Search
1000 results for “rob_models”
-
SENEDD ELECTION: Labour suffers dramatic collapse in new Wales poll — here’s what it means for your constituency
Welsh Labour has suffered its worst polling result yet with just three days to go until Thursday’s Senedd election – with a new survey putting the party on just 16% of the vote and projecting its most humiliating result since devolution began.
The poll, by More in Common, puts Plaid Cymru ahead on 30% with Reform UK close behind on 27%. Labour trails in third on 16%, with the Conservatives on 12%, the Greens on 9% and the Liberal Democrats on 4%.
The significance of the More in Common poll is that it has consistently been the most favourable for Labour of all the polling firms covering the Senedd election. Previous polls had already shown a knife-edge race between Plaid and Reform – but Labour had been holding on to the More in Common numbers as a relative comfort. That comfort has now gone.
Translated into seats under the new proportional system, the poll projects Plaid Cymru and Reform UK level on 34 seats each, with Labour on 14 – down ten from the last projection – the Conservatives on nine and the Greens on five. The new Senedd has 96 seats, meaning a majority requires 49. Under these projections, no single party or obvious coalition can reach that threshold.
One of the most striking individual findings is the projection for First Minister Eluned Morgan’s own seat in Ceredigion Penfro. Under the previous More in Common MRP, Morgan was narrowly projected to hold on as Labour’s sole representative in the constituency. With Labour now down a further five points nationally, that margin is under even greater pressure. Analysts caution that local projections carry significant uncertainty – but the direction of travel is clear.
Luke Tryl, Executive Director of More in Common UK, said the race had tightened significantly. “With less than a week to go, the race has tightened. Plaid Cymru now leads on vote share, but in terms of seats it all looks set to come down to the sixth seat in each constituency which will likely be decided by handfuls of votes,” he said.
The poll also underlines how the new closed list system benefits the larger parties at the expense of smaller ones. Plaid and Reform are each projected to win around 35% of seats despite winning 30% and 27% of the vote respectively, while the Liberal Democrats on 4% are projected to win no seats at all nationally. Two-thirds of Welsh voters still don’t understand how the new system works, according to research published at the weekend.
The new More in Common poll has not yet published full constituency-level breakdowns. The projections below are based on the April More in Common MRP model, adjusted in light of the new national figures – particularly Labour’s further five-point fall. They should be read as indicative rather than definitive.
In Sir Gaerfyrddin – covering the whole of Carmarthenshire – Plaid Cymru are dominant, polling at around 37%. Under the April MRP, Plaid were projected to take three seats – Cefin Campbell, Nerys Evans and Adam Price – with Reform UK’s Gareth Beer and Carmelo Colasanto taking two. Labour’s Calum Higgins held the sixth seat by a narrow margin. With Labour down further nationally, that sixth seat is now under serious threat.
In Gŵyr Abertawe – covering Swansea – the April MRP projected a dead heat, with Reform UK’s Francesca O’Brien and Steven Rodaway, Plaid Cymru’s Gwyn Williams and Safa Elhassan, and Labour’s Mike Hedges and Swansea Council leader Rob Stewart each winning two seats. Labour’s national collapse makes both of those Labour seats harder to hold under the new figures.
In Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd – covering Neath Port Talbot and the Brecon area – the April MRP projected the most fragmented result of any constituency in south-west Wales, with one seat each for six different parties: Reform UK’s James Evans and Iain McIntosh; Labour’s Dr Mahaboob Basha; Plaid Cymru’s Sioned Williams; the Liberal Democrats’ Jane Dodds; and Conservative Tyler John Chambers. With Labour on 16% nationally, Dr Basha’s seat is the most exposed of the six.
In Ceredigion Penfro – covering Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion – Plaid Cymru dominate on around 38%. The April MRP projected Elin Jones, Kerry Ferguson and Anna Nicholl taking three seats for Plaid, with Reform UK’s Susan Claire Archibald taking one and Conservative Paul Windsor Davies another. First Minister Eluned Morgan was projected to narrowly hold the sixth seat for Labour – but that projection is now in serious doubt given Labour’s further national decline.
In Pen-y-bont Bro Morgannwg – covering Bridgend – the April MRP projected a three-way tie with two seats each for Reform UK’s Sarah Cooper-Lesadd and Gareth Thomas, Plaid Cymru’s Mark Hooper and Sarah Rees, and Labour’s Sarah Murphy and Huw John David. Labour’s second seat here is under pressure under the new polling figures.
A second major poll from YouGov is expected on Tuesday – which will give a further picture of where Wales stands heading into polling day on Thursday. We will bring you the full breakdown as soon as it is published.
Our Senedd election coverage
Plaid on course to make history — but here’s who’s set to represent YOU on 7 May
Seat-by-seat projections for every constituency across south-west Wales under the new system.Race between Plaid and Reform on a knife-edge as two major polls show Wales heading for historic result
The polling picture before the More in Common survey.Two-thirds of Welsh voters don’t understand the new voting system
New research from Aberystwyth and Swansea universities on voter knowledge ahead of Thursday.Reform UK targets Sir Gaerfyrddin seats with nine days to go
#MoreInCommon #PlaidCymru #ReformUK #SeneddElection2026 #WelshLabour
How the campaign has been playing out across south-west Wales. -
SENEDD ELECTION: Plaid on course to make history as largest party — but here’s who’s actually set to represent YOU on May 7
Wales is heading for a political earthquake on May 7, according to the most detailed poll yet published ahead of the Senedd election.
Research group More in Common has released its first MRP — a sophisticated seat-by-seat modelling technique that goes far beyond standard polling — and the findings represent a dramatic moment in Welsh politics.
Plaid Cymru is projected to win 30 seats, making it the largest party in the 96-seat Senedd for the first time since devolution in 1999. Reform UK is close behind on 28, with Labour falling to just 24 — a historic collapse for a party that has governed Wales continuously for 27 years.
The Conservatives are forecast to hold seven seats, the Greens four, and the Liberal Democrats three.
Luke Tryl, Executive Director of More in Common UK, said the scale of the shift was extraordinary. “Looking at Wales today, it’s hard to believe that the 2024 general election was less than two years ago — the political map has changed so dramatically since Labour won decisively in Wales,” he said.
“Having governed in Wales for 28 years, Labour is set to be pushed into third place — and for the first time we could see Wales led by a non-Labour First Minister. Plaid Cymru are the clear beneficiaries of a country ready for change, and could be on course to lead a Welsh government for the first time.”
The polling, carried out between January 30 and April 10 with a sample of 2,519 Welsh adults aged 16 and over, shows implied vote shares of 25% each for Plaid Cymru and Reform UK, 21% for Labour, 11% for the Conservatives, 10% for the Greens, and 7% for the Liberal Democrats. Independents and other candidates are polling at under 2% in most constituencies and are not projected to win any seats under this model.
Image: Senedd Implied Voting Intention bar chart — Source: More in Common, March and April 2026It is the more conservative of two recent MRPs: a JL Partners poll for the Telegraph, published last week, put Plaid on 37 seats — a more commanding lead still.
Image: Wales constituency map showing projected winners — Source: More in Common, April 2026What it means for your area — and who you’ll be voting for
Wales is using a closed list proportional representation system for the first time in this election, meaning voters choose a party rather than an individual candidate. Seats are then allocated in order from each party’s published list. That means we can say not just which parties are likely to win seats — but exactly who those winners are likely to be.
Gŵyr Abertawe (Swansea)
Reform UK’s Francesca O’BrienSwansea Council leader, Rob Stewart (Photo: Adam Davies)Plaid Cymru’s Gwyn WilliamsThe Swansea constituency is projected as a dead heat, with each of the top three parties taking two seats apiece on virtually identical vote shares.
Reform UK lead on 25%, ahead of Plaid Cymru on 24% and Labour on 22%. Both Reform UK candidates Francesca O’Brien — the Mumbles ward councillor who defected from the Welsh Conservatives to Reform UK last August, having previously served as the party’s deputy leader in Swansea — and Steven Rodaway would be elected. Labour’s two seats would go to former MS Mike Hedges and Swansea council leader Rob Stewart. Plaid Cymru would return Gwyn Williams and Safa Elhassan.
The Greens are on 10% and the Conservatives also on 10%, with neither projected to win a seat here.
Sir Gaerfyrddin (Carmarthenshire)
Plaid Cymru’s Cefin CampbellReform UK’s Gareth BeerWelsh Labour’s Calum HigginsPlaid Cymru are dominant in Carmarthenshire, polling at 37% — well ahead of Reform UK on 26% and Labour on 21%.
That translates to three seats for Plaid: Cefin Campbell, Nerys Evans, and former party leader Adam Price would all be returned. Reform UK’s Gareth Beer and Carmelo Colasanto would take two seats, and Labour’s Calum Higgins would hold the sixth and final place.
Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd (Neath Port Talbot/Brecon)
James Evans speaking at a Reform UK event after confirming he has joined the party. (Image: Reform UK)Welsh Labour’s Dr. Mahaboob BashaPlaid Cymru’s Sioned WilliamsThis is the most fragmented constituency in our area, with six different parties projected to win one seat each — one of the most competitive contests in all of Wales.
Reform UK lead on 27%, with Labour on 21%, Plaid on 19%, the Liberal Democrats on 13%, the Conservatives on 11%, and the Greens on 10%. On those figures the elected members would be: Reform UK’s James Oswald David Evans and Iain Charles McIntosh; Labour’s Dr Mahaboob Basha; Plaid Cymru’s Sioned Williams MS; Liberal Democrats’ Jane Dodds MS; and Conservative Tyler John Chambers.
