Adonis Diaries

Archive for October 2020

Highest positions in Lebanon were Not monopoly to any religious sect, during mandated France from 1919 to 1943. Though it is France that instituted sectarian division in Lebanon.

Anwar Aboulhosn posted on Fb 
الاستعمار الداخلي
ليس لائقا أن يمر هذا اليوم مرور الكرام ففي مثله من عام ١٩٩٢ أنعم الله على الوطن والأمة بشارلمان لبنان الأستاذ نبيه بري كما تكّرم علينا بمنظومة سياسية كجبل لا تهزه ريح .
اللافت انه منذ نهاية الإستعمار الفرنسي وبدل أن نتحرر ونبني دولة نموذجية لجأنا لإستعمار أنفسنا طائفيا ومذهبيا في عهد الاستعمار كان الرئيس الأول لمجلس النواب اللبناني المرحوم داوود عمون عام ١٩٢٢ وتلاه نعوم لبكي وشارل دباس وخالد شهاب ومحمد الجسر من مختلف الطوائف الكريمة حتى بعد الاستقلال كان اول رئيس مجلس نواب حبيب ابو شهلا حتى ١٩٤٧ وبعد الاستقلال عادت حليمة وتكرست المذهبية أكثر وخاصة مع السيطرة السورية وعام ٩٢ مع
انتخاب رجل الدولة المحترم حسين الحسيني رئيسا للمجلس استقال من رئاسة حركة أمل وقال ( لا يجوز أن يكون رئيس مجلس نواب يمثل كل الشعب رئيسا لفئة من الشعب) وخلفه بالحركة الأستاذ عاكف حيدر وإثر تباين مع السوريين تم اختيار نبيه بري بعد خدمات للأشقاء ولم يزل الأفضل
.ان ما كتبته عن مجلس النواب ينطبق على رئاسة الجمهورية والحكومات حيث تناوب من عام ١٩٢٦ شارل دباس وغيره كبترو طراد والفرد نقاش وايوب ثابت وصولا لإميل اده وليسوا جميعا من الطائفة المارونية الكريمة، والكلام عينه ينطبق على الحكومات بدءا ببشارة الخوري مرورا بالفرد نقاش و الأحدب ولم تصبح حكرا على الطائفة السنية الكريمة إلا بعد أن تحررنا من الاستعمار مع رياض الصلح
ولعشرات السنين ما زلنا نرزخ تحت حكم مستعمري الداخل من أعلى السلّم لأسفله حتى وزراء ونواب سئمنا و( زهقنا ) منهم صوت وصورة منذ ٤٠ عام.
أيها الأصدقاء أن النضال من الداخل ضمن هذه المنظومة السياسية هي نكتة لأن هذا النوع من النضال هو ديمقراطي ونتيجته الخائبة محسومة أي نضال واذا اتفق ٤ رؤوس فقط ينهون النضال
.فخامة الرئيس ٢٧ و الثنائي مع توابعهم حوالي ٤٠ والشيخ سعد ٢٠ومجموع ٨٧ من ١٢٠ فمرحبا بهيك معارضة .والاجدى بهم أن يعودوا للشعب وإيقاف معزوفة كلهن ونصهن وربعهن حيث لم يشهد التاريخ انتفاضة أو ثورة ضد نص السلطة أو ربعها وبعدها يعيد الشعب الشرفاء منهم ونحن لا ننكر وجود العديد من الشرفاء ونظيفي الكف والأوادم في هذه المنظومة ولكن مكانهم
مع الشعب وليس مع هذه الطبقة السياسية الفاسدة والفاشلة .واخيرا لقد أثبت معظم شعب لبنان رغم التضييق والكورونا في ذكرى ١٧ تشرين انه ما زال توّاقا للتغيير وعلى الثورة وكوادرها أن تكون على مستوى آمال الشعب لأن منظومة اليوم تحمل بذور نهايتها الحتمية .

Note: I didn’t hear of General Suheil Al-Hassan since I posted this article in Nov. 25, 2015

By Al-Souria Net (opposition website)

Al-Hassan’s cult-like status has helped him cement an image of a fearless and merciless commander in the public eye, with many touting the Syrian colonel as a likely successor to President Bashar Assad

Who

In recent years, Suheil al-Hassan has become one of the most iconic and respected names amongst loyalists of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

News of Hassan’s reportedly undefeated military success on numerous fronts has been widely publicized in pro-regime media, with many questioning how the colonel has witnessed such victory while so many other regime commanders tasted defeat.

Known to many as “The Tiger”, Hassan was considered by many to be a necessity for the continued rule of Bashar Assad as the crisis worsened and the battlefronts expanded across Syria.

Acting on advice from intelligence officials, Bashar and his brother Maher appointed a leader who they believed would act faithfully on their behalf, as well as serve as a symbol representative of the strength of the Assad regime.

Although Hassan is not the only Syrian officer with high-ranking influence, he is regarded as the most influential commander inside the country’s pro-regime areas.

Alsouria Net learned from reliable sources that Hassan was given the authority to appoint the heads of the security committees in Hama and Homs, and to assign new directors for Hama’s military intelligence and air force intelligence departments.

Hassan also administers security in the city of Al-Salamiyah in the countryside of Hama, overseeing local air force intelligence in addition to the the region’s largest militia leaders, including Wareeth Alyounis and his brother Rajab, Musib Salamah, Mahmoud Afifi and Ghazwan Alsalmouni.

Despite the regular differences between Hassan and the militia warlords, which could sometimes lead to armed conflict, their sectarian relationship played a major role in diffusing tensions and preserving loyalties.

‘The Tiger’s’ Battles

Colonel Hassan’s battle success can in many ways be attributed to his authority to command Syria’s air forces as he desires.

He is known for his use of heavy aerial bombardment alongside his private artillery forces, consisting of a group of trucks from the Fourth Armored Division carrying around 130 large guns, in addition to a number of tanks, mortars, armored vehicles and fighters trained in Iran and Lebanon.

The late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad was well known for his supreme control over his notorious air forces and air force intelligence department, and Bashar Assad followed his father’s lead by implementing a similar method of airtight control over these same institutions.

As an Alawite, Hassan has been able to garner favorable influence among Syria’s top military officers, and is one of the only people authorized by President Assad to direct the air forces during battles, despite objections from air commanders and security heads.

Although Colonel Fadl Salami, chief of Hama’s security committee, was known to have an amicable relationship with Hassan, Salami refused to obey a number of Hassan’s orders, and was consequently relieved of his position as the leader of Hama military airport.

Often described as employing a scorched earth policy, Hassan is known to move his troops only when he is assured the attack area is brutally destroyed, and often justifies his indiscriminate attacks by claiming all civilian areas are potential environments for terrorism to hide behind.

According to information obtained by Al-Souria Net, as a show of his authority in front of his troops, Hassan rarely consults with his superiors before issuing orders, allowing him to make decisions during battles without the fear of accountability.

In addition, Iran has offered the commander unrestricted support for his ground units. Officers of The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps generously supplied his troops with advanced equipment and special weapons.

In return, Hassan commanded his forces as if in a Holy War, appearing on video as a Shiite preacher heralding the coming of Mahdi before the prophesized Day of Judgment.

The Russian Support

The Russian air force has focused on supporting Hassan’s troops since the start of Moscow’s incursion into Syria.

Moscow’s air cover supported his forces in the Battle of Jazal and recapturing of a number of Syria’s oil fields, as well as in the recent battle to reclaim Kuweires Airport.

Moscow considers Hassan’s approval a priority as its air forces are heavily reliant on Syrian air bases to launch their missions.

Russia’s eagerness to pander to Hassan recently impacted on its capacity to strike in the east of Hama, as its air forces were split between the battle at Kuweires airport in addition to its strikes in Hama’s northern countryside, Homs and Idlib, which mainly targeted the Free Syrian Army.

The complication led to the advancement of Islamic State (ISIS) troops towards Ethria, which endangered regime forces in the area.

All distress calls sent by National Defense Forces (NDF) militias were neglected by the military air base at Hama, resulting in the loss of many villages and sites considered of great importance for the regime.

Hassan and His Opponents

For all his popularity and cult-like status among regime supporters, Hassan has faced considerable internal competition to his authority and control, especially in Hama province.

The most notable case was his much publicized conflict with Hama military intelligence, following several attempts by the local intelligence director to arrange Hassan’s assassination.

The most recent assassination attempt, in October 2014, resulted in the director of Branch 219 being removed from his position.

Hama’s military intelligence was not the only concern for Hassan, as a number of pro-regime warlords would become sworn mortal enemies due to deep conflicts of interest, despite their alliances with the commander.

Hassan stood as an obstacle for warlord Musib Salamah, who was leading a smuggling and burglary ring in the eastern regions of Hama’s countryside.

Although altercations erupted between fighters loyal to Salamah and Hassan, as well as other militia leaders, including parliamentarian Ahmed Al Darwish, common interests usually overcame the problems and the direct confrontation was avoided.

