Pages Menu

Monday, October 20, 2025

Origins of Hamas: The First Intifada — The Uprising That Redefined Resistance

by J. André Faust (October 19, 2025)

In December 1987, an Israeli army truck struck and killed four Palestinian workers in Gaza. The protests that followed ignited the First Intifada — an uprising that redefined Palestinian resistance and gave birth to Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement (BBC News, 2002).

Arabic: الانتفاضة الأولى (al-Intifāḍa al-Ūlā — “the first uprising”)

Origins

The uprising spread rapidly across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, driven by anger over two decades of occupation, land seizures, and economic hardship (Smith, 1990).

Nature of the movement

The First Intifada was a grassroots civil resistance rather than a war between armies. Local networks coordinated:

  • General strikes and shop closures
  • Boycotts of Israeli goods
  • Refusal to pay certain taxes
  • Graffiti and mass demonstrations

The enduring image that reached global audiences was stone-throwing youths confronting armed soldiers (U.N. Chronicle, 1988; Smith, 1990).

Organisation

Coordinated by local committees in schools, unions, and mosques rather than the exiled PLO leadership, the Intifada relied on community networks that sustained civil disobedience (U.N. Chronicle, 1988; Smith, 1990).

Israeli response

Israel deployed large numbers of troops, imposed curfews, and conducted mass arrests. Use of force, including live ammunition, drew international criticism and intensified scrutiny of conditions under occupation (Amnesty International, 1989; Human Rights Watch, 1990).

Consequences

The uprising shifted global opinion, pushed the PLO toward negotiation, and paved the way for the Oslo peace process. Amid this turmoil, Hamas formally emerged in 1987, providing an Islamic, community-based alternative to the PLO’s secular nationalism (Quandt, 1993; Shlaim, 1994).

Casualties

Roughly 1 200 Palestinians and 160 Israelis were killed during the uprising, with thousands more injured or imprisoned (Smith, 1990).


Legacy

The First Intifada transformed the Palestinian struggle from a distant guerrilla campaign into a grassroots civil movement seen worldwide. Its legacy still shapes debates on recognition, resistance, and the quest for statehood.


References

  • Amnesty International. (1989). Israel and the Occupied Territories: The Military Justice System in the Occupied Territories.
  • BBC News. (2002). Timeline: The First Intifada. Retrieved from https://news.bbc.co.uk/
  • Human Rights Watch. (1990). A Nation Under Siege: Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
  • Quandt, W. B. (1993). Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab–Israeli Conflict Since 1967. Brookings Institution Press.
  • Shlaim, A. (1994). The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine 1921–1951. Oxford University Press.
  • Smith, C. D. (1990). Palestine and the Arab–Israeli Conflict. St. Martin’s Press.
  • United Nations Chronicle. (1988). Intifada: The Uprising Continues, Vol. 25(3).

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


Sunday, October 19, 2025

Israel And The Proxy Variable: How Controlled Chaos Becomes a Weapon

Conceptual illustration of proxy warfare in Gaza showing Israeli forces and shadowy armed gangs connected by symbolic web lines — representing controlled chaos and the Proxy Variable from The Connected Mind series.

The Proxy Variable: How Controlled Chaos Becomes a Weapon

by J. André Faust (October 19, 2025)


According to BBC News (19 Oct 2025), Israel launched new air strikes in southern Gaza after accusing Hamas of violating the Trump-brokered ceasefire by firing on Israeli troops near Rafah. Hamas denied involvement, claiming that smaller armed groups — locally called the “Popular Forces” — were responsible. These gangs, said to be armed and supported by Israel, suggest that a proxy war is unfolding within Gaza’s borders.

Reuters and the Associated Press reported that the escalation followed the first phase of prisoner and hostage exchanges under President Trump’s twenty-point ceasefire plan. While Washington frames the process as “peace through strength,” the on-the-ground reality has fractured into overlapping zones of control and narrative.

Historically, Israel has used internal Palestinian divisions to weaken central authority. In the 1980s, Israeli intelligence tolerated Islamist charities that later evolved into Hamas, partly to counterbalance the secular PLO. Subsequent coordination with Fatah deepened the fragmentation. Today’s emergence of armed gangs in Gaza suggests a revival of that strategy under new conditions.

The Proxy Variable

In systems terms, a proxy is a variable deliberately introduced into the field. It injects uncertainty and redirects accountability. Within my Unified Theory of Entanglement, this becomes the Proxy Variable — a disturbance node that reshapes probabilities without appearing as a direct actor.

Each explosion, denial, or diplomatic statement alters the perception field. As PBS NewsHour noted in October 2025, efforts to end the war are constrained by “conflicting incentives” — a polite way of saying that each side operates within its own reality frame. Israelis see renewed threats; Palestinians see sabotage; Americans see justification for stabilisation. The truth collapses differently for each observer.

Inside Israel, criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu has intensified. Nieman Reports (2025) documented his widening conflict with domestic media, while families of hostages accuse him of delays and mismanagement. The result is a perceptual inversion: Trump is being celebrated as the decisive deal-maker, while Netanyahu is cast as the obstructive partner.

