Think Forward.

History

Magickal Paths 259

Tupan, 1 d.
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... 881

Aziz Daouda, 6 d.
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... 2260

Aziz Daouda, 17 d.
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... 2421

Aziz Daouda, 19 d.
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 3076

Aziz Daouda, 26 d.
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... 2938

Aziz Daouda, 27 d.
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... 3289

Aziz Daouda, 30 d.
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... 3637

Aziz Daouda, 1 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 3951

Tupan, 1 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... 4706

Aziz Daouda, 2 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 5364

Aziz Daouda, 2 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... 4766

Aziz Daouda, 2 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... 4741

Aziz Daouda, 2 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... 4769

Aziz Daouda, 2 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 4830

Tupan, 2 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? 4402

Aziz Daouda, 2 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… 4267

Aziz Daouda, 2 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 4334

Aziz Daouda, 3 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 4769

Tupan, 3 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 5460

Aziz Daouda, 3 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.

Gematria 5801

Tupan, 3 mon.
Gematria is a system of alphanumeric substitution in which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is assigned a numerical value. This allows words and phrases to be translated into numbers, and those numbers can then be compared, analyzed, and interpreted to reveal hidden meanings, symbolic relationships, or mystical insights. Gematria is a central technique in Kabbalistic thought, where it serves as a tool for uncovering the deeper structure of sacred texts, especially the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). The term "gematria" is believed to derive from the Greek word geometria, or possibly from a conflation of gramma (letter) and metron (measure), reflecting the art of measuring letters through numerical equivalence. Although most closely associated with Jewish mysticism, gematria has parallels in other traditions, such as Greek isopsephy and Arabic abjad numerology. In the Hebrew system, the 22 letters of the alphabet are assigned values, and with them, any Hebrew word can be reduced to a numerical sum. The word for "life" (chai, חַי), for example, is composed of Chet (8) and Yod (10), totaling 18. This is why the number 18 holds special significance in Jewish tradition. Gematria becomes especially powerful when words or phrases share the same numerical value. For example, the words Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) and HaTevah (הַטֶּבַע, "the nature") both sum to 86, suggesting a mystical identity between God and the natural world. Such equivalences are not considered accidental; rather, they are believed to reveal the hidden architecture of divine creation encoded in scripture. There are several forms of gematria: Standard Gematria: Using the basic letter-to-number values. Mispar Gadol: Adds the value of final forms (so-called "final letters") as their own distinct higher values. Atbash and Albam: Ciphers that replace letters based on alphabetic inversion or shifting, creating additional layers of interpretation. Ordinal Gematria: Assigns numerical values by sequence (Aleph = 1, Bet = 2, etc., up to Tav = 22). Kabbalists use gematria not merely for intellectual exercise but as a form of theurgical meditation. By contemplating the numerical relationships between divine names, commandments, and sacred texts, they seek to elevate their consciousness, reveal veiled meanings, and harmonize with the divine structure of the universe. In modern esotericism and Hermetic traditions, gematria has been adopted into systems of Western occultism, especially within Hermetic Kabbalah, the Golden Dawn, and Thelema. Practitioners often compare Hebrew, Greek, and English gematria to examine words and magical formulae, aiming to unlock multidimensional significance in magical texts and ritual language. Gematria is both a science of sacred number and a spiritual art. It unifies language and number, matter and spirit, exegesis and revelation. Through its perspective, letters cease to be mere symbols—they become vessels of divine energy, revealing a universe where nothing is random, waiting to be uncovered.

Sacred Geometry 6442

Tupan, 3 mon.
Sacred geometry is the study of universal patterns, proportions, and forms that shape the structure of the cosmos. Based in both mystical philosophy and natural law, it proposes that certain geometric principles—such as the circle, the triangle, the square, and the spiral—are not mere abstractions of the human mind, but archetypal patterns embedded in the very fabric of existence. From the crystalline structure of minerals to the arrangement of galaxies, from the spiraling of galaxies to the loops of a seashell, sacred geometry reveals the fundamental harmony that unites all levels of being, from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Historically, sacred geometry has been used in nearly every advanced civilization. In ancient Egypt, temples were constructed in accordance with geometrical harmonies to mirror the cosmic order and to serve as portals between the earthly and the divine. In Greece, Pythagoras and his initiates viewed numbers and forms as the essence of all reality, with the tetractys—a triangular arrangement of ten points—symbolizing the unfolding of the universe from unity into multiplicity. Platonic solids, which are the only five regular polyhedra that exist in three-dimensional space, were seen as the geometric building blocks of the classical elements: earth (cube), air (octahedron), water (icosahedron), fire (tetrahedron), and ether or spirit (dodecahedron). The circle is the most fundamental and infinite of all shapes, representing unity, eternity, and the divine source. From it arises the Vesica Piscis, formed by the intersection of two circles, symbolizing the intersection of spirit and matter, or heaven and earth. This sacred figure originates other key patterns such as the Seed of Life, Flower of Life, and Tree of Life, each a progressively complex map of creation and emanation. These patterns are found carved into sacred sites around the world, not as decoration, but as invocations of cosmic harmony encoded in symbol. At a more esoteric level, sacred geometry is not only the structure of physical matter but also the architecture of consciousness. Every line and angle becomes a glyph of spiritual truth. In the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, for example, the Sephiroth are arranged in a precise geometric pattern that mirrors the process of divine emanation from the Infinite (Ein Sof) into the manifested world. In Islamic architecture, intricate geometric mosaics reflect the infinite within the finite, pointing to the divine through abstraction and mathematical beauty. In Eastern mandalas, sacred geometry functions as both map and mirror—a diagram of the universe and a guide to inner stillness. The mystical power of sacred geometry resides in its ability to bridge the material and the metaphysical. Geometry is not only a tool for measuring space but a sacred science that unveils the divine intelligence at work in all things. To contemplate these forms is to enter a state of resonance with the universal order. When one meditates upon the proportions of a golden spiral or the interlocking symmetry of a mandala, the soul begins to remember its own original harmony. Sacred geometry is not a human invention, but a revelation—a language through which the cosmos speaks to itself. It is the alphabet of creation, the blueprint of form, and the silent song of order hidden in the chaos of appearances. Whether found in cathedrals or pinecones, in the fractal of a fern or the plan of a pyramid, these shapes serve as portals to remembrance. They whisper that behind all things lies a unified design, and to perceive it is to glimpse the mind of the divine.

