Archive for June, 2015
Il dogma della Santissima Trinita’ spiegato in un singolo capoverso
Comprensibilmente, padre Daniel era confuso: credeva a ciò che gli era stato insegnato, e credeva a quello che aveva visto. Digiunò e pregò, e aprendo il Corano, lo sguardo gli cadde su un passo che portò alla sua conversione a Cristo. Il Corano (3:45) parla dell’Annunciazione alla Vergine Maria, e si riferisce a Gesù come alla “Parola” di Dio. Contemplando questo verso che aveva letto tante volte, padre Daniel ha realizzato: la parola di uomo esce dalla sua bocca, ma ha origine nella sua mente. Questo significa che la parola di uomo è un tutt’uno con lui, e se Gesù è la Parola di Dio, allora egli è uno con Dio. La Parola e colui che parla sono uno. Ma che dire dello Spirito? L’uomo può parlare solo vivendo, e l’uomo vive perché ha uno spirito. Lo spirito dell’uomo è in lui, e, quindi, la sua parola e il suo spirito sono dentro di lui. Pertanto la Parola e lo Spirito di Dio sono in Lui, e il Dio dei cristiani è uno. Ma perché è la Parola di Dio è chiamata anche il Figlio di Dio? La Parola risiede all’interno della mente, così la mente è gravida della parola, e la bocca fa nascere la parola, così la parola è figlia della mente. Quindi, se Gesù è la Parola di Dio, allora egli è anche il Figlio di Dio. Per avere un Figlio, Dio non ha bisogno di una moglie, perché ciò che si intende con Figlio è la Parola. Egli comprese inoltre che tra esseri umani non possiamo conoscere l’altro senza parole, e così l’uomo può conoscere Dio solo attraverso la sua Parola. Anche secondo il Corano la Parola di Dio è Gesù, e quindi per conoscere Dio egli deve conoscere Cristo. Quella notte padre Daniel divenne un cristiano.
Understandably, Fr. Daniel was confused—he believed what he had been taught, and he believed what he had seen. He fasted and prayed, and opening the Koran, his eyes fell on a passage that led to his conversion to Christ. Koran 3:45 speaks of the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary, referring to Jesus as the “Word” of God. Contemplating this verse he had read so many times, Fr. Daniel realized: man’s word comes out of his mouth but originates in his mind. This means man’s word is one with him, and if Jesus is God’s Word then He is one with God. The Word and the Speaker are one. But what of the Spirit? Man can only speak while living, and man lives because he has a spirit. Man’s spirit is within him, and thus his word and spirit are within him. Therefore God’s Word and Spirit are also within Him, and the God of the Christians is One. But why is the Word of God also called the Son of God? The Word resides within the mind, so the mind is pregnant with the word, and the mouth gives birth to the word, so the word is the child of the mind. Thus, if Jesus is the Word of God then He is also the Son of God. To have a Son God does not need a wife, for what is meant by Son is Word. He further understood that among humans we cannot know each other without words, and so man can only know God by His Word. According even to the Koran the Word of God is Jesus, and therefore to know God He must know Christ. That night Fr. Daniel became a Christian.
Incarnation does not mean creation! You do not create your children, you just give flesh to their spirits, created by God as much as all the wonders of that flesh-giving, none of them you understand or control apart from their mere mechanic.Just so God did choose the Most Pure and Ever Virgin Mary to give flesh to His Spirit, so that His Word (His relation with His Creation) could walk among men and teach them His Ways.The Creator is a Person, not a book and not a concept!His Spirit and His Word are not a Creation by Him, as much as your spirit and your word are not a creation by you.They proceed and are begotten by you, as NECESSARY foundations for all of your “creations”* (you are His image).Just so They proceeded and were begotten by Him before all the ages to express His will to create, calling into existence everything (His Word) and bestowing life upon His Creation (His Spirit). The Spirit proceeds from the Father (and only from the Father) through His Word (and only through His Word). Even so your spirit proceeds from you and could not proceed without your word (and a soundless word is still a word).The Creator is a Person, not a book and not a concept!His Spirit and His Word ARE Him, not something different from Him and even less something created by Him, as much as you ARE your spirit and your word. They are not different from you, not in essence, not in substance, and you do not create them. They are just expressions of you and ARE you.The Creator is a Person, not a book and not a concept!* In fact, we cannot create anything, not a single seed.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!