Pen-y-bont Bro Morgannwg (Bridgend)
Reform UK’s Sarah Cooper-LesaddPlaid Cymru’s Mark HooperWelsh Labour’s Sarah MurphyBridgend mirrors the Swansea picture — a three-way tie with two seats each for Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and Labour. Reform poll 27%, Plaid 24%, and Labour 24%.
Sarah Cooper-Lesadd and Gareth Thomas would be elected for Reform; Mark Hooper and Sarah Rees for Plaid; and Sarah Murphy and Huw John David for Labour.
Afan Ogwr Rhondda (Neath Port Talbot/Rhondda)
Reform UK’s Ben Hodge-McKennaPlaid Cymru’s Sera EvansWelsh Labour’s Huw Irranca DaviesThis is Reform UK’s strongest projected result in our area. They lead on 36% — ahead of Plaid Cymru on 25% and Labour on 21% — and are projected to win three of the six seats.
Benjamin Hodge McKenna, Steve Bayliss, and Darren James would all be elected for Reform. Plaid’s Sera Evans and Alun Cox would take two seats, with Labour’s Huw Irranca-Davies — currently serving as Deputy First Minister — narrowly holding on with the sixth seat.
Ceredigion Penfro (Pembrokeshire)
Plaid Cymru’s Elin JonesWelsh Conservative’s Paul DaviesWelsh Labour’s Eluned MorganPlaid Cymru dominate Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion with 38% of the vote, projected to win three seats. The current Llywydd (Speaker) Elin Jones would top their list, followed by Kerry Elizabeth Ferguson and Anna Nicholl.
Reform UK’s Susan Claire Archibald would take one seat on 20%, and former Conservative Senedd leader Paul Windsor Davies would be returned for the Conservatives on 14%.
In a notable shift from some earlier polls, First Minister Eluned Morgan MS would retain her seat as Labour’s sole representative in the constituency on 14%. Previous MRP modelling had placed her seat at serious risk — this poll suggests she survives, though the margin remains tight.
A volatile result
Image: Chart showing how small changes in support could significantly alter seat totals — Source: More in Common, April 2026More in Common highlight that the outcome remains fluid. Labour and Reform hold or contest the final seat in a large number of constituencies, meaning minor swings in support on polling day could shift the overall totals significantly either way.
What is beyond doubt is that Wales is heading for a result that would have been unthinkable even five years ago — a Senedd led by Plaid Cymru for the first time, with the party that barely existed in Welsh politics two years ago threatening to become the dominant force from Swansea to the Valleys.
More in Common’s full MRP data is available at moreincommon.org.uk. The Senedd election takes place on Thursday, May 7, 2026.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
SENEDD SHAKE-UP: Winners and losers revealed as First Minister on course to lose seat
An earlier poll had put Eluned Morgan’s seat at serious risk — this latest MRP now says she survives.Plaid Cymru storms ahead as shock Senedd poll predicts political earthquake in Wales
Our coverage of the earlier polling that first put Plaid ahead.Reform UK pulls ahead as Plaid slips and Labour edges back in new Senedd poll
How the race between Plaid and Reform has shifted in recent weeks.From Westminster landslide to Senedd stalemate — two very different futures for south-west Wales
What proportional representation could mean for Labour’s south Wales strongholds.Swansea councillor Francesca O’Brien joins Reform UK
#CllrRobStewart #ElunedMorganMS #featured #MoreInCommon #PlaidCymru #polling #ReformUK #SeneddElection2026
Our original report on the Mumbles ward councillor’s defection from the Welsh Conservatives last August. -
WRU doubles down on three-team plan after EGM as Ospreys supporters warn of “lasting damage” to Welsh rugby
The EGM, held at the Principality Stadium on Monday evening, proceeded despite all three original motions being withdrawn at the start of the meeting after the announced departures of WRU chair Richard Collier-Keywood and Professional Rugby Board chair Malcolm Wall. Around 124 of the WRU’s 284 member clubs and districts attended either in person or online — meaning more than half stayed away entirely.
With no votes to cast, the meeting became a lengthy presentation by WRU leadership followed by an hour and a half of questions from the floor. CEO Abi Tierney reiterated the case for reducing to three professional teams, arguing that Wales is attempting to spread a limited talent pool too thinly and that years of underinvestment in development pathways had brought the game to its current point.
In the days before the meeting Swansea Bay News had warned it could end up as nothing more than a chat — and so it proved, with Tierney unable to offer any concrete timeline, detail on how the reduction would be delivered, or clarity on the Cardiff sale process.
Both Tierney and Collier-Keywood admitted during the meeting that they had made mistakes — specifically that they had spent too long trying to maintain four teams and persuade them to sign a new Professional Rugby Agreement before Cardiff went bust. Collier-Keywood said they tried to maintain four sides for too long amid disputes with the regions, with both agreeing the current benefactor model in Welsh rugby is not sustainable in the long term.
It was also suggested the union had suffered a £6 million shortfall in revenue due to poor Six Nations ticket sales, including a record low crowd for the home match against France. Former Principality Building Society COO Rob Regan — a vocal critic of the WRU’s plans who has been working on an alternative model — used the meeting to ask Tierney directly to admit mistakes in order to help rebuild public trust.
The reaction from the Ospreys community was swift and unequivocal. The Ospreys Supporters Club said it was “extremely disappointed, though not surprised” by the outcome, adding that the WRU’s position remained unchanged despite recent leadership changes.
In a statement, the supporters group described the current situation as “the result of years of chronic mismanagement and neglect at the top of the game” and warned that removing a professional side in west Wales would risk “causing lasting damage to the sport in one of its strongest heartlands.” The OSC called on the WRU to “urgently reconsider its position, rebuild trust through genuine engagement, and work collaboratively with stakeholders before further damage is done.”
Swansea Council leader Rob Stewart had urged clubs to maintain maximum pressure going into the meeting, warning that not voting to remove Collier-Keywood — even though he had already announced his departure — “would send all the wrong messages and is open to misrepresentation by the WRU.” He confirmed that Swansea Council’s legal action remains ready, a CMA referral remains live and the commitment to the Ospreys remains at “100%.”
Stewart also confirmed that work on the St Helen’s redevelopment is expected to start soon as part of the co-investment plan agreed with the Ospreys, with the aim of creating a new venue ready for the start of the 2026/27 season.
Torsten Bell MP also called on clubs to use the meeting to oppose the three-team plan, describing the stakes as “not about technical governance issues” but about “safeguarding the soul of Welsh rugby.” He said Wales deserved a WRU that “brings everyone to the table and explores every option before making decisions that will see major changes to our game.”
The meeting heard a notable moment of contrast on the floor. CGRU representative Chris Morgan argued that Wales’s period of international success had been built on four professional teams and that abandoning that structure without a credible alternative amounted to “a dereliction of duty that could destroy Welsh rugby.” His remarks drew applause from parts of the room. However, a separate club representative later claimed a significant proportion of clubs remained firmly behind the WRU’s proposals — drawing what was reportedly the loudest and most sustained applause of the evening.
Tierney, speaking to journalists after the meeting, said she was confident in strong grassroots support for the three-team plan but was unable to provide further detail on how or when a decision would be reached. She denied the reduction automatically meant a straight shootout between the Ospreys and Scarlets for the western licence, saying there were “a few different permutations.” She also declined to comment on the status of the Scarlets’ legal action against the WRU.
On the Cardiff sale, Tierney admitted no deal had yet been agreed with Y11 Sport & Media, with the exclusivity period due to end on April 22 and reports suggesting Y11 may be reconsidering its position. She also confirmed the WRU is working closely with the United Rugby Championship but was unable to say whether a replacement for the fourth Welsh side in the competition had been found.
The WRU confirmed it will use external headhunters to appoint a new independent chair, with the process to begin in May and the new person expected to be in place by early summer. As Swansea politicians called for a reset following Collier-Keywood’s initial announcement, the mood in Welsh rugby remains one of deep uncertainty — and the questions that defined this EGM remain entirely unanswered.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
WRU EGM: Welsh rugby’s extraordinary meeting — but it could end up as nothing more than a chat
Our preview of Monday’s meeting and what was at stake.Ospreys lifeline as council seals historic St Helen’s deal
The groundbreaking agreement that could secure the Ospreys’ future in Swansea.Collier-Keywood quits: Rugby Union chair says he’ll leave in July
The announcement that changed the shape of the EGM.Ospreys fans close in on 10,000-name petition target
#AbiTierney #CllrRobStewart #EGM #MartynRyan #Ospreys #RichardCollierKeywood #Rugby #WalesRugby #WalesRugbyRegions #WRU
The scale of opposition to the WRU’s three-team plan. -
SWANSEA: Crime down 12% and anti-social behaviour down 69% as Dyfatty crackdown delivers early results
The results cover the period between 15 January and 15 March, the first two months of the Clear Hold Build initiative, which was launched by South Wales Police and partners in late March with a pledge to take back the streets from organised crime.
South Wales Police say that in that period, officers carried out 28 proactive arrests for offences including assaults, robberies, drug dealing and possession, fail-to-appear warrants and weapon-related offences. A further 45 stop searches were conducted, 15 of which produced positive results leading to arrests or out-of-court disposals.
Police say 38 people were issued with directions to leave the area in response to anti-social behaviour, and four community protection warning notices were issued to repeat offenders with no legitimate reason to be in Dyfatty. Officers also executed five misuse-of-drugs warrants at identified addresses during the period.
The 69% reduction in reported anti-social behaviour incidents compared to the same period last year is particularly striking given the scale of the problems that preceded the operation. Residents had been living with the effects of organised crime for years — a situation Chief Superintendent Stephen Jones described as “long overdue” for action when the operation launched.