Le Monde and Morocco: Deconstructing a Biased View of a Revered Monarchy... 6490

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
The newspaper Le Monde, founded on the recommendation of General De Gaulle in the context of the Second World War in 1944, is internationally renowned for its investigative journalism and analytical capability. However, it often displays a biased approach when it focuses on the Kingdom of Morocco. The article published on August 24, 2025, titled "In Morocco, an atmosphere of end of reign for Mohammed VI," symptomatically illustrates this tendency, which deserves a response by also recalling the conflictual relationship the newspaper has had with the Kingdom almost since its inception. The impression is that it is probably the fact that Morocco is a Kingdom that bothers or disturbs the paper. The relationship to monarchy, particularly from the French left, is not unrelated to this ideological stance. For a long time, Le Monde's editorial coverage of Morocco has avoided neutrality. Since the time of Hassan II, the paper frequently adopted a critical tone, sometimes unjustly severe, offering a European reading framework that often reduced the complex Moroccan political reality to a caricature. Between interpretations disconnected from reality and unfounded insinuations, the treatment of the country has often been limited to a black-and-white vision, marginalizing the concrete nuances of its evolutions and its centuries-old history. It must be reminded that the Kingdom, as a nation-state, existed long before what is today called France. It therefore has its own codes and its own evolution and worldview. The newspaper's stance, inherited from a postcolonial reading marked by a basic socialism fixed on the image of an immutable authoritarian power and a society on the brink of upheaval. Journalists seem to relive by proxy the years before 1789. Conflations and romanticized interpretations are the rule. Returning to the article, would the King of Morocco be a misunderstood sovereign? Is the Kingdom, for its part, so little known to the journalists of "Le Monde"? Would the secular Moroccan people simply be a copy of the people of medieval France? Or is it simply an ideological stance blinding the paper? The mention of an "atmosphere of end of reign" in the recent article betrays profound ignorance coupled with a dubious hypothesis. In reality, no tangible sign of decline emerges, quite the opposite. The Moroccan people show notable attachment to their monarchy perceived as an essential pillar for stability, development, and national cohesion. A simple observation of social networks would have spared the authors from such errors, for since 1999, under the impetus of King Mohammed VI, Morocco has achieved important reforms. These are advances that took France two centuries. How can one forget to mention the country’s major achievements in such a short time: - Sustained economic growth in several strategic sectors, generating jobs and sustainable prospects. - Modernization of the family code (Moudawana), a symbol of major social progress, particularly regarding women's rights. - Adoption of a transitional justice policy favoring reconciliation and healing historical wounds. - Establishment of mandatory medical coverage, expanding access to healthcare for all. - Assertive diplomacy recognized on the African continent and internationally, demonstrating a well-thought-out, forward-looking strategy. - The Kingdom is preparing to host the Football World Cup, a sign of great trust from the international community. These successes, however glaring, are overlooked by the authors because they contradict a sensationalist narrative of monarchical decline which appeals to some French circles nostalgic, under the surface, for the monarchy they killed. The article recklessly mixes rumors, outdated clichés, and baseless hypotheses, portraying power as frozen, aging, and oppressive. The author consciously ignores the multifaceted reality of a country at the crossroads of ancient traditions and sustained modernization. The depiction of a "twilight" reign reflects a condescending gaze, reminiscent of dominant stereotypes that often reduce the Arab and African world to narratives of instability and decline. Contrary to the dark picture painted by Le Monde, contemporary Morocco under Mohammed VI pursues a dynamic trajectory, marked by concrete progress and real stakes, aligned with popular expectations. Rejection is not expressed through a distancing from the monarchy, but by a demand for thoughtful, gradual reforms that respect traditions and institutions. In this context, speaking of "end of reign" stems from a mistaken reading that distorts the actual function and role of monarchy today. Here, it is essential to claim rigorous journalism based on documentary research and pluralism, finally freeing itself from postcolonial reflexes and a condescending gaze. Morocco cannot be reduced to an exotic subject of study or a testing ground for imported scenarios. More than a relic, the monarchy embodies a central lever of a nation in motion, led by lucid and committed leadership. Le Monde’s editorial past seems to weigh heavily on its analysis of current events in Morocco. By assertively stating an "atmosphere of end of reign," the article disconnects its diagnosis from the social, economic, and political realities shaping the Kingdom. The achievements show a sincere will to articulate traditions and modernity, stability and popular aspirations, in a difficult regional environment that the country has managed with discernment. By omitting these elements, favoring unfounded rumors and finished stereotypes, the text promotes an alarmist narrative that harms both truth and constructive dialogue, feeding prejudices inherited from an outdated postcolonial vision. Thus, far from a predicted decline, Morocco traces a path based on conscientious leadership, rooted in a millennia-old history and attentive to current challenges, looking towards a hopeful future. It is time for Le Monde to renew its gaze with honesty and respect, going beyond clichés and integrating the diversity of the Moroccan voice. The arrogance of an external view must never outweigh lived reality. Readers of this newspaper, as with others when it comes to Morocco, deserve balanced, non-partisan, and open information reflecting the richness and depth of a society and a Kingdom in full transformation, faithful to its institutions and its sovereign.