The Word is the expression of the meaning of all things, bringing forth the manifestation of the Spirit according to the Will (the Father).
From an external perspective, therefore, the Word IS the meaning of all things, the only conveyor of the Spirit and the only thing cognisable of the Father (God).
It’s for this that it was the Word Who took flesh.
There are idealists who have not read the works of Orthodox authors (like the writings of Metr Antony Khrapovitsky) or are too young to have talked with those who were adults in pre-Revolutionary Russia and also do not know contemporary Russia. They often think that all was well in the Russian Church before the Revolution. This is wrong. Apart from a huge number of saints, sadly, the negative phenomena of spiritual impurity also came out of the Russian Church after the Revolution.
Firstly, there was the treachery that betrayed the Tsar (the same spirit that had rejected the restoration of the Patriarchate which Tsar Nicholas II had proposed in 1905) and greeted the new, anti-Church government of Kerensky. Secondly, there was the servile Protestant State-Churchism or erastianism that Peter I had imposed 200 years earlier, so that when the new Soviet atheist government put the Church under its control after 1917, it found some in the Church who were weak enough to obey. This servility was given the name sergianism. Thirdly, there was renovationism, a movement of intellectuals who wanted to protestantize the Church, imagining that the stones of their dry rationalism and intellectualism could feed the souls of pious Orthodox, hungry for spiritual bread. This caused a terrible schism inside Russia and a terrible schism outside Russia, where modernizers, freemasons and occultists, mainly from Saint Petersburg, detested the Russian Church so much that they left it for the Western-controlled Patriarchate of Constantinople.
None of the above is imagined. These three vices were exactly those which Tsar Nicholas referred to after his overthrow, when he spoke of ‘all around treachery, cowardice and deceit’. For the first group showed treachery, the second group, sergianists, showed cowardice and the third group, renovationists, calling themselves Orthodox when they were inwardly not, showed deceit, indeed, self-deceit. Each of the three groups represented unfaithfulness to each of the three foundation stones of the Orthodox Empire: Orthodoxy, Sovereign Independence and the People. The first were traitors to Orthodoxy, the second were cowards with regard to the Sovereign Independence of Church and State, the third deceived the People. As a result the Orthodox Empire fell, just as the Tsar described.
In history the three groups were represented by three separate groups in the Russian Church. The first group, some actually calling themselves ‘monarchists’, assassinated Rasputin and claimed to be ‘White’, but in fact they had little time for the real Church or the real Tsar or the real People, rather they played right-wing politics, wanted money and power and used the Church, the Tsar and the People as flags to conceal their real motives. Without the noble cause of the Tsar, they lost the war against Bolshevism and had to emigrate. These are exemplified by the nationalist and nominal Orthodox on the fringes of the Church of the Diaspora who later put the great saint of the emigration, St John of Shanghai, on trial and persecuted him.
The second group are those inside Russia who did not have the courage of the New Martyrs and Confessors and were not faithful to the Sovereign Independence (of the Tsar or of the Church), outwardly enslaving the latter to the atheist State. The third group, defeated inside Russia, are those who deceived the simple Orthodox people, turning their backs on the Russian Church entirely, though claiming to be of the Russian Orthodox Tradition, they were protestantizing philosophers and freemasons. Their centre was in Paris where they formed ‘the Paris Jurisdiction’ and from where they tried to colonize New York, where now they have lost many of their positions as reality dawns and fantasy fails.
The first two groups have shed the spiritual impurity of the past and are joined together as one (exactly at the right time!). Now we await the repentance of the third and smallest group in Paris, whose doctrinal and practical eccentricities are immediately apparent to all but themselves and some of whom are still justifying themselves. Unlike his four predecessors, all of them well known to me, an outsider, a new Archpastor of the Paris Jurisdiction, Archbishop Job, also an outsider, has had the opportunity and the courage to confront the renovationists. He wants to restore Orthodoxy there, stopping the renovationist persecution of the faithful of whom so many have been forced to leave his ever smaller jurisdiction, a persecution that began in earnest in the 1980s and has lasted off and on for well over thirty years.