The Striking Force

Along with fighters from the pro-regime National Defense Forces militias, Suheil Hassan was also successful in encouraging militants and security services to join him in battle, including military intelligence forces and other armed groups.

Yet, his biggest problem emerged when the NDF of Al-Salamiyah separated from Hama’s National Defense Force center in Der Shmiel, often likened to an Assad death camp, where he had a held significant authority and influence.

Following the controversial split, which drew the attention of an irked President Assad, Hassan worked hard to encourage large number of other militias in Salamiyah to fight amongst his ranks.

But Hassan wasn’t satisfied with the results, leading him to form a Special Forces unit named the Striking Force, with support from Iran and Colonel Fadl Salami, the former head of Hama military air base.

Assisted by top Syrian officers and Iran, Hassan managed to convince the Minister of Defense to exempt all members of his Striking Force from mandatory military service.

In addition to Hassan’s Striking Force, all volunteers in the air force intelligence in Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Latakia and Tartous would be considered a member of Hassan’s troops, with air force intelligence fighters styling themselves as the “Alnemer Forces” (Tiger Forces) in a show of loyalty to him.

Note: It seems that the Fourth Armored Division is equipped with advanced heavy Russia tunks. This division was headed by Maher, Bashar’s younger brother, before was ordered to step aside from military engagement after his atrocities in the early civil war in the city of Homs.

A few sayings of Malcolm X

You grab freedom, equality and justice. Do Not wait to be given your basic rights.

The Black Panthers tried to apply a few of Malcolm X teaching with various successes, especially communicating the Black rights abroad, as a few of their leaders exiled themselves to flee persecution and oppression in the US.

Black Panthers were making serious inroads in US politics until a devious tactics of counter-intelligence managed to split this party.

Running for municipal election in Oakland (California) in 1970 was the most serious decision to try to get involved in US political process and challenge the system from the inside.

Malcolm X in my view is the most honest enlightened and steadfast revolutionary in US history and was ready to change his opinions and positions as activities and facts revealed a different stories to what he previously believed in.

He separated from the Muslim Farrakhan movement and connected with Martin Luther King to adapt to ways of winning further rights to the Black communities.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 3, Pt 7

Malcolm’s perspective of US race history.

Malcolm’s perspective of US race history.
@gringaofbarrio #books #education #gringa #history #malcolm #racism #reading #schoolreadwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 4, Pt 3

Malcolm had an interesting life.

Malcolm had an interesting life.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 3, Pt 8

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 3, Pt 6

Learn the truth about America’s complex race history.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 3, Pt 3

History thru Malcolm’s eyes.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 2, Pt 2

The life of Malcolm X in his own words.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 4, Pt 2

American history direct from Malcolm.

readwiththegringa.com

Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chpt 2, Pt 5

America’s race history is complex.

America’s race history is complex. @gringaofbarrio #books #education #school #history #malcolmx #civilrights #racism #equality #gringabookseducationschoolhistorymalcolm xcivil rightsracismequalitygringa

Water is everywhere. A potato is 80% water, a cow 74%, a bacterium 75%, a tomato at 95%, and human 65%.

Most liquid when chilled contract 10% but water only 1%, and just before freezing it expands.

Solid water is 10% more voluminous, a property which allow ice to float. Otherwise, ice would sink and oceans would freeze from the bottom.

Without surface ice to hold heat in, the water warmth would radiate away and thus creating more ice and soon oceans would freeze.

Water is defying the rules of chemistry and law of physics.

The hydrogen atoms cling fiercely to their oxygen host, but also make casual bonds with other water molecules, thus changing partners billions of times in a second.

Thus, water molecules stick together and can be siphoned without breaking, but not so tightly so that you may dive into a pool.

Surface water molecules are attracted more powerfully to the like molecule beneath and beside them than to the air molecule above, so that it creates a sort of membrane that supports insects.

All but the smallest fraction of the water on Earth is poisonous to us because of the salts within it.

Uncannily, the proportions of the various salts in our body are similar to those in sea water. We do cry sea water, and we sweat sea water but we cannot tolerate sea water as an input!

Salt in the body provoke a crisis because from every cell, water molecules rush off to dilute and carry off the sudden intake of salt.

The oceans have achieved their present volume of 1.3 billion cubic kilometer of water and it is a closed system.

The Pacific holds 52% of the 97% of all the water on Earth.  The remaining 3% of fresh water exist as ice sheet; Antarctica holds 90% of the planet’s ice, standing on over 2 miles of ice.

If Antarctica is to completely melt, the ocean would rise about 70 meters.

Note: Most of current preemptive wars are caused by lack of fresh water, or denying States from fresh water by building gigantic dams, and drilling of oil/gas reserves.

Many people in the third world die from Not finding quality fresh water that are Not polluted.

“A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson

Eco-system

Thomas Midgley Jr. was an engineer by training and he developed an interest in the industrial applications of chemistry. 

With an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny, Midgley invented chlorofluorocarbons CFC that is eating up our ozone layer in the stratosphere.

Midgley also applied tetraethyl lead that spread devastation to human health by killing millions from lead contamination and increasing the lead content in our bones and blood 650 times the normal dose.

Tetraethyl lead was used to significantly reduce the “juddering” condition known as engine knock

GM, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint enterprise called Ethyl Gasoline Corporation with a view to making as much tetraethyl lead as the world was willing to buy this new gasoline and introduced this product in 1923.

Lead can be found in all manner of consumer products.

Food came in cans sealed with lead solder, water was stored in lead-lined tanks, and lead arsenate was sprayed onto fruit as a pesticide and even as part of the composition of toothpaste tubes.

However, lead lasting danger came as an additive to motor fuel.

Clair Patterson focused his attention to the question of all the lead in the atmosphere and that about 90% of it appeared to come from car exhaust pipes. 

Thus, Clair set about to compare lead levels in the atmosphere now with the levels that existed before 1923.

His ingenious idea was to evaluate these levels from samples in the ice cores in places like Greenland.

This notion became the foundation of ice cores studies, on which much modern climatological work is based.

Patterson found no lead in the atmosphere before 1923.  

Ethyl Corporation counter-attacked by cutting off all research grants that Patterson received.  Although Patterson was the unquestionable America’s leading expert on atmospheric lead, the National Research Council panel excluded him in 1971.

Eventually, his efforts led to the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and to the removal from sale of all leaded petrol in the USA in 1986. 

Lead levels in the blood of the Americans fell by 80% almost within a year; but since the atmosphere contains so much lead and cannot be eliminated and is forever, we are to live with a new constitution of heavy lead concentration in our blood stream and our bones.

Lead in paint was also banned in 1993, 44 years after Europe has banned it

Leaded gasoline is still being sold overseas.  Ironically, all the research on lead effects on health were funded by the Ethyl Corporation. One doctor spent 5 years taking samples of urine and faces instead of blood and bones where lead accumulate.

Refrigerators in the 1920s used dangerous gases and leaks killed more than a hundred in 1929 in a Cleveland hospital. 

Thomas Midgley came to the rescue with a safe, stable, non-corrosive, and non-flammable gas called CFC.

single kilo of chlorofluorocarbon can capture and annihilate 70,000 kilo of atmospheric ozone, which is no thicker than 2 millimeter around the stratosphere and whose benefit is to capture the dangerous cosmic rays.

CFC is also a great heat sponge 10,000 times more efficient than carbon dioxide responsible for the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature.

CFC was banned in 1974 in the USA but 27 million kilo a year are still being introduced in the market in other forms of deodorant or hairspray for example.  CFC will not be banned in the third world countries until 2010.

The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be 280 parts per million but it has increased to 360 and is roughly rising 0.025% a year and might be around 560 by the end of the century.

The seas soak up tremendous volumes of carbon and safely locked it away.  Since the Sun is burning 25% more brightly than when the solar system was young, what keeps our Earth stable and cool?

It seems that there are trillions upon trillions of tiny marine organisms that capture carbon from the rain falls and use it to make tiny shells. These marine organisms lock the carbon and prevent it from re-evaporating into the atmosphere; otherwise, the greenhouse effect of warming the atmosphere would have done much damage long time ago.

These tiny organisms fall to the bottom of the sea after they die, where they are compressed into limestone.

Volcanoes and the decay of plants return the carbon to the atmosphere at a rate of 200 billion tones a year and fall to the Earth in rain. 

The cycle takes 500,000 years for a typical carbon atom.  Fortunately that most of the rainfall in oceans because 60% of the rain that fall on land is evaporated within a couple of days.

Human has disturbed this cycle after the heavy industrialization era and is lofting about 7 billion tones each year.

There is a critical threshold where the natural biosphere stops buffering us from the effects of our emissions and actually starts to amplify them.

Was the case for cuts a lie?

How delusional were the consequences for States to adopt austerity budgets (Posted in 2016)

In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism.

Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all States were in the aftermath of the financial crisis and before the crisis for a long time – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece bankrupt State, unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes.

Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed: Fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well.

