Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Francesca Albanese has insisted the bloc official as well top diplomat Kaja Kallas “will have to be judged“

The EU leadership should be held accountable for supporting Israel’s “war crimes” in Gaza, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese has said.

In an interview with The Intercept published on Saturday, Albanese singled out European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas.

“The fact that the two highest figures of the EU continue business-as-usual engagements with Israel is beyond deplorable,” she said.

“I’m not someone who says, ‘History will judge them’ – they will have to be judged before then. And they will have to understand that immunity cannot equate with impunity,” the UN expert added.

Albanese said she has been working on a report exposing the role of institutions and organizations – including banks, pension funds, tech companies, and universities – in crimes against the Palestinian population of Gaza.

“All those implicated and involved in the unlawful occupation, in providing it with support, are aiding and abetting violations of international law and human rights violations, and a number of these amount to crimes,” Albanese said. “There can be individual responsibility and individual liability for those who have been aiding and abetting or enabling such crimes.”

Albanese has repeatedly urged von der Leyen to use her powers as head of the EU executive to stop the “genocide” in Gaza. She also criticized Kallas for not pressuring Israel to end its military operation during her visit to Tel Aviv in March, when the diplomat said “both sides lose” in the conflict.

“A shocking low for the EU: one of its top leaders stands with Israel’s foreign minister, representing a state responsible for killing 50,000 people (in 16 months), 70% women and children, with Western-made weapons,” Albanese wrote on X at the time.

The UN official claimed she and her family have faced death threats since she released a report in March 2024, insisting that Israel’s actions should be classified as genocide.

European Commission spokeswoman Gioia Franchellucci told The Intercept that Brussels was committed to international law, and that the bloc’s relationship with Israel allows officials to express their “positions and concerns.”

“The association agreement with Israel is the legal basis of our ongoing dialogue with the Israeli authorities, and it provides mechanisms to discuss issues and advance our points of view,” the spokeswoman said.

West Jerusalem launched its operation in Gaza following a surprise attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, during which militants killed around 1,200 Israelis and took around 250 hostages. Over 52,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict broke out, according to the enclave’s health authorities.

Recent polarized battles over education draw attention to an underlying problem: the persistent orientation of teacher preparation programs toward relativism and away from truth. Teacher education should affirm objective reality and reject critical and relativist frameworks, including the Marxist-materialist worldviews that have been so rampant in recent decades. Personalist philosophy offers a compelling alternative to critical and subjectivist philosophies of education through its consistent articulation of the dignity and value of the human person.

Traditional preparation for teachers, who need state certification or licensure in most situations, generally involves university coursework and assessments like licensure examinations. This coursework should incorporate current theories of human development, family engagement, instruction, and pedagogy. Often, the coursework in such programs reproduces less rigorous versions of critical theory without encouraging or requiring future teachers to grapple with the philosophical implications of that theory. Treatment in education programs may lack the theoretical orientation of a true critical approach, replacing primary readings from Foucault and Fanon with classroom-based examples. But teacher candidates are still left to piece together on their own the relationship between critical approaches and generally accepted principles of logic and reason.

For example, putting Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a staple in teacher preparation programs, into practice does not simply mean that lessons must be relevant and fun. (That position, incidentally, is not supported by evidence.) Rather, truly operationalizing Pedagogy of the Oppressed would involve pushing students to question the foundations of the current social order, interrogate authority, and embrace liberation even when it leads to revolution. It would demand that teachers prioritize alternative ways of knowing over principles of reason or evidence. Does the average teacher candidate understand the implication of those ideas when Freirian pedagogy is referenced? To understand the full implications and context of this thought might require a semester in an advanced political science seminar or, at minimum, acknowledgment that critical consciousness cannot be neatly put on a bulletin board.

Further, such preparation encourages teacher candidates to prioritize perceptions and feelings over reality. For example, one recent monograph opposing evidence-based reading instruction absurdly  references the need for a “full and complementary satchel of . . . epistemologies.” Existing subjective paradigms emphasize the impossibility of consistent beliefs or truths. Such approaches reject the idea of evidence on which our scientific system is based, promoting “spiritual, social, and story-centered forms of knowledge” and “what Sandra Harding has called a strong objectivity that is reached with an eschewing of objectivity . . . and rather, a deep subjectivity.” 

