Think Forward.

History

Kardec Spiritism: Origins, Principles, and Legacy 599

Tupan, 3 d.
Kardec Spiritism, commonly known simply as Spiritism, is a philosophical, scientific, and moral doctrine codified in the nineteenth century by Allan Kardec, the pseudonym of Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail (1804-1869). Educated in the pedagogical tradition of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827) and shaped by Enlightenment rationalism, Rivail applied methodical inquiry and comparative analysis to the investigation of spirit communications, adopting the name Allan Kardec to distinguish this work from his earlier academic career. The results of his research were organized into a coherent body of doctrine beginning with The Spirits’ Book, which presents the fundamental principles of Spiritism in a question-and-answer format addressing God, the nature of spirits, reincarnation, moral law, and humanity’s destiny. This was followed by The Mediums’ Book, a practical and theoretical guide to mediumship that examines different types of mediums, forms of spirit communication, and the ethical responsibilities involved, emphasizing discipline, discernment, and moral purpose. Kardec later published The Gospel According to Spiritism, which interprets the moral teachings of Jesus through a Spiritist lens, focusing on charity, forgiveness, humility, and love of neighbor, while deliberately excluding dogma, miracles, and ecclesiastical authority. In Heaven and Hell, he addresses concepts of divine justice, the afterlife, and the condition of spirits after death, contrasting traditional notions of eternal reward or punishment with a dynamic model of moral responsibility and progress. His final major work, The Genesis, explores the relationship between Spiritism, science, and biblical narratives, discussing miracles, prophecy, and the origin of the world while affirming the compatibility of spiritual principles with scientific advancement. Together, these works form the doctrinal foundation of Spiritism, presenting it not as a revealed religion but as a doctrine open to reason, revision, and moral application. Spiritism teaches that spirit communication is a natural phenomenon governed by laws not yet fully understood, that human beings evolve morally and intellectually across successive lives, and that suffering serves as a means of learning and reparation rather than punishment. Although it originated in France, Spiritism found its greatest development in Brazil, where it became a widespread cultural and spiritual movement characterized by study, spiritual assistance, healing practices, and extensive charitable work. Today, Kardec Spiritism continues to emphasize critical inquiry, personal responsibility, and ethical living, maintaining that true spiritual progress is inseparable from moral progress and service to others.

Lemuria 824

Tupan, 5 d.
Lemuria is a legendary lost continent believed by some to have existed in the Pacific or Indian Ocean, now submerged beneath the sea. Though it originated as a 19th-century scientific hypothesis, Lemuria was rapidly transformed into a powerful myth within esoteric and occult traditions, particularly Theosophy and later New Age spiritual movements. In its mystical form, Lemuria represents not only a prehistoric civilization but also a stage in the spiritual evolution of humanity—a forgotten golden age whose echoes linger in myth, metaphysics, and sacred memory. The concept of Lemuria first emerged in 1864, when zoologist Philip Sclater (1829-1913) observed a puzzling distribution of lemur fossils in Madagascar, India, and Africa but not in the Middle East. He proposed that a now-sunken landmass, which he dubbed "Lemuria," once connected these regions. Though later rendered obsolete by the theory of continental drift, the idea of a sunken continent captivated the imagination of 19th-century occultists. Most notably, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, co-founder of the Theosophical Society, appropriated the term and gave it profound metaphysical significance. In Theosophical cosmology, detailed in Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine (1888), Lemuria was the third root race in the evolution of humanity, predating Atlantis and our current civilization. The Lemurians were described as a gigantic, etheric people—initially non-physical, androgynous beings who gradually became more material and sexualized over time. They possessed deep intuitive wisdom and lived in communion with nature and cosmic laws, until their civilization fell due to spiritual decline and cataclysmic upheaval, often associated with volcanic or tectonic disasters. Esoteric interpretations of Lemuria portray it not merely as a geographic location, but as a spiritual archetype: a symbol of innocence, harmony with the Earth, and the loss of higher consciousness through material attachment. This notion resonated with 20th-century mystics, clairvoyants, and channeled teachings. Edgar Cayce, Rudolf Steiner, and others continued the narrative, describing Lemuria (sometimes referred to as Mu) as a center of ancient wisdom, where early humans communicated telepathically, lived in peace, and were attuned to divine forces. In modern New Age thought, Lemuria is often associated with Mount Shasta in California, believed by some to house surviving Lemurians or spiritual beings from the lost continent. Channeled messages, crystal healing traditions, and alternative histories of the Earth frequently invoke Lemuria as the birthplace of lightworkers, starseeds, or advanced soul lineages. These narratives present Lemuria not as a literal history, but as a spiritual memory encoded in the collective unconscious—a longing for harmony, unity, and cosmic purpose. From a scholarly standpoint, Lemuria illustrates how scientific ideas, once abandoned by academia, can find new life in myth-making and spiritual philosophy. Much like Atlantis, Lemuria reflects both a critique of modern materialism and an aspiration toward a higher, purer form of existence. It blends mythology, pseudo-history, and metaphysical symbolism into a compelling narrative that has influenced literature, art, and alternative spirituality for over a century. Lemuria is less about geological reality than about spiritual meaning. It stands as a metaphor for lost wisdom, human potential, and the cycles of rise and fall that define both civilizations and souls. Whether viewed as a real continent, a mystical era, or an inner state of being, Lemuria continues to inspire seekers who long to reconnect with a forgotten Eden buried not just beneath the waves—but within the self.

The Understanding of History and the Compression of Planes 926

Julius Melien, 6 d.
- History - Science - Philosophy -
1.2 min read.
Photography explained to me the concept of plane compression. And what is that? Well, when we use a telephoto lens with a long focal length, it allows us to bring elements that are far from the camera closer. As a result, these elements, or objects, if you prefer, appear much larger, creating an optical illusion. A classic example is those images in which the Moon or the Sun appears gigantic behind mountains, buildings, and so on. This effect creates the illusion that the celestial body is pressed right up against those mountains, buildings, or other distant objects. The same thing happens when we photograph a mountain range. Under the effect created by a telephoto lens, the mountains in the background appear as if they were stacked closely together, forming layers due to their different altitudes. However, if we could look at these mountains from above, we would see that they are actually far apart from one another. Another example can be seen when we observe constellations. They form figures that were named according to cultures spread across the planet, for example, the constellations of Orion, the Southern Cross, Scorpio, and many others. By connecting the points, in this case, the stars, these figures emerge. In reality, however, these stars are not on the same plane; they are at different depths in space. But because they are so far away, we have the impression that they all lie on a single two-dimensional plane. This sparked an insight in my mind and led me to create an analogy to understand historical events that have shaped, and continue to shape, our time. Be aware that you are participating in a historical event, even if you do not realize it. The episodes that eventually come together to form the historical record often do not happen all at once. They occur at widely spaced intervals of time. Yet, when we look back at the past and assemble these episodes as fragments, we are able to understand them more clearly, just as when we look at a photograph taken with a telephoto lens and see distant objects that appear united on the same plane, as if they were compressed together. This analogy led me to an understanding of history through the concept of plane compression.

February, Forty-Five Years Later: The Inevitable End of the Mullahs... 1286

Aziz Daouda, 8 d.
Forty-five years ago, in February 1979, Iran tipped into what was presented to the world as a "revolution." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power on behalf of a people exhausted by the authoritarianism of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, only to drag the country into a political, moral, and civilizational abyss from which it has never recovered. Yet this shift did not emerge from nowhere: it fit into a tormented trajectory marked by two exiles of the shah, the first in 1953, temporarily ousted by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and the second in January 1979, definitive and humiliating. **To understand this tipping point, we must go back to the Mossadegh period (1951-1953), a foundational episode often obscured by post-revolutionary propaganda.** Democratically elected, Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry right under British Petroleum's nose, embodying the aspiration for economic sovereignty against Western imperialism. He sought a secular and independent Iran, multiplying social reforms and curbing British influence. This boldness triggered a chain reaction: a coup orchestrated in August 1953 by the CIA (Operation Ajax) and MI6 restored the shah to the throne, exiled Mossadegh, and ushered in an era of repression under SAVAK, the secret police. This traumatic event planted the seeds of anti-Western resentment that Khomeini would later exploit, while legitimizing for many the image of a shah as a puppet of foreign powers. *Back in power, the shah launched his "White Revolution" in 1963: a vast agrarian modernization, women's emancipation (including the right to vote), accelerated industrialization, and secular education. Iran became a prosperous oil state, a U.S. ally, with dazzling economic growth—up to 12% annually in the 1970s.* But this masked gaping flaws: endemic corruption, growing inequalities, repression of opponents (especially Shiite clergy, communists, and nationalists), and a Westernization seen as cultural betrayal. The 1978 protests, bloodily repressed in Qom and Tabriz, culminated in the shah's second exile on January 16, 1979, as he fled to Morocco and then the United States, where he died in exile a year later. Khomeini returned triumphantly from Paris on February 1, capitalizing on this vacuum and promising social justice where the shah had failed. Today, Iran is breathless. The mullahs' regime is underground, besieged by its own people. The revolt rumbles on deep, enduring, irreversible. In this ideologico-theocratic system, the regime's response is singular, mechanical, Pavlovian: accuse the people of treason. Treason to what? To a regime that has hijacked the state, stifled society, and shattered the future? *Iranians demand neither the impossible nor utopia. They seek dignity, a decent life, the freedom to breathe. Women want to exist without surveillance, humiliation, or violence. The young want to live, love, create, work, hope. They are fed up with the Revolutionary Guards *the Pasdarans* this ideological militia turned state within a state, economy within an economy, controlling 60% of GDP.* Faced with this popular anger, the mullahs' discourse is frozen in another age: everything is the fault of the USA, Israel, external plots. A victimhood rhetoric, worn to the thread by turbaned figures steeped in certainties from another century. The regime has always needed confrontation to survive. It allows them to pose as victims, artificially rally supporters, and justify internal repression. Instead of listening to the streets, those in power seek regional escalation, convinced an external enemy will erase the internal one. **Since its birth, the Islamic Republic has sought to export its ideology through proxies: in Lebanon, Hezbollah; in Syria, support for Assad; in Iraq, Shiite militias; in Yemen, the Houthis; and elsewhere. Everywhere, the result is the same: desolation, social fragmentation, destruction of states and societies. Lebanon would not be a shadow of itself without this interference. Syria would probably not be this field of ruins without Tehran's ideological obsession.** History's tragic irony: this supposedly "anti-imperialist" project has chiefly fed the world's largest arms market. The region, to protect itself from this doctrine emerging from history's underbelly, has armed and militarized itself. The war with Iraq, lasting over a decade from 1980 and costing a million lives, temporarily bolstered the Iranian regime by uniting the nation against the Sunni invader, while radicalizing Saddam. Feeling untouchable after battling Iran on behalf of the region and, he thought the world, Saddam then invaded Kuwait in 1990, sealing his doom. None of this would have happened without the existence of this radical theocratic regime, whose sole legitimacy rests on permanent confrontation. Iran is no ordinary state. It is a millennial civilization, one of humanity's most fertile. It has given the world major contributions in mathematics, philosophy, medicine, poetry, art, and foundational narratives. From Khayyam to Al-Kindi, Avicenna to Al-Farabi or Suhrawardi, the Persian heritage belongs to all humanity. And yet, for forty-five years, this civilization has been held hostage by a power that denies, despises, and distorts it. A power that confuses faith with domination, spirituality with coercion, inverting the shah's modernist dreams and Mossadegh's sovereignist ideals. Today, the regime still holds. It battles the streets, pitting weapons against bare hands, oppression against a society that fears no more. The death toll rises. The Supreme Leader's threats still echo, but they no longer make anyone tremble. The young do not flinch. They are there and will remain. History is cruel to such regimes. The Bolsheviks fell. The Chavistas are collapsing. The mullahs will follow. It is only a matter of time. *Ibn Khaldun understood it before all others: no power can survive eternally through pressure and oppression. Domination carries the seeds of its own end within it. When 'asabiyya (social cohesion) dissolves, the regime falls—as with the shah and the ousted Mossadegh, soon the mullahs.* February approaches. The historical loop may be closing. The world watches. Free peoples hope and pray that the Iranian people will finally be delivered from its false guardians of peace, and that Iran will reclaim its natural place: that of a living, serene nation contributing to civilization, not a prisoner of its gravediggers.

AFCON 2025: The Return of a Forgotten African Memory... Lumumba from the Stands: The Symbolic Star... 1447

Aziz Daouda, 9 d.
- History - Society - Sports -
2.6 min read.
Regardless of the outcome of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations, whoever the winner, top scorer, goalkeeper, or best player may be, one certainty stands out: the true symbolic star of this competition is Congolese. Not due to exceptional football talent, but through a powerful historical and political reminder: the reincarnation, through gesture and attitude, of Patrice Émery Lumumba. In a tournament dominated by statistics, trophies, and records, one event emerged, upending conventional narratives. It was neither a decisive goal nor a spectacular save, but a symbolic act linking contemporary African football to a tragic page in the continent's history. At the heart of this scene: Michel Kuka Mboladinga, a supporter of the DR Congo, nicknamed "Lumumba" in the stands of Moulay El Hassan Stadium. Dressed meticulously, with a studied hairstyle and glasses, he followed his country's matches standing, motionless, right hand raised toward the sky, gaze fixed ahead, a near-statuary silhouette. This silent ritual, repeated match after match, transcended the folklore of the stands to embody dignity, steadfastness, and resistance. Even the CAF acknowledged it: its president met with Michel Kuka, affirming the reach of this "Lumumba" from the stands. At first, few understood, including some sports commentators. Some called it an original celebration, others a provocation or viral eccentricity. This misunderstanding reveals a deeper reality: for today's youth, 20th-century political memory fades behind the media flood. Patrice Lumumba, absent from the collective imagination, survives among historians and militants; for many, his name remains abstract. Assassinated on January 17, 1961, after serving as the first Prime Minister of independent Congo (June 30, 1960), Lumumba embodies the anti-colonial struggle. His disappearance, amid the Cold War and covetousness over Congolese riches, robbed Africa of a sovereign voice. On January 17, 1961, he was arrested; his mutilated body dissolved to erase even his physical trace. Marginalized since by dominant narratives and rewritten textbooks, he in fact terrified Westerners and other colonial powers, fearing his intransigence. The speech he delivered before the King of the Belgians sealed his death warrant. Recalling Lumumba at AFCON 2025 in Morocco takes on particular significance. In August 1960, shortly after Congolese independence, he visited as Prime Minister, saluting the Kingdom and its support for African independences under the late Mohammed V. Morocco at the time hosted African liberation movements and advocated, alongside committed partners, for continental unity against interferences and for genuine sovereignty. By embodying Lumumba, Michel Kuka transformed football into a space of memory and transmission. The stadium became an agora: an upright body, assumed silence, a raised hand resurrected history. This gesture delivers a brutal reminder: Africa has its martyrs, thinkers, and unfinished leaders. Sometimes, a single supporter suffices to revive a buried memory. In this context, the gesture of Algerian player Mohammed Amoura deserves mention, alas. During a celebration after his team's qualification for the quarter-finals, he mimicked Kuka's posture then collapsed in a mocking and inappropriate gesture, sparking criticism and more on social media. Ridiculing Lumumba, even out of ignorance, offends his memory and the ideal of an unsubmissive Africa. Baseness reaches its peak, moral poverty its paroxysm. The continent is today scandalized. This betrays a glaring educational void: sport here, alas through this ignoble act, tolerates frivolity where it should uphold minimal historical awareness and values of respect. A footballer must have at least basic education or refrain from gesturing when he doesn't grasp the codes or embody the values of sport and fair play. The height of it is that on nearly all Algerian channels, this poor footballer's attitude is glorified and reported with tasteless jeers and mockery. The true incarnation of media from another world. We cannot demand that African football found unity, be educational and elevate people, while allowing the symbols of African emancipation to be mocked. This schizophrenia manifestly reveals, images in evidence, the cultural and civic collapse of an entire people. Gutter press cannot elevate a people; on the contrary, it sinks it into pettiness, mediocrity, and accelerates its downfall. The footballer apologized under pressure, but that will not suffice. The damage is done. AFCON 2025 in the Kingdom of Morocco will likely be etched in memory for its quality and sporting feats. But thanks to a lucid Congolese supporter and a respectful, educated Moroccan public, it offers a lesson in memory: Lumumba bursts into the present, reminding us that we cannot project forward without owning our past. In a post-1961 continent, this gesture was vital. Heroes die only if we stop embodying them, in stadiums as elsewhere. On Moroccan soil where Lumumba in 1960 championed a free Africa, his shadow is reborn, borne by a supporter. Packed stadium, cameras trained, millions of eyes: his memory still guides consciences.