Acting Chief Inspector Andrew Hedley said the results reflected the strength of the partnership approach established between police, the local authority, support services and the community. “Our continued presence in Dyfatty is making a real difference, and we are committed to building on this progress to ensure residents feel safe and supported,” he said. “This is only the beginning, and we will keep working together to deliver long-lasting improvements for the area.”
The Clear Hold Build model, backed by the Home Office, follows a three-phase approach. The first — Clear — involves a year-long police-led crackdown targeting offenders and disrupting criminal networks. The second phase, Hold, focuses on stabilising the area and preventing gangs from returning once enforcement pressure eases. The final phase, Build, brings long-term investment to tackle the root causes of crime and support economic growth.
The force says the Dyfatty project is the flagship scheme for the Swansea Public Services Board and builds on similar operations delivered elsewhere in the South Wales Police force area, including in Merthyr Tydfil, Adamsdown, Roath and Butetown.
The Hold phase will be led by Swansea Council working with all Public Services Board partners, and police and partners say it will focus on maintaining security, preventing criminal re-infiltration and strengthening community confidence. The Build phase will begin during the Hold phase and continue over the longer term.
The operation is being coordinated through the Swansea Public Services Board, which brings together South Wales Police, Swansea Council, Swansea Bay University Health Board and Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Council leader Rob Stewart had pledged at the outset that the project would run alongside a separate regeneration programme expected to bring up to £20 million of investment into Dyfatty over the next decade.
The early results suggest the intensive enforcement phase is having a tangible effect on the ground. Police have not yet detailed how many of the 28 arrests have led to charges or prosecutions, but the volume of activity in just eight weeks underlines the scale of the operation.
The force has signalled that work will continue in the months ahead, with the stated aim not simply of making arrests but of achieving lasting change for residents who have long borne the brunt of crime and disorder in the area.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
Dyfatty crime crackdown: Major police operation targets Swansea hotspot
Our original report on the launch of the Clear Hold Build operation in March.Dyfatty set for £20m investment boost
The regeneration plans running alongside the police operation.Dyfatty flats set for major upgrade
#antiSocialBehaviour #ClearHoldBuild #CrimeReduction #Dyfatty #SouthWalesPolice #SwanseaCouncil
Multi-million pound plans to improve ageing council tower blocks in the area. -
Inteligentne oprawki od optyka. Meta szykuje nowe Ray-Bany specjalnie dla okularników
Obecna generacja inteligentnych okularów od Marka Zuckerberga okazała się sporym sukcesem, ale firma ma apetyt na znacznie więcej.
Z najnowszych przecieków wynika, że Meta przygotowuje dwa nowe modele Ray-Banów, stworzone od podstaw z myślą o rynku osób z wadami wzroku. Wprawdzie już teraz można zamontować soczewki korekcyjne w standardowych wariantach Meta Ray-Ban, jednak nadchodzące nowości mają być zoptymalizowane specjalnie pod ten konkretny scenariusz. Wejście w świat tradycyjnej optyki to logiczny krok w strategii firmy, która chce, aby sztuczna inteligencja towarzyszyła nam na każdym kroku.
Technologia dopasowana do wady wzroku
Z informacji opublikowanych przez zachodnie serwisy technologiczne wynika, że nowe modele ukrywają się pod nazwami kodowymi „Scriber” oraz „Blazer”. Zaoferują one odpowiednio prostokątny i zaokrąglony kształt oprawek. Choć producent nie ujawnił jeszcze szczegółów technicznych, branżowe źródła sugerują, że inżynierowie mogli przeprojektować rozkład masy, grubość ramek oraz system zarządzania baterią. Wszystko po to, aby sprzęt lepiej sprawdzał się jako podstawowe okulary noszone bez przerwy przez kilkanaście godzin.
Co istotne z rynkowego punktu widzenia, nowe warianty mają być sprzedawane przez tradycyjne kanały dystrybucji optycznej. Oznacza to, że po inteligentne Ray-Bany udamy się do lokalnego salonu, gdzie specjalista od razu dobierze odpowiednie szkła (o ile nowy model trafi do Europy)
Szybszy transfer i certyfikacja sprzętu
Dokumenty z amerykańskiej agencji FCC potwierdzają, że mówimy o wersjach produkcyjnych, a nie wczesnych prototypach. Premiera zbliża się więc wielkimi krokami. Z wniosków certyfikacyjnych dowiadujemy się również, że wariant „Blazer” będzie dostępny w zauważalnie większym rozmiarze, co rozwiąże problem wielu użytkowników narzekających na ciasne oprawki obecnej generacji.
Oba modele otrzymają wsparcie dla szybkiego pasma Wi-Fi 6 UNII-4. Ten niepozorny, techniczny detal to spora zmiana – lepszy i stabilniejszy transfer danych powinien sprawdzić się chociażby podczas prowadzenia transmisji wideo na żywo, z których słyną okulary Mety. Zgodnie z przewidywaniami, sprzęt nadal nie będzie posiadał wbudowanego wyświetlacza, stawiając w całości na dyskretne kamery, głośniki i interakcje głosowe z asystentem AI.
Celowanie w miliardy użytkowników
Podczas ostatniego spotkania z inwestorami Mark Zuckerberg bardzo jasno nakreślił swoją wizję przyszłości. Przypomniał, że miliardy ludzi na świecie noszą na co dzień okulary lub soczewki kontaktowe, a za kilka lat trudno będzie wyobrazić sobie sytuację, w której większość z tych oprawek nie będzie pełnić funkcji inteligentnych asystentów.
Wprowadzenie wyspecjalizowanych modeli do klasycznych salonów optycznych to strategiczny ruch. Meta nie chce już tylko sprzedawać modnych gadżetów na wakacje – zamierza przenieść technologię wearable z niszy wprost na nosy zwykłych, wymagających użytkowników.
#inteligentneOkulary #MarkZuckerberg #MetaRayBan #MetaSmartGlasses #okularyKorekcyjneAI #RayBanBlazer #RayBanScriber #technologiaUbieralna #wearablesPierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
-
Inteligentne oprawki od optyka. Meta szykuje nowe Ray-Bany specjalnie dla okularników
Obecna generacja inteligentnych okularów od Marka Zuckerberga okazała się sporym sukcesem, ale firma ma apetyt na znacznie więcej.
Z najnowszych przecieków wynika, że Meta przygotowuje dwa nowe modele Ray-Banów, stworzone od podstaw z myślą o rynku osób z wadami wzroku. Wprawdzie już teraz można zamontować soczewki korekcyjne w standardowych wariantach Meta Ray-Ban, jednak nadchodzące nowości mają być zoptymalizowane specjalnie pod ten konkretny scenariusz. Wejście w świat tradycyjnej optyki to logiczny krok w strategii firmy, która chce, aby sztuczna inteligencja towarzyszyła nam na każdym kroku.
Technologia dopasowana do wady wzroku
Z informacji opublikowanych przez zachodnie serwisy technologiczne wynika, że nowe modele ukrywają się pod nazwami kodowymi „Scriber” oraz „Blazer”. Zaoferują one odpowiednio prostokątny i zaokrąglony kształt oprawek. Choć producent nie ujawnił jeszcze szczegółów technicznych, branżowe źródła sugerują, że inżynierowie mogli przeprojektować rozkład masy, grubość ramek oraz system zarządzania baterią. Wszystko po to, aby sprzęt lepiej sprawdzał się jako podstawowe okulary noszone bez przerwy przez kilkanaście godzin.
Co istotne z rynkowego punktu widzenia, nowe warianty mają być sprzedawane przez tradycyjne kanały dystrybucji optycznej. Oznacza to, że po inteligentne Ray-Bany udamy się do lokalnego salonu, gdzie specjalista od razu dobierze odpowiednie szkła (o ile nowy model trafi do Europy)
Szybszy transfer i certyfikacja sprzętu
Dokumenty z amerykańskiej agencji FCC potwierdzają, że mówimy o wersjach produkcyjnych, a nie wczesnych prototypach. Premiera zbliża się więc wielkimi krokami. Z wniosków certyfikacyjnych dowiadujemy się również, że wariant „Blazer” będzie dostępny w zauważalnie większym rozmiarze, co rozwiąże problem wielu użytkowników narzekających na ciasne oprawki obecnej generacji.
Oba modele otrzymają wsparcie dla szybkiego pasma Wi-Fi 6 UNII-4. Ten niepozorny, techniczny detal to spora zmiana – lepszy i stabilniejszy transfer danych powinien sprawdzić się chociażby podczas prowadzenia transmisji wideo na żywo, z których słyną okulary Mety. Zgodnie z przewidywaniami, sprzęt nadal nie będzie posiadał wbudowanego wyświetlacza, stawiając w całości na dyskretne kamery, głośniki i interakcje głosowe z asystentem AI.
Celowanie w miliardy użytkowników
Podczas ostatniego spotkania z inwestorami Mark Zuckerberg bardzo jasno nakreślił swoją wizję przyszłości. Przypomniał, że miliardy ludzi na świecie noszą na co dzień okulary lub soczewki kontaktowe, a za kilka lat trudno będzie wyobrazić sobie sytuację, w której większość z tych oprawek nie będzie pełnić funkcji inteligentnych asystentów.
Wprowadzenie wyspecjalizowanych modeli do klasycznych salonów optycznych to strategiczny ruch. Meta nie chce już tylko sprzedawać modnych gadżetów na wakacje – zamierza przenieść technologię wearable z niszy wprost na nosy zwykłych, wymagających użytkowników.