If we pull any thread of this subjectivist tapestry, it becomes easy to unravel the idea of reality itself. If all knowledge is socially constructed, then on what basis or by what authority does a teacher claim to provide any direction? What is the consistent principle we can use to mark any answer wrong if the student’s interpretation already aligns with his or her “lived experience”? It is, of course, easy to overgeneralize; helping students understand the real world often involves pushing them to reflect on personal experience. But taken to extremes, this thinking makes it impossible to prioritize truth and objectivity over feelings and experience. We see real-life downsides of this approach in mathematics curricula that prioritize “equity” and making students “feel heard” as well as in the controversy over balanced literacy, which led to generations of children who thought they could read because they “felt like” readers. 

Critical theory–based approaches to teacher preparation are also rooted in materialist thinking, positioning students as cogs in a vast system of oppressive machinery that can be disrupted only through activism and political awakening. In this telling, the only way out is further adoption of a critical consciousness lens in order to organize and advocate social change to promote a specific ideological agenda. Social justice–oriented approaches feel helpful to educators insofar as they provide a vocabulary to discuss pressing problems such as poverty and discrimination. The worst excesses of industrialization and modernity—abuse of workers, world wars, and genocides—highlight shortcomings of our systems. But conceptualizing problems as political issues, rather than educational ones, leads us to search for political solutions in lieu of educational ones. Eliminating oppression necessarily requires “confronting the ideological frameworks, historical legacies, and institutional . . . practices” contributing to inequality.

According to one researcher, in social justice–oriented teacher preparation, teacher educators (that is, those who educate future teachers) 

actively interact with the local sociopolitical context, . . . [disrupt] power relations in the classroom, . . . [and] challenge Eurocentric epistemologies by valuing lived experience, bodies, and practitioner knowledge in constructing knowledge. 

Teacher educators prioritize this perspective, seeking a “shared, explicit, and consistent focus on teaching for social justice.” And teachers are further encouraged to move away from the objectivity required in scientific paradigms; according to one study, “[t]o teach for social justice involves shifting out of neutral, both in terms of a teacher’s orientation to social inequalities and of pedagogy.” There is little room in such framing for educators to seek truth through apolitical, ideologically neutral examination of achievement gaps and adoption of evidence-based practices. 

Given the shortcomings of these common approaches to educator preparation, how should we prepare teachers instead, and what are the appropriate philosophical starting points for educators who believe in any kind of objective reality? These are important questions for teacher education programs but also for the field at large. One place to start is with the belief that some things are true and some things can be known—in other words, with thoughtful assent to the idea of objective reality. This includes acknowledging the epistemological tensions involved in the embrace of critical theory. It also involves a robust review of theories of knowledge and epistemology rather than the surface-level treatment of Piaget and Dewey that “foundations of education” courses often involve.

This conceptual orientation can and should lead to a renewed emphasis on rigorous research, including cognitive theory, developmental psychology, and the nature of evidence. In education, it is no longer a given that a large experimental or quasi-experimental study is the best way to identify effective practices. Rather, many researchers give equal or greater primacy to subjective analysis, narrative, first-person accounts, and descriptions of phenomena. While valuable to frame initial questions and guide exploration, these methods, by definition, cannot provide widely generalizable information about techniques or interventions that are effective at scale. 

However, a renewed emphasis on objective reality and evidence may still suffer from a lack of a unifying philosophical framework. Teaching, a work that is deeply individual and relational, can best be understood in a framework that acknowledges the problems of our current society and bases solutions on individual dignity, more than conceptualization of overbearing and oppressive social structures. To meet this need, our field would be well served by a theoretical reorientation toward personalism, the philosophical movement oriented around the nature and dignity of the human person, rather than Marxism or a variant of critical materialism. Personalist thought has been around for centuries and was developed and expanded in the twentieth century. It is widely associated with Christian thinkers, including the late Pope John Paul II as well as Jacques Maritain, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. But the core idea of personalism—an emphasis on the primacy, dignity, and integrity of the human person—has applicability and value in secular contexts as well, and serves as a coherent and valuable organizing principle for educational theory and teacher education in particular.

As scholar Bennet Gilbert writes: 

Personalism always begins its analysis of reality with the person at the centre of consciousness, to which it attaches the most profound worth. Some versions develop this through ontology or metaphysics; some, through theologies associated with most denominations of the Abrahamic religions; and some, through the intersubjective and communitarian nature of human life.