Venezuela after Maduro: Democratic Transition or New Imbroglio? 1967

Aziz Daouda, 11 d.
- World Politics - History -
3 min read.
Whether one agrees with Donald Trump or not, the fall of Nicolás Maduro marks a historic turning point in Venezuelan history and, more broadly, in the history of the region and the world. After more than a decade of authoritarian governance, economic collapse, and mass exile, Maduro's capture appears both as a relief for part of the population and as a shock to the international legal order. The arrest of the president, or the suspect, depending on one's perspective, who was exfiltrated and then indicted in the USA for narcotrafficking and corruption, thus concentrates hopes for political transition and accusations of imperialist interference. Venezuela, despite possessing the world's largest proven oil reserves, has experienced a rapid degradation of its democratic institutions since the beginnings of the Bolivarian Revolution. First under Hugo Chávez, then under Maduro, the country has seen its economy crumble, with recurrent hyperinflation, collapse of the national currency, and widespread impoverishment. From 2014 onward, the crisis turned into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe: shortages of medicines, collapse of public services, and endemic insecurity. The human dimension of this crisis is equally dramatic: nearly eight million Venezuelans have left the country over the past decade, fleeing hunger, repression, and lack of prospects. Internally, political opponents have been marginalized, judicial independence undermined, and fundamental freedoms curtailed, to the point that many international organizations describe it as an authoritarian regime or hybrid dictatorship. Chavismo has morphed into a corrupt oligarchy, capturing oil rents for the benefit of a politico-military elite and criminal networks, a model far from unique. The Trump administration, back in power with an uncompromising discourse against regimes labeled "socialist" or "narco-states," has gradually hardened its strategy toward Caracas. For several years, Washington has multiplied pressures: heavy economic sanctions targeting the national oil company, financial restrictions, naval blockade, and designation of Maduro's inner circle as a transnational criminal organization. Officially, these measures aimed to choke the regime's resources, particularly oil revenues and narcotrafficking flows. In January 2026, this maximum pressure strategy reaches its peak with an operation of exceptional magnitude. Targeted strikes and a special operation coordinated by the United States Southern Command result in Maduro's capture in his bed, followed by his transfer out of Venezuelan territory. President Trump himself publicly announces that Maduro and his wife have been arrested and will be tried in the USA for narcotrafficking, corruption, and participation in an alleged cartel designated as a terrorist organization. In the aftermath, Trump promises that the United States will guarantee a "safe and orderly" political transition for Venezuela, even going so far as to mention the possibility of "managing" the country until credible elections are organized. This military intervention immediately triggered a cascade of contrasting reactions, revealing deep polarization both domestically and internationally. For its supporters, the operation is a form of liberation: it ends a regime accused of repressing its people, rigging elections, and diverting the country's wealth to politico-mafia networks. Part of the Venezuelan opposition, whether in exile or still on the ground, presents Maduro's capture as a historic opportunity to rebuild democratic institutions and revive a bloodless economy. For its detractors, on the other hand, the U.S. intervention constitutes a flagrant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law, particularly the principle of non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter. Some Latin American and European governments, as well as UN spokespeople, have denounced a unilateral U.S. operation and warned against a dangerous precedent legitimizing similar actions elsewhere in the world. Even within the Venezuelan opposition, some actors fear that the end of internal authoritarianism might open the door to a lasting external tutelage, further exacerbating the divide between pro- and anti-intervention factions. Beyond moral or legal justifications, the geopolitical and energy dimensions are central to understanding the initiative. Venezuela holds considerable but low-quality oil reserves that actors like China and Russia have sought to secure through long-term agreements, massive loans, and equity stakes. This increased presence of rival powers at the gates of the United States runs counter to the old Monroe Doctrine and fuels, on the American side, the perception of a strategic challenge in what Washington considers its "backyard." From this perspective, the intervention cannot be read solely through the prism of human rights or solidarity with the Venezuelan people. Washington also seeks to regain control of the region, reduce Moscow and Beijing's influence in Latin America amid heightened global rivalry. This ambivalence, between rhetoric of democratic liberation and strategic interests, fuels mistrust, particularly in the Global South. Whatever one's opinion of the U.S. intervention, one point remains central: no lasting political transition can succeed without the full adhesion and active participation of the entire Venezuelan people. The end of the Maduro era opens a window of opportunity to rebuild democratic institutions, restore the rule of law, guarantee freedom of expression, and revive the economy, but this window can close quickly if the transition is led solely by external actors. Recent examples from Iraq, Libya, and Syria confirm this. True liberation will not come solely from the fall of a leader, however authoritarian, nor from the promises of a foreign power, however influential. It will depend on an inclusive political process capable of bringing together a deeply fractured society, preventing score-settling, and avoiding the emergence of a new system of dependency, whether economic, security-related, or diplomatic. It is up to the Venezuelans to define, over the long term, the contours of their future, if possible with international support based on law, cooperation, and respect for their sovereignty. The position of the military also warrants close scrutiny.

Maduro, from Sovereign to American Defendant... or The last night of Raiss Maduro... 2107

Aziz Daouda, 12 d.
- World Politics - History -
3.4 min read.
The scenario is now factual: capture, transfer to New York, indictment for narcoterrorism. A historic precedent. Now it's time for "Debates" or "Opinions." From head of state to cartel leader: the Maduro case, or when power redefines the law. An incumbent president is extracted from his palace: Bombs are dropped in the distance; diversion of attention and paralysis of defense systems; A perfectly mastered and executed scenario. A head of state has been abducted by a foreign army and then paraded in handcuffs before the cameras in New York: the scene recalls the end of Manuel Noriega in 1989. This time, it's not the Panamanian general but the revolutionary Nicolás Maduro, a sort of Bolivarian relic, head of the Venezuelan state since 2013, now officially prosecuted for narcoterrorism by American justice and incarcerated in Brooklyn. The message is crystal clear: when a superpower decides, a president can cease to be a subject of international law to become just another cartel leader. Power will determine both the qualification and the fate: in a different unfolding, Gaddafi and Saddam met different ends but also at the hands of foreign powers. The keystone of this operation is less military than narrative. Washington does not present Maduro as a political enemy, but as the mastermind of a transnational criminal conspiracy, extending the indictment already filed in 2020 before the New York federal court. This simple categorical shift, from political to penal, from sovereign to trafficker, allows it to bypass the contemporary obsession with sovereignty, head-of-state immunity, and the need for a UN multilateral mandate. The image is no longer that of an invasion, but of an "extraterritorial police operation" aimed at protecting American public health, a narrative well-honed since the "war on drugs" in Latin America. It feels like watching a TV series scene: DEA agents and special forces, reading of rights, transfer to a federal detention center, solemn announcement by the prosecutor. In reality, it's a demonstration of strategic power. The arrest of a head of state in his bed, with his security apparatus caught off guard and possibly complicit, signals less a military victory than a systemic humiliation: that of a regime that dreamed of being an anti-imperialist bastion and discovers it cannot protect its own president. The Chavista "tiger" reveals itself to be a paper tiger: strong on slogans, weak in real capacity. Jurists will rightly recall that international law protects the immunity of sitting heads of state, except in very narrowly defined exceptions. But history offers another, less comfortable lesson: from Noriega to the International Criminal Court's warrants against Omar el-Bashir or Vladimir Putin, the boundary between sovereignty and penal responsibility has steadily eroded. Already in 1998, the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in London on the basis of a Spanish warrant inaugurated the era of universal jurisdiction against former leaders. Today, with Maduro, another step is taken: this is no longer a sick ex-dictator on a medical visit, but a sitting president, captured by force and tried abroad for narcoterrorism endangering specifically American citizens. The international reaction underscores the brutality of this epochal shift. A few capitals denounce a "cowboy method" contrary to the UN Charter; others take refuge in cautious verbal indignation, quickly diluted in press releases. But the most striking aspect is elsewhere: many leaders who, just yesterday, posed complacently with Maduro, accepted his decorations, and praised his "Bolivarian courage," suddenly discover they have short memories. The archives are full of these now-embarrassing embraces: they remind us that diplomacy loves grand words, sovereignty, dignity, resistance, as long as they cost nothing. Abdelmadjid Tebboune must today regret his recent insulting remarks toward the powers and others who have explicitly recognized the Moroccanness of the formerly Spanish Sahara. In the Maduro affair, Donald Trump has found his formula: topple a regime without uttering the word "war," capture a president without recognizing him as such. The operation de facto violates the spirit of international law, but it cloaks itself in the language of American criminal law, with its charges, judges, juries, and procedures. In Congress, a few voices raise alarms about the precedent created. However, U.S. political history shows that, when faced with what is defined as a "vital interest", fight against drugs, terrorism, territorial protection—partisan quarrels quickly give way to a reflex of unity. Now, the scene shifts to the New York federal court. Maduro, very wealthy, will be supported by prestigious lawyers, will challenge the legitimacy of the procedure, denounce a political trial, and attempt to turn the courtroom into an anti-imperialist platform. The U.S., for its part, will highlight its fight against a "narco-state" that allegedly flooded their market with cocaine in league with Colombian armed groups and criminal networks. At this stage, it matters little whether judicial truth is fully established: the image of the Venezuelan president in the defendant's cage will weigh more durably than all televised speeches. For part of Latin America and beyond, this arrest elicits real relief: that of seeing a leader accused of authoritarian drift, massive corruption, and collusion with narcotrafficking finally answer before a judge. This sentiment is understandable. But should we stop there? For this episode recalls a disturbing truth: sovereignty, in the current international system, has become conditional. Conditional on the ability to defend oneself, to weave effective alliances, to not cross certain red lines set by others. Conditional, above all, on the narrative that the powerful impose on the rest of the world. The Maduro case must neither make us forget the brutality of his regime, nor mask the precedent it creates. It has provoked the exile of more than 8 million people. That a president suspected of serious crimes be judged, many will applaud it. That a power arrogate to itself the unilateral right to abduct and try him on its soil, without an indisputable international mandate, should worry even its allies. These tools, once created, risk no longer being confined to a single "enemy." Those who reassure themselves today thinking they will never be the target of such practices risk discovering, tomorrow, to their detriment, that the narrative has changed there too. It was the last night of Raiss Maduro...

The Urantia Book 2166

Tupan, 12 d.
The Urantia Book was first published in Chicago in 1955 by the Urantia Foundation. It presents itself as a spiritual revelation delivered by celestial beings through a human intermediary in the early twentieth century—but the details of that process are intentionally left vague. There’s no named prophet, no signature author, and no formal church behind it. Instead, the book’s influence has spread quietly over the decades through small study groups and individuals drawn to its holistic spiritual vision. The text opens with a dense Foreword that tries to build a philosophical framework for what follows, then unfolds through 196 “papers” that move from abstract metaphysics to cosmic history and, finally, to a vivid retelling of Jesus’ life. At its center is the idea of God as the “Universal Father,” the source and sustainer of all reality, surrounded by a co-eternal Trinity and a vast, multidimensional universe that radiates outward from an unmoving spiritual core called Paradise. This universe includes a central realm, seven "superuniverses", and countless local creations, each governed by ranks of spiritual personalities. One of the book’s most distinctive ideas is the “Thought Adjuster”—a fragment of God said to live within each person, quietly shaping conscience and character, and drawing the soul toward eternal life. Spiritual progress, in this view, happens not through ritual or doctrine but through everyday moral choices: kindness, honesty, courage, and faithfulness to truth. While the book accepts biological evolution, it also claims that human civilization and religion have been guided at key moments by celestial administrators. It calls for what it terms a “religion of personal experience”—a faith rooted in direct communion with God, intellectual curiosity, service to others, and practical compassion. The final and longest section retells the life and teachings of Jesus in remarkable detail, from his childhood and early travels to his ministry, crucifixion, and post-resurrection appearances. Here, Jesus is portrayed as the living example of unselfish love and God-centered trust—a model of how divine ideals can be lived in ordinary human life. Usually readers engage with The Urantia Book quietly: through private study, meditation, and informal discussions rather than through any institutional structure. Reception has always been mixed. Admirers are drawn to its vast cosmology, moral vision, and integration of science, theology, and philosophy. Critics point to its unverifiable origins, speculative science, and cultural assumptions that mirror the mid-twentieth century. Today, it remains outside traditional religion and academia, often grouped among modern revelatory or “channeled” texts. Whether approached with faith, doubt, or simple curiosity, The Urantia Book invites readers to imagine a universe where the quest for truth, goodness, and beauty is really one journey toward God—where spiritual growth unfolds quietly within the rhythms of everyday life.

When Algeria insists on sailing against the tide of history… 2424

Aziz Daouda, 14 d.
- World Politics - History -
3.4 min read.
What, then, has gotten into the Algerian president for him, in his latest speech before Parliament, to choose so resolutely to position himself against the arc of history and current international dynamics? While the United Nations Security Council has, de facto, settled the question of the Moroccan Sahara by endorsing the option of **autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty**, the Algerian head of state continues to repeat the same old talking points: “despoiled Sahrawi people”, “self‑determination referendum”, as if time in Algiers had frozen in the 1980s. In his remarks, international law is invoked… then ignored. The paradox, not to say the inconsistency, is all the more striking as the Algerian president invokes international law while pretending to ignore that it is precisely the Security Council that is one of its main interpreters and norm‑setting bodies. Yet the law has spoken. The successive Security Council resolutions have long since abandoned any reference to a referendum that has become impracticable, unrealistic, and politically obsolete. In its place, a political, pragmatic, and lasting solution has emerged: autonomy for the Sahara within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. This evolution is neither accidental nor circumstantial. It stems from a shared assessment within the international community: the territory of the Sahara is, historically, legally, and politically, an integral part of the Kingdom of Morocco. And in order to take into account Algerian sensitivities, a country that has invested tens of billions of dollars for nearly half a century in this artificial conflict the Security Council has, in a sense, “split the difference” by endorsing broad regional autonomy without calling Moroccan sovereignty into question. It was thought this would offer Algiers an honourable way out. It did not seize it. An isolated Algeria facing a global realignment By persisting in this posture, Algeria is not defying Morocco; it is taunting the major powers. The United States, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, several Central European countries, and many African and Arab states have clearly or implicitly rallied to the Moroccan position. Some state it openly; others, for historical, ideological, or domestic political reasons, move more cautiously. This is the case for Russia and China, which did not vote against the latest Security Council resolution. But all act accordingly: opening consulates in Laayoune and Dakhla, signing economic agreements, making large‑scale investments, and forging strategic partnerships with Rabat. Meanwhile, Algeria is locking itself into a diplomacy of denial, unable to read the real balance of power. At a time when Morocco is establishing itself as an African, Atlantic, and Euro‑Mediterranean hub, Algiers keeps stoking the embers of a conflict that no longer mobilizes anyone other than itself and a few ridiculous residual ideological mouthpieces. A regime from another era, ruling over a suffering population, is at the helm in Algiers. Certain clumsy words used by the president and his facial expressions are in fact open insults directed at many countries and not minor ones, that support Morocco’s position. Even more worrying is the abyssal gap between this ideological discourse and the reality experienced by the Algerian population. The military regime seems to be operating on another planet. The president appears unmoored, disconnected from the daily concerns of a people scarred by repeated shortages: basic foodstuffs, medicines, tyres, essential products. In a country that is nonetheless rich in hydrocarbons, economic and social management borders on the absurd, and the manipulation of statistics has become a national sport. This raises a pressing question: who benefits from this chronic obstinacy? Certainly not Algerians. Above all, it serves to perpetuate a political system that needs an external enemy to mask its repeated domestic failures, justify the army’s grip on power, and distract from a deep‑seated structural crisis. At all costs, the real Algeria must be concealed: the one that is hemmed in at the regional level. The signals on this front are just as troubling. Accused by several Sahel countries of contributing, directly or indirectly, to their destabilization, Algeria is gradually finding itself diplomatically encircled. Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso no longer hide their mistrust toward Algiers. To this we must add the total rupture with Morocco and relations with Spain that are durably strained. Algerian influence in Africa is receding just as the Sherifian Kingdom is consolidating its economic, religious, and security footprint across the continent. What immediate consequences, then? In the medium term, this stance is likely to have serious consequences: - Heightened diplomatic isolation, - Loss of international credibility, - Weakening of Algeria’s voice in multilateral forums, - Worsening of domestic social malaise, - And, paradoxically, a strengthening of the legitimacy of Morocco’s position. History shows that artificial conflicts always end up turning against those who instrumentalize them. By refusing to accept the reality of the Sahara dossier, Algeria is not delaying the solution; it is delaying its own political and regional normalization. It is putting off to the Greek calends its exit from crisis and its development. The Sahara issue is now closed at the strategic level, even if it remains rhetorically open for Algiers. To cling to it is less a matter of conviction than an admission of powerlessness. By stubbornly sailing against the current, the Algerian regime risks finding itself alone, stranded on the shores of a bygone past, while the region moves forward without it. There is, however, one explanation for this hasty and ill‑judged outburst by the Algerian president: the major success of the Africa Cup of Nations in Football held in Morocco. The Kingdom’s success and the overall praise it has received seem to irritate the Algerian regime, which has no answers for its citizens who travelled there and saw with their own eyes the extent, clumsiness, and absurdity of the propaganda inflicted on them by the military regime. Some do not hesitate to conclude that Morocco has taken a 50‑year lead over their country. Be that as it may, official Morocco will certainly not respond to the Algerian president’s remarks. The Kingdom stands on its rights, as recognized by the international community. It continues steadily along its path, developing a little more each day and notching up success after success.