In this environment, controlled chaos becomes a tool of governance. It is not the breakdown of order — it is order redesigned to remain unstable. From an entanglement perspective, the Proxy Variable allows dominant powers to manipulate instability itself, generating endless justification for intervention while obscuring the origin of violence.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


References & Sources

  1. BBC News (19 Oct 2025). Israel launches air strikes in Gaza, accusing Hamas of “blatant violation of ceasefire.”
  2. Reuters (12 Oct 2025). Ceasefire holds in Gaza ahead of hostage release and Trump’s visit to Israel.
  3. Associated Press (12 Oct 2025). First seven hostages freed as part of Gaza ceasefire are in Israeli custody.
  4. Times of Israel (11 Oct 2025). Israel publishes list of 250 security prisoners slated for release as part of Gaza deal.
  5. PBS NewsHour (Oct 2025). Why it is so hard to end the war in Gaza.
  6. Nieman Reports (2025). Netanyahu vs the Israeli Media.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

When Peace Becomes a Performance: Trump, Netanyahu, and the Architecture of Escape

 

A theatrical depiction of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu on a dimly lit stage at separate podiums. A fractured dove is projected between them, symbolising performative diplomacy in the Gaza ceasefire. Text reads ‘An All-Star Cast’ with ‘All the world is a stage’ along the footlights.
On the world stage, peace becomes performance — and every spotlight hides the shadows of control.

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 15, 2025

Update — CBC analysis (Oct 16, 2025)

CBC’s latest piece describes Trump’s Gaza deal as potentially “historic” yet cautions that it stops at a negative peace—a pause in violence—without a clear path to a negotiated, lasting settlement. Trump declined to commit to a two-state solution, and analysts note the plan largely reflects Israeli and U.S. priorities, with limited Palestinian voice. In short: headline peace, unresolved foundations.

Why it matters for this essay: this directly reinforces the theme of performative peace—high-visibility wins in Phase 1 with structural questions left open, increasing the risk of later fracture.

Source: Nahlah Ayed, CBC News, “Trump’s Gaza deal may be ‘historic,’ but falls short of delivering ‘dawn of a new Middle East’,” posted Oct 16, 2025 (updated 12:47 PM ADT).

When Peace Becomes a Performance: Trump, Netanyahu, and the Architecture of Escape

The Gaza ceasefire agreement, publicly described as a step toward peace, contains within it a series of conditions that appear designed to collapse under their own weight. Among the most striking features are the impossible demands: the return of all hostages, living and dead; Hamas’s total disarmament; and an implicit assumption that a shattered territory can deliver complete compliance under bombardment. At the centre of this fragile structure stand two dominant figures — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — whose political and strategic interests have become increasingly intertwined. To analyse their alignment without slipping into speculation, this post focuses on strategy, evidence and verification.

1. Convergence of interests

Trump’s domestic narrative casts him as the deal-maker who achieves results where traditional diplomacy fails; Netanyahu’s depends on demonstrating that Israel remains strong, unbending, and protected by Washington’s approval (CNN, 2025). Both face internal pressures that reward toughness over compromise, which helps explain why their language and sequencing converge.

2. Narrative synchronisation as political instrument

Modern conflicts are fought with words as well as weapons. Press conferences, photo-ops and carefully sequenced “points of agreement” serve as instruments of narrative control. In this context, the widely discussed “twenty points” function both as negotiation terms and as a communication script (Reuters, 2025). Each clause reinforces a moral hierarchy — Israel as the disciplined actor, Hamas as the unreliable counterpart — a framing reinforced by disputes over recovered remains (Associated Press, 2025).

3. The optics of ownership: Trump’s first word

A revealing CBC segment documented a handwritten note passed to Trump during a domestic round-table: “Very close. We need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce the deal first” (CBC, 2025). Minutes later he signalled an imminent deal; within hours, his post appeared. Communication scholars call this narrative capture — controlling the headline rather than the outcome (Entman, 1993). The footage shows media choreography in action: the announcement itself is part of the performance.

4. The propaganda parallel

Describing this as “propaganda-like” need not imply deceit. In communication theory, propaganda is deliberate perception-shaping to achieve behavioural outcomes (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2019). One-sided or impossible conditions become rhetorical proof of restraint on one side and intransigence on the other; synchronised statements and timing create an echo chamber that amplifies the stronger party’s moral logic (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

5. Avoiding the conspiratorial trap

Strategic analysis examines observable incentives and outcomes; conspiracy claims allege secret coordination beyond evidence. Messaging alignment between Washington and Jerusalem is verifiable — statements often mirror each other within hours, and close communication is acknowledged (The Guardian, 2025). What would cross the line is asserting a total hidden script without documentation.

6. Self-defeating design: why the agreement may collapse

Five dynamics make the framework structurally unstable: (1) Impossibility clauses such as the demand to return all bodies (Reuters, 2025); (2) Asymmetrical enforcement where one side can unilaterally decide compliance (ABC News, 2025); (3) Domestic incentives for toughness that discourage compromise (The Guardian, 2025); (4) a verification vacuum; and (5) a humanitarian feedback loop in which devastation itself becomes grounds for future non-compliance claims.

7. Interpreting behaviour, not allegiance

Treating each leader as a rational actor clarifies how the theatre of negotiation serves domestic objectives that may diverge from peacebuilding. This is not vilification; it is a study of how states convert negotiation into narrative.