Now the St Sergius Institute has closed, ninety years after its foundation. Ironically, the Institute was the very reason why in 1925 the Paris group first fell into schism and quit the Church Outside Russia, soon after that leaving the Russian Church altogether. Its first dean, Fr Sergius Bulgakov, turned out to be a heresiarch, his fantastic theories condemned by the whole Russian Church. Now 90 years on it has fallen into schism even with its own Archbishop!
It is our impression that Archbishop Job realizes that if his tiny jurisdiction has a destiny, indeed if it has any future at all, then it must return to the canonicity after over thirty years of drifting away from the Russian Orthodox Tradition altogether. The Russian Church is preparing to establish a Metropolia in Western Europe, the foundation of a future new Local Church, far bigger than the small and increasingly irrelevant Paris group and with a large number of bishops, clergy, people and real churches. It is time for the fantasies of the isolated Paris group to cease and time for them to come back to earth. The Paris Jurisdiction is now like a huddle of castaways on a desert island, not sure whether to join the last boat that is leaving or to remain stranded in self-imposed isolation.
Of course, the Archbishop, an Athonite monk attached to a dependency of Simonopetra, is facing slander and intimidation from French nationalism (the oldest trick of the Parisians against outsiders), and the accusation that he is stopping the ‘free thought’ and ‘creativity’ in the atheist Republic. In fact, he is supported by a great many who see through all the absurd accusations. Our task now, as before, is to pray for him in his task of restoring the Paris Jurisdiction to the mainstream of canonical Orthodoxy and the authentic Russian Tradition. Otherwise it will simply disappear and be forgotten, like other fringe phenomena of Church history and become a mere archaeological curiosity.
Today, celebrating the memory of this wondrous saint, Metropolitan John of Tobolsk, we who live in the third millennium – so far removed from our holy hierarchs in time, but so close to them in faith and spirit – should follow them as our spiritual guides in prayerful boldness towards the Sweetest Lord Jesus Christ, our Holy God, Who is living, near, and dear, asking Him to forgive our sins and give peace to the Ukraine, a holy land battered today by ravenous wolves, and rest to its people. Amen!
This season, tempus cottonwood, is one of the allergy seasons I suffer. It is particularly intense as many sidewalks look like we have had an early fluffy snow. The itchy eyes, the congestion and headache… part of the spéciale du jour I am privileged to enjoy. But I am such a greedy person I don’t wish anyone else to partake of this unique experience. No doubt you will forgive me my stinginess. But as I woke this morning I was minded of a simple thing, the binary code and what a marvelous thing it is, something greatly desired. Earnestly yearning to breathe, I ached for that binary joy of having at least one nostril open so I could draw that first morning lungful without an open mouth. Such simple desires.
Binary code is, of course, the alphabet of computer programmers though they may write that language in various languages like C++ or other. At the very core of every computer language resides that marvelously simple alphabet of “1” and “0”. Just two digits stand behind an enormous variety. I marvel at the fact that just two digits are able to record photographs, write the software I use, post anything that I might scrawl, create safety protocols so advanced that governments spend billions of dollars trying to crack just two digits. It is absolutely breathtaking.
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo doesn’t like binary systems. He sits in his retirement in front of a computer screen typing out his dislike of the binary while his computer dutifully transposes his fantasy into ones and zeros so the world can see it. What is the binary code he so dislikes? The very first one we are told of in the Scriptures: male and female. I would in no way suggest which among these is the one and which is the zero. Should I hazard such a thought, I’m sure my beloved wife would remind me that she and her kind are in fact the one and I and mine, having expressed a guess, are indeed the zero. After all, a group which cannot remember to let down the toilet seat or put one’s dirty socks in the hamper can’t possible rise to the dignity of a one. Who is to argue?