#inteligentneOkulary #MarkZuckerberg #MetaRayBan #MetaSmartGlasses #okularyKorekcyjneAI #RayBanBlazer #RayBanScriber #technologiaUbieralna #wearablesPierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
-
£14bn metro dream for Swansea – but will West Wales finally get its share?
The ambitious vision from Transport for Wales forms part of a £14bn programme backed by the UK and Welsh governments, with leaders claiming it could transform travel, boost business and create thousands of jobs across South West Wales.
Electrification, new stations and metro links
At the heart of the plans is long-awaited electrification of the main line between Cardiff and Swansea — a move expected to cut journey times and increase capacity.
New stations at Landore and Winch Wen are also proposed, alongside a string of potential metro hubs across the city including Pontlliw, Felindre, Morriston, Llandarcy and Cockett.
There are also plans to improve rail links westwards to communities including Ammanford, Pembrey, St Clears, Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock — areas long calling for better connections.
Further down the line, a £1bn light rail expansion could link Swansea to Neath and Tonna, running through the city centre and waterfront in a move designed to bring trams back to the region.
Proposed Swansea Bay Metro and tram-train routes showing new stations, connections and future expansion plans across the region.
(Image: Transport for Wales / Swansea Council)“Generational change” promised
Rob Stewart said the plans could be a turning point for the regional economy.
“We all want to see better rail links into Swansea and across South West Wales,” he said.
“Transport links from London and the rest of UK to our part of Wales are critical to help deliver a strong local economy.”
He added that electrification and wider investment would “create thousands of jobs in construction and secure thousands more in the long term”.
The council is also banking on sweeping bus reforms to tie the network together, with a new franchising model aimed at delivering “one timetable and one ticket” across rail and bus services.
Transport leaders and politicians present detailed plans for new stations and improved rail links under the Swansea Bay Metro proposals
(Image: Swansea Council)Linking jobs, hospitals and major attractions
Stewart said new stations would play a key role in connecting people to jobs and services.
“Having a network of new stations across Swansea will be critical in terms of providing direct public transport links to hospitals, major employers including the DVLA and the Enterprise Zone in Llansamlet,” he said.
“They will also serve major attractions including the new Skyline development, Penderyn Distillery and the Swansea.com Stadium.”
Political backing – but pressure remains
Ken Skates said the plans marked “exciting times ahead” for transport in the region, while Swansea West MP Torsten Bell said the project could help reverse years of underinvestment.
“Swansea has been let down by years of underinvestment in our rail system,” he said.
“This consultation is an important opportunity to feed into the development of this vital new infrastructure.”
But will it actually happen?
Despite the bold vision, the announcement comes against a backdrop of frustration in South West Wales — with previous promises failing to materialise.
Swansea Bay News has previously reported anger over the lack of progress on schemes like the long-delayed St Clears station, as well as criticism that the region has been “forgotten” in wider UK rail investment.
There have also been renewed calls for major projects like a multi-million pound rail link to Aberystwyth, while passengers continue to demand better reliability despite recent improvements in punctuality.
Campaigners will also be disappointed that there is no mention of a tram route extending towards Swansea University and Mumbles.
The £14bn plan has been hailed as “generational” — but for many across Swansea, Neath Port Talbot and Carmarthenshire, the real test will be whether it finally delivers on promises that have been years in the making.
Transport and rail: more from Swansea Bay News
St Clears station delay sparks anger
Calls grow for action after years of promises with no construction.£775m rail link calls return
Fresh push for a Carmarthen to Aberystwyth line in major report.£14bn rail row erupts
Politicians clash over whether Swansea is getting its fair share.‘Forgotten again’ fury over rail snub
Anger as new stations announced elsewhere — but not in West Wales.Rail punctuality improves — but concerns remain
#CllrRobStewart #CockettStation #electrification #featured #FelindreStation #LandoreStation #lightRail #LlandarcyStation #MorristonStation #PontlliwStation #publicTransport #rail #SwanseaBayMetro #SwanseaCouncil #TorstenBellMP #tram #tramTrain #TransportForWales #WinchWenStation
Performance rises, but passengers say more must be done. -
DYFATTY CRIME CRACKDOWN: Major police operation targets Swansea hotspot
The Dyfatty Clear Hold Build project is now underway, targeting long-standing issues linked to serious organised crime, anti-social behaviour and community safety concerns in the area around High Street North and nearby tower blocks.
Led by South Wales Police alongside the city council and other agencies, the operation is being described as a “long overdue” intervention for residents.
Map outlining the Dyfatty area targeted under the Clear Hold Build programme
(Image: South Wales Police)‘Long overdue’ action
Chief Superintendent Stephen Jones said the first phase will focus on removing criminal influence and protecting vulnerable people.
He said many residents have been forced to live with the impact of organised crime for years — despite having no connection to it themselves.
“This work is long overdue for the people who live in Dyfatty,” he said.
Residents, officials and partners attend the launch of the Building a Better Dyfatty programme
(Image: South Wales Police)Chief Superintendent Stephen Jones addresses partners at the project launch event in High Street
(Image: South Wales Police)Three-phase plan to transform the area
The scheme follows the national Clear Hold Build model — a strategy backed by the Home Office.
- Clear phase: A year-long police-led crackdown targeting offenders and disrupting criminal networks
- Hold phase: Stabilising the area and preventing gangs from returning
- Build phase: Long-term investment to tackle the root causes of crime
Officials say the aim is not just arrests — but lasting change.
Millions pledged to ‘transform’ Dyfatty
Council leader Rob Stewart said the project will work alongside a separate regeneration programme expected to bring up to £20 million into the area over the next decade.
He said the combined efforts would help “clean up and stabilise” Dyfatty while supporting long-term improvements.
The initiative is being coordinated through the Swansea Public Services Board, which includes partners such as Swansea Bay University Health Board and Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service.
Community at the heart of the plan
Chair of the board, Andrea Harrington, said the project would focus on listening to residents and working with local communities to deliver change.
She described Dyfatty as a diverse area facing a range of challenges — but said partners were committed to creating a safer, stronger neighbourhood.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
Dyfatty set for £20m investment boost
Plans aim to transform the area over the next decade with major regeneration funding.Police crackdown on Dyfatty anti-social behaviour
Dispersal powers introduced after rising incidents in the area.Three arrested after armed police incident
Officers responded to a disturbance at flats, with arrests made following an investigation.Dyfatty flats set for major upgrade
Multi-million pound plans to improve ageing council tower blocks.Major makeover for Croft Street flats
More than 100 homes to benefit from upgrades including new kitchens and security.CCTV upgrade at problem tower blocks
New security measures installed to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.New anti-social behaviour powers proposed
Council seeks views on tougher measures to deal with persistent issues.High-rise flats evacuated after major damage
Residents forced out following a serious incident in a Swansea tower block.High Street revival plans gather pace
#ClearHoldBuild #CllrAndreaHarrington #CllrRobStewart #CrimeReduction #Dyfatty #HighStreet #PublicServicesBoard #SouthWalesPolice #Swansea #SwanseaCouncil
Community-led projects aim to bring new life to Swansea city centre. -
SWANSEA: Global workspace giant IWG takes huge 20,000 sq ft at booming Kingsway development
International Working Group (IWG) is fitting out nearly 20,000 square feet at the site, marking another step in the city’s ongoing regeneration efforts.
This move will see new shared offices, private rooms, and meeting areas open in the heart of Swansea.
The 71/72 Kingsway building, developed by Swansea Council and partly funded by the Swansea Bay City Deal, is already proving popular, with 80% of its office space now let.
Council estimates suggest that once fully occupied, the entire development could create up to 600 jobs and boost the city’s economy by £32.6 million each year.
IWG, which runs brands like Regus, is expanding its operations to meet what it calls “rising demand” for flexible working across South Wales.
Mark Dixon, CEO & Founder of IWG, said Swansea was an “important business hub” for their expansion plans.
Mr Dixon stated: “We are very pleased to work in partnership with Swansea Council to add workspace to the 71/72 Kingsway building.”
He claimed that flexible working improves employee work-life balance and boosts productivity.
Mr Dixon added: “Our workplace model is proven to increase productivity and allows for a business to scale up or down at significantly reduced costs while providing access to thousands of locations.”
Swansea Council Leader, Cllr Rob Stewart, welcomed IWG’s arrival, calling it a “strong vote of confidence” in the city.
Cllr Stewart said: “We’re delighted that IWG is now fitting out its space at 71/72 Kingsway, building on the momentum created by other tenants who are already operating from the development.”
He added that IWG’s presence “reflects the growing demand for high-quality, flexible workspaces.”
Mark Dixon (left), CEO & Founder of IWG, and Cllr Rob Stewart, Leader of Swansea Council, outside the striking 71/72 Kingsway development. (Image: Swansea Council)The 71/72 Kingsway scheme has already attracted other businesses, including Tui, Amazon-owned Veeqo, Optical Express, sk:n, and Futures First.
This influx of companies is expected to increase footfall and support other businesses in the city centre, as part of wider regeneration projects.
Related stories from Swansea Bay News
Big tech boost as Amazon-owned Veeqo opens new Swansea HQ
How a major Kingsway office move is helping to reshape Swansea’s city centre economy.Optical Express and sk:n sign up for major new Kingsway office scheme
New tenants underline the push to turn The Kingsway into a modern business district.New city centre courtyard to honour late council officer Huw Mowbray
A new public space pays tribute to a key figure behind Swansea’s regeneration projects.Major Swansea office scheme officially opens with further tenant announced
#7172Kingsway #Business #cityCentre #Economy #FlexibleWorking #InternationalWorkingGroup #IWG #jobs #Kingsway #officeDevelopment #Regus #Spaces #Swansea #SwanseaCityCentre #SwanseaCouncil
A flagship office development opens its doors as another business signs up to move in. -
‘CROSSROADS’ CRUNCH: Defiant WRU boss says ‘unavoidable disruption’ coming as Ospreys axe looms
In a high-stakes letter to the Senedd’s sport committee, Richard Collier-Keywood declared that Welsh rugby is at a “crossroads” and insisted that shrinking from four teams to three is “essential” for survival.