8. Phase 1 and the architecture of escape

Phase 1 was designed as a self-contained, visible success: hostage releases, a short ceasefire and limited troop repositioning that can be credited quickly to presidential authority (CNN, 2025). By front-loading optics, a narrative victory is secured regardless of later collapse. In game-theory terms, the structure is non-zero but asymmetrical: Trump maximises gain in every outcome, while Israel and Hamas absorb risk. The agreement’s structure and its communication loop are entangled — each action is both procedure and performance. This is systemic entanglement: governance mechanisms blending with perception mechanisms to create a recursive information loop.

Conclusion: the peace that performs itself

The ceasefire’s logic is self-contradictory: it demands total compliance from a devastated region while granting wide discretion to its guarantors. The very qualities that make it politically valuable — moral clarity, unilateral control and domestic resonance — make it operationally fragile. Whether the Trump–Netanyahu alignment is deliberate or emergent matters less than the outcome: a system that performs the ritual of peace while perpetuating structures of conflict.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


References

  1. ABC News. (2025, October 15). Israel says ceasefire deal contingent on full return of hostages.
  2. Associated Press. (2025, October 14). Israeli military says one of the bodies handed over by Hamas is not that of a hostage.
  3. CBC News [Chang, A.]. (2025, October 12). How Trump’s ‘first word’ defined the Middle East peace announcement.
  4. CNN [Tapper, J.]. (2025, October 15). Trump tells CNN that Israeli forces could resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t uphold ceasefire deal.
  5. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
  6. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
  7. Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2019). Propaganda & Persuasion (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
  8. Reuters. (2025, October 14). Returning hostage bodies from Gaza may take time, Red Cross says.
  9. The Guardian. (2025, October 15). Trump and Netanyahu’s alignment strengthens as Gaza deal faces hurdles.

Saturday, October 11, 2025

Trump’s Biggest Deal That Never Happened: The Nobel Peace Prize

I am the center of the universe

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 11, 2025

Why Donald Trump Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize

There are two prevailing schools of thought on why President Donald Trump should or should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why he didn't receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The first point is that by repeatedly claiming he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump has effectively politicized the award. The Nobel Prize is not a prize that one can demand that they deserve or should be nominated for. By politicizing the award, he may have biased the committee in the sense that they feel manipulated, and awarding him that award may make them feel that they are complying with his “I deserve the Nobel Prize” campaign (BBC News, 2020).

As an observer, it appears that Donald Trump creates crises so that later he can claim that he alone resolved the problems he created.

Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has shown a recurring pattern of amplifying or even manufacturing crises, only to later claim credit for resolving them. This approach creates the illusion of decisive leadership while concealing the fact that the instability often originated from his own actions (Reuters, 2020; Washington Post, 2024).

A clear example is the North Korea nuclear crisis. Early in his first term, Trump's confrontational rhetoric — “fire and fury like the world has never seen” — brought the region to the brink of open conflict. Months later, when tensions subsided and diplomatic talks began, he presented the outcome as a personal triumph, claiming to have “stopped a war.” Yet North Korea's nuclear arsenal remained intact, and experts noted no verifiable disarmament (AP News, 2019; PBS NewsHour, 2019).

A similar pattern emerged in trade policy. Trump's imposition of sweeping tariffs on allies and rivals alike triggered retaliatory measures that harmed global markets and U.S. consumers. When partial deals were later struck — often restoring conditions that had existed before the tariffs — he framed them as “historic victories.” In effect, the damage and the “solution” were two parts of the same political performance (Financial Times, 2019; CNBC, 2020).

The same strategy can be seen in the Middle East. U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement reignited regional instability, while unconditional support for Israel's military actions deepened the Gaza crisis. When Trump later proposed his 20-point “peace plan,” he positioned himself as the architect of resolution — despite having helped enable the escalation that made such a plan necessary in the first place (PBS NewsHour, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).


The same pattern of manufactured crisis and self-justification is also evident within the United States. Domestically, Donald Trump's approach has increasingly centred on punitive politics — the pursuit of personal retribution against perceived opponents. Rather than fostering unity, his rhetoric and actions have deepened existing divisions, transforming political disagreement into moral hostility (New York Times, 2025).

Recent indictments and investigations targeting prominent Democrats have been presented by Trump and his allies as necessary acts of “justice,” yet to many observers they resemble political vengeance more than impartial law enforcement. When leaders use the instruments of the state to punish rivals, the effect is not restoration but corrosion — it weakens trust in democratic institutions and fuels the very instability that such actions claim to resolve (Guardian, 2025).

This domestic polarisation mirrors his foreign conduct: crises are created or magnified, and then authority is asserted as the sole path to order. The pattern sustains a cycle in which conflict becomes both the justification for power and the proof of its necessity. In this way, Trump's brand of leadership depends on division; peace, whether at home or abroad, is valuable only insofar as it can be personally credited to him.


Lastly, his 20 points, which were originally interpreted as an ultimatum — if all 20 points were not agreed to by Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement — implied that the consequences would be significant (PBS, 2025).

The problem with the entire 20 points is the complexity involved, and there are infinite ways players can respond. Therefore, accurately predicting the final outcome is based on what the probable outcome should be. This dynamic reflects the unpredictability described in game theory, where every player acts under uncertainty and strategic manipulation can destabilise any path to peace (Nash, 1950).

Donald Trump operates within a self-constructed paradox: he appears unpredictable, yet his unpredictability functions as strategy. To adversaries and observers alike, it can be difficult to distinguish whether he is an impulsive provocateur or a deliberate manipulator of perception. In either case, he has cultivated an image of absolute control — a political chess master who positions every piece, domestic and foreign, to ensure victory on his own terms. His willingness to employ distortion and false narratives — from linking Canadian trade to fentanyl trafficking, to claiming that immigrants are “eating dogs” — demonstrates a pattern of manufacturing emotional responses that reinforce his dominance within the public arena (Politico, 2025; CBC News, 2025).

From a game-theoretical perspective, this behaviour reflects a form of information warfare in which truth itself becomes a negotiable asset. By flooding the board with misinformation, he destabilises his opponents’ capacity for rational response. The objective is not persuasion but confusion — to make the opponent’s next move uncertain while his own appears decisive. This is the political equivalent of asymmetric play, where the perceived “madman” advantage keeps adversaries reactive, unable to coordinate effectively against him (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).

In the end, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for dominance, negotiation, or spectacle. It recognises those who elevate humanity beyond division — individuals who pursue peace not as leverage, but as conviction. Donald Trump’s pattern of manufacturing crises, weaponising disinformation, and treating diplomacy as a contest of ego stands in direct contrast to that moral foundation.

And then he and his supporters wonder why he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


References

  • Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan: full text.
  • AP News. (2019). Trump claims success in talks with North Korea despite lack of progress.
  • BBC News. (2020). Trump says he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize but will never get it.
  • CBC News. (2025). Trump’s remarks about Canadian fentanyl and immigrant “dog-eating” claims draw criticism.
  • CNBC. (2020). Trump’s tariffs hurt American consumers, economists say.
  • Financial Times. (2019). U.S.-China trade war: the real costs of Trump’s tariffs.
  • Guardian. (2025). Trump’s use of indictments against Democrats raises fears of political retribution.
  • Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
  • PBS NewsHour. (2019). Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un: what did it achieve?
  • PBS NewsHour. (2025). Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war.
  • Politico. (2025). Trump stokes outrage with false claims about immigrants and fentanyl.
  • Reuters. (2020). Trump’s manufactured crises and self-claimed victories: a pattern of governance.
  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
  • Washington Post. (2024). Trump’s politics of chaos: creating disorder to claim control.
  • New York Times. (2025). Trump’s domestic strategy: divide and dominate.

Friday, October 10, 2025

The Unfinished Pursuit of Peace

Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize: A Game Still in Play

Portrait of Alfred Nobel
About the Nobel Prizes

In his will, Alfred Nobel directed that his fortune support annual prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace, awarded to those who have conferred the greatest benefit on humankind (NobelPrize.org).

The framework later expanded to include the Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel, funded by Sweden’s central bank and awarded alongside the original categories (NobelPrize.org).

Although the Peace Prize recognises direct efforts to prevent or resolve conflict, many laureates in Economic Sciences have shaped how we understand cooperation and competition. John Nash’s equilibrium concept, for example, influences diplomacy and conflict modelling (NobelPrize.org; Britannica).

In short, the Nobel constellation links scientific discovery, literature, economics and peace. The common thread is measurable contribution to humanity’s capacity to coexist.

Image: Alfred Nobel, public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

It is through this wider lens that we can now examine Donald Trump’s pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize.


By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 10, 2025


It is possible that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has looked beyond the surface in deciding not to award Donald Trump the prize, at least not yet (NobelPrize.org, nomination process).

The Gaza crisis is still unfolding. While an initial phase regarding the return of hostages and prisoners appears to have been achieved (BBC News, Middle East analysis), many key questions remain unresolved.

Reports confirm that the exchange of hostages and prisoners has taken place, but accounts remain conflicting over whether Israel has fully halted its bombing campaign. Some international outlets cite continued strikes in limited areas, while others report a complete pause pending verification by neutral observers. This lack of consistency highlights how fragile the ceasefire remains and why global monitoring is essential to confirm whether the violence has truly stopped. For further details on these conflicting reports, see the verification note below.

Has Israel fully stopped its bombing campaign (Reuters, Middle East updates)?
What happens with Israeli settlements and disputed lands (UN Peacebuilding)?
Who will govern Gaza, and how will reconstruction be designed and funded (Al Jazeera, Gaza coverage)?

These are not small details; they are the structural issues on which any lasting peace depends.

Beyond the Middle East, the committee may also weigh Trump’s domestic record, including immigration policy proposals (CNN Politics overview), the use of the National Guard in domestic contexts (NBC News reporting), and the alignment of such actions with broader human-rights norms (Human Rights Watch).

It is not that I am anti-Trump. In some areas, he takes a step forward. In others, it can feel like three steps back (Pew Research Center, public opinion).

It is possible that, at a later stage, if outcomes prove durable and balanced, he could still receive the recognition he seeks. But so far, Trump may be unusual for openly seeking the prize rather than allowing outcomes to speak for themselves (The Guardian, 2020).