PAUL KRUGMAN this April 29, 2015

Illustrations by Mark Long, Design by Sam Morris and Chris Clarke

People holding these beliefs came to be widely known in economic circles as “austerians” – a term coined by the economist Rob Parenteau – and for a while the austerity ideology swept all before it.

But that was five years ago, and the fever has long since been broken.

Greece is now seen as it should have been seen from the beginning – as a unique case, with few lessons for the rest of us. (Not for Lebanon in any case)

It is impossible for countries such as the US and the UK, which borrow in their own currencies, to experience Greek-style crises, because they cannot run out of money – they can always print more. (Greece has to rely on Germany that print the Euro in order to satisfy its internal market)

Even within the eurozone, borrowing costs plunged once the European Central Bank began to do its job and protect its clients against self-fulfilling panics by standing ready to buy government bonds if necessary.

As I write this, Italy and Spain have no trouble raising cash – they can borrow at the lowest rates in their history, indeed considerably below those in Britain – and even Portugal’s interest rates are within a whisker of those paid by HM Treasury.

All of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited

On the other side of the ledger, the benefits of improved confidence failed to make their promised appearance.

Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity.

In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa. Although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

Widely touted statistical results were based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures – plus a few outright mistakes – and evaporated under closer scrutiny.

It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively.

The austerity ideology that dominated elite discourse 5 years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it.

Hardly anyone, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.

I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere.

George Osborne and David Cameron boast that their policies saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis of soaring interest rates, apparently oblivious to the fact that interest rates are at historic lows all across the western world.

(The Third World States have to borrow at least at 5 percent rate higher than what colonial powers get)

The press seizes on Ed Miliband’s failure to mention the budget deficit in a speech as a huge gaffe, a supposed revelation of irresponsibility. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking, seriously, not about budget deficits but about the “fun deficit” facing America’s children.

Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No.

This country is not different. The economics of austerity are the same – and the intellectual case as bankrupt – in Britain as everywhere else.

When economic crisis struck the advanced economies in 2008, almost every government – even Germany – introduced some kind of stimulus programme, increasing spending and/or cutting taxes. There was no mystery why: it was all about zero.

Normally, monetary authorities – the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England – can respond to a temporary economic downturn by cutting interest rates; this encourages private spending, especially on housing, and sets the stage for recovery. But there’s a limit to how much they can do in that direction. Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that you couldn’t cut interest rates below zero. We now know that this wasn’t quite right, since many European bonds now pay slightly negative interest.

Still, there can’t be much room for sub-zero rates

And if cutting rates all the way to zero isn’t enough to cure what ails the economy, the usual remedy for recession falls short.

So it was in 2008-2009. By late 2008 it was already clear in every major economy that conventional monetary policy, which involves pushing down the interest rate on short-term government debt, was going to be insufficient to fight the financial downdraft.

Now what? The textbook answer was and is fiscal expansion: increase government spending both to create jobs directly and to put money in consumers’ pockets; cut taxes to put more money in those pockets.

But won’t this lead to budget deficits? Yes, and that’s actually a good thing.

An economy that is depressed even with zero interest rates is, in effect, an economy in which the public is trying to save more than businesses are willing to invest.

In such an economy the government does everyone a service by running deficits and giving frustrated savers a chance to put their money to work. Nor does this borrowing compete with private investment.

An economy where interest rates cannot go any lower is an economy awash in desired saving with no place to go, and deficit spending that expands the economy is, if anything, likely to lead to higher private investment than would otherwise materialise.

It’s true that you can’t run big budget deficits for ever (although you can do it for a long time), because at some point interest payments start to swallow too large a share of the budget.

But it’s foolish and destructive to worry about deficits when borrowing is very cheap and the funds you borrow would otherwise go to waste.

At some point you do want to reverse stimulus. But you don’t want to do it too soon – specifically, you don’t want to remove fiscal support as long as pedal-to-the-metal monetary policy is still insufficient. Instead, you want to wait until there can be a sort of handoff, in which the central bank offsets the effects of declining spending and rising taxes by keeping rates low. 

As John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”

All of this is standard macroeconomics. I often encounter people on both the left and the right who imagine that austerity policies were what the textbook said you should do – that those of us who protested against the turn to austerity were staking out some kind of heterodox, radical position.

The truth is that mainstream, textbook economics not only justified the initial round of post-crisis stimulus, but said that this stimulus should continue until economies had recovered.

What we got instead, however, was a hard right turn in elite opinion, away from concerns about unemployment and toward a focus on slashing deficits, mainly with spending cuts. Why?

Conservatives like to use the alleged dangers of debt and deficits as clubs with which to beat the welfare state and justify cuts in benefits

Part of the answer is that politicians were catering to a public that doesn’t understand the rationale for deficit spending, that tends to think of the government budget via analogies with family finances.

When John Boehner, the Republican leader, opposed US stimulus plans on the grounds that “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt,” economists cringed at the stupidity.

But within a few months the very same line was showing up in Barack Obama’s speeches, because his speechwriters found that it resonated with audiences. Similarly, the Labour party felt it necessary to dedicate the very first page of its 2015 general election manifesto to a “Budget Responsibility Lock”, promising to “cut the deficit every year”.

Let us not, however, be too harsh on the public. Many elite opinion-makers, including people who imagine themselves sophisticated on matters economic, demonstrated at best a higher level of incomprehension, not getting at all the logic of deficit spending in the face of excess desired saving.

For example, in the spring of 2009 the Harvard historian and economic commentator Niall Ferguson, talking about the United States, was quite sure what would happen:

“There is going to be, I predict, in the weeks and months ahead, a very painful tug-of-war between our monetary policy and our fiscal policy as the markets realise just what a vast quantity of bonds are going to have to be absorbed by the financial system this year. That will tend to drive the price of the bonds down, and drive up interest rates.” The weeks and months turned into years – six years, at this point – and interest rates remain at historic lows.

Beyond these economic misconceptions, there were political reasons why many influential players opposed fiscal stimulus even in the face of a deeply depressed economy.

Conservatives like to use the alleged dangers of debt and deficits as clubs with which to beat the welfare state and justify cuts in benefits; suggestions that higher spending might actually be beneficial are definitely not welcome.

Meanwhile, centrist politicians and pundits often try to demonstrate how serious and statesmanlike they are by calling for hard choices and sacrifice (by other people). Even Barack Obama’s first inaugural address, given in the face of a plunging economy, largely consisted of hard-choices boilerplate. As a result, centrists were almost as uncomfortable with the notion of fiscal stimulus as the hard right.

In a way, the remarkable thing about economic policy in 2008-2009 was the fact that the case for fiscal stimulus made any headway at all against the forces of incomprehension and vested interests demanding harsher and harsher austerity.

The best explanation of this temporary and limited success I’ve seen comes from the political scientist Henry Farrell, writing with the economist John Quiggin.Farrell and Quiggin note that Keynesian economists were intellectually prepared for the possibility of crisis, in a way that free-market fundamentalists weren’t, and that they were also relatively media-savvy.

So they got their take on the appropriate policy response out much more quickly than the other side, creating “the appearance of a new apparent consensus among expert economists” in favour of fiscal stimulus.

If this is right, there was inevitably going to be a growing backlash – a turn against stimulus and toward austerity – once the shock of the crisis wore off. Indeed, there were signs of such a backlash by the early fall of 2009. But the real turning point came at the end of that year, when Greece hit the wall. As a result, the year of Britain’s last general election was also the year of austerity.

rom the beginning, there were plenty of people strongly inclined to oppose fiscal stimulus and demand austerity. But they had a problem: their dire warnings about the consequences of deficit spending kept not coming true. Some of them were quite open about their frustration with the refusal of markets to deliver the disasters they expected and wanted.

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, in 2010: “Inflation and long-term interest rates, the typical symptoms of fiscal excess, have remained remarkably subdued. This is regrettable, because it is fostering a sense of complacency that can have dire consequences.”

But he had an answer: “Growing analogies to Greece set the stage for a serious response.”

Greece was the disaster “austerians” were looking for. In September 2009 Greece’s long-term borrowing costs were only 1.3 percentage points higher than Germany’s; by September 2010 that gap had increased sevenfold.

Suddenly, austerians had a concrete demonstration of the dangers they had been warning about. A hard turn away from Keynesian policies could now be justified as an urgent defensive measure, lest your country abruptly turn into another Greece.

Still, what about the depressed state of western economies? The post-crisis recession bottomed out in the middle of 2009, and in most countries a recovery was under way, but output and employment were still far below normal. Wouldn’t a turn to austerity threaten the still-fragile upturn?

Not according to many policymakers, who engaged in one of history’s most remarkable displays of collective wishful thinking. Standard macroeconomics said that cutting spending in a depressed economy, with no room to offset these cuts by reducing interest rates that were already near zero, would indeed deepen the slump.

But policymakers at the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and in the British government that took power in May 2010 eagerly seized on economic research that claimed to show the opposite.

