In the News Now: Reflections on Empire and Decline

In the News Now: Reflections on Empire and Decline

    Friday, May 15, 2026   No comments

The conversation about American power has shifted in recent weeks, moving from academic journals and policy briefings into mainstream editorial pages and diplomatic exchanges. A New York Times opinion piece recently framed a pivotal moment in U.S. foreign policy as emblematic of a broader pattern, suggesting that military actions in the Middle East have accelerated rather than reversed a trajectory of diminishing global influence. This framing resonates with observations from high-level diplomacy, where leaders of rising powers, including Chinese leader, Xi, have openly characterized the United States in terms of relative decline during bilateral meetings.

These contemporary assessments invite comparison with historical theories of civilizational cycles. The fourteenth-century scholar Ibn Khaldun developed a framework centered on two key concepts: `asabiyya, or social cohesion, and hadara, the sophisticated urban civilization that emerges when cohesive groups consolidate power. In his analysis, empires rise when strong group solidarity enables conquest and institution-building, but gradually weaken as prosperity erodes that solidarity, replacing shared purpose with individual ambition and administrative complexity. The transition from desert austerity to urban luxury, in Khaldun's view, sows the seeds of eventual fragility.

Applying this lens to current debates requires careful distinction between symptoms and structural shifts. Military overextension, domestic polarization, and economic strain are not new challenges for any hegemon. What matters is whether these pressures reflect temporary setbacks within a resilient system or evidence of deeper civilizational misalignment—where institutions no longer channel collective energy toward common goals. Some analysts argue that the United States retains significant advantages in innovation, demographic dynamism, and alliance networks that complicate any simple narrative of terminal decline.

The recurrence of decline discourse itself carries weight. When influential voices in media and diplomacy invoke the language of imperial twilight, they shape perceptions that can become self-fulfilling. Allies may hedge their commitments; adversaries may test boundaries; domestic audiences may grow skeptical of international engagement. The psychological dimension of power—confidence, legitimacy, the belief in a shared project—matters as much as material capabilities.

History offers no predetermined endpoints. Empires have reversed course through reform, renewal, and recalibration. The value of frameworks like Ibn Khaldun's lies not in prediction but in diagnosis: prompting reflection on what sustains collective purpose, how institutions adapt to changing circumstances, and whether a society can renew its foundational solidarities without abandoning its core principles. The question for any nation navigating moments of uncertainty is not whether decline is inevitable, but whether it possesses the wisdom to recognize the difference between the end of an era and the beginning of a necessary transformation.

How Journalistic Narrative Shapes History—and Why Power Fears It

How Journalistic Narrative Shapes History—and Why Power Fears It

    Wednesday, April 22, 2026   No comments

The Pen and the Sword

History is a story we tell ourselves about who we are, where we came from, and what matters. And at the heart of that storytelling lies journalism—the "first rough draft of history," as the aphorism attributed to Washington Post publisher Philip Graham goes. But when those who wield power attempt to dictate that draft, the stakes for democratic memory rise dramatically.

Scholars have long recognized that narrative is not decorative in historical writing—it is foundational. As historian Jill Lepore notes, the revival of narrative in academic history parallels the emergence of narrative journalism, with both genres using storytelling techniques to make sense of complex events. Narrative history, when done well, integrates "story and context," moving from specific events to broader structures that help us understand causation and consequence.

Journalism plays a crucial role in this process. Through investigative reporting, eyewitness accounts, and contextual analysis, journalists document events as they unfold, creating the primary sources future historians will rely upon. But this process depends on editorial independence. When journalists lose their "prudent distrust" and become "guardians of official narratives," the historical record becomes distorted.

Recent events offer a stark case study. In an April 2026 post on Truth Social, Trump, a political leader ad president of the US, launched a blistering attack on The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, demanding that media outlets narrate history according to his preferred version of events. In his post, he claimed sweeping military victories, the obliteration of an adversary's capabilities, and the silencing of dissenting voices—all while criticizing journalists for reporting outcomes that complicated that narrative.

This moment reveals a profound tension: the desire to control historical memory through present-day media pressure. As research on political communication shows, leaders operate in a "mediatized environment" where their public image is constantly negotiated through news coverage. When that coverage includes scrutiny of policy failures or contradictions, some seek not to engage with the critique but to discredit the messenger.

The specific claims in the April 2026 post warrant careful examination. Fact-checking organizations have analyzed similar assertions about military outcomes in the war on Iran. While U.S., Israel, and Gulf allies who allowed their territories to be used to manage the war achieved significant tactical successes—including damage to Iranian naval, air defense, and missile infrastructure—experts caution against declaring "total victory."

Key contradictions emerge upon scrutiny:

• Claims that an adversary's leadership has been "eliminated" sit uneasily alongside ongoing diplomatic outreach to that same government
• Assertions of complete military degradation conflict with evidence of continued asymmetric capabilities, including drone and missile attacks
• Declarations of economic collapse must be weighed against the adversary's demonstrated ability to leverage strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz

As independent fact-checking analyses note, "tactical battlefield victories do not always translate into actual victory in a war." History written in the heat of conflict often requires the cooling perspective of time to separate rhetoric from reality.

The insistence that media adopt a preferred narrative misunderstands how historical truth emerges. Truth does not bend to the application of brute force; it emerges through the accumulation of evidence, the scrutiny of multiple perspectives, and the patient work of verification. As the American Historical Association observes, journalists and historians share a commitment to "narrative structure that invites historical comparison, contemplation, and consequence."

A free press serves as what scholars call a "critical mechanism for ensuring transparency, accountability, and public engagement." When political figures attack media institutions for reporting inconvenient facts, they are not merely criticizing individual journalists—they are challenging the infrastructure through which democratic societies construct shared understanding.

There is a profound irony in demanding that history be written to one's liking while simultaneously dismissing the institutions that preserve historical record. As one analysis of media and politics notes, "interactions between politics and media turned more complex in recent years," but the fundamental principle endures: those who seek to control the narrative often reveal their anxiety about how they will be remembered.

History will be written. Primary sources—diaries, official documents, news reports, eyewitness accounts—will be gathered, evaluated, and interpreted by future scholars. The voices that dominate today's headlines may not hold the same weight tomorrow. As the Library of Congress reminds us, primary sources are "the raw materials of history," and their preservation depends on institutions that operate independently of transient political power.

The attempt to force media to narrate history according to a preferred script is not new. But in an era of fragmented information ecosystems, the stakes are higher. When journalistic narrative is subordinated to political messaging, the historical record suffers. When journalists maintain their commitment to verification, context, and accountability—even under pressure—they fulfill their essential role as stewards of democratic memory.

Truth may not win every news cycle. But as historians know, it has a powerful ally: time. And in the long arc of historical judgment, the narratives that endure are those built not on assertion, but on evidence; not on power, but on principle.

Is Western civilization on the verge of collapse?

Is Western civilization on the verge of collapse?

    Tuesday, August 06, 2024   No comments

Human civilization has been a topic for historians, sociologists, philosophers, thinkers, and scientists throughout history. The discussion of the rise and fall of human civilization often leads to a look back at the work of the Muslim thinker Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khaldun who is often described as the originator of the theory of cyclicality of human civilization. Although Ibn Khaldun did not take credit for such idea, and many modern researchers have concluded that that idea was not Ibn Khaldun's original idea, it is nonetheless part of his work and his contribution to the field of social history. Related to this topic, we examine and re-present ideas by a scientist from the modern time, one who used statistical data to predict social trends.

On the New Scientist website, Peter Valentinovich Turchin, a Russian-American scientist specializing in mathematical modeling and statistical analysis, presents his analysis of the decline of Western civilization and its causes by studying mathematical patterns in complex systems and applying them to history. Turchin believes that Western societies are rapidly moving toward the brink of destruction, and that they must make important decisions to avoid this collapse. Here are some of  Turchin's ideas and assertions. 

The collapse of civilizations seems to have been a natural and recurring pattern in the development of cultures throughout history, with a period of decline and weakness often following a period of prosperity. The closest examples of this are what happened to the ancient Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mayan civilization (one of the ancient civilizations that emerged in the region of Central and South America*), and the Qing Dynasty in China, which experienced periods of prosperity followed by collapse, and this seems to be the inevitable path of any civilization.

Today, Western civilization may face the same fate, as there are clear signs of a variety of crises, including widening economic inequalities, political divisions, violent conflicts, and environmental disasters. Some observers see this as a sign of a “multiple global crises” that pose a serious, perhaps existential, threat to contemporary societies.

More than two decades ago, I predicted that this was the end of things, based on studying mathematical patterns in complex systems and applying them to history. Using this approach, I discovered that violent political upheavals follow certain time cycles, one peaking every 50 years or so, and the other peaking every two or three centuries.

Media Review: Finnish President's article in The Economist, "the era of Western dominance as we know it is over"

Media Review: Finnish President's article in The Economist, "the era of Western dominance as we know it is over"

    Monday, July 08, 2024   No comments

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has said that what we are witnessing today is in many ways equivalent to what happened in 1918, 1945 and 1989, and that the next few years will likely determine the world order, its balance and its dynamics for the rest of the century, or at least for decades to come.

In an article in The Economist, Stubb spoke of “moments in international relations when we know that the world is changing, but we don’t know exactly where it is heading,” stressing that “we are living in one of those moments when an era dies and a new one is born.”

The Finnish president noted in his article that “the things that were supposed to bring us together – trade, technology, energy, information and currency – are now tearing us apart.”

Stubb admitted that he was among many who believed that the end of the Cold War would mean the end of history, but that did not happen. The era of Western hegemony, as we used to know it, is over.

He believed that the question now is how global power will be shared in the future, while we are now witnessing a reorganization of the balance between three areas of power: the global West, the global East, and the Global South, stressing that this classification of the power triangle, if it constitutes an oversimplification, helps to clarify how the world is changing.

"West and East are fighting for hearts and minds in the South"

Stubb summed up the equation by saying that "West and East are fighting for hearts and minds in the South", attributing the matter to his realization that the South will decide the direction of the new world order.

Stubb believed that the West is mistaken if it imagines that the South will be attracted to it only because of what he called "the values ​​or power of freedom and democracy", and that the East is also mistaken if it imagines that huge infrastructure projects and direct financing will give it complete influence in the South.

The Finnish president concluded in his article that "it is ultimately a matter of values ​​and interests together", and that "the South will choose what it wants, because it can do so".

Stubb believed that the West must choose between continuing to believe in the illusion that it can remain dominant, as it has done for centuries, or accepting the facts of change and starting to act accordingly, especially towards the South.

Stubb stressed that Indian Foreign Minister Vinay Mohan Kwatra provided material worthy of thought when he pointed out that “Europe must get rid of the mentality that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.”

He pointed out that one of the reasons why the East is a more convincing partner for the South is related to the systematic infrastructure, financial and development programs that China is implementing around the world, describing China’s strategy as “successful.”

Stubb concluded his article by emphasizing that if the West “returns to its old ways of direct or indirect domination, or outright arrogance, it will lose the battle.”

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

    Monday, May 20, 2024   No comments

On May 19 of every year, many Americans celebrate “Malcolm Day,” the anniversary of his birth, to honor one of the most prominent defenders of black rights in the United States during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. This day is not a federal holiday, although some are. American states and cities have made it a holiday, so who is Malcolm X?

Malcolm was born on May 19, 1925 as Malcolm Stuart Little, the fourth of eight children, in Omaha, Nebraska, and died on February 21, 1965, in New York. He was a prominent figure in the Nation of Islam. After his assassination, his life story spread widely and he became a hero among black youth.

After his birth in Nebraska, baby Malcolm moved with his family to Lansing, Michigan. During his early childhood, he and his family were exposed to racist abuse from the Ku Klux Klan, and they had to move frequently to avoid harm from this violent racist group.

When Malcolm was six, his father, Reverend Earl Little, a supporter of black leader Marcus Garvey, died after being hit by a streetcar, sparking speculation that he had been the victim of white murder.

The family was so poor that Malcolm's mother, Louise Little, resorted to cooking dandelion greens from the street to feed her children. After being admitted to a mental institution in 1939, Malcolm and his siblings were sent to foster homes or to live with family members.

Malcolm excelled in school, but after one of his teachers told him in eighth grade that he should become a carpenter instead of a lawyer, he lost interest and soon finished his formal education.

Malcolm moved from a foster home in Michigan to live with his half-sister, Ella, in Boston. There he became involved in petty criminal activities in his teenage years, becoming a street hustler, drug dealer, and leader of a gang of thieves in Roxbury and Harlem (in New York City).

While in prison for robbery from 1946 to 1952, he underwent a conversion that eventually led him to join the Nation of Islam. His decision to join the Nation was also influenced by discussions with his brother Reginald, who had become a member and who was imprisoned with Malcolm in the Norfolk Colony. In Massachusetts in 1948.

Malcolm quit smoking, gambling, and eating pork in 1948. In order to educate himself, he spent long hours reading books in the prison library. In accordance with Nation of Islam tradition, he replaced his surname "Little" with an "X", a custom among Nation of Islam followers who considered their family names to have originated from slave-owning whites.

In the early twentieth century, some Muslim religious leaders in the United States asserted that Islam was the natural religion of blacks, relying largely on accounts of African Muslims being kidnapped centuries ago and sold into slavery in the Americas.

The Nation of Islam, a movement and organization of black Americans, was founded in 1930 by Elijah Muhammad and is famous for its teachings that combine elements of traditional Islam with black nationalist ideas.

The Nation of Islam also combines religious ideas with those that denounce the suffering suffered by blacks at the hands of whites.

Malcolm rose so quickly through the ranks of the Nation of Islam that Elijah Muhammad, who had a special affection for Malcolm, appointed him spokesman for the group, second only to Muhammad himself. Under Malcolm's leadership, the Nation of Islam claimed half a million members.

Malcolm was an articulate public speaker and charismatic figure who expressed the pent-up anger, frustration and bitterness of African Americans during the civil rights movement from 1955 to 1965.

He delivered speeches in the streets of Harlem and spoke at major universities such as Harvard and Oxford. His penetrating wit and passionate radicalism made him a formidable critic of American society. He also criticized prevailing civil rights movement concepts, challenging Martin Luther King's views on coexistence and nonviolence.

Malcolm argued that issues of black identity, integrity, and independence for black people were more important than the civil right to sit in a restaurant or even to vote. In contrast to King's strategy of nonviolence and civil disobedience, Malcolm urged his followers to defend themselves "by any means necessary."

He also disagreed with Martin Luther King's ambition for America to be a place where blacks and whites lived together, as Malcolm did not believe in this vision and wanted a separate nation for blacks only.

...

Racial segregation ended throughout the United States thanks to the efforts of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of which Malcolm

Civil rights include the right to liberty, the right to education, the adult right to vote, and the right to a fair trial.

For a long time in the United States, African Americans were denied their civil rights.

Black Americans suffered from slavery and were bought and sold for money. Their life as a slave was very difficult and difficult to imagine now. Most of them were treated horribly by their white owners and had no rights at all. Many of them were forced to change their names, sometimes to the name of their owner.

Although slavery was abolished in England in 1833, and in America in 1865, blacks were still treated fairly due to segregation laws - or rules - that separated blacks from whites.

Racial segregation in the United States meant that, by law, non-white people were kept physically separated and treated poorly compared to white people.

Things like housing, hospitals, schools, transportation, and workplaces were segregated, based on the color of a person's skin.

For example, black children were not allowed to go to the same schools as white children, blacks had to sit separately on buses, and were not allowed in whites-only areas.

Israeli PM: “Islam in the Arab countries needs radical change”

Israeli PM: “Islam in the Arab countries needs radical change”

    Wednesday, November 29, 2023   No comments

The war in Gaza may not be a war against Hamas after all, it is a war on the ideology and beliefs of Hamas. Echoing France’ President who called for an “Enlightened Islam”, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during his meeting with American businessman Elon Musk, who visited the Gaza Strip settlements, that “Islam in the Arab countries needs a radical change.”

Israel will purge Gaza’s mosques and schools of their “poisonous” ideology once its war with Hamas concludes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told X (aka Twitter) owner Elon Musk in an interview on Monday.

 

The Israeli premier pointed to the wealthy Gulf states as examples of Muslim countries that had been “de-radicalized.”

 

Speaking to Musk in an interview live-streamed on X, Netanyahu said that the destruction of Hamas would be a “precursor” to more systemic changes in Gaza.

Expanding on his vision of a “de-radicalized” Gaza, Netanyahu told Musk that “you first have to get rid of the poisonous regime, as you did in Germany, as you did in Japan in World War II.”

 

Netanyahu pointed to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain as examples of Arab states that had undergone this process, likely referring to their recognition of Israel in 2020. With Riyadh on the cusp of a US-brokered recognition deal before the current war began, Netanyahu added that the “same thing is happening to a considerable extent in Saudi Arabia.”

 

The Israeli leader suggested that his country’s “Arab friends” could help rebuild Gaza, where the UN estimates that around half of all homes have been destroyed since the war began. Earlier this month, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said that the Arab nations would not take part in any potential post-conflict peacekeeping in Gaza, nor would they “clean the mess” left behind by the Israeli military.