Context and Analysis

Further insight into recent developments comes from John Lyons of ABC News (2025), who credits President Trump with using his office to force a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, leading to the release of hostages and the suspension of Israel’s bombing campaign.

Lyons writes that Trump “may have closed the latest — and most violent — chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” yet his claim to have “brought peace to the Middle East” is exaggerated. The ceasefire, while significant, leaves unresolved the devastation of Gaza, Hamas’s ideological persistence and Israel’s settlement expansion.

The report notes that Trump’s plan succeeded in halting immediate bloodshed, but the broader political structure remains unchanged. Lyons observes that both Hamas and Israel’s Netanyahu government oppose a two-state solution — the framework that over 150 countries, including Australia, have endorsed through UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

From this perspective, Trump’s achievement is a necessary pause rather than a lasting peace. The humanitarian toll may have been halted, but without addressing sovereignty, statehood and occupation, the deeper conflict remains unresolved.


For most laureates, the Nobel Prize is not something they pursue; it is the consequence of sustained efforts that improve the human condition (NobelPrize.org, Peace Prize).

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


True peace is not declared; it is demonstrated.


Verification Note

Conflicting reports have emerged regarding whether Israel has completely halted its bombing operations following the hostage–prisoner exchange. Reuters and BBC cite intermittent strikes in northern Gaza, while Al Jazeera and Associated Press describe a broader pause aligned with Trump’s ceasefire terms. As of this writing, verification from neutral observers such as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has not yet confirmed a full cessation of hostilities.

This summary reflects available reporting as of October 11 2025 and may be updated as corroborating evidence becomes available.


References

  1. “Alfred Nobel’s Will,” NobelPrize.org. link
  2. “The Prize in Economic Sciences,” NobelPrize.org. link
  3. “John F. Nash Jr. – Facts,” NobelPrize.org. link
  4. “Nash equilibrium,” Britannica. link
  5. “Nomination and Selection of the Peace Prize Laureates,” NobelPrize.org. link
  6. “Middle East – latest,” BBC News. link
  7. “Middle East news,” Reuters. link
  8. “UN Peacebuilding,” United Nations. link
  9. “Middle East updates,” Al Jazeera. link
  10. “Trump immigration policy overview,” CNN Politics. link
  11. “National Guard usage reports,” NBC News. link
  12. Human Rights Watch – Reports. link
  13. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics. link
  14. “Trump’s Nobel Prize nominations and claims,” The Guardian, 2020. link
  15. “Nobel Peace Prize – about and laureates,” NobelPrize.org. link
  16. Lyons, John. “Donald Trump deserves credit for stopping the war on Gaza, but his key claim is overblown.” ABC News (Australia), October 11, 2025. link

Monday, October 6, 2025

The Integration Trap: How Global Economics Locked Us Into Climate Collapse

A cargo ship passing between fire and ice, capturing humanity’s dilemma between progress and planetary survival.

The Integration Trap: How Global Economics Locked Us Into Climate Collapse

By J. André Faust (Sept 06, 2025)

1. The Personal Paradox

Most of us are trapped in a contradiction. To survive, we must earn money. To earn money, we must participate in an economy that accelerates the destruction of the environment that keeps us alive. I see this contradiction every day. If I stopped working to focus full time on writing and producing the kind of intellectual content that could help others see the big picture, I could not pay for food, shelter, or electricity.

Every paycheck, every purchase, every click on a digital ad connects me to the same global web that is heating the oceans, thinning the ice caps, and releasing ancient gases from the permafrost. It is not hypocrisy; it is structure. The system demands participation. Refusal comes at the cost of survival.

2. Geoeconomics: Power in the Age of Interdependence

We often talk about the global economy as though it were a neutral machine. In truth, it is a geopolitical battlefield disguised as a marketplace. Nations use trade, energy, and technology to pursue power under the banner of prosperity.

Each country competes for advantage: cheaper labor, cheaper energy, looser environmental laws. Every ton of carbon burned to sustain that competition becomes another contribution to the planetary debt. Even when governments promise cooperation, the incentives push toward self-interest. The result is a global race where everyone speeds up while pretending to brake.

3. Climate Feedback: The Planet Mirrors the Market

The Earth’s climate behaves much like the global market; it amplifies what it receives. When emissions rise, warming accelerates. When ice melts, reflectivity drops and more heat is absorbed. When permafrost thaws, methane escapes, trapping even more heat.

Economics follows the same feedback logic. When profits rise, investment accelerates. When consumption expands, industries grow. When debt fuels spending, growth becomes mandatory just to keep balance sheets alive. Both systems are self-reinforcing loops, and both now run beyond the point where simple adjustments can restore equilibrium. The climate is not our opponent; it is our mirror.

4. Complexity at Diminishing Returns

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter described how civilizations collapse when the costs of complexity exceed the benefits. In modern terms, our complexity is the global economic machine itself: supply chains, data networks, financial derivatives, multinational regulations. Every time we add a new layer to solve a problem, we create new vulnerabilities that require still more layers to manage.

Each summit, each climate accord, each innovation adds more structure without reducing the total stress on the planet. The energy required to maintain this complexity—both literal and political—keeps rising. The returns keep shrinking. Collapse, in Tainter’s sense, is not moral failure. It is an energy imbalance that can no longer be paid for.

