The Depravity of the War Against Iran

 As we listen to the celebratory explosions of fireworks for Chinese New Year, we hear those same explosives, honed to murderous perfection by the most powerful nation, being applied to obliterate another nation. There is no hesitation that children might die, deprived of the existence they were born to. No hesitation that it will destroy the people of their future if they do not rise against their leaders.

And the so‑called civilised world that had been for centuries doing the same, watch, cheering as spectators.

The war in Iran is not the act of a moral nation set out to restore the morals of another. It is not about nuclear weapons. We have heard all that before, of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

They were all lies.

No, the war is stoked by two highly developed countries that have reached the apex of depravity – the US and Israel. And depravity has no limits. Neither man nor beast is safe from such depravity.

The Epstein papers reveal this depravity: men who create systems to seek pleasure in raping children, who see murder as an acceptable way to satisfy their greed for wealth, who wield power to control and expropriate the resources of nations.

This is not progress. This is descent. One per cent of humanity now controls over eighty per cent of global wealth, and those controlling it are not sated and cannot be stopped. We have lived under the illusion of democracy and other ideals, but these too have been corrupted, hollowed out, turned into instruments for greed.

Everywhere, man is born bound by chains. And those chains are not only political—they are economic, moral, and spiritual. Lives are shortened when those chains are broken, because the system is designed to punish resistance. What we are witnessing is not the failure of ideals, but their betrayal.

And the danger is not confined to one nation. It spreads across the world because depravity at the apex of power does not stop at borders. The same greed that fuels war also fuels exploitation, climate destruction, and the erosion of every principle that once claimed to protect humanity.

What is unleashed in Iran is a warning to all: when power is so depraved that it has developed a system to rape children, no one is safe. And yet, even in chains, humanity must resist. We curse the criminals, we expose their depravity, and we refuse to let despair be the final word. If they seek to shorten our lives, we will lengthen our defiance. If they seek to erase our future, we will write it anew. No matter how deep their depravity, we will live despite them.

Article – 28 February 2026

THE SHITHOUSE AND THE SINGULARITY: A Manifesto Against the Banality of Violence

 

As we witness the most powerful naval fleet in history move toward the entry onto the Persian Gulf to potentially obliterate Iran, we are faced with a chilling "banality of violence." While millions face destruction and Palestine endures unprecedented deprivation, our media remains obsessed with the faulty toilets on the USS Gerald R. Ford. We have become a population that finds more interest in the plumbing of the aggressor than the humanity of the victim

What we describe as civilization has become a thin veneer for a global decline into immorality. For centuries, we have mistaken the "balance of power" for peace, allowing mightier nations to use their strength to subjugate the weak for resources and markets. This systemic decay has reached a horrific zenith: today, the most powerful naval force in history—the U.S. Gerald R. Ford strike group—moves with clinical precision to potentially obliterate another nation. Yet, the world's media is not discussing the morality of mass murder. Instead, it is obsessed with the faulty toilets on the warship.

This is the banality of violence: the conversion of a machine of "obliteration" into a viral joke about a "shithouse." While we laugh at the clogged pipes of an $13 billion armada, we remain silent about the millions of lives it is poised to extinguish. We have become so inured to the deprivation in Palestine and the impending "first sin" of killing that we find more interest in the plumbing of the aggressor than the humanity of the victim.

The Epstein papers further reveal the depth of this rot, showing how a "moral elite"—including figures like Noam Chomsky and Deepak Chopra—can be captured and compromised by those with no restraints on their depravity. We are forced to ask: Are we a lost species?

The answer is no, but the way forward requires a radical shift in how we define our existence. In his latest work, Irreducible (2024), Federico Faggin provides the scientific key to our survival. He argues that we are not biological machines, but quantum beings whose consciousness is irreducible and inextricably connected via a universal field. To Faggin, any act of violence is an act against the self because it ignores the fundamental quantum entanglement of all life—man, beast, and trees.

This scientific singularity provides the modern foundation for Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha (Truth-Force), Ahimsa (Non-violence) and Swaraj. Gandhi understood that if humanity is truly singular, then violence is an illogical attempt to solve a problem by attacking one's own body. Satyagraha (Truth-Force) explains that if you use violence to defeat an oppressor, you just become a new kind of oppressor. Truth (satya), is the weapon to defeat the oppressor. During the 1930 Salt March, he didn't use weapons; he used the truth that the British salt tax was an immoral "plunder" of a basic human right.

Ahimsa (non-violence), Gandhi taught, is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. If we are all part of a singular humanity, then killing is a "suicidal act" that destroys the soul of the killer as much as the body of the victim.

Self-Rule (Swaraj): Gandhi’s ultimate goal was "Swaraj," which means self-governance. He argued that if you cannot control your own impulses toward greed and violence, you will always be a slave to an empire or an oligarch. Self-governance was what was absent in those named in the Epstein papers.

These very human principles show that we are not so depraved as a species as to not understand where we failed, nor so lost as to be without a map. By replacing the "balance of power" with a balance of consciousness, we reclaim our humanity from the oligarchs. We are the universe’s power; our evolution lies in the willingness to finally recognize that there is no "other."

In Malaysia as we are in the process of reviewing the trajectories of education, those involved in the process may want to consider adding a new subject on humanity based on the above at all levels of education.