The move comes despite a furious backlash from Swansea Council, which recently published secret minutes suggesting the Ospreys are the team in the firing line for 2027.
Mr Collier-Keywood’s letter, sent to committee chair Delyth Jewell MS, claims there is an “overriding consensus for change” across the game.
He wrote: “Change is difficult, but essential for the long-term success and health of the game. We are taking difficult decisions but acting responsibly.”
The WRU chair admitted that “rebuilding trust is a priority,” but doubled down on the controversial strategy, stating the board is “unanimous” in its direction.
He added: “We respect the deep sense of ownership and pride that people throughout Wales feel in our game, but change is difficult and disruption is unavoidable if we are to achieve our aims.”
The defiant stance is likely to pour petrol on the flames of the ongoing legal war with Swansea Council, which has seen Leader Rob Stewart call for the immediate resignation of CEO Abi Tierney.
Cllr Stewart has accused the union of “duplicitous” actions and “misleading” the public over the Ospreys’ future.
The WRU letter also confirms that while a “Plan B” was discussed, the board remains committed to the three-club model, which they claim will allow for £20 million of investment in pathways and the women’s game.
However, critics point to the damning Senedd verdict which previously accused the union of a “dereliction of duty.”
Alun Wyn Jones and other legends have already warned that losing the Ospreys would leave a “rugby black hole” in the West.
The union’s leadership remains “confident” in its path, even as 51 clubs move to axe the WRU chairman himself in an unprecedented vote of no confidence.
With the WRU refusing to budge and the council digging in for a High Court fight, the battle for the soul of Welsh rugby has reached its most explosive point yet.
Richard Collier-Keywood’s letter in full
The defiant letter sent by the WRU Chair to the Senedd’s sport and culture committee. (Image: WRU) #Ospreys #regionalRugby #RichardCollierKeywood #RugbyCrisis #Senedd #SwanseaCouncil #WelshRugby #WRU -
Ospreys not doomed yet, says WRU boss as battle for West Wales rugby licence looms
Facing a grilling from the Senedd’s Culture, Communications and Welsh Language Committee, Richard Collier-Keywood said the assumption that the Ospreys would be sacrificed was “not necessarily correct.” His comments come after a deal was struck for the new owners of Cardiff Rugby, Y11 Sports and Media, to potentially own two clubs, sparking fears that the Swansea-based Ospreys would be the casualty in the WRU‘s move from four professional teams to three.
Mr Collier-Keywood confirmed that while Cardiff has been guaranteed the ‘Capital’ licence, the process for awarding the ‘East’ and ‘West’ licences has not yet been decided. This leaves the Ospreys and their West Wales rivals, the Scarlets, to fight it out for the single remaining licence in the west.
“There is one west licence,” Mr Collier-Keywood told the committee. “Going forward I expect that we will carry out a fair and transparent process to determine who gets that licence. We have not done that yet.”
He added that the process would be governed by competition law and could include conditions on where rugby is played, suggesting the winning team might have to play matches across the entire region, not just at their home ground.
St Helens in Swansea (left) and Parc y Scarlets in Llanelli (right) – the home grounds of the Ospreys and Scarlets, who will battle for the single West Wales professional rugby licence. The WRU chairman suggested the winning team may have to play matches across the entire region, not just at their traditional home ground
(Image: Ospreys/Scarlets)Financial justification for cuts
The WRU leadership defended the controversial decision to cut a professional side, arguing that the current model is financially unsustainable.
“The fact remains is we have four teams who do not have enough money to be competitive,” Mr Collier-Keywood stated. “We do not have enough money to fund four teams and fund the necessary rugby infrastructure within Wales to take the participation all the way through to elite pro rugby.”
Board member Alison Thorne added that it was a matter of prioritisation, explaining that funding four teams would mean no money for a national academy, people development, or coach development. “Armed with all the info from finance and rugby perspective your pathways need fixing. That was the overriding message which came from the consultation,” she said.
Trust and transparency questioned
The WRU chair, who is facing a looming EGM that could see him ousted, also faced questions about a breakdown in trust with the regions and a lack of transparency. He revealed that the WRU had been “asked not to turn up” to a recent district meeting in Swansea, a clear sign of the anger in the region over the handling of the situation.
This follows vocal criticism from Swansea leaders, including Swansea West MP Torsten Bell and Council Leader Rob Stewart, who have previously slammed the WRU’s three-club plan as “not fit for purpose.”
Sponsorship concerns
The hearing also touched on the WRU’s commercial challenges. While a new deal has been signed with Principality to continue sponsoring the national stadium, Ms Thorne admitted that there “isn’t a huge demand to be sponsors” following a series of controversies, including issues with women’s contracts and a damning BBC documentary.
The WRU board made the decision to move to three professional teams at the end of October 2024 and are, according to the chairman, just “three months into this process.” However, with the union still committed to providing four teams to the United Rugby Championship (URC) and no compromise yet reached, the future of Welsh regional rugby remains deeply uncertain.
#BBC #CardiffRugby #Llanelli #Ospreys #RichardCollierKeywood #RobStewart #Rugby #Scarlets #Senedd #Swansea #TorstenBellMP #URC #WelshRugbyUnion #WRU #Y11 #Y11SportsAndMedia -
Meta wchodzi w sport. Nowe inteligentne okulary Oakley z kamerą 3K
Meta kontynuuje ekspansję na rynku elektroniki noszonej, ogłaszając nową linię inteligentnych okularów stworzoną we współpracy z marką Oakley. Modele te, skierowane głównie do sportowców, oferują szereg ulepszeń w porównaniu do poprzednich wersji Ray-Ban, w tym nagrywanie wideo w jakości 3K i znacznie dłuższą pracę na baterii. Ceny nowej kolekcji zaczynają się od 399 dolarów.
Meta zaprezentowała kolejny owoc swojej współpracy z gigantem branży optycznej, EssilorLuxottica. Tym razem partnerem została marka Oakley, znana z produkcji okularów sportowych. Nowe modele, podobnie jak ich poprzednicy z logo Ray-Ban, wyposażono w kamerę, mikrofony i głośniki o otwartej konstrukcji. Po sparowaniu z telefonem umożliwiają słuchanie muzyki, prowadzenie rozmów telefonicznych oraz interakcję z asystentem Meta AI, który potrafi odpowiadać na pytania dotyczące tego, co widzi użytkownik, a nawet tłumaczyć języki w czasie rzeczywistym.
Pierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
Najważniejsze zmiany kryją się w specyfikacji technicznej, dostosowanej do aktywnego stylu życia. Okulary Oakley Meta posiadają klasę wodoodporności IPX4, co oznacza ochronę przed zachlapaniem. Czas pracy na jednym ładowaniu został podwojony i wynosi teraz 8 godzin, a dołączone etui ładujące wydłuża ten czas do 48 godzin. Znaczącej poprawie uległa również jakość wideo – wbudowana kamera pozwala na nagrywanie w rozdzielczości 3K, co stanowi postęp w stosunku do 1080p w modelach Ray-Ban.
Nowa linia będzie dostępna w pięciu wariantach oprawek i soczewek, w tym w kolorach szarym, czarnym, brązowym i przezroczystym. Wszystkie modele są kompatybilne z soczewkami korekcyjnymi, które można zamówić za dodatkową opłatą. Edycja limitowana Oakley Meta HSTN, wyceniona na 499 dolarów, będzie dostępna w przedsprzedaży od 11 lipca. Wracając do nowości, charakteryzuje się ona złotymi akcentami i specjalnymi soczewkami Oakley PRIZM.
Początkowo okulary trafią do sprzedaży w 15 krajach, w tym w USA, Kanadzie i na wybranych rynkach europejskich, takich jak Niemcy, Francja, Włochy czy Hiszpania. Na razie na liście nie ma Polski. Krok ten jest częścią wieloletniej umowy między Meta a EssilorLuxottica, która zakłada ambitny cel sprzedaży 10 milionów par inteligentnych okularów rocznie do 2026 roku. Jak stwierdził Alex Himel, dyrektor ds. urządzeń noszonych w Meta, „to nasz pierwszy krok w kategorii produktów sportowych. To jeszcze nie koniec”.
#elektronikaNoszona #inteligentneOkulary #Meta #news #smartGlasses #wearables
-
Meta wchodzi w sport. Nowe inteligentne okulary Oakley z kamerą 3K
Meta kontynuuje ekspansję na rynku elektroniki noszonej, ogłaszając nową linię inteligentnych okularów stworzoną we współpracy z marką Oakley. Modele te, skierowane głównie do sportowców, oferują szereg ulepszeń w porównaniu do poprzednich wersji Ray-Ban, w tym nagrywanie wideo w jakości 3K i znacznie dłuższą pracę na baterii. Ceny nowej kolekcji zaczynają się od 399 dolarów.