Ukraine and Sudan: Two Conflicts, Two Different Perspectives... 6259

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
The entire Western world gathered in Washington a few days ago. Since his return, President Trump has been trying to save what remains of Ukraine, and the Europeans genuinely do not want this to happen behind their backs. Unable to play a decisive role, they at least want to be present. Their credibility is at stake, and above all, their image before the rest of the world. Overheated by a Europe whose reach exceeds its power—a Europe increasingly powerless—Ukraine has endured and waged a war it believed it could win with Western support. To date, it has lost 20% of its territory, and it is far from over. Instead of dealing directly with Vladimir (Putin), Volodymyr (Zelensky) thought it wiser to seek support from those who had already been insufficient since delegating their defense to NATO, and thus to the United States. The Europeans will learn this the hard way: one cannot wage war without the means to do so. That same world remains silent about what is happening in Sudan. It is considered less “interesting.” Two generals, generals in name only, have launched a militarized competition to seize power, just days after signing an agreement to share it. Since then, the situation has deteriorated. Every day, lives are lost, women are raped, and millions of people wander the desert, their only refuge. For the Western world, perhaps—I emphasize perhaps—they are just Africans, mostly believing themselves Arabs, killing each other. The war in Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region, remains one of the most tragic and deadly conflicts since its outbreak in April 2023. This war mainly pits two rival forces against each other: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti,” former leader of the Janjaweed militias. The latter, along with their allied Arab militias, are responsible for massive massacres, especially targeting the Massalit people and other non-Arab groups in Darfur. In essence, those who consider themselves Arab are killing and driving from their lands those they do not recognize as their own. The BBC has just released an investigation and documentary on this subject, which should stir collective conscience, if any human conscience remains willing to watch. The conflict is primarily a power struggle between the two military leaders who, it should be recalled, had signed a pact to govern the country jointly. The sudden slide into armed clashes has spread to several regions, notably Darfur, where the RSF and their allies stand accused of grave abuses. The Janjaweed, militias identifying as Arab and formerly supported by former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, are active again under the RSF banner, committing ethnic-based violence openly. Also involved are the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA/SLM), the historic rebels of Darfur, fragmented between Minni Minnawi and Abdelwahid Mohamed al-Nur. The scale of the massacres is terrifying. According to the UN, in Al-Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, between 10,000 and 15,000 Massalit civilians were killed between June and November 2023 by the RSF and allied Arab militias. More broadly, over 150,000 have died in two years throughout Darfur, with 13 million displaced—half the Sudanese population—pushed to the brink of famine. NGOs like Doctors Without Borders warn of imminent massacres in cities such as El-Fasher, heavily besieged. The violence also includes destruction of civil infrastructure, schools, and mosques. Systematic sexual violence is another tragic facet of the massacre. Following a deadly attack a few days ago, Doctors Without Borders just closed the only hospital still operating in Zalengei, the regional capital, making any medical activity impossible. This is not the first hospital to be forced to shut down. Despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the international response remains mostly ineffective. Although the United States and the UN officially acknowledge the severity of the genocide, their direct interventions and sanctions remain timid. The African Union and the UN struggle to deploy forces capable of enforcing peace and upholding international law. Arab countries exert no notable pressure on Hemedti or Burhan, the latter having long wielded significant influence in Sudan. This silence is interpreted by many observers as complicity, seen as a form of institutional racism that devalues African lives, especially those of the Massalit victims of the RSF. The fact that Hemedti and his allies claim an “Arab” identity while attacking so-called “African” groups, according to some, contributes to the indifference of Arab nations, more preoccupied with their regional dynamics than human rights. International Muslim organizations have also failed to take a forceful stand, despite frequent religious instrumentalization by the warring parties. The conflict is also marked by a profound religious contradiction: murder, injustice, and war among Muslims are explicitly condemned by Islam, except in cases of self-defense or struggle against oppression. Yet, the massacres in Darfur are regularly denounced as contrary to these principles by Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders, though these condemnations have had little tangible effect on the violence. This crisis has triggered the world’s largest current humanitarian emergency, with 13 million displaced. Access to medical care, food, and shelter remains grossly insufficient. Civilians live in extreme insecurity, caught in ethnic and political struggles manipulated by power-hungry warlords. The international community, Arab countries, and Muslim actors appear to be shirking their responsibilities, allowing this tragedy to continue in alarming silence. This situation challenges not only global collective conscience but also the real capacity of international institutions to protect the most vulnerable populations from such vast violence. The situation in Darfur and greater Sudan is a stark and urgent call for attention. The hope remains that the wars in both Ukraine and Sudan will end swiftly, as in both cases it is innocent generations paying the price of violent conflict.

Greater Israel: A Threat to Peace and Stability... 6461

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
The past few weeks have been marked by rather disturbing statements from certain Israeli leaders, reigniting the fundamental debate around the borders of the Hebrew state. Since its creation in 1948, following a UN decision, Israel has never officially and permanently defined its borders—a unique situation that undermines regional stability as well as the credibility of international law. This absence of clear demarcation has severe consequences for a climate already marked by deep mistrust, both within the region and beyond. This situation is often exploited by those who do not stop calling Israel a "cancer" in the region. Unlike the majority of states, Israel did not specify its borders in its declaration of independence. The lines recognized internationally today are those of the 1949 armistice, known as the "Green Line," but they have been constantly altered by wars and territorial expansions, notably after the Six-Day War in 1967. Since that date, Israel has occupied the West Bank, annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, while Gaza Strip, occupied and then evacuated in 2005, remains subjected to strict control. Following recent developments consequent to October 7 and Israel’s disproportionate response, the current government no longer hides its intention to proceed with a new annexation. These recent declarations revive tensions, notably with references to "biblical borders." There is only one possible interpretation here: the outright annexation of the West Bank and a direct threat to neighboring countries. Statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister Smotrich, and other coalition members demonstrate a desire to maintain confusion, especially as ultranationalist voices continue to invoke the notion of "Greater Israel." This concept, based on religious texts, encompasses territories far beyond internationally recognized borders, potentially extending over the West Bank and even parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. This is all the more worrying as this position faces only ineffective or inaudible denunciations from Arab countries, weakened by repeated divisions and contradictions within Palestinian ranks, exhausted by the sabotage of initiatives on both sides, and aggravated by the barely disguised interventionism of Iran, which has succeeded in bribing a Palestinian faction that weakens the cause, undermining any possibility of peace. This faction, so radicalized, has become an objective ally of Israel and is labeled a terrorist group. Simultaneously, there is the complicit inaction of Western countries, who plead only half-heartedly against various abuses. Underlying this is an anachronistic construction, a 19th-century invention aimed at masking centuries of Christian antisemitism—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant: Judeo-Christianity. This striking conflation serves to oppose Western civilization to the rest of the world, notably the so-called Arab world. By this conflation, at least in appearance, a hatred that has persisted since the first Christian martyr Stephen, stoned by the Pharisees, is buried. A hatred that has never ceased. Faced with this imbroglio, there is nothing but the chronic impotence of the UN. The question of respect for international law and the definition of Israel’s borders should pose a major challenge to Western powers, especially the United States. Historically, the UN was at the origin of Israel’s creation with Resolution 181 of 1947, but today it proves powerless against the country’s expansion and voluntary absence of border delimitation. Resolution 242, demanding withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, has never been implemented, just like all resolutions involving the Hebrew state. Western countries, though allies of Israel and holders of significant leverage, have so far refused to compel Israel to comply with international norms, limiting themselves to diplomatic calls for the resumption of negotiations and recognition of a Palestinian state, especially since the beginning of this summer. To this, Israeli leaders respond with categorical refusal and an intermingling of antisemitism with opposition to or criticism of a government’s politics. For the current government, there is no room for maneuver: either one accepts the Israeli diktat, even when it involves violations of international law and denial of Palestinians’ human rights, or one is antisemitic. People forget that Palestinians are Semites too... This generates deplorable tensions with unfortunate consequences for many countries, as De Gaulle might have said. If not stopped, these recent developments will undoubtedly increase the risk to global stability. Until now, popular dissent in the region has been controlled, even prohibited, but for how long? The absence of recognized borders and the normalization of using religious narratives to legitimize possession of illegitimate lands constitute a direct threat to regional and global stability. To dare evoke "Greater Israel" is to legitimize expansionist aspirations, stir fear among neighbors, and fuel instability. In his recent speeches, the Israeli Foreign Minister does not hesitate to present the possibility of a Palestinian state as an existential threat to Israel. The current government does not want a Palestinian state, which remains the only foreseeable and logical solution for Israel’s very security, while maintaining ambiguity over territorial outlines can only perpetuate the conflict and block all prospects for lasting peace. Beyond the strategic and religious considerations, it falls to the international community, particularly Western countries, to take responsibility and finally demand that Israel define its borders in accordance with international law, as is the case for every other state. Without this perspective, any political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain a dead letter, with the ongoing risk of global conflagration. Israeli citizens must also take their responsibility. Continuing to vote for extremists is in no way a guarantee of security but rather a threat to the future of the children on both sides, even though a life in peace is possible. Many Israelis know this and shout it with all their might, but their calls remain unheard. It is with them that peace must be built, and they are numerous within Israel itself and across the world, particularly in the United States.