Moroccan Sahara, Maghreb and Sahel: Russia's Subtle Repositioning Between Interests, Realpolitik, and New Equilibria... 3443

Aziz Daouda, 19 d.
The recent signals sent by Russia on the Moroccan Sahara dossier are neither coincidental nor mere diplomatic wavering. On the contrary, they reflect a pragmatic repositioning, revealing the profound geostrategic recompositions sweeping through the Maghreb and the Sahel, in an international context marked by the war in Ukraine, the relative weakening of the West in Africa, and the emergence of new alliance logics. While Moroccans are occupied with the Africa Cup of Nations, which they aim to deliver as an exceptional edition for their continent, highly interesting developments are unfolding for the region's future. Moscow's refusal to authorize the participation of the Polisario, in its self-proclaimed form of the "RASD," at the latest Russia-Africa meeting constitutes a strong political act, even if it was not formalized by a thunderous official declaration. In the grammar of Russian diplomacy, this type of decision carries a message. By excluding an entity not recognized by the UN and wholly dependent on Algeria, Russia confirms its commitment to the UN framework and its refusal to legitimize fragile or instrumentalized state constructs. The Polisario did not participate in the latest ministerial meeting of the Russia-Africa Forum in Cairo on December 19-20, 2025. Moscow explicitly excluded the Polisario Front and its self-proclaimed "SADR," despite pressures from Algeria and South Africa, reserving the event for UN-recognized sovereign states. This decision aligns with Russia's consistent line, having already barred the Polisario from previous summits in Sochi and Saint Petersburg. This choice is all the more significant as it comes in a context where Moscow seeks to appear as a "responsible" actor in the eyes of African countries, concerned with stability and sovereignty. Russia's abstention at the Security Council during the latest vote on the Moroccan Sahara follows the same logic. Moscow does not explicitly support the Moroccan position but no longer opposes head-on the dossier's evolution toward a realistic political solution. This stance reflects an active neutrality, allowing Russia to preserve its historic and lucrative relations with Algeria while avoiding antagonizing a Moroccan partner that has become central in several African and Mediterranean dossiers. In Russian logic, it is not about choosing a camp but maximizing room for maneuver. Contrary to an ideological reading inherited from the Cold War, the Russo-Moroccan relationship today rests on tangible and growing economic interests, particularly in agriculture and food security with imports of cereals and exports of Moroccan agricultural products, fertilizers and phosphates, energy, as well as logistics and access to African markets. For Moscow, Morocco emerges as a credible African hub, a stable state with extensive economic and diplomatic networks in West Africa and the Sahel. In a context where Russia seeks to offset its Western isolation, Rabat offers a pragmatic entry point to the Atlantic Africa, far from the Sahelian chaos zones. Algeria remains a historic strategic ally of Russia, particularly in the military domain, with Algiers devoting several billion dollars annually to purchasing Russian armaments, making it one of the main clients of the Russian defense industry. But this relationship is now imbalanced: it remains largely one-dimensional, centered on armaments, offers Moscow no economic or logistical relays comparable to those of Morocco in sub-Saharan Africa, and is politically rigidified by a frozen ideological reading of the Saharan dossier. Moreover, Algeria has failed to capitalize diplomatically on its Russian alignment to become a credible and solid structuring actor in the Sahel, contrary to its ambitions. In the current Sahelian context, state collapse, coups d'état, terrorism, presence of mercenaries, and international rivalries, Russia now prioritizes actors capable of providing islands of stability. Morocco, through its pragmatic African policy, investments, religious and security diplomacy, appears as a balancing factor, whereas Algeria is perceived as a blocking actor on certain regional dossiers. Sahel countries no longer hesitate to openly say that Algeria is the cause of their misfortune... In this reading, the Western Sahara issue is no longer an ideological stake but a parameter of regional stability; Moscow seems to have understood that perpetuating the conflict status quo serves instability more than its own strategic interests in Africa. Contrary to a widespread idea, Russia no longer reasons in terms of "fraternal" alliances inherited from the past but in cost-benefit terms, the era of automatic support for so-called "revolutionary" movements being over. Russia is a signatory to agreements with Morocco that include the Sahara, particularly in fisheries. The Saharan dossier perfectly illustrates this shift: no recognition of the Polisario, no frontal opposition to Morocco, maintenance of ties with Algeria without granting it a diplomatic blank check. On the contrary, it confines it to a rather small-player dimension, not having helped it join the BRICS at all, quite the opposite. For the Algerian president, membership was a done deal. He received a real slap in the face, and in South Africa no less. The BRICS refused his country's accession. Russia's recent positions on Western Sahara do not constitute a spectacular rupture but a silent turning point, with steady steps, revealing a new Maghrebi-Sahelian balance. In this multi-level game, Morocco consolidates its status as a central and reliable African actor, while Algeria remains for Russia an important military partner but politically constrained. Supported by a weakened country and a regime on its deathbed, the Polisario is sinking into progressive diplomatic marginalization. It is living its last moments. True to its tradition as a realist power, Russia adjusts its positions not based on slogans but on the real dynamics of the ground, where stability, regional integration, enduring and solid economic interests, and diplomatic credibility now outweigh past ideological loyalties. It is now necessary to accept what Russia has become, it is no longer the Soviet Union. Algiers has the intellectual capacity to do so.

Moroccans and Algerians: brothers in history probably, political enemies certainly. 4163

Aziz Daouda, 22 d.
The question of whether Moroccans and Algerians are brothers recurs recurrently, often laden with emotion, rarely addressed with the historical depth and political lucidity it deserves. The slogan conceals a complex reality, marked by anthropological and civilizational unity, but also by successive ruptures, some ancient, others more recent, largely imposed by external dominations and then by post-independence political choices. At the origin, human and civilizational unity is undeniable. On historical, anthropological, and cultural levels, there is little doubt that North Africa long constituted **a single continuous human space**. The great Berber confederations: Sanhaja, Zenata, Masmouda; Islamic contributions; networks of religious brotherhoods; trade routes; and Moroccan dynasties Almoravid, Almohad, Marinid, Saadian structured an **organic Maghreb**, without rigid borders. Belongings were tribal, religious, spiritual, or dynastic. The circulation of people, ideas, and elites was constant. **Moroccans and Algerians clearly shared the same civilizational foundation**. Then came the Ottoman parenthesis and a first structural divergence. From the 16th century onward, a **major differentiation** emerged between the western shores of the Maghreb. While Morocco remained a sovereign state, structured around a rooted Sharifian monarchy, Algeria fell under **Ottoman domination**, integrated as a peripheral regency of the Empire, a domination that lasted nearly three centuries and was far from neutral. It introduced: * an **exogenous power**, military and urban, detached from the interior tribal world; * a hierarchical system dominated by a politico-military caste: Janissaries, deys, beys, often of non-local origin; * a social organization marked by a clear separation between rulers and ruled, without true political integration of the populations. This Ottoman model, more based on coercion than allegiance, contrasted deeply with the Moroccan model, where central power rested on **bay‘a**, religious legitimacy, and indigenous dynastic continuity. Without “denaturing” the populations in the biological sense, this long Ottoman period **altered relationships to the state, authority, and sovereignty**, and gradually distanced, on cultural and political levels, the societies of western Algeria from those of Morocco. Then came French colonization and institutionalized separation. French colonization of Algeria (1830–1962) introduced an even deeper rupture. Paris methodically worked to **tear Algeria from its natural Maghrebi environment**, transforming it into a settler colony, then into French departments. Borders were unilaterally redrawn to Morocco's detriment, and an Algerian identity was progressively constructed **in opposition to its western neighbor**, portrayed as archaic. This is a direct legacy of French colonial software. Yet, despite this separation enterprise, fraternity between the peoples endured. Morocco hosted, supported, and armed FLN fighters; thousands of Moroccans participated in the liberation war; the late HM Mohammed V committed the kingdom's prestige and resources to Algerian independence. At that precise moment, fraternity was neither a myth nor rhetoric: it was **a concrete historical fact**. At Algerian independence, an unexpected political rupture was embraced. Paradoxically, it was **after 1962**, once Algeria was independent, that the fracture became enduring. The power emerging from the Army of the Frontiers reneged on agreements concluded with the GPRA regarding colonial-inherited borders. The **1963 Sand War**, launched against a weakened but previously supportive Morocco, became a founding trauma. From then on, hostility became structural: * Direct support for Moroccan opponents and putschists; * Political, diplomatic, military, and financial backing for Polisario separatists; * Relentless media campaigns against Morocco and its monarchy; * Repeated interferences in Morocco's sovereign choices, including its international alliances, notably with Israel; * Heavy accusations, often raised in Algerian public debate; * Destabilization operations, including the 1994 Asni Hotel attack in Marrakech; * Instrumentalization of Algerian school education, where Morocco is portrayed as a “colonialist” state; * Brutal deportation of 45,000 Moroccans from Algeria; * Sabotage of rapprochement attempts, including under President Mohamed Boudiaf, whose assassination, while he was initiating dialogue with Rabat, remains shrouded in shadows. More recently, the case of **Boualem Sansal**, imprisoned for expressing historically inconvenient truths challenging the official narrative, illustrates the Algerian regime's inability to accept a free and serene reading of Maghrebi history. Thus, two irreconcilable national trajectories. To this political hostility is added a profound divergence in national trajectories. Morocco, not without criticisms, has pursued gradual transformation: institutional reforms, pluralism, major infrastructure projects, African integration, economic and diplomatic diversification. In contrast, Algeria remains trapped in a **militaro-security system inherited from both Ottoman logic and the liberation war**, centralized, distrustful of society, dependent on energy rents, and structurally hostile to any regional success perceived as competitive. This asymmetry fuels frustration and resentment, where Morocco becomes a **useful ideological adversary, the classic enemy**. So, brothers or not? The answer is nuanced, but unambiguous. **Moroccans and Algerians are brothers through long history, deep culture, geography, and human ties.** They were for centuries, before Ottoman domination, before French colonization, and perhaps remain so at the level of the peoples. But **they no longer are at the level of the states**, due to a deliberate political choice by the Algerian regime since independence: to build its legitimacy on external hostility, particularly toward Morocco. Fraternity has not disappeared; it has been **progressively altered, then confiscated** by imperial, colonial, and postcolonial history. It persists in popular memory, in separated families, in the painful silence of closed borders. History, unbiased by passion or ideology, delivers the verdict—and the 35th CAN contributes to it: **the peoples are brothers; the Algerian regime has decided otherwise**.

Theosophy 5630

Tupan, 1 mon.
Theosophy is a spiritual movement that emerged in the late nineteenth century with the ambition of bringing religion, philosophy, and science into a single, coherent vision of truth. Drawing on both Eastern and Western mystical traditions, it promotes the idea of a timeless or “perennial” philosophy underlying all world religions. Central to this outlook is the belief that the soul evolves over long cycles of reincarnation and karma, gradually awakening to deeper spiritual realities. The movement was formally established in 1875 by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and her collaborators with the founding of the Theosophical Society, and it went on to shape many of the spiritual, philosophical, and artistic currents of the modern era. At the heart of Theosophical thought is the idea of a divine, impersonal Absolute that lies beyond the limits of human understanding—an idea comparable to the Hindu concept of Brahman or the Neoplatonic One. From this unknowable source, all levels of existence are said to unfold, descending through a hierarchy of spiritual planes and beings until they manifest in the material world. This cosmological vision reflects strong influences from Indian philosophy, especially Vedanta and Buddhism, while also incorporating elements of Western esoteric traditions such as Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and Kabbalah. A defining feature of Theosophy is its emphasis on spiritual evolution. In The Secret Doctrine (1888), Blavatsky’s most influential work, she presents an elaborate account of planetary and human development governed by the laws of karma and reincarnation. According to this framework, humanity is currently passing through the fifth of seven “root races,” each representing a stage in the unfolding spiritual and psychic capacities of the species. The ultimate goal is a conscious return to divine unity, achieved through inner transformation and esoteric knowledge. Blavatsky maintained that her teachings were not purely her own but were inspired by highly advanced spiritual beings known as the Mahatmas or Masters. Said to live in remote regions of the world, these adepts were described as guardians of ancient wisdom and exemplars of humanity’s spiritual potential. Whether understood literally or symbolically, they expressed the Theosophical ideal of enlightenment and supported the Society’s mission of awakening latent spiritual capacities in all people. The influence of Theosophy reached well beyond the boundaries of the Theosophical Society itself. It played an important role in introducing Western audiences to ideas such as karma, reincarnation, and subtle energy systems, and it helped spark broader interest in Eastern religions. Its impact can be seen in the work of artists like Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), composers such as Gustav Holst (1874-1934), and spiritual thinkers including Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), who later founded Anthroposophy, and Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who was once proclaimed a World Teacher before ultimately distancing himself from the movement. Despite internal disagreements and the often complex nature of its teachings, Theosophy laid important groundwork for the later New Age movement and for modern forms of spiritual pluralism. Its effort to present a shared mystical heritage across cultures anticipated contemporary conversations linking science and spirituality, psychology and mysticism, and Eastern and Western worldviews. In this sense, Theosophy is more than a historical curiosity. It represents an ambitious attempt to reinterpret ancient wisdom for a modern world, grounded in the belief that spiritual truth is universal and that humanity’s deeper purpose lies in awakening to its own divine origins.

Magickal Paths 5061

Tupan, 1 mon.
In magick, “right-hand path” (RHP) and “left-hand path” (LHP) name two different orientations toward power and the sacred—not simple good/evil lanes. The RHP aims at theurgy: purifying the self, aligning with a transcendent order, and uniting with something higher—the Godhead, Nous, Holy Guardian Angel, True Will. Authority flows downward through lineage, consecration, and rule. You clean the vessel first—banishings, abstinences, prayer, graded initiations—then invoke to become more transparent to the divine. The ethic is about humility, service, and character. Power’s legitimate when it’s bound by vow and used to heal, protect, and teach. That’s one posture. The LHP, by contrast, aims at apotheosis—exalting and individuating the magician until the self becomes its own godform. Authority here flows outward, from the practitioner’s will, forged through ordeal, trance, pacts, and direct negotiation with spirits. Rather than shun taboo currents, the LHP learns to contain and integrate them—to harvest force from desire, fear, rage, or eros and bind it to a chosen aim. You don’t surrender ego so much as refine and weaponize it, ideally with awareness of cost. Ethics turn on accountability: you pay what you promise, own your collateral, and live with your bargains. Both paths draw from the same toolbox—banishing, centering, consecration, circles and triangles, timing, offerings, divination—but sequence and intent differ. An RHP working might banish, consecrate, invoke a solar intelligence, make a petition aligned with vow, and then give thanks and charity. An LHP one might cross a boundary—graveyard, crossroads—under wards, evoke a chthonic spirit, strike a contract with careful terms, and pay every offering to the letter. In the RHP, spirits stand as teachers in a hierarchy; in the LHP, they’re contractors in a negotiated economy. You can see echoes of this back in Tantra—dakṣiṇācāra (conventional) vs. vāmacāra (heterodox)—and in the Western split between theurgy and goetia. Rosicrucian and Golden Dawn rites leaned toward theosis; other traditions, from Crowley’s “True Will” to explicitly LHP currents, tilt toward sovereignty and self-deification. Modern magicians mix freely. A Thelemite might invoke the Holy Guardian Angel on Sunday, then perform an uncrossing at a graveyard Tuesday night. Chaos magicians switch hands almost by instinct, tailoring each operation to its need. Every approach has hazards. The RHP can fall into moralism, spiritual bypass, or dependence on external authority. The LHP can slide into narcissism, thrill-seeking, or treating everything—people included—as currency. That’s why mature practice always builds guardrails: divination before and after; clarity of aim; wards; records; fulfillment of obligations; aftercare for the psyche and for relationships touched by the work. A small litmus test helps: Does the working increase lucidity, steadiness, and the capacity to keep one’s word without needless harm? If not, change the method. It’s all experiment, after all. Choosing which hand to use isn’t about belonging to a tribe—it’s about the task. Healing old patterns, steadying life, and cultivating virtue thrive in RHP containers. Breaking paralysis, reclaiming agency, confronting shadow material, or working under pact lean LHP. Most of us end up ambidextrous anyway: vow on Sunday, crossroads on Tuesday, always with a ledger of costs—and enough honesty to pay when the bill comes due. Both paths can sanctify or corrupt. The art is knowing which hand opens which door—and closing it properly when you are done.