Meta zaprezentowała kolejny owoc swojej współpracy z gigantem branży optycznej, EssilorLuxottica. Tym razem partnerem została marka Oakley, znana z produkcji okularów sportowych. Nowe modele, podobnie jak ich poprzednicy z logo Ray-Ban, wyposażono w kamerę, mikrofony i głośniki o otwartej konstrukcji. Po sparowaniu z telefonem umożliwiają słuchanie muzyki, prowadzenie rozmów telefonicznych oraz interakcję z asystentem Meta AI, który potrafi odpowiadać na pytania dotyczące tego, co widzi użytkownik, a nawet tłumaczyć języki w czasie rzeczywistym.
Pierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
Najważniejsze zmiany kryją się w specyfikacji technicznej, dostosowanej do aktywnego stylu życia. Okulary Oakley Meta posiadają klasę wodoodporności IPX4, co oznacza ochronę przed zachlapaniem. Czas pracy na jednym ładowaniu został podwojony i wynosi teraz 8 godzin, a dołączone etui ładujące wydłuża ten czas do 48 godzin. Znaczącej poprawie uległa również jakość wideo – wbudowana kamera pozwala na nagrywanie w rozdzielczości 3K, co stanowi postęp w stosunku do 1080p w modelach Ray-Ban.
Nowa linia będzie dostępna w pięciu wariantach oprawek i soczewek, w tym w kolorach szarym, czarnym, brązowym i przezroczystym. Wszystkie modele są kompatybilne z soczewkami korekcyjnymi, które można zamówić za dodatkową opłatą. Edycja limitowana Oakley Meta HSTN, wyceniona na 499 dolarów, będzie dostępna w przedsprzedaży od 11 lipca. Wracając do nowości, charakteryzuje się ona złotymi akcentami i specjalnymi soczewkami Oakley PRIZM.
Początkowo okulary trafią do sprzedaży w 15 krajach, w tym w USA, Kanadzie i na wybranych rynkach europejskich, takich jak Niemcy, Francja, Włochy czy Hiszpania. Na razie na liście nie ma Polski. Krok ten jest częścią wieloletniej umowy między Meta a EssilorLuxottica, która zakłada ambitny cel sprzedaży 10 milionów par inteligentnych okularów rocznie do 2026 roku. Jak stwierdził Alex Himel, dyrektor ds. urządzeń noszonych w Meta, „to nasz pierwszy krok w kategorii produktów sportowych. To jeszcze nie koniec”.
#elektronikaNoszona #inteligentneOkulary #Meta #news #smartGlasses #wearables
-
Meta wchodzi w sport. Nowe inteligentne okulary Oakley z kamerą 3K
Meta kontynuuje ekspansję na rynku elektroniki noszonej, ogłaszając nową linię inteligentnych okularów stworzoną we współpracy z marką Oakley. Modele te, skierowane głównie do sportowców, oferują szereg ulepszeń w porównaniu do poprzednich wersji Ray-Ban, w tym nagrywanie wideo w jakości 3K i znacznie dłuższą pracę na baterii. Ceny nowej kolekcji zaczynają się od 399 dolarów.
Meta zaprezentowała kolejny owoc swojej współpracy z gigantem branży optycznej, EssilorLuxottica. Tym razem partnerem została marka Oakley, znana z produkcji okularów sportowych. Nowe modele, podobnie jak ich poprzednicy z logo Ray-Ban, wyposażono w kamerę, mikrofony i głośniki o otwartej konstrukcji. Po sparowaniu z telefonem umożliwiają słuchanie muzyki, prowadzenie rozmów telefonicznych oraz interakcję z asystentem Meta AI, który potrafi odpowiadać na pytania dotyczące tego, co widzi użytkownik, a nawet tłumaczyć języki w czasie rzeczywistym.
Pierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
Najważniejsze zmiany kryją się w specyfikacji technicznej, dostosowanej do aktywnego stylu życia. Okulary Oakley Meta posiadają klasę wodoodporności IPX4, co oznacza ochronę przed zachlapaniem. Czas pracy na jednym ładowaniu został podwojony i wynosi teraz 8 godzin, a dołączone etui ładujące wydłuża ten czas do 48 godzin. Znaczącej poprawie uległa również jakość wideo – wbudowana kamera pozwala na nagrywanie w rozdzielczości 3K, co stanowi postęp w stosunku do 1080p w modelach Ray-Ban.
Nowa linia będzie dostępna w pięciu wariantach oprawek i soczewek, w tym w kolorach szarym, czarnym, brązowym i przezroczystym. Wszystkie modele są kompatybilne z soczewkami korekcyjnymi, które można zamówić za dodatkową opłatą. Edycja limitowana Oakley Meta HSTN, wyceniona na 499 dolarów, będzie dostępna w przedsprzedaży od 11 lipca. Wracając do nowości, charakteryzuje się ona złotymi akcentami i specjalnymi soczewkami Oakley PRIZM.
Początkowo okulary trafią do sprzedaży w 15 krajach, w tym w USA, Kanadzie i na wybranych rynkach europejskich, takich jak Niemcy, Francja, Włochy czy Hiszpania. Na razie na liście nie ma Polski. Krok ten jest częścią wieloletniej umowy między Meta a EssilorLuxottica, która zakłada ambitny cel sprzedaży 10 milionów par inteligentnych okularów rocznie do 2026 roku. Jak stwierdził Alex Himel, dyrektor ds. urządzeń noszonych w Meta, „to nasz pierwszy krok w kategorii produktów sportowych. To jeszcze nie koniec”.
#elektronikaNoszona #inteligentneOkulary #Meta #news #smartGlasses #wearables
-
Meta wchodzi w sport. Nowe inteligentne okulary Oakley z kamerą 3K
Meta kontynuuje ekspansję na rynku elektroniki noszonej, ogłaszając nową linię inteligentnych okularów stworzoną we współpracy z marką Oakley. Modele te, skierowane głównie do sportowców, oferują szereg ulepszeń w porównaniu do poprzednich wersji Ray-Ban, w tym nagrywanie wideo w jakości 3K i znacznie dłuższą pracę na baterii. Ceny nowej kolekcji zaczynają się od 399 dolarów.
Meta zaprezentowała kolejny owoc swojej współpracy z gigantem branży optycznej, EssilorLuxottica. Tym razem partnerem została marka Oakley, znana z produkcji okularów sportowych. Nowe modele, podobnie jak ich poprzednicy z logo Ray-Ban, wyposażono w kamerę, mikrofony i głośniki o otwartej konstrukcji. Po sparowaniu z telefonem umożliwiają słuchanie muzyki, prowadzenie rozmów telefonicznych oraz interakcję z asystentem Meta AI, który potrafi odpowiadać na pytania dotyczące tego, co widzi użytkownik, a nawet tłumaczyć języki w czasie rzeczywistym.
Pierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
Najważniejsze zmiany kryją się w specyfikacji technicznej, dostosowanej do aktywnego stylu życia. Okulary Oakley Meta posiadają klasę wodoodporności IPX4, co oznacza ochronę przed zachlapaniem. Czas pracy na jednym ładowaniu został podwojony i wynosi teraz 8 godzin, a dołączone etui ładujące wydłuża ten czas do 48 godzin. Znaczącej poprawie uległa również jakość wideo – wbudowana kamera pozwala na nagrywanie w rozdzielczości 3K, co stanowi postęp w stosunku do 1080p w modelach Ray-Ban.
Nowa linia będzie dostępna w pięciu wariantach oprawek i soczewek, w tym w kolorach szarym, czarnym, brązowym i przezroczystym. Wszystkie modele są kompatybilne z soczewkami korekcyjnymi, które można zamówić za dodatkową opłatą. Edycja limitowana Oakley Meta HSTN, wyceniona na 499 dolarów, będzie dostępna w przedsprzedaży od 11 lipca. Wracając do nowości, charakteryzuje się ona złotymi akcentami i specjalnymi soczewkami Oakley PRIZM.
Początkowo okulary trafią do sprzedaży w 15 krajach, w tym w USA, Kanadzie i na wybranych rynkach europejskich, takich jak Niemcy, Francja, Włochy czy Hiszpania. Na razie na liście nie ma Polski. Krok ten jest częścią wieloletniej umowy między Meta a EssilorLuxottica, która zakłada ambitny cel sprzedaży 10 milionów par inteligentnych okularów rocznie do 2026 roku. Jak stwierdził Alex Himel, dyrektor ds. urządzeń noszonych w Meta, „to nasz pierwszy krok w kategorii produktów sportowych. To jeszcze nie koniec”.
#elektronikaNoszona #inteligentneOkulary #Meta #news #smartGlasses #wearables
-
Meta wchodzi w sport. Nowe inteligentne okulary Oakley z kamerą 3K
Meta kontynuuje ekspansję na rynku elektroniki noszonej, ogłaszając nową linię inteligentnych okularów stworzoną we współpracy z marką Oakley. Modele te, skierowane głównie do sportowców, oferują szereg ulepszeń w porównaniu do poprzednich wersji Ray-Ban, w tym nagrywanie wideo w jakości 3K i znacznie dłuższą pracę na baterii. Ceny nowej kolekcji zaczynają się od 399 dolarów.
Meta zaprezentowała kolejny owoc swojej współpracy z gigantem branży optycznej, EssilorLuxottica. Tym razem partnerem została marka Oakley, znana z produkcji okularów sportowych. Nowe modele, podobnie jak ich poprzednicy z logo Ray-Ban, wyposażono w kamerę, mikrofony i głośniki o otwartej konstrukcji. Po sparowaniu z telefonem umożliwiają słuchanie muzyki, prowadzenie rozmów telefonicznych oraz interakcję z asystentem Meta AI, który potrafi odpowiadać na pytania dotyczące tego, co widzi użytkownik, a nawet tłumaczyć języki w czasie rzeczywistym.
