretary‑General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, addressed the Summit. He drew attention to expanding societal risks, including threats to mental health, social cohesion, privacy, and equitable access, but urged attendees to consider the transformative potential of AI when governed ethically. Highlighting examples from medical innovation in Central Asia, Norov stressed three core principles for beneficial technological integration: human‑centered design, ethical governance, and resilience building. He concluded, “Technology does not replace us but elevates us.” 

Expert Contributions on Mind, Health, and Technology

Closing on the high level, the keynote addresses, and the substantive section as the central part of the Summit have started with Dr. KaT Zarychta, a specialist in technology, innovation, and holistic health. She opened by comparing artificial intelligence to the human mind, reminding audiences that AI cannot feel, empathize, or emotionally self‑correct. She argued that the most effective path forward lies in human‑AI collaboration, where evidence‑based digital tools support rather than supplant human capacities. Dr. Zarychta closed with a call to co‑create a world where psychological well‑being is nurtured and protected in tandem with technological innovation.

As the next speaker, Marisa Peer, RTT founder and bestselling author, focused on the role of social media as a source of disconnection and psychological distress. Shehighlighted the platforms’ addictive dynamics and their proliferation of unrealistic ideals that fuel dissatisfaction and self‑doubt. She urged reimagining digital spaces as tools for learning, growth, and mental enrichment—enabling technology to expand, not contract, human potential.

Prof. John A. Naslund, co‑director of the Mental Health for All Lab at Harvard Medical School, addressed the global mental health crisis, particularly rising depression rates. He introduced the EMPOWER Model, a psychosocial behavioral intervention framework emphasizing community‑based support and scalable delivery. Naslund highlighted the model’s adaptability, from teenagers to adults, and its multilingual expansion, demonstrating how evidence‑driven designs can strengthen resilience across populations.

Dr. Malek Bajbouj, Head of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at Charité Berlin, examined psychological health in contexts of conflict, pandemics, and ecological anxiety. He described the accelerating demand for mental health support and positioned trustworthy digital tools as essential if governed ethically. According to Dr. Bajbouj, resilient mental health systems rest on population‑wide strategies, transparent communication, and sustained trust in public institutions.

From Uruguay, Professor María Castelló of the Clemente Estable Research Institute investigated neurological and psychological effects of prolonged technology use, especially in youth. She highlighted concerns about brain development, anxiety, depression, and unhealthy digital habits. Yet Castelló also acknowledged potential cognitive benefits, such as enhanced memory, behavioral functioning, and multitasking skills. Her call to action called for policies that address digital inequities and mental health from a neuro‑social perspective rather than one‑size‑fits‑all approaches. 

In her part, prof. Birgitta Dresp-Langleyidentified excessive childhood exposure to digital environments as a central factor underlying a range of growing health concerns. Prolonged screen time indoors reduces children’s exposure to natural daylight, which is essential for healthy visual development, sleep regulation, and metabolic balance. This deficit is linked to increasing rates of early myopia, obesity, sleep disorders, depression, and behavioral difficulties, with risks emerging even in very young children.

French professor Dresp-Langley proposes a unifying biological model in which reduced daylight and increased artificial light disrupt vitamin D and melatonin production, leading to deregulation of serotonin and dopamine pathways in the developing brain. These neurochemical changes resemble those seen in addictive disorders and may result in long-term cognitive, emotional, and behavioural consequences. She concluded her detailed writing contribution to the Summit by concluding that urgent awareness, preventive policies, and increased outdoor activity are needed to mitigate these risks.

Youth Engagement and Future Directions

The event culminated with the announcement of winners from the Technology Mind Health Essay Competition, led by Theodora Vounidi (Balkan Youth Initiative founder). Contestants (aged 14-18 and 18-28) discussed the correlation between digital technology and mental health and the need for balance between analog and digital time, as well as the newly formed ‘always online’ (sub-)culture.

With 40 global submissions comprising about 60 writers, as some elected to work in teams, including from the youngest entrant at age 11 (demoiselle Tess), the competition highlighted both the breadth of youth engagement and the global relevance of the human technology dialogue.

First place was awarded to Nikos Galitsis from Greece, second place to Claudio Monani from Italy, and third place was awarded to Kenedy Agustin from the Philippines, while fourth place was secured by a participant from India. Fifth place was awarded to the youngest entrant from Singapore. The top three winners of the competition were given the opportunity to present their work, offering insightful perspectives on the emerging intersection of technology and mental health. 

Main takeaways & Future outlook

The Technology Mind Health summit highlighted a crucial truth – as encapsulated in the closing remarks by prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, GAFG cofounder;“technological advancement is inevitable, but its impact on humanity is not predetermined—it depends on the collective choices we make”.

Across sessions, speakers emphasized that technology can either be a catalyst for psychological well-being or a source of disruption, depending on how it is designed, governed, and integrated into society. Ethical frameworks, evidence-based policies, and human-centered governance are essential to ensure that digital tools empower rather than diminish individual and collective mental health.

Equally important is the role of education, intergenerational dialogue, and global collaboration. As the GAFG summit demonstrated, solutions require insights from every sector, culture, and age group—from seasoned professionals to the youngest participants. By fostering awareness of risks such as digital overexposure, social media-induced stress, and inequitable access, while simultaneously encouraging innovative approaches for mental wellness, society can navigate the technological landscape thoughtfully.

Ultimately, the responsibility to shape a future where technology enhances rather than undermines human flourishing lies with all stakeholders—governments, academia, civil society, businesses, and individuals alike.

By successfully conducting such a complex and content-rich event, the GAFG demonstrated its true capability to provide flexible, impartial, and highly engaging solutions for the Fast technology to both, public and private sector.

In recognition of the summit’s success and the youth essay competition’s impact, the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) has decided to annualize both the Technology-Mind-Health Summit and the essay competition (with its BYI partner), ensuring ongoing dialogue and engagement at the intersection of technology, meridians, generations and mental well-being.

---

Yoshika Nundkoomar, a founder of YN Consulting, a South African firm specializing in accounting and tax principles, is an advocate for mental health and the sustainable use of technological innovation. She recently joined GA FG.

Borrowed anger by Jemma Norman

Is there any way to stop young people gathering under Farage’s flag? The instinctive answer from much of the political class is yes, regulate platforms, shame the leaders, dismiss the voters, and wait for the mood to pass. That answer is wrong and it keeps failing for the same reason it always has. You cannot out-argue a feeling by calling it stupid, and you cannot drain a movement by pretending it is a mirage.

Young people are not drifting toward Farage because they are ignorant of history or hypnotised by charisma. They are drifting because politics has become an abstract language that describes a world they do not recognise. Rent eats their income, work feels temporary, institutions feel brittle, and the promise that effort leads somewhere sounds like folklore. When someone names that unease, even crudely, it feels like relief. Farage does not invent the anger; he rents it.

Attempts to “stop” this gathering usually take the form of moral panic. Labels are applied quickly, lines are drawn, and the young are told they are being misled. This satisfies older voters who want reassurance that the problem lies elsewhere, but it does nothing to address the appeal. In fact, it strengthens it. Being told you are dangerous for asking obvious questions is a powerful recruiting tool. Nothing flatters a generation more than being told it terrifies the establishment.

The deeper problem is that mainstream politics has hollowed out its emotional range. It speaks in metrics, targets, and caution, while everyday life is experienced in stress, boredom, and fear of sliding backward. When the centre refuses to speak emotionally, the margins will. Farage offers a story with villains, victims, and a sense of agency. It may be simplistic, but it is legible. Compare that with the managerial fog young people are usually offered, and the choice becomes understandable.

So is there a way to stop it? Not by prohibition, and not by ridicule. Movements like this fade only when something better occupies the same emotional space. That means offering young people a politics that is tangible, confident, and unashamed of moral language. Not slogans, but commitments they can feel, housing that is actually affordable, work that is not a holding pattern, and a future that does not require permanent anxiety.

It also requires honesty about trade-offs. Young voters are less naïve than they are treated. They know resources are finite. What they resent is being patronised with half-truths and process talk. Farage thrives on the sense that everyone else is lying politely. The antidote is not perfect policy; it is visible sincerity, even when answers are uncomfortable.

Crucially, young people need spaces where political identity is not immediately moralised. The rush to brand supporters as immoral or stupid short-circuits conversation and pushes curiosity underground, where it hardens into belief. If you want fewer young people under Farage’s flag, you have to be willing to talk to them before the flag becomes their identity.

There is also a generational arrogance at play. Older Britain often treats youth politics as a phase to be corrected rather than a message to be heard. But every surge toward disruption is a warning flare. It signals that the social contract is fraying. Ignoring the signal does not restore the contract; it just ensures the next flare is brighter.

Farage is not the disease. He is a symptom of a vacuum where meaning should be. If he vanished tomorrow, something else would rush in to occupy the same space. The real question is not how to stop young people gathering under his banner, but why so many feel the need to gather anywhere at all. Until politics offers belonging without bitterness and change without contempt, the flag will keep finding new hands.

That means investing time where institutions usually retreat: colleges, apprenticeships, online spaces, and local communities where politics is lived, not broadcast. It means arguing robustly without sneering, setting boundaries without theatrics, and remembering that persuasion is slower than outrage. Young people do not need to be rescued from their views; they need to be taken seriously within them. Do that consistently, and the attraction of protest politics dulls. Ignore it, and every attempt to suppress it becomes fuel. Democracy is not protected by silencing its loudest discomforts, but by answering them with courage. That is harder work than outrage, but it is the only path that weakens demagogues without weakening the democratic muscle that keeps society alive over time, for everyone everywhere concerned