But the eminently consecrated Puhalo has imbibed deeply from the pool of the academic whose mind has not been content to look at reality, but would prefer to create new systems of order and structure detached from the simple desire to breathe through one’s allergies. The modern is a corruption of the medieval mind really. The glory of the medieval mind was that it loved order and structure. Everything has a place and there is a place for everything. Some details were not processed correctly but by in large the medieval man was spot on because he dealt with reality as we experienced before his very eyes. This, as many of you will know, is the master theme of C. S. Lewis in his last book, The Discarded Image, which was not one of his popular Christian apologetics but rather a publication of the lectures he gave as a Don at Oxford and Cambridge in Medieval English Literature. It is brilliant.
The modern mind is striving to create a new sense of order in a world as he imagines it to be. His fantasy is filter he uses to process all he sees and the particular filter used in this case is the sexual revolution. Few things have been so destructive as that little notion that sex is purely about enjoyment, like an amusement ride made of flesh—one may debate which lasts longer, a roller coaster ride or intercourse. I would never suggest a solution to that age old riddle. Nevertheless the moderner’s mind began categorizing things based upon the different ways we can experience ecstasy rather than what was classically called the metaphysical [which is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it]. Metaphysics are out, phenomena [the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view] are in. The moderner tries to order the world not from objective reality, but from subjective experience and here we find the profound error and departure from their medieval forebears.
That an Orthodox Archbishop would fall for this folly is somewhat surprising, but not entirely in his particular case. He has had a long career of dissension and combativeness, long enough that when he left the various vagante groups of which he was a part seeking entrance in the Orthodox Church in America, he was only received as a retired bishop with the title Archbishop of Ottawa. He was given his gold watch. The Synod of Bishops told him that he was a zero in their midst. But like other zeros, myself included, he would not sit down and has now entered the digital age on FaceBook and other binary outlets to throw his lot in with the moderner and promote the notion that there are multiple genders, and this we must accept from a sociological viewpoint as being scientific. This can only be scientifically so, categorically true, if we elevate subjective feelings and experience over constitutional reality. In other words, to embrace this we must life in the same fantasy. Those who live in a fantasy should reside in a mental ward.
Underneath the marvelous truth of our biological reality, is a simple binary code. It is not a one or zero, instead it is either an “xx” or “xy”, the first is female, the second is male. There is of course the anomaly of the “xyy” syndrome in which a male has an extra y chromosome, but everyone recognizes this as an anomaly and at the end of the day, this person is simply a male. What a marvel that God is so brilliant that he himself uses a binary code. It baffles the imagination. Such variety from the binary. But the “xyy” syndrome illustrates that in a fundamentally binary system the inclusion of more “variety” is not wanted and is in fact problematic. I cannot imagine what havoc introducing a “2” to the computer programmer’s language would be. It is easy to speculate it would be dreadful because it has never been wanted.
Humanity is, fundamentally, genetically, organically, only male or female. The Bible is right. But man’s passions are indeed multiple and pervasive. When we define man on his feelings and appetites there can be no limit to the number of “genders” one can devise. But sin is ultimately so boring. My brother and I worked at Six Flags over Texas years ago and he took it as a challenge to ride the roller coaster Shock Wave as many times in a row as he could. I believe he rode it about 63 times without getting off the metal highway of twists, loops and turns. It got rather boring. There was no anticipation, no real thrill. He knew every twist and turn. Any reality based purely on our own subjective experience will in the long run be boring, though it will begin with incredible excitement. The only alternative to such an approach is the constantly seek new experiences or thrills.
What road Puhalo and his is band of impassioned fools will take next who knows. But I am sure that he will run wild with them. He is in search of a new ride, a new thrill. How foolish. How boring. But they will never find reality at the end of their road. They will never be able to sit still and say that the world is now ordered because their reality is constantly shifting and morphing due to their passions.
Those who are truly concerned with gender dysphoria should encourage therapy rather than surgery. It is a psychological and spiritual problem, not one of reality. It is a pathology, not an orientation.
But I am simply a troglodyte who embraces the incredibly rich beauty and variety of this objective world in which we live. That ought to be no surprise really, for I also rejoice in the simply relief of an open nostril in the midst of my allergies. O the magnificence of the binary.
Hellenic Parliament’s Debt Truth Committee Preliminary Findings – Executive Summary of the report (via The Oceania Saker)
In June 2015 Greece stands at a crossroad of choosing between furthering the failed macroeconomic adjustment programmes imposed by the creditors or making a real change to break the chains of debt. Five years since the economic adjustment programmes began, the country remains deeply cemented in an economic, social, democratic and ecological crisis. The black box of debt has remained closed, and until now no authority, Greek or international, has sought to bring to light the truth about how and why Greece was subjected to the Troika regime. The debt, in whose name nothing has been spared, remains the rule through which neoliberal adjustment is imposed, and the deepest and longest recession experienced in Europe during peacetime.
There is an immediate need and social responsibility to address a range of legal, social and economic issues that demand proper consideration. In response, the Hellenic Parliament established the Truth Committee on Public Debt in April 2015, mandating the investigation into the creation and growth of public debt, the way and reasons for which debt was contracted, and the impact that the conditionalities attached to the loans have had on the economy and the population. The Truth Committee has a mandate to raise awareness of issues pertaining to the Greek debt, both domestically and internationally, and to formulate arguments and options concerning the cancellation of the debt.
The research of the Committee presented in this preliminary report sheds light on the fact that the entire adjustment programme, to which Greece has been subjugated, was and remains a politically orientated programme. The technical exercise surrounding macroeconomic variables and debt projections, figures directly relating to people’s lives and livelihoods, has enabled discussions around the debt to remain at a technical level mainly revolving around the argument that the policies imposed on Greece will improve its capacity to pay the debt back. The facts presented in this report challenge this argument.
All the evidence we present in this report shows that Greece not only does not have the ability to pay this debt, but also should not pay this debt first and foremost because the debt emerging from the Troika’s arrangements is a direct infringement on the fundamental human rights of the residents of Greece. Hence, we came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.
It has also come to the understanding of the Committee that the unsustainability of the Greek public debt was evident from the outset to the international creditors, the Greek authorities, and the corporate media. Yet, the Greek authorities, together with some other governments in the EU, conspired against the restructuring of public debt in 2010 in order to protect financial institutions.The corporate media hid the truth from the public by depicting a situation in which the bailout was argued to benefit Greece, whilst spinning a narrative intended to portray the population as deservers of their own wrongdoings.
Bailout funds provided in both programmes of 2010 and 2012 have been externally managed through complicated schemes, preventing any fiscal autonomy. The use of the bailout money is strictly dictated by the creditors, and so, it is revealing that less than 10% of these funds have been destined to the government’s current expenditure.
This preliminary report presents a primary mapping out of the key problems and issues associated with the public debt, and notes key legal violations associated with the contracting of the debt; it also traces out the legal foundations, on which unilateral suspension of the debt payments can be based. The findings are presented in nine chapters structured as follows:
Chapter 1, Debt before the Troika, analyses the growth of the Greek public debt since the 1980s. It concludes that the increase in debt was not due to excessive public spending, which in fact remained lower than the public spending of other Eurozone countries, but rather due to the payment of extremely high rates of interest to creditors, excessive and unjustified military spending, loss of tax revenues due to illicit capital outflows, state recapitalization of private banks, and the international imbalances created via the flaws in the design of the Monetary Union itself.
Adopting the euro led to a drastic increase of private debt in Greece to which major European private banks as well as the Greek banks were exposed. A growing banking crisis contributed to the Greek sovereign debt crisis. George Papandreou’s government helped to present the elements of a banking crisis as a sovereign debt crisis in 2009 by emphasizing and boosting the public deficit and debt.
Chapter 2, Evolution of Greek public debt during 2010-2015, concludes that the first loan agreement of 2010, aimed primarily to rescue the Greek and other European private banks, and to allow the banks to reduce their exposure to Greek government bonds.
Chapter 3, Greek public debt by creditor in 2015, presents the contentious nature of Greece’s current debt, delineating the loans’ key characteristics, which are further analysed in Chapter 8.
