Enemy at the gates

Above: The Scream, Edvard Munch (1893)

Saturday 15 February 2025

Eskişehir, Türkiye

My friends have a new hobby:

Adam baiting.

They know that I don’t follow the news, except as an afterthought for my calendar day blog posting.

So, they will ask my opinions about world events.

Above: The Thinker, August Rodin (1904)

And what, pray tell, you may ask, is interesting about this particular day, historically or currently?

Well, historically, what I find interesting is:

15 February 1748

London, England 

Birth of Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832), English jurist and philosopher:

The father of utilitarianism, arguing for the “greatest good for the greatest number“

Bentham defined as the “fundamental axiom” of his philosophy the principle that:

“It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” 

He became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism.

He advocated individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and (in an unpublished essay) the decriminalising of homosexual acts.

He called for the abolition of slavery, capital punishment, and physical punishment, including that of children. 

He has also become known as an early advocate of animal rights.

He had considerable influence on the reform of prisons, schools, poor laws, law courts, and Parliament itself.

Bentham was the first person to be an aggressive advocate for the codification of all of the common law into a coherent set of statutes.

He was actually the person who coined the verb “to codify” to refer to the process of drafting a legal code.

Bentham’s writings in the early 1790s onwards expressed an opposition to imperialism.

His 1793 pamphlet Emancipate Your Colonies! critiqued French colonialism.

In the early 1820s, he argued that the liberal government in Spain should emancipate its New World colonies.

In the essay Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace, Bentham argued that Britain should emancipate its New World colonies and abandon its colonial ambitions.

He argued that empire was bad for the greatest number in the metropole and the colonies.

According to Bentham, empire was financially unsound, entailed taxation on the poor in the metropole, caused unnecessary expansion in the military apparatus, undermined the security of the metropole, and were ultimately motivated by misguided ideas of honor and glory.

For Bentham, transparency had moral value.

For example, journalism puts power-holders under moral scrutiny.

However, Bentham wanted such transparency to apply to everyone influential.

This he describes by picturing the world as a gymnasium in which each “gesture, every turn of limb or feature, in those whose motions have a visible impact on the general happiness, will be noticed and marked down“.

He considered both surveillance and transparency to be useful ways of generating understanding and improvements for people’s lives.

Above: Jeremy Bentham

15 February 1898

Havana, Cuba 

The battleship USS Maine explodes and sinks in Havana Harbor in Cuba, killing about 274 of the ship’s roughly 354 crew.

The disaster pushes the US to declare war on Spain.

Above: The USS Maine (1889 – 1898)

Maine was a US Navy ship that sank in Havana Harbor on 15 February 1898, contributing to the outbreak of the Spanish – American War in April.

US newspapers, engaging in yellow journalism to boost circulation, claimed that the Spanish were responsible for the ship’s destruction.

The phrase, “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!” became a rallying cry for action.

Although the Maine explosion was not a direct cause, it served as a catalyst that accelerated the events leading up to the War.

Above: USS Maine

Maine was sent to Havana Harbor to protect US interests during the Cuban War of Independence (1895 – 1898).

She exploded and sank on the evening of 15 February 1898, killing 268 sailors, or three-quarters of her crew.

Above: The sunken Maine in Havana Harbor

In 1898, a US Navy board of inquiry ruled that the ship had been sunk by an external explosion from a mine.

However, some US Navy officers disagreed with the board, suggesting that the ship’s magazines had been ignited by a spontaneous fire in a coal bunker.

The coal used in Maine was bituminous, which is known for releasing firedamp, a mixture of gases composed primarily of flammable methane that is prone to spontaneous explosions.

An investigation by Admiral Hyman Rickover in 1974 agreed with the coal fire hypothesis, penning a 1976 monograph that argued for this conclusion.

Above: US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover (1900 – 1986)

The cause of her sinking remains a subject of debate.

Above: USS Maine

In January 1898, Maine was sent from Key West, Florida, to Havana, Cuba to protect American interests during the Cuban War of Independence.

She arrived at 11:00 local time on 25 January. 

Above: Maine entering Havana Harbor on 25 January 1898, three weeks before her destruction. On the right is the Morro Castle fortress.

At 21:40 on 15 February, an explosion on the Maine occurred in the Havana harbor.

Later investigations revealed that more than 5 long tons (5.1 t) of powder charges for the vessel’s six- and ten-inch guns had detonated, obliterating the forward third of the ship. 

The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor.

Above: The wreckage of Maine

Most of Maine‘s crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters, in the forward part of the ship, when the explosion occurred.

The ship’s crew consisted of 355 men:

26 officers, 290 enlisted sailors and 39 marines.

Of these, there were 261 fatalities:

• Two officers and 251 enlisted sailors or marines were killed by the explosion or drowned
• Seven others were rescued but soon died of their injuries
• One officer later died of “cerebral affection” (shock)

Of the 94 survivors, 16 were uninjured. 

Above: The largely destroyed bow of the USS Maine

Captain Sigsbee and most of the officers survived because their quarters were in the aft portion of the ship. 

Above: The stern of the USS Maine

The City of Washington, an American merchant steamship, aided in rescuing the crew.

On the night of 15 February 1898, City of Washington was moored in Havana harbor near USS Maine when the Maine exploded in the incident that precipitated the Spanish – American War. 

City of Washington suffered minor damage in the explosion, but assisted in the rescue of Maine‘s crew by sending out lifeboats and providing her dining salon for use as a makeshift hospital.

The efforts of City of Washington and the Spanish cruiser Alfonso XII resulted in the rescue of approximately 100 crew members from Maine.

The cause of the accident was immediately debated.

Waking President McKinley to break the news, Commander Francis W. Dickins called it an “accident“. 

Above: US President William McKinley (1843 – 1901)

Commodore George Dewey, commander of the Asiatic Squadron, “feared at first that she had been destroyed by the Spanish, which of course meant war, and I was getting ready for it when a later dispatch said it was an accident“. 

Above: US Navy Admiral George Dewey (1837 – 1917)

Navy Captain Philip R. Alger, an expert on ordnance and explosives, posted a bulletin at the Navy Department the next day communicating that the explosion had been caused by a spontaneous fire in the coal bunkers.

Above: Simplistic representation of the explosion that sunk the USS Maine and its aftermath

Assistant Navy Secretary Theodore Roosevelt wrote a letter protesting this statement, which he viewed as premature.

Roosevelt argued that Alger should not have commented on an ongoing investigation, saying:

“Mr. Alger cannot possibly know anything about the accident.

All the best men in the Department agree that, whether probable or not, it certainly is possible that the ship was blown up by a mine.“

Above: US President Theodore Roosevelt (1858 – 1919)

The New York Journal and New York World, owned respectively by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, sensationalized the Maine incident with intense press coverage, employing tactics that would later be labeled “yellow journalism“.

Both newspapers exaggerated and distorted much of the information they obtained, sometimes even fabricating news to fit their agendas.

For a week following the sinking, the Journal devoted a daily average of 8 1/2 pages of news, editorials and pictures to the event. 

Its editors sent a full team of reporters and artists to Havana, including Frederic Remington.

Above: American artist Frederic Remington (1861 – 1909)

Hearst announced a reward of $50,000 ($1.89 million in 2024) “for the conviction of the criminals who sent 258 American sailors to their deaths“.

Above: US publisher William Randolph Hearst (1863 – 1951)

The World, while overall not as lurid or shrill in tone as the Journal, nevertheless indulged in similar theatrics, insisting continuously that Maine had been bombed or mined.

Privately, Pulitzer felt that “nobody outside a lunatic asylum” really believed that Spain sanctioned Maine‘s destruction.

Above: Hungarian American publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847 – 1911)

However, his New York World insisted that the only “atonement” that Spain could offer the US for the loss of ship and life was the granting of complete Cuban independence.

The paper accused Spain of “treachery, willingness, or laxness” for failing to ensure the safety of Havana Harbor. 

Many members of the American public, already agitated over reported Spanish atrocities in Cuba, were driven to increased hysteria.

Hearst’s reporting on the Maine incident generated support for military action against the Spanish in Cuba regardless of their actual involvement in the sinking.

He frequently cited various naval officers saying that the explosion could not have been an on-board accident.

He quoted an “officer high in authority” as saying:

“The idea that the catastrophe resulted from an internal accident is preposterous.

In the first place, such a thing has never occurred before that I have ever heard of either in the British navy or ours.“

Above: A satirical map, titled “The trouble of Cuba” (1895) by Bernhard Gillam, reflecting the American sentiment towards Cuba, three years before the beginning of the Spanish–American War

The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism.

It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement.

Above: Editorial cartoon by Leon Barritt, 1898.

Newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, full-length, dressed as the Yellow Kid (a popular cartoon character of the day), each pushing against opposite sides of a pillar of wooden blocks that spells WAR.

This is a satire of the Pulitzer and Hearst newspapers’ role in drumming up USA public opinion to go to war with Spain.

The War grew out of US interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. 

American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

Several forces within the US were pushing for a war with Spain.

Their tactics were wide-ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible.

Above: Map of Cuba

Men such as William Randolph Hearst, the owner of the New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers.

Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war.

Correspondents had to evade Spanish authorities.

Usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories.

Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect. 

Above: Spanish troops in Cuba

Theodore Roosevelt, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at this time, wanted to use the conflict both to help heal the wounds still fresh from the American Civil War, and to increase the strength of the US Navy, while simultaneously establishing the US as a presence on the world stage.

Roosevelt put pressure on Congress to come to the aid of the Cuban people.

He emphasized Cuban weakness and femininity to justify US military intervention.

Above: Theodore Roosevelt

The US had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from the declining Spanish Empire.

President James Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million in 1848, but Spain declined to sell the island.

Above: US President James K. Polk (1795 – 1849)

When the Democrats recaptured the White House in 1852 with the election of Franklin Pierce, he renewed the offer to buy the island, this time for $130 million.

Above: US President Franklin Pierce (1804 – 1869)

When the public learned of the Ostend Manifesto in 1854, which argued that the US could seize Cuba by force if Spain refused to sell, this effectively killed the effort to acquire the island.

The public now linked expansion with slavery.

If Manifest Destiny had once enjoyed widespread popular approval, this was no longer true.

The outbreak of the American Civil War in 1860 put a temporary end to the expansionist attempts, but as the Civil War faded into history, the term Manifest destiny experienced a brief revival.

In the 1892 US presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed:

“We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe Doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense.”

After the Republicans recaptured the White House in 1896 and for the next 16 years they held on to it, Manifest Destiny was cited to promote overseas expansion.

The situation prior to the Spanish–American War was particularly tense.

Several members of the media, such as William Randolph Hearst, and of the military were calling for intervention by the US to help the revolutionaries in Cuba.

American opinion was overwhelmingly swayed and hostility towards Spain began to build.

American newspapers ran stories of a sensationalist nature depicting atrocities, both fabricated and real, committed by the Spanish.

These stories often reflected true stories such as thousands of Cubans had been displaced to the country side in concentration camps, as well as entirely fictional accounts of Spaniards feeding Cuban children to sharks. 

Many stories used depictions of gruesome murders, rapes and slaughter.

During this time there was a riot in Havana by those sympathetic to the Spanish.

The printing presses of newspapers that had criticized the actions of the Spanish Army were destroyed.

Before the sinking of the USS Maine, one American media correspondent stationed in Cuba was quoted as saying that the American people were being greatly deceived by reporters sent to cover the revolution.

According to him an overwhelming majority of the stories were obtained through third hand information often relayed by their Cuban interpreters and informants.

These people were often sympathetic to the revolution and would distort the facts to shed a positive light on the revolution.

Routinely small skirmishes would become large battles.

Cuban oppression was depicted through inhumane treatment, torture, rape, and mass pillaging by the Spanish forces.

These stories revealed heaps of dead men, women and children left on the side of the road.

Correspondents rarely bothered to confirm facts.

They simply passed the stories on to their editors in the states, where they would be put into publication after further editing and misrepresentation.

This type of journalism became known as yellow journalism.

Yellow journalism swept the nation and its propaganda helped to precipitate military action by the US.

Above: The Yellow Press, by L.M. Glackens.

Illustration shows William Randolph Hearst as a jester tossing newspapers with headlines such as “Appeals to Passion, Venom, Sensationalism, Attacks on Honest Officials, Strife, Distorted News, Personal Grievance, and Misrepresentation” to a crowd of eager readers, among them an anarchist assassinating a politician speaking from a platform draped with American flags.

On the left, men labeled “Man who buys the comic supplement for the kids, Businessman, Gullible Reformer, Advertiser, and Decent Citizen” carry bags of money that they dump into Hearst’s printing press.

Includes note:

“The time is at hand when these journalistic scoundrels have got to stop or get out, and I am ready now to do my share to that end.

They are absolutely without souls.

If decent people would refuse to look at such newspapers the whole thing would right itself at once.

The journalism of New York City has been dragged to the lowest depths of degradation.

The grossest railleries and libels, instead of honest statements and fair discussion, have gone unchecked.”

From Mayor Gaynor’s letter published in the New York Evening Post.

The US sent troops to Cuba as well as several other Spanish colonies throughout the world.

The two newspaper owners credited with developing the journalistic style of yellow journalism were William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.

These two were fighting a circulation battle in New York City.

Above: 1890s New York City

Pulitzer owned the New York World, and Hearst the New York Journal.

Through their disregard for responsible journalism, the two men are commonly credited with leading the USA into the Spanish–American War.

Their stories swayed US public opinion to believe that the Cuban people were being unjustly persecuted by the Spanish, and that the only way for them to gain their independence was through American intervention.

Hearst and Pulitzer made their stories credible by self-assertion and providing false names, dates, and locations of skirmishes and atrocities committed by the Spanish.

Papers also claimed that their facts could be substantiated by the government.

While Hearst and Pulitzer’s influence was significant among the upper classes and government officials, there were many Midwestern newspapers who denounced their use of sensational yellow journalism. 

Above: Battle of Ceja del Negro – 4 October 1896

Victor Lawson, owner of both the Chicago Record and Chicago Daily News, had garnered a large middle-class readership and was concerned with reporting only the facts surrounding the growing conflict between the US and Spain.

An office was set up by Lawson in nearby Key West in order to keep a close eye on the Cuban conflict.

However, the focus of Midwestern newspapers on particular facts served in the end as another cause of the war.

Since the events occurring in Cuba were not always credible many Midwestern newspaper owners shifted their content towards domestic issues, namely the effect of Cuba on the American economy.

American interests in trade with Cuba were significant, and through the papers’ coverage of these matters, much of the readership in the Midwest soon came to believe that protecting these interests was necessary for economic stability.

Above: Flag of Cuba

The most obvious means of preserving these interests was through war with Spain.

Concerned that their goals were being undermined by Lawson and other Midwest newspapers, Hearst and Pulitzer were looking for any story which could expand their middle class audience.

Two well-timed incidents served to support these interests.

Above: Flag of Spain (España)

The first was the Olivette Incident, where a young and innocent-looking Cuban woman named Clemencia Arango was taken into custody aboard the New York bound ship Olivette by Spanish officials, under suspicion of delivering letters to rebel leaders stationed in the city.