5. The Lost Capacity for Collective Action

For any hope of reversal, the world would need unified effort: shared technology, synchronized energy transitions, and transparent resource management. But the geopolitical environment rewards fragmentation, not cooperation.

Tariffs on green technologies, competition over critical minerals, and rival energy blocs reflect a deeper truth: the system’s self-preservation instinct now overrides the planet’s. The same logic that drives corporations to maximize quarterly profits drives nations to prioritize GDP over stability. When cooperation becomes politically impossible, the window for reversal closes. The tipping point is no longer just environmental; it is institutional. The global economy has become too self-interested to save itself.

6. The Human Dilemma

Here is where it turns personal again. Knowing all this does not free me from it. Like billions of others, I am bound to a currency system that values growth more than life. Even the act of writing about collapse depends on electricity, servers, and manufactured devices—processes sustained by the very machinery I critique.

This is the emotional cost of awareness: understanding that every solution still draws from the same finite pool of energy and materials. There is no clean exit, only degrees of participation.

7. What Remains Possible

Perhaps the goal is not salvation but clarity. We can still choose honesty over illusion, cooperation over denial, and resilience over blind optimism. Local economies, cultural memory, and intellectual integrity become forms of resistance when global systems refuse correction.

We may not stop the collapse, but we can shape how consciously we experience it. Every act of truth-telling slows the descent a little and preserves knowledge for whatever comes next.

8. Closing Reflection

Civilizations do not fall because people stop caring. They fall when caring is no longer profitable. The integration that once made us powerful now binds us to the consequences of our own design. The global economy, the climate system, and human survival have merged into a single equation whose solution we can no longer balance.

We are living within that equation—each of us an input, each of us a signal echoing through the system we built. Understanding that is not despair; it is the beginning of wisdom.

9. What Game Theory Has to Say

From a game-theory perspective, the climate crisis behaves like a global Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each nation knows that cooperation—cutting emissions, sharing technology, and limiting extraction—would benefit everyone in the long run. Yet the fear of losing competitive advantage makes defection the safer short-term choice. The result is a rational race toward collective ruin.

In game-theory terms, the global economy is locked in a non-cooperative equilibrium where each player pursues individual gain, even while knowing that mutual restraint would yield a higher collective payoff. The system rewards exploitation over preservation, competition over trust, and growth over equilibrium.

Economists and political theorists call this a coordination failure, but in deeper terms it reveals a civilization unable to rewrite its own rules. Collapse, therefore, is not only a physical or economic event; it is the logical outcome of the strategies that once made us successful. The tragedy is not that humanity is irrational, but that our rationality now serves the wrong game.

For readers interested in cooperative strategies and the mathematics of coordination, classic works in game theory explore how trust, reciprocity, and reputation can stabilize systems that would otherwise self-destruct. These ideas will be central to any future rethinking of global governance.


References

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. MIT Press.

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

About the author

J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact, and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are therefore provisional. When outcomes are hard to predict, it is often because hidden layers and feedback loops are still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback, and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.


Sunday, October 5, 2025

Testing the Gospel Ethic in Israel and Palestine

Vintage poster of Jesus with a dove and overlapping Israeli and Palestinian flags, captioned Love Thy Neighbour.



Where the Jesus ethic meets the daily reality of Israel and Palestine

By J. André Faust (Oct 04, 2025)

The Motif

The figure of Jesus is a moral North Star: peace, mercy, forgiveness, love of enemy, care for the vulnerable. The Sermon on the Mount, the call to peacemakers, the command to love those who hate you, and the preference for humility over status set a clear ethic. It is an ethic of means, not only ends, and it measures success by the dignity preserved in those who suffer.

Where the Contradiction Appears

Modern states operate inside a hard world of borders, deterrence, and survival. Leaders are rewarded for security outcomes, not for moral beauty. The result is a visible gap between the motif and the methods often used in its name. This gap is not new. It is a repeating pattern: an ideal rises, power consolidates around it, power drifts toward self-preservation, then renewal is needed to realign means with the original purpose.

The Dialectic: How Ideals Drift

  1. Ideal: a unifying moral vision invites sacrifice and trust.
  2. Power: institutions stabilize the vision and guard the community.
  3. Corruption: incentives tilt toward control, secrecy, and punishment.
  4. Renewal: voices of conscience expose the drift and call the system back.

Mechanics of the Contradiction

  • Security dilemma: one side’s “defense” looks like “aggression” to the other, so each escalation invites the next.
  • Trauma memory: communities with deep wounds overweight worst-case risks and accept harsher measures as “insurance.”
  • Bureaucratic survival: agencies protect budgets, reputations, and doctrines, even when conditions change.
  • Signaling politics: leaders prove strength to domestic audiences, which narrows room for de-escalation.
  • Moral licensing: doing some good becomes a pass for doing harm “for the greater good.”
  • Media incentives: outrage and spectacle reward maximal responses and punish restraint.
  • Path dependence: once you invest in a tool, you keep using it, even when it is no longer the right tool.
Historical Dialectic of Ideals and Power

Practical Tests: Are We Close to the Motif?