Chapter 4, Debt System Mechanism in Greece reveals the mechanisms devised by the agreements that were implemented since May 2010. They created a substantial amount of new debt to bilateral creditors and the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), whilst generating abusive costs thus deepening the crisis further. The mechanisms disclose how the majority of borrowed funds were transferred directly to financial institutions. Rather than benefitting Greece, they have accelerated the privatization process, through the use of financial instruments.
Chapter 5, Conditionalities against sustainability, presents how the creditors imposed intrusive conditionalities attached to the loan agreements, which led directly to the economic unviability and unsustainability of debt. These conditionalities, on which the creditors still insist, have not only contributed to lower GDP as well as higher public borrowing, hence a higher public debt/GDP making Greece’s debt more unsustainable, but also engineered dramatic changes in the society, and caused a humanitarian crisis. The Greek public debt can be considered as totally unsustainable at present.
Chapter 6, Impact of the “bailout programmes” on human rights, concludes that the measures implemented under the “bailout programmes” have directly affected living conditions of the people and violated human rights, which Greece and its partners are obliged to respect, protect and promote under domestic, regional and international law. The drastic adjustments, imposed on the Greek economy and society as a whole, have brought about a rapid deterioration of living standards, and remain incompatible with social justice, social cohesion, democracy and human rights.
Chapter 7, Legal issues surrounding the MOU and Loan Agreements, argues there has been a breach of human rights obligations on the part of Greece itself and the lenders, that is the Euro Area (Lender) Member States, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and theInternational Monetary Fund, who imposed these measures on Greece. All these actors failed to assess the human rights violations as an outcome of the policies they obliged Greece to pursue, and also directly violated the Greek constitution by effectively stripping Greece of most of its sovereign rights. The agreements contain abusive clauses, effectively coercing Greece to surrender significant aspects of its sovereignty. This is imprinted in the choice of the English law as governing law for those agreements, which facilitated the circumvention of the Greek Constitution and international human rights obligations. Conflicts with human rights and customary obligations, several indications of contracting parties acting in bad faith, which together with the unconscionable character of the agreements, render these agreements invalid.
Chapter 8, Assessment of the Debts as regards illegtimacy, odiousness, illegality, and unsustainability, provides an assessment of the Greek public debt according to the definitions regarding illegitimate, odious, illegal, and unsustainable debt adopted by the Committee.
Chapter 8 concludes that the Greek public debt as of June 2015 is unsustainable, since Greece is currently unable to service its debt without seriously impairing its capacity to fulfill its basic human rights obligations. Furthermore, for each creditor, the report provides evidence of indicative cases of illegal, illegitimate and odious debts.
Debt to the IMF should be considered illegal since its concession breached the IMF’s own statutes, and its conditions breached the Greek Constitution, international customary law, and treaties to which Greece is a party. It is also illegitimate, since conditions included policy prescriptions that infringed human rights obligations. Finally, it is odious since the IMF knew that the imposed measures were undemocratic, ineffective, and would lead to serious violations of socio-economic rights.
Debts to the ECB should be considered illegal since the ECB over-stepped its mandate by imposing the application of macroeconomic adjustment programs (e.g. labour market deregulation) via its participation in the Troïka. Debts to the ECB are also illegitimate and odious, since the principal raison d’etre of the Securities Market Programme (SMP) was to serve the interests of the financial institutions, allowing the major European and Greek private banks to dispose of their Greek bonds.
The EFSF engages in cash-less loans which should be considered illegal because Article 122(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was violated, and further they breach several socio-economic rights and civil liberties. Moreover, the EFSF Framework Agreement 2010 and the Master Financial Assistance Agreement of 2012 contain several abusive clauses revealing clear misconduct on the part of the lender. The EFSF also acts against democratic principles, rendering these particular debts illegitimate and odious.
The bilateral loans should be considered illegal since they violate the procedure provided by the Greek constitution. The loans involved clear misconduct by the lenders, and had conditions that contravened law or public policy. Both EU law and international law were breached in order to sideline human rights in the design of the macroeconomic programmes. The bilateral loans are furthermore illegitimate, since they were not used for the benefit of the population, but merely enabled the private creditors of Greece to be bailed out. Finally, the bilateral loans are odious since the lender states and the European Commission knew of potential violations, but in 2010 and 2012 avoided to assess the human rights impacts of the macroeconomic adjustment and fiscal consolidation that were the conditions for the loans.