Ley Lines: The Invisible Currents of Earth’s Sacred Geometry 6587

Tupan, 4 mon.
The concept of ley lines suggest the existence of invisible pathways of energy that crisscross the Earth, forming a network of subtle energy, ancient alignment, and spiritual resonance. Though the term “ley line” was first coined in 1921 by the English antiquarian Alfred Watkins (1855-1935)—who noticed that many ancient sites in the British landscape aligned along straight tracks—the concept is even older, echoing geomantic traditions across cultures that recognized the Earth as a living, breathing being with its own circulatory system of sacred force. Basically, ley lines are believed to be channels of Earth's energy—similar to meridians in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)—which connect sites of spiritual, astronomical, and historical significance. These may include standing stones, megalithic temples, pyramids, cathedrals, burial mounds, and crossroads. In the East, these currents are known as dragon lines or "lung mei" in Chinese geomancy (feng shui), while in South America, the Inca referred to similar energetic pathways as "ceques", radiating outward from the Coricancha Temple in Cusco. From an esoteric standpoint, ley lines are neither arbitrary nor merely symbolic. They are understood to follow the electromagnetic shape of the planet—interacting with telluric currents, magnetic anomalies, and planetary grid systems. At certain points where multiple ley lines intersect, energy becomes concentrated, forming what are known as power nodes or vortex points. These nodes are believed to amplify consciousness, enhance ritual, facilitate spiritual contact, and sometimes thin the veil between the seen and unseen worlds. Places such as Stonehenge, the Giza Plateau, Machu Picchu, Glastonbury Tor, and Mount Shasta are frequently cited as residing on these potent intersections. Mystically, ley lines represent more than geological curiosity—they are conduits of planetary consciousness, arteries of Gaia herself. In Hermetic and occult traditions, the Earth is viewed as a macrocosmic body, complete with chakras, nadis, and energetic organs. Just as the human body channels prana through subtle pathways, so too does the Earth transmit vital energy through her leys. To walk these lines consciously, or to work magically upon them, is to participate in the planet’s own alchemical process—aligning human intention with terrestrial intelligence. In this context, the concept of ley lines resonates with the Gaia Theory, proposed by James Lovelock (1919–2022) and Lynn Margulis (1938–2011). This theory pictures Earth as a self-regulating, living system in which the biosphere, atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere are deeply interconnected. Just as Gaia Theory suggests that the planet maintains balance through feedback loops, ley lines can be seen as subtle energetic channels through which this regulation occurs. From an esoteric perspective, these currents mirror Gaia’s own physiological processes—arteries circulating life-force and sustaining the interdependence of all beings within the planetary organism. Many practitioners of geomancy, dowsing, and ritual magick believe that ley lines can be activated or aligned through offerings, ceremonies, sound, and sacred architecture. Temples and churches built upon these lines often reflect celestial alignments, forming a harmony between heaven and earth. Some traditions hold that ancient initiates placed monuments at ley crossings not merely as markers, but as resonant structures designed to stabilize or modulate the flow of planetary energy. There is also a mythical and cosmological layer to ley line theory. In Arthurian legends, Glastonbury is not only a place on a map but a threshold to Avalon—an invisible world accessible through altered states or alignment with the land’s living current. In this way, ley lines serve as the nervous system of a planetary intelligence, a kind of spiritual cartography through which initiates navigate both terrestrial and cosmic realities. Though scientific consensus does not validate ley lines as measurable phenomena, their enduring presence in sacred geography, myth, and ritual suggests they function on a level beyond conventional empiricism. They invite the sensitive and the intuitive to perceive the Earth not as inert matter, but as a divine organism—alive, aware, and in communion with those who learn to walk her lines in reverence.

Confiscated Freedoms: El Harrach and Tindouf, Two Faces of the Same Oppression... 7248

