Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: The hope for a new global unity

Ask Joe: The hope for a new global unity

Hey Joe,

I have fun reading your articles, they remind me of how I used to be when I first got involved with activism work. But I’ve gotten older and seen the horrible things that people can do. I don’t see how people can change. There seems to be so much at stake. You always seem so optimistic. How do you do it? Are you really being realistic?


Had it

Hey Had it,

Believe me, I have my moments when I feel this way. How can you not when you see how we are treating one another and how fixated we are on not yielding on anything? I don’t think I’m very optimistic about where we are headed; I don’t see us resolving our issues any time soon. But I am hopeful for what is possible in the long run. I do have faith in the human spirit.

Alongside all the volatility, the breakdown of all the old structures, a deep shameless and pervasive greed and lack of empathy for others, I also see amongst some a deepening of commitment to our highest values and the care and wellbeing of not only ourselves, but other beings and the planet. More of us are beginning to consider our human-spiritual dimensions and transform them into tangible, practical action. Although we don’t often see it on the news, in newspapers, or on social media, we are in a renewed, creative phase of global unity and inclusivity right now that has been emerging for quite a while.

What gives me hope is that, despite what we may believe, we are and always have been globally interconnected and interdependent. Bridging the gap between a conceptual understanding of our global connection to actually taking action requires acknowledging that our beliefs in our separateness is an inaccurate mental construct. I came to this conclusion after having spent many years training and practicing with teachers in various esoteric studies. I had the desire to gain deeper insight into the true nature of reality and cultivate skills for compassion. But I’d like to share with you one of the more significant lessons in understanding the illusory aspects of our mental constructs of separation that happened when I was still a young boy.

I loved many things as a child, but two of my favorites were maps and cartoons. Studying maps kept me occupied for hours. Growing up at the height of TV culture, I spent hours and hours watching cartoons. In one of the episodes (it could have been Bugs Bunny or Road Runner), one of the characters was chasing the other across the state line. I knew they’d crossed into another state because it was graphically indicated by a thick black line drawn across the entire landscape.

Having seen this episode many times, and also studying maps, I assumed in my young mind that whenever crossing a state border, I’d see a thick black line. I remember clearly the first time my family took a trip from my hometown of New York City to another state. For days, I was excited, anticipating seeing for the first time that thick black line dividing the two states. You can imagine my confusion and disappointment when there wasn’t one!

This began a decades-long contemplation of the illusory nature of how we delineate and label things. I finally understood that a border is simply a person-made set of agreements that would not have existed if the parties involved didn’t make the agreement. In other words, a border only exists because we create a mental construct of it; in reality, it is changeable and not fixed, and if we try to look for concrete proof of its existence, we will never find it.

And yet, think about how many people throughout history have died, or have been enslaved or oppressed, by this phenomenon of “border” that isn’t truly real! Consider the current tragedies playing out in Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestinian territories, and China/Taiwan, to name just a few places, and the devastation to people, landmarks, nature and creatures—all motivated by disputes over fabricated labels or definitions.

Of course, it's healthy to categorize and even celebrate what makes us unique. We can acknowledge our differences based on party, race, gender, nation, economic status or culture, but these things don’t imply that we are separate.

It is a continuous practice to first catch myself when I create in my mind the false belief that we are separate and then remind myself of the reality of our global interdependence and interconnectedness. I don’t have to like others to acknowledge our interdependence. I don’t have to see the world the same way they do. But I can soften the rigidity of how I label someone and, by doing so, bridge the gap of our so-called separateness.

Someone you label “stranger” today may actually be the person you end up marrying. Did they change? No, your label of them changed. Someone you consider an “adversary” today may never become your friend, but they may become a useful ally to advance your projects and mission.

So, this is what keeps me grounded and hopeful for a better outcome. The fact that nothing is fixed or concrete and everything has the capacity to transform IS the very core of my hope.

There’s so much more I can say about this, Had it. This is an integral part of my new book, Fierce Civility, if you want to explore more. I hope this offers some insights into how to deal with some of the hopelessness we are confronted with on a daily basis.

In the meantime, thanks for keeping it real,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

Have a question for Joe? Send an email to AskJoe@fulcrum.us.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less