Guterres snubs Attaf in Luanda: the UN breaks with Algeria's rudeness on the Sahara... 4232

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
At the Africa-Europe summit held in Luanda, a filmed and widely shared incident spotlighted a deep diplomatic tension involving António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, and Ahmed Attaf, Algerian Foreign Minister. A video of the moment went viral on social media, sparking intense debate and mockery. Guterres abruptly gave a formal but cold greeting before swiftly turning his back on Attaf, who was desperately trying to engage with him. This was not a mere protocol slip but a deliberate gesture symbolizing a conflict-laden, annoyed relationship between the UN and Algeria. At such a high diplomatic level, gestures are never accidental or improvised. Nearing the end of his term, Guterres has little patience left for certain behaviors, including those of an insistent and exhausting minister from a country repeatedly harassing the institution. Politically, this public refusal to engage cannot be seen as an accident. It expresses explicit exasperation with Algeria’s stance and likely reflects Attaf's failure to secure a meeting with the Secretary-General. The context is heavy: the Moroccan Sahara issue fuels tension with Algeria pursuing an aggressive, systematic strategy challenging UN reports and resolutions, accusing the UN of bias. Algeria claims neutrality, but this masks the reality that it has sustained and intensified the conflict for half a century, along with Gaddafi’s Libya. Official Algerian media frequently criticize the UN with diplomatic invective, targeting countries and leaders who recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Attacking Israel and Zionism is also a recurring theme, all to bolster Algerian national pride amid economic hardships. This unprecedented political rudeness damages Algeria’s international image. Algerian representative Amar Bendjama’s disdainful and disrespectful comments after the UN Security Council Resolution 2797 vote illustrate this climate. The ongoing tensions have led to a diplomatic deadlock for Algeria, which desperately pressures the UN publically, breaking traditional diplomatic norms. Guterres’s gesture sends a clear political rejection of Algeria's destabilizing posture, a "enough is enough" message that may go unheeded given Algeria’s stubbornness. The episode reveals the limits of informal diplomacy when faced with an aggressive actor and underscores the growing irritation within the UN regarding the Sahara dossier. Major powers now publicly refuse to tolerate Algeria’s antics, having long endured them in hopes of Algerian realizations. Geopolitical stakes in the Mediterranean and Africa are too high for the international community to continue tolerating Algeria’s regional destabilization doctrine. Algeria has only succeeded in creating the new terminology "Western Sahara," which has reignited the question of the "Eastern Sahara." Increasingly, young people provide historical proof of Morocco’s sovereignty over the territories previously linked to colonial France. This incident symbolizes a symbolic rupture in Algeria-UN relations, exacerbated by the recent UN resolution explicitly naming the parties to the Sahara dispute: Algeria, its proxy Polisario Front, Mauritania, and Morocco. The only solution on the agenda is autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, hard for Algeria to accept. Even at the recent G20 summit hosted by South Africa, a known Algerian ally, no word was uttered on the Moroccan Sahara. This confrontation at such a high-profile summit illustrates Algeria’s waning political influence in multilateral forums while Morocco strengthens its regional and global diplomatic standing.

The Strange Mediation of Ahmed Attaf: Between Diplomatic Denial and Political Maneuver... 4497

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
The latest statement by Ahmed Attaf, the valiant Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, surprised even the most knowledgeable experts on the Saharan issue. By affirming that Algeria would be "willing to act as an intermediary between Morocco and the Polisario," Attaf seems to adopt a diplomatic stance bordering on the absurd, as it contradicts reality, international texts, and even Algeria's own strategic choices. Behind the calm tone favored by the Algerian diplomacy chief, this statement reveals a mix of political amnesia, internal calculation, and external smokescreen. He did not even explain why this proposal is being raised now. The first anomaly lies in the feigned ignorance of the essence of Security Council resolution 2797, which explicitly states that Algeria is a party to the conflict and, as such, is called to participate in negotiations under the leadership of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, but in the United States. In other words, Algeria cannot present itself as an external, neutral, or impartial actor. It is involved in the dossier and cannot exit by mere rhetoric. The second, even more glaring amnesia: Attaf acts as if no olive branch has been extended by Morocco to Algeria. Yet His Majesty King Mohammed VI has repeatedly expressly invited President Tebboune to frank, direct, and unconditional dialogue to address all bilateral issues, including the deep causes of tensions. He has never responded. Worse, he has maintained a diplomatic flight forward: unilateral rupture of relations, closure of airspace, sometimes incomprehensible hostile speeches, and reinforced support to the Polisario. In this context, Algeria's claim to want to “bring together” Rabat and the Polisario is more diplomatic theater than a sincere gesture. By presenting the conflict as a simple misunderstanding between “two parties” that Algeria could help overcome, Attaf adopts an almost naive tone, bordering on ridicule. As if Algeria's central role in the origin, maintenance, and militarization of the conflict was not an established, recognized, and documented fact. How can Algeria claim to be a mediator when: - the Polisario is hosted in Tindouf, on Algerian soil, - its leaders travel with Algerian diplomatic passports, - its President is transported by Algerian presidential plane, - its armament largely comes from Algiers, - its diplomacy depends on the Algerian Foreign Ministry, which dictates its content and approach. The claim to neutrality then becomes not only anachronistic but indecent in light of the history of the dossier. This improbable proposal might actually reveal Algeria’s disarray in the face of growing regional and international isolation. Algeria may seek to reposition itself as an actor of “peace” and “concord” in a context where its diplomacy is perceived as rigid, aggressive, and trapped in an outdated narrative. It is directly accused of favoring terrorism in the Sahel region. Mali, speaking at the UN, gave a very direct speech to that effect. It may also be, perhaps simultaneously, a way to discreetly reinitiate contact with Rabat without publicly assuming the reversal, while all crises between the two countries, including the current rupture, stem from unilateral Algerian decisions. Morocco has always been the ideal enemy to explain the army's grip on all state machinery. Algiers now knows, eventually, that this permanent tension will cost it dearly sooner or later, both strategically and internally. The maneuver surely aims to break isolation and possibly indirectly reconnect with Rabat. Who knows? In any case, the statement is a smokescreen to mask a spectacular flip-flop on the Sansal and Palestine issue. Sansal was released from prison and received at the Élysée; then, out of fear, voting for the US-sponsored resolution that envisions the disarmament of Hamas is a pirouette, a renunciation of the founding doctrine of the Algerian regime. The internal situation in Algeria must then be invoked. The domestic context plays a central role in recent reversals. The population faces: - persistent shortages, - a fragile socio-economic situation, - the plummeting value of the dinar, - growing incomprehension regarding contradictions of power. The shock was immense when Algeria, which proclaimed itself "more Palestinian than the Palestinians" and "more Hamas than Hamas," voted in favor of an American resolution that calls for the disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of an international force in Gaza. The ordinary Algerian is not ready to understand this sudden change of stance. The vote deeply disoriented an Algerian public used to fiery discourse against Washington the imperialist and Israel the Zionist. The official discourse has always been unconditionally pro-Hamas. In this tense atmosphere, Ahmed Attaf's statement looks like a media firebreak, intended to divert attention from Algeria's about-face on the Palestinian issue and on Sansal. Ultimately, Attaf’s proposal is neither serious, credible, nor neutral. However, it reveals: - a narrative crisis within Algerian diplomacy, - an increasingly heavy international isolation, - a fragile internal reality that the regime tries to mask with diplomatic artifices, - and a persistent difficulty in facing the truth of the conflict: Algeria has been a party since day one. Ambiguity is never far in Mr. Attaf's statements. Here again, he claims to want to act as a mediator, respecting all relevant Security Council resolutions. Of course, he reinstates the referendum condition, probably unaware that it has not been on the UN agenda since 2007. Attaf’s proposal is unacceptable in form and substance and brings nothing positive. It should be known that the press conference was staged and not live. Body language does not deceive: the man is under the junta's control and speaks as the mere voice of the army, the real power in Algeria. Interpreting resolution 2797 Algerian-style and simultaneously accepting and rejecting it is ridiculous. Rather than playing an imaginary mediator, Algiers would be better inspired to respond to Morocco’s olive branch and take its rightful place at the negotiation table, in accordance with international law and the facts.

Strategic Release of Boualem Sansal: Saving Face for Algiers... 4568

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who is also French and 81 years old, was arrested at Algiers airport on November 16, 2024, following an interview in which he addressed certain historical truths that, according to Algerian authorities, constituted a threat to the integrity of the country. Welcoming President Macron's decision to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, Sansal notably asserted that France had mutilated Morocco by attaching significant territories to Algeria—a particularly sensitive issue for Algerian leadership. In March 2025, a court sentenced Sansal to five years in prison for “undermining national unity,” a very serious accusation. To the general surprise, or almost, on November 12, President Abdelmadjid Tebboune granted Sansal a pardon following an express request from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Sansal was transferred to Germany and immediately hospitalized. The man, suffering from cancer, had seen his health deteriorate considerably during incarceration. The rapid evolution of this case follows German mediation, whereas repeated calls from France for Sansal’s release had gone unanswered. Officially, the pardon was presented as a “humanitarian, generous act.” Nevertheless, this release cannot be viewed outside of geopolitical stakes and is obviously, in essence, a strategic maneuver to defuse the Franco-Algerian crisis that has intensified in recent months. The German mediation came, as everyone knows, in a tense context between Algiers and Paris. In October 2024, France recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over the Moroccan Sahara, provoking Algerian outrage and a swift and significant cooling of bilateral relations. Sansal’s arrest, as a dissenting Algerian figure, was seen as a pressure tactic on France, whose nationality Sansal also holds. Efforts were in vain: In January, the European Parliament condemned the arrest and demanded the author’s release, but Algeria remained unmoved. What explains Germany’s surprise role, when other countries had reportedly tried unsuccessfully to make Algiers relent? In fact, Germany maintains more neutral relations with Algeria than France and thereby offers Algiers a diplomatically acceptable way out, avoiding a major loss of prestige. Boualem Sansal had become a real hot potato that needed to be dealt with quickly. It is even said, here and there in Algiers, that his arrest had been a mistake. The fact that President Tebboune was treated in Germany further strengthens these ties. Through this channel, Algiers enhances its international image without capitulating directly to France, dampening the perception of surrender. It should also be noted that Sansal is highly appreciated and read in Germany, where he received the country’s most prestigious literary awards. This partly explains the unexpected mediation. The release appears to be part of an Algerian strategy to manage international pressures without direct compromise with Paris, thus preserving the regime’s image. Germany, as an intermediary, helps to ease tensions while maintaining Algerian internal political stability. As always, Algerian media were quick to organize debates lauding the “humanism” and “great wisdom” of President Tebboune. They kept declaring victory—although it’s not clear over whom, victory nonetheless. As usual, debates invoked in no particular order: Zionism, the makhzen, the French enemy, defense of the homeland, etc. Sansal is pardoned but remains the nation’s execrable traitor. The truth is that Algeria’s current economic and strategic situation no longer allows it to posture confidently. Facing growing diplomatic isolation, dependence on hydrocarbons, and a slowing economy with a historic devaluation of the dinar, the Algerian regime uses Sansal’s release as a symbolic act to refurbish its image—as even its historic partners, Russia and China, have turned to Morocco. One might also interpret the situation in terms of intersecting interests. Germany likely served as a useful intermediary, indirectly addressing the interests of both France and Algeria. For Paris, passing mediation to Berlin sustains a humane posture without direct confrontation with Algiers. For Algiers, responding to a German request avoids symbolic retreat before its former colonizer. The implications are clear. The Algerian regime retains its authoritarian framework; Sansal’s release does not indicate weakness. Algerian media even try to show the affair reveals France’s loss of influence, claiming Paris sought to isolate Algiers. Thanks to the release, Algerian diplomacy allegedly becomes multipolar. In reality, compromise was necessary to reduce Algeria’s diplomatic and economic isolation. The country’s structural challenges remain significant. Algerian media are eager to present Sansal’s release by German mediation as evidence of profound change in the regional diplomatic balance in Algeria’s favor. They claim France has lost its historic near-monopoly in relations, confronted by a sovereign Algerian state that has diversified its European partnerships. According to these media narratives, this development symbolically weakens Paris and strengthens Algeria’s conquering, multipolar diplomacy. Beyond certain arguably ridiculous remarks meant to calm Algeria’s internal front, this release will have a positive impact on Franco-Algerian relations and, beyond that, on German diplomacy in the region. For Germany, this diplomatic success consolidates its geopolitical role in the Mediterranean and North Africa, giving it new political, economic, and security leverage. Berlin’s standing with Algerian authorities and neighboring countries improves and its strategic partnerships in this key region are reinforced. Recall that Germany had already voiced positive support for the Moroccan self-determination project in the Sahara. The release of Boualem Sansal therefore goes well beyond humanitarian matters; it becomes a point of diplomatic, symbolic, and economic convergence. Germany’s selection as intermediary allowed Algeria to respond to international pressure while apparently preserving its image vis-à-vis France—at least for its own population. France achieved its objective: freeing Boualem Sansal. Yet, for Algiers, it was always a matter of national dignity.