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
It was while reading, moved, the heartbreaking letter from Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, addressed ultimately to everyone, that the idea for these few lines came to me. In this letter, written from El-Harrach prison, Sansal fiercely denounces the political repression and arbitrary incarceration imposed by the Algerian regime. This denunciation quickly made me think of the tragic situation of the population confined by the same regime for nearly fifty years in the Tindouf camps in Algeria. My thoughts wandered randomly between the zealots who are there, like my high school friend Sadati, bearers of a chimera; those who stay there without even knowing why; those who have aged there; those buried there; and those born there. It is on these last that my thoughts particularly lingered. The Tindouf camps shelter a few thousand young people born in exile, rather exposed where their parents ultimately did not choose to be, under extremely harsh conditions. For many, they are not even originally from the coveted lands nor bear any claim. They mainly depend on humanitarian aid, live in total precariousness, and see their well-being deteriorate, while those living just a few miles away enjoy abundance, comfort, and rights. They did not ask to be there and dream, like all their peers, of a better life, which truly exists on the other side. Unlike a traditional prison with visible walls, like El Harrach, the Tindouf camps are an open-air prison, a constrained space where these youths are held without trial, without hope of freedom, nor any possibility of returning to their homeland—not by their own choice, but that of their jailers. The common point between El Harrach and Tindouf: the sordid game of a military regime from another era. This prolonged situation strikingly evokes the deprivation of freedom suffered by the detainees of Tindouf and the Algerian political prisoners Boualem Sansal describes in his letter. Both embody the same silenced voice, the same hope confiscated by the whims of officers who only carry the name, and by a military caporalism that, since 1962, continuously invents enemies, uses torture, repression, and deprivation of fundamental rights to maintain its grip on one of the richest countries in the world. This regime has stifled all democratic expression, from annulling election results to the spectacular assassination, broadcast live on television, of President Mohamed Boudiaf, sending a message of terror to the whole people. Recently, it brazenly repressed the peaceful Hirak protests and imprisoned their leaders. This regime no longer hesitates to mistreat even its most loyal servants. Randomly, prime ministers, ministers, high dignitaries, businessmen, generals, and journalists, even foreigners, find themselves subjected to quick trials where only the voice of their master resounds. They end up in the same prison, the famous El Harrach. In his letter, Sansal expresses the physical and moral pain of a man imprisoned for having evoked history, dared to defend justice and dignity. His words carry the voice of all those whom the regime seeks to silence. This captive voice painfully echoes the fate of the youngsters held in Tindouf, also deprived of their most basic freedoms and condemned to endless waiting in a desert environment, hostile and hopeless. Far from being a mere analogy, this comparison reveals a universal reality: whether behind bars or in the vast inhospitable desert, deprivation of freedom, forced exile, and broken hope remain the instruments of relentless political oppression. For these youths, the "march through an endless desert" is both a physical ordeal marked by extreme poverty, scorching heat, and isolation, and a metaphor for their quest for identity, dream of regaining their freedom, and joining the motherland. Beyond denunciation, in his letter, Sansal makes a solemn appeal to France, asking it not to sacrifice its values on the altar of mercantile contingencies. The same appeal is addressed to the international community, on behalf of the young detainees of Tindouf, so that human rights principles are not sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical interests. This appeal is all the more relevant facing the situation of these youths, many of whom are not even originally from the Moroccan Sahara but are still imprisoned in a situation of exile and oblivion. Thus, behind two different walls, a prison cell and undocumented, unrecognized refugee camps, lies the same tragedy: human beings reduced to waiting, to deprivation of liberty, and to a silent struggle not to disappear. This convergence highlights the urgency of strong humanitarian and political action to end these imprisonments so that freedom of thought, of living, and of deciding one’s own destiny is never again captured by an oppressive political machine, devised and implemented by an anachronistic military staff. Thank you, sir, for awakening in me this fiber of compassion, even pity, for young people who deserve to live a better future. I take here again Boualem Sansal’s words, which I address to the youth imprisoned in Tindouf: *"Fear is a prison larger than the one where I find myself, and it is harder to break. But I know that one day, the wall will fall. Dictators always end up falling."* Youth of Tindouf, You will break the barbed wire, you will cross the checkpoints to return home by the strength of your character and the power of your will. Your country, that of your ancestors, the Kingdom of Morocco, awaits you; the future opens its arms to you; life will smile upon you for eternity, you will taste freedom there, the joy of living, of building yourself and of ensuring a happy future for your children. Your dreams will come true there and your ambitions will be realized. You will be the continuation of your ancestors in a diverse and powerful nation as it has been for centuries. You will help enrich humanity by your knowledge, your creativity, your genius. You just have to dare.

The Seven Chakras: A Metaphysical Anatomy of the Soul 7917

Tupan, 4 mon.
Throughout the ages, esoteric traditions, yogic sciences, and mystical philosophies have described the human being as more than flesh and bone—as an energetic organism with subtle centers of power, perception, and spiritual potential. Among these systems, the doctrine of the seven chakras stands as one of the most refined and symbolically rich models of inner transformation. These chakras—meaning “wheels” in Sanskrit—are vortexes of energy located along the body axis, each responsible for specific aspects of consciousness, physiology, and spiritual evolution. From the densest energies of survival to the most ethereal states of divine union, the chakras form a ladder of ascent, guiding the soul towards enlightenment. The Root Chakra (Muladhara), located at the base of the spine, is the foundation of the entire energetic system. It governs physical survival, grounding, and the instinct for self-preservation. Associated with the element earth, it links the individual to the material world and the ancestral lineage. When balanced, it grants stability, trust, and a strong connection to one's body and environment. When blocked or deficient, it manifests as fear, insecurity, or disconnection from the physical plane. Spiritually, Muladhara represents the coiled energy of potential—the kundalini—awaiting its ascent through the higher centers. The Sacral Chakra (Svadhisthana), situated just below the navel, is linked to creativity, sexuality, and emotional fluidity. Associated with the element water, it reflects the soul's capacity to feel, to relate, and to generate life—physically, artistically, or spiritually. It is the seat of desire, pleasure, and procreation, and its energy is relational, connecting the self to others through intimacy and shared experience. When in harmony, it allows the free expression of emotion and creative force. When imbalanced, it may result in emotional instability, guilt, or addictive tendencies. Svadhisthana is where passion and refinement meet. The Solar Plexus Chakra (Manipura) is the center of personal power, will, and self-definition. Aligned with the element fire, it is related to transformation, ambition, and the assertion of the individual will. It is through Manipura that one develops a clear sense of identity and the strength to act upon purpose. When balanced, this chakra radiates confidence, motivation, and integrity. An excess may produce domination or pride, while deficiency results in passivity or low self-worth. Spiritually, Manipura is the alchemical forge where ego begins to be disciplined and transmuted into conscious intention. The Heart Chakra (Anahata) is the gateway between the lower and upper chakras, and the center of unconditional love, compassion, and spiritual empathy. Associated with the element air, it expands the sense of self to include others, fostering connection, forgiveness, and inner peace. An open Anahata transcends personal desire and embraces unity, allowing one to love without attachment and to serve without self-interest. Imbalances may manifest as emotional coldness, grief, or over-dependence. Spiritually, this chakra is the sacred rose of divine love, unfolding toward the eternal. The Throat Chakra (Vishuddha) governs expression, communication, and the power of the word. Linked to the element ether (or sound), it represents the capacity to speak truth and to manifest thought into form through language. It is also the seat of inner listening and alignment between inner truth and outer expression. When open and balanced, Vishuddha enables authentic speech and artistic expression. When blocked, it may result in silence, dishonesty, or miscommunication. At the spiritual level, it is through this center that the magician, mystic, or initiate learns to wield the sacred word—the logos—as an instrument of transformation. The Third Eye Chakra (Ajna), positioned between the eyebrows, is the seat of inner vision, intuition, and higher perception. It transcends rational analysis and opens the gates to symbolic insight, dreams, and clairvoyant awareness. Associated with the light element or pure mind, it integrates the polarities of logic and imagination, allowing one to perceive patterns, archetypes, and spiritual truths. A balanced Ajna chakra produces clarity, insight, and an awakened inner compass. Imbalance may cause delusion, fantasy, or disconnection from reality. Mystically, Ajna is the eye of the soul, through which one perceives the invisible architecture of the cosmos. The Crown Chakra (Sahasrara), located at the top of the head, is the highest center of consciousness, representing union with the Divine, cosmic intelligence, and spiritual liberation. Unlike the other chakras, Sahasrara is not governed by an element but by pure consciousness—chit—itself. It is symbolized by a thousand-petaled lotus, forever unfolding into infinity. When this chakra is fully awakened, the individual transcends ego and merges with universal will, experiencing profound bliss, silence, and liberation. Imbalances may manifest as spiritual disconnection, nihilism, or excessive intellectualism. At its highest vibration, Sahasrara is not a center of power but a doorway to the return to the Source. Together, the seven chakras form a living mandala of human potential. They are not merely energetic centers but evolutionary thresholds, each inviting the soul to purify, awaken, and integrate aspects of the self on its path toward unity with the divine. When harmonized, these chakras become a ladder of light—a sacred ascent from survival to transcendence, from matter to spirit. The awakening of the chakras is thus not an end in itself, but a means of returning to wholeness, where the human becomes a conscious expression of the infinite.

A Last Chance: The King of Morocco’s Message to Algeria on the Sahara Issue... 14112

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
His Majesty the King's speech, delivered on July 28, 2025, on the occasion of the Throne Day, carries particular significance in a diplomatic context that is admittedly new but has been developing for a long time. The recent circumstances are marked by the tour of Massad Boulos, father of one of Donald Trump’s sons-in-law and special envoy of the President to the region. These circumstances are further highlighted by the remarks before the U.S. Congress of the newly appointed ambassador to Rabat, who is very close to the President. Richard Duke Buchan III did not mince words: the Sahara is Moroccan. He knows the region well, having been ambassador to Spain. This situation says a lot about the current dynamics of the conflict over the Moroccan Sahara and about Algeria’s troubled stance on this issue. In his widely followed speech, eagerly awaited and well-reported by Moroccans due to the rarity of His Majesty's words, the King of Morocco emphasizes the repeated "outstretched hand" offered by Rabat. He stresses the brotherhood between the Moroccan and Algerian peoples while underlining the constancy of his position. The goal is to exert moral and diplomatic weight, presenting an image of responsibility and openness while implicitly denouncing Algerian obstruction. This rhetoric effectively offers a way out for Algeria, which is becoming isolated on the international stage. Addressing the Algerian people, His Majesty essentially calls them to witness. By explicitly highlighting growing support for his proposal, notably recent backing by the United Kingdom and Portugal, His Majesty sends a message with a dual meaning: *- Morocco enjoys increasing support for its autonomy proposal, which legitimizes its position broadly supported by the West, the Arab world, the majority of African countries, and others; - At the same time, Algeria is becoming increasingly diplomatically isolated, as confirmed by the awkward silence regarding the Sahara issue in official statements, especially after the American special envoy’s visit.* The speech disregards the new realities and moves directly to a constructive proposal for dialogue within a fraternal framework. On the other side, the absence of any mention of Western Sahara in Algerian official statements following Boulos’s meeting with President Tebboune is particularly telling. Added to this is the recent statement by the Lebanese president, made in the presence of Tebboune and his close entourage in the heart of Algerian power. He thanked the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Morocco for their involvement in resolving the political crisis in his country, without a word about the Sahara. The tone of Joseph Aoun’s voice is grating to the aligned guards. Faces are tense. This reflects either a political unwillingness or inability of Algeria to publicly address this subject under international pressure, except in the presence of marginal countries. There is also an embarrassment or divergence between the regional political reality and Algerian diplomatic communication. The fact that the American special envoy continues his tour, with a clear mission, according to Trump, "to end this artificial conflict," demonstrates international determination to promote a resolution favoring Morocco’s proposal. At least, this can be inferred from Trump’s letter to His Majesty on the occasion of the Throne Day. Are we nearing a scenario similar to the resolution of the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC? His Majesty the King’s renewed call can be seen as a last resort, a final offer of appeasement: an opportunity for Algeria to step down from its stubborn stance without losing face, relying on a credible and internationally accepted proposal. Morocco has shown both patience and firmness. The next step now depends on Algeria’s choice. Unfortunately, instead of an official response, the Algerian authorities have communicated indirectly through media channels, some of whose outrageous remarks are perplexing. They even claim that the King of Morocco eventually threw in the towel in the face of Algeria’s intransigence. The lifeline extended by the King to a languishing regime is perceived as a mere sponge by the very one who needs it. A pity. Algeria now faces its contradictions, confronted with a complex constraint. Continuing to support the Polisario means further entrenchment and a risky isolation, both regionally and internationally, with an even greater threat of political weakening internally. The country suffers from an unprecedented economic crisis, limiting, due to a lack of foreign currency, imports that are vital to the economy and the people. Recurring electricity and especially water cuts in several regions add to the difficulties. The dilapidated state of cities is perplexing. Tebboune’s reassuring talks do not lessen the bitterness of the population. Heeding Morocco’s call would allow Algeria to reposition itself politically without losing face; explicitly refusing dialogue is increasingly costly and diplomatically unsustainable. Algeria risks sinking into a crisis that benefits neither its international credibility nor regional stability, and even less its domestic stability. The involvement of the American special envoy in the region, the discretion regarding the Sahara case in Algerian communiqués, and the King of Morocco’s speech all point to the same reality: the status quo can no longer continue. The generous and wise royal appeal is indeed a last chance offered to Algeria to escape the deadlock, avoid international political embarrassment, and preserve some dignity for its leaders. By opting for dialogue, Algiers would also save face internally, with a population that has been fed a hatred of the Kingdom for five decades and sacrificed for a cause that brought only misery and disappointment. What does the population feel when it sees mercenaries occupying part of its territory, parading at its expense, pretending to lead a bogus “republic”? The international context, with major actors clearly engaged for a pragmatic resolution, reduces Algeria’s room for maneuver. Will Algeria seize this opportunity to redirect its policy, or will it continue a costly and potentially harmful strategy? In that case, there will be only one loser: Algeria. The regional and international momentum is accelerating every day in favor of the Moroccan proposal. This is the meaning , and only the meaning, that should be given to the Throne Day speech of the King of Morocco.