Institutional Autonomy and Government Control in Malaysian Higher Education: A Policy Critique of Blueprint Shift 5

 Introduction

Higher education is not often the subject of a country's constitution. It does not hold the formal status of the three pillars—the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary—nor even the status of the Press, which is regarded as the Fourth Estate. Yet, the independence of higher education, if not of all education, is of the same foundational importance, especially since education is now recognised in this country as a constitutional right under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

This need to protect independence is not unique to Malaysia; globally, we are witnessing a trend where executive powers seek to bypass institutional autonomy in favour of political alignment.

In the United States, for instance, the Trump administration pursued a policy of "cut, coerce, and control," using federal funding as a lever to force universities to adopt a specific ideological agenda. Through the “Compact for Academic Excellence,” universities were pressured to align curricula with state-defined "merit" in exchange for federal benefits.

Education must be free from such government control so that it is not manipulated into a tool for staying in power by reducing scholarship to propaganda. Without this independence, control inevitably results in censorship, prohibiting subjects adverse to the state.

The Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605) is a chilling local example; its disciplinary rules prohibit criticism of the government or the university, effectively stifling the very inquiry education is meant to foster. For the constitutional right to education to be meaningful, the governance of higher education must be liberated from executive overreach.

Malaysia’s Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs) are central to nation-building. They nurture talent, drive innovation, and contribute to social and economic progress. The Malaysia Higher Education Blueprint 2025–2035 (MHEB), under Shift 5: Agile and Resilient Governance, acknowledges this role and proposes reforms to strengthen governance. Yet while the Blueprint speaks of autonomy, accountability, and innovation, its proposals, particularly the establishment of the Malaysia Education Council (MEC) chaired by the Prime Minister, indicate a decisive move toward centralisation. This risks undermining the independence universities need to thrive.

Current Governance Framework

At present, universities are governed by their establishing Acts, such as the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (AUKU). The Minister of Higher Education may issue directions of a general nature, but these are limited by statute. The Ministry plays a monitoring role, approving institutions and courses, while the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) serves as the sole authority for accreditation. Private Higher Educational Institutions (PHEIs) are regulated under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (Act 555), but they are also companies under the Companies Act 2016, with directors bound by fiduciary duties. This framework, though fragmented across eleven Acts, preserves a balance between autonomy and oversight.

The Malaysian Education Council (MEC)

Shift 5 proposes the MEC as the apex body for education governance. The Blueprint states:

“The Malaysia Education Council (MEC) will be chaired by the Prime Minister. The primary purpose of the MEC is to serve as a unifying entity that ensures alignment of policies, strategies, and initiatives across the whole education landscape. Among its key roles is streamlining decision-making and strengthening policy coordination across ministries that affect education in Malaysia. The council will monitor and evaluate the performance of the MOE, MOHE, and HLIs, initiate intervention measures, evaluate proposals for strategic initiatives, and action plans.”

This remit goes far beyond the Minister’s current statutory powers. By monitoring universities directly, initiating interventions, and evaluating proposals, the MEC consolidates control at the political apex. Autonomy is promised, but only within boundaries set by government priorities.

PHEIs and the Blueprint’s Legal Blind Spot

The Blueprint’s proposal for a One Higher Education Act (OHEA) seeks to unify AUKU and Act 555 into a single framework. While this may simplify regulation, it disregards the unique legal status of PHEIs. These institutions are companies under the Companies Act, and their directors are legally obliged to act in good faith, exercise care and diligence, and avoid conflicts of interest.

By treating PHEIs as if they were statutory bodies, the Blueprint risks creating legal incoherence. Directors could be compelled to follow MEC directives that prioritise government policy, even where such directives conflict with fiduciary duties under company law. This undermines autonomy, exposes directors to liability, and discourages private investment in higher education. Instead of harmonising governance, the Blueprint collapses diversity into a centralised model that ignores the pluralism of Malaysia’s higher education sector.

Autonomy and Accountability

Shift 5 emphasises “comprehensive autonomy” for HLIs, enabling them to make independent decisions on governance, curriculum, and resources. Yet this autonomy is consistently paired with accountability mechanisms overseen by MEC and the Ministry. Initiatives such as performance-based funding, leadership evaluations, and check-and-balance ecosystems tie autonomy to compliance with national policy objectives. Autonomy here is conditional, not genuine. This creates a paternalistic "check-and-balance" where the Executive retains the ultimate power to revoke freedom. In a constitutional sense, a right that can be withdrawn for failing to meet administrative targets is not a right—it is a conditional license that keeps the university subservient to the state’s whims.

A Constructive Alternative

Malaysia has long recognised the need for governance insulated from politicisation. The Rahman Talib Report of 1961 considered establishing an independent Education Commission to provide impartiality, continuity, and long-term vision. Reviving this idea would offer a more coherent path forward. An independent commission could provide the strategic direction and accountability the Blueprint seeks, but without sacrificing institutional autonomy or creating conflicts with company law.

Conclusion

The Blueprint’s mechanism for "streamlining" this governance is the MEC. By placing the Prime Minister as the Chair, the Blueprint effectively absorbs the university into the Second Estate (The Executive).

When a university’s strategic direction is monitored through monthly delivery reports to the head of government, the institution ceases to be an independent forum for ideas. Instead, it becomes a delivery unit for the state's immediate economic and political agenda. This centralisation mirrors the logic of propaganda; it ensures that the "impact" of higher education is measured solely by its alignment with the government’s vision, leaving no room for the dissenting or "adverse" subjects that a healthy democracy requires.

A better path forward lies in reviving the idea of an independent Education Commission. Such a body would balance autonomy with accountability, respect the legal frameworks governing both public and private institutions, and shield higher education from politicisation. This approach would honour Malaysia’s historical vision while positioning its universities to meet the challenges of a global knowledge economy.