Pierwsze wrażenia z Meta Ray-Ban Wayfarer – rób zdjęcia, wideo lub livestreamuj
Najważniejsze zmiany kryją się w specyfikacji technicznej, dostosowanej do aktywnego stylu życia. Okulary Oakley Meta posiadają klasę wodoodporności IPX4, co oznacza ochronę przed zachlapaniem. Czas pracy na jednym ładowaniu został podwojony i wynosi teraz 8 godzin, a dołączone etui ładujące wydłuża ten czas do 48 godzin. Znaczącej poprawie uległa również jakość wideo – wbudowana kamera pozwala na nagrywanie w rozdzielczości 3K, co stanowi postęp w stosunku do 1080p w modelach Ray-Ban.
Nowa linia będzie dostępna w pięciu wariantach oprawek i soczewek, w tym w kolorach szarym, czarnym, brązowym i przezroczystym. Wszystkie modele są kompatybilne z soczewkami korekcyjnymi, które można zamówić za dodatkową opłatą. Edycja limitowana Oakley Meta HSTN, wyceniona na 499 dolarów, będzie dostępna w przedsprzedaży od 11 lipca. Wracając do nowości, charakteryzuje się ona złotymi akcentami i specjalnymi soczewkami Oakley PRIZM.
Początkowo okulary trafią do sprzedaży w 15 krajach, w tym w USA, Kanadzie i na wybranych rynkach europejskich, takich jak Niemcy, Francja, Włochy czy Hiszpania. Na razie na liście nie ma Polski. Krok ten jest częścią wieloletniej umowy między Meta a EssilorLuxottica, która zakłada ambitny cel sprzedaży 10 milionów par inteligentnych okularów rocznie do 2026 roku. Jak stwierdził Alex Himel, dyrektor ds. urządzeń noszonych w Meta, „to nasz pierwszy krok w kategorii produktów sportowych. To jeszcze nie koniec”.
#elektronikaNoszona #inteligentneOkulary #Meta #news #smartGlasses #wearables
-
Wedergeboorte – gewoon een feit?
In de laatste weken van 2024 herplaatsten we in het BD teksten van auteurs die een bijzondere kijk werpen op (onderdelen van) het boeddhisme. En dat herhalen we in de eerste weken van 2025. Hieronder een tekst van Erik Hoogcarspel. Jan de Breet en Rob Janssen zijn helaas overleden.
Het vraagstuk van wedergeboorte is al vaak besproken. Buitenstaanders, maar ook veel boeddhisten beschouwen het onderwerp als een van de kernthema’s van de boeddhistische leer. In de Pali-Canon, zoals die in het Nederlands is vertaald door Jan de Breet en Rob Janssen, vindt de lezer veel verwijzingen naar wedergeboorte en karma. Er lijkt geen probleem van wedergeboorte te bestaan, het is gewoon een feit.
Toch vindt de leer van wedergeboorte steeds meer weerstand en sommige boeddhisten wijzen de mogelijkheid zelfs resoluut van de hand. Ik koester niet de illusie iets nieuws toe te voegen aan de discussie, maar probeer deze beter te begrijpen. Ik ben van mening dat de leer van wedergeboorte ons dwingt tot een keuze. Welk soort boeddhisme willen we en wat voor boeddhist willen we zijn? Maar het is een keuze die we voor onszelf moeten maken en de keuze van anderen moeten we respecteren. Als eerbetoon aan de recent overleden psycholoog, boeddholoog en Pali vertaler Rob Janssen neem ik zijn lezing over wedergeboorte voor de Vrienden van het Boeddhisme als leidraad.
De klassieke opvatting
In zijn voordracht somt Rob Janssen de feiten nog eens helder op. Hij wijst onder andere op het vierde sutta van de Majjhima-nikāya, de Bhayabheravasutta (Rede over angst en vrees – MN I, blz. 103 -109). De sutta verhaalt hoe de Boeddha aan een brahmaan vertelt hoe hij het ontwaken bereikte. Na de vierde trap van concentratie te hebben bereikt, richtte de Boeddha zijn geest ‘op de kennis die bestaat uit de herinnering van de vroegere verblijfplaatsen’. Hij herinnert zich dan in het eerste deel van de nacht in detail 100.000 vorige levens. Vervolgens, in het tweede deel van de nacht, schouwt hij 100.000 levens en wedergeboorten van andere wezens, ook tot in detail. Ten slotte, in het derde deel van de nacht, beseft hij dat hij volledig verlost is en niet meer wordt wedergeboren. Janssen voert dit verhaal op als overtuigend bewijs, maar is er iets merkwaardigs aan dit verhaal, eigenlijk zijn het er vier.
Ten eerste staat hier het schouwen van de eigen vorige levens en die van andere wezens op de plaats waar elders de vier meditaties op mededogen, mede verheugen en gelijkmoedigheid worden genoemd. Dit zijn drie van de vier vormloze concentraties (arūpa-samāpattis, niet-boeddhistische meditatiemethodes die in het Mahāgovinda Sutta het boeddhisme worden ingeloodst, zie DN blz. 443). Ze worden onder andere in het Aṭṭhakanāgara Sutta (MN II blz. 32 – 46) en het Tevijja Sutta (DN blz. 249) genoemd, in de laatste zelfs zonder de vier trappen van concentratie. De volgorde van de meditaties is merkwaardig, de Boeddha is op het moment van zijn herinnering van vorige levens de tweede trap van concentratie ver voorbij. In deze trap verdwijnt de mogelijkheid tot nadenken en overwegen. In de herinneringen aan vroegere levens komen die gedachten en overwegingen echter blijkbaar weer plotseling in volle glorie terug.
Ten tweede is het verhaal op praktische gronden totaal ongeloofwaardig. Stel dat de nacht negen uur duurt, dan zijn er 3 perioden van elk 180 minuten. Als je in 180 minuten (10.800 seconden) 100.000 levens wilt herinneren, heb je ongeveer één tiende seconde voor elk leven. Het is onmogelijk om je in zo’n korte tijd te herinneren: ‘Op die plaats heette ik zo en zo, hoorde ik tot die en die familie, was ik van die en die stand, voedde ik me zo en zo, ervoer ik dat en dat ongeluk, werd ik zo en zo oud’ (MN I blz. 107).
Ten derde wordt helemaal niet duidelijk gemaakt wat de zin is van deze exercitie. Er komt nergens anders in de Pali-Canon een dergelijke passage voor en nergens wordt er ook gezinspeeld op mogelijke heilzame gevolgen van het zich herinneren van vorige levens. Bovendien zijn er geen verslagen van arhats hierover.
Ten vierde verwachten demografen dat de wereldbevolking zal groeien tot 11 miljard zielen. Als er geen zielen worden bijgemaakt, moeten deze er dus al vanaf het begin der tijden bestaan. Volgens de boeddhistische leer is er zelfs geen begin aan het leven. Dit is natuurlijk ook een Vedisch dogma dat strijdig is met de wetenschap. Ten tijde van de Ontwaakte bedroeg de wereldbevolking ongeveer 100 miljoen, er waren toen dus (11.000 – 100 =) 10.900 miljoen zielen die niet in een menselijk lichaam leefden. De kans om als mens geboren te worden was daarom 1 op 109. De gemiddelde leeftijd van een mens is ongeveer 40 jaar, je moest dus 4.036 jaar wachten op je volgende menselijke geboorte. Dit betekent dat de Boeddha zich levens kon herinneren van 403.600.000 jaar geleden. De oudste fossielen van menselijk leven zijn gevonden in Ethiopië en dateren van 2.8 miljoen jaren geleden.
Als de Boeddha alleen als mens is wedergeboren, er worden namelijk in het sutta geen geboorten als dier genoemd, dan is dat op zijn hoogst 700 (=2.800.000 / 4,036) keer gebeurd. Zelfs als de Boeddha telkens kon ‘voorpiepen’ bij zijn geboorte, dan nog moet zijn eerste geboorte 4 miljoen jaar geleden hebben plaatsgevonden. Dit is ruim 1 miljoen jaar voordat de eerste mens verscheen op aarde. De getallen kloppen dus niet en de latere toevoeging van de vele hemelen en hellen die we in het Tibetaanse model van de vijf of zes rijken aantreffen, maken de afwijkingen alleen maar groter.
Nu zou je kunnen beweren dat al dit rekenwerk wat flauw is en dat het gaat om de bedoeling. Die getallen zijn misschien niet letterlijk zo bedoeld, maar een soort retorische overdrijving. Het probleem is in dat geval dat die bedoeling niet duidelijk wordt gemaakt en dat er wel degelijk gesuggereerd wordt dat de Boeddha dit echt allemaal letterlijk zo heeft gezegd. Als vaststaat dat het verhaal niet letterlijk waar kan zijn, dan is de vraag wat er dan wel van waar is. Het heeft er namelijk alle schijn van dat het verzonnen is door een brahmaan die de Boeddha erg graag als een aanhanger van de Vedische leer van karma en wedergeboorte wilde afschilderen. De toevoeging dat de Boeddha zich herinnerde tot welke familie hij behoorde (in het Pāli staat ‘gotto’, dat is ‘gotra’, oftewel ‘clan’) herinnert aan de Vedische obsessie met het kastenstelsel. Er zijn verschillende plaatsen van soortgelijke Vedische vervuiling aan te wijzen in de Pali Canon van soortgelijke. Als we nu gedwongen worden aan te nemen dat er met deze tekst is geknoeid, dan kunnen we er niet omheen aan te nemen dat dit met meerdere sutta’s het geval zou kunnen zijn, wat trouwens door specialisten op taalkundige gronden inderdaad is vastgesteld.