She was taken into a private room and searched.

A passenger and reporter working for Hearst named Richard Harding Davis reported the incident, but was later appalled by the sensational claims which accused Spanish officials of sexual harassment.

The headlines were as follows:

• “Does our flag shield women?“
• “Indignities Practiced by Spanish Officials On Board American Vessels”
• “Refined Young Women Stripped and Searched by Brutal Spaniards While Under Our Flag on the Ollivette“.

Initially Hearst even succeeded in garnering support among American women, but he soon found himself in trouble when Arango clarified the accounts.

Although he never published an apology, he was forced to print a letter in which he explained that his article had not meant to say that male policemen had searched the women and that, in fact, the search had been conducted quite properly by a police matron with no men present.

Above: Male Spanish officials strip search an American woman tourist in Cuba looking for messages from rebels – front page “yellow journalism” from Hearst (artist: Remington)

Fortunately for Hearst, a second incident soon followed.

It involved a Cuban dentist named Ricardo Ruiz who had fled to the US during the Cuban Ten Year War and had become a US citizen.

Ruiz voluntarily returned to Cuba after the conflict, married, and had children.

He was soon imprisoned under suspicion of associating with rebels, and died in prison.

Hearst published a headline the next day that read ‘American Slain in Spanish Jail‘.

Ruiz’ story had a significant impact on adding tension between the US and Spain among the middle classes, who related to him even though Ruiz was a proud Cuban.

Although these incidents fueled American animosity toward Spain, they were insufficient to directly cause a war.

It would be the sensationalizing of the sinking of the USS Maine that would accomplish this task.

Above: USS Maine

Frederic Remington, an artist hired by Hearst to provide illustrations to accompany a series of articles on the Cuban Revolution, soon became bored with seemingly peaceful Cuba and wired Hearst in January 1897:

“Everything is quiet.

There is no trouble.

There will be no war.

I wish to return.”

To which Hearst’s alleged reply was:

“Please remain.

You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.“

Above: Remington’s depiction of the USS Maine

In the days following the sinking of USS Maine, Hearst ran a story with the heading “The War Ship Maine was Split in Two by an Enemy’s Secret Infernal Machine“.

The story told how the Spanish had planted a torpedo beneath USS Maine and detonated it from shore.

Hearst soon followed this article with one containing diagrams and blueprints of the secret torpedoes used by Spain.

Captain Sigsbee of USS Maine put in a telegram to the Secretary of the Navy that judgment and opinion should be suspended until further report. 

At the Court of Naval Inquiry, Sigsbee maintained a mine was responsible for sinking his ship.

The Court found the same, but was unable to find evidence to attribute the sinking to “any person or persons“.

An investigation in 1974, reached the opposite conclusion, that the explosion had originated inside the ship.

Many stories like the one published by Hearst were printed across the country blaming the Spanish military for the destruction of USS Maine.

These stories struck a chord with the American people stirring public opinion up into a divided frenzy, with a large group of Americans wanting to attack and another wanting to wait for confirmation.

The Americans that wanted to attack wanted to remove Spain from power in many of their colonies close to the US.

Those easily persuaded by the Yellow Journalism eventually prevailed.

American troops were sent to Cuba.

Above: Monument to victims of Maine in Havana, Cuba

How little things seem to change over time.

The United States has been involved in some form of military conflict for the vast majority of its history.

In fact, according to various studies, out of its nearly 249 years of existence (since 1776), the US has only been at peace for roughly 17 years — and even that depends on how one defines “peace“.

There have been brief periods without direct involvement in wars or military interventions, but these were often punctuated by smaller conflicts, covert operations, or military presence abroad.

The major exceptions where the US was largely at peace include:

1815 – 1846

After the War of 1812, there were no major wars until the Mexican-American War, though there were conflicts with Native American tribes and occasional military actions abroad.

1865 – 1898

Following the Civil War, there were domestic conflicts with Native American tribes but no large-scale foreign wars until the Spanish-American War.

1920s – 1939

After World War I, the US was relatively non-interventionist, though it had military operations in places like Nicaragua and China.

1975 – 1980

After the Vietnam War, there was a brief period before significant military action resumed with operations in Iran and Central America.

However, the Cold War, War on Terror, and various interventions have meant that the US has been almost continuously engaged in military conflicts, whether declared or not.

It’s a sobering reality.

Peace has been more of an exception than a rule in American history.

15 February 1954 

Washington DC, USA

Canada and the US agree to construct the Distant Early Warning Line (DEW), a system of radar stations in the far northern Arctic regions of Canada and Alaska.

The Distant Early Warning Line, also known as the DEW Line or Early Warning Line, was a system of radar stations in the northern Arctic region of Canada, with additional stations along the north coast and Aleutian Islands of Alaska, in addition to the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Iceland.

It was set up to detect incoming bombers of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and provide early warning of any sea-and-land invasion.

The DEW Line was the northernmost and most capable of three radar lines in Canada and Alaska.

Above: Map of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line

The first of these was the joint Canadian – US Pinetree Line, which ran from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island just north of the Canada – US border, but even while it was being built there were concerns that it would not provide enough warning time to launch an effective counterattack.

The Mid-Canada Line (MCL) was proposed as an inexpensive solution using bistatic radar.

This provided a “trip wire” warning located roughly at the 55th parallel, giving commanders ample warning time, but little information on the targets or their exact location.

The MCL proved largely useless in practice, as the radar return of flocks of birds overwhelmed signals from aircraft.

Above: A rough map of the three warning lines.

From north to south: the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line, the Mid-Canada Line and the Pinetree Line

The DEW Line was proposed as a solution to both of these problems, using conventional radar systems that could both detect and characterize an attack, while being located far to the north where they would offer hours of advance warning.

This would not only provide ample time for the defenses to prepare, but also allow the Strategic Air Command to get its active aircraft airborne long before Soviet bombers could reach their targets.

Above: Shield of the SAC (1946 – 1992)

The need was considered critical and the construction was given the highest national priorities.

Advance site preparation began in December 1954, and the construction was carried out in a massive logistical operation that took place mostly during the summer months when the sites could be reached by ships.

The 63-base line reached operational status in 1957.

The MCL was shut down in the early 1960s.

Much of the Pinetree Line was given over to civilian use.

In 1985, as part of the “Shamrock Summit“, the US and Canada agreed to transition DEW to the new North Warning System (NWS).

Above: (left to right) Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (1939 – 2024) and his wife Mila, US First Lady Nancy Reagan (1921 – 2016) and US President Ronald Reagan (1911 – 2004), Québec City, Québec, Canada, Day 2 of the Shamrock Summit – 17 – 18 March 1985

Beginning in 1988, most of the original DEW stations were deactivated, while a small number were upgraded with all-new equipment. 

The official handover from DEW to North Warning System (NWS) took place on 15 July 1993.

From the beginning of the development of the DEW Line idea, Canadian concerns over political perception grew enormously.

Noted Canadian Arctic historian P. Whitney Lackenbauer argues that the Canadian Government saw little intrinsic value in the Arctic, but due to fear of Americanization and American penetration into the Canadian Arctic, brought significant changes and a more militaristic role to the North. 

This shift into a more military role began with a transition of authority, shifting responsibility of Arctic defense in Canada from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

Above: Coat of arms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Above: Emblem of the Canadian Armed Forces

This “active defense” had three key elements:

• minimizing the extent of the American presence in the Canadian Arctic
• Canadian government input into the management of the DEW Line
• full Canadian participation in Arctic defense.

Funding problems for the DEW Line also played a role in perception of the project.

American investment in building and operating the DEW Line system declined as the ICBM threat refocused priorities, but Canada did not fill the void with commensurate additional funding.

In 1968 a Canadian Department of National Defense Paper (27 November 1968) stated no further funding for research on the DEW Line or air space would be allocated due in part to lack of commercial activity.

The Canadian government also limited US air activity, base activity, soldier numbers, and contractor numbers.

The overall operation would be considered and called in all formalities a “joint operation“.

The cultural impact of the DEW Line System is immense and significant to the heritage of Canada and Alaska.

In Canada, the DEW line increased connections between the populous south and the remote High Arctic, helping to bring Inuit more thoroughly into the Canadian polity. 

The construction and operating of the DEW Line provided some economic development for the Arctic region.

This provided momentum for further development through research, new communications, and new studies of the area.

Although the construction of the DEW line itself was placed in American hands, much of the later development was under direct Canadian direction.

Resource protection of historical DEW Line sites is currently under discussion in Canada and Alaska.

The discussion stems from the deactivation aspect of the sites and arguments over what to do with leftover equipment and leftover intact sites.

Many Canadian historians encourage the preservation of DEW Line sites through heritage designations. 

Above: Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The DEW Line is a setting for the 1957 film The Deadly Mantis.

The film begins with a short documentary on the three RADAR lines, focusing on the DEW Line’s construction.

A controversy also developed between the US and Canada over the cleanup of deactivated Canadian DEW Line sites.

The cleanup is now underway, site by site. 

In assessing the cleanup, new research suggests that off-road vehicles damaged vegetation and organic matter, resulting in the melting of the permafrost, a key component to the hydrological systems of the areas. 

The DEW Line has also been linked to depleted fish stocks and carelessness in agitating local animals such as the caribou, as well as non-seasonal hunting.

These aspects are claimed to have had a devastating impact on the local native subsistence economies and environment.

Above: Emblem of the USAF Distant Early Warning Line and Distant Early Warning System Office

To me, there has always been a smug arrogance by Americans towards Canadians.

America mistakes Canada’s cooperative spirit as a sign that we are kowtowing towards them, that we should always act in accordance with their wishes.

The truth is that we are a far more diplomatic people than our American cousins.

The general consensus is that in any agreement with America, especially under the administration of Trump, the US will always insist on what it wants regardless of the detriment to others.

1965 – The maple leaf is adopted as the flag of Canada, replacing the Canadian Red Ensign flag.

The National Flag of Canada (French: Drapeau national du Canada), often referred to simply as the Canadian flag, consists of a red field with a white square at its centre in the ratio of 1∶2∶1, in which is featured one stylized, red, 11-pointed maple leaf charged in the centre.

It is the first flag to have been adopted by both houses of Parliament and officially proclaimed by the Canadian monarch as the country’s official national flag. 

The flag has become the predominant and most recognizable national symbol of Canada.

By the 1960s, the debate for an official Canadian flag intensified and became controversial, culminating in the Great Flag Debate of 1964. 

Above: An exhibit on the Great Canadian Flag Debate at the Canadian Museum of History, Gatineau, Québec, Canada

In 1963, the minority Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson gained power and decided to adopt an official Canadian flag through parliamentary debate.

The principal political proponent of the change was Pearson.

He had been a significant broker during the Suez Crisis of 1956, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Above: Location of the Suez Canal

(The Suez Crisis also known as the Second Arab–Israeli War, the Tripartite Aggression in the Arab world and as the Sinai War in Israel, was a British–French–Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956.

Israel invaded on 29 October, having done so with the primary objective of re-opening the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as the recent tightening of the eight-year-long Egyptian blockade further prevented Israeli passage.

After issuing a joint ultimatum for a ceasefire, the UK and France joined the Israelis on 5 November, seeking to depose Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and regain control of the Suez Canal, which Nasser had earlier nationalized by transferring administrative control from the foreign-owned Suez Canal Company to Egypt’s new government-owned Suez Canal Authority. 

Shortly after the invasion began, the three countries came under heavy political pressure from both the US and the Soviet Union, as well as from the United Nations, eventually prompting their withdrawal from Egypt.

The Crisis demonstrated that the UK and France could no longer pursue their independent foreign policy without consent from the US.

Israel’s four-month-long occupation of the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula enabled it to attain freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran, but the Suez Canal was closed from October 1956 to March 1957.

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower had issued a strong warning to the British if they were to invade Egypt.

He threatened serious damage to the British financial system by selling the American government’s bonds of pound sterling.

Before their defeat, Egyptian troops blocked all ship traffic by sinking 40 ships in the Canal.

It later became clear that Israel, the UK and France had conspired to invade Egypt.

These three achieved a number of their military objectives, although the Canal was useless.

The crisis strengthened Nasser’s standing and led to international humiliation for the British – with historians arguing that it signified the end of its role as a world superpower – as well as the French amid the Cold War (which established the U.S. and the USSR as the world’s superpowers).

As a result of the conflict, the UN established an emergency force to police and patrol the Egypt – Israel border, while British Prime Minister Anthony Eden resigned from his position.

For his diplomatic efforts in resolving the conflict through UN initiatives, Canadian External Affairs Minister Lester B. Pearson received a Nobel Peace Prize.

Analysts have argued that the crisis may have emboldened the USSR, prompting the Soviet invasion of Hungary.)

During the Crisis, Pearson was disturbed when the Egyptian government objected to Canadian peacekeeping forces because the Canadian flag (the Red Ensign) contained the same symbol (the Union Flag) also used as a flag by the United Kingdom, one of the belligerents. 

Above: Postcard of the Maisonneuve Monument, located on Place d’Armes in Montréal, Québec, Canada, also commemorating the 1911 coronation of King George V.

A version of the Red Ensign of Canada and the Union Jack are also depicted on the card.

Pearson’s goal was to create a Canadian flag that was distinctive and unmistakably Canadian.

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson (1897 – 1972)

The main opponent to changing the flag was the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, who eventually made the subject a personal crusade.

Above: Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker (1895 – 1979)

In 1961, Leader of the Opposition Lester Pearson asked John Ross Matheson to begin researching what it would take for Canada to have a new flag.

By April 1963, Pearson was Prime Minister in a minority government and risked losing power over the issue.

He formed a 15-member multi-party Parliamentary Committee in 1963 to select a new design, despite opposition leader Diefenbaker’s demands for a referendum on the issue. 

On 27 May 1964, Pearson’s cabinet introduced a motion to Parliament for the adoption of his favourite design, presented to him by artist and heraldic advisor Alan Beddoe, of a “sea to sea” (Canada’s motto) flag with blue borders and three conjoined red maple leaves on a white field.

This motion led to weeks of acrimonious debate in the House of Commons and the design came to be known as the “Pearson Pennant“, derided by the media and viewed as a “concession to Québec”.

Above: The Pearson Pennant

A new all-party committee was formed in September 1964, comprising seven Liberals, five Conservatives, one New Democrat, one Social Crediter, and one Créditiste, with Herman Batten as Chairman, while John Matheson acted as Pearson’s right-hand man. 

Among those who gave their opinions to the group was:

• Duguid, expressing the same views as he had in 1945, insisting on a design using three maple leaves 
• Arthur R. M. Lower, stressing the need for a distinctly Canadian emblem
• Marcel Trudel, arguing for symbols of Canada’s founding nations, which did not include the maple leaf (a thought shared by Diefenbaker)
• A. Y. Jackson, providing his own suggested designs 

A steering committee also considered about 2,000 suggestions from the public, in addition to 3,900 others that included, according to Library and Archives Canada, “those that had accumulated in the Department of the Secretary of State and those from a Parliamentary Flag Committee of 1945 – 1946“. 

Through six weeks of study with political manoeuvring, the committee took a vote on the two finalists:

• the Pearson Pennant (Beddoe’s design)
• the current design.

