How to Imagine a World of Peace and Human Unity? By Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD.

Ignorant and Egoistic Leaders are a Menace to Peace and World Order

Are political contradictions covered by tyranny of reason to conceal egoistic dynamics? One wonders if America claiming to be the most powerful nation is really a powerless nation afraid of its own future. Logic has its own truth and truth is one, not many. The traditional colloquium of West Europeans and the US appears on a collision course since coming of President Trump, 2^nd unexpected term of office. Peace and humanity unity cannot be achieved with weapons of destruction but with intellect and visionary foresight and that looks rare on the European-American political horizon. In clear violation of international law, America kidnapped Venezuela’s leader at gunpoint and Europeans kept silent as if history was not reversed in its standing. What happened to international law and principle of non-intervention of states? Now, it is Iran to embark on for Israeli security, flow of free oil and domination.

Israel is a nuclear power (50-100 arsenals according to the media), Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuke, but it is under redlines set by America and Israel. Both need wars to distract humanity from the real issue of Palestine and the future of Gaza – a devastated strip by Israeli war machines. The Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter failed to protect 2.4 million civilian population of Gaza from crimes against humanity and genocide. America broke its obligation and promise to follow the Charter. The world is divided along ethnic, nationalistic and strategic dimensions and global humanity is its net victim. Global consciousness synthesizes an awakening call to challenges posed by the US leadership and Israeli crimes against Palestinians. Most oil producing Arab leaders are Western puppets, either they need Trump or Trump needs them to shelter wickedness and tyranny. After genocide in Gaza, Israeli would move to larger conquest as the US ambassador claims Israel has the right to all Middle East land. The cult makes its intentions and strategic plans known to occupy the Arab world.

American and Israeli leaders having unbridled ambitions and power unleash violent assumptions of hatred, secret intrigues and animosities and killings overwhelm the daily thinking process, a society - a nation no matter how normal claims to be, cannot function as normal beings to co-exist with their own self, the surroundings - in the human culture and make any positive contributions to human change and progress. Is the psyche of war ingrained in their DNA? God created the Heavens and Earth as a trust to fulfill all human aspirations and to flourish human generations since time immemorial. It was not meant to be bombed and destroyed by sheer ignorance and wickedness. How do We, the People of Human Conscience make these ugly and disingenuous politicians to understand and learn from history and change the course of events into peace and harmony for all of us? The quality of our intellectual consciousness is lost in the world of time and space. Israel would never honor its Oslo Peace agreement disclosed later Professor Francis Boyle and Edward Said (this author) as they advised Yasser Arafat not to sign the Clinton broker deal of peace between Israel and PLO. Vice and virtue cannot be combined in one character. Israel never stopped bombing and killing people across Gaza and West Bank- Palestine.

The Earth is a Living Entity and We, the People are its Natural Trustees

We live on earth that sustains all forms of living things, yet human ignorance and arrogance are at work to destroy the essential foundation of our own lives. The creation of Earth, Moon, the Sun and all working systems are a trust to humanity. Have We, the People, We, the Humanity honored and protected that natural trust and its obligations? In a recent article (“Conflict Beyond Reason: a dialogue to end the war is desperately needed”) https://www.uncommonthought: thisauthor narrated the truth not for geological or meteorological explanations but for the understanding of fellow human beings that the earth spins at 1670 km per hour and orbit 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 -(https://www.newscientist.com/question/fastearthspin/#ixzz7C8p37S9X). If this God given system of distance between the Earth-Sun and the Earth-Moon were ever to change or slip, there will be no sign of life, human civilizations or habitats left on Earth.When nations and leaders subscribing to political absolutism start acting like God and challenge the sanctity and limits of the Laws of God; historically speaking they become an object of unthinkable natural calamities- earthquakes, wildfires, floods, deaths and destruction.

Life and wisdom are parables of human existence. Imagine! you as an intelligent being incomparable to others, and “God enrich you all that you ask for. But if you count the favors of God, never you will ye be able to count them. Verily, man is given up to injustice and ingratitude.” ( 14: 34, The Quran). To this author, a cataclysmic nature of human intellect is unleashing a highly irrational and unthinkable world of complexity to come to our consciousness destroying all progress and achievements of any human civilization on this planet. Most human intellect knows the basic imperative: “if you THINK intelligently, you could find workable remedies to human problems.”