Karma of taṇhā?
In zijn lezing verklaart Janssen de drang tot wedergeboorte uit karma, maar even verderop ook uit taṇhā (dorst). Hij gaat er vanuit dat dit hetzelfde is, maar er is nogal een verschil: karma kan niet worden opgeheven, maar taṇhā wel. Dit doen boeddhisten tijdens hun meditatie en het is mogelijk, als je geluk hebt, om deze toestand van het wegvallen van gehechtheid aan het bestaan even te ervaren. Na zo’n moment vind je jezelf terug in het alledaagse leven met al zijn beslommeringen. Met goed recht zou dit een wedergeboorte genoemd kunnen worden. Het is een toestand, waarin je weer te maken krijgt met je karma: de neerslag van vooroordelen en beheptheden die je in je leven hebt opgedaan. Deze interpretatie van wedergeboorte levert in de meeste passages van de lezing een veel begrijpelijker en toepasbaarder resultaat op. De voorstellingen van ketens van het lijden (of van saṃsāra, er zijn verschillende, maar de meest bekende is die van 12 schakels) is opeens veel logischer, alle genoemde factoren vormen de voorwaarde die het leed mogelijk maken. Zoals Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu schrijft op bladzijde 1001 van Heartwood of the bodhitree: ‘Geboorte betekent het opkomen van de gevoelens van ‘ik’ en ‘van mij’.’
De voorwaarden voor het leed van saṃsāra.
De leer van wedergeboorte werd al bedacht en verkondigd door de brahmanen, meer dan een eeuw voor de geboorte van de Boeddha. De eerste vermeldingen ervan zijn te vinden in de Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad (6.2.16) en in de Chāndogya-upaniṣad (5.10.3). Thanissaro Bhikkhu is ervan overtuigd dat de leer in de tijd van de Verhevene een nog onbeslist discussiepunt was, omdat er een paar discussies over voorkomen in de Suttanikāya. Hij vergeet echter dat de streek waar de Boeddha leefde in diens tijd al sterk was gebrahmaniseerd en in de Suttanikāya wemelt het inderdaad van de brahmanen. De bovenlaag van politici en priesters aanvaardden dus volop de brahmaanse leer van wedergeboorte. De Boeddha heeft aan deze metafysische leer een geheel eigen psychologische invulling gegeven. Dit deed hij vaker, zoals Richard Gombrich in zijn boek What the Buddha thought heeft aangetoond.
Als we dit nu toepassen op de keten die genoemd wordt in het Mahāpadāna Sutta, die Janssen in zijn lezing bespreekt, ontstaat het volgende beeld. Ouderdom en dood veronderstelt geboorte en dit veronderstelt leven. Leven veronderstelt dat er identificatie of toeëigening is, wat begeerte veronderstelt. Dit kan alleen als er gevoel is en dit veronderstelt waarneming. Waarneming kan alleen plaatsvinden als er de zes zintuigdomeinen zijn, dit wil zeggen: dat er een wereld wordt ervaren als wereld. De ervaring van een wereld veronderstelt weer dat er naam-en-vorm is, dus dat er bewustzijnsobjecten zijn. Dat kan vervolgens alleen als er bewustzijn is. Er is echter geen bewustzijn zonder bewustzijnsobjecten, dus beide veronderstellen elkaar wederzijds en dit is dus het wederzijds afhankelijk ontstaan.
Als men de schakels op deze manier interpreteert is er geen sprake van wedergeboorte in de Vedische zin. De schakels zijn een uitleg van hoe je het nirvāṇa kunt bereiken, ze vormen geen biologieles over zintuigen en geboortes. De Boeddha ging dan ook gewoon dood, net als ieder ander. Hij ging ook door met waarnemen na zijn ontwaken en ervoer de wereld, zij het op een bijzondere manier. De schakels zijn geen verklaring van bevallingen of (weder)geboortes, maar van het ontstaan van het leed, van saṁsāra. Dit ontstaat niet door het ouder worden of sterven op zich, maar door het feit dat we dit niet kunnen accepteren als een normaal natuurlijk proces. Dit wordt vervolgens weer veroorzaakt door de illusie van een ego waarin we leven, een soort mentale gewoonte die aanleiding geeft tot het streven jezelf in stand te houden of zelfs uit te breiden, Nietzsche noemde dit ‘de wil tot macht’.
We identificeren ons dus met ons bestaan, wat betekent dat er voor ons een wereld bestaat waar we deel van uitmaken en waar we veel te ploeteren hebben. Uitdrukkingen als zintuigdomeinen, waarbij het voorstellingsvermogen het zesde is, en naam-en-vorm vat ik op als verzamelnamen, niet als opsommingen. Die wereld stellen we ons voor op grond van alle dingen die onder onze aandacht komen, waar we ons bewust van worden, dus de gewaarwordingen en voorstellingen. Filosofen spreken hier van fenomenen. We ervaren deze alsof ze van buiten komen en alsof we ze moeten ondergaan, maar ze zijn de lege dynamiek van het bewustzijn. Als we beseffen dat zij het spel zijn van verschijning en bewustzijn, in onderlinge afhankelijkheid, dan ervaren we ons bestaan niet meer als onbevredigend of doortrokken van leed, maar als vervuld en op zich vrij en volmaakt. Dit rechtstreeks te ervaren is het doel van methodes als Mahāmudrā en Rdzogs Chen of Mahā Ati. Deze interpretatie van een geestelijke wedergeboorte is geen puzzel die je uit je hoofd moet leren, maar een levende ervaring die zich bewijst in de meditatie. Het is geen geloof, maar een praktisch inzicht waar je mee aan de slag kunt.
Verlossing of geloof?
Rob Janssen presenteert in zijn lezing een indrukwekkende lijst met passages uit de Suttanikāya waarin naar wedergeboorte wordt verwezen. In een aantal van deze gevallen kan wedergeboorte worden gelezen als de mentale wedergeboorte van het ego. In een aantal andere gevallen betreft het naar mijn mening een verdachte sutta, één die pas na de dood van de Boeddha is gecomponeerd. Of waaraan opvattingen van anderen zijn toegevoegd, soms waarschijnlijk met de beste bedoelingen. Dit impliceert dat voor wie de Suttanikāya van kaft tot kaft als het authentieke woord van de boeddha wil beschouwen, er weinig twijfel kan zijn. Een dergelijk uitgangspunt is een keuze, de keuze om het boeddhisme te beschouwen als een religie en de Tipitaka als een verzameling heilige boeken. Veel sutta’s tonen echter onmiskenbaar sporen van redactie, het Mahāpadāna Sutta (DN blz. 251-287), is een daar goed voorbeeld van. We vinden hier de bekende kenmerken van brahmaanse ingreep: astronomische getallen en de zinloze lijstjes die door hun ingewikkeldheid en lengte de lezers of toehoorders moeten imponeren. De Boeddha noemt in deze tekst uit zijn hoofd een lijstje vorige boeddha’s op die allemaal tienduizenden jaren oud zijn geworden, ondanks hun wanstaltigheid waar in de tekst ook over wordt uitgeweid. Er is dus alle reden om aan de authenticiteit van dit soort passages te twijfelen. We kunnen immers niets zeker weten, er zijn geen geluidsopnamen van de Boeddha bewaard gebleven en het is heel goed mogelijk om in een orale traditie ongemerkt fragmenten en zelfs hele sutta’s in te voegen.
Het belangrijkste argument tegen de leer van wedergeboorte vind ik wel dat de vraag naar wat er gebeurt na de dood een brahmaanse obsessie is, die verder niets toevoegt aan het pad van de verlossing in dit leven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu vindt overigens van wel, omdat zonder wedergeboorte de noodzaak van verlossing volgens hem veel minder wordt. Je wordt immers na je dood dan niet meer gestraft voor je wandaden? Het lijkt een beetje op de verzuchting van sommige christenen: ‘als God niet bestaat, is alles geoorloofd’.
Het idee van het eeuwig met je mee moeten dragen van een onbekende oneindig grote hoop karma, waar van alles in zit, is echter niet bepaald iets om vrolijk of hoopvol van te worden. Het kan dus evengoed contraproductief werken. De klassieke brahmaanse leer van wedergeboorte en karma verklaart niets, want het karma is oneindig. Het is alleen maar een stok achter de deur voor de kans- en kastelozen in de samenleving om zich te laten onderdrukken zonder in opstand te komen. Wie wil weten hoe dit uitpakt in de praktijk en hoeveel mensen daardoor het nirvāṇa bereiken, moet maar eens in India rondkijken.
Daar tegenover staat het feit dat de theorie aan alle kanten rammelt. Bij wedergeboorte reïncarneert volgens de klassieke boeddhistische opvatting het karma, want de persoon bestaat eigenlijk niet. Dit betekent dat de overledene in ieder geval vrijuit gaat. Als je dood gaat, gaat het karma naar een volgende geboorte, maar dat ben jij dus niet. Volgens het hindoeïsme is er een ziel die na de dood het lichaam verlaat en naar de voorvaderen of Brahma gaat. Dit kan niet in het boeddhisme, dus neemt men aan dat er een soort continuïteit is met een volgend leven. Het karma gaat naar de ‘cloud’ tijdens het sterven en de nieuwgeborene wordt automatisch gesynchroniseerd met het karma. Er is echter geen eigenaar die bij de baby het wachtwoord intypt van de overledene, met andere woorden: de continuïteit blijft een raadsel. Hoe zoekt het oude karma, dat uiteindelijk alleen maar uit wereldse illusies en traumatische stress bestaat, een nieuwe wedergeboorte? Dit kan alleen door een tweede soort karