DIALECTIC – A satirical dialogue - NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2025 - by Ajith Rohan J.T.F., Rome

DIALECTIC – A satirical dialogue (01)

---

The characters -  Lagom (Swedish for balance, moderation) and Ikigai (Japanese for "reason for being"), are two distinct cultural concepts of balance and purpose used to highlight the imbalance and lack of purpose in the global political sphere they discuss.

---

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2025 

Premise

To avoid conceptual contradictions and misunderstandings one has to understand the background logic of this writing. So, I am considering in this dialogue two types of peace. The Nobel Peace Prize is based on the concept of “peace”, which represents the opposite place to wars and conflicts. This type of “peace” is meaningless without conflicts and wars; so, they – peace and conflicts and wars are essentially complementary parts. Thus, they complete each other. Not a great deal!

But suppose that there are no “extremist capitalists” or “destructive capitalists” that enrich themselves by producing and selling weapons to kill human beings, and also hypothetically think that there are no wars and conflicts in the world – consequently, a farmer who produces fruit and vegetables and a chicken and sheep breeder can easily receive the Nobel Peace Prize (?).

---

Lagom – You know Mr. Ikigai, when I digit “Nobel” price, on the computer the first letter “n” is automatically corrected into “N” capital or else it's signed as wrong as something important. It's like always capitalizing the first letter of certain words to distinguish their utmost importance and authority - but for whom? I don't know!?

Ikigai – I think if it is not a kind of "quid pro quo" reasoning, it should be for “pro bono” which is a good thing that we have something in common — at least forcing them we can keep some sort of order in the world. But why were you thinking about this Nobel Mr. Lagom? Have you been nominated by any chance?

Lagom – No Mr. Ikigai, I was curious about this because I heard someone say that the President of the United States is awaiting a Nobel peace nomination.

Ikigai - I also heard on TV news and in talk-shows that the president who ordered the killing of children, women, adults, journalists and the bombing of hospitals, schools, nurseries, common places in Gaza, whose name cannot be pronounced, has already anticipated this nomination for Nobel peace prize 2025 several times in the U.S.A. and in his country.

Lagom – After signing up the first step of the peace processes, even those in Gaza and many others in the Middle East are saying this same thing – “(soon) Nobel peace prize!”. Interesting!

Ikigai - Even journalists in the U.S. have talked about this months ago. Could you tell me if you know anyone who has refused this Nobel Prize by chance? Don't try to tell me the whole Nobel story. I just want to get a feel for the situation.

Lagom – Yes, there are many, but for me the refusal of the French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) is important. He refused the Nobel prize for literature in October 1964 because he always rejected official distinctions and did not want to be “institutionalized”. On the other hand, his philosophy revolves around the concept of radical freedom of man, condemned to exist without a predefined essence and to create himself through his own choices.

Others were instead forced to refuse the Nobel prize like Richard Kuhn (1938, chemistry), Adolf Butenandt (1939, chemistry), and Gerhard Domagk (1939, physiology or medicine). They were forced by Adolf Hitler.

I want to recall also the refusal of the Nobel peace prize of 1973 by Le Duc Tho – it was based on a question of principles. He was to share it with the controversial Henry Kissinger who was at that time the U.S.A. Secretary of State who also proliferated nuclear weapons and was in favour of using nuclear weapons for war. So even this type of person can receive the Nobel peace prize.

Ikigai – Wow! We've been through all sorts of plays! But what about Barack Obama's?

Lagom – Oh! That! A bit of a ridiculous and embarrassing event! But what do we poor common people know about that elite logic! I don’t know what constituted a "greatest benefit on mankind" but within few months of his first term, former U.S.A. President Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 (it is not clear for what).

Ikigai - This may be the logic that has matured over time, which has given rise to the possibility of seeing the good that a president can accomplish in the future, or something hypothetical good or great can be awarded with the Nobel peace Prize.

Lagom - I think there should be great trust and friendship, or a shared interest, among those people (elites) who handle these high-quality matters. Woe to us!

Ikigai – Today, 10th October a democratic activist woman won the Nobel peace prize of 2025. Long live activism! But according to the news, the White House has not digested this issue.

Lagom- The White House criticized the Nobel prize committee placing “politics over peace” for awarding the peace prize to a Venezuelan pro-democracy activist over US President Donald Trump.

Ikigai - Well! I think the Nobel Prize could have been awarded to the actual president of the United States, given that the history of the Nobel Prize isn't all that clear and distinct. On the other hand, former U.S.A. president Barack Obama received it without doing anything, but actual U.S.A. President Donald Trump at least managed to stop (?) that untouchable gentleman who followed their sacred logic of (“you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”) killing children, women, the elderly, journalists and bombing hospitals, schools, nurseries, and homes relentlessly.

Lagom - I hope at least next year the Nobel Committee will make some exceptions and give President of U.S.A. Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ikigai - Hmm, wait and "hope" for good weather!

(NB: Hope and fear are complementary. They're like two sides of the same coin).

WHY ACTIVISTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY? by Ajith Rohan J.T.F., Rome

---

WHY ACTIVISTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY?

Background of the Reflection

Humanity is a mosaic of carefully narrated stories of individual and collective lifestyles or cultures, civilizations, and a wide variety of life stories that serve as models and prototypes to be imitated and followed by generations. Without these stories and tales, no one can have an individual and collective identity. That is to say, beyond this complex human artificiality there is nothing but moving and transforming universal energy. On the other hand, all human beings have to respect mutually including all above-mentioned invented stories to keep the humanity - the dynamic mosaic whole.

What can we do?

This is really the responsibility that human beings are disrespecting and neglecting. They have lost their wits in their group and petty interests. But, according to “complementary humanism,” the difference only forms the sense of belonging. Nonetheless deplorably, today we are still trying to exhibit our old deepest wounds and trying to project our dypest pains and fear onto each other instead of understanding them dialectically.

The best news of 21st century - activists reawakening   

Practically, I observe this global behaviour as a sort of deplorable mass suicide. But where SPEC (socio-politic-economic-cultural-civil) systems and international decision-making organizations are failing, individual volunteer conscience starts to wake up and grow. It is the best news we have in the 21st century.

An invitation – don’t beg the question

After 80 years of the UN's history, we are witnessing a weakening, if not the collapse, of the UN and a reawakening of activists and activism in all parts of the world. This reawakening of activism signals and makes loud and clear the importance of a radical change in decision-making regarding humanity, justice, unambiguous peace, equality, and fraternity, leaving no room for instrumentalizing "anti-Semitism" and using it as an excuse to kill children, women, the elderly, and journalists and deliberately bomb schools and hospitals with their sacred logic of “you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

The spark of awakening

According to the UN at least 64,964 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza. The most important fact is that the people killed were not terrorists but innocent civilians. The game continues. Finally, after two years of continuous killings, a United Nations commission of inquiry says Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Despite all these facts, there are states like the U.S.A. and the Italian government that do not condemn the atrocities of Jewish political leaders and their military activities in Gaza. This is where the spark of the definitive awakening of activists, individuals, and organizations who have begun to make their voices heard in the ambiguous SPEC (socio-political-economic-cultural-civil) systems lies.

My Personal Position

My personal position regarding the legalization or organization of activists is entirely negative. I never want or accept organized and well-defined activists’ movements or organizations. Thousands of years of human history affirm that “The road to destruction is paved with good resolutions." So, when we are going to systematize our genuine positivity, the positive will, love for others without interests, or to give without expecting everything become destructive entities. I recall for example what happened to religions in the world. Once they became well-organized, they became “systems” which in turn demand propaganda, defence from opponents and opposite ideas, money, and power. They have to maintain their structures and systems rather than their followers. I recall also Simon Weil, who criticized what happened to party politics. They become like religions – They have to think about their own survival, and they don't have the time and resources for members.

Conclusion

1. Activism is the unique and innocent direct response to the perceived failure or weakening of established global governance structures like the UN. It is an obvious fact that anybody can identify the disillusionment with the UN's ability to maintain "unambiguous peace, equality, and fraternity." When an international body, established precisely to prevent atrocities after World War II, is seen as collapsing or ineffective in the face of widespread conflict and alleged genocide, the responsibility for fundamental change shifts back to the citizenry.
2. Activism fills this resulting power vacuum, becoming the essential mechanism for challenging state power and inertia. Activists, unburdened by state interests, often act as the conscience of humanity, demanding adherence to universal human rights when governments fail to do so.
3. The refusal of powerful states (like the U.S.A. and Italy) to condemn alleged atrocities further reinforces the activist belief that the current global systems are fundamentally compromised, thus necessitating a definitive awakening outside of established political channels.
4. In sum, I suggest that in an age where international institutions are faltering and state actors are perceived as morally compromised or complicit, activism is not merely an option—it is a societal necessity for restoring justice, identity, and the foundational moral principles of humanity. It is the spontaneous and essential spark when the established global engine fails.

 

MY AGATHOKAKOLOGICAL DAYS (day 03) - Ajith Rohan J.T.F., Rome

---

Background of the Quest

The central argument - that international governance (specifically the UN) is dysfunctional, beholden to powerful states, and that the world is trending toward a "Neo-authoritarianism". The world is reverting to a Hobbesian "natural state".

My personal logical foundation is based on two systems: dualistic logic (true/false constraint) and catuskoti logic (Both true AND false, Neither true NOR false, or ineffable. Or potentially any combination of the above. It is also fair to assume that I have not identified all possible combinations). Therefore, the argument may seem diverse, contradictory, and complicated.

Dysfunctionality of international community

UN's hypocrisy - acting as a "bully" toward indebted nations while remaining "cowardly silent" about the "powerful untouchable" ones.

A quarter of the way through the 21st century, the world seems globally almost anarchic, where international law, the international community, and the UN have fallen to their lowest point of dysfunction relative to how they should be. By the way, the UN and human rights (HR) organizations today are almost cowardly silent for the errors of “powerful untouchable” countries (which hide behind the word “democracy”), but they act a bit like a bully only for countries that survive on debts and donations from economically rich countries and different world banks. Thus, today the UN functions for powerful countries like a condominium assembly. This is a truly bad situation for the world. The world has almost returned to its pre-United Nations days. It functions not as an independent organization but under threat (threats such as not paying dues) from rich and powerful countries.

The real challenge of democracy: new definition

My definition of democracy, prioritize high individual cultural, civil, and psychological quality over mere collective structures. Thus, I point out that systems are only as good as the individuals who compose and sustain them, offering a vital corrective to purely procedural definitions of democracy.

Meanwhile, I see the world is establishing another form of politics - one I would define as “Neo-authoritarianism” (Authoritarian regimes minimal definition - may be autocratic, oligarchic, the rule of a party, the military, or the concentration of power in a single person or can be found easily on a form of democratic system moving and mixing further all above said limitations. The main characteristic right now seems to be a strong, centralized state to facilitate market reforms as necessary for democratic political reforms or democratic backsliding). It's true that no country in the world is fully democratic, because democracy is a form of system of government that demands more from an individual’s cultural, civil, and psychological quality than from a collective level. That is to say, if the individual is incapable of deciding and deliberating freely without compromising their free will and surviving under bad life conditions, democracy will never function anywhere.

The present global neo-authoritarian system – “Bellum omnium contra omnes”.

I observe the world in general on two dynamic processes: the dynamic processes of survival for people who have nothing but to work (or search for occupation or in-active) and pay taxes to maintain their governments and the dynamic world of war among elites (rich and powerful countries, rich people, political elites, religions, weapons manufacturers, banks and finance organizations, all national, international, and local criminal organizations, terrorist groups, individual criminals, drug producers and dealers) to keep their power status. So, in general the world seems like Thomas Hobbes had defined: “Homo homini lupus est,” because we are surviving in a world of “bellum omnium contra omnes”: the natural state of human beings. “Neo-authoritarian” rulers are working hard to activate British colonial rule of “divide and rule” in their political systems. In this way they can move openly to soon “neo-authoritarian” political system to establish a powerful “neo-authoritarian” state.

Conclusion – The New World Order – Democratic-Authoritarianism

I maintain that this new world order is not all that new, as it has always been functioning behind the scenes. Though I call it “Neo-authoritarianism,” it can also be called “Competitive Authoritarianism” or “Hybrid Regimes.” Now I can openly think, write, and communicate about it because it has been “unmasked” by itself, exactly by those who are practicing it and those who are going to practice it willingly.

They start simply with the most common and justifiable dynamic — the right to have economic prosperity. So, the visible and analysable main characteristic of the “Neo-authoritarian” political system right now is a strong, centralized state to facilitate market reforms. This is a hallmark of many modern neo-authoritarian states, especially those practicing Authoritarian Capitalism (like China or Vietnam, and historically Singapore and ...!?). The regime’s legitimacy is explicitly tied to its ability to deliver rapid economic growth and stability by implementing market-oriented policies without the "disruption" of full democracy. The strong, centralized state is essential to control labour, stifle opposition to privatization, and direct large-scale development projects.

I'll stop explaining the topic of Neo-authoritarianism for now because I intend to delve deeper into the subject later. Today, October 4th, 2025, right now, I have to go eat pizza with my friends. They're waiting for me outside the gate to go to the “pizzeria.” 

Concluding this note for my “Agathokakological days” (03) column, I write this warning seriously: "...Homo homini lupus est is not a historical footnote; it is the brutal reality of our time, where we are surviving in a world of bellum omnium contra omnes: the natural state of human beings reasserted."

 

WATER - MAN THE NARRATOR 10 - Autobiographical-philosophical digital web comic page 11 - by Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

---