  • Means vs ends: are the means humane, or only the goal?
  • Enemy image: do we leave space for the opponent’s repentance, or only for their defeat?
  • Proportionality: are responses limited, precise, and revisable?
  • Protection of the vulnerable: are noncombatants, prisoners, and the poor actively shielded?
  • Transparency: can citizens audit the policy, the data, and the costs?
  • Burden sharing: do decision makers share the costs, or export them downward?
  • Room for dissent: are critics treated as partners in truth-seeking, or as enemies?

What Renewal Looks Like

Renewal begins when conscience regains jurisdiction over strategy. In practice that means verifiable de-escalation steps, humanitarian corridors with third-party monitors, time-limited emergency powers, protection of journalists and medics, restorative elements for the innocent, and language that recognizes the other’s dignity. None of this guarantees safety, yet each step closes the gap between the motif and the method.

Why This Matters

The point is not to romanticize power or to shame those who exercise it. The point is to keep power answerable to the very ideal that gave it birth. Every era repeats the same spiral. The question is whether we notice the drift early enough to correct it without catastrophe.


References (APA 7)

  1. Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). Longman.
  2. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923)
  3. Cohen, S. J. D. (1999). The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. University of California Press.
  4. Goodman, M. (2007). Rome and Jerusalem: The clash of ancient civilizations. Penguin.
  5. Heschel, A. J. (1955). God in search of man: A philosophy of Judaism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  6. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.
  7. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
  8. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.
  9. Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
  10. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
  11. Schäfer, P. (Ed.). (2003). The Bar Kokhba War reconsidered: New perspectives on the second Jewish revolt against Rome. Mohr Siebeck.
  12. Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. Yale University Press.
  13. Smallwood, E. M. (1976). The Jews under Roman rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Brill.
  14. The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. (1989). National Council of Churches. (Citations used: Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:27; Matthew 5:39; John 18:36)
  15. Yoder, J. H. (1994). The politics of Jesus (2nd ed.). Eerdmans.
  16. Sacks, J. (2002). The dignity of difference: How to avoid the clash of civilizations. Continuum.

Thursday, October 2, 2025

Correlation or Coincidence? Carney’s Premiership and Canada’s Market Boom

 

Markets, Monetary Policy, and Mark Carney: Why the TSX Surged in 2025

Correlation, context, and the Bank of Canada’s role



Mark Carney, the Bank of Canada, and the TSX rally — visual theme

Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister on March 14, 2025, the S&P/TSX Composite Index has risen strongly. At first glance, this looks like a story of political leadership. But the market’s movement reflects a deeper interplay of fiscal signals, monetary policy, global equity trends, and Canada’s commodity cycle.

What the numbers say

  • TSX March 2025 close: ~24,917
  • TSX October 1, 2025: ~30,108
  • Price return: about +20.9% in just over six months
  • Total return: likely closer to +23–25% once dividends are included

The Bank of Canada factor

Monetary policy has been central. In March, the BoC rate stood at 3.00%. By Sept 17, 2025, it was lowered to 2.50%. These cuts reduced borrowing costs, buoyed corporate expansion, and supported exporters via a softer Canadian dollar.


The Bank of Canada, and TSX growth
TSX climbing while the BoC eases: March–October 2025 (blue = TSX, red = BoC rate)

Global alignment

  • U.S. equities also gained through 2025, reflecting a wider risk-on environment.
  • Canada’s resource-heavy index benefited from strong oil and metals.
  • The TSX remains highly correlated with global markets, amplifying moves.

So, is there a “Carney effect”?

There is a positive correlation between Carney’s first months in office and the TSX’s rally. But causation is harder to prove. A balanced assessment is that Carney’s credibility bolstered confidence, while monetary policy and global conditions did the heavy lifting.

Why this matters

Markets and politics interact through expectations. A strong index gives Carney political capital, but sustaining momentum will depend on factors beyond Ottawa — commodity prices, U.S. markets, and future Bank of Canada moves.


Sources and notes

  • Bank of Canada interest rate announcement, Sept 17, 2025.
  • TMX monthly stats for March 2025 — closing reference.
  • TradingEconomics and Investing.com — current TSX levels.


Saturday, September 13, 2025

Gun Control: Rights, Privileges, and Consequences

 by  J. André Faust (Sept 13, 2025)

Gun violence once again dominates the headlines. While I won’t focus on any single incident, the timing underscores a simple truth: the United States is in a very different place than other democracies when it comes to firearms.

So then, why does the United States appear to have little or no gun control compared to other democracies? The answer lies in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the “right to keep and bear arms.” For many Americans, this is more than a law — it is part of their national identity, rooted in the Revolutionary War, the distrust of government power, and the belief that citizens should be able to defend themselves against both criminals and tyranny. That makes gun ownership a constitutional right, not a regulated privilege. As a result, sweeping restrictions are politically and legally difficult, and rules vary widely from state to state. By contrast, countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia treat gun ownership as a privilege granted by law, not an inalienable right.

At a Glance

The infographic below tells the story clearly. Where Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia treat firearms as a regulated privilege, the United States enshrines them as a constitutional right. That difference shapes every outcome.

Comparing the Rules

CategoryUnited StatesCanadaUnited KingdomAustralia
Ownership statusRightPrivilegePrivilegePrivilege
Licensing requiredSome states onlyYESYESYES
Semi-auto riflesYESBANNED (mostly)BANNEDBANNED
HandgunsYESRESTRICTEDBANNEDRESTRICTED
Public carryYES (varies)NONONO
Guns per 100 people12035514

The legal framework explains the contrast: the U.S. has more guns than people, 120 per 100 residents, while Canada has 35, Australia 14, and the UK only 5.