Personalist thought offers a powerful means of prioritizing humans’ well-being and development as a way to realize their authentic potential, based on their human nature. Scholars such as Margarita Mooney Clayton have explored the value of such approaches in education, in terms of both our relationships with students and our way of conceptualizing teaching. Personalist thought has relevance even beyond the religious, as there is value in starting with the student and family as the unit of analysis rather than an ideological construct or social class–related variable.  

In teaching, we should position the person, and his or her intrinsic value, at the center of any analysis, and the well-being and development of the person should be our aim from a practical as well as intellectual perspective. Critics of empiricism, and of the overly reductive reliance on metrics that sometimes accompanies empirical approaches, can find value in the idea that metrics and data themselves should not be the end. Rather, they have value because they help us reach an important goal: the well-being and development of our students. Personalism provides a powerful antidote, also, to critical, Marxist and materialist approaches, which reduce students’ individualism by focusing on slivers of identity or their membership in a collective class or identity-based group. Common educational practices, from student discipline and conduct proceedings to individualized special education planning, take on new significance when we place the dignity and integrity of the person at the center. In fact, in some educational fields, we already focus on the importance of the individual person; special educators routinely use a practice called person-centered planning in helping students with disabilities transition toward college, employment, or other adult services.

There is ample room in the field for both theoretical and practical work that explores the dignity and integrity of the human person as a foundational concept in teacher preparation. A foundation in human rights and the dignity of the person also allows for thoughtful consideration of how best to meet the needs of our increasingly diverse society, allowing for honest and thoughtful examination of our society’s shortcomings. Such an orientation allows for thoughtful treatment of disability rights, cultural and language diversity, and diversity of beliefs and viewpoints. It also allows educators to conceptualize human rights and dignity in a way that values individualism rather than defining the self through membership in various identity-based groups. 

This shift requires reorienting our teacher education curriculum away from critical pedagogies to provide a stronger foundation in philosophy and ethics, with an emphasis on the nature and value of the person. Continued reliance on data and evidence can ensure our pedagogy and interventions are grounded in reality and truth, geared toward human flourishing rather than ideological agendas. Family engagement, in a personalist paradigm, takes on new significance, as families play an important role in nurturing children and advocating for their needs. And a personalist perspective will push us to reimagine and improve many common “equity-based” practices, which risk reducing students to representatives of a given ethnic, language, ability-based or gender group rather than seeing them as unique individuals.

Reorienting our teacher education systems around personalism is no quick fix, given conflicts with existing licensure requirements, textbooks, professional development frameworks, P–12 curriculum and pedagogical approaches, and so on. But by doing so, we can reorient teachers and schools toward an authentic valuing of human dignity and relationships, justify and deepen our use of evidence, and continue to strengthen the way that teachers and schools engage with families, individuals, and society. We owe it to future and current teachers, and the students and families they serve, to begin such work. By doing so, we can equip them to navigate our era’s challenges and serve their students’ needs while grounding their practice in objective reality and discernible truth. 

Patricia Rice Doran is professor and chair of the special education department at Towson University and a parent of six. She writes in her personal capacity here; her views are her own. 

Image by littleny and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 388, known as the CARE Act, into law on Friday, a move hailed by pro-life advocates as a vital step in safeguarding pregnancy centers that offer life-affirming support to women and families.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, prohibits state and local officials from discriminating against pregnancy centers for not providing or promoting killing babies in abortions.

It also shields these centers from regulations that could hinder their mission to provide counseling, resources, and care to pregnant women.

“Many women seeking abortions say they’d prefer to choose life if they had more support. While pregnancy centers can fulfill that need, they face real and growing threats,” said Denise Burke, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

She added:

“Thankfully, the CARE Act prohibits state and local officials from discriminating against pregnancy centers simply because they do not provide, counsel in favor of, or refer for abortion. It also ensures that pregnancy centers can continue to provide meaningful, life-affirming care to women, families, and the communities they serve. ADF commends Rep. Amy Regier, Sen. Sue Vinton, Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, and the Montana Legislature for their leadership, and Gov. Gianforte for signing the CARE Act into law. We are also deeply grateful to the Montana Family Foundation for their work on this bill and many others that promote a pro-family, pro-freedom culture in the state. By protecting pregnancy centers, we affirm the dignity of women and prioritize the physical, emotional health, and well-being of the woman, her baby, and the family.”

The CARE Act, which passed the Montana Legislature with strong Republican support, ensures that the state’s approximately 20 pregnancy centers can continue operating without fear of targeted restrictions. Pro-life groups, including the Montana Family Foundation, celebrated the law as a victory for women and unborn children.

The signing comes amid ongoing debates over abortion in Montana, where abortion remains legal under a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling.

The post Montana Governor Signs Bill Protecting Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a victory for the pro-life movement, Washington state lawmakers have slashed $8.5 million from the state’s Abortion Access Project, marking the largest cut to abortion funding in the state’s history.

The decision, finalized on April 26, is being hailed by pro-life advocates as a critical step toward protecting unborn children.

The Democratic-controlled Senate and House approved a biennial budget that reduced funding for the Abortion Access Project by 55%, a program that has paid for killing babies in abortions since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Pro-life advocates argue that the program’s funding has enabled a culture of death, pointing to a 2025 New York Times investigation that exposed operational issues at some Planned Parenthood clinics as evidence of mismanagement in the abortion industry.

The budget takes effect July 1, and pro-life groups are already mobilizing to build on this momentum. Some are advocating for increased funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which offer counseling, ultrasounds, and material support to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

The budget cut comes at a pivotal moment in Washington, where pro-life advocates have raised alarms over recent legislation that pushes the boundaries of abortion extremism. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers passed a bill critics argue effectively legalizes infanticide by loosening oversight on late-term abortions and perinatal care.

Signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson, the measure has galvanized pro-life activists, who see the funding cut as a counterbalance to the state’s increasingly pro-abortion tact.

The post Washington State Cuts $8.5 Million From Abortion Program, Babies Will be Saved appeared first on LifeNews.com.

In a quiet but significant shift, Canada’s pro-life movement is celebrating gains in Parliament after the recent election, even as the country reaffirmed leadership under a prime minister openly committed to expanding abortion services.

Liberal Party leader Mark Carney, a Catholic who publicly dissents from Church teaching on abortion, secured a minority government in the April 29 federal election. Carney made headlines during the campaign by declaring his “absolute” and “unreserved” support for abortion rights, promising continued federal funding for abortion services and subsidies for in vitro fertilization, The B.C. Catholic reported.

But in a quieter political current, dozens of candidates supported by the pro-life advocacy group Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) saw success at the polls.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“We congratulate and celebrate the 42 pro-life candidates whom we green-lit and who were elected,” said CLC President Jeff Gunnarson, according to The B.C. Catholic. Among them were six newly elected members of Parliament. All pro-life incumbents were also re-elected.

While both major parties took explicitly pro-abortion stances — Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre pledged not to introduce any abortion restrictions — CLC emphasized the importance of focusing on individual candidates.

According to The B.C. Catholic, in the lead-up to the election, Canada’s Catholic bishops issued a pastoral reminder about the moral gravity of life issues. The bishops pointed to growing concerns around Canada’s expanding assisted suicide regime — referred to as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD).

Bishop William McGrattan, head of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, warned of the country’s drift toward legal norms that violate human dignity. He called out what he described as a troubling “disconnect” among Catholic politicians who publicly distance their policies from Church teaching.

Carney largely avoided the assisted MAiD debate during his campaign, while Poilievre took a neutral stance, saying he would neither restrict nor broaden access. That silence drew criticism from CLC, which accused both leaders of ignoring what it called “the most important election in decades” for issues of life and conscience.

Gunnarson sharply criticized the incoming Liberal government for promoting policies that “turned Canada into a death machine,” affecting not only the unborn but also the elderly, sick, and disabled.

CLC also blamed Poilievre’s defeat on the Conservative Party’s failure to draw moral distinctions from its rivals.

“This proves, once again, that trying to appear more pro-abortion and pro-LGBT than the Libs doesn’t win elections for the Conservative Party,” said Jack Fonseca, CLC’s director of political operations. “Failure to distinguish from the Liberals on moral issues results in electoral failure, every time.”

LifeNews Note: Rachel Quackenbush writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Pro-Life Candidates Gained Ground in Canada Even Though PM Mark Carney is Pro-Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Right-wing candidate George Simion is leading in the polls with more than 40% of the votes

George Simion, a critic of the EU who has been banned from entering Ukraine, won the first round of the rerun of the Romanian presidential election on Sunday.

With more than 95% of the ballots counted, Simion, the leader of the right-wing Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), received 40.52% of the votes, according to the news website G4 Media.

Former Senator Crin Antonescu and Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan, both known for their pro-EU views, each received a little over 20%.

“This is not just an electoral victory, it is a victory of Romanian dignity. It is the victory of those who have not lost hope, of those who still believe in Romania, a free, respected, sovereign country,” Simion said after the exit polls were published, according to Reuters.

The vote took place after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the results of the election held in November, in which independent right-wing candidate Calin Georgescu received 23% of the votes.

The court cited “irregularities” in Georgescu’s campaign, as well as intelligence reports claiming that the Kremlin had meddled in the election. Moscow rejected these claims of interference at the time as “anti-Russia hysteria.”

In March, the Central Electoral Bureau barred Georgescu from running again, citing his alleged “anti-democratic” and “extremist” stance, as well as a failure to comply with electoral procedures.

On Sunday, Georgescu and Simion arrived at a polling station together. “We are here with a single mission: to restore constitutional order and democracy,” Simion told reporters.

In November 2024, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that Simion had been blacklisted for his “systematic anti-Ukrainian activities, which contradict the national interests of Ukraine and violate its state sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Simion argued that he was targeted because of his “promotion of historical truth” among the Romanian minority in western Ukraine. He was also banned from entering neighboring Moldova, which he labeled “an artificial country” that “will never join the European Union.”

Simion has opposed the delivery of weapons to Kiev. “We will not send military aid to Ukraine, and that doesn’t make us pro-Russian,” he told reporters last year.

He has also criticized EU bureaucrats. “The EU is a remarkable project that brought peace to Europe after centuries of war, but Brussels has become a greedy and corrupt bubble,” according to the politician.

The Russian foreign minister told Islamabad that Moscow is ready to assist in mediating if both countries agree

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has discussed the escalation of tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi in a phone call with his Pakistani counterpart, Ishaq Dar, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

Lavrov expressed Moscow’s willingness to support peaceful efforts to ease the tensions. “The Russian side emphasized its readiness to assist in the political resolution of the situation that arose after the April 22 terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area, if there is mutual interest from Islamabad and New Delhi,” the ministry said. The statement added that the call took place at Pakistan’s request. 

On Saturday, Lavrov spoke to his Indian counterpart S. Jaishankar. According to a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry, Lavrov urged “a settlement of disagreements between New Delhi and Islamabad by political and diplomatic means” on a bilateral basis in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration, which are historical frameworks under which the two South Asian countries previously agreed to resolve disputes diplomatically.

According to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, during the call Dar rejected India’s “baseless allegations and inflammatory rhetoric against Pakistan” and condemned New Delhi’s “illegal move” to hold the water treaty in abeyance.” 

The nuclear-armed neighbors have witnessed a sharp nosedive in already strained ties after a terrorist attack in southern Kashmir left 26 civilians dead. The terrorist attack occurred in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in India’s Jammu and Kashmir union territory on April 22.  

Following the attack, India took a series of measures against the neighboring country, including expelling some Pakistani diplomats, cancelling visas of Pakistani citizens, and closing the land border. It also suspended parts of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that governs water sharing with Pakistan. On Saturday, New Delhi announced a set of further measures aimed at downgrading already severed trade ties with Pakistan. 

Pakistan has responded with its own countermeasures and warned of further escalation. Islamabad last week claimed that it has “credible intelligence” that India intends to launch military action against it, and has said it is prepared to respond. The two countries have reportedly exchanged gunfire for ten consecutive nights along the Line of Control in Kashmir. 

India has accused Pakistan of supporting the militant group allegedly behind the Kashmir attack, reiterating its long-standing claim that Islamabad supports cross-border terrorism and uses terrorism as a tool. 

Islamabad has denied India’s claims. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif has claimed that his country itself was a victim of terrorism in the region stemming from the policies of Western governments, particularly the US, tracing back decades, starting with the Soviet-Afghanistan war in the late 1980s. The minister admitted his country had previously done “dirty work” by “training and indoctrinating jihadists on behalf of the West.” He, however, called it a mistake and said Pakistan now bears the consequences of previous policies.

The US president has ruled out seeking reelection in 2028, stating he would prefer “a great Republican” to carry forward

US President Donald Trump has ruled out running for office for a third term, suggesting he would like “a great Republican” to succeed him.

The president made the remarks on Sunday in an interview with NBC News when asked about repeated suggestions he might seek reelection. Such a move would require a major overhaul of the US electoral system, given the presidential terms are limited to two only by the US Constitution.

Trump claimed that while “many people” want him to run for office again, he will not seek reelection. He also appeared to question the nature of the restrictions on the number of terms.

“So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional, that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else,” he said.

The earlier remarks on the matter sparked fears that Trump could ultimately opt to rewire the whole US electoral system to try and stay in power. Multiple high-profile Republicans, however, have insisted the president was only joking about a third turn.

The concerns were reinforced by the emergence of a new line of ‘TRUMP 2028’ merchandise on his official campaign store last month. The store offers baseball caps and T-shirts, featuring ‘TRUMP 2028’ and ‘Rewrite the Rules’ slogans.

The US president appeared to distance himself from the merchandise despite its availability at his official store.

“There are many people selling the 2028 hat, but this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody. Ideally, a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular,” he said.

Asked about a potential successor, Trump said it was too early to endorse one. The US administration and the Republican Party have several prominent individuals to pick from, the president suggested.

“I think [the party is] so strong, and I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco. You look at J.D. Vance, who’s fantastic. You look at I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here,” he said.

The event marking the 80th anniversary of the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany has taken place in the US, China, and Latin America

Immortal Regiment marches in honor of World War II veterans have been held across the world this weekend, ahead of Victory Day celebrations on May 9 in Russia.

Around 1,000 people turned up for the event in the Chinese capital, Beijing on Saturday, with Russian Ambassador Igor Morgulov leading the procession. According to TASS, far more people took part compared to last year.

Immortal Regiment marches in Beijing to commemorate the USSR’s Victory over Nazism

Meanwhile, in the West, most countries outright forbid or try to prevent Immortal Regiment marches pic.twitter.com/KDr4B2oN2a

A similar rally took place in Washington, DC, with around 200 people carrying portraits of their veteran relatives and red flags. Among the marchers were Russian diplomats and other Russian nationals residing in the US, as well as citizens from former Soviet republics and Americans, TASS reported.

Soviet victory flags in HEART of Washington

WW2 heroes honored as Russian songs echo through streets of DC

Immortal Regiment before May 9 Victory Day https://t.co/TOIBOZJ3oh pic.twitter.com/m0gqt8yJ2w

The previous Immortal Regiment march held in Washington was in 2019. The following two years, the event was held online due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which was followed by a three-year hiatus amid tensions between the US and Russia over the Ukraine conflict.

READ MORE: Vucic expected at Moscow parade despite illness – Serbian deputy PM

Aleksandr Kim, a representative of the Russian Embassy, stated that while the “situation has improved a little, [it] remains uneasy,” as evidenced by “attempts at provocation and other undesirable actions” during the latest Immortal Regiment event in the US capital, as quoted by RIA Novosti.

Izvestia has published a video showing a group of pro-Ukraine activists confronting the marchers and chanting anti-Russian slogans.

In Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, more than 200 people, both Russian nationals and locals, as well as Venezuelan, Cuban, and Serbian diplomats, also paid homage to Red Army veterans.

Nearly 500 people took to the streets of Caracas, Venezuela as part of an Immortal Regiment rally, too.

Similar scenes played out in Istanbul, Türkiye, as well as several Italian cities, including Rome and Naples, over the weekend.

The Immortal Regiment is a large-scale event held in cities across Russia and other nations, in which people carry portraits of their relatives who fought against Nazi Germany in World War II. The idea was first conceived in the Russian city of Tomsk in 2012, and has since gained in popularity.

Why the 21st century might not be as post-imperial as we thought

Changes in the modern world suggest that the imperial order may not be so morally obsolete after all. Empires could return to world politics – not only as dark shadows of the past.

‘Empire’ may soon become a buzzword for discussing the direction in which the world’s political organization is heading. US President Donald Trump’s incessant talk of annexing Canada and Greenland to the US, the musings of Dutch politicians about splitting up Belgium – these are just the first sips of the great debate that will inevitably emerge as the order created in the second half of the 20th century unravels.

This order, it should be remembered, was based on granting independence to as many peoples as possible. The US, which promoted this concept, always assumed it was much easier to subjugate small and weak countries economically than to deal with large territorial powers.

The new ‘empire game’ is being launched by the West, while the rest of the world looks on – though not necessarily eager to join in. As always, Russia – whose supposed intent to restore an empire is a favorite thesis of US and European military propaganda – has acted with restraint, especially in relation to countries of the former Soviet Union. Russian observers, of course, have their own ideas when neighboring states look fragile or hostile powers try to exploit their territory to harm Russia.

In academic and popular literature, the concept of ‘empire’ is among the most compromised – largely thanks to American authors. In the popular imagination, it is associated either with the ancient world or with the era when aging European empires, including Russia, sought to impose their will on the rest of humanity. Ultimately, this culminated in World War I (1914-18), in which virtually every empire perished – physically or politically. Later, the US, which had rejected imperialism, and Russia, reborn as the USSR, rose to global prominence. They soon began calling each other empires, reinforcing the term’s negative connotation.

Even today, using the word ‘empire’ as a strategic foreign policy goal is considered the domain of political outliers. This is especially true because friendly nations in the Global South that are aligned with Russia view empires with deep suspicion. To them, empires represent European colonizers who brought nothing but plunder, followed by neocolonial domination through bribed elites and exploitative economic deals.

In this respect, Russia was never an empire in the European sense of the word. Its core principle was the integration of local elites into the Russian state and the development of new territories. A striking indicator is the demographic statistics of Central Asia since its incorporation into Russia, especially during its time in the USSR. There is reason to believe that the current demographic boom in the five republics of the region is still supported by the health and social policies of the 20th century. Whether that continues, as these countries gravitate towards a South Asian model with harsher climates, remains to be seen.

Even now, the concept of empire remains mostly negative. However, in recent decades, it has increasingly been applied to the US, and occasionally, to Europe. The ‘American empire’ has become a staple in public debate, referring to Washington’s ability to enlist many countries in its foreign policy ventures. As for Europe, it’s mostly rhetorical. While Western European powers maintain some influence over their former colonies, it can hardly be called imperial. Talk of the EU as an empire quickly turns into satire. A “blooming garden” may sound nice, but an empire – with its sense of unchallenged might and unchecked expansion – is something modern the bloc is ill-equipped to embody.

Yet there are now signs that empires may return to world politics – not just as echoes of the past. First, in a functional sense: As a way of organizing security and development in a chaotic world, both for the empire’s own people (Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ springs to mind) and for other nations under its wing. These discussions are becoming inevitable as old frameworks collapse and crises grow – whether we like it or not.

In the West, this discussion uses different language than history books do. But the idea is the same: Improve conditions at home by extending control abroad. Traditional economic partnerships no longer suffice. The competition from other great powers is too fierce. Trump often warns that if the US doesn’t take Canada or Greenland, China or Russia will. Russia, of course, has no such plans. But it’s becoming axiomatic that direct administrative control is seen as essential for future security.

There are good reasons for this, grounded in reality. International institutions are failing. The UN, hampered by Western sabotage, is becoming almost a symbolic organization. While Russia will continue to defend the UN’s role and international law – perhaps even successfully – the weakening of 20th-century institutions hasn’t led to credible replacements. BRICS is an impressive exception but does not aim to replace national governments in their core functions.

The EU, an old-style institution, is slowly drifting towards disintegration. Other international bodies have no real means to compel members to meet obligations. As a result, the major powers propping up these institutions are left disillusioned.

Even developments in science and tech fuel imperial discussions. While the author is no expert here, it’s clear that AI competition could lead to ‘digital empires’ – zones of dominance by tech giants from capable states. Another factor is the failure of some countries to maintain peace in their neighborhoods, reviving questions about whether imperial models are as obsolete as once thought.

But empires are hugely expensive. Even Western empires paid dearly to maintain their reach – remember Kipling’s grim lines about British soldiers’ fate after retirement in the likes of ‘Tommy’ and ‘The Last of the Light Brigade’? That’s why Britain and France happily shed their empires mid-century. Russia later realized it didn’t need vast territories, contributing to the USSR’s collapse. Still, in places like Tbilisi, some locals quietly express nostalgia for being part of a great power’s multicultural elite.

Another key obstacle is the contribution of new territories to the core state’s stability and prosperity. Russia isn’t trying to recreate an empire because it is now a different kind of state – combining imperial traits with principles unfamiliar to Europe, especially the equality of its citizens. True equality demands cultural cohesion, or at least a foundation for it. Russia and the USSR historically overextended this idea, often to their detriment. Today, Russia seeks new ways to ensure its neighbors’ security without harming its own interests.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

There is an odd but prevalent fascination with the Catholic Church’s claim to miraculous divine intervention.

The dogma of papal infallibility is not well understood, even among some Catholics. There are many people, including Catholics, who seem neither to understand it nor believe it when it is explained to them.

But it fascinates people. The combination of a claim to supernatural intervention and the level of reliance on that intervention provokes strong interest and reaction—particularly when it is misunderstood; perhaps especially so.

And so, when it comes to the Conclave, there is an implicit assumption that if the Pope can be infallible (in whatever way that is claimed), then surely the election of the Pope must be equally infallible?

If one understands the dogma of infallibility in the simple and restricted way that the Church actually teaches it, then of course this does not follow.

But it might be thought to follow, or people might want it to follow. And so the question emerges: “Surely the Holy Spirit chooses the next pope?”

At the lowest level of expectation, if the papacy is so important, and if the office is so central to the health and life of the Church, it is the very least people might hope or expect.

One helpful source in examining this expectation is the late Pope Benedict XVI.

While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was asked by Bavarian television in 1997 exactly that question:

“Is the Holy Spirit responsible for the election of a pope?”

His reply might surprise some:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope… I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather, like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense—not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined… There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

The most helpful word in this explanation may be “control.” Prayer and magic are often confused. There is a natural human attraction to magic, in part because its central idea is control. In a world filled with uncertainty, control becomes a deeply attractive idea. There are things we want to be protected from, and things we want to happen. It is all too easy to confuse prayer with magic. But prayer is not about control—it is the opposite. It is an act of surrender. It requires the surrender of our own will and the invocation of “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”

In his description of the dynamics of prayer, Pope Benedict uses the analogy of a good educator. The educator offers to teach, show, provide insight and wisdom. But, just as you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink, so the Holy Spirit offers himself to the Church—but with preconditions. The first is that one prays. Prayer in practice is much harder than talking about it. It involves the sacrifice of time, the surrender of will, an abandonment of control, and the preferring of the slow, still, small voice. It also involves triangulation with the prayers of others.

In the highly politicised atmosphere of a papal election—when so much energy is spent on canvassing, persuading, negotiating, dissembling and organising—any act of surrender runs counter to the fast-flowing tide of energy harnessed for the vote.

Discerning the will of God is not easy. We pray “Thy will be done” several times each day, but it never becomes easier to engage in the effort of discernment—of telling the difference between my will and Thy will.

Benedict’s notion of elasticity is wise and compelling. It combines the light touch of love with the firm grip of connection. God will never let us go, never abandon us—but nor will He control us if we choose to wander. Benedict reassures us that God will not allow the Church to be utterly ruined. But He will allow us the scope to spoil it by our own wilfulness if we insist. How else do we explain the existence of some very poor popes who did great damage to the Church? How else do we explain the schism of Avignon?

As St Paul reminds us, where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. It is the nature of God’s rescue mission that He can take the mess we make and reconfigure it into material for renewal, forgiveness and hope.

The Holy Spirit will whisper His preference into the ears of the cardinals as they sleep, eat, walk and pray. But just as the Children of Israel, having grown weary of prophets, demanded a king to imitate the nations around them, so too will God lengthen the elastic if the Church insists on imposing its own preferences over His invitation.

Christ’s promise to Peter was that evil would not prevail against His Church. Not that it could not spoil, corrupt, confuse or disturb. But history shows that whenever the Church slips into corruption, God raises up saints and renews it afresh.

And the prayers of 1.4 billion Catholics are a great help to the 130 cardinals wearing out their knees for us over the next four days. Orémus.

Photo: Pilgrims and tourists view a statue of Pope Pius IX inside the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore which Pope Francis has visited the fifth-century papal basilica over 100 times, where he prays in front of the icon of ‘Maria Salus Populi Romani’.(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The post Does the Holy Spirit choose the Pope? Pope Benedict’s surprising answer first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Does the Holy Spirit choose the Pope? Pope Benedict’s surprising answer appeared first on Catholic Herald.