Believing the Liberal members would vote for the Prime Minister’s preference, the Conservatives voted for the single leaf design.

The Liberals, though, all voted for the single leaf design, as did the members from the other two parties, giving a unanimous 15 to 0 vote for the option created by George Stanley and inspired by the flag of the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) in Kingston, Ontario.

There, near the parade square, in March 1964, while viewing the college flag atop the Mackenzie Building, Stanley, then RMC’s Dean of Arts, first suggested to Matheson, then Member of Parliament for Leeds, that the RMC flag should form the basis of the national flag.

Above: Flag of the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

The suggestion was followed by Stanley’s Memorandum of 23 March 1964, on the history of Canada’s emblems, in which he warned that any new flag “must avoid the use of national or racial symbols that are of a divisive nature” and that it would be “clearly inadvisable” to create a flag that carried the Union Flag or a fleur-de-lis.

According to Matheson, Pearson’s “paramount and desperate objective” in introducing the new flag was keeping Québec in Canada. 

It was Stanley’s idea that the new flag should be red and white and that it should feature the single maple leaf.

His Memorandum included the first sketch of what would become the flag of Canada.

Stanley and Matheson collaborated on a design that was, after six months of debate and 308 speeches, passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons on 15 December 1964.

Just after this, at 2:00 am, Matheson wrote to Stanley:

“Your proposed flag has just now been approved by the Commons 163 to 78.

Congratulations.

I believe it is an excellent flag that will serve Canada well.” 

The Senate added its approval two days later.

The flag officially appeared on February 15, 1965.

The date is now celebrated annually as National Flag of Canada Day.

The new national flag was inaugurated on 15 February 1965, at an official ceremony held on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, in the presence of Governor General Major-General Georges Vanier, the Prime Minister, other members of the Cabinet, and Canadian parliamentarians.

The Red Ensign was lowered at the stroke of noon, and the new maple leaf flag was raised.

The crowd sang “O Canada” followed by “God Save the Queen“.

Of the flag, Vanier said:

“It will symbolize to each of us — and to the world — the unity of purpose and high resolve to which destiny beckons us.” 

Above: Canadian Governor-General Georges Vanier (1888 – 1967)

Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate, said:

“The flag is the symbol of the nation’s unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief, or opinion.” 

Above: Canadian Senate Speaker Maurice Bourget (1907 – 1979)

Yet there was still opposition to the change.

Stanley’s life was even threatened for having “assassinated the flag“.

Despite this, Stanley attended the flag-raising ceremony.

Above: Canadian historian George Stanley (1907 – 2002)

At the time of the 50th anniversary of the flag in 2015, the government — held by the Conservative Party — was criticized for the lack of an official ceremony dedicated to the date.

Accusations of partisanship were levelled. 

Minister of Canadian Heritage Shelly Glover denied the charges, and others, including Liberal Members of Parliament, pointed to community events taking place around the country. 

Above: Canadian politician Shelly Glover

Governor General David Johnston did, though, preside at an official ceremony at Confederation Park in Ottawa, integrated with Winterlude.

He said:

“The National Flag of Canada is so embedded in our national life and so emblematic of our national purpose that we simply cannot imagine our country without it.” 

Above: Canadian Governor-General David Johnston (r. 2010 – 2017)

Queen Elizabeth II stated:

“On this, the 50th anniversary of the National Flag of Canada, I am pleased to join with all Canadians in the celebration of this unique and cherished symbol of our country and identity.“

Above: British Queen Elizabeth II (1926 – 2022)

A commemorative stamp and coin were issued by Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mint, respectively.

Before 1965, the Canadian Red Ensign had been in unofficial use since the 1860s and was later officially approved by a 1945 Order in Council for use “wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag“. 

Also, the Royal Union Flag remains an official flag in Canada, to symbolize Canada’s allegiance to the monarch and membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Above: Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations

There is no law dictating how the national flag is to be treated, but there are conventions and protocols to guide how it is to be displayed and its place in the order of precedence of flags, which gives it primacy over the aforementioned and most other flags.

Many different flags created by Canadian officials, government bodies, and military forces contain the maple leaf motif in some fashion, either by having the Canadian flag charged in the canton or by including maple leaves in the design.

The Canadian flag also appears on the government’s wordmark.

Above: Royal Standard of Canada

Public display of Canadian flags is rare in Québec, with most Québecers preferring to fly the flag of Québec instead. 

Display of the flag is also contentious, with the Quebec provincial government ordering that the Quebec flag be given seniority over the Canadian one in the Province.

Many Québec government facilities, such as Québec City Hall, the headquarters of the Sûreté du Québec (provincial police) and SAAQ (Societé de l’assurance automobile du Québec) and the Québec Parliament, refusing to fly the Canadian flag at all.

Above: Flag of Québec

Since 1996, February 15 has been commemorated as National Flag of Canada Day. 

In 1996, Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Copps instituted the One in a Million National Flag Challenge. 

Canadian Heritage put the expenses at $15.5 million, with approximately a seventh of the cost offset by donations.

In February 2025, in the lead up to the 60th anniversary of the Canadian maple leaf flag, former Prime Ministers Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark, Stephen Harper and Paul Martin encouraged Canadians to show national pride and fly the flag “like never before” in the light of “threats and insults” to Canadian sovereignty by US President Donald Trump.

Above: US President Donald Trump

(A trade war began between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on 1 February 2025, when US President Donald Trump signed orders imposing near-universal tariffs on goods from the two countries to take effect on 4 February.

The order called for 25% tariffs on all exports from Mexico and all Canadian exports except for oil and energy, which would be taxed at 10%.

Trump said the goal of the tariffs was to stop both illegal immigration to the US and the supply of fentanyl across its borders with Canada and Mexico and to reduce the US trade deficit.

In response, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada would immediately respond with 25% tariffs on CA$30 billion (US$20.6 billion) of American exports, which would expand to CA$155 billion (US$106 billion) within three weeks.

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Mexico would enact tariffs and non-tariff economic retaliation against the US.

Above: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum

On 3 February, both countries negotiated one-month delays on the tariffs with the US and agreed to assist the US with national security along their borders with the country.

One week later, the US imposed tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, including from Canada and Mexico.

Both Canada and Mexico have said that Trump’s tariffs would violate the US – Mexico – Canada free trade agreement ratified by the three countries in 2020 under Trump’s first presidency.

Economists have said that the tariffs would likely disrupt trade between the three countries significantly, upend supply chains across North America, and increase consumer prices across the US, Mexico, and Canada.)

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell (r. 1993)

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (r. 1993 – 2003)

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark (r. 1979 – 1980)

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006 – 2015)

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (r. 2003 – 2006)

A few thoughts emerge after reading this history.

The very chronicle of Canada is about Canadians not wanting to be American – the United Empire Loyalists who left the States when Britain lost the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 – 1814 between Canada and the United States, the sometimes cooperative, sometimes combative relationship between American Presidents and Canadian Prime Ministers, the uneven alliances between the two countries during times of war.

Above: Depiction of Loyalist refugees on their way to Canada during the American Revolution

Canada was the northern end of the Underground Railway and meant freedom from slavery for many Blacks.

Above: “Routes of the Underground Railroad”

The Underground Railroad was not an actual railroad, but a network of secret routes and safe houses used by black slaves in the US to escape to free states and Canada.

Canada was a refuge for Vietnam War draft dodgers.

Above: Draft-age Americans being counseled at the Anti-Draft Programme office on Spadina Avenue in Toronto, August 1967

The front room was so crowded at the time that the counseling session here is taking place in one of the small side rooms.

The Toronto Anti-Draft Programme was Canada’s largest organization providing pre-emigration counseling and post-emigration services to American Vietnam War resisters.

Canada has generally maintained a far more welcoming environment for the world’s refugees than its American cousins.

Canada is a distinct nation from the United States.

Canadians like that distinctiveness.

Regarding Canada’s involvement in US wars, the relationship has been nuanced.

Canada, as a sovereign nation, has chosen to support or decline participation based on its own interests and values.

Wars where Canada was involved with the US:

World War I (1914 – 1918)

Though the US joined late (1917), Canada had been fighting from the beginning as part of the British Empire.

The two countries cooperated but did not officially fight together under the same command.

Above: A train filled with soldiers departs from Toronto’s Union Station shortly after World War I began in 1914

World War II (1939 – 1945)

Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, two years before the US entered.

Canadian and American forces fought side by side in Europe, the Pacific, and at D-Day.

Above: D-Day landing, Omaha Beach, Normandy, France, 6 June 1944

Korean War (1950 – 1953)

Canada, as a UN member, sent troops to fight alongside the US against North Korea and China.

Above: Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, Korea (1951)

Gulf War (1991)

Canada contributed naval forces and provided air support during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq.

Above: Canadian 416 Fighter Squadron, Gulf War

War in Afghanistan (2001 – 2014)

Canada deployed troops to fight alongside the US and NATO allies after the 9/11 attacks, with Canadian forces taking a major role in Kandahar.

Above: Canadian soldiers, Afghanistan War

Libya (2011)

Canada played a significant role in NATO’s intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, working alongside the US.

Above: Canadian soldiers in Libya

Ukraine Support (2022 – Present)

While not directly engaged in combat, Canada has provided military aid and training to Ukrainian forces, in alignment with US policy against Russian aggression.

Above: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 8 May 2022

Wars where Canada did not assist the US:

War of 1812 (1812 – 1815)

Not only did Canada not help the US, but as a British colony, Canadian militias and Indigenous allies fought against the U.S. invasion.

Above: Images of the War of 1812

Mexican-American War (1846 – 1848)

Canada, still a British colony, remained neutral.

Above: Images of the Mexican – American War

American Civil War (1861–1865)

Officially neutral, though some Canadians joined both Union and Confederate forces.

Above: Images of the American Civil War

Spanish – American War (1898)

Canada did not participate.

Above: Images of the Spanish – American War

Vietnam War (1955 – 1975)

Canada refused to send troops, did not participate in combat, and even became a destination for American draft dodgers.

However, some Canadian companies indirectly supported the war effort.

Above: Scene from the Vietnam War

Iraq War (2003 – 2011)

Canada did not join the US-led invasion of Iraq, a major point of divergence between the two nations.

However, Canada later contributed training support in non-combat roles.

Above: Scene from the Iraq War

Canada has generally aligned itself with the US in wars fought under the umbrella of NATO, the UN, or against widely condemned aggressors (e.g., Nazi Germany, North Korea, al-Qaeda).

However, when wars were seen as US-driven interventions (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq 2003), Canada has been more reluctant to join.

15 February 1989

Moscow, Russia

The Soviet Union officially announces that all of its troops have left Afghanistan.

Pursuant to the Geneva Accords of 14 April 1988, the Soviet Union conducted a total military withdrawal from Afghanistan between 15 May 1988 and 15 February 1989. 

Above: A column of Soviet BTR armored personnel carriers departing from Afghanistan

Headed by the Soviet military officer Boris Gromov, the retreat of the 40th Army into the Union Republics of Central Asia formally brought the Soviet – Afghan War to a close after nearly a decade of fighting.

Above: Russian politician Boris Gromov

It marked a significant development in the Afghan conflict, having served as the precursor event to the First Afghan Civil War (1989 – 1992).

Mikhail Gorbachev, who became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985, began planning for a military disengagement from Afghanistan soon after he was elected by the Politburo.

Understanding that the Soviet Union’s troublesome economic and international situation was complicated by its involvement in the Afghan War, Gorbachev “had decided to seek a withdrawal from Afghanistan and had won the support of the Politburo to do so by October 1985“. 

He later strengthened his support base at the top level of Soviet government further by expanding the Politburo with his allies. 

To fulfill domestic and foreign expectations, Gorbachev aimed to withdraw having achieved some degree of success.

At home, Gorbachev was forced to satisfy the hawkish military-industrial complex, military leadership, and intelligence agencies. 

Above: Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev (1931 – 2022)

(Later, Gorbachev would tell UN Envoy Diego Cordovez that the impact of the war lobby should not be overestimated.

Cordovez recalls that Gorbachev’s advisors were not unanimous in this pronouncement, but all agreed that disagreements with the US, Pakistan, and realities in Kabul played a bigger role in delaying withdrawal.) 

Above: Ecuadorian diplomat Diego Cordovez (1935 – 2014)

Abroad, Gorbachev aimed to retain prestige in the eyes of Third World allies.

He, like Soviet leaders before him, considered only a dignified withdrawal to be acceptable. 

Above: Flag of the Soviet Union (1922 – 1991)

This necessitated the creation of stability within Afghanistan, which the Soviet Union would attempt to accomplish until its eventual withdrawal in 1988 – 1989. 

Three objectives were viewed by Gorbachev as conditions needed for withdrawal:

• internal stability
• limited foreign intervention
• international recognition of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan’s Communist government.

Above: Flag of Afghanistan (1980 – 1987)

Under his leadership, the Soviet Union attempted to aid the consolidation of power by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA).

Above: Emblem of the PDPA

The Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah was directed by the Soviets towards a policy of “National Reconciliation” through diplomacy between his PDPA government and the rebelling Islamists of the Afghan mujahideen.

Above: Afghani President Mohammad Najibullah (1947 – 1996)

In the context of the Cold War, the dynamic of the Soviet Union – US relationship showed signs of improvement, as it had become increasingly clear to the Soviet government that propping up Najibullah’s government in Kabul would not produce sufficient results to maintain the PDPA’s power in the long term.

Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Gorbachev’s government continued to militarily and politically support Najibullah against the Afghan opposition, though this aid was abruptly halted due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

The ensuing collapse of Najibullah’s government in April 1992 triggered the Second Afghan Civil War (1992 – 1996), in which the Pakistan-backed Taliban was victorious.

Above: Flag of Afghanistan

The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in 1979 to support a Communist government against Islamist insurgents (Mujahideen), backed by the US, Pakistan, and others.

After a decade of costly warfare, mounting casualties, and declining public support, Mikhail Gorbachev ordered a withdrawal.

The Soviets sought a “face-saving” exit, supporting the Afghan government until 1992, but once they left, the government collapsed, and the Taliban eventually took power.

Above: Last Soviet troop column crosses Soviet border after leaving Afghanistan

Let us compare this Soviet withdrawal with two famous examples of American withdrawals from conflicts.

US withdrawal from Vietnam (1973 – 1975)

The US fought to prevent the spread of Communism in South Vietnam, but after 20 years of guerrilla warfare, public opposition, and military setbacks, it negotiated the Paris Peace Accords (1973) and withdrew.

However, the South Vietnamese government fell in 1975 when North Vietnamese forces overran Saigon.

The withdrawal was chaotic, with desperate evacuations reminiscent of what happened in Afghanistan decades later.

Above: A CIA officer helps evacuees up a ladder onto an Air America Bell 204/205 helicopter at 22 Gia Long Street on 29 April 1975

US withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021)

After 20 years of war, the US sought an exit, negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban.

The Afghan government, like South Vietnam, was expected to stand on its own but collapsed almost immediately.

The final days of the withdrawal were marked by chaos, including desperate evacuations at Kabul airport, reminiscent of Saigon.