Moroccan Sahara: The Irreversible Truth Confronting Denial 4827

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2927, arithmetically, broadly, and logically favorable to Morocco, Algeria seems to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Despite the clarity of the text and the broad international consensus it generated, Algiers continues its diplomatic and media agitation, multiplying interpretations and contradictory positions. Leading this charge is Minister Ahmed Attaf, sent to the front lines. He is conducting a verbal offensive where misinformation rivals obstinacy. Every word of the resolution is dissected, twisted, and reinterpreted by Algerian agencies and their media outlets. Here, there is no fear of ridicule. It is fully embraced. Some international statements are even distorted to give them a coloring and meaning conforming to Algiers’ narrative. Staffan de Mistura, personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General, as well as Massad Boulos, have not escaped these discursive manipulations. Only Aljazeera continues the distortion and spares no words. This is not surprising: Algiers is sanctified there for well-known reasons. This now usual strategy relies on fake news and disinformation, which have become preferred tools in Algerian diplomacy when it comes to the Sahara dossier. Yet, one fact remains indisputable: Morocco is truly at home in its Sahara and asks neither permission nor validation from anyone to remain there. Fifty years after the artificial triggering of this dispute, Algeria seems to have learned no lesson and even less awareness; despite billions of dollars invested that could have benefited the Algerian people; despite successive military and diplomatic defeats, obstinacy remains the watchword here. A chronic morbidity. Since the 1991 ceasefire, the political and diplomatic momentum has irreversibly shifted in Morocco’s favor. The Kingdom has achieved a true Remontada, as Samir Bennis likes to say. The effect of propaganda and blind support from the Eastern bloc and its allies has faded. Everyone has come to reason, except a few exceptions upheld by outdated means. Morocco’s autonomy proposal, judged serious and credible by the international community, is now the sole recognized basis for a solution by the Security Council. Facing this, Algiers continues to rely on a network of marginal allies: South Africa, Iran, which have in turn expressed their dismay over Algiers' defeat, and Venezuela; all struggling to hide their diplomatic isolation. These supporters oppose a resolution which, however, places the political solution proposed by Morocco at the core of the UN process. But to no avail: U.S., French, British positions, and now Chinese and Russian ones, as well as explicit or implicit support from over 130 countries, confirm that the wind of history blows definitively in Morocco’s favor. In this context, the Kingdom displays a posture of calm firmness. His Majesty King Mohammed VI, faithful to his policy of an outstretched hand, has reaffirmed his desire for a "solution without victor or vanquished." The calm tone of his remarks confirms both his goodwill but also warns that Morocco’s patience has limits. The message is clear: the time for unilateral concessions is over; there is no alternative to the self-determination plan put forth. Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita summarized this position with a significant smile on channel 2M: "The matter is closed." This friendly smile, more than a gesture, reflects the confidence of a country sure of its rights, backed by historical, legal, political legitimacy, and now UN recognition. Who can say more? The decision of the Moroccan sovereign to designate October 31, the date of the vote of resolution 2927, as a new national holiday is not trivial. It marks a symbolic turning point: the definitive consolidation of the Sahara within the national fold and the international recognition of this reality. The Kingdom’s message is unequivocal: Morocco has waited too long, compromised too much, to continue to suffer the sterile deadlock maintained by its belligerent neighbor to the East. Now, the time has come to accelerate development, modernization, and socio-economic valorization of the South, which has become an engine of national and regional growth. This is how to interpret this declaration: There is a before and after October 31, 2025. A change of paradigm in the neighbors would make us all gain more than two points of annual growth, with all that this implies for the peoples of the region. Yet Algiers refuses, even though the country is adrift and its population lacks the essentials to live decently. But the Algerian military, behind their fake stripes, do not care. Stubborn, they see no further than the tip of their nose... They probably have not understood what Syria, Libya, and Iraq suffered, nor similar cases in Latin America. Stubbornness in folly and denial of reality can only be counterproductive. History demonstrates this abundantly. One must know how to read this history and learn from it. Algeria, unfortunately for its people, persists in a strategy of refusal, forgetting that the world has changed and diplomatic balances have shifted. It still thinks it can buy time and bet on a new American presidency in three years. Three years is long for President Trump... While Morocco advances, builds, and invests in its Southern provinces, supported by the common sense of those who know how to do business for the benefit of their peoples, Algiers remains trapped in a bygone past and an exhausted ideological narrative. The Sharifian Kingdom, on the other hand, looks to the future, serene in its legitimacy, solid in its national unity, confident in its rights, and now carried by the international recognition of a truth that is indisputable: the Sahara is Moroccan, and it will remain so.

Morocco, united and indivisible: October 31, memory and vision of a united kingdom... 4685

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
There are dates that cease to be mere markers to become strong symbols. By establishing le 31 octobre “Fête de l’Unité”, His Majesty King Mohammed VI has not only added a day to the national calendar of holidays: he has inscribed in the collective memory a certainty, that of a united Morocco, faithful to its history, confident in its destiny, certain of its future. This choice, placed on the eve of the anniversary of la Marche Verte, is not a coincidence, but a message. It links two moments: one of memory, the other of hope, to remind that in Morocco, unity is not a stance, but a collective philosophy of life, a historical continuity, a conviction ingrained in the soul of the country and each of its citizens. The age-old unity of the Kingdom is the golden thread of Moroccan history. **On November 6, 1975, three hundred and fifty thousand Moroccans, the Quran in one hand and the flag in the other, it must be recalled, supported by many nationals of friendly countries, including a Prince not to be overlooked, marched south to reclaim what should never have been lost: the Sahara, the Kingdom’s matrix.** La Marche Verte was not a conquest; it was a return, a peaceful affirmation of a legitimacy older than the borders drawn with rulers on colonial maps. It was also a vow between the Throne and the people, between the past and the future. A vow that nothing, neither diplomatic maneuvers nor hostile campaigns, nor propaganda worth billions of dollars, could undermine. The Moroccan does not yield. The Moroccan is faithful to his commitments. The Moroccan keeps his word, the Moroccan is aware of the diversity of his country but conceives it only in unity and cohesion. By deciding to make le 31 octobre "la Fête de l’Unité", His Majesty King Mohammed VI reactivates this vow and transposes it into the present time: Morocco’s unity is not a glorious memory, but a horizon built every day, a future forged on law and faith, diplomacy and perseverance, development and shared prosperity. For half a century, Moroccan diplomacy has patiently unrolled the thread of a clear strategy: defending Morocco’s sovereignty over the Sahara without ever yielding to provocation, making legitimacy prevail by reason and not by force. Recent résolutions du Conseil de sécurité have confirmed the soundness of this line. They endorse the seriousness and credibility of the Moroccan autonomy proposal, a realistic, modern path, consistent with the aspirations of the local populations and the entire Moroccan people who have adhered to it, fully understanding the sacrifice requested. **Conversely, Algeria persists in an anachronistic stance, entrenched in its support for Polisario, which no longer represents more than a shadow of itself. A movement built on lies, fake news, and propaganda worth billions of dollars. It is probably the most costly situation of its kind since humans existed.** No one has ever known how many Sahrawis truly followed Polisario, or how many, with the help of its patrons, it brought from Mauritania, Mali, Nigeria, Chad, and elsewhere to strengthen its ranks. The generosity of Gaddafi having greatly helped, it must not be forgotten! Today, Algeria is cornered into allowing le recensement des populations des camps and census means, in parallel, identification. The fixed discourse of the separatists no longer holds sway over reality: while the Tindouf camps are mired in waiting, the Southern Provinces of Morocco awaken to life, development, and dignity. The contrast is striking: there, immobility; here, construction. There, ideology; here, reality. "La Marche Verte" was never a closed episode; it has become a national doctrine, a founding story, a living myth, the belief of a nation: the oldest nation in the world. It has forged a rare national consciousness, made of loyalty and faith in the continuity of the Kingdom. In a world marked by fragmentation and wounded identities, Morocco has made its unity a compass, not nostalgia. In Laâyoune, Dakhla, Smara, Boujdour, or Bir Guendouz, the fervor of the October 31 celebrations says better than speeches the depth of this bond. These cities, once marginalized, today embody a Morocco on the move, confident, faithful to its roots, and looking to its future. *The South is no longer a remote part of the Kingdom: it is its beating heart.* The Sahara is a promise of the future, a development laboratory, and a strategic hub of the Kingdom. Investments in renewable energy, fishing, infrastructure, tourism, and logistics have transformed the region into an essential crossroads between Africa, the Atlantic, and Europe. Here is being experimented, in open air, the royal vision of a modern, balanced, and inclusive Morocco, a Morocco that leaves no region behind. The "Fête de l’Unité" is not just a tribute to the past: it is a projection into the future. The "Fête de l'Unité" tells Moroccan youth that unity is not a legacy to be admired, but a building to be built, constructed day by day, through work, loyalty, and faith in the nation, with an unyielding respect for the memory of sacrifices and a firm belief in the promise of continuity. On October 31, Morocco celebrates, but remembers: the soldiers fallen on the dunes, the diplomats who have defended the national cause on all the world’s stages, the pioneers who built in the sand the foundations of exemplary development. Through them, it is a whole country that looks at itself in the mirror of its history, not to indulge, but to draw strength to go further. *Because deep down, Morocco’s unity is not a political act; it is a historical truth, a state of mind, a visceral loyalty.* October 31 simply gives it a name, a date, a renewed breath. There is no unity without memory, nor memory without the future. Morocco has never celebrated the past for the past but always as an evocation to project into the future. It has never believed in a fixed memory rent. Strong in its history and regained sovereignty, it now advances with the serenity of those who have nothing to prove, only to pursue. Its DNA is special but never to isolate itself. On the contrary, the Kingdom sees itself as part of a world open to cooperation, freedom, and prosperity. *In the southern wind, in the distance, the same vow always resonates: One Kingdom, one soul, one destiny.*

Ahmed Attaf and the Thousand-Time Waltz... 4980

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
The latest appearance of the valiant Ahmed Attaf is strikingly different from what we have come to expect from him. Still hiding behind his habitual composure, he nonetheless lets a certain unease seep through this time. The man is embarrassed. He is at once a juggler, a tightrope walker, an acrobat, a dancer, and the regime’s fireman. He searches for his words, his sentences seem to cut his breath short. At times, he gasps. His statements are full of contradictions and twisted contortion, the very archetype of a diplomat out of breath, yet still skillful. In his role as firefighter, he tries to reassure domestically, even to timidly proclaim, yet proclaim nonetheless, a great victory. Algeria, he insists, has made the entire world, the USA first among them, bend to its will. As a juggler, he seeks to reassure the great powers, pretending modestly that his country holds no grudges, thus avoiding any offense to their sensibilities. A perilous exercise indeed, for soon he will be summoned to the negotiating table as a direct stakeholder. There, he will need all his ingenuity to escape the dictates of peace that the international community seeks to impose, a peace to be built with Morocco. He now perfectly understands that he can no longer sail under disguise: his country is directly involved. Behind his measured tone and carefully chosen words, his media appearance follows a precise logic built around three goals: calming the domestic front, preparing public opinion for a return to negotiations on the Sahara issue, and reaffirming Algeria’s red line: no normalization with Rabat. Like a skilled tightrope walker, he subtly boasts that the divergence with Washington and Brussels is “under control.” Indeed, the U.S. can very well understand the first two points—internal appeasement and preparation for talks, but fundamentally differs from Algiers on the question of rapprochement with Morocco. For Washington, this normalization is a cornerstone of its Atlantic-African strategy surrounding critical minerals, a key front in its rivalry with China. The European Union shares this view: it sees Moroccan-Algerian reconciliation as a prerequisite to reviving the Euro-Mediterranean project, which has been paralyzed for years by the rivalry between the two neighbors. Brussels and Washington may both believe that this strategic disagreement can be managed in the short term, since their common priority remains the resumption of negotiations on the Sahara, a stabilizing priority for the region. But everyone understands that the Algerian military regime sent Attaf to absorb the shock of the New York earthquake. His first mission, then, was to calm tempers after the blow dealt by the latest UN Security Council resolution, which reaffirmed the Moroccan autonomy plan as a serious and credible basis, indeed, the very outcome of the negotiation process. Morocco’s diplomatic success triggered a real shockwave in Algiers, where the regime fears that diplomatic defeat could turn into internal strife between different factions of power, particularly between the military hierarchy and the political front. To prevent such implosion, Attaf tried to rewrite the official narrative: the resolution, he claimed, was not a Moroccan triumph but an Algerian victory—Algeria had “prevented the imposition of the Moroccan agenda.” This interpretation blatantly contradicts the statements of Algeria’s own representative at the UN, who justified the country’s abstention by the central role given to the autonomy plan. Yet, in the media sphere, the maneuver worked. Attaf’s discourse found favorable echoes, even among certain critical circles within the regime. In truth, this appeasement operation also suits Washington and Rabat: it guarantees the stability of the Algerian regime and maintains domestic calm, conditions necessary to pave the way for future discussions without internal interference. Everyone is now working to prepare the ground for negotiations. Attaf’s second objective was to prepare national and international public opinion for the idea of returning to the negotiating table, in line with U.S. pressure to revive a concrete political process. The minister thus sought to present the UN resolution in a positive light, even calling it “a victory for the principles of the Sahrawi cause,” while claiming that Algeria would have voted in favor if not for a phrase mentioning “Moroccan sovereignty.” A clever balancing act, meant to narrow the gap between official discourse and diplomatic reality, and to justify a possible Algerian participation in new talks without appearing weak. This tactical repositioning remains fragile. If U.S. pressure were to ease, Algiers might once again resort to delaying tactics to stall or hollow out the process. But the Americans are not fooled, and they are in a hurry. From Morocco’s perspective, this evolution is far from unfavorable: Rabat favors a negotiated settlement, with no victor or vanquished, as long as autonomy remains the end goal. Algiers, for its part, seeks to preserve its red line, no normalization with Rabat. The third axis of Attaf’s communication was to avoid an existential danger for the regime: being perceived as yielding to normalization with Rabat under Washington’s pressure. In a scenario of heightened constraint, Algeria might accept a political solution on the Sahara issue, but without taking the diplomatic rapprochement step. To consolidate this stance, Attaf deliberately rewrote the lexicon of the UN text. Where the resolution speaks of “parties,” “political settlement,” and “autonomy,” he preferred “decolonization,” “referendum,” and “Sahrawi people.” This deliberate semantic shift aims to sustain the illusion that Algeria remains faithful to its doctrinal logic, even though the referendum scenario was abandoned by the United Nations nearly two decades ago. His media appearance was therefore not merely a diplomatic reaction to a UN resolution, but a carefully orchestrated communication operation. It pursued three objectives: to calm the domestic front, prepare public opinion for future talks, and reaffirm the refusal of any normalization with Rabat. Ironically, these very three lines of communication, meant to defend Algeria’s position, end up reinforcing the UN framework for resolution—the very framework that enshrines Morocco’s autonomy plan as the main reference, redrawing regional balances to the benefit of Morocco and its Western allies.

Morocco triumphs at the UN but remains humble and open... Algeria responds with denial... 5330

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
The United Nations Security Council vote, it must still be reminded, marked a decisive turning point for Moroccan diplomacy and the future of the region. “There is a before and after October 31,” said His Majesty the King. Through broad and unequivocal support for the Kingdom's position, the international community once again confirms the credibility of the Moroccan approach via the autonomy plan proposed since 2007. In fact, the international community thus salutes Morocco’s stability as a credible regional actor and highlights its immense efforts in developing the southern territories and their spectacular progress benefiting its citizens and the regional populations. This success is no accident: it results from a relevant, consistent, patient, firm, and humble royal vision, favoring dialogue and cooperation rather than escalation and provocation. His Majesty King Mohammed VI has never ceased calling for reason and cooperation for 26 years. Immediately after the vote results were announced, His Majesty once again called for direct and sincere dialogue with Algeria, addressing President Tebboune explicitly. The message is framed within a logic of peace and historical responsibility. The sovereign, far from being triumphalist, extends his hand once more to a neighbor who insists on hiding behind outdated slogans and archaic postures. This offered hand starkly contrasts with the rejection and even hatred that dominates the other side of the border. While Rabat multiplies gestures of openness, Algiers stubbornly remains closed to all dialogue, preferring a haughty stance, sterile confrontation, and counterproductive refusal of reason. A chronic resentment that surprisingly becomes doctrine. The reaction of Algerian media after the Security Council vote shows a mindset marked by disinformation, propaganda, hatred, and a mean-spirited aggression. Some statements on state television even questioned the integrity of the member states that supported Morocco’s position; others spoke, just hours after the vote, of a possible return to arms, as if war could remedy a stinging diplomatic failure. More worrying still, insults toward Morocco, notably the label of a country "in the pocket of the Zionists," reveal a level of extreme nervousness nearing loss of control. The word "makhzen," knowingly debased, is thrown to the wolves by debaters competing in buffoonery and comic exaggeration. Do they realize that this hateful language only strengthens Algiers’ isolation? By accusing the whole world of conspiracy, the Algerian military may not realize that diplomacy must be a realm of credibility and trust, not blind resentment. Meanwhile, the world watches and finally understands. Algeria neither seeks nor wants to be a partner in peace and construction. Today, the international community witnesses: Morocco proposes, Algeria blocks. Morocco builds, Algeria destroys. Morocco advocates cooperation, Algeria confrontation. From Washington to Paris, Madrid to Dakar, Seoul to Brasilia, Riyadh to Freetown, capitals have grasped the difference between a forward-looking policy and a stance frozen in outdated ideological nostalgia, laughable. The Sahara is no longer a matter of regional propaganda but a global stability issue: it touches the Sahel’s security, the fight against terrorism, and the balance of the entire North African space. Algeria’s obstinacy is costly, and the world is tired of it. By clinging to a matter in which it declares itself "not concerned," Algeria traps itself in an unbearable contradiction and a burdensome attitude. How long can this unsustainable situation persist without the international community intervening to end this obvious support to a group with dubious activities? The day fatigue increases, particularly in the United States, which could come soon, the temptation to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization would become possible and credible. This is quite plausible considering the separatists’ military activities, their regional ties with recognized terrorist groups, and their presence in an area rife with trafficking in which they actively participate. Nothing would prevent it since the idea is already circulating in the US Congress, introduced by Joe Wilson, who gathers much support. Algiers would then be in an untenable position, responsible for harboring, funding, and arming a terrorist group. Such a drift would expose the Algerian regime to its own contradictions and risks. Algerian insults, from officials and press alike, sometimes direct, sometimes barely veiled toward France, Spain, even the USA and now the Security Council and all those supporting the Kingdom will eventually take effect. Pushing the Polisario to declare that it will not participate in negotiations is just suicidal for Algiers. We must never forget that the future belongs to those who build, and that builder is Morocco, which has chosen the path of building a better future for itself and the region. The Kingdom has opted for partnership and peace. It consolidates its African leadership, strengthens its alliances, and modernizes its internal institutions. Its diplomacy is based on trust, coherence, and mutual respect—values that increasingly distinguish Rabat on the international stage. While Algerian rulers rehearse their grudges, the Kingdom forges ahead, confident in its successes, faithful to its principles, open to dialogue but firm in defending its vital interests. The royal message is clear. Morocco fears neither confrontation, nor disinformation, nor fake news, and will always prefer peace based on responsibility rather than the turmoil of misplaced pride. The joyful and highly significant demonstrations of Moroccan citizens immediately after the royal speech showed the world that the Sahara issue, for Moroccans, is not just a stance or a power game. Aware of the global stakes of the matter, protesters in Laayoune, Boujdour, Dakhla as well as in Tangier or Agadir did not fail to salute the powers that favored the vote of resolution 27-97 on October 31, 2025. Far from mocking Algerians, they celebrated for themselves and for the free world. Here, the issue is not emotional but genetic. Algeria and Algerians must integrate this and are called to reflect. The wind has truly changed and forever on October 31.

Quimbanda 5689

Tupan, 3 mon.
Quimbanda is a living, urban spirit-religion that took shape in Brazil’s port cities over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, drawing on Central-West African Bantu cosmologies, Indigenous American practices, popular Catholicism, and Kardecist spiritism. Where Umbanda is often described as the “right hand” (linha da direita) that emphasizes healing and moral elevation, Quimbanda is commonly called the “left hand” (linha da esquerda): it faces the gritty realities of desire, conflict, work, sex, money, and protection in the world as it is. Its spirits—above all Exus and Pomba Giras—are not devils in the Christian sense but powerful agents of the crossroads who negotiate paths, open and close roads, and mirror human passion with startling clarity. Historically, Quimbanda emerged alongside rapid migration, police repression, and racialized poverty. In this setting, its spirits became specialists in boundary spaces: thresholds, bars, markets, street corners, cemeteries—places where rules bend and deals are made. A gira (ceremonial circle) is noisy and social: drums mark the cadence, songs call the lines of spirits, smoke and perfume signal shifts in presence, and mediums incorporate to dance, speak, and counsel. Offerings are direct and sensorial—cachaça (distilled fresh sugarcane spirit), cigarettes, red wine, roses, roasted corn, spicy foods—because Quimbanda is about exchange: you give, you ask, you fulfill what you promised. Exu in Quimbanda is not the trickster-devil of missionary caricature, nor merely the messenger of Candomblé. He is a class of spirits with names, histories, and personalities—Exu Tranca-Ruas, Exu Sete Encruzilhadas, Exu Caveira—who work at specific “crossroads” (cruzamentos, encruzilhadas). Pomba Gira, often misunderstood through misogynistic stereotypes, is the sovereign of female desire, elegance, and cunning—Maria Padilha, Sete Saias, Cigana—teaching about autonomy, charisma, and the dangers and power of seduction. Together they deal with what is hard to sanctify in polite spaces: jealousy, breakups, court cases, job blocks, spiritual attacks, and the tangled ethics of obligation. Quimbanda’s ethic is pragmatic and accountable rather than abstractly moralistic. The spirits are not fooled by pompous speeches; they expect clarity, reciprocity, and follow-through. If a petition succeeds, you pay your offering. If you promised a mass for a soul, you schedule it. If you sought a binding or a separation, you accept the web of consequences that comes with bending social ties. Because of this directness—and because outsiders often conflate “left-hand” with “evil”—Quimbanda has long been stigmatized. In Brazil, racist and classist stereotypes have linked it to criminality and evangelical demonization has fueled persecution. Practitioners preach that Quimbanda is a sophisticated technology of negotiation with the spirit world, grounded in community, memory, and results. Lineages vary. Some houses are fiercely traditional, keeping a tight separation from Umbanda and Candomblé; others are “mixed,” with mediums who serve lines across religions. Some houses work almost entirely with Exu and Pomba Gira; others include male and female “people” of the cemetery, the sea, the forest, or the gypsy caravan—reflecting broader Brazilian spirit vocabularies. There are also differences in cosmology: a few lineages place Exu within a Bantu-inspired schema of forces (kalunga, the line between worlds; nkisi-like principles); others frame him more through Catholic and Spiritist lenses, emphasizing masses for souls, prayers, and moral counsel. What unites these forms is a shared grammar: crossroads as cosmological hub, offerings as contracts, incorporation as communication, and the conviction that spiritual power answers the problems of daily life. The sacred here is not faraway transcendence; it is the friction and flow of human bonds. In recent decades, global interest has created exported and hybrid forms of “Kimbanda/Quimbanda,” sometimes trimmed to a grimoire system for private ritual. Practitioners in Brazil often welcome exchange but worry about decontextualization—losing the songs, the humor, the streetwise etiquette that make the spirits feel at home. Many houses respond with public education: teaching that Exu is not the devil, that offerings belong in appropriate places and times, that consent and responsibility matter, and that tradition adapts without abandoning its roots. To meet Quimbanda is to meet a mirror. It does not promise virtue; it promises clarity about what you want and what it will cost. Its spirits love laughter and flamboyance, but they are exacting accountants of exchange. If Umbanda teaches the balm of light, Quimbanda teaches the courage to walk at night: to stand at the crossing, name your need, make your pact, and carry your word. If you do, the road opens—not because the world became pure, but because you learned how to move through it.

Reform, yes. Imitate, no. Morocco facing the parliamentary illusion... 6239

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- Politics - History - Society -
2.7 min read.
Everywhere it has been adopted, the parliamentary model shows its limits. In Europe, repeated political crises and short-lived governments multiply, fueling citizen disenchantment. In Israel, the succession of elections within a short period illustrates chronic instability. In Great Britain, the Brexit saga revealed the flaws of a system torn between electoral legitimacy and political fragmentation. Everywhere, the logic of fragile coalitions and opportunistic compromises has transformed parliamentarism into a machine of division and a conduit for populism. Wherever parliament fragments, crisis is assured: France is painfully experiencing this today. Yet it is precisely when parliamentarism is faltering that some question the country’s institutional balance, mentioning it anachronistically as an adequate model! This observation sparks a recurring debate; some circles, seduced by an imported ideal, propose to further “parliamentarize” the political system, or even to further reduce the institutional role of the Sovereign. An alluring proposal at first glance, but dangerously disconnected from national, historical, sociological, and deeply political realities; the institutional balance in Morocco has been forged by history in coherence with geography and demographic data. Morocco is not like other countries, and its people even less so. It is a nation-state marked by a distinct particularism that stands out among many others in the region and beyond. Since the 2011 Constitution, the country has advanced on a singular trajectory: that of a balanced constitutional monarchy, combining state stability and genuine political pluralism. This subtle articulation between the historical legitimacy of the Throne and the democratic legitimacy of other institutions has allowed the country to avoid the turbulences that have struck many states in the region, with disastrous consequences, it must be said. Within this framework, the sovereign does not present himself as a partisan actor but as an institutional arbitrator guaranteeing national cohesion and the continuity of ambitious reforms undertaken. Without this moral and political authority of great subtlety, the country risks sinking into the same deadlocks experienced by other fractured parliamentary regimes torn apart by factional quarrels and personal ambitions. Shifting the debate about systemic weaknesses and imperfections toward this subject dangerously distances one from the true issue: revitalizing and cleansing political life. Calls for an increased transfer of prerogatives to Parliament often miss the real problem: the weakness of the party system. The ailment of Morocco’s political system does not stem from an excess of monarchical authority but from a deficit of credibility among other political actors. The monarchy has never prevented parties from showing competence, coherence, or boldness. Too often, they have preferred rhetoric over action, abandoning the ground and responsibility. The challenge thus lies less in weakening royal power than in moralizing public life, enhancing parliamentary oversight, and demanding competence from elected officials. Democracy is measured not only by the formal distribution of powers but by the quality of their exercise and their impact on daily life and the course of history. Since independence, Morocco's strength lies in an immutable constant: reform without rupture, modernization without renouncing its foundations. This model, sometimes criticized in the name of an imported idealism and an ideology now collapsed after having caused much harm, remains one of the few to reconcile stability, openness, and ambition. Succumbing to institutional mimicry would be a strategic error in a global context where even great democracies doubt their own mechanisms. The Moroccan people, for the most part, know this. They are even deeply convinced of it. Some even go so far as to demand that all power be concentrated in the hands of the King; a way to loudly express their exasperation with the functioning of institutions they themselves elected. What a paradox it is to vote for people and then call on the King to rid us of them! Surprising, isn’t it? This is the particularism of this nation. Morocco does not need a regime change but a political and moral awakening. The monarchy, guarantor of continuity, is not an obstacle to Moroccan democracy: it is its backbone. Unity around it is the singularity of this country that has known how to traverse history, faithful to itself. This model is unique and arouses envy of all kinds. As Hassan II reminded us, democracy has no single definition. Each people must invent its own. This lesson remains strikingly relevant: Morocco will continue its own path, that of a thoughtful balance between authority and participation, tradition and modernity— a balance that is its strength and foundation of its stability. Morocco advances, and even in great strides. As for the adventurers and political sorcerers’ apprentices: prisoners of their contradictions, illusions, and failures, they will end up stranded on the shores of history. They advance masked by slogans: the communist suddenly becomes a fervent defender of human rights, and the Islamist discovers a democratic vocation. They simply forget that history has already judged them and that models are plentiful, and Moroccans know it. They are not fooled. This is not about those who have already made their mea culpa and repented, of course, but about all the others.

His Majesty King Mohammed VI: A Style Rooted in Responsibility, Justice, and Development for All 6683

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- Politics - History - Society -
3.2 min read.
Faithful to the line and logic he has established since the first day of his reign, His Majesty King Mohammed VI has once again confirmed his style. “Style is the man himself,” said Buffon in his famous speech at the French Academy in 1753. By this phrase, Buffon meant that style reflects the personality, thought, and sensitivity of the one who writes or speaks. In other words, the way ideas are expressed is as valuable as the ideas themselves, because it reveals, in a noble sense, what the man truly is: his character, rigor, taste, and intelligence. This reflection came to me from the very first steps of His Majesty as he descended from his car. His step is firm and his gait serene. He heads towards what represents a strong symbol of modern Morocco: the Parliament. The place where once a year the royal institution, the representatives elected by the people, and the government meet. An annual meeting that serves as a powerful symbol of the functioning and solidity of the country, just as Moroccans wished in 2011. All the country’s vital forces are there. His Majesty greets those present, all dressed in white, a symbol of purity. They scrutinize his gestures and hang on his words, their breaths low or heavy. The moment is serious. Eyes lower. Ears try to catch every word. Minds are focused. From the first words spoken, Buffon’s maxim is reversed: “Man is style.” The aphorism opens up another field of interpretation, perhaps more modern: style also shapes the man through education, culture, elegance in language and appearance. This is what was offered to us. His Majesty King Mohammed VI holds a fundamental conviction: institutions. Everything must happen within institutions and come only through institutions. On this October 10th, he reiterated this without ambiguity and with no roundabout phrasing. The words were finely chosen, but the speech was direct. Five key words will resonate beneath the beautiful dome. They will swirl above the heads of our valiant deputies and ministers throughout a full legislature: 1. Responsibility: His Majesty the King insisted on the seriousness and sense of duty of parliamentarians and the government in the final legislative year, emphasizing the necessity to act with integrity and efficiency in the service of the homeland. 2. Social Justice: A reaffirmed priority to fight inequalities and guarantee fair living conditions for all Moroccans, in line with national economic projects. 3. Reforms: A call to complete and accelerate ongoing structural reforms to consolidate the Kingdom’s democratic and socio-economic achievements. This is a key message of the speech. 4. Unity: The Sovereign launched an appeal for unity and the mobilization of all energies to defend the higher interest of the Nation and strengthen social cohesion. 5. Transparency: The promotion of transparency and citizen communication around public initiatives is highlighted as a key factor for trust and good governance. The royal speech of October 10, 2025, delivered by His Majesty King Mohammed VI before the Moroccan Parliament, marked a turning point full of hope and commitment for the final legislative year. The Sovereign strongly recalled the importance of “seriousness and sense of duty for the Nation’s representatives,” calling to “complete ongoing reforms, accelerate project implementation, and remain vigilant in defending citizen causes, while prioritizing the general interest.” One of the key elements of the speech is the undeniable coherence between economic ambitions and social programs. The Sovereign emphasized that there could be no contradiction between these two fundamental dimensions, which must imperatively “converge to improve the living conditions of all Moroccans and ensure balanced territorial development.” This vision underscores the royal commitment to build a Morocco where economic growth rhymes with social justice. His Majesty also insisted on the need for increased territorial justice, calling for integrated policies targeting the most fragile regions, such as mountainous areas, oases, or expanding rural centers. This approach aims to “facilitate access to services and stimulate local development,” while emphasizing “the importance of sustainable coastal management,” hinting at an ecological dimension and the possible threat of industries. These measures reflect a strong will for equity and territorial solidarity. In a spirit of unity, the Sovereign made a vigorous appeal for the mobilization of all actors, urging deputies and institutions to “mobilize all their energies in the supreme interest of the Nation” and to promote “transparency and citizen communication around public initiatives.” Facing the challenges, this unity is presented as a necessary force to support reforms and ensure the country’s sustainable progress. The speech fits a positive logic of institutional continuity, rigor, and collective ambition, making Morocco a “fairer, more modern and solidarity-based country.” Despite a national context marked by social movements, the royal message remains focused on constructive dialogue, fighting inequalities, and trusting institutions. This speech is thus a clear roadmap for a Morocco progressing with responsibility and justice, driven by an ambitious vision for a shared future. It confirms the style of a monarch adored by a people aware that everything must happen within institutions, in accordance with the constitution desired by the people’s will in 2011. Faithful to his convictions and his supreme mission as Commander of the Faithful, he recalls: “Whoever does the weight of an atom of good will see it, and whoever does the weight of an atom of evil will see it.” (Surah Az-Zalzala, verses 7 and 8). Az-Zalzala means “the great earthquake.” These verses express that nothing escapes divine justice: every act, no matter how small, will be accounted for on Judgment Day. The Sovereign’s choice is not accidental. Firmness is present. Isn’t he here making an extrapolation beyond the circumstance, in the most solemn context, to remind everyone of the imperative accountability and the firmness awaiting the corrupt and the deviants? These were the last words of His Majesty before this parliament, before concluding, and they are heavy, very heavy with meaning. The Monarch speaks little but says everything clearly and calmly. That is his style.