The debt to private creditors should be considered illegal because private banks conducted themselves irresponsibly before the Troika came into being, failing to observe due diligence, while some private creditors such as hedge funds also acted in bad faith. Parts of the debts to private banks and hedge funds are illegitimate for the same reasons that they are illegal; furthermore, Greek banks were illegitimately recapitalized by tax-payers. Debts to private banks and hedge funds are odious, since major private creditors were aware that these debts were not incurred in the best interests of the population but rather for their own benefit.
The report comes to a close with some practical considerations. Chapter 9, Legal foundations for repudiation and suspension of the Greek sovereign debt, presents the options concerning the cancellation of debt, and especially the conditions under which a sovereign state can exercise the right to unilateral act of repudiation or suspension of the payment of debt under international law.
Several legal arguments permit a State to unilaterally repudiate its illegal, odious, and illegitimate debt. In the Greek case, such a unilateral act may be based on the following arguments: the bad faith of the creditors that pushed Greece to violate national law and international obligations related to human rights; preeminence of human rights over agreements such as those signed by previous governments with creditors or the Troika; coercion; unfair terms flagrantly violating Greek sovereignty and violating the Constitution; and finally, the right recognized in international law for a State to take countermeasures against illegal acts by its creditors , which purposefully damage its fiscal sovereignty, oblige it to assume odious, illegal and illegitimate debt, violate economic self-determination and fundamental human rights. As far as unsustainable debt is concerned, every state is legally entitled to invoke necessity in exceptional situations in order to safeguard those essential interests threatened by a grave and imminent peril. In such a situation, the State may be dispensed from the fulfilment of those international obligations that augment the peril, as is the case with outstanding loan contracts.Finally, states have the right to declare themselves unilaterally insolvent where the servicing of their debt is unsustainable, in which case they commit no wrongful act and hence bear no liability.
People’s dignity is worth more than illegal, illegitimate, odious and unsustainable debt
Having concluded a preliminary investigation, the Committee considers that Greece has been and still is the victim of an attack premeditated and organized by the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. This violent, illegal, and immoral mission aimed exclusively at shifting private debt onto the public sector.
Making this preliminary report available to the Greek authorities and the Greek people, the Committee considers to have fulfilled the first part of its mission as defined in the decision of the President of Parliament of 4 April 2015. The Committee hopes that the report will be a useful tool for those who want to exit the destructive logic of austerity and stand up for what is endangered today: human rights, democracy, peoples’ dignity, and the future of generations to come.
It’s what Rotislav Ishchenko does in this article. Mr. Ishchenko is another of those so clever geopolitical analysts who keeps on explaining all the time how the world really works to us, poor folks watching in horror the bombs dropping, and to them, poor folks in horror receiving the bombs.
Mr. Ishchenko is kindly invited to take residence in Donetsk. After bearing a year of indiscriminate shelling we are sure his remarks about the situation would not be so witty and nonchalant. Ten thousands civilians have been massacred in the Donbass (and millions displaced) and they are being bombed and massacred to this very hour. They would not be, if not for Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, very clever agreements which everybody knew would not be implemented and just for this, clever analysts like Mr. Ishchenko continue to explain us, needed to be signed (thwarting in both cases the momentum of Novorussian counteroffensive) in a hurry. Very urgently, lest the administrative borders of the republics could be made secure or their major cities taken out of artillery range, I suppose.
Once and for all, Mr. Ishchenko: we also know how the world works, analysis centers included! In fact, we know even better, because we are aware of the mistery of iniquity.
The only difference is that we don’t like it one bit!!!
P.S. About fifth columns….. to see a thing, you must be outside of it (and have capable eyes).
“Now Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe. If the collapse of the economy suddenly stops, and Ukraine develops by four percent annually, we will reach the level of 2013 in 20 years,” the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili said.
“Only in 20 years will we return to the figures of Yanukovych’s Ukraine,” he concluded. LINK