The Golden Dawn 13917

Tupan, 4 mon.
It is impossible to discuss about magick without mentioning The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. It was founded in the late 19th century and stands as one of the most influential occult societies in modern history. Emerging during a period of intense fascination with mysticism, spiritualism, and ancient wisdom, the Golden Dawn synthesized a wide range of esoteric traditions—Hermeticism, Kabbalah, alchemy, astrology, Tarot, Rosicrucianism, and Enochian magic—into a structured, initiatory system. Its teachings and rituals laid the foundation for much of today’s ceremonial magic, influencing major occult figures such as Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), Dion Fortune (1890-1946), Israel Regardie (1907-1985), and even elements of Wicca and New Age spirituality. The Order was formally established in 1888 in London by three Freemasons—William Wynn Westcott (1848-1925), Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (1854-1918), and William Robert Woodman (1828-1891)—who claimed to have received authorization to form the group from mysterious German Adepts through the discovery of a cipher manuscript. This document allegedly contained the outlines of a magical order structure and provided the inspiration for the Outer Order of the Golden Dawn, which focused on ceremonial ritual, magical symbolism, and spiritual transformation through the Tree of Life in the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition. The Golden Dawn was hierarchical and initiatory, with members progressing through a series of grades based on the Qabalistic Tree of Life, each corresponding to deeper levels of metaphysical understanding. The Outer Order (or First Order) focused on theoretical knowledge—Hermetic philosophy, astrological correspondences, geomancy, and the use of symbols, especially those from Egyptian and classical sources. Students were trained in ritual magic, visualization, and the manipulation of elemental and planetary energies. The Second Order, known as the Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (RR et AC), was an inner circle reserved for initiates who had demonstrated proficiency and inner development. Here, the emphasis shifted from theory to practical and ceremonial magic, including advanced work in scrying, spirit evocation, Enochian magic, and astral projection. Members of the Second Order were tasked with performing complex rites, often involving magical tools such as wands, swords, pentacles, robes, and the use of consecrated temples. One of the Order’s most innovative features was its integration of diverse traditions into a coherent symbolic and ritual framework. For example, the Enochian system—derived from the angelic communications of John Dee and Edward Kelley in the 16th century—was systematized and used in conjunction with Kabbalistic and astrological symbolism. Tarot cards were not only used for divination but also mapped onto the Tree of Life and the Hebrew alphabet, giving them philosophical depth. The Golden Dawn also refined techniques of pathworking, where initiates would meditate upon the paths of the Tree of Life to achieve spiritual insight and astral exploration. Despite its achievements, the Golden Dawn was plagued by internal disputes and power struggles, particularly between MacGregor Mathers and other senior members such as Aleister Crowley and A.E. Waite (1857-1942). By the early 20th century, the original Order had fragmented into various offshoots. Yet these splinter groups—such as the Stella Matutina, Alpha et Omega, and later Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A.)—continued the legacy, adapting Golden Dawn teachings for new generations. In the 1930s, Israel Regardie, a former initiate, published many of the Golden Dawn’s rituals and teachings in *The Golden Dawn: A Complete System of Magic*, ensuring the Order’s survival and revitalization. His work preserved and democratized the system, bringing its methods to solitary practitioners and small esoteric groups around the world. Today, the Golden Dawn’s influence is nearly universal in Western esoteric and magical traditions. From Thelema to Chaos Magic, Wicca, and modern Hermeticism, echoes of its symbolism, ritual structure, and magical philosophy remain foundational. Its emphasis on disciplined self-transformation through knowledge and will continues to resonate with seekers pursuing spiritual development beyond dogma. In summary, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was not merely a secret society—it was a philosophical and magical renaissance, seeking to awaken the divine potential within each individual through a synthesis of ancient wisdom and modern ritual. It represents a key turning point in the Western Mystery Tradition: a bridge between the occult revival of the 19th century and the rich diversity of contemporary magical practice.

Jacob Zuma’s Visit to Morocco Sparks Diplomatic Shake-up Over Moroccan Sahara Conflict 13997

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The visit of Jacob Zuma to the Kingdom of Morocco triggered a desperate diplomatic response from the Polisario Front in South Africa, marking a significant political upheaval around the Moroccan Sahara conflict. Since then, the Polisario and its patron have shown nervousness reflecting a loss of influence even in African regions previously aligned with separatist positions. But who is this man whose words have caused such turmoil and dismay? Jacob Zuma is a South African statesman. He is a former anti-apartheid fighter imprisoned for ten years on the notorious Robben Island. Supported by the African National Congress (ANC), he rose through political ranks to become Vice-President of South Africa from 1999 to 2005, then President from 2009 to 2018, succeeding Thabo Mbeki. Zuma also served as ANC president from 2007 to 2017. Despite legal troubles and leaving the presidency, he maintains serious political weight, notably through the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party he now leads, which became the third-largest political force in South Africa after the May 2024 elections. Therefore, Zuma is not just any South African speaking on such an important issue for the continent and world. On July 15, 2025, in Rabat, on behalf of himself and the MK party, Zuma took an unambiguous stance supporting Morocco, breaking with Pretoria's relatively recent official line. He called Morocco's autonomy proposal a "pragmatic and balanced solution," guaranteeing Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces while offering substantial local governance to the populations. This position, officially supported by MK, represents a dramatic turnaround in South Africa and the region. Until now, South Africa backed the puppet Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and the Polisario Front, framed as pan-African solidarity against colonization, consistent with Algeria's ideological stance. The argument for separatism artificially tied to Morocco's southern provinces ignores that Spanish colonization in this integral part of the Cherifian Empire lasted about 91 years (1884–1975), when Spain declared a protectorate over the Western Sahara region and governed it until its 1975 withdrawal under the Madrid Agreement with Morocco. Since Nelson Mandela's death, South Africa had quickly sided with Algeria's vision of an independent state between Mauritania and Morocco, overlooking Morocco's historic support for South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. In reaction to Zuma's recent statements in Rabat, where he explicitly supported Morocco's autonomy plan for Western Sahara, the Polisario swiftly sent its Foreign Minister Mohamed Yeslem Beissat to Pretoria. This move comes amid tense diplomacy and a major shift in South African policy on the formerly Spanish Sahara. Until then, all political forces in the country were aligned with the government’s position. Panicked, the Polisario dispatched a delegation led by Beissat, who knows the field well after years representing the entity, officially invited by the ANC under Cyril Ramaphosa to attend a "liberation movements summit" in Pretoria from July 25 to 28. This summit, themed "Defending liberation gains, promoting integrated socio-economic development, and strengthening solidarity for a better Africa," also gathers other supporters of similar causes like Palestinian Jebril Rajoub, allied with Algeria and Polisario. The event, organized by the South African embassy in Algiers, aims solely to back separatist positions and offer support. The ANC quickly condemned Zuma's support for Western Sahara's Moroccan sovereignty on principle, accusing him of betrayal and dissidence after his split from the party. However, not all ANC factions still adhere strictly to Ramaphosa's official line. Many ANC leaders now recognize that siding with Algeria’s unproductive position has been a significant loss for their country. The influence of Zuma, a powerful political figure, has forced the Polisario and its patron to coordinate their response amid the new diplomatic dynamics intensified by his backing of Morocco. This diplomatic earthquake happens as several African states have progressively withdrawn recognition of the SADR in favor of the Moroccan plan, potentially further isolating the Polisario and Algeria continentally. During his visit, Zuma reminded the historical role Morocco played in the anti-apartheid struggle, seemingly lamenting his country's unexpected post-Mandela shift. He advocated for a strategic alliance based on respecting African states' territorial integrity, moving away from separatist support—a pragmatic stance shared by many South African officials. A rapprochement between Morocco and South Africa, the only African countries with truly industrial and diversified economies, could benefit both powers and the continent as a whole. The era of imported ideologies serving as democratic facades for military dictatorships is over and no longer effective. Thus, the Polisario minister’s visit to Pretoria appears a desperate attempt to limit the impact of a shift that could deeply transform political balances in Southern Africa and accelerate Morocco’s strengthening continental and international position

Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Spanish Radical Left's Controversial Stance on Moroccan Sahara... 13864

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
I confess here that it was the writings of Si Lahcen Hadad that pushed me to take a closer interest in this Spanish left, which positions itself in opposition to the Sánchez government, which is itself left-wing. Not reading Spanish, I am therefore somewhat less inclined to pay attention to the repeated ignominies of this left, sick from not being able to access power, sick from its aborted history, sick from what it actually is. So, to exist, it invented a cause. Too bad if it understands nothing about it, too bad if it harms Spain’s interests, too bad if it distorts history, ignores geography and demography, too bad if its reasoning, if it is reasoning at all, is far from logical, too bad if it lies outrageously. The important thing is to exist and to appear to the Spanish public as the defender of the causes of the most deprived... No matter if those people harmed the Spanish people; no matter if they have Spanish blood on their hands. Manifest bad faith. In Spain, therefore, a significant part of the radical left, mainly represented by formations such as Unidas Podemos, an alliance between Podemos, Izquierda Unida, and other minority groups, maintains a posture—let’s say critical, if not belligerent—towards the Kingdom of Morocco. This contradictory position is fed by a historical prism marked by colonial memory, “anti-imperialist” struggles, but also by the question of the Sahara, called the "Spanish Sahara" until 1975, as it was a former territory under Spanish domination until the Green March in 1975. This radical left considers Morocco a belligerent and threatening actor. The debate is not limited to territorial disputes: it fits into an ideological vision where the Moroccan state is often presented as an authoritarian and repressive regime, described as a neocolonial power. This is what underpins the repeated support for the artificial Sahrawi cause, presented as an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fight. Support for the Polisario Front thus seems embedded in the DNA of these “gauchos,” regardless of developments. Historically, several components of the Spanish left have expressed clear support for the Polisario Front, founded in 1973, which was nevertheless supported by Gaddafi, then hosted, supplied, and armed by the Algerian regime with the aim of harming Morocco’s interests. This support manifests itself in various forms: - Filing parliamentary motions in defense of the right to self-determination for this small part of the Sahara alone; - Participation in international pro-Polisario forums and associative networks that blindly support it, regardless of reports on the embezzlement of aid, rapes, and flagrant human rights abuses in Tindouf; - Pressure on the Spanish government and European institutions to recognize the political status of the Sahara, neglecting to mention that it was formerly occupied by their country, as a territory to be decolonized, in opposition to Morocco’s historical sovereignty. Even the autonomy proposal, well known in Spain, does not seem to satisfy them. However, it should be noted that this support comes in a context of strong internal contestation in Spain. Since the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez expressed its support in 2022 for the Moroccan autonomy plan, this radical position has somewhat fractured. This change reflects a pragmatic adaptation by some to the geopolitical, economic, and migratory realities that closely link the two countries. Faced with challenges related to managing migratory flows through the occupied enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as security and economic cooperation with the Kingdom of Morocco, the Spanish government has refocused its diplomacy. This has led to a gradual distancing of the left—but not the radical left—from the Polisario, thus marginalizing its influence on official policy. In this context, some voices within the radical left still try to persuade European institutions to keep pressure on Morocco, demanding that the so-called Western Sahara remain central to priorities to resolve an “unresolved colonial conflict.” Parliamentary groups and “pro-Sahrawi” NGOs continue to denounce bilateral agreements between Madrid and Rabat, refusing that the issue be sidelined in favor of a more “pragmatic” diplomacy. Spanish and European institutions, the theater of these ideological tensions, thus see the radical left forces seeking to have the question of the so-called Western Sahara recognized as a “state matter.” They denounce Moroccan control over this dossier and strongly contest the diplomatic normalization policies carried out by Madrid. This line reflects a deep political fracture, where post-colonial idealism and outdated self-determination claims clash head-on with political realism marked by the search for regional strategic balances. Support for the so-called Sahrawi cause is not without controversy. Activists, commentators, and victims have recalled that the Polisario Front was, in the past, involved in violent operations in Spanish territorial waters, causing the death of Spanish fishermen. These painful episodes resonate in Spanish public opinion and fuel a virulent critique of radical positions that support a movement with a past combining political struggle and violent actions. This memory weighs heavily in contemporary debate and is exploited by political forces opposed to these radical left positions, notably the Spanish right. The question of the Sahara, a territory that was Spanish for a time, remains an important point in relations between Spain and Morocco. However, current political, economic, and security realities push for pragmatic Spanish diplomacy, favorable to strengthened cooperation with Rabat, thus marginalizing the radical stance on both governmental and international stages. The historical legacy is here perfectly exploited for contemporary necessities in managing Ibero-Moroccan relations. Today, after consulting numerous articles and writings recounting the positions of this left of another era, I understand a little better Si Lahcen Hadad's fight on the subject, and even more so his sharp responses to the remarks of a certain Ignacio Cembrero, whom I now see only as a bland neurotic. Thank you, Si Lahcen. One question remains: why is the Moroccan left not more inclined to take a stand and strongly denounce the alienated stance of their Spanish counterparts?