In Search of a New World Order and Human Unity for Peace

Canons of rationality call for an urgent action to stop war between Russia-Ukraine and the ongoing instigation of war plans against Iran. To protect the mankind from further dehumanization and annihilation, People of new ideas (Idea Men) are needed to take initiatives for political change - indeed a navigational change at this critical moment: a New UNO with people’s leadership, New Global Political Systems of Governance planned and developed by the people of knowledge and integrity and rejecting Hobbesian “wars of all against all”; and producing a rational rebuttal to the war of insanity, torture, political tyranny, inept global leadership and offer a balanced new vision of a world enriched with learning knowledge of rational policy-making and decision-making, human equality, fairness, protection of life and its natural support systems, and the Universe and equal justice for all the living beings on this planet. Global leaders have no sense of accountability to learn from the Two World Wars.

Surely, We, the People could create a better and more sustainable world of today and tomorrow. A natural sense of piety and political wickedness cannot co-exist in one human character as most of the world leaders pretend to be. We must THINK and ACT outside the global box of political wickedness and cult of political allegiance to the few and sickening political minds of egoistic leadership. Time and history are not going to wait for the few insane outrages, phony statements on human deaths and destruction unless we take this challenge in its time and opportunity to make things happen for change and for the best of all mankind. American historian Harry Elmer Barnes ("Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and It's Aftermath”), offered this stern warning to American politicians if the US led wars continue leading to man’s annihilation from this planet:

"If trends continue as they have during the last fifteen years, we shall soon reach this point of no return, and can only anticipate interminable wars, disguised as noble gestures for peace. Such an era could only culminate in a third world war which might well, as Arnold J. Toynbee has suggested, leave only the pygmies in remote jungles, or even the apes and ants, to carry on 'the cultural traditions' of mankind."

---

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?ean=9798317619374 and We, The People in Search of Global Peace, Security and Conflict  Resolution. KDP-Amazon.com, 05/2025 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!

Unjust deportation without a country by Edoardo Moretti

There are moments in modern politics when policy stops looking like governance and begins to resemble punishment. The reported decision by the Trump administration to quietly fly nine migrants to Cameroon, a country none of them came from, is one of those moments. It is not merely controversial immigration enforcement; it is a moral question about what happens when power outruns principle.

These individuals were not violent criminals. They were not fugitives hiding from justice. Nearly all had legal protections issued by U.S. courts preventing their return to their countries of origin. Some had asylum claims still pending, grounded in fears of political persecution or discrimination because of sexual orientation. One person had spent fifteen years building a life in America. Yet, instead of due process and transparency, they were reportedly placed on a plane and sent to a nation already struggling with poverty and instability a place with which they had no personal or legal connection.

What does deportation mean when the destination is arbitrary? Immigration enforcement has always been a contentious issue in the United States. Nations have borders and governments have the right to regulate who enters and stays. But enforcement becomes something else entirely when it appears designed not to uphold law but to circumvent it. Courts exist precisely to prevent governments from acting unilaterally against vulnerable individuals. When court protections can be sidestepped through secret arrangements, the rule of law itself begins to look fragile.

The deeper concern is the precedent. If migrants can be expelled to third countries regardless of nationality or personal safety, asylum protections risk becoming symbolic rather than real. The promise of refuge, long central to America’s self-image, depends on predictable legal standards. Without them, asylum becomes a lottery controlled by shifting political winds.

Supporters of aggressive deportation policies argue that strict enforcement deters illegal migration and restores order to an overwhelmed system. That argument deserves consideration. Immigration systems must function effectively to maintain public trust. But deterrence cannot come at the expense of fundamental fairness. Sending people into unfamiliar environments where they lack language, family or legal status does not look like order; it looks like abandonment.

There is also an uncomfortable geopolitical dimension. Wealthy nations outsourcing migrants to poorer countries risks reinforcing global inequality. Cameroon did not create America’s immigration challenges. Turning struggling nations into holding zones for displaced people raises ethical questions about power, responsibility and dignity. It suggests a world where the vulnerable are shuffled across borders simply because they lack influence.

Beyond policy debates lies a human reality. Each deportation represents a life interrupted, families separated, futures rewritten overnight. The language of immigration politics often reduces individuals to statistics, but policies like this expose how easily people become invisible once labeled “removable.”

Democracies are tested not by how they treat the powerful but by how they treat those with the least voice. Transparency, accountability and adherence to legal protections are not bureaucratic obstacles; they are safeguards against injustice. When secrecy replaces openness and expediency replaces fairness, citizens should ask whether security is being pursued at the cost of national values.