Above: US troops leave Afghanistan

Of course, the elephant in the room now is whether Russia will withdraw from Ukraine.

It’s a complex question.

Here are some key factors that will determine whether Russia will withdraw:

Military Realities:

Russia has faced significant resistance from Ukraine, suffering high casualties and losing large amounts of equipment.

However, it continues to control significant portions of Ukrainian territory, particularly in the East.

Political Considerations:

Putin has tied his political survival to the War.

A withdrawal without some form of “victory” would be a severe blow to his leadership.

Unlike Gorbachev in the late 1980s, Putin has no intention of appearing weak.

Above: Russian President Vladimir Putin

Public Opinion & Economy:

Despite sanctions, Russia’s economy has remained more resilient than expected.

However, prolonged warfare could gradually erode domestic support.

If war fatigue grows — especially among elites — it could push for a reassessment.

There are clear indications of war fatigue within Russia regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Recent surveys reflect a significant shift in public opinion:

61% of Russians now favor peace talks, the highest percentage since the War began, while only 31% support the continuation of military operations.

Additionally, over 70% of respondents expressed willingness to accept any peace deal endorsed by President Putin, suggesting a strong desire among the populace to see an end to the hostilities.

This growing war-weariness is further evidenced by the optimism surrounding recent US – Russia diplomatic engagements, with many Russians hopeful that these talks might lead to peace and a return to pre-war normalcy.

The prolonged conflict has led to significant casualties and economic challenges, contributing to the public’s desire for resolution.

Moreover, the Russian military has faced substantial losses, with reports indicating over 11,000 armored vehicles destroyed and significant human casualties.

These challenges have necessitated reliance on Soviet-era stockpiles and have further strained the nation’s resources, potentially amplifying public discontent with the war’s progression.

The combination of public opinion trends, economic strains, and military setbacks suggests a notable degree of war fatigue within Russia concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Western Support for Ukraine:

If the West continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and economic aid, Russia may be forced to negotiate or adopt a more defensive posture.

Conversely, if Western support weakens, Russia may double down and solidify its gains.

Above: Flag of Ukraine

Historical Precedents:

Unlike Afghanistan or Vietnam, where both the USSR and the US could withdraw and leave local governments to collapse, Russia sees Ukraine as existential.

It may not have the same luxury of “cutting losses” without losing face.

If Russia does withdraw, it will likely try to frame it as a “successful operation” and extract political concessions from Ukraine.

If it does not, the War could become a prolonged, grinding conflict, similar to the Soviet – Afghan War but with even greater consequences.

Much depends on how much suffering Russia is willing to endure —and whether external or internal pressure forces Putin’s hand.

Above: Flag of Russia

Ukraine and its European allies were alarmed by Trump unilaterally opening negotiations with Putin and apparently giving concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy said that Ukraine would not accept an agreement made without it, while Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said:

“Nothing can be discussed on Ukraine without Ukraine“.

Above: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha

The EU’s Foreign Policy Chief, Kaja Kallas, said that “Europe must have a central role” in negotiations, and that any agreement without Ukraine or the EU would fail. 

She described giving in to Russian demands even before negotiations as “appeasement“.

Kallas added that the EU would keep supporting Ukraine if it rejected a deal agreed behind its back.

Above: Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas (r. 2021 – 2024)

The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain issued a joint statement re-affirming their support for Ukraine’s “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity“.

They said that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations” and that Ukraine must be given “strong security guarantees“. 

Above: Flag of the European Union

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser during his first presidency, said:

“Trump has effectively surrendered to Putin before the negotiations have even begun.”

Above: American politician John Bolton

 

On 16 February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Ukraine and Europe would be part of any “real negotiations” to end the war.

Above: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

Trump said on the same day that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy “will be involved” in peace negotiations.

15 February 2003 

Globally

Protests against the Iraq war take place in over 600 cities worldwide.

It is estimated that between 8 million and 30 million people participate, making this the largest peace demonstration in history.

On 15 February 2003, a coordinated day of protests was held across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressed opposition to the imminent Iraq War.

It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the invasion, war, and occupation took place.

The day was described by social movement researchers as “the largest protest event in human history“.

According to BBC News, between 6 and 10 million people took part in protests in up to 60 countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February.

The largest protests took place in Europe.

The one in Rome involved around 3 million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.

Above: Roma, Italia

Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1.5 million people protesting against the invasion of Iraq.

Above: Madrid, España

In Beijing, three smaller protests were held the following day, attended by foreigners and domestic students.

Above: Beijing, China

In 2002, the US government began to argue for the necessity of invading Iraq.

Above: Flag of Iraq

This formally began with a speech by US President George W. Bush to the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2002 which argued that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was violating United Nations (UN) resolutions, primarily on weapons of mass destruction, and that this necessitated action.

Above: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (1937 – 2006)

The proposed war was controversial with many people questioning the motives of the US government and its rationale.

Above: US President George W. Bush (r. 2001 – 2009)

One poll which covered 41 countries claimed that less than 10% would support an invasion of Iraq without UN sanction and that half would not support an invasion under any circumstances.

Above: Flag of the United Nations

Anti-war groups worldwide organized public protests.

Between 3 January and 12 April 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 anti‑war protests, the demonstrations on 15 February 2003 being the largest and most prolific.

The 15 February international protests were unprecedented not only in terms of the size of the demonstrations but also in terms of the international coordination involved.

The day was possible only because it was carefully planned by an international network of national social movement organizations.

At the time, many commentators were hopeful that this global mobilization of unprecedented scale would stop the coming Iraq war. 

The New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were “two superpowers on the planet – the United States, and worldwide public opinion“.

The unprecedented size of the demonstrations was widely taken to indicate that the majority of people across the world opposed the war.

However, the potential effect of the protests was generally dismissed by pro-war politicians.

The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, claimed that the protests were not representative of public opinion, saying:

“I don’t know that you can measure public opinion just by the number of people that turn up at demonstrations.”

Above: Australian Prime Minister John Howard (r. 1996 – 2007)

In the US, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was reported as saying that the protests would “not affect the administration’s determination to confront Saddam Hussein and help the Iraqi people“.

Her view was borne out as the day of protests, along with the protests that followed it, failed to stop the War.

Above: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rica (r. 2005 – 2009)

However, the protests and other public opposition were seen as a key factor in the decisions of the governments of many countries, such as Canada, to not send troops to Iraq, and of Turkey to deny coalition use of airbases in its territory. 

Above: Flag of Türkiye

The protests have also been cited as a factor strengthening the hand of the “uncommitted six” members of the United Nations Security Council – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.

Above: Flag of Angola

Above: Flag of Cameroon

Above: Flag of Chile

Above: Flag of Mexico

Above: Flag of Pakistan

Though demonstrations against the Iraq war and subsequent occupation continued, none of the demonstrations through to 2011 matched the 15 February protest in terms of size.

One suggested explanation for this is that people became disillusioned with marching as a political tactic because of the failure of these demonstrations to achieve their explicit aim.

In 2006, three years after the protest day, in an article arguing for people to attend a further march, Mike Marqusee put forward two counter arguments to this.

Firstly, he claimed that it was too soon to judge the long-term significance of the demonstrations.

As examples, he stated:

“People who took part in the non-cooperation campaigns in India in the 20s and 30s had to wait a long time for independence.”

“There were eight years of protest and more than 2 million dead before the Vietnam war came to an end“.

Secondly, he claimed that while the effect of marching may be uncertain, the effect of not marching would make it more likely that the occupation would continue.

Despite failing in its explicit aim, the 15 February global day of anti-war protests had many effects that, according to some, were not directly intended.

One of these was that they were a powerful antidote to the idea that the war was a “Clash of Civilizations“, or a religious war, an idea propagated both by Western leaders and reactionary forces in the Arab world. 

This is echoed in the words of former Hizb ut-Tahrir organizer Hadiya Masieh who said of the non-Muslims marching in London:

“How could we demonize people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?“

Above: Logo of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an international pan-Islamist fundamentalist political organization whose stated aim is the establishment of the Islamic caliphate to unite the Muslim community (ummah) and implement sharia globally

The news lulls us into a warm all-inclusive sense of common humanity.

We are citizens of the world.

We are all subject to the same troubles.

We are all connected.

The planet is a global village.

We sing “We Are The World” while swaying back and forth in harmony with thousands of others, holding our tiny lighters.

This sense of empathy, magnified a thousand-fold, feels wonderfully soft and cozy.

Yet it achieves absolutely nothing.

This magical sense of all-encompassing worldwide fellowship is a gigantic act of self-deceit.

The fact is, consuming the news does not connect us to other people and cultures.

We are connected to each other, because we cooperate, trade, cultivate friendships and relationships, fall in love.

Tell people that you have stopped reading the news and you will be accused of taking no interest in the plight of other people.

But should you?

There is no doubt that there have always been, are now, and will always be bad things happening on other continents or even other planets.

Should you also “take an interest” in those?

Where do we draw the line?

The media will report exhaustingly on a light aircraft crash in which a few people from the publication’s own country died, but hardly at all on a comparable crash affecting a hundred times more people from Kamchatka.

To take an interest by consuming media is delusional.

Genuine concern entails action.

Wallowing in your own empathy by watching earthquake victims crawling out of rubble on TV isn’t simply not helpful, it is a kind of repulsive voyeurism.

If you really care about the fate of earthquake victims, war refugees or famine victims, give money.

Not attention.

Not work.

Not prayers.

Money.

Above: Images of the 2023 Turkey – Syria earthquake

By following the fate of earthquake victims on a news website, you are actually giving your attention to the people running the platform, not the victims themselves.

Your attention won’t make a bit of difference to the victims themselves, but it certainly will help the platforms.

How?

Because they make money by selling your attention to advertisers and your attention enables them to gather more of your personal data (your user behavior, your personality and your emotional weaknesses) and use this to bombard you with increasingly targeted advertisements.

Your attention helps the news media, not the victims.

And you are harming yourself.

Sadly, contributing your own manpower to a cause is of limited to zero use.

Don’t go to the Sahara to build a water pump with your own two hands.

This intention is known as volunteer’s folly.

You might manage to build one well per day, but if you do a day’s work at your regular job (working within your circle of competence) and send the money you earn to Africa, you can help build a hundred wells a day.

That is of far more use to the world’s poor.

Do not donate your manpower on site.

Donate money from where you already are.

But you have an objection…

“If you don’t consume the news, you don’t know where help is most needed.”

This, too, is a cognitive error.

The news media is biased about what disasters it covers.

It reports on disasters that are:

• new
• visually striking
• can be told through the lens of individual human stories.

Above: 1906 San Francisco earthquake

The conflict in Yemen is boring after all these years.

Above: Flag of Yemen

Viruses aren’t very photogenic.

Above: Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a strain (genetic variant) of the coronavirus that caused coronavirus disease (COVID-19), first identified in Wuhan, China, during December 2019

Thawing permafrost only gets exciting if it causes the locals personal inconvenience.

Above: North Pole ice affected by global warming

These three criteria have nothing to do with an objective assessment of global suffering.

Above: The Blue Marble, Apollo 17, 7 December 1972

Slow developments towards potential disasters – which may still be preventable – hardly ever make the news.

Your humanity is not measured according to how much misery you consume on the news.

Nor by the sympathy it elicits.

Assume that there is enough suffering in the world even without the news.

Above: The Tin Man, The Wizard of Oz (1939) – The Tin Man wants a heart and believes that the Wizard of Oz can give him one.

Sometimes late when things are real
And people share the gift of gab between themselves
Some are quick to take the bait
And catch the perfect prize that waits among the shelves

But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn’t, didn’t already have
And Cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad.

So please believe in me
When I say I’m spinning round, round, round, round
Smoke glass stain bright color
Image going down, down, down, down
Soapsuds green like bubbles

Oh, Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn’t, didn’t already have
And Cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad

So please believe in me
When I say I’m spinning round, round, round, round
Smoke glass stain bright color
Image going down, down, down, down
Soapsuds green like bubbles

No, Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn’t, didn’t already have
And Cause never was the reason for the evening
Or the tropic of Sir Galahad

So please believe in me

Make regular donations to established aid organizations.

They – not the media – have the best sense of whose help is most needed.

What follows are the headlines of Saturday 15 February 2025.

(In brackets are my observations about these events.)

Mass looting and sporadic gunfire is reported in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo, as M23 rebels advance into the city.

Mobs loot several facilities, including a World Food Programme depot.

(Can I even find the Congo on a map?

Do I know anything about Bukavu, even its location?

Do I understand why the mobs are looting?

And why the choice of the word “mobs” to describe these people?

Was “mobs” chosen to evoke an emotional response?)

The Congolese military withdraws from Bukavu heading south towards Tanganyika Province.

(Do I need to know why they were in Bukavu or why they withdrew or why they are now heading south?)

Above: Bukavu, Congo

General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Chief of the Ugandan military, claiming to act with the authority of his father, President Yoweri Museveni, threatens to invade the Democratic Republic of the Congo and take control of Bunia, the capital of Ituri Province, unless local forces surrender their weapons within 24 hours.

Kainerugaba alleges that the Hema people are being killed.

(How does this invasion affect my life, now or ever?)

Above: Lt. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, who leads the Ugandan army’s land forces

Hamas releases three Israeli hostages in exchange for the Israeli government releasing 369 Palestinian prisoners, most without criminal charges or convictions, as part of the first stage of the 2025 ceasefire.

(Three for 369:

Sounds like Hamas is getting the better deal.

But do I know a single person of these 371 people?

Did I affect that deal?

Does that deal affect me?)

Above: A freed Palestinian prisoner reacts in Ramallah after being released from an Israeli jail

A 37-year-old woman and her two-year-old child die as a result of injuries sustained in a vehicle-ramming attack in München (Munich), Deutschland (Germany) on Thursday.

(I am not a monster.

Knowing that a mother and child were killed by a car certainly is tragic, but – not to sound heartless – I didn’t know them before the attack and I can do nothing for the dead nor their families without interfering in their lives in a manner where a stranger is unwelcome.)

Above: Flowers and candles are placed on the sidewalk near the spot where a car drove into a group of protesters on February 13, 2025. Two days after the attack, a two-year-old child and a 37-year-old woman died from their injuries. München, Deutschland.

A 14-year-old boy is killed and five other people are injured in a mass stabbing on a street in Villach, Carinthia, Austria.

A 23-year-old man, an Islamic State member, is arrested.

(Am I now supposed to cower in my apartment and not venture out into the streets because someone might stab me?

An Islamic State member was arrested.

Does that mean because he is a member of that group that everyone else in that group must, by extension, be terrible people?)

Above: A pedestrian walks past candles at the site of a stabbing attack, Villach, Österreich

Congolese Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner calls on Western sporting firms such as the National Basketball Association, Formula One, and Arsenal F.C. to cut sponsorship deals with Rwanda amid the conflict in Kivu.

(So?

Do I know anyone in the Congo or in Rwanda?

How am I affected by what sponsorship deals that the NBA or Nascar or Arsenal make or don’t make with others?)

Above: Flag of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

A crowd crush kills at least 18 people, including three children, and injures ten others at New Delhi railway station in New Delhi, India.

(Again, yes, this is a tragedy.

But how am I supposed to react?

Perhaps some reflection about overcrowding and the wisdom to avoid crowds would not be amiss.

But beyond a very distant empathy this news does nothing to assist anyone.)

Above: Passengers jostle to board a train at the railway station in New Delhi, India, on 15 February 2025

At least 49 people are killed and several others are injured when a gold mine collapses in Kéniéba, Mali.

(Again, my response to the mine collapse must be similar to my response to the München car attack, the Villach stabbings and the New Delhi train station crowd crushing, I am not responsible for the disaster and I am unable to give any assistance to anyone involved with the Mali mine.)

Above: Flag of Mali

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak by telephone about the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Gaza war, the sanctions against Russia, and removing restrictions on each country’s diplomatic missions.

They also discuss preparations for a high-level summit in Saudi Arabia.

This is the first time the US and Russia had contact at the Foreign Minister level in almost two years.

(One person I do not personally know spoke with another person I do not know about problems outside my knowledge, expertise and power or influence to affect.)

Above: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

Hundreds of White South Africans hold a protest outside the US Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, in support of US President Donald Trump’s claims that the South African government is discriminating against the country’s white minority.

(Now, this headline gets my attention, but not in regards to the possible truth of Trump’s claims but rather because these claims have gotten others riled up.)

Above: Flag of South Africa

Two weeks after the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as US President, his new Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he would not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg, citing South Africa’s “controversial land expropriation law” as one of his reasons.

The following day, President Trump issued an Executive Order to suspend any aid or assistance to South Africa, citing alleged human rights violations against the white Afrikaner minority.

This action was in response to South Africa’s Expropriation Act of 2024, a law aimed at addressing historical land ownership disparities resulting from apartheid.

The Act permits the government to expropriate land for public use under specific conditions, sometimes without compensation.

However, the South African government asserts that the law is not racially targeted and is designed to ensure equitable land access.

Notably, as of now, no land has been expropriated under this law.

Above: Coat of arms of South Africa

Trump’s claims have been met with skepticism and criticism.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Chrispin Phiri stated that:

“The Government of South Africa is incomprehensible and angry about this sanctions decision.

Trump’s portrayal contradicts the facts and does not recognize the country’s painful history of colonialism and apartheid.

The decision is apparently the result of a campaign of misinformation and propaganda.”

President Cyril Ramaphosa had his spokesman say that:

“The claim that Africans are being arbitrarily dispossessed and are therefore having to flee the country is completely untrue. South Africa is a constitutional democracy.“

In his annual State of the Nation Address, Ramaphosa spoke about the growing nationalism, protectionism and egoism around the world and, without mentioning Trump by name, added that South Africa will not be intimidated or pushed around.

Above: South African President Cyril Ramaphosa

The South African High Court recently ruled that the notion of a “white genocide” in the country is “clearly imagined and not real“.

This judgment came after a bequest intended to fund a far-right group’s training programs to “exterminate every black person in South Africa” was declared invalid.

The court labeled such claims as “fearmongering“.

Above: High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa

Regarding motivations, Trump’s stance appears influenced by lobbying from groups like AfriForum, an Afrikaner rights organization that has propagated narratives of discrimination against white South Africans.

Additionally, South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, now a key adviser to Trump, has echoed similar sentiments, accusing the South African government of “openly racist ownership laws“.

These narratives align with certain far-right ideologies and may serve to bolster support among constituencies sympathetic to these views.

Above: South African Senior Advisor to the US President / Businessman Elon Musk

French President Emmanuel Macron announces an emergency summit in Paris, France, between European leaders following a controversial speech given by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in which he criticized European leadership as the worst threat to Europe, particularly for imposing too much censorship and too little control over migration.

(Again, this headline affects me in the same manner as the previous one.

Macron and other European leaders are allowing one man‘s controversial speech to make them question their competence as leaders.

This raises two questions in my mind:

Is Vance’s opinion actually valid?

Can we trust leadership so easily shaken by criticism?

And, of course, I return to my original stance of “not my circus, not my monkeys“.

Regardless of my opinions, European leaders do not give a damn about what I may think.

Nor do I have any power whatsoever to influence what they may think or do.)

Above: French President Emmanuel Macron

In mid-February 2025, Vice President JD Vance delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference, criticizing European leaders for suppressing free speech and exercising inadequate control over migration.

He argued that Europe’s internal policies pose a greater threat to its security than external actors like Russia or China.

Vance highlighted instances such as the conviction of an ex-serviceman in the UK for praying outside an abortion clinic and criticized European governments for their treatment of journalists and political opposition.

European officials have largely disputed Vance’s assertions.

Above: US Vice President J. D. Vance

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius responded by emphasizing that European democracies are robust and that Vance’s comparisons to authoritarian regimes are “not acceptable“.

Above: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas suggested that the focus should be on larger threats, such as Russia’s actions in Ukraine, rather than internal policies.

Vance’s motivations may stem from a desire to promote a specific ideological perspective that emphasizes unrestricted free speech and stringent immigration controls.

This aligns with the current US administration’s broader agenda of fostering alliances with right-wing parties in Europe, potentially reshaping the Continent’s political landscape to mirror certain American conservative values.

The Lebanese Armed Forces arrest over 25 people on suspicion of attacking a UNIFIL convoy and United Nations peacekeepers near Rafic Hariri International Airport in Beirut. 

(Do I know any of these people?)

Above: Firefighters extinguish a burning UNIFIL vehicle, which was set ablaze by protesters, on the road leading to Beirut’s international airport

Muhsin Hendricks, the first openly gay imam, is assassinated by two unidentified assailants while driving near Gqeberha, South Africa. 

(Again, I state I am not a monster.

Of course, each death diminishes the whole.

Yes, it is unfortunate that – as far as we know – this man’s sexual orientation affected how he was treated by the society (religious or otherwise) he was part of.

But I feel what a man does in the privacy of his bedchamber should remain private between two consenting adults and how a man may act privately does not diminish a man’s ability to do his job professionally.

The exact tenets within the Muslim faith are outside my circle of competence and perhaps it might have been more prudent to keep private behavior separate from professional life.

I am not suggesting that gay people need to feel ashamed of their sexual orientation, but I don’t believe that I need to know what a man’s sexual orientation to decide if he is worthy of my respect.

Frankly, I may not understand those under the LGQBT umbrella, but I believe every person is worthy of dignity and in this vale of tears that is human existence if two consenting adults can find comfort in one another’s company then it is not my place to condemn.

I don’t have to approve or disapprove of a man’s private life.

I simply must treat that man, any person, with the same dignity with which I myself wish to be treated.

Asking the man to change his profession might have been an unfair judgment upon his competence, but I cannot believe that his sexual orientation should have cost him his life.

And another point:

Is there more to this story that I do not know?)

Above: Muhsin Hendricks (1967 – 2025)

A man is shot dead at the Clemenceau Metro Station in Brussels, Belgium.

The shooting is connected to the ongoing drug war in the city since the start of the year, which has already killed another person and wounded three more.

(Not my circus, not my monkeys)

Above: Clemenceau Metro Station, Brussels, Belgium

Government leaders of the member states of the African Union elect Djiboutian Foreign Minister Mahamoud Ali Youssouf as the organization’s chairperson, succeeding Chadian Moussa Faki.

(Good for them.

I know nothing about which nations are part of the AU and I have no idea or stake in whether Youssouf is the right man for the job for which he was elected.)

Above: African Union Chairman Mahamoud Ali Youssouf

I now again borrow liberally from Rolf Dobelli’s manifesto for a happier, calmer and wiser life, Stop Reading the News:

You have probably devoured roughly 20,000 news items in the past 12 months, approximately 60 per day at a conservative estimate.

Be honest with yourself.

Can you think of a single one that helped you make a better decision about your life, your family, your career, your well-being or your business?

A decision you wouldn’t have made without the news?

When it comes to the things that really matter in your life, the news is irrelevant.

Best case scenario, it is entertaining, but otherwise useless.

It takes a degree of effort to make this mental step.

Perhaps you are thinking:

“You don’t have to be so black and white about this.

There is a middle ground here:

Just be more selective about what you read.

Only consume articles that are worth something and leave everything else aside.“

It sounds good in theory but doesn’t work in practice.

Why?

Because we cannot judge the value of a news report in advance.

To adequately judge whether a headline is worth reading, we have actually got to read it – and soon we are back to sampling the entire buffet.

Perhaps we can leave the selection process to the professionals?

How good are journalists at tracking down and filtering important events?

Above: Gold panning at Bonanza Creek

The first Internet browser appeared on 11 November 1993 – probably the most significant invention of the 20th century, after the atomic bomb and the discovery of antibiotics.

Do you know what that browser was called?

Mosaic.

If you didn’t know the answer, you have a good excuse:

It didn’t make the news.

What were the lead stories on TV that day?

The Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin had a meeting with US President Bill Clinton.

It was a significant meeting, as it followed the historic signing of the Oslo Accords earlier that year, which aimed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Above: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922 – 1995)

Above: US President Bill Clinton (r. 1993 – 2001)

The Pope had fractured his shoulder, after falling while getting into his car at the Vatican.

The fall was a result of a sudden loss of balance, and he suffered a fractured right shoulder as a result.

Despite the injury, he continued to fulfill his duties, demonstrating his resilience and dedication.

Above: Pope John Paul II (1920 – 2005)

The point is that neither journalists nor we their consumers have much sense of what is relevant.

The relationship between relevance and media attention seems inverse:

The greater the fanfare in the news, the smaller the relevance of the event.

The items the journalists don’t report on are usually the very things you actually want to know.

If you absolutely cannot live without the news, then consider stepping away from the mainstream media:

Finding unreported or underreported news stories that are significant for the public can be challenging, as mainstream media often focuses on specific narratives.

However, there are several avenues where such stories might surface:

Independent journalism websites:

Websites and platforms that prioritize investigative journalism often uncover stories that go unnoticed by mainstream outlets.

Examples include:

• ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org)

• The Intercept (https://theintercept.com)

• Democracy Now! (https://www.democracynow.org)

Alternative news sources:

Independent news organizations, often left or right of the mainstream spectrum, focus on stories ignored by traditional media.

These can offer insight into various overlooked issues.

• Truthout (https://truthout.org)

• Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org)

Local and hyperlocal media:

Smaller local outlets can provide significant stories that may not have a broad audience but are deeply impactful at the community level.

Here are a few examples:

The Canary (UK):

This is an independent, progressive news outlet that often covers underreported local stories and voices, especially focusing on issues like social justice, inequality, and environmental concerns.

It may highlight the struggles of local communities or bring attention to grassroots movements that aren’t covered by mainstream media.

The Texas Observer (USA):

Known for its in-depth investigative journalism, this magazine often focuses on stories in Texas that reveal significant issues like corruption, social injustice, and environmental disasters.

While it may not always have the broadest audience, its impact on local political discussions and activism is notable.

The Tyee (Canada):

Based in British Columbia, The Tyee focuses on local news with a progressive stance.

It covers a wide range of topics, from environmental issues in local communities to social justice and government transparency.

Many of the stories reported are overlooked by larger Canadian media but are crucial for the region.

Block Club Chicago (USA):

This is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to covering neighborhoods in Chicago.

It focuses on local issues, such as community activism, development, public safety, and local politics, that may not be covered in national news.

It has gained attention for breaking local stories that impact the community directly, such as disparities in healthcare access and gentrification.

The Bristol Cable (UK):

An independent news co-op that reports on issues of inequality, housing, politics, and the environment in Bristol, England.

Their stories often focus on exposing local issues such as police accountability or affordable housing crises, providing information that might not be widely covered by larger UK news outlets.

Hyperlocal blogs and newsletters:

Many neighborhoods or even specific streets have hyperlocal blogs or newsletters.

For example, in New York City, sites like Gothamist or neighborhood-specific blogs (e.g., Brooklyn Heights Blog) give voices to local concerns that might not reach larger platforms.

These outlets cover community events, local governance, and issues like zoning changes or local school policies.

These examples show that local and hyperlocal media are crucial in shedding light on community-specific issues that have broad implications for the people affected, even if those stories don’t gain wide attention.

Their impact is often felt through changes in policy, community organizing, or shifts in local priorities.

Social media platforms:

Platforms like Reddit (subreddits like r/AskHistorians or r/TrueReddit), Twitter, and Facebook often allow grassroots stories to be shared before they reach larger outlets.

Following investigative journalists or local community groups can give you access to these.

Above: Logo for the social networking site X, formerly known as Twitter

Whistleblower platforms:

Sites like WikiLeaks and DocumentCloud allow individuals to share documents or reports that reveal significant yet underreported stories.

Nonprofit and advocacy organizations:

Some nonprofit groups conduct their own investigations or focus on issues that mainstream media may not cover comprehensively.

Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others often publish reports on topics that don’t make mainstream headlines.

Independent podcasts and YouTube channels:

Certain independent journalists and researchers have turned to podcasts and YouTube to cover stories not widely discussed in mainstream media.

These can range from global political analysis to environmental issues, public health, and human rights topics.

By seeking out these sources, you can often find important stories that are missed by the major media outlets but deserve the public’s attention.

Here are some excellent recommendations that span a variety of topics, from global political analysis to human rights and environmental issues:

The Intercept – Intercepted

Hosted by Jeremy Scahill, this podcast offers investigative journalism on topics ranging from politics and war to civil liberties and human rights.

The podcast delves into significant stories that may not always be covered by mainstream media outlets.

Above: American journalist Jeremy Scahill

Up First (by NPR)

While not completely independent, Up First offers a daily summary of the most important news stories with an emphasis on global and domestic political issues that often get overlooked.

It’s concise, and the journalists behind it strive for an independent approach.

Above: Logo for National Public Radio

Reveal (from The Center for Investigative Reporting)

This podcast features investigative journalism, often focusing on stories that go unreported or are overlooked.

It covers a range of topics, including environmental issues, civil rights, and social justice, with a particular emphasis on how they affect marginalized communities.

Power of Streets (by ProPublica)

A fascinating podcast that tells stories of activism and political resistance from underreported areas, particularly focusing on local community-driven movements that drive social change.

ProPublica’s investigative approach often brings attention to issues ignored by the mainstream.

The Gray Area with Sean Illing (Vox Media)

Sean Illing explores difficult, sometimes uncomfortable issues—ranging from global politics to social justice.

His interviews often delve into topics that mainstream outlets don’t always cover deeply, offering rich, nuanced takes on significant issues.

YouTube channels:

Crash Course (by John & Hank Green)

Though generally educational and lighthearted, Crash Course offers an accessible breakdown of topics that are significant in the political, environmental, and historical spheres.

It can sometimes bring attention to issues that aren’t widely discussed in mainstream media.

The Real News Network

This independent news outlet offers insightful commentary on politics, economics, and social justice.

Their YouTube channel frequently covers issues such as climate change, labor rights, and global conflicts that may not be adequately represented in mainstream news.

Democracy Now!

Founded by Amy Goodman, this YouTube channel provides in-depth coverage of global politics, war, human rights abuses, and environmental issues.

Their stories often highlight the voices of marginalized communities and perspectives not found in corporate media.