Walking Barefoot: The Urgency of a Political Awakening in Morocco... 5836

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- Politics - History - Society -
3.1 min read.
The current Moroccan context is intense, though not unprecedented. Morocco has experienced others before. The protests shaking several cities across the Kingdom, notably led by the collective GenZ 212, are not mere mood swings. They reflect a deep, multifaceted, and long-contained social anger. Inspired perhaps by youth movements seen elsewhere, these protests are rooted in a distinctly Moroccan reality: a young, connected, educated people but disillusioned with a system they believe no longer meets their expectations. This anger is multiple and undeniably legitimate, voiced on behalf of all generations. The demands focus on recurring but now explosive themes: fighting corruption, the deterioration of certain everyday public services like education and healthcare, the crisis of unemployed graduates, and dangerously widening social inequalities. To this is added a direct critique of the government's economic priorities. This youth, which no longer identifies with official rhetoric, expresses a new demand: a fairer, more transparent, and closer government. It calls for alignment between political speech and public action. This is not a depoliticized generation as some would like to think, but a generation that rejects pretenses and technocratic answers. It practices politics on the internet, often without realizing it. It speaks the language of everyday life: the price of chicken, healthcare, transport—not inflation rates or macroeconomic indices. It expresses itself through clicks, avatars, emojis, and stickers. It writes Darija in Latin letters and numbers. It seeks information quickly, responds instantly and succinctly. It dislikes long speeches it finds tedious. It lives in a globalized world but proudly claims its Moroccan specificity. When a citizen complains about the price of tomatoes, it's not an indicator’s graph or an IMF report that will reassure them; they speak in dirhams, not percentages. So what else can be done if not for decision-makers to walk barefoot from time to time? Walking barefoot means returning to reality. It means feeling the country. In this tense climate, the metaphor of the late Hassan II inviting architects to “walk barefoot to feel the country” takes on a striking resonance. Originally meant to emphasize understanding Morocco’s soul before building, it has become a political imperative today. Walking barefoot means stepping down from one’s pedestal, leaving air-conditioned offices, abandoning PowerPoints and slogans to listen to the ground. It means accepting to feel the dust of rural roads, hear the cries from saturated hospitals, share the despair of teachers, or the loneliness of unemployed youth. They must understand what a “two-speed Morocco” means, denounced by His Majesty King Mohammed VI himself. Part of the country lives in modernity, connected and optimistic, visible in infrastructure projects and international forums. The other, the majority, struggles with precariousness, poverty anxiety, neglect, and injustice. The gap between the two is widening. It is precisely this gap that the current protests expose. A few years ago, hope was born for a new development model, requested by His Majesty the King himself. What is its status today? Where is this model and its recommendations? The New Development Model (NDM), much praised at its launch, seems today to have been lost within bureaucratic and communication labyrinths. Its ambitions were high: reduce inequalities, strengthen social cohesion, encourage initiative. But on the ground, Moroccans hardly see the fruits. It has simply been forgotten. The prevailing impression is one of an increasing gap between promises and reality, between triumphant speeches and citizens’ daily life. This disenchantment is not only economic but also moral: trust is eroding, public discourse is losing meaning. Youth has forever been the moral compass of nations. It says out loud what others think quietly. The youth mobilization acts as a salutary shock. The movement is not monolithic: it unites students, unemployed youth, young workers, artists, teachers. But all share a common feeling: having been sidelined by a political and economic system that offers no prospects. This youth does not attack their country; it wants to save it from a threatening drift. It demands social justice, dignity, and respect. It wants not only to be spoken about but to be spoken with. It is a call for a rebuilding of social and political bonds, for genuine and sincere listening. The biggest mistake those in power could make is to underestimate this anger, or worse, to despise it. In a world where frustrations are expressed online before hitting the streets, ignoring youth voices sets the stage for a worse crisis. The urgency is to rediscover the spirit of this millennial country. Today, walking barefoot means returning to essentials: - Visiting village schools where children lack everything, - Visiting hospitals where some doctors perform miracles with nothing, but others are absent or resting after working elsewhere, - Listening to mothers who struggle to feed their families, - Understanding youth who refuse to live waiting for an administrative miracle. A country is not governed by PowerPoint slides, reports commissioned from foreign agencies, or promises crafted for social networks. It is governed with an awareness of reality, with the sense of the people, and the will to fix what hurts. Morocco has often proven its ability to overcome crises by reinventing itself. It still has the human, cultural, and institutional resources to do so. But this requires a change of perspective, a reconciliation with the truth on the ground, and a renewed political humility. Walking barefoot means reconnecting with deep Morocco, the Morocco that suffers but also hopes. It also means telling citizens hard truths when it errs and when it is itself the cause of its own misery. Walking barefoot means pushing young people to work and innovate. Only on this condition can social peace, national cohesion, and the country’s future be guaranteed.

The GenZ212 Letter: A Quest for Recognition and Royal Protection... 5815

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- Politics - History - Society -
2.6 min read.
Far be it from me to amplify the so-called letter from a collective claiming to represent GenZ212, but it is necessary to acknowledge that it deserves a critical reading and analysis to understand both its explicit and implicit content. Psychologically, the appeal to "express a need for recognition" is evident: the very act of addressing His Majesty the King directly reflects a search for symbolic validation. The authors seek to feel heard and to exist in the public space. The use of frustration language in their grievances conveys an emotional charge, mixing disappointment in economic, social, and identity challenges with aspirations for a better future. The letter reveals a tension between ideal and reality, illustrating a typical psychological divide of this generation: high ambition and demand but also fragility and a sense of powerlessness in the face of structural blocks. One can see a projection onto a paternal figure: His Majesty the King is viewed as the ultimate arbitrator, the supreme recourse, implicitly demanding protection and repair, which intermediate institutions have failed to provide. Sociologically, this is a generation searching for collective identity: the very name GENZ212 (212 being Morocco’s telephone code) reflects a claim of group identification, no longer just as isolated individuals. This highlights an emerging generational consciousness amid distrust towards established structures. The letter reveals criticism of the state, political parties, unions, and traditional institutions seen as disconnected from youth realities. This youth evolves in a world different from previous generations, using digital tools as leverage. The preference for direct channels (social networks, petitions, public letters) over traditional mediation reveals a sociological shift in collective action modes, underpinned by social and territorial inequalities. The grievances likely illuminate fractures in education, employment, housing, social mobility, access to culture, and health. These themes reflect a society where youth feel the social elevator blocked, aligning with the general sentiment and sadly overlooking many progress made. Politically, the letter acts as a symbolic contestation. Addressing His Majesty directly can be seen as implicit criticism of governance and intermediaries, bypassing classic political channels. It raises questions of legitimacy: GENZ212 does not speak for all Moroccan youth but claims to represent them, raising issues of representativeness and possible political co-optation. It is probably a signal to decision-makers: if institutional dialogue channels remain closed, youth may permanently turn away from institutions and radicalize their discourse. The positive point is a genuine bet on the future. By turning to His Majesty the King, they place trust in the royal authority to drive structural reform, a sign both of loyalty and failure of democratic mediations. The letter also invites critical reading of style and tone. The style is direct but sometimes naive. It adopts a frank, often unfiltered tone typical of young generations used to spontaneous expression on social media, blogs, or videos. This gives authenticity but sometimes sacrifices argumentative rigor and credibility. The tone oscillates between respect and defiance. The text addresses His Majesty with marks of deference while openly criticizing society and the state. This dual register expresses tension and hope: wanting to challenge political leaders while remaining within the bounds of monarchical loyalty. Use of collective vocabulary (“we, the youth,” “our generation,” “the country's future”) shows a desire to speak on behalf of a community. However, the overemphasis sometimes feels more emotional than programmatic. The language is symbolic and identity-focused, with no clear prioritization of grievances. The claims are listed as frustrations without clear structuring into priorities or concrete proposals. Thus, it is more a plaintive tone than strategic approach. The style is hybrid, mixing activism and advocacy, revealing hesitation between a militant manifesto and a petition addressed solemnly and respectfully to the supreme authority. This perfectly reflects a generation still finding its discursive register, convinced like its elders that improvements must come through the nation’s chosen and defended framework. The style and tone reinforce the letter’s heartfelt character: sincere, emotional, and collective. However, they suffer from lack of rhetorical maturity (weak structure, redundancies, slogans rather than solutions). Politically, the remarks aim to symbolically touch and spark public debate. The GenZ212 letter is thus a hybrid act combining psychological distress, sociological claim, and political gesture. It highlights: - A feeling of exclusion and marginalization among youth, - A need for recognition and direct listening, - A questioning of intermediaries, - A strong expectation towards the monarchy as guardian of justice and a radiant future. Ultimately, the GenZ212 letter is a quest for recognition and royal protection. It is worth noting that the phenomenon is not unique to Morocco and arrived through osmosis as it exists in many parts of the world. These movements are often amplified by digital platforms, turning isolated frustrations into collective mobilizations despite geographical or cultural differences, development gaps, and democracy levels. It is also important to note the proximity of manipulation and nihilistic speech impact.

GenZ 212: the Imperative of a New Political and Social Pact... 5813

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- Politics - History - Society -
2.6 min read.
In a Morocco pulsating with change, a new breath sweeps through its streets and squares. Imagine, for a moment, the gaze of a young person walking down the avenues of Rabat, their heart filled with an unshakable conviction: that their country must urgently rewrite its destiny, redefine its governance, and above all, give its youth the place they deserve, as builders worthy of their dreams. This Morocco, once proud of its 2011 Constitution born of a hopeful protest movement, now seems mired in suffocating practices that fuel frustration and stagnation. So many promises inscribed in that text have gone unfulfilled, so many provisions willfully forgotten. The demanding youth, thirsty for justice and inclusion, feel this deeply. For them, it is experienced as a painful fracture. The world is accelerating with a relentless rhythm, and that fracture is palpable everywhere: nearly 30% of Moroccans are under 30. Yet key decisions are made in the shadows, far from their aspirations, in the hands of aging elites clinging to power, elites who lack humility and bristle at lessons from the younger generation. The divide also runs through the youth themselves. Many passionate young activists, full of innovation, openly reject recent disturbances. “We do not want to be represented by incompetents, troublemakers, or those who tarnish our cause,” they assert firmly. Yet the feeling of exclusion burns in their words: “We are the future, the Morocco of tomorrow, yet we are pushed to the margins; our voices remain unheard.” Parliament, regional councils, political parties, impenetrable strongholds, all hold the keys to change tightly. How, then, can genuine reform be hoped for? Faced with this reality, the dream of profound overhaul goes far beyond mere formal adjustments. It calls for a genuine institutional leap, one that fully includes youth and neglected territories. Among the proposals are the reintroduction of generational quotas in assemblies to guarantee tangible representation, lowering eligibility ages to inject fresh air into politics, and creating consultative bodies where young voices are not just background noise but concrete levers for action. Ironically, the Youth Council envisioned by the Constitution, a space meant for unity and expression, remains a dead letter after three successive governments. Health and education issues have only served as detonators. The discussion quickly expanded into another battle: resistance to regional suffocation. Centralization, that stubborn relic, continues to strangle territorial potential. The promised regionalization of 2011 has never delivered the political and financial autonomy necessary for each region to become an independent engine of development. It is probably time for regions to truly decide their own paths, manage their resources, and drive their own projects, including in health and education. Far from weakening the Moroccan nation, this would strengthen it. At the heart of these debates lies a fundamental demand: national sovereignty built on inclusion and trust. In a fragile world fraught with economic, climatic, and geopolitical crises, Morocco must reinforce legitimacy through participation and justice. Was it not Mahdi Elmandjra who said, “A country that ignores the potential of its youth has no future”? Today, more than ever, a new social pact must emerge, based on justice, shared responsibility, and genuine participation. This youth, driven by unprecedented energy, has rediscovered courage. Rooted in history and loyal to the monarchy, it dares to envision a Morocco turned toward tomorrow. Democracy is no longer an abstract luxury, it is the sine qua non for sustainable development and a harmonious society, the key to forever breaking down the wall of a two-speed Morocco. This awakening Morocco calls for revising political mechanisms, an essential opportunity to build a fairer, more inclusive country where young people become masters of their destiny. They no longer identify with traditional models. They do not simply *live* on the internet, they *build* their professions, their world, their culture, and their lives there. Their universe is called Discord, TikTok, Instagram. It is not only a playground, but an exposed space where joys and frustrations are expressed, and where manipulation lurks. It is time for everyone to realize: this movement is irreversible. It moves in rhythm with a world in perpetual, exponentially accelerating change. We must accept it, fully embrace this deep transformation, and understand that **GenZ212** simply demands a new political and social pact. At the same time, this same GenZ212 must not overlook that today’s living conditions are far better than those of their parents, and even more so their grandparents, and that the country’s development indicators are largely positive, with a spectacular decline in poverty rates. Morocco is producing elites at a remarkable pace and now needs investments, reforms, and economic dynamism to absorb them. This transformation is underway, and it is the role of politics to explain it.

Candomblé 6100

Tupan, 4 mon.
Candomblé is an Afro-Brazilian religion rooted in West and Central African traditions that took shape in Brazil through enslaved Yoruba (Ketu/Nagô), Fon (Jeje), and Bantu (Angola/Congo) peoples. It is based on living relationships with the orixás (Jeje: voduns; Angola: inkices)—deities of nature and human experience—each with their own colors, rhythms, foods, stories, and temperaments. Ceremonies take place in a terreiro under the leadership of an iyalorixá or babalorixá, supported by ogãs (ritual musicians/guardians) and ekedes (female ritual attendants). Through singing, drumming on atabaques, dancing, and strict ritual etiquette, devotees cultivate and circulate axé (sacred vitality). The three main drums-rum. rumpi, and lê-have specific patterns for each orixá, and liturgical songs usually preserve Yoruba and Bantu words that transmit theology and history. During the ceremonies, the orixás may “take over” (sometimes called mounting) initiated mediums in spirit possession, bringing counsel and healing to the community. Offerings and sacred foods are prepared with rules of purity and respect; initiation is a long apprenticeship involving seclusion, ritual shaving (raspagem), obligations, and the building of one’s personal relationship with patron orixás. New initiates (iaôs) receive sacred objects and taboos (quizilas) that guide daily life and protect their axé. Divination—often performed using cowrie shells (jogo de búzios) or Ifá—guides decisions, diagnoses imbalances, and prescribes ebós (remedies/offerings). Many houses historically masked orixás with Catholic saints to survive persecution, yet Candomblé maintains its own theology, ritual language, and ethics. Each “nation” (Ketu, Angola, Jeje, and others) keeps distinct musical styles, liturgical languages, and ritual aesthetics while honoring common principles. The religion values humility, reciprocity, care for elders and initiates, and practical service—healing, protection, and community solidarity. Terreiros keep pejis (shrines) and sacred trees, and many lead environmental and social projects as an expression of respect for the natural forces embodied by the orixás. Public festivals mark the calendar with processions, communal meals, and songs that celebrate the houses’ lineages. Today Candomblé thrives across Brazil and the diaspora, adapting to modern life while safeguarding initiatory secrecy, ritual precision, and the dignity of African-descended wisdom. Despite ongoing prejudice, legal recognition and cultural pride have strengthened terreiros, allowing them to teach, serve, and preserve traditions for future generations.

Recognition of Palestine: Historic Gesture or Too Late? 5564

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
- World Politics - History -
2 min read.
The decision this week by several Western powers to recognize the State of Palestine could have been hailed as a founding moment in contemporary history. Coordinated and announced almost in unison, it seems to mark a decisive milestone in a conflict that has torn the Middle East apart for more than seven decades. Yet, between symbolic significance and concrete impotence, this gesture raises a dilemma: is it an act that will make history or a missed opportunity due to its tardiness? A recognition long awaited and especially delayed for numerous reasons, more or less understandable. Since the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the PLO in 1988, at the behest of the most alert Arab countries, with Morocco leading the way, marking the transition from an armed struggle bordering on terrorism to a reliable entity, a political interlocutor and partner, more than 140 countries, mainly from the Global South, have taken the step of recognition. It is the Western powers, particularly European ones, that were slow to align. Yet, their political, diplomatic, and financial weight could have, in the 1990s or 2000s, influenced the intense negotiations then underway and given substance to the two-state solution promoted by the Oslo Accords. By choosing to act today, in a context where the prospect of a viable Palestinian state seems more distant than ever, many facts having shifted on the ground, the Western powers appear to recognize more the legitimate cause of a people than they make it effective. The Oslo Accords have been bypassed and are now worthless. What remains is the symbolic weight of recognition. However, it would be reductive to minimize the significance of this gesture. In the diplomatic arena, official recognition could be a major symbolic weapon: it would confer additional legitimacy to Palestine, strengthen its positions in international bodies, and create a political precedent. For Israel, it sends a clear message: the patience of its traditional allies may have eroded in the face of the deadlock of the status quo and the continued expansion of settlements in particular. Unfortunately, it also reveals Western impotence. Beyond the symbol, the reality remains harsh: Gaza remains under siege, the West Bank fragmented, and East Jerusalem under constant tension. Without coercive mechanisms, without economic or diplomatic pressure, these announcements risk remaining a moral signal rather than an instrument of transformation. In other words, the West writes a declaration in history but without real control over its course, even though it is decisions by this same West that are at the origin of the extremely dramatic situation in the region. So, what will we talk about after time has taken its toll? Has the West marked or missed history? The recognition of the State of Palestine by these Western powers remains an important diplomatic step but also reveals a paradox: it comes at a time when the solution it was supposed to endorse seems more distant than ever. To make history is to act when action can change the fate of peoples. To miss it is to settle for observing, too late, what history has already decided. The ambiguity is there: this is a gesture heavy with symbols but weak in concrete effects, and above all, a meeting probably too late to have the historical impact it could have had two or three decades ago. It remains to address the Palestinians themselves: The numerous militant factions attached to unsavory causes and ideologies should cease their harmful game and all should align around an intelligent and achievable line. Palestinians should seize the opportunity with pragmatism and especially independence in their way of understanding, seeing, and acting. Perhaps this is the condition for these recognitions to weigh on the course of history.