Immigration policy will always provoke disagreement. But there is a line between enforcement and exclusion without conscience. Deporting people to countries they do not belong to crosses that line and forces a difficult question, if justice can be redirected so easily for the powerless, how secure is it for anyone else?

The princess of Pyongyang by Mary Long

The idea that a 13-year-old girl could soon become the political heir to one of the world’s most secretive and militarized regimes sounds almost surreal. Yet the growing visibility of Kim Ju Ae, daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, has sparked intense speculation that the next chapter of North Korea’s dynastic rule may already be unfolding before our eyes. Whether this is genuine succession planning or an elaborate performance designed to confuse foreign observers remains the real question.

North Korea has always treated power as family property. Since Kim Il Sung established the state, leadership has passed through bloodline rather than ideology or merit. His son, Kim Jong Il inherited authority followed by Kim Jong Un. In that sense preparing another successor early is entirely consistent with how the regime operates. What feels unusual is not the dynasty itself but the age and gender of the supposed heir.

Kim Ju Ae’s public appearances have been carefully choreographed. She has stood beside her father at missile launches, military banquets and official ceremonies, places traditionally reserved for figures of symbolic importance. In a system where symbolism is political language, nothing happens by accident. Every photograph released by state media carries intention. Every smile, every placement, every uniformed general standing behind a child sends a signal.

But signals in North Korea are rarely straightforward. There are two competing interpretations. The first is literal, Kim Jong Un is genuinely preparing his daughter as successor. From a strategic standpoint, this makes sense. Authoritarian systems thrive on predictability within the ruling elite. By presenting an heir early, Kim may be trying to stabilize internal power structures, discouraging rivals from plotting while reassuring loyalists that continuity is guaranteed. The earlier a successor becomes familiar to the public and the military the smoother a future transition may be.

The second interpretation is far more intriguing and perhaps more believable. Kim Ju Ae may function less as an heir and more as a political shield. By showcasing a child, Kim Jong Un softens his image internationally while complicating intelligence analysis abroad. Foreign governments are left debating succession scenarios instead of focusing solely on weapons programs or strategic ambitions. The narrative shifts from missiles to family.

In this reading, the young girl becomes a carefully crafted distraction. North Korea has long mastered psychological theater, projecting mystery as a defensive strategy. Ambiguity itself becomes power. If outsiders cannot determine who will rule next, they cannot easily predict the regime’s future behavior.

There is also the domestic dimension. Displaying a daughter challenges traditional expectations without actually reforming the system. It allows Kim to appear modern while maintaining absolute control. Elevating a young female figure could signal confidence, the regime is so secure that even unconventional symbolism poses no threat.

Yet one uncomfortable reality remains. Regardless of intention the burden placed on Kim Ju Ae is enormous. A teenager is being positioned, symbolically or literally, within a political system defined by isolation, pressure and absolute authority. Whether she becomes ruler, mascot or myth, her identity is no longer her own.

So is this succession real? Perhaps partially. North Korea rarely lies outright; instead it tells half-truths wrapped in spectacle. Kim Ju Ae may indeed represent the future but not necessarily the immediate one. For now she serves another purpose, reminding the world that in Pyongyang politics is theater and the script is written solely by the man directing the stage.

Fika bonding! #117 #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!

---

Rudolf Steiner: The Laws of Nature by Rene Wadlow

Man is not a being who stands still; he is a being in the process of becoming.  The more he enables himself to become, the more he fulfils his true mission  - Rudolf Steiner-

Rudolf Steiner, whose birth anniversary we mark on 25 February, was for many years prior to World War I, a leader of the German branch of the Theosophical Society.  One of his best known books is titled Theosophy and the two pillar's of Steiner's approach are in common with other  theosophical writers: the law of karma and evolution through the workings of spiritual energy.  For Steiner karma and spiritual energy , which he called love, are the basic laws of Nature.

In 1913, Steiner left the Theosophical Society finding that its emphasis on Hindu cultural expression of karma and evolution through multiple reincarnations did not fit the German cultural milieu.  He tried to express the same two concepts in a more German style drawing on the writings of Goethe and the German Romantics.  He called his approach Anthroposophy (knowledge of man) rather than Theosophy (knowledge of the Theos which is often  called God).  In both systems, it is the laws of Nature working themselves out in human life which is what knowledge is about.

For Steiner karma - the fact that every action - and thought is an action - produces an impact and will have consequences.  However, without training and close observation  one does not see karma working.  To see karma in operation requires an insight into the working of subtle energies.  He outlines his views in his basic book: Knowledge of Higher Worlds. How is it attained?

Steiner believed that he saw subtle energies at work - saw and not just sensed.  If one sees subtle energies, then one sees how karma impacts individual lives but also the life of a nation.  Steiner stressed that there was a "national soul" and that the action of a country would have long-range consequences such as the First World War which he had experienced.

With a view of the workings of subtle energies, one understands the working of these energies both in the lives of people but also plants, trees and animals.  Thus Steiner also turned his attention to agriculture and the ways that subtle energies such as the phases of the Moon could influence the growth of plants.

For Steiner, these subtle energies that structured the evolution of humans and nature, he called love.  "Love is the creative force in the world".  Within the individual, love creates devotion and selfless veneration.  "Only that which I love will reveal itself to me, and every revelation must fill me with gratitude, for each one makes me inwardly the richer."  This love will gradually widen its love so that it embraces all existence.

There are two main legacies of Rudolf Steiner:

 1) Education with the Steiner or Waldorf schools and the related Camphill educational communities for the mentally retarded or mentally ill

 2) Agriculture with the ‘biodynamic agriculture’, a forerunner of the growing movement for ecologically-sound agriculture.

There are some 500 Steiner schools and their number keeps expanding. It is the largest non-religious private school movement in the world. The Camphill communities for the mentally-retarded were developed by Steiner teachers who left Austria and Germany in the late 1930s for England. Some were Jews, others were under pressure as the Nazi government had closed all the Steiner schools.  As there was already a well developed private school tradition in England (even if they are called ‘public schools’) the Steiner people turned to caring for the mentally retarded as there was little creative work with the mentally handicapped in England. After the Second World War, the Camphill movement then expanded to other countries in Europe, the USA and Israel.

Steiner gave the name ‘biodynamic’ to his proposed methods of agriculture. For  Steiner, the agricultural techniques proposed were based on his supra-sensitive knowledge of the soul forces operative in the soil, plant and animal world. Biodynamic agriculture is increasingly important as an alternative to chemically-dominated farming in Europe and North America and has spread to Australia and New Zealand.  There are yearly courses for farm-related persons given at the Goetheanum in Switzerland, the headquarters of the Steiner work.  There is a large use of astrology and cycles of the moon in biodynamic agriculture, again based on Steiner’s understanding of the influence of the moon and planets upon life on earth.

As with other aspects of the Steiner-related work in education or health, there is the problem of the use of such techniques by people who have no special access to the spirit world. While planting or harvesting related to the phases of the moon is found in many cultures, biodynamic agriculture is more complex and can only be judged by most by the results, not by independent observation of nature spirits and the soul of plants.

Steiner was also concerned with social reform but stressed that one needed a positive view of the future and not a criticism of the present. Steiner held that what is needed in times of crisis is not to harbour  many  thoughts about the surrounding world because such thoughts only strengthen the disorder of the outward world, but one should use meditation — an inner will-permeated work to bring harmony and equilibrium.  Nevertheless, Steiner was well conscious of events of the times — the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in which he was born (in what is today Croatia) and the changes in Germany where he had spent most of his working life.  Moreover, in 1922, the first Goetheanum, which was built of wood and whose style represented Steiner’s spiritual insights was completely destroyed by fire, probably by Right-wing German thugs. Thus, he turned his attention to proposals for the reconstruction of society, in particular banking as finance and monetary policy was at the heart of the crisis.

Today, there is a need felt by many that there is disorder in the banking and finance sectors.  There are calls for more government regulation as well as wild conspiracy theories that fly about. While Steiner’s writings are not a blueprint for reforms today, they are an example of spiritual insights being applied to a key ‘material’ question.  We can be inspired by Rudolf Steiner’s efforts even as we develop other ideas and other styles of presentation.

Notes

1. For a revised PhD thesis written by an outsider to the Steiner work see. Geoffrey Ahern Sun at Midnight. The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the Western Esoteric Tradition (Wellingborough: The Aquarian Press, 1984, 256pp.)

From someone writing from within the Steiner movement but published by the same publisher see Bernard Nesfield-Cookson. Rudolf Steiner’s Vision of Love (Wellingborough. The Aquarian Press, 1983,  350pp.)

 ********************************

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Removing pictures of chains doesn’t mean that you erase history by Timothy Davies

History is rarely comfortable. It is jagged, inconvenient and often humiliating to the myths nations tell about themselves. That is precisely why attempts to soften it, sanitize it or selectively erase it are so dangerous. This week, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ordered the National Park Service to restore exhibits on slavery that had been removed from the former Philadelphia home of George Washington. The ruling was not merely about museum displays. It was about whether truth itself still holds value in American public life.

The removal of exhibits addressing slavery from a site connected to Washington was no accident of bureaucratic oversight. It was a political act. It reflected a broader movement determined to reshape American history into a simplified patriotic narrative where heroes remain spotless and the nation’s founding sins fade into silence. The goal is not historical debate; it is historical amnesia.

George Washington, like many founders, embodied contradiction. He led a revolution grounded in liberty while enslaving human beings. A mature democracy confronts such complexity honestly. It does not hide it behind polished portraits and selective storytelling. To present Washington only as a symbol of freedom while removing the reality of slavery is not education, it is propaganda.

What makes this moment especially troubling is the growing willingness among certain political factions to treat history as a battlefield rather than a shared record. Museums, classrooms and national parks are increasingly pressured to promote comfort over accuracy. The past is being curated not to inform citizens but to reassure them. That reassurance comes at a cost, ignorance.

The attempt to erase discussions of slavery from Washington’s Philadelphia residence carries a symbolic weight. Philadelphia is not just another historic city; it represents the birthplace of American ideals. Removing slavery from that narrative suggests those ideals can exist untouched by injustice. Yet the truth is the opposite. The American story gains meaning precisely because freedom was incomplete, contested, and often denied.

When governments interfere with historical interpretation, they cross a dangerous line. Democracies rely on informed citizens capable of grappling with difficult truths. Authoritarian impulses, by contrast, thrive on simplified narratives. They replace complexity with slogans and replace scholarship with ideology. History becomes a loyalty test rather than an exploration.

The federal judge’s order to restore the exhibits serves as a reminder that institutions still matter. Courts can still act as guardrails against political efforts to manipulate public memory. But the fact that such intervention was necessary should alarm anyone who values intellectual honesty. Cultural institutions should not require judicial rescue to tell factual history.

Supporters of historical sanitization often claim they are protecting national pride. But pride built on denial is fragile. True patriotism does not fear the past; it learns from it. A country confident in its principles can acknowledge wrongdoing without collapsing into self-hatred. Indeed, confronting injustice is what allows societies to grow stronger.

The deeper issue extends beyond one exhibit or one administration. It reflects an ongoing struggle over who controls the national narrative. Will history belong to historians, educators, and evidence? Or will it be molded by political movements seeking validation rather than understanding?

Erasing slavery from historical spaces does not change what happened. It only changes what future generations are allowed to know. And ignorance is never neutral. It shapes voters, citizens and leaders who may repeat mistakes because they were never taught to recognize them.

The judge’s decision restores more than museum panels. It restores a principle: that history is not a branding exercise. It is a reckoning. Nations, like individuals, cannot mature without confronting their contradictions.

America’s strength has always rested on its capacity for self-examination. Attempts to whitewash the past weaken that strength. The question now is whether this ruling marks a tu

Violence as political ...gift by Nadine Moreau

The brutal beating and subsequent death of a far-right student activist after an anti-immigration protest is more than a tragedy. It is also a political turning point and perhaps the worst possible development for a Europe already struggling to hold together its fragile democratic center.

Violence does not occur in a vacuum. It lands inside narratives that are already waiting for it. And right now Europe is full of competing narratives about identity, immigration, security and cultural survival. What happened last week handed one side of that argument exactly what it needed, a martyr.

For years, far-right movements across Europe have argued that they are victims of a hostile establishment, silenced by institutions, mocked by media and physically threatened by ideological opponents. Whether exaggerated or not that perception fuels recruitment. Images of confrontation, censorship or violence validate their claims far more effectively than any speech ever could.

A masked mob beating a young activist to death instantly transforms political rhetoric into emotional reality. The debate stops being about policies and becomes about fear, revenge and moral outrage. Sympathy shifts. Moderates hesitate. And suddenly the far right no longer appears as a disruptive force but as a persecuted one.

This is precisely why political violence from anti-fascist or extremist activist circles is so strategically disastrous. It replaces argument with spectacle. Instead of dismantling radical ideas, it amplifies them. Instead of isolating extremist movements, it legitimizes their warnings about societal breakdown.

Europe is currently navigating economic anxiety, migration pressures and a deep crisis of trust in institutions. Many citizens already feel ignored by political elites. In such an atmosphere, every act of ideological violence reinforces the belief that democratic debate has collapsed. When politics looks like street warfare, voters do not move toward nuance; they move toward order.

And order, historically, is the promise populist movements know how to sell best. The consequences extend beyond one country. Europe’s political ecosystem is interconnected. A single incident echoes across borders, feeding campaigns, speeches and online movements that thrive on grievance. Images circulate faster than facts, emotions faster than reflection. Within hours, an assault becomes proof of cultural decay, ideological intolerance or national decline, depending on who tells the story.

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is how predictable it was. Escalating polarization inevitably produces actors willing to cross moral lines in the name of justice. Yet violence rarely weakens the ideology it targets. More often, it strengthens it by granting moral clarity to movements that previously struggled to gain mainstream sympathy.

Democracy survives not because citizens agree, but because they accept limits on how disagreement is expressed. Once those limits collapse, politics becomes tribal survival rather than collective problem-solving.

Those who celebrated confrontation believing it would halt the rise of hard-right politics may soon discover the opposite. Nothing energizes political movements like perceived victimhood combined with visible suffering. A dead activist becomes a symbol far more powerful than a living provocateur.

Europe does not need new heroes of outrage or martyrs of ideology. It needs political maturity, the difficult commitment to defeat ideas through persuasion rather than punishment.

The tragedy is not only that a young man died. The deeper tragedy is that his death may push Europe further into the very polarization that produced the violence in the first place. And once politics becomes fueled by vengeance instead of debate, everyone loses, even those who believe they have won.

Peace as performance by Robert Perez

Diplomacy often unfolds behind heavy doors, polished tables, and carefully rehearsed smiles. This week’s abruptly ended peace talks between Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine and Russia, mediated by the United States, offered another reminder that negotiations are sometimes less about peace and more about political theater.

After only two hours on the second day, discussions collapsed. Publicly Zelensky described the talks as “difficult,” the diplomatic equivalent of a controlled shrug. Privately, according to reports emerging from closed-door conversations with military leadership, the tone was far bleaker. There was, he allegedly admitted, no peace on the horizon. The negotiations were a performance, a strategic gesture designed to reassure allies and perhaps most importantly to keep Donald Trump politically satisfied and at arm’s length.

If true this revelation exposes a harsh truth about modern geopolitics, peace talks are often conducted for audiences far removed from the battlefield. They become signals, not solutions. Leaders must show they are trying, even when they know success is impossible.

For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. Nearly every negotiation carries existential weight. Yet Ukraine’s leadership must balance two conflicting realities. On one hand, continuing the war demands unwavering international support. On the other, Western political fatigue grows louder. Elections, shifting public opinion, and economic pressures in allied countries threaten to erode the unity that Kyiv relies upon.

In this environment, diplomacy becomes less about compromise with Moscow and more about maintaining alignment with Washington. The United States remains Ukraine’s most critical partner, financially, militarily and symbolically. Appearing cooperative in peace efforts reassures American voters and politicians who increasingly ask how long the conflict should continue.

But peace talks without genuine expectations risk undermining public trust. Citizens, both Ukrainian and international, watch headlines announcing negotiations and hope for an end to suffering. When those talks quietly dissolve, cynicism grows. People begin to suspect that diplomacy itself has become hollow, a ritual performed because politics requires it.

There is also danger in staging negotiations purely for optics. Moscow can exploit failed talks as evidence that diplomacy is futile. Western skeptics can argue that Ukraine resists compromise. Meanwhile, soldiers on both sides continue to fight a war that no conference room seems capable of ending.

Yet one cannot entirely blame Zelensky or any wartime leader for engaging in political choreography. Leadership during conflict is not only about battlefield decisions; it is about managing alliances, perceptions and expectations. Survival sometimes requires playing multiple games simultaneously, one against an invading army and another within the complex ecosystem of global politics.

What these talks reveal is not diplomatic failure alone but the uncomfortable reality that peace is currently secondary to positioning. Negotiations become messages directed at allies, rivals, and domestic audiences rather than pathways toward reconciliation.

The tragedy lies in the gap between appearance and reality. The world wants negotiations to mean progress. Instead, they increasingly resemble pauses in a narrative everyone already understands: the war will continue, regardless of how many meetings are held.