Above: American journalist Amy Goodman

The Young Turks (TYT)

Known for its progressive slant, The Young Turks covers political stories, especially those ignored by mainstream media, including topics like social justice, environmental degradation, and critiques of corporate influence in politics.

VICE News

While a bit more mainstream, VICE often covers human rights issues, underground movements, and geopolitical stories that traditional media outlets tend to ignore or underreport.

They are well-known for their immersive documentaries.

The Breakdown with Shaun King

Shaun King provides social commentary on race, justice, and activism, often discussing systemic issues that mainstream media tends to downplay.

This channel highlights grassroots movements and social justice causes.

Still I believe, as Dobelli suggests, that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body.

News does damage to our concentration and our well-being.

We can and should live without the news for the many gains that are to be had:

• less disruption
• more time
• less anxiety
• more insights
• calm
• wisdom

While I’m sitting here
Trying to think of things to say
Someone lies bleeding
In a field somewhere

So it would seem
We’ve still got a long, long way to go
I’ve seen all I wanna see today

While I’m sitting here
Trying to move you anyway I can
Someone’s son lies dead
In a gutter somewhere

And it would seem
That we’ve still got a long, long way to go
I can’t take it anymore

Turn it off if you want to
Switch it off, it will go away
Turn it off if you want to
Switch it off or look away

While we sit and we talk and talk and talk some more
Someone’s loved one’s heart
Stops beating in a street somewhere

So it would seem
We’ve still got a long, long way to go, I know
I’ve heard all I wanna hear today

Turn it off if you want to (Turn it off if you want to)
Switch it off it will go away (Switch it off it will go away)
Turn it off if you want to (Turn it off if you want to)
Switch it off or look away (Switch it off or look away)

Switch it off
Switch it off
Switch it off
Switch it off
Switch it off
Switch it off
Switch it off
Turn it off

Acknowledging the possible irrelevance of the news is nothing new.

In Tolstoy’s masterpiece Anna Karenina (1877), Sergei Ivanovich observes that:

“The newspapers published a great deal that was superfluous and exaggerated, with the sole aim of attracting attention and talking one another down.“

What does relevance mean in concrete terms?

There are two definitions.

In the narrower hard sense, something is relevant when it enables you to make better decisions.

In the wider sense, anything that allows you to understand the world better is relevant.

Above: “Weird” Al Yankovic video “Word Crimes” parody of Robin Thicke song “Blurred Lines”

The legendary investor Warren Buffet uses the term “circle of competence“.

Anything inside this circle is an area of expertise.

Anything outside this circle is something you don’t understand or don’t fully understand.

Buffet’s motto:

“Know your circle of competence and stick within it.

The size of that circle is not very important.

Knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.“

Above: American investor Warren Buffet

Organize your professional life rigorously around your circle of competence.

This focus will bear more than monetary fruit.

Above all, you will save time, because you won’t keep having to decide where to direct your attention.

Knowing your circle of competence is your tool, your scalpel, enabling you to divide sources of information into what is valuable and what is not.

In concrete terms?

All the information that matches your circle of competence is valuable.

Everything that is outside your circle of competence is best ignored.

Thinking about it will only waste your time and affect your concentration.

Over the course of your life you will modify your circle of competence.

You may even add extra areas of interest.

In these cases, creating a deep knowledge base by reading textbooks and talking to people in the know is imperative.

These days – with very few exceptions – you will only find professional success in a niche.

The greater your knowledge and the greater your ability within that niche, the greater your success.

If you are the best in the world within your niche, you have made it.

With a sharply defined circle of competence, it will be easy to decide what information belongs in your brain and what belongs in the rubbish.

Imagine that you are a heart surgeon.

Pertinent scientific journals will be an area of focus for you.

Perhaps also leadership magazines and books, if you lead a team.

Everything else you can safely ignore.

You don’t need to know whether one President shook another President’s hand.

You don’t need to know whether two trains crashed somewhere in the world.

Your brain is already full.

The more you cram it with junk, the less room there is for the information you genuinely need to know.

Everybody’s circle of competence contains a few sources of specialized media that you absolutely need to read.

Go deep, not broad.

What is outside your circle of competence, however you are best off giving a miss.

When you consistently organize your life around your circle of competence, you will realize that 99% of what you read, see and hear in the media is irrelevant to you.

Above: Scene from Meatballs (1979)

Relevance is a highly personal issue.

It is not defined by the government or the Pope or by your boss or your therapist.

And don’t get it confused with the media’s perspective.

To the media, what is relevant is anything that grabs your attention.

This is the racket at the heart of the industry’s business model.

The news they supply to us is irrelevant, but it is sold as relevant. “The relevant vs. the new“:

It is the fundamental battle facing us today.

I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor
But I wound up here
I just have to look good
I don’t have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down

Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em all around

We got the bubble headed
Bleached blonde
Comes on at five
She can tell you ’bout the plane crash
With a gleam in her eye
It’s interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation
Is the head dead yet
You know the boys in the newsroom
Got a running bet
Get the widow on the set
We need dirty laundry

You don’t really need to find out
What’s going on
You don’t really want to know
Just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry

Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down

Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re stiff
Kick ’em all around

(Kick ’em when they’re up)
(Kick ’em when they’re down)
(Kick ’em when they’re up)
(Kick ’em when they’re down)

(Kick ’em when they’re up)
(Kick ’em when they’re down)
(Kick ’em when they’re stiff)
(Kick ’em all around)

Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers
In everybody’s pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When it’s said and done
We haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry

Still worried about missing “something important“?

When something truly important happens, you hear about it even if you are living in a protected news cocoon.

Big news will inevitably leak out and find you.

If you hear it from family, friends and colleagues you will even have the added benefit of meta-information:

You know the priorities and world views of your friends, so you will know how to evaluate your sources.

25 years and my life is still
Tryin’ to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination

I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
For whatever that means

And so I cry sometimes when I’m lying in bed
Just to get it all out what’s in my head
And I, I am feeling a little peculiar

And so I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs
“What’s going on?”

And I say, hey-ey-ey
Hey-ey-ey
I said “Hey, a-what’s going on?”
And I say, hey-ey-ey
Hey-ey-ey
I said “Hey, a-what’s going on?”

Ooh, ooh
Ooh
Ooh, uh huh
Ooh, ooh
Ooh
Ooh, uh huh

And I try
Oh my God, do I try
I try all the time
In this institution

And I pray
Oh my God, do I pray
I pray every single day
For revolution

And so I cry sometimes when I’m lying in bed
Just to get it all out, what’s in my head
And I, I am feeling a little peculiar

And so I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take a deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs
“What’s going on?”

And I say, hey-ey-ey
Hey-ey-ey
I said “Hey, what’s going on?”
And I say, hey-ey-ey
Hey-ey-ey
I said “Hey, a-what’s going on?”
And I say, hey-ey-ey
(Wake in the morning and step outside)
Hey-ey-ey
(Take a deep breath and I get real high)
(And I scream)
I said “Hey, a-what’s going on?”
And I say, hey-ey-ey
(Wake in the morning and step outside)
Hey-ey, yeah yeah yeah
(Take a deep breath and I get real high)
(And I scream)
I said “Hey, a-what’s going on?”

Ooh, ooh
Ooh
Ooh, uh huh

25 years and my life is still
Tryin’ to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination, mmm

And if somehow you don’t hear about a tragedy somewhere else, it doesn’t matter.

On the contrary, you should be pleased.

Worse things may be happening in other places and we are comfortable remaining in the dark.

There’s something happening here
But what it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it’s time we stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It’s time we stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

What a field day for the heat (Ooh ooh ooh)
A thousand people in the street (Ooh ooh ooh)
Singing songs and they carrying signs (Ooh ooh ooh)
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side” (Ooh ooh ooh)

It’s time we stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

We better stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Now, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

For the most part, you find out about truly relevant events by reading good books.

After all, non-fiction books are basically ultralong elaborately planned and researched articles.

Of course, books don’t appear on the day something happens, but this doesn’t matter.

Few events are time sensitive for you.

Information given on the day something happens is necessarily basic and inadequate.

And in fact, what we want is content and consideration, which is what you get from books – even it arrives a few months or a year late.

The news is incapable of explaining anything.

Its brief reports are like tiny shimmering soap bubbles bursting on the surface of a complex world.

These facts are usually no more than the consequences and side effects of deeper underlying causes.

Even if you gobble down the latest images and reports from Yemen every single day, it won’t get you one jot further towards understanding the the war.

There is actually an inverse relationship:

The more images and frontline dispatches raining down on you, the less you will understand what is going on in the war and why.

I work for the newspapers
Any news is good news I always say
But I don’t write no daily column
Talk is cheap and so is my pay.

And when my work days over
I pocket five or ten from the tray
And then I start up again at five am
I stack ’em up just to throw ’em away.

Now lately I’ve been thinking
What would the world do without the news
You wouldn’t know when wars were started
Or when they ended, win or lose.

It probably be a better world to live in
But the question would be who’s?
And what side your on or who’s right or wrong
You’d never have to choose.

Some times late at night
I get to see the streets like no one else can
There’s a lot of things going on here
That even newspapers don’t understand.

Some people got too much money
Some rob with a gun or a ballpoint pen
Maybe I’ll get me a big black cape
And then they’ll be running from me,
Looking over their shoulder for me.

Once there in the back pages
Was on the front just yesterday
And old news never dies
No, they say it just fades away

Crime and murder
Business and politics
And International strife
It’s all the same, find some one to blame
It’s there in black and white.

Above: American musician Stan Ridgway

News corporations and consumers both fall prey to the same mistake:

Confusing the presentation of facts with insight into the functional context of the world.

We ought to try and understand the “generators” underlying these events.

We ought to be investigating the “engine room” behind them.

Here is the news
Coming to you every hour upon the hour (here is the news)
The weather’s fine but there may be a meteor shower

Here is the news
A cure has been found for good old rocket lag (here is the news)
Someone left their life behind in a plastic bag

Here is the news (Space-workers dispute in London today
As a lightning strike by air shuttle officers
Led to over two thousand passengers being held up)
For up to ten hours to board flights) Here is the news
(Ten Eurotechnicians were today sentenced
By the justice computer to be banished for life) Here is the news
(To the prison satellite Penal One)

Here is the news
Another action-filled adventure (here is the news)
All the worst from the world convention

Here is the news
(-12 witnesses discovered-)
(-the latest report from the people down there-)
(-albeit tiny little details-) Here is the news
(-so I’d just really like to go home
And say hello to everybody)

I wanna go home
I want my baby back
(Here is the news)
I wanna go back

Here is the news
Somebody has broken out of Satellite Two
(Here is the news)
Look very carefully, it may be you, you, you, you

Here is the news
(The latest report from the people counting)
(And population control center estimates-)
Here is the news
(The spokesperson for the center announced-)
Here is the news

Sadly, shockingly few journalists are able to explain these casual relationships, because the processes that shape cultural, intellectual, economic, military, political and environmental events are mostly invisible.

They are complex, non-linear and hard for our brains to digest.

This is why news corporations focus on the easy stuff:

Anecdotes, scandals, celebrity gossip and natural disasters.

They are cheap to produce and easy to digest.

Worse still, the few journalists who do understand the “engine room” and are capable of writing about it aren’t given the space to do so – let alone time to think.

Why?

Because the bulk of readers would rather consume 10 juicy morsels of news than a single thorough article.

Ten lurid little scandals generate more attention – and thus more advertising revenue – than one intelligent article of the same length.

News reports are nothing but dots – and nobody has made the effort to connect them and solve the puzzle.

No matter how many you consume, no image will ever emerge.

To see the bigger pıcture, you need the connecting lines.

You need the context, the mutual dependencies, the feedback, the immediate repercussions – and the consequences of these repercussions.

News is the opposite of understanding the world.

It suggests there are only events – events without context.

Yet the opposite is true:

Nearly everything that happens in the world is complex.

Implying these events are singular phenomena is a lie – a lie promulgated by news producers because it tickles our palates.

This is a disaster.

Consuming the news to “understand the world” is worse than not consuming any news at all.

Facts get in the way of thought.

Your brain can drown in facts.

If you consume the news, you will be under the illusion that you understand the world.

This illusion can lead to overconfidence.

Necessary caution, suspicion and modesty are all washed away by the flood of information.

Careful predictions mutate into sure-fire convictions.

The quality of your decision-making will be reduced by “facts, facts and more facts“.

Accept that you might not understand the world.

You will be more modest when it comes to your knowledge, more cautious, more considered.

And you won’t fall victim to overconfidence.

Nobody knows what is happening.

The newspapers only pretend as though they do from day to day.

Current events cast a shadow on understanding.

It is best to avoid the daily news completely.

Read books and long articles that do justice to the complexity of the world.

No sparkling headlines.

No founts of facts.

No points without connections.

The world is in a complex, dynamic process of chaos.

Cause and effect don’t hang together in a linear fashion.

In almost all cases, the interplay of hundreds or even thousands of causes lead to a particular event.

Yet this event is often attributed to only a few.

News has to be extremely short even as it tells a story.

This can only be done through a brutal process of simplification.

No matter what happened, it will only ever be attributed to one or two causes.

Nothing will be said of the dozens of other causes, the interplay between them or the retroactive effects playing out between the event and its causes (intensifying or dampening effects).

In this way the audience is given the illusion that the world is simpler and more explicable than it actually is.

The quality of our decision-making suffers.

If you avoid the news and instead either read long articles and books on a particular topic or discuss it with experts, you will get a much more realistic picture of the situation.

And you won’t fall prey to the illusion that the future is easy to understand.

This is easier said than done, because our brains are desperate for stories that “make sense” as quickly and simply as possible.

Whether they correspond to reality is irrelevant.

News journalists are keen to provide us with these pseudo-stories.

The fact is a sole reason for an event does not exist.

Since the news is so telescoped, it is necessarily a bullshit explanation.

News reports are often sold as “analysis” when in fact they are merely anecdotes.

Resist the temptation to explain the world so cheaply.

You are holding yourself back from real serious reflection – and robbing yourself of your only chance to understand the world at least fractionally better.

What is available has a strong influence on our decision-making.

Every decision is based on something.

And this something consists of information.

For the sake of convenience, we always draw on what is to hand from the pool of available information rather than on things that might be more important but would need to be researched first.

The news has a tremendous ability to jostle to the forefront of our minds.

This makes it nearly impossible to make sensible decisions – especially in business and politics.

If you consume the news, you run the risk of using it as the basis of your decision-making, even if it has virtually nothing to do with the matter at hand.

The news makes itself comfortable in our brains – and we love to wallow in it.

The more emotional the imagery, video clips and headlines, the more space it takes up.

The news puts itself at the top of our mental filing cabinet and is thus much more available than other information – statistics, historical comparisons, complex arguments and counterarguments – which might be a much better basis for making a decision.

Those who set the agenda wield power over the discussion.

If you let news journalists decide what you should think about, you are giving them far too much power over your life.

Journalists happily confuse “unavailable” information with “non-existent” information.

And this error is passed on automatically to the audience.

Journalists also labor under a second grave misconception:

They confuse “prevented” with “non-existent“.

Heroic acts that prevented accidents – that prevented disaster – are largely invisible to them.

The news will report on medical emergencies, company turnarounds and rescue missions in warzones, but not about the actions that prevent such disasters.

Every day millions of heroic actions are taken.

All this is prevention.

All this is very wise.

All this is socially valuable.

Yet none of this is visible to news journalists or their audience.

Unfortunately, journalists are prone to yet another misconception.

They confuse “absent” with “unimportant“.

Sometimes, it is precisely what is absent – what has not happened – that is relevant.

Journalists are innately blind to absences because they are so hyper-vigilant about what is happening.

They miss the dogs that aren’t barking yet – but might just one day bite.

When we are asked our opinions, our brains start generating opinions, even if we are no experts on the topic.

The opinion volcano erupts of its own accord.

It cannot be controlled.

And yet – especially with tough questions – we tend to come down very rapidly on one side or the other.

Only then do we consult our brains for reasons to support our position.

Affects have their place, but not when it comes to difficult questions, this is where we confuse them with a real answer.

The news might as well be designed to generate unnecessary effects.

In fact, it is pretty much impossible to consume the news affect-free.

Therefore, you are better off leaving the news alone.

It is a serious mistake to think we need to form an opinion about everything.

90% of our opinions are superfluous.

Yet the news is constantly urging us to form opinions.

This robs us of concentration and inner peace.

Marcus Aurelius, perhaps the greatest statesman of all time, recommended exactly the same thing roughly 2,000 years ago.

“You are at liberty not to form opinions about all and sundry, thereby sparing your soul unrest.

For the things themselves demand no judgments from you.”

Above: Bust of Roman Emperor/philosopher Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180)

News stories are predominantly concerned with things you cannot change.

The daily litany of things we cannot change makes us passive.

The news wears us down until we are miserable hopeless pessimists.

Of course we want to help.

Of course we want to intervene and make the world a better place.

But our time is already at its limit.

We are cursed to watch these disasters unfold while knowing there is nothing we can do to prevent them.

When our brains encounter information without us having the possibility of acting on it, we gradually assume the role of a victim.

Our impulse to take action fades.

We become passive.

The scientific term for this is learned helplessness.

Stories and images in the news whip us up emotionally, but we have no wheel to turn and change the reported facts.

Most insidious of all is that learned helplessness doesn’t just make us passive about what is on the news.

Learned helplessness spills over into every part of our lives.

Once the news has made us passive, we tend to behave passively towards our family and our jobs as well – precisely where we do have room for manoeuvre.

When we tune into the news, we are constantly confronted with unresolved problems and the narrative does not inspire much hope that they will ever be solved.

It is no surprise, then, that we feel depressed when we consume the news, which confronts us with problems that are mostly impossible to solve.

Two thousand years ago, the great philosopher Epictetus began his Enchiridion with the following sentence:

“Some things are in our control and others not.”

The gist?

It is unwise to dwell on things that we cannot control.

Above: Greek philosopher Epictetus (50 – 135)

Nearly everything we hear on the news is outside our sphere of influence.

So you can safely disregard it.

Devote your energies to things you can influence.

There are more than enough of these.

Our evolutionary past has equipped us with a powerful ability to sniff out nonsense, bluffing and lies in face-to-face communication.

Subconsciously we recognize the signs of manipulation, signs that go beyond the verbal the verbal:

Gestures, facial expressions and indications of anxiety such as trembling hands, blushing and body odor.

When we lived in small groups, we nearly always knew the messenger’s background.

Information came with a halo of meta-information.

Even in the Middle Ages, most messages were delivered orally.

You knew the messenger and were thus well placed to judge whether to believe the message.

These days it is much harder to distinguish between truthful, unbiased news items and those with an ulterior motive.

There is a vast industry of lobbying and leverage at work behind the scenes.

Media entrepreneur Clay A. Johnson has remarked:

“For every reporter in the United States, there are more than four public relations specialists working hard to get them to write what their bosses want them to say.“

Above: Clay A. Johnson

Worldwide, the PR industry generates a turnover of nearly $30 billion a year – the best evidence that journalists and consumers can be successfully manipulated, influenced or won over to a cause.

Companies, interest groups and other organizations would not pay such dizzying sums to publicists if they got no return on their investment.

If PR advisors can manipulate journalists – people who are professionally required to be skeptical about powerful organizations – then what chance do we have of avoiding their subtle influence?

Propaganda is nothing new.

Ever since the advent of the printing press and the sudden multitude of flyers in its wake, people have been grappling with fake news.

A hundred years ago, the American writer Upton Sinclair wrote:

“When you read your daily paper, are you reading facts or propaganda?“

Above: American writer Upton Sinclair (1878 – 1968)

Rolf Dobelli’s Stop Reading the News argues that most news is shallow, sensationalist, and disempowering, designed more for engagement than enlightenment.

It fosters reaction rather than reflection, which aligns perfectly with your argument that we should think critically instead of reacting impulsively to rhetoric.

People believe they are well-informed because they consume news, but most news provides fragments without context, leading to misguided opinions and knee-jerk reactions.

Media outlets prioritize clicks, outrage, and spectacle over depth, which is why outlandish claims (e.g., annexing Canada) dominate the conversation, while more important policy shifts occur unnoticed.

Reading the news feels like staying informed, but it rarely contributes to deep understanding or meaningful decision-making.

As Dobelli argues, truly understanding issues requires books, historical analysis, and critical thinking, not just reacting to headlines.

Trump exploits the reactivity of the news cycle, throwing out provocative ideas that dominate discussions, while his administration (or allies) pursue actual policy goals with far less scrutiny.

Media fixation on spectacle prevents people from calmly and objectively examining what’s really happening.

Above: Donald Trump

Let us look at Trump’s most outrageous ideas:

The annexation of Canada

If Canada did not want to be annexed — and it almost certainly wouldn’t — could it withstand an American invasion?

The answer depends on multiple factors:

• military capability
• geography
• alliances
• the will of the Canadian people.

Let’s break it down.

Military Capability

Canada’s military is professional but relatively small.

As of now, it has around 68,000 active personnel and about 30,000 reserves, with limited armored forces and air power compared to the United States.

The US, in contrast, has over 1.3 million active personnel, advanced weapons systems, and the world’s most powerful navy and air force.

In a conventional war, Canada would be outmatched in direct military confrontation.

Geographical Advantage

However, Canada’s geography provides a significant defensive advantage.

It has vast wilderness, rugged mountains, and harsh winters that have historically worn down invaders (think of Napoleon and Hitler in Russia).

The US would face supply line challenges in remote regions, and urban centers like Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver would require intensive urban warfare — something the US has struggled with in past conflicts (e.g., Iraq).

Alliances and NATO Response

Canada is a founding member of NATO, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

If the US invaded, its NATO allies — including the UK, France, Germany and others — would likely intervene.

This could lead to a much broader conflict, making an invasion politically and diplomatically catastrophic for the US.

Above: Logo of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Civilian Resistance and Insurgency

Even if the US occupied major Canadian cities, it would face intense civilian resistance.

Canadians are armed — over 2 million licensed gun owners — and history shows that occupations often fail due to local resistance (think Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Guerrilla warfare could turn a US invasion into a prolonged, costly quagmire.

Economic Fallout and Political Consequences

The U.S. and Canada are deeply intertwined economically.

An invasion would cripple trade, spark global condemnation, and possibly lead to US economic sanctions by other nations.

Domestically, many Americans — especially those with cultural or familial ties to Canada — would oppose such an invasion, making it politically unsustainable.

Could Canada Win?

While Canada alone could not defeat the US in a conventional war, it could make an invasion so costly and prolonged that it would become untenable.

With NATO support, a difficult terrain, and a fiercely resistant population, the US would likely face a pyrrhic victory at best — and a humiliating failure at worst.

Conclusion:

Theoretically, the US has the raw power to invade Canada, but it would be an economic, military, and political disaster.

Canada, through geography, alliances, and resilience, could make any annexation attempt a nightmare for Washington.

Palestinians removed from the Gaza Strip

Theoretically speaking, Trump’s supposed plan to evacuate the Gaza Strip of Palestinians — if it actually existed as a serious policy proposal — would face enormous logistical, political, and humanitarian obstacles.

The idea of mass displacement on this scale is unprecedented in modern history outside of wartime ethnic cleansing, and such a move would likely be seen as a violation of international law and a trigger for widespread conflict.

Let’s break down why such a plan would almost certainly fail or lead to catastrophe.

Above: Scene from Marvel’s Avengers (2012)

Logistical Nightmare: Where Would They Go?

The Gaza Strip has over 2.3 million people packed into just 365 km² (about the size of Detroit).

Even if a relocation plan existed, no country is volunteering to take in millions of displaced Palestinians.

Egypt controls the Rafah border crossing and has already refused to take large numbers of refugees, fearing a permanent expulsion from Gaza. Jordan, which already has a significant Palestinian refugee population, has also rejected any forced resettlement.

Above: Rafah border crossing

Even if Trump somehow convinced a country (or multiple countries) to accept Palestinians, moving millions of people across borders, housing them, and integrating them into new societies would require trillions of dollars, years of planning, and extraordinary international cooperation — none of which exist.

Political and international backlash

Ethnic cleansing or “voluntary transfer”?

Most of the world would see this as forced displacement, violating international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits transferring civilian populations in occupied territories.

Above: Logo of the International Criminal Court

Arab and Muslim world reaction:

Such a move would radicalize even US-friendly Arab states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), likely collapsing any peace deals like the Abraham Accords.

Above: Arabs around the world (the darker, the more)

Global condemnation:

The UN, EU, and most of the Global South would strongly oppose and sanction any country facilitating such a plan.

This would not only damage US credibility but also increase terrorism and anti-American sentiment globally.

Military Resistance & Insurgency

The Palestinian people have historically resisted displacement, from 1948 to today.

Any attempt to forcibly remove Gazans would trigger massive violence, armed resistance, and likely a full-scale war involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and other regional actors.

Even Israel’s own military leadership has not called for mass expulsion, recognizing the logistical and security nightmare that would follow.

Israel has struggled with insurgency and terrorism despite maintaining some of the world’s most advanced security measures.

A forced mass evacuation would only escalate the violence for decades.

Economic and humanitarian disaster

Gaza’s economy is already in ruins — but removing the population en masse would create an even bigger refugee crisis than anything seen in recent history.

Infrastructure collapse:

No neighboring country has the hospitals, schools, or jobs to absorb millions of displaced people.

The humanitarian cost (starvation, disease, homelessness) would likely be on the scale of the worst refugee crises in modern history — and that would fall on the international community to deal with.

Would it “work”?

If “working” means removing all Palestinians from Gaza permanently, it is nearly impossible without committing war crimes on a historic scale.

If “working” means finding a peaceful resolution, this plan does the opposite.

It guarantees permanent conflict, war and hatred for generations.

Even if a small number of people could be relocated, it would still leave behind a population that will resist, fight, and demand their return — turning Gaza into an eternal flashpoint.

Conclusion:

A non-starter that would backfire

Even in theory, Trump’s alleged Gaza evacuation plan would be logistically impossible, politically disastrous, and morally indefensible.

It would not bring peace.

It would likely start a war far bigger than the current conflict.

No major power, including Israel, its allies, or its enemies, sees mass expulsion as a viable solution because it would create permanent instability.

If Trump attempted to implement such a policy, it would likely go down as one of the most reckless and destructive geopolitical moves in history.

With consequences far beyond just Gaza.

The Purchase of Greenland

Above: Flag of Greenland

There is a strategic rationale behind Trump’s interest in buying Greenland, though the way he presented the idea in 2019 made it seem bizarre and unrealistic.

The idea of the US acquiring Greenland actually has deep historical roots and makes sense from military, economic and geopolitical perspectives.

Military and strategic importance

Arctic Dominance:

Greenland is the gateway to the Arctic, a region with increasing military and economic importance due to climate change (melting ice opening new shipping routes and resources).

Above: (in green) Greenland

Thule Air Base:

The US already operates a key military base in Greenland (Thule Air Base), which provides early warning for missile defense and monitors Russian military activity in the Arctic.

Above: Thule Air Base (now called Pituffik Space Base)

China and Russia concerns:

China has been investing in Arctic infrastructure.

Russia has militarized the Arctic.

A stronger US presence in Greenland would counter these threats.

Natural resources and economic potential

Greenland has massive untapped resources, including:

• Rare earth minerals (critical for electronics & defense tech)
• Oil & gas reserves
• Freshwater reserves (which may become crucial in the future)
• Fisheries and tourism potential

• As ice melts, these resources become more accessible, making Greenland economically attractive.

Historic US interest in Greenland

In 1946, the US under Truman actually offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million, recognizing its strategic value.

Above: US President Harry S. Truman (1884 – 1972)

Denmark refused.

Above: Flag of Denmark

During the Cold War, the US considered Greenland a critical defense location due to its proximity to Russia.

Above: The Cold War: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (1949 – 1990)

Even today, Greenland receives US economic aid.

Washington has a diplomatic presence in Nuuk

Above: Nuuk, Greenland

Why would Denmark say no?

Greenland is an autonomous territory under Denmark, and its people have no desire to become part of the U.S.

Danish and Greenlandic leaders ridiculed the idea, seeing it as an insult rather than a serious proposal.

Trump’s approach (suggesting Denmark should “sell” Greenland like a piece of real estate) ignored the political and cultural realities of Greenlandic self-rule.

Above: Coat of arms of Greenland

Would it have been possible?

Diplomatically, no.

Greenland is moving toward greater autonomy, not less.

Economically, maybe.

If Greenland were financially struggling and the US offered a massive investment package, there could be incentives for closer ties.

Militarily, unlikely.

The US would never forcibly annex Greenland, but it could still increase its influence through economic deals or defense agreements.

Conclusion:

A strategic idea, poorly executed

Trump’s Greenland idea wasn’t crazy in theory.

Many US policymakers recognize Greenland’s strategic value.

But his “let’s buy it” approach was unrealistic and offended Denmark.

Instead of outright ownership, the US will likely continue to expand its military and economic influence in Greenland over time.

Reclaiming the Panama Canal

Trump (or any US President) cannot simply reclaim the Panama Canal, at least not without violating international law and potentially triggering a major geopolitical crisis.

Here’s why:

The US voluntarily gave up control.

The Panama Canal Treaty (1977), signed by President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, set the process in motion.

Above: US President Jimmy Carter (1924 – 2024)

Above: Panamanian President Omar Torrijos (1929 – 1981)

On 31 December 1999, the US fully handed over control of the canal to Panama.

This was done legally and through mutual agreement.

There’s no legal basis for the US to take it back.

Above: Flag of Panama

Would Panama just give it back?

Highly unlikely.

The Canal is one of Panama’s biggest economic assets, generating billions in revenue.

The Panamanian people strongly opposed US control in the past.

Any attempt to “reclaim” it would be seen as imperialistic and hostile.

Above: Coat of arms of Panama

Military action?

A military invasion to seize the Canal would be a disaster.

Panama has strong international allies, including China, the EU, and Latin American nations, who would oppose US aggression.

The US military occupation of Panama in 1989 (to remove dictator Manuel Noriega) caused lasting resentment.

Above: Panamanian President Manuel Noreiga (1934 – 2017)

A second invasion would destroy US – Latin American relations.

US leverage over the Canal

While the US does not own the canal, it still has influence:

The US Navy has priority access in emergencies.

The Monroe Doctrine gives the US a strategic interest in the region.

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere.

It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.

Above: US President James Monroe (1758 – 1831)

The US could pressure Panama economically to comply with its wishes.

However, China has invested heavily in Panama, meaning the US would face major diplomatic and economic obstacles if it tried to interfere.

Above: Pacific entrance of the Panama Canal

The Trump Factor

Trump floated the idea of taking back the Canal in 2016, blaming Carter for giving it up.

However, there was no concrete plan.

It was more of a nationalist talking point than a serious policy proposal.

Above: Trump talking to the press

Bottom Line:

Not gonna happen

• Legally impossible without breaking treaties.
• Politically and diplomatically disastrous for the US.
• Militarily risky and would spark a global crisis.
• The US will likely keep influence over the Canal through economic and diplomatic means, but outright “taking it back” is not a realistic option.

Above: Miraflores Locks, Panama Canal

The Border Wall: A Status Report

As of February 2025, the status of the US – Mexico border wall reflects a complex interplay of federal and state initiatives, legal challenges, and environmental concerns.

Federal Developments:

Resumption of construction:

In October 2023, the Biden administration announced the restart of border wall construction in specific areas, citing a surge in migrant crossings.

This decision involved waiving certain environmental laws to expedite the process.

Above: US President Joe Biden (r. 2021 – 2025)

Expanded military presence:

By February 2025, approximately 9,200 US troops, including active-duty soldiers and National Guard members, have been deployed to the southern border to support fortification efforts and manage immigration enforcement.

State-Level Actions:

Texas border wall initiatives:

The Texas Facilities Commission has secured easements for approximately 70.3 miles of state-constructed border wall, with active construction in multiple counties.

The goal is to complete at least 100 miles by the end of 2026.

Legal disputes Over barriers:

Texas has installed razor-wire fencing along parts of the border.

In November 2024, a federal appeals court temporarily halted the Biden administration from removing these barriers, siding with Texas’s argument regarding state trespassing laws.

Above: Flag of Texas

Environmental and community concerns:

Ecological Impact:

Environmentalists express alarm over the wall’s effects on wildlife habitats, particularly in biodiverse regions of New Mexico and Arizona.

The construction disrupts animal migration patterns and threatens species like jaguars and bears.

Above: A jaguar

Above: A brown bear

Community relations:

Areas such as Friendship Park, a historic meeting point on the California-Mexico border, have seen increased restrictions and construction, impacting binational interactions and cultural exchanges.

Above: Friendship Park, San Diego (USA) – Tijuana (Mexico)

In summary, the US – Mexico border wall’s status in early 2025 is marked by renewed federal construction efforts, significant state-led projects, ongoing legal battles, and heightened environmental and community concerns.

Above: Border Wall, El Paso, Texas

Who benefits from the Wall?

Construction and security industries

Defense contractors, private security firms, and construction companies receive billions in government contracts for building and maintaining the wall.

Above: Border fence between San Diego’s border patrol offices in California (left) and Tijuana, Mexico (right)

Politicians seeking a rallying cry

Certain politicians use the wall as a symbol to galvanize their base, often framing it as a security necessity to control immigration, drug trafficking, and crime.

Private landowners selling land for construction

Some landowners along the border profit from government buyouts (though others have land seized by eminent domain).

Cartels and smugglers

Border walls don’t eliminate illegal crossings.

They just make smuggling operations more profitable.

Cartels adapt by building tunnels, using drones, or exploiting legal ports of entry.

Above: Douglas, Arizona (March 17, 2009) Two men scale the border fence into Mexico a few hundred yards away from where Seabees from Naval Mobile Construction Battalions (NMCB) 133 and NMCB-14 are building a 1,500 foot-long concrete-lined drainage ditch and a 10 foot-high wall to increase security along the U.S. and Mexico border.

Why is the Wall a terrible idea?

It doesn’t solve the immigration issue.

Most undocumented immigrants in the US overstay their visas rather than cross the desert.

A wall doesn’t address that.

Desperation fuels migration.

A physical barrier doesn’t change the economic or political conditions driving people north.

It’s incredibly expensive and ineffective.

Billions have been spent on construction and maintenance, with little evidence of long-term effectiveness.

Walls require constant repairs due to weather, erosion, and breaches.

Smugglers have already found ways around the wall:

Ladders, tunnels, and even cutting through steel sections.

It harms the environment.

Wildlife corridors are disrupted, affecting migration patterns of species like jaguars, ocelots, and pronghorns.

Above: An ocelot

Above: A pronghorn

River ecosystems along the Rio Grande are affected by construction.

Some areas have seen increased flooding due to changes in natural water flow.

It violates land rights and sovereignty.

Many Native American lands, particularly those of the Tohono O’odham Nation, have been bisected by the wall, disrupting sacred sites and daily life.

Some private landowners have had their property seized through eminent domain.

Above: Border of Tohono O’odham Nation Reservation. Fails to include the Tohono O’odham communities in northern Mexico

It symbolizes division rather than a solution.

Immigration issues are best handled through diplomatic and economic cooperation, not isolationist policies.

The US has historically benefited from immigration.

Both legal and undocumented workers contribute to the economy.

Walls historically fail as long-term solutions.

Above: Makeshift wall of shipping containers, Cochise County, Arizona

(Think the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall of China.

Above: Berlin Wall, East and West Germany (1961 – 1989)

They are breached, circumvented, or become obsolete).

Above: Great Wall of China

In short, the Wall is a political symbol rather than a real solution.

A more effective approach would be addressing the root causes of migration — poverty, violence, and economic instability — while improving legal pathways for immigration.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that Trump may not be universally regarded as America’s greatest President — though, of course, opinions on this vary widely depending on political perspective.

Here are some key arguments against such a designation:

Historical benchmarks for greatness

Presidents typically earn the label of “great” due to their leadership during crises (e.g., Lincoln and the Civil War, FDR and the Great Depression/WWII) or transformative policy achievements (e.g., Washington establishing the Presidency, Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, LBJ’s Civil Rights Act).

Above: US President Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

Above: US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882 – 1945)

Above: US President George Washington (1732 – 1799)

Above: US President Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

Above: US President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 – 1973)

Trump’s presidency, while highly consequential, is marked more by controversy, polarization, and norm-breaking than unifying leadership.

Above: Donald Trump

Democratic norms and institutional strains

Many historians and political analysts argue that Trump weakens democratic institutions rather than strengthened them.

His attempts to overturn the 2020 election, repeated attacks on the press, and disdain for legal constraints (such as ignoring congressional subpoenas) raise concerns about his commitment to democratic governance.

Above: 6 January 2021 storming of the US Capitol, Washington DC

Division vs. unification

Great Presidents often unify the country, even amid deep divides (e.g., Lincoln post-Civil War, Reagan after Watergate and Vietnam).

Above: US President Ronald Reagan (1911 – 2004)

Trump, in contrast, leans into polarization, fueling deep social and political divisions.

His rhetoric often exacerbates racial, cultural, and ideological tensions rather than bridging them.

Above: Donald Trump

Handling of Crises

COVID-19 Response:

His administration’s handling of the pandemic was widely criticized for downplaying the virus early on, undermining health experts, and failing to lead a coordinated national response.

Above: Trump receives a briefing on COVID-19 in the White House Situation Room, 30 January 2020

January 6 Attack:

The storming of the Capitol was an unprecedented event in modern US history.

Trump’s role in inciting the attack further tarnished his legacy.

Above: Jake Angeli, the “QAnon Shaman“, in the US Senate during the attack.

He was later sentenced to 41 months in prison, being released from halfway house in May 2023

Lack of landmark legislation

Most great presidents have a legislative achievement that reshapes the country (e.g., Social Security under FDR, Civil Rights Act under LBJ, Affordable Care Act under Obama).

Above: US President Barack Obama (r. 2009 – 2017)

Trump’s most notable legislative success — the 2017 tax cuts — was significant but not on the scale of major historical reforms.

Above: President Donald Trump being sworn in on 20 January 2017 at the US Capitol building in Washington DC

Foreign policy isolationism and controversies

Alienating allies:

His “America First” policy has led to tensions with NATO, the EU, and longtime allies.

North Korea diplomacy:

His meetings with Kim Jong-un were historic but produced little concrete change.

Above: North Korea President Kim Jong-Un and US President Donald Trump meet in Singapore, 12 June 2018

Withdrawal from global agreements:

He continues to pull the US out of key agreements (Paris Climate Accord, Iran Nuclear Deal), which weakens US global leadership.

Above: President Trump signs an Executive Order directing US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord (again), 20 January 2025

Above: President Trump signs a document reinstating sanctions against Iran after announcing the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal at the White House on 8 May 2018

Historical perspective and future assessments

Greatness is often judged in hindsight, and while Trump remains a dominant political figure, many historians currently rank him in the lowest tier of US presidents.

That said, his supporters argue that his Presidency was historic in its economic policies, Supreme Court appointments, and rejection of political norms.

However, whether that translates to “greatness” in a broad historical sense remains debatable.

Trump thrives on spectacle.

His statements are often designed to provoke, ensuring that the conversation revolves around him rather than the actual issues at hand.

The best approach to his statements is thoughtful examination without reactionary outrage.

The more people emotionally engage with his provocations, the more they feed into his strategy.

Instead, cutting through the noise and exposing the underlying distractions is the best way to counter it.

Ignore him as best as you can.

Dispassionately examine what he says when he becomes impossible to ignore.

Above: Trump White House Press Briefing – 15 March 2020

The constant negativity of the news cycle fosters cynicism, anxiety, and a distorted perception of reality, making it easy to forget that humanity is, at its core, compassionate and capable of goodness.

The modern world bombards us with news.

Most of it designed to provoke rather than inform.

In the endless cycle of sensational headlines, we are conditioned to react rather than think.

But as history shows, reactionary thinking is dangerous.

It fuels conflict, justifies reckless policies, and blinds us to the bigger picture.

The news does not exist to tell us the truth.

It exists to keep us engaged.

Rolf Dobelli, in Stop Reading the News, argues that news consumption distorts our perception of reality, making the world seem darker and more dangerous than it truly is.

We internalize the fear and outrage, losing sight of a fundamental truth:

Humanity, at its core, is good.

Above: Swiss writer Rolf Dobelli

To regain perspective, we must step back from the noise and embrace a different way of thinking — one that has been championed by philosophers and humanists for centuries.

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught that suffering comes not from events themselves, but from our reactions to them.

“It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”

We cannot control the news, political rhetoric, or world events, but we can control our response to them.

Instead of reacting emotionally, we should analyze events rationally and focus on what is within our power.

I must’ve dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
They’re moving into the street
Now did you read the news today?
They say the danger’s gone away
But I can see the fires still alight
They’re burning into the night

There’s too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go ’round
Can’t you see this is a land of confusion?

This is the world we live in (oh, oh, oh)
And these are the hands we’re given (oh, oh, oh)
Use them and let’s start trying (oh, oh, oh)
To make it a place worth living in

Oh, Superman, where are you now
When everything’s gone wrong somehow?
The men of steel, the men of power
Are losing control by the hour

This is the time, this is the place
So we look for the future
But there’s not much love to go ’round
Tell me why this is a land of confusion

This is the world we live in (oh, oh, oh)
And these are the hands we’re given (oh, oh, oh)
Use them and let’s start trying (oh, oh, oh)
To make it a place worth living in

I remember long ago
Oh, when the sun was shining
Yes, and the stars were bright all through the night
And the sound of your laughter as I held you tight
So long ago

I won’t be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We’re not just making promises
That we know we’ll never keep

Too many men, there’s too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go ’round
Can’t you see this is a land of confusion?

Now this is the world we live in (oh, oh, oh)
And these are the hands we’re given (oh, oh, oh)
Use them and let’s start trying (oh, oh, oh)
To make it a place worth fighting for

This is the world we live in (oh, oh, oh)
And these are the names we’re given (oh, oh, oh)
Stand up and let’s start showing (oh, oh, oh)
Just where our lives are going to

If we constantly absorb and react to every alarming headline, every outrageous statement, we surrender our peace of mind to forces beyond our control.

Instead, we should ask:

What can I actually do?

If an issue is beyond our reach, let it go.

If we can make a difference, even in a small way, then act.

But to waste energy on reactionary outrage is to be controlled, rather than in control.

In a world consumed by grand political struggles, Francis of Assisi reminds us that change begins with the smallest of actions.

“Start by doing what’s necessary.

Then do what’s possible.

And suddenly you are doing the impossible.”

Rather than feeling overwhelmed by global crises, we should focus on small, meaningful acts of kindness and service in our daily lives.

Goodness doesn’t come from grand gestures.

It emerges from consistent, compassionate actions.

Above: Francis of Assisi (1181 – 1226)

The media thrives on spectacle, convincing us that only massive, global shifts matter.

But in reality, the most profound changes come from individuals choosing kindness, responsibility, and integrity in their daily lives.

When we stop fixating on the world’s chaos and start focusing on the good we can do in our own communities, we reclaim our agency.

Above: US President John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963)

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.“

Inaugural Address, 20 January 1961

Few voices have championed the goodness of humanity as persistently as Fred Rogers.

In times of crisis, he advised children (and adults) to “look for the helpers.”

No matter how bleak the news, there are always people stepping up to help, to heal, to make the world better.

Above: US TV host Fred Rogers (1928 – 2003)

The media focuses on conflict, scandal, and fear, but beyond the headlines, there are countless acts of love, generosity, and heroism happening every day.

If we shift our perspective, we will see that people’s natural inclination is to help, not harm.

The problem is that these stories rarely make headlines.

Acts of compassion, generosity, and quiet heroism lack the shock value of scandal or violence.

But they are happening — every day, everywhere.

If we take the time to notice, we will see that the world is not as dark as the media would have us believe.

The great deception of modern news is that it makes us feel informed while actually keeping us distracted.

It encourages instant reaction rather than thoughtful analysis.

It fixates on the loudest voices rather than the wisest.

Instead of reacting to every provocation, we must pause, reflect, and decide what truly matters.

History is filled with figures who have wielded rhetoric to manipulate the masses — leaders who have known that keeping people outraged is the best way to keep them distracted.

Today, we see this playbook in action again.

But we don’t have to play along.

By stepping back from the noise, by focusing on what we can control, by recognizing the goodness in people, we can break free from the cycle of reactionary thinking.

The world is not as dark as we are told.

We just need to start seeing it for ourselves.

I see trees of green
Red roses too
I see them bloom
For me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world

I see skies of blue
And clouds of white
The bright blessed day
The dark sacred night
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world

The colors of the rainbow
So pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces
Of people going by
I see friends shaking hands
Saying, “How do you do?“
They’re really saying
“I love you“

I hear babies cry
I watch them grow
They’ll learn much more
Than I’ll ever know
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world
Yes, I think to myself
What a wonderful world
Ooh, yes