Homicide Rates

CountryFirearm Homicides (per 100,000, latest)
United States~4.3 (CDC, 2021)
Canada0.72 (2023, Statistics Canada)
United Kingdom<0.2 (typical year)
Australia<0.2 (typical year)

By international standards, the U.S. homicide rate is striking: roughly ten times higher than other high-income countries with strong gun control.

Suicides vs Homicides

Country Gun Suicide Rate
(per 100,000)
Gun Homicide Rate
(per 100,000)
Share of Gun Deaths by Suicide
United States ~8.0 (CDC, 2021) ~4.3 (CDC, 2021) ~54%
Canada ~1.2 (StatsCan, 2020–23) ~0.7 (2023) ~75%
United Kingdom <0.1 <0.2 Majority suicides
Australia ~0.8 <0.2 Majority suicides

In Canada, about three out of four firearm deaths are suicides, but the overall gun suicide rate is still far lower than in the U.S. The U.S. leads both in homicide and suicide by firearm, reflecting the sheer number of guns in circulation.

Conclusion

The contrast is clear. Countries that treat firearms as a regulated privilege see fewer guns, fewer shootings, and fewer deaths. Canada shows that even when most gun deaths are suicides, the actual suicide rate by firearm remains far lower than in the United States. The U.S., by enshrining guns as a right, has chosen a different path — and lives with the consequences. The question is whether the American definition of freedom is worth the price paid in blood.


Sources: Statistics Canada (2023); CDC (2021); Commonwealth Fund (2024); RAND (on Australia’s NFA); Public Safety Canada. Figures simplified for clarity.

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Money, Power, and the Drug War: Reflections on Tony Tracy’s Review of Crackdown

Crackdown, Capitalism, and the Logic of Dependency

By J. André Faust (July 31, 2025)

My good friend Tony Tracy recently published a compelling review of Garth Mullins’s new book Crackdown: Surviving and Resisting the War on Drugs. Tony and I go back to our days of activism in the International Socialist Organization in the 1990s and in student politics, so I was naturally curious to read his thoughts. His review is powerful, and Mullins’s work clearly serves as both memoir and manifesto, an urgent call to confront the state violence and systemic injustice that fuel the drug war.

Tony highlights Mullins’s lifelong activism, his role in user‑led movements like VANDU and BCAPOM, and his refusal to tell a conventional “recovery story.” Instead, Mullins presents a narrative of resistance, centring drug users as agents of change, not passive victims. Tony frames the book as a revolutionary testament, an “essential weapon of resistance” against criminalization and oppression.

Why Tony’s Review Resonates

Tony captures what makes Mullins’s work so important. The book situates drug prohibition in its racist and classist origins, critiques disastrous policies like British Columbia’s 2014 Methadose switch, and celebrates grassroots harm‑reduction strategies. These are all vital issues, and Mullins’s voice, rooted in lived experience, is essential to the fight for safe supply, decriminalization, and user autonomy.

Looking Beneath the Surface

While I agree with Tony’s perspective, my own lens looks deeper at the mechanics that drive both capitalism and the illicit drug industry. At their core, both systems thrive on creating dependency to sustain profit and power. Corporations market addictive products, cultivate brand loyalty, and even build obsolescence into consumer goods. Drug cartels similarly exploit chemical dependency, maintaining control through profit and coercion.

Even artificial intelligence: These systems all share the same underlying logic: create demand, foster dependency, and maximize profit “by any means necessary.”

Money, Power, and the State

What fascinates me is how money, power, and the State reinforce each other. Sometimes this is deliberate, through lobbying, policy capture, or outright corruption. Other times, it simply emerges from the nature of the system itself. Capital generates wealth, which captures political influence. The State enforces laws that protect those flows of capital, whether for corporations or, indirectly, for cartels. Power then reinforces the structures that keep wealth concentrated at the top.

The opioid crisis offers a stark example. Companies like Purdue Pharma aggressively marketed highly addictive drugs with state approval until the crisis became politically untenable. Meanwhile, illicit drug networks flourish in places where the State is weak, complicit, or selectively permissive. Both legal and illegal markets operate according to the same logic: profit through dependency.

A Complementary Perspective

Tony and Mullins are absolutely right to focus on state violence and the harm done to drug users. Harm reduction, decriminalization, and user‑led activism are vital steps toward saving lives and empowering communities. What I extend the conversation to recognize is that even if prohibition ended tomorrow, the exploitative profit structures might remain intact. Power could simply shift from cartels to corporations like Big Pharma.

Understanding this helps bridge our two perspectives. Mullins’s work shines a light on the urgent need to dismantle punitive drug laws and support grassroots activism. But a full critique must also ask how capitalism itself, legal or illicit, thrives on dependency, shaping human behaviour for the sake of profit.

Reflecting on Tony’s review reminded me that confronting the drug war is one part of a larger struggle. To truly liberate people from exploitative systems, we need to challenge not just prohibition, but the more profound logic of money, power, and the State that makes such systems possible in the first place.