Peace, in this moment, is less a destination than a performance, necessary, strategic and painfully disconnected from the sound of artillery still echoing across Ukraine.

AntySaurus Prick #125 #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!

---

From Edward Said’s Orientalism to the Epstein Files: How the West’s Moral Narrative Imploded By Javed Akbar

From the intellectual distortions exposed by Edward Said in Orientalism to the moral rot revealed by Jeffrey Epstein, the West’s carefully crafted image of virtue has finally collapsed.

In his seminal work Orientalism, Edward Said (1935-2003) dismantled the intellectual framework through which the West distorted Islam and Muslim societies. A Palestinian-American scholar, Said was a total game changer in how the modern world came to understand culture, identity, and power- exposing how the knowledge itself could be weaponized in service of domination. He demonstrated that “the Orient” (the East, including the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa) was not an objective reality discovered by scholars, but a constructed fiction — a mirror in which Europe projected its fears, fantasies, and sense of superiority. Muslims were portrayed as irrational, sensual, backward, and in need of Western control, while Europe cast itself as rational, moral, and civilized.

Said’s critique was devastating: these portrayals were not innocent academic errors but tools of power. They justified colonial domination, cultural arrogance, and political intervention. By reducing entire civilizations to caricatures, the West concealed its own moral contradictions and historical violence. Orientalism, he argued, was less about understanding Islam than about maintaining Western supremacy.

Fast forward to our own time, and history has delivered a bitter irony.

While Muslims were relentlessly depicted as morally suspect and culturally regressive, the West’s own elite — the very class claiming moral authority — now stands exposed. The revelations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein tore away the polished façade of respectability. What emerged was not merely the scandal of one criminal, but the anatomy of a protected system where wealth, power, and influence converged to shield predators.

Young girls were trafficked, groomed, abused, and silenced — not in some distant “uncivilized” land, but at the heart of Western power. Private jets, luxury mansions, secret islands, and legal cover-ups formed the infrastructure of this moral rot. Money bought access. Influence bought silence. Power bought immunity.

Here lies the profound counterpoint to Orientalism.

For centuries, the West portrayed Muslim societies as sexually deviant and morally deficient. Yet it is within the highest circles of Western wealth and influence that we now witness organized predation — systematic, calculated, and protected by institutions meant to uphold justice.

Said exposed how the West invented a distorted image of Islam to assert dominance. The Epstein revelations expose something even more unsettling: while preaching virtue to the world, the West’s elite cultivated exploitation beneath its refined surface.

Islamic teachings emphasize modesty, accountability, and the protection of the vulnerable. Yet Muslims were framed as threats to civilization. Meanwhile, the architects of global finance, politics, and media — those who lectured others on human rights — were complicit in crimes that stripped humanity of its dignity.

Orientalism was about controlling the narrative.
The Epstein revelations are about losing control of it.

Together, they reveal a striking truth: the moral hierarchy the West constructed was never grounded in virtue, but in power. When power speaks, it claims righteousness. When power is exposed, its hypocrisy stands naked.

The so-called Epstein files revealed a grotesque system operating at the summit of society. Flight logs, sealed settlements, and lenient plea deals showed how deeply justice bent before wealth. Epstein was not an outcast — he was embedded among presidents, princes, billionaires, and celebrities.

Private planes — chillingly dubbed the “Lolita Express” — transported underage girls to luxury estates and a private island designed for secrecy. Victims later testified to being passed among powerful men like commodities. Some were barely teenagers.

For years, nothing happened.

Complaints vanished. Investigations stalled. Prosecutors offered astonishing leniency. The machinery of justice — so ruthless toward the powerless — became inexplicably gentle toward the ultra-rich.

This was not incompetence.
It was complicity.

Even Epstein’s eventual death in federal custody under suspiciously negligent conditions silenced the man who could have named names. Yet the documents endured, confirming an elite culture of abuse protected by privilege.

This is the collapse of the West’s moral theater.

For decades, Western institutions portrayed Muslim societies as backward, oppressive, and ethically flawed, while presenting themselves as guardians of human rights and dignity.

Yet behind gated mansions and private islands, the West’s most powerful men engineered an industrial-scale system of sexual exploitation.

Not driven by poverty.

Not hidden in shadows.

But curated in luxury.

The Epstein revelations do not expose desperation-driven crime.

They expose luxury-driven depravity.

They reveal a culture where everything — bodies, silence, justice — has a price. And the buyers were the very men who shaped global policy, controlled media narratives, and lectured the world about morality.

What Orientalism once did intellectually — distorting others to elevate the West — the Epstein files have undone morally.

The illusion of civilizational superiority has collapsed.
The mask has fallen.

The “barbarism” long projected onto Muslims and non-Western societies has been found thriving in penthouses and palaces.

Edward Said warned that power constructs narratives to hide its own violence.

The Epstein saga proves it.

For years, the West distracted the world with tales of the “immorality” of others — while its own ruling class perfected exploitation behind closed doors.

Now the story has turned inward.

And what it reveals is not moral leadership, but moral bankruptcy.

---

Orientalism:
First published in 1978 by Pantheon Books. Republished several times, the last one in 2014.
Considered as among the top 100 Books of the 20^th century. Widely regarded as a foundational text /Canonical Text in postcolonial studies, cultural criticism, and Middle Eastern studies. 

Edward Said
Born in Jerusalem, Professor of English and Comparative literature at Columbia University. (1963-2003). Regarded as one of the most influential American public intellectuals of 20^th century, in the world of literature and politics. Author of: Orientalism, Cultural Imperialism, The Question of Palestine, Covering Islam etc.

---

Javed Akbar is a freelance writer with published works in the Toronto Star and across diverse digital platforms. He can be reached at: mjavedakbar@gmail.com

Trump’s ego and the transatlantic tariffs uncertainty by Marja Heikkinen

Europe greeted the recent US Supreme Court ruling against many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs with a strange combination of relief and unease. On paper the decision looks like a victory for rules-based trade, institutional restraint and the idea that even powerful presidents operate within legal boundaries. In practice however European leaders and businesses know that legality and predictability are no longer the same thing when dealing with Washington.

For decades transatlantic economic relations rested on a shared assumption, disagreements would be noisy but ultimately governed by institutions. Courts mattered. Trade agreements mattered. Alliances mattered. The Supreme Court’s decision appears to reaffirm that tradition, yet the reaction across Europe has been far from celebratory. Instead boardrooms and ministries are asking a different question, does a legal ruling actually change anything when the political actor involved thrives on confrontation?

Donald Trump has reshaped expectations. His approach to tariffs has never been merely economic policy; it has been political theater, a negotiation tactic and a demonstration of presidential power rolled into one. European exporters learned this lesson during previous tariff disputes, when policy could shift overnight via social media posts or campaign speeches. The unpredictability itself became the strategy.

That is why European optimism remains cautious. The ruling may weaken the legal foundation of certain tariffs but it does not eliminate the political impulse behind them. European officials understand that Trump rarely treats institutional constraints as final answers. Court decisions, international criticism or diplomatic pressure often become new arenas for conflict rather than conclusions.

Businesses feel this uncertainty most sharply. German car manufacturers, French luxury brands, Scandinavian industrial exporters and countless smaller suppliers depend heavily on access to American markets. Investment decisions require stability measured in years, not election cycles or courtroom battles. Yet the lesson of recent years is that trade policy can change faster than companies can adapt supply chains.

As a result many European firms are quietly accelerating diversification efforts. Markets in Asia, Latin America and Africa increasingly look less like opportunities and more like insurance policies against American volatility. The irony is striking; a court ruling meant to restore legal certainty may actually deepen Europe’s strategic distancing from the United States.

European governments face a similar dilemma. Publicly they welcome the reaffirmation of judicial oversight in the United States. Privately they worry about the fragility of American policy continuity. If a Supreme Court ruling can be politically contested, administratively delayed or circumvented through alternative measures, then the practical stability of trade relations remains questionable.

The broader issue is not tariffs themselves but trust. Trade disputes have always existed between allies. What has changed is the perception that American economic policy is increasingly tied to personal political dynamics rather than institutional consensus. Trump’s leadership style blurs the line between negotiation and retaliation, leaving partners unsure whether cooperation will be rewarded or punished.

Europe now finds itself navigating a new Atlantic reality. The United States remains an indispensable economic partner, yet also a source of strategic risk. European policymakers are learning to hedge, strengthening internal markets, pursuing industrial autonomy and cautiously reducing dependence on decisions made in Washington.

The Supreme Court ruling may stand as a legal rebuke to presidential overreach but it does not erase the deeper transformation of transatlantic relations. The era when Europe assumed American predictability has ended. What replaces it is a relationship shaped less by shared rules and more by political personality.

In that sense, the real legacy of the tariff battle is psychological. Europe no longer asks only what t