At 80 years old, the UN wavers between its founding ideal and tragic impotence… 5601

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
As every year, at the end of September, the opening of the General Assembly seeks solemnity, and is often described as historic. But is the world really gathered here to decide its future? Is it truly within these walls that decisions that matter are made? As always, it falls to the Secretary-General to make the assessment and take stock. Before the General Assembly in New York, the Secretary-General of the United Nations once again gravely recalled the primary purpose of the Organization, born 80 years ago as a bulwark against chaos, war, and barbarism. The UN, he stressed, has never been an abstract ideal, but a pragmatic tool to safeguard humanity’s survival through three pillars: cooperation, law, and peace. Yet the tone, the words, and the expressions of the valiant Secretary-General left no doubt: he is powerless, and his organization is withering. One could sense he himself was shaken by the bleak diagnosis he delivered about our times. This founding reminder was followed by an implacable assessment: the principles of the UN Charter are increasingly flouted. Wars, invasions, famines, and climate crises are multiplying. From Sudan to Ukraine, from Gaza to the Sahel, deep in Africa, conflicts take root and drag on, with hardly a glimmer of hope for a just resolution. Whole generations will bear the mark. The scars will not fade any time soon. Truth and human dignity are instrumentalized, while social and environmental fractures deepen. With a tone mixing lucidity and anxiety, the Secretary-General posed the question underlying his entire speech: *“What world will we choose?”* He then shifted into a more diplomatically acceptable address, tinged with a hint of optimism. True to his role, he outlined five crucial choices for the future. Will he be heard? He knows perfectly well the answer is no. **1. Peace rooted in international law.** He called for condemning violations of the Charter and the impunity of aggressors. He pleaded for ceasefires, an end to foreign interference, and a reform of the Security Council. Yet that very evening, bombs would still fall, and innocent bodies would still litter the ground. **2. Human rights as the foundation of peace.** Equality, dignity, and social justice were placed at the heart of the speech. But are we truly equal before the law? Who still believes it? **3. Climate justice.** Weary, the old man reminded the Assembly of the urgent need to accelerate the energy transition, denouncing fossil fuel subsidies and pointing to the colossal financial needs of the Global South: $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. But what is that word “justice” worth in a world where the president of the leading scientific, economic, and military power dismisses renewable energy as a “scam”? Who is to be believed? **4. Technology in the service of humanity.** Artificial intelligence was cited as a major challenge: a promise of innovation, but also a risk of autonomous weapons, mass surveillance, and new digital divides. He called for a universal framework of governance. But who will respect it, other than those already respecting the rules? **5. Strengthening the UN for the 21st century.** The Secretary-General denounced the glaring imbalance between military spending and investments for peace, calling for a renewed and effective multilateralism. Yet in this hall designed to gather humanity around universal values, who is still listening? Is multilateralism not dying a quiet death, abandoned by the great powers themselves? The speech was meant to be solemn and mobilizing. Words were carefully chosen: impunity, chaos, famine, horrors. Rhetorical questions and binary oppositions (“brute force or laws?”, “the law of the strongest or universal rights?”) punctuated his address. Through the collective *“we”*, António Guterres recalled the preamble of the Charter: *“We, the peoples of the United Nations.”* But, like a weary sage, he mostly sketched a political and moral roadmap. As a lucid man, he knows his speech will change nothing. He has done his duty. He absolves himself. This speech, to which only tears were missing, was not just an assessment, but a call to action. It sought to reaffirm the central role of the UN and to underline that the challenges of our time—wars, climate, artificial intelligence, human rights—transcend borders. Between the lines, the central message was clear: revitalizing multilateralism is not an ideological option, but a vital necessity. But vital for whom? Facing a fragmented world, the UN wishes to become once again the voice of unity and hope. But to whom is this message addressed, if not to the powerful who stopped listening long ago? The rest of the world will applaud. Future generations will judge. *“Le machin” (“that thing”), as De Gaulle once called it, has never seemed so powerless.* Now comes the turn of the fine speeches of those present. Speeches carefully written by scribes and *performed* by a few actors and many extras. In any case, see you next year—no doubt with more injustice, more suffering, more lawlessness, more tragedies, and more meaningless deaths.

Moroccan Sahara: De Mistura's Statement, A Diplomatic Turning Point or a Headlong Rush 5763

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy for "Western" Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, made a statement in Italian, his most comfortable language for expressing emotions, that was remarkably frank. His tone, unusual for a diplomat, was direct and unambiguous. In essence, he said that the Moroccan Sahara conflict is not a "decolonization" issue but rather an indirect confrontation between Morocco and Algeria. He thus broke a diplomatic taboo and deconstructed a narrative sustained for fifty years with billions of dollars by a military regime from another era, which projects its frustrations and shortcomings onto this conflict. For the first time, a UN emissary publicly said what researchers, diplomats, and observers have been repeating behind closed doors for nearly half a century. Since the Green March in 1975, the Sahara question has been marked by two irreconcilable narratives. Morocco rightly considers this territory an integral part of its territorial integrity. History and geography prove this. This position is now supported by Washington, Paris, Madrid, London, most Arab countries, and nearly 110 other UN member states. Morocco, acting in good faith for decades, has spared no effort to find common ground with its eastern neighbor. Tired of Algeria's chronic and toxic animosity, Morocco proposed an autonomy plan for the region in 2007, within the framework of its sovereignty. Since then, nearly the entire international community views this proposal as the only feasible one. In reality, it is the only one on the table: the opposing party has never offered a credible solution apart from the partition of Morocco. Algeria, meanwhile, supports its proxy, the Polisario Front, militarily, diplomatically, and financially, while denying direct involvement in the conflict. Algeria continues to call for a self-determination referendum that has become unrealistic as demographic, political, and security balances have shifted. It is worth recalling that Algeria deliberately obstructed a referendum that King Hassan II himself had proposed. Until now, the UN had maintained a façade of neutrality, speaking of a "political process" under its aegis. But everyone knew that behind the polished phrases, this was a strategic power struggle between Rabat and Algiers. In this context, how should De Mistura’s comments be understood, if not as a calculated move ahead of a crucial Security Council meeting? This time, it came after several powers, notably the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, openly supported Morocco’s autonomy initiative. Two interpretations are possible: - Is it pressure on Algeria to publicly acknowledge its central role? De Mistura thus pushes Algeria to take responsibility and abandon its comfortable posture as a "mere observer." - Is it a recognition of impotence? The Italian diplomat implicitly acknowledges that the UN has failed to impose a solution, and that the outcome now depends on a political power balance within the Security Council. In either case, Algeria stands more contradictory than ever. For fifty years, Algiers has contributed to freezing the conflict, at great cost: - A lasting blockage of Maghreb integration, depriving North Africa of vital economic integration; - Eroding regional opportunities in energy, trade, and collective security; - A burden on the international community, with a UN mission (MINURSO) unable to fulfill its mandate, but whose funding and costs continue indefinitely. This policy has gradually isolated Algeria diplomatically, while Rabat gains increasing support, especially after the US recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory in 2020. Are we finally moving toward a historical clarification? The central question now is whether the Security Council is ready to take a step forward. Two options present themselves: - Fully endorse the Moroccan approach, recognizing the autonomy plan as the only serious negotiation basis; - Or maintain the diplomatic fiction of a decolonization process, risking prolonging a conflict that undermines the UN’s credibility and regional stability. By confronting Algeria with its responsibilities, De Mistura has changed the tone of the debate. Even if his gesture can be read as a sign of frustration or a last warning, it has the merit of bringing political reality back to the forefront. The future of Western Sahara no longer depends on technical reports or ambiguous language: it requires clear political will. Sooner or later, that will must end a costly historical anomaly in the Maghreb, Africa, and the world, which also weakens the credibility of the multilateral system. Staffan de Mistura has gone further than his predecessors. At the very least, he deserves the medal of candor. The Security Council will no longer read the question the same way and must change course, the wind has definitively turned.

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa 6387

Tupan, 4 mon.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486–1535) was a German polymath, physician, soldier, and occult philosopher whose writings laid the intellectual foundations for much of the Western esoteric tradition. He is best known for his magnum opus, *De Occulta Philosophia Libri Tres* (Three Books of Occult Philosophy), a comprehensive synthesis of magic, Kabbalah, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and Christian mysticism. In Agrippa, the currents of the Renaissance—scientific curiosity, classical revival, and spiritual yearning—converged in a deep and somewhat controversial body of work. Born in Cologne in 1486, Agrippa was educated in classical literature, theology, and law, but he also immersed himself in the esoteric arts—alchemy, astrology, angelology, and ceremonial magic. He traveled widely across Europe, engaging with scholars, nobility, and religious authorities. He often served as a physician and lecturer, while simultaneously pursuing his deeper passion for the hidden structure of reality that he believed could be revealed through magickal philosophy. Agrippa was a direct student and correspondent of Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516), the abbot of Sponheim and a key figure in early modern magical and cryptographic studies. Trithemius, known for his own influential work *Steganographia*, served as a mentor who inspired Agrippa’s lifelong pursuit of hidden knowledge and spiritual science. He also encouraged Agrippa to refine his ideas on occult philosophy into a systematic form, which would later become *De Occulta Philosophia*. In *De Occulta Philosophia*, Agrippa organizes magick into three interconnected worlds: 1) The Elemental world, governed by natural philosophy and the powers of the four elements (earth, water, air, fire). 2) The Celestial world, influenced by the movements of the stars and planets—i.e., astrology. 3) The Intellectual or Divine world, ruled by angelic hierarchies, divine archetypes, and the mysteries of the Kabbalah. For Agrippa, true magick was not superstition but a sacred science, a means by which the human soul could ascend through the created order toward union with the divine. He viewed the magician not as a manipulator of forces for selfish ends, but as a philosopher-priest who, through study, virtue, and divine illumination, could harmonize with the cosmos and act as a mediator between heaven and earth. Yet Agrippa’s life was marked by tension and contradiction. He often ran into problems with church authorities, accused of heresy or subversion. In his later years, he published *De Incertitudine et Vanitate Scientiarum* (On the Uncertainty and Vanity of the Sciences), a scathing critique of dogmatic knowledge, including his own magickal writings—though many scholars interpret this as rhetorical irony or spiritual disillusionment rather than renunciation. Agrippa died in 1535, likely in Grenoble. Though seen by some as a charlatan and heretic, his influence endures until today. His Occult Philosophy became a cornerstone of Renaissance magic, shaping later figures like John Dee, Giordano Bruno, and Eliphas Levi. Even modern Hermetic and ceremonial traditions—such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn—owe much to Agrippa’s system of correspondences and metaphysical cosmology. Nowadays, Agrippa is recognized not merely as a magician, but as a pioneer of symbolic thought, a bridge between medieval mysticism and modern esotericism. His work continues to guide and inspire those who seek the hidden harmonies of the universe—through reason, reverence, and the transformative power of the imagination.

Green March, Algerian Plots, and International Diplomacy: The Sahara at the Heart of Contemporary History 7020

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The Moroccan Sahara, which became a Spanish colony in 1884, was liberated following the Green March, an unprecedented peaceful mobilization initiated by King Hassan II. The Kingdom had grown weary of the fruitless démarches undertaken at the UN before the Fourth Committee since its independence. Once the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was obtained, recognizing the existence, at the time of colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and the tribes living in the Sahara territory, Morocco took action. From November 6 to 9, 1975, 350,000 volunteers, armed only with the Quran and the national flag, marched toward the Sahara, symbolizing the popular will to reintegrate this territory, historically an integral part of Morocco’s sovereignty, just as the part attached by France to postcolonial Algeria. Several citizens from various nations took part in this epic. Since Kadhafi and Boumediene viewed this liberation, which reinforced Hassan II’s stature in Africa and worldwide, with hostility, they sponsored the Polisario, a movement claiming to liberate a supposed Sahrawi people. Quickly, the Polisario was heavily armed and supported by the pro-Soviet and communist regimes of the time, in the name of peoples’ liberation. The term “Spanish Sahara” disappeared, and even “Moroccan Sahara” vanished from discourse. Through clever propaganda, the duo imposed a new terminology: “Western Sahara.” In reality, Algeria sought to remove from the border dispute with the Kingdom the part of the Sahara it occupies. It must be recalled that during colonization, some areas of the Sahara were administratively attached to French Algeria. These originally Moroccan territories, called by France the “Southern Territories,” were not part of the three traditional Algerian departments: Algiers, Oran, and Constantine, but were under military administration. They were gradually taken from the Sharifian Empire’s territory. From 1902, these "Southern Territories" grouped several Saharan regions under French military control. This special arrangement lasted until 1957, when departmentalization was extended, but the Sahara remained under distinct management. These areas, administered within French Algeria, included all the regions now forming part of the Algerian Sahara. Morocco, refusing to negotiate border issues with France, had an agreement with the Algerian government-in-exile for the restitution of these zones after independence. Those who took power in Algiers at liberation dismissed the agreement outright. Thus, from 1975 onwards, a war, logistically supported by Kadhafi, Boumediene, Cuba, and others, was waged against Morocco, which was caught off guard by the enemy's army size. The UN then intervened, claiming to maintain peace in the region. True peace was only achieved in 1991 when Morocco reversed the power balance and captured thousands of Algerian soldiers and officers, including the well-known Said Chengriha. They were released thanks to mediation by Egypt, led by Hosni Mubarak, himself a former prisoner of the Moroccan army in 1963, sent by President Anwar Sadat, and above all due to Hassan II’s generosity, who never wanted to humiliate his defeated neighbor. The UN then created the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), with Morocco providing a demilitarized zone for its operation. Several envoys of the Secretary-General succeeded each other with the mission of bridging positions. All failed because in this matter, there is mostly bad faith, jealousy, intent to harm, and financial interests. In short, an artificial conflict. All resigned and went on to enjoy peaceful retirements. Since France abandoned Algeria to its fate, North Africa has never been peaceful. There was the Sand War against Morocco, led by Algeria and a coalition of Arab military regimes, and also the Algerian military invasion from the east where part of the Tunisian Sahara was taken. Hassan II told De Gaulle at the time that Algeria would become Africa’s cancer. This country was built on the blood of its martyrs, but their sacrifice was usurped by a military junta that endures and revels in perpetuating conflicts, notably regarding Morocco’s southern territories and, recently, with Mali. The last UN mediator, Staffan De Mistura, perhaps facing a deadlock, reportedly proposed an anachronistic solution: partition of the territory between Morocco and the Polisario. An idea that ignores the political, legal, and diplomatic reality, now largely consolidated in favor of Morocco. One wonders on which foot he got up that day. He could not have ignored that Morocco will never accept partition nor the establishment of a country under Algeria’s influence on its southern flank. Already forced to recognize Mauritania, Morocco will not make the same mistake again. Staffan De Mistura’s idea is totally out of step with international consensus. Three permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, Spain, the former occupying power, as well as nearly 120 other countries, have officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over "Western Sahara." Some have even established consulates there. This support is no accident but the result of a coherent diplomatic strategy, recognition of the Kingdom’s right to defend its territorial integrity, and successful efforts to integrate these provinces in a perspective of development and regional stability. Boutros Massad, special advisor to President Trump, unequivocally reminded Mr. Staffan De Mistura that only the Moroccan solution is acceptable. Proposing a partition amounts to circumventing this consensus by giving credit to a “mercenary” movement composed largely of foreigners and supported exclusively by Algeria. Rather than fostering peace, this approach perpetuates the status quo and risks a direct conflict between Morocco and Algeria, weakening the UN’s legitimacy as guarantor of respect for international law. Morocco has presented a credible alternative to this artificial conflict. Initiated in 2007, this project offers inhabitants wide political, administrative, and economic autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. This is already the case: almost all administrative and representative responsibilities are in their hands. The Polisario today faces a decisive turning point: accept this plan and hope to play a role, yet to be clarified, or reject the offer and risk isolation and disappearance without political gain. As for Algeria, it has already lost everything: billions of dollars and a losing cause. Its leaders will have to answer to the Algerian people.