The doctrine of “expansionary austerity” is largely associated with work by Alberto Alesina, an economist at Harvard. Alesina used statistical techniques that supposedly identified all large fiscal policy changes in advanced countries between 1970 and 2007, and claimed to find evidence that spending cuts, in particular, were often “associated with economic expansions rather than recessions”.

The reason, he and those who seized on his work suggested, was that spending cuts create confidence, and that the positive effects of this increase in confidence trump the direct negative effects of reduced spending.

Greece was the disaster austerians were looking for

This may sound too good to be true – and it was. But policymakers knew what they wanted to hear, so it was, as Business Week put it, “Alesina’s hour”. The doctrine of expansionary austerity quickly became orthodoxy in much of Europe.

“The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect: confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery” declared Jean-Claude Trichet, then the president of the European Central Bank

Besides, everybody knew that terrible things would happen if debt went above 90% of GDP.

Growth in a Time of Debt, the now-infamous 2010 paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University that claimed that 90% debt is a critical threshold, arguably played much less of a direct role in the turn to austerity than Alesina’s work.

After all, austerians didn’t need Reinhart and Rogoff to provide dire scenarios about what could happen if deficits weren’t reined in – they had the Greek crisis for that.

At most, the Reinhart and Rogoff paper provided a backup bogeyman, an answer to those who kept pointing out that nothing like the Greek story seemed to be happening to countries that borrowed in their own currencies: even if interest rates were low, austerians could point to Reinhart and Rogoff and declare that high debt is very, very bad.

What Reinhart and Rogoff did bring to the austerity camp was academic cachet. Their 2009 book This Time is Different, which brought a vast array of historical data to bear on the subject of economic crises, was widely celebrated by both policymakers and economists – myself included – for its prescient warnings that we were at risk of a major crisis and that recovery from that crisis was likely to be slow. So they brought a lot of prestige to the austerity push when they were perceived as weighing in on that side of the policy debate.

(They now claim that they did no such thing, but they did nothing to correct that impression at the time.)

When the coalition government came to power, then, all the pieces were in place for policymakers who were already inclined to push for austerity.

Fiscal retrenchment could be presented as urgently needed to avert a Greek-style strike by bond buyers. “Greece stands as a warning of what happens to countries that lose their credibility, or whose governments pretend that difficult decisions can somehow be avoided,” declared David Cameron soon after taking office. It could also be presented as urgently needed to stop debt, already almost 80% of GDP, from crossing the 90% red line.

In a 2010 speech laying out his plan to eliminate the deficit, Osborne cited Reinhart and Rogoff by name, while declaring that “soaring government debt … is very likely to trigger the next crisis.” Concerns about delaying recovery could be waved away with an appeal to positive effects on confidence. Economists who objected to any or all of these lines of argument were simply ignored.

But that was five years ago.

To understand what happened to austerianism, it helps to start with two charts.

The first chart shows interest rates on the bonds of a selection of advanced countries as of mid-April 2015. What you can see right away is that Greece remains unique, more than five years after it was heralded as an object lesson for all nations. Everyone else is paying very low interest rates by historical standards.

This includes the United States, where the co-chairs of a debt commission created by President Obama confidently warned that crisis loomed within two years unless their recommendations were adopted; that was four years ago. It includes Spain and Italy, which faced a financial panic in 2011-2012, but saw that panic subside – despite debt that continued to rise – once the European Central Bank began doing its job as lender of last resort.

It includes France, which many commentators singled out as the next domino to fall, yet can now borrow long-term for less than 0.5%.

And it includes Japan, which has debt more than twice its gross domestic product yet pays even less.

The Greek exception

10-year interest rates as of 14 April 2015

Chart 1Source: Bloomberg

Back in 2010 some economists argued that fears of a Greek-style funding crisis were vastly overblown – I referred to the myth of the “invisible bond vigilantes”.

Those bond vigilantes have stayed invisible. For countries such as the UK, the US, and Japan that borrow in their own currencies, it’s hard to even see how the predicted crises could happen. Such countries cannot, after all, run out of money, and if worries about solvency weakened their currencies, this would actually help their economies in a time of weak growth and low inflation.

Chart 2 takes a bit more explaining. A couple of years after the great turn towards austerity, a number of economists realised that the austerians were performing what amounted to a great natural experiment. Historically, large cuts in government spending have usually occurred either in overheated economies suffering from inflation or in the aftermath of wars, as nations demobilise.

Neither kind of episode offers much guidance on what to expect from the kind of spending cuts – imposed on already depressed economies – that the austerians were advocating. But after 2009, in a generalised economic depression, some countries chose (or were forced) to impose severe austerity, while others did not. So what happened?

Austerity and growth 2009-13

More austere countries have a lower rate of GDP growth

Chart 2Source: IMF

In Chart 2, each dot represents the experience of an advanced economy from 2009 to 2013, the last year of major spending cuts. The horizontal axis shows a widely used measure of austerity – the average annual change in the cyclically adjusted primary surplus, an estimate of what the difference between taxes and non-interest spending would be if the economy were at full employment.

As you move further right on the graph, in other words, austerity becomes more severe. You can quibble with the details of this measure, but the basic result – harsh austerity in Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, incredibly harsh austerity in Greece – is surely right.

Meanwhile, the vertical axis shows the annual rate of economic growth over the same period. The negative correlation is, of course, strong and obvious – and not at all what the austerians had asserted would happen.

Again, some economists argued from the beginning that all the talk of expansionary austerity was foolish – back in 2010 I dubbed it belief in the “confidence fairy”, a term that seems to have stuck. But why did the alleged statistical evidence – from Alesina, among others – that spending cuts were often good for growth prove so misleading?

The answer, it turned out, was that it wasn’t very good statistical work. A review by the IMF found that the methods Alesina used in an attempt to identify examples of sharp austerity produced many misidentifications.

For example, in 2000 Finland’s budget deficit dropped sharply thanks to a stock market boom, which caused a surge in government revenue – but Alesina mistakenly identified this as a major austerity programme. When the IMF laboriously put together a new database of austerity measures derived from actual changes in spending and tax rates, it found that austerity has a consistently negative effect on growth.

Yet even the IMF’s analysis fell short – as the institution itself eventually acknowledged. I’ve already explained why: most historical episodes of austerity took place under conditions very different from those confronting western economies in 2010.

For example, when Canada began a major fiscal retrenchment in the mid-1990s, interest rates were high, so the Bank of Canada could offset fiscal austerity with sharp rate cuts – not a useful model of the likely results of austerity in economies where interest rates were already very low.

In 2010 and 2011, IMF projections of the effects of austerity programmes assumed that those effects would be similar to the historical average. But a 2013 paper co-authored by the organisation’s chief economist concluded that under post-crisis conditions the true effect had turned out to be nearly three times as large as expected.

So much, then, for invisible bond vigilantes and faith in the confidence fairy. What about the backup bogeyman, the Reinhart-Rogoff claim that there was a red line for debt at 90% of GDP?

Well, in early 2013 researchers at the University of Massachusetts examined the data behind the Reinhart-Rogoff work. They found that the results were partly driven by a spreadsheet error.

More important, the results weren’t at all robust: using standard statistical procedures rather than the rather odd approach Reinhart and Rogoff used, or adding a few more years of data, caused the 90% cliff to vanish.

What was left was a modest negative correlation between debt and growth, and there was good reason to believe that in general slow growth causes high debt, not the other way around.

By about two years ago, then, the entire edifice of austerian economics had crumbled. Events had utterly failed to play out as the austerians predicted, while the academic research that allegedly supported the doctrine had withered under scrutiny.

Hardly anyone has admitted being wrong – hardly anyone ever does, on any subject – but quite a few prominent austerians now deny having said what they did, in fact, say. The doctrine that ruled the world in 2010 has more or less vanished from the scene.

In the US, you no longer hear much from the deficit scolds who loomed so large in the national debate circa 2011. Some commentators and media organisations still try to make budget red ink an issue, but there’s a pleading, even whining, tone to their exhortations. The day of the austerians has come and gone.

Yet Britain zigged just as the rest of us were zagging.

By 2013, austerian doctrine was in ignominious retreat in most of the world – yet at that very moment much of the UK press was declaring that doctrine vindicated. “Osborne wins the battle on austerity,” the Financial Times announced in September 2013, and the sentiment was widely echoed.

What was going on? You might think that British debate took a different turn because the British experience was out of line with developments elsewhere – in particular, that Britain’s return to economic growth in 2013 was somehow at odds with the predictions of standard economics. But you would be wrong.

Austerity in the UK

Cyclically adjusted primary balance, percent of GDP

Chart 3Source: IMF, OECD, and OBR

The key point to understand about fiscal policy under Cameron and Osborne is that British austerity, while very real and quite severe, was mostly imposed during the coalition’s first two years in power.

Chart 3 shows estimates of our old friend the cyclically adjusted primary balance since 2009. I’ve included three sources – the IMF, the OECD, and Britain’s own Office of Budget Responsibility – just in case someone wants to argue that any one of these sources is biased. In fact, every one tells the same story: big spending cuts and a large tax rise between 2009 and 2011, not much change thereafter.

Given the fact that the coalition essentially stopped imposing new austerity measures after its first two years, there’s nothing at all surprising about seeing a revival of economic growth in 2013.

Look back at Chart 2, and specifically at what happened to countries that did little if any fiscal tightening. For the most part, their economies grew at between 2 and 4%.

Britain did almost no fiscal tightening in 2014, and grew 2.9%. In other words, it performed pretty much exactly as you should have expected. And the growth of recent years does nothing to change the fact that Britain paid a high price for the austerity of 2010-2012.

British economists have no doubt about the economic damage wrought by austerity. The Centre for Macroeconomics in London regularly surveys a panel of leading UK economists on a variety of questions. When it asked whether the coalition’s policies had promoted growth and employment, those disagreeing outnumbered those agreeing four to one.

This isn’t quite the level of unanimity on fiscal policy one finds in the US, where a similar survey of economists found only 2% disagreed with the proposition that the Obama stimulus led to higher output and employment than would have prevailed otherwise, but it’s still an overwhelming consensus.

By this point, some readers will nonetheless be shaking their heads and declaring, “But the economy is booming, and you said that couldn’t happen under austerity.” But Keynesian logic says that a one-time tightening of fiscal policy will produce a one-time hit to the economy, not a permanent reduction in the growth rate.

A return to growth after austerity has been put on hold is not at all surprising. As I pointed out recently: “If this counts as a policy success, why not try repeatedly hitting yourself in the face for a few minutes? After all, it will feel great when you stop.”

In that case, however, what’s with sophisticated media outlets such as the FT seeming to endorse this crude fallacy? Well, if you actually read that 2013 leader and many similar pieces, you discover that they are very carefully worded. The FT never said outright that the economic case for austerity had been vindicated.

It only declared that Osborne had won the political battle, because the general public doesn’t understand all this business about front-loaded policies, or for that matter the difference between levels and growth rates. One might have expected the press to seek to remedy such confusions, rather than amplify them. But apparently not.

Which brings me, finally, to the role of interests in distorting economic debate.

As Oxford’s Simon Wren-Lewis noted, on the very same day that the Centre for Macroeconomics revealed that the great majority of British economists disagree with the proposition that austerity is good for growth, the Telegraph published on its front page a letter from 100 business leaders declaring the opposite.

Why does big business love austerity and hate Keynesian economics? After all, you might expect corporate leaders to want policies that produce strong sales and hence strong profits.

I’ve already suggested one answer: scare talk about debt and deficits is often used as a cover for a very different agenda, namely an attempt to reduce the overall size of government and especially spending on social insurance.

This has been transparently obvious in the United States, where many supposed deficit-reduction plans just happen to include sharp cuts in tax rates on corporations and the wealthy even as they take away healthcare and nutritional aid for the poor. But it’s also a fairly obvious motivation in the UK, if not so crudely expressed.

The “primary purpose” of austerity, the Telegraph admitted in 2013, “is to shrink the size of government spending” – or, as Cameron put it in a speech later that year, to make the state “leaner … not just now, but permanently”.

Beyond that lies a point made most strongly in the US by Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute: business interests dislike Keynesian economics because it threatens their political bargaining power. Business leaders love the idea that the health of the economy depends on confidence, which in turn – or so they argue – requires making them happy.

In the US there were, until the recent takeoff in job growth, many speeches and opinion pieces arguing that President Obama’s anti-business rhetoric – which only existed in the right’s imagination, but never mind – was holding back recovery. The message was clear: don’t criticise big business, or the economy will suffer.

If the political opposition won’t challenge the coalition’s bad economics, who will?

But this kind of argument loses its force if one acknowledges that job creation can be achieved through deliberate policy, that deficit spending, not buttering up business leaders, is the way to revive a depressed economy. So business interests are strongly inclined to reject standard macroeconomics and insist that boosting confidence – which is to say, keeping them happy – is the only way to go.

Still, all these motivations are the same in the United States as they are in Britain. Why are the US’s austerians on the run, while Britain’s still rule the debate?

It has been astonishing, from a US perspective, to witness the limpness of Labour’s response to the austerity push. Britain’s opposition has been amazingly willing to accept claims that budget deficits are the biggest economic issue facing the nation, and has made hardly any effort to challenge the extremely dubious proposition that fiscal policy under Blair and Brown was deeply irresponsible – or even the nonsensical proposition that this supposed fiscal irresponsibility caused the crisis of 2008-2009.

Why this weakness? In part it may reflect the fact that the crisis occurred on Labour’s watch; American liberals should count themselves fortunate that Lehman Brothers didn’t fall a year later, with Democrats holding the White House.

More broadly, the whole European centre-left seems stuck in a kind of reflexive cringe, unable to stand up for its own ideas. In this respect Britain seems much closer to Europe than it is to America.

The closest parallel I can give from my side of the Atlantic is the erstwhile weakness of Democrats on foreign policy – their apparent inability back in 2003 or so to take a stand against obviously terrible ideas like the invasion of Iraq. If the political opposition won’t challenge the coalition’s bad economics, who will?

You might be tempted to say that this is all water under the bridge, given that the coalition, whatever it may claim, effectively called a halt to fiscal tightening midway through its term. But this story isn’t over. Cameron is campaigning largely on a spurious claim to have “rescued” the British economy – and promising, if he stays in power, to continue making substantial cuts in the years ahead.

Labour, sad to say, are echoing that position. So both major parties are in effect promising a new round of austerity that might well hold back a recovery that has, so far, come nowhere near to making up the ground lost during the recession and the initial phase of austerity.

For whatever the politics, the economics of austerity are no different in Britain from what they are in the rest of the advanced world. Harsh austerity in depressed economies isn’t necessary, and does major damage when it is imposed. That was true of Britain five years ago – and it’s still true today.

Follow the Long Read on Twitter: @gdnlongreadAndrew Bossone shared this link. 1 hr ·

“Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity….

It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerity ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.”

The austerity delusion | Paul KrugmanThe long read: The case for cuts was a lie. Why does Britain still believe it?THEGUARDIAN.COM|BY PAUL KRUGMAN

Chapter three Decline and fall of the austerity cult

I don’t reflect: I am Haunted

Adult have no idea how they managed to learn anything in childhood.

And yet, they barely apply the best ways to learn and understand, the ways kids learn.

Fiction or the real false stories and events precedes our comprehension of reality: Fiction stories allow us to access reality.

Even the literary genres labelled “real stories” or autobiography are mostly fiction and the protagonists must have said: “What? In my wildest imagination I never contemplated that this will happen to me...”

Sleep dreams might have the job of “recomputing” the default values in your world vision.

Reading different literary genres preempt you to understand reality, and accept that you are a potential “Statistics”, a term that drives people to the wall and make them furious “What? Am I not that special?

But it is writing, drawing, painting, composing, playing musical instruments… that restructure and fine-tune your world view. 

Acts that don’t involve the fingers to record the acts are Not registered properly in the brain archives.

Children doodle and draw before they they learn to write.

They listen to stories, memorize stories and write characters before they learn to read.

The world vision of children is etched in graphics and colors before content in books are appreciated.

What we assimilated in artistic vision reflects the way we see nature. The more artistic our mind is developed the more structured and complex our vision of nature are.

Otherwise, nature and the environment are a bundle of colors and shapes left for the subconscious to navigate us through.

Art is never imitating nature: The artist is representing what he is looking at inside his world vision.

The mind first “see” before the eyes register what the mind has seen.

We see how our accumulated world view see the world, nature and reality  

And yet, we have no idea what is our world view. We might fathom what we “see” through observing and analyzing our actions and behaviors.

The content in articles, of political and scientific nature, is essential to get engaged with eyes wide open, assuming that the context has been clearly developed.

Without context, articles can be classified as “general”, regardless of how much you develop on the opinion and fake to provide details.

An opinion not backed by the context, even personal experience, is not worth publishing.

An opinion devoid of context smack of ignorance and the regurgitation of what the “common literature” is disseminated.

In all other topics, it is the form of the written style that grabs me most.

A single sentence can open up deeply hidden emotions that an entire volume will fail to do.

After all, everything has been said, if we can read in many languages (old and new) and read enough to last several life times.

I find myself furiously editing repost of articles so that the form matches my own style. I even edit “quotations” to suit my writing style. Why?

Eventually, I might have to re-read what I have posted, and I want to enjoy what I’m reading.

For example, I loath the journalistic style of splitting a quotation in order to insert “He said”, “sic”,”the author resumed”…

The sentence should flow smoothly to convey the emotion of the quoted person. Any insertion is a rational gimmick to preserve a semblance of objectivity, authenticity, neutrality…

I have no qualm in editing what the other have published, and the heck of what they say, and how their frustrated ego is mishandled… as long as the reader can access the original text and can do his due diligence

Very often I read “I don’t know”, “I’m not sure”… And I wonder: these expressions are excellent in verbal conversations, but they don’t fit in the written text.

Make sure you know before addressing your reader, otherwise, keep your opinions in your notebook until they germinate into a viable position

Send me a valid post within context in the preamble or in an after-note, and I’ll repost it: The audience of readers is varied and with multiple interests

The World: As seen by Albert Einstein

“School failed me, and I failed the school. It bored me. The teachers behaved like Feldwebel (sergeants). I wanted to learn what I wanted to know, but they wanted me to learn for the exam.

What I hated most was the competitive system there, and especially sports. Because of this, I wasn’t worth anything, and several times they suggested I leave.

I posted a dozen articles on Einstein, his world view, on theoretical physics, sciences, how he saw the USA, and on Zionism… You may read more from the links in the notes

Christopher Chase posted this Feb. 16, 2014:

Albert

“This was a Catholic School in Munich. I felt that my thirst for knowledge was being strangled by my teachers: grades were their only measurement. How can a teacher understand youth with such a system?

From the age of 12 I began to suspect authority and distrust teachers.

I learned mostly at home, first from my uncle and then from a student who came to eat with us once a week. He would give me books on physics and astronomy.

The more I read, the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.

Then one day this student brought me Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

Reading Kant, I began to suspect everything I was taught. I no longer believed in the known God of the Bible, but rather in the mysterious God expressed in nature.

The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can’t grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.

If we look at this tree outside whose roots search beneath the pavement for water, or a flower which sends its sweet smell to the pollinating bees, or even our own selves and the inner forces that drive us to act, we can see that we all dance to a mysterious tune,.

And the piper who plays this melody from an inscrutable distance—whatever name we give him—Creative Force, or God—escapes all book knowledge.

Science is never finished because the human mind only uses a small portion of its capacity, and man’s exploration of his world is also limited.

Creation may be spiritual in origin, but that doesn’t mean that everything created is spiritual. How can I explain such things to you?

Let us accept the world is a mystery. Nature is neither solely material nor entirely spiritual.

Man, too, is more than flesh and blood; otherwise, no religions would have been possible.

Behind each cause is still another cause, and the end or the beginning of all causes has yet to be found.

Yet, only one thing must be remembered: there is no effect without a cause, and there is no lawlessness in creation.

If I hadn’t an absolute faith in the harmony of creation, I wouldn’t have tried for 30 years to express it in a mathematical formula.

It is only man’s consciousness of what he does with his mind that elevates him above the animals, and enables him to become aware of himself and his relationship to the universe.

I believe that I have cosmic religious feelings.

I never could grasp how one could satisfy these feelings by praying to limited objects.

The tree outside is life, a statue is dead. The whole of nature is life, and life, as I observe it, rejects a God resembling man.

Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience.

[A cosmic religion] has no dogma other than teaching man that the universe is rational and that his highest destiny is to ponder it and co-create with its laws.

I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified.

Our bodies are like prisons, and I look forward to be free, but I don’t speculate on what will happen to me.

I live here now, and my responsibility is in this world now.

I deal with natural laws. This is my work here on earth.

The world needs new moral impulses which, I’m afraid, won’t come from the churches, heavily compromised as they have been throughout the centuries.

Perhaps those impulses must come from scientists in the tradition of Galileo, Kepler and Newton.: In spite of failures and persecutions, these men devoted their lives to proving that the universe is a single entity, in which, I believe, a humanized God has no place.

The genuine scientist is not moved by praise or blame, nor does he preach. He unveils the universe and people come eagerly, without being pushed, to behold a new revelation: the order, the harmony, the magnificence of creation!

And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its ‘I am better than thou’ creed.

This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed.

If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done.

We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind.

Religion and science go together.

As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth.

Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is No God.

The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed.

Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe.

I am not a mystic.

Trying to find out the laws of nature has nothing to do with mysticism. Though in the face of creation I feel very humble. It is as if a spirit is manifest infinitely superior to man’s spirit.

Through my pursuit in science I have known cosmic religious feelings. But I don’t care to be called a mystic.

I believe that we don’t need to worry about what happens after this life, as long as we do our duty here—to love and to serve.

I have faith in the universe, for it is rational.

Law underlies each happening.

And I have faith in my purpose here on earth.

I have faith in my intuition, the language of my conscience, but I have no faith in speculation about Heaven and Hell.

I’m concerned with this time—here and now.

Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction.

For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.

Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. 

To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.

Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge.

Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.

Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.

I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now.

I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.

This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”

~Albert Einstein

Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954

PBS TV Special- How Einstein Saw the World

Note 1: Read more on this topic https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/einstein-speaks-on-%E2%80%9Chow-i-see-the-world%E2%80%9D/

Note 2:  On Zionism https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/einstein-speaks-on-zionism/

Lebanon: An improbable Statehood in the making

Mind you this article was posted in February 20, 2008, 12 years before the total bankruptcy of the State of Lebanon, politically, economically and financially.  

Under the leadership of Hezbollah, the Shias in the south and the Bekaa Valley are basically and currently the main caste shouldering the heavy burden of defending Lebanon from the frequent aggressions of Israel. 

Before Hezbollah, Lebanon had many secular political parties confronting Israel aggressions (The Communists and the Syria National Social parties), especially during Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982 until 1989, when mandated Syria gave Hezbollah the “monopoly to conduct the resistance.

Without the Shiaa, south Lebanon would have long been swallowed by Israel and Lebanon divided and scraped from the number of independent States. 

It is the Shiaa who forced Israel to withdraw unconditionally from the south in May 24, 2000. 

It is the Shiaa who foiled the strategy of Israel of reconquering the south of Lebanon in July 2006 and installing a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.  

Hezbollah split from the main “Amal” Shia movement (of Mousa sader) around 1983 and adopted an ideology tightly linked to the Khomeini hardliners in Iran and is made responsible for the suicide attacks against the US and French headquarters in Beirut. 

Hezbollah was the only resistance movement allowed by Syria to operate against Israel’s occupation in the south of Lebanon since 1989 when the US Administration permitted Syria mandate over Lebanon for over 15 years. 

Syria had prohibited all the other Lebanese nationalistic and progressive parties to resume their liberation resistance during its occupation of Lebanon. 

After the assassination of Rafic Hariri PM in 2005 and the withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon we have been experiencing a serious void in the legitimacy of the current government. 

The signed entente between the Tayyar political party of Michel Aoun (Free Patriotic Movement for Reform and Change) and Hezbollah has allayed the perception that schemes for a recurring civil war in under planning. 

The patient internally non-violence strategy of Hezbollah in conducting non-cooperation activities against an unjust and and mafia control of the government has permitted the Lebanese population to gain the assurance and relief that another civil war is not feasible.  

This Seniora’s government and its allies have been plundering the public treasury for the past three years (since 2005) and for the last 15 years under Rafic Hariri.

This feudal/sectarian/contractor continuous regime, establishing a Ponzi scheme for our financial system, has been spreading poverty and deepening the indebtedness and ineptness of Lebanon, with the explicit support of the Bush administration, and under the guise of empty rhetoric of democracy, security and independence from Syria’s indirect involvement in Lebanon.

Consequently, the Shia have proven to be the legitimate sons of an independent Lebanon and have paid the prices of martyrdom, suffering, sacrifice and pain in order to be the guarantor for the emergence of a Nation against all odds. 

It is the sacrifices of the Shia and their patience to suffer for the benefit of all Lebanese that is providing them with the leverage of flexibility, intent to change, learn from experience and improve. 

The successive unilateral withdrawals of Israel from Lebanon in 2000, an occupation that lasted since 1982, without any preconditions have given the Lebanese citizen grounds to standing tall. 

Our main problem is that the International requirements of Lebanon and our local politics are at odds. 

The USA, Europe and Saudi Kingdom would like to settle the Palestinian refugees as Lebanese citizens with full rights and thus avoiding the corny problem of their legitimate rights to be repatriated to Israel as stated in the UN resolution of 194. 

The Monarchy in Saudi Kingdom has been viewing the Palestinian question as a major liability since the extremist party of Hamas has taken power in Gaza.

Saudi Kingdom is exhausted of paying the bills every time Israel destroys the infrastructure of Lebanon and covering some of the expenses of the Palestinian refugees and would like an end to this conflict that is hampering the internal stability of the Wahhabi Saudi regime.

Israel invasions of Lebanon and its genocide tactics against the Palestinians are done at the urging of the USA 

The two main local movements of the Future Party (Hariri clan) and Hezbollah are more than content for this unconstitutional political dilemma which suits their short-term interests. 

The Future is satisfied with its dominance among the Sunnis in Beirut and the North and thus, giving the Palestinian refugees citizenship might create an unknown variable that could disrupt the majority of the Sunni allegiance to the Al Moustakbal. 

Consequently, the Hariri clan cannot disobey the Saudi orders but it cannot shoot itself in the foot. 

Externally, the Hariri clan is pro Saudi but in reality it is very cozy with the Syrian position on the Palestinian refugee status as its strongest card during the negotiations with the USA and afterward. 

The unstable constitutional political system in Lebanon may delay indefinitely any serious pressures from Saudi Kingdom and the USA to resolving the Palestinian refugees’ question. 

Hezbollah is weary of having to deal with a constitutional government and negotiate returning its arms to the Lebanese army. 

Thus, the two main parties in Lebanon are supporting each other practically and just playing the game of opposing forces.

Furthermore, The USA has decided after the fiasco of the July war in 2006 that no more investment in time on Lebanon is appropriate at this junction.  We have to wait for a new US administration to decide whether it is willing to re-open the file of the Near East problems.

The allies to the two main parties are side shows: they know it and they cannot change camps with the deep mistrust for the other side pledges and dependent policies to foreign powers. 

Thanks to the vehement rhetoric against Syria or its allies in Lebanon by Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea, the Future party has been able to give the impression that it is against the Syrian regime while practically it agrees with the Syrian positions and would like to keep the present status quo in Lebanon’s political system of the Taef Constitutional amendments.  

General Michel Aoun has realized that he has been taken by the sweet tender offers of Hezbollah but he cannot shift allegiance or form a third alliance since non resolution of the situation is the name of the game until further agreement among the main Arab states and the main superpowers.

Recently, General Aoun has demonstrated his independence by visiting Syria for 5 days amid a popular welcome to re-establish entente between the two people, if not the regimes.

So far, the polemics among the government’s allies and the opposition political parties are not shy of harboring sectarian allegiances in their charged speeches, but somehow they failed to discuss the actual caste, or closed religious system in our social structure, which is the fundamental problem toward a modern state of governance.

I do not believe that any fair and representative electoral law is of utility unless the basic caste system is recognized as a sin and altered accordingly to represent an alternative for the citizen joining a united and free status under one State. 

The first step is to instituting a voluntary State marriage law and letting the situation unfold into a more liberal understanding of the need of the people. 

The road is very long and arduous before the beginning of a semblance of trust among the Lebanese is established. 

However, I feel that the Shia under the leadership of a wise and disciplined Hezbollah and their corresponding Christian Free Patriotic movement are leading the way for a semi-autonomous Lebanon, at least in its internal restructuring. 

I believe that the necessities of survival would loosen up many stiff ideological and caste roadblocks toward a reformed political system and the institution of a governing body that abide in integrity, accountability and justice for all.

It is a fact that extremist Sunni “salafist” ideology is gaining quickly in all the Arab and Moslem World, out of desperation and the widespread illiteracy and lack of job openings. (See note 3). 

Maybe our mix of all kinds of sects might be a rampart to our moderate liberal tendencies.

The spirit of Statehood is coming from an unforeseen quarter. Mainly the Shia caste freshly arriving in the social and political scene around 1970. 

This disinherited caste was already a majority when the civil war of 1975 broke out and it suffered from the total ignorance of the central government for infrastructure and social services and had also to suffer the humiliation and atrocities of frequent Israeli air raids and land attacks and bombing of their villages under the disguise of dislodging the Palestinian guerillas.  

The Shia caste is opening up to almost all sects and managed to ally with large sections of many other castes. 

This extending arm might be considered as necessary out of the realization that they are a majority in Lebanon and a real minority in the neighboring States of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

This necessity is a blessing to Lebanon because the main major caste is encouraging unity against foreign invaders. 

In the event that Hezbollah maintains its strength, then it can be forecasted that the economic strategy of Lebanon will shift from tourism and third sector (the Hariri’s clan strategy) into more emphasis on agriculture and small and medium industries, many of it geared toward guerilla warfare. 

This is how the future looks like to me if no overall peace treaty with Israel is realized any time soon.

I used the term “Statehood” for Lebanon in a general sense to convey that a form of unity is developing in the conscious of the Lebanese, but this notion of Nation is far from appropriate to Lebanon simply because experiences since independence could not provide any evidence to a unified people under legitimate and responsible central governments. 

Lebanon is fundamentally an amalgamation of castes that enjoy self-autonomy. 

I still believe that the Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Jordanians naturally form a Nation and they should generate a common market with separate recognized States.

I am convinced the Taef Constitution was meant to have total entente among the various main three religious castes in Lebanon before starting to elect a new president to the Republic.

The entente should involve everything from election law, to the constitution of the government and other priorities. 

This fact translates into agreement among the main Arab States and the main superpowers on how Lebanon should be governed during six years. 

Unless the Lebanese leaders and political parties get together to review the Taef Constitution and be willing to pay the price of deciding to have a mind of their own, then Lebanon is de facto under the UN protectorate.

Note 1: the current Dawha agreement, after Hezbollah destroyed Israel communication control in 2008, translated the spirit of Taef in its temporary execution until the Parliamentary election takes place.

Note 2:  The Future movement of the Hariri clan (Saad Hariri is a Saudi citizen) is practically pro-Syrian but it cannot overtly open up to the Syrian regime as long as Saudi Kingdom is not currently in good term with President Bashar Assad.

Note 3:  The Sunni “salafist” movement expressed its strong arm tendencies in the Palestinian camp of Nahr Al Bared. The Lebanese army destroyed the camp along with the extremist Sunni groups and the ramifications are not over in our internal strife.

Note 4:  The social/political structure is held by 19 recognized religious castes that grow at different paces in demography.  Thus, the top of our Temple must be very flexible and changeable when foreign powers decide to destabilize the tacit agreement among the caste political feudal leaders.

Why Israel and the US consider Armenia as the enemy?

L’état hébreu dans les coulisses du conflit Azerbaïdjan-Arménie.

Since early October, Israel was shipping by air drones and missiles to Azerbaijan. Israel has been training this State security institution.

By Dominique Delawarde.

Les médias mainstream occidentaux ont beaucoup insisté sur le rôle majeur et indéniable de la Turquie dans la crise opposant l’Arménie à l’Azerbaïdjan, mais ils sont restés extrêmement et étonnamment discrets, voire silencieux sur le rôle tout aussi important, joué, en coulisse, par Israël, et sur son positionnement dans cette affaire.

Ce rôle n’a pourtant pas pu échapper à un géopoliticien ou à un observateur averti

Il y a les discrètes navettes aériennes entre Tel Aviv et Bakou qui, au début d’octobre transportaient de l’armement sophistiqué (notamment des drones et des missiles).

Une part non négligeable de l’armement azéri est d’origine israélienne.

Il faut rappeler que l’Azerbaïdjan est le premier pourvoyeur de pétrole d’Israël et lui fournit 40% de ses besoins.

Ceci suffirait presque à expliquer l’alliance de fait, entre les deux pays, alliance basée sur une sorte d’échange « pétrole contre armement ».

Il y a la relative discrétion des chancelleries et des médias occidentaux – dont on sait qui les contrôle – sur l’ingérence ouverte de la Turquie, pays membre de l’OTAN, contre l’Arménie, pays membre de l’OTSC (Organisation du Traité de Sécurité Collective) aux côtés de la Russie.

La coalition occidentale a bien protesté du bout des lèvres: elle a bien appelé « à la retenue » et au « cessez le feu », mais elle a laissé faire la Turquie sans vraiment dénoncer son impérialisme islamiste, désormais tous azimuts (Syrie, Irak, Libye, Méditerranée orientale, Caucase).

Il y a encore la prise de position officielle de Zelenski, premier président juif d’Ukraine, en faveur de l’Azerbaïdjan, et contre l’Arménie.

Il y a enfin cette déclaration de Georges Malbrunot, grand reporter au Figaro qui nous apprend dans un tweet :

Conflit au Nagorny-Karabakh : au-delà de la station du Mossad basée en Azerbaïdjan pour espionner l’Iran et de la livraison de matériels militaires à Bakou, Israël entraîne les forces de sécurité azéris, confie un diplomate européen, qui fut basé en Azerbaïdjan.

Mais pourquoi l’État hébreu se distingue-t-il aujourd’hui, par sa présence et son action dans cette région du monde aux côtés de la Turquie, de l’Azerbaïdjan et du djihadisme islamiste ?
Il faut se rappeler que l’activisme d’Israël sur la scène internationale n’est pas que régional, mais mondial. Il peut être direct ou indirect.
Son empreinte est souvent perceptible et parfaitement identifiable dans la politique étrangère des grands pays occidentaux (USA, UK, FR, Canada, Australie), mais elle l’est aussi dans presque tous les grands événements qui ont affecté l’évolution géopolitique mondiale des dernières décennies: (guerres au Proche et Moyen-Orient, révolutions colorées et/ou changement de pouvoir (ou tentatives) notamment en Amérique du Sud (Brésil, Bolivie, Venezuela, Colombie, Équateur) mais aussi en Europe (Maïdan …) et en Afrique du Nord (printemps arabes, hirak algérien).
À noter aussi l’ingérence plus ou moins ouverte dans les élections des grands pays de la coalition occidentale (USA, FR, UK, Canada, Australie) par des financements généreux de sa diaspora visant à promouvoir les candidats qui lui sont favorables et à détruire ceux qui ne le sont pas.

Cet activisme pro-israélien s’exerce par le biais d’une diaspora riche, puissante et organisée.

Cette diaspora  collectionne les postes d’influence et de pouvoir, plus ou moins « achetés » au fil du temps et des circonstances, au sein des appareils d’État, au sein des médias mainstream, au sein des institutions financières et des GAFAM qu’elle contrôle.

Le Mossad n’est pas en reste et fonde l’efficacité de son action sur le système des sayanims, parfaitement décrit par Jacob Cohen dans sa conférence de Lyon.

L’action de ces relais et soutiens vise à défendre et à promouvoir les intérêts directs et indirects de l’État hébreu sur la planète entière et à élargir le cercle des pays et des gouvernances qui le soutiennent.

Elle vise aussi à affaiblir celles et ceux qui lui sont opposés. Elle est tenace, efficace et s’inscrit dans la durée.

Pour gagner, l’État hébreu, comme le fait aussi très bien l’OTAN, n’hésite jamais à faire des alliances de circonstance, limitées dans l’espace et dans le temps, avec tel ou tel de ses adversaires (Turquie et djihadistes en Syrie par exemple).

Ses actions sont souvent « préméditées », « concoctées » et « coordonnées » avec ses correspondants « néoconservateurs » de Washington. Comme partout ailleurs le mensonge d’État et la duplicité sont monnaies courantes…

Pourquoi susciter et/ou mettre de l’huile sur le feu dans un conflit entre l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie et pourquoi maintenant ?

Trois grands pays de la région, la Russie, la Turquie et l’Iran, sont directement concernés par ce conflit et par ses conséquences potentielles, parce qu’ils sont frontaliers avec l’une des deux parties en conflit, et parfois les deux.

Israël, pour sa part, n’est qu’indirectement concerné, mais l’est tout de même.

Cette région du Caucase est également une «zone de friction» entre des alliances qui ne s’apprécient pas vraiment: La coalition occidentale et l’OTAN dont la Turquie et Israël jouent la partition, l’OTSC (Organisation du Traité de Sécurité Collective) dont la Russie et l’Arménie sont membres, et l’OCS (Organisation de Coopération de Shangaï) à laquelle la Russie et l’Iran sont liés (pour l’Iran, comme membre observateur et aspirant candidat depuis 15 ans).

Pour compliquer le tout, le premier ministre arménien en fonction, Nikol Pashinyan, a cru bon de devoir afficher sa préférence pour l’Occident dès sa prise de fonction et de prendre ses distances avec Moscou, ce qui met son pays en position délicate pour réclamer aujourd’hui l’aide de la Russie.

Le déclenchement de la crise actuelle est une opération qui dépasse largement le cadre étroit d’un conflit territorial entre l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie.

Il s’agit d’une opération de plus – après Maïdan en Ukraine, après la tentative de révolution colorée en Biélorussie et après les affaires Skripal et Navalny – visant à mettre la pression sur la Russie, mais aussi sur l’Iran, en les mettant dans l’embarras, voire, en les poussant à la faute.

Il est clair que toute intervention rapide et musclée de la Russie dans ce conflit aurait été immédiatement condamnée par la « communauté internationale autoproclamée » – c’est à dire par l’OTAN – et suivie de l’habituel train de sanctions anti-russes, par les USA, servilement suivis par ses vassaux européens. 

Il ne faut pas oublier qu’aujourd’hui, mettre un terme au gazoduc North Stream II reste un objectif majeur pour les USA…

L’absence d’une ferme réaction des occidentaux dans la crise du Caucase est, en elle- même, révélatrice sur quatre points :

1 – La défense de l’Arménie n’est pas une priorité pour la coalition occidentale. Monsieur Nikol Pashinyan, premier ministre arménien, s’est donc trompé de cheval en misant sur l’Occident pour la défense de son pays. La coalition occidentale laisse souvent tomber ses alliés de circonstance comme ils l’ont fait pour les Kurdes en Syrie…

2 – En atermoyant et en laissant venir une réaction russe qu’elle espère pouvoir sanctionner en mettant définitivement fin au North Stream II, la coalition occidentale montre, une fois de plus, sa duplicité et son cynisme. Peu lui importe l’Arménie…

3 – En créant un foyer d’infection djihadiste aux frontières de la Russie et de l’Iran, la coalition israélo-occidentale montre, une fois de plus, qu’elle est prête à pactiser avec le diable et à l’instrumentaliser pour parvenir à ses fins, en l’occurrence l’affaiblissement de ses  adversaires russes et iraniens.

4 – En laissant agir la Turquie et Israël sans réaction, la coalition occidentale reconnaît implicitement, derrière des discours trompeurs, que ces deux pays agissent à son profit.

Le quotidien israélien « The Jerusalem Post » a abordé dans un article récent les affrontements entre l’Azerbaïdjan et l’Arménie non sans laisser éclater la joie israélienne de voir le Caucase devenir un nouveau foyer de crise potentiellement susceptible d’avoir un impact considérable sur le Moyen-Orient.

L’impact recherché par Israël est toujours le même : alléger les pressions et les actions iraniennes et russes sur le théâtre syrien en ouvrant un « nouveau front de préoccupations » aux frontières de ces deux pays.

En conclusion, quatre points méritent d’être soulignés, à ce stade de la crise,

1 – Monsieur Pashinyan, premier ministre arménien, a fait une erreur d’appréciation en misant sur un camp occidental qui s’avère moins fiable que prévu pour défendre l’intérêt de son pays. Il devra, peut être, in fine, faire des concessions douloureuses et pourrait bien y perdre son emploi lors des prochaines élections.

2 – Monsieur Aliyev, président de l’Azerbaïdjan majoritairement chiite, regrettera peut être un jour d’avoir introduit sur son sol des djihadistes sunnites pour combattre l’Arménie. I

l regrettera peut-être aussi l’instrumentalisation dont il est l’objet par la Turquie et Israël, chevaux de Troie de l’OTAN. Ses voisins russes et iraniens ne  lui pardonneront pas facilement…

3 – La Russie, dont la gouvernance et la diplomatie ne sont pas nées de la dernière pluie, n’est toujours pas tombée, tête baissée, dans le piège de l’intervention immédiate et musclée qui pourrait, après la tragi-comédie « Navalny », sonner le glas du North Stream II.

Elle interviendra, tôt ou tard, lorsque le bon moment sera venu. Les différents protagonistes directs et indirects ne perdront rien pour attendre.

4 –  Israël et l’Occident otanien auront-ils gagné quelque chose à poursuivre leurs  actions de harcèlement aux frontières de la Russie et de l’Iran en instrumentalisant l’Azerbaïdjan et en cherchant à détacher l’Arménie de l’OTSC dans le cadre de la stratégie d’extension à l’Est qu’ils poursuivent depuis trente ans ? Rien n’est moins sûr. L’avenir nous le dira.

Quant à la solution du problème territorial, source du conflit déclenché par l’Azerbaïdjan-contre l’Arménie, elle réside probablement dans l’application de l’article 8 du Décalogue de l’Acte final d’Helsinki voté le 1e août 1975 qui régit les relations internationales entre les états participants. Cet article évoque clairement « le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes ».

Lorsqu’une volonté de quitter un ensemble étatique est validé par un, voire plusieurs référendums à plus de 90%, et lorsque cette sécession a été effective durant 34 ans, sans conflit majeur – ce qui est le cas pour la république d’Artsakh (Haut-Karabakh)-,  il semble légitime que la communauté internationale puisse prendre en compte la volonté des peuples et d’accepter de reconnaître ce fait en dotant ces nouveaux états d’une structure juridique particulière leur garantissant une paix sous protection internationale.

On me rétorquera que l’article 3 du même décalogue d’Helsinki rappelle l’intangibilité des frontières.

Il s’agira pour la communauté internationale, de déterminer si le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux même doit primer, ou non, sur l’intangibilité des frontières, après 34 ans de séparation totale et effective de vie commune entre deux parties d’un même état.

Cette décision, lorsqu’elle sera prise, ne devrait pas être sans conséquences jurisprudentielles sur le futur du Kosovo, de la Crimée, ou de la Palestine occupée…

Pour ceux qui souhaitent élargir et diversifier leurs connaissances sur ce sujet sensible, je suggère la lecture de deux articles intéressants :

– un article de Jean Pierre Arrignon, historien byzantiniste et spécialiste de la Russie

– un éditorial de Eric Denécé, patron du CF2R (Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement sous le titre : « Le conflit Arménie/Azerbaïdjan au Haut-Karabakh relancé par la Turquie ».

– Un article de source azérie permettant de mieux comprendre la place du mouvement sioniste en Azerbaïdjan:

– Un autre article de DD (février 2017) expliquant les relations croisées entre la Russie, les USA et Israël et susceptible d’éclairer le sujet d’aujourd’hui:


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,465,839 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 805 other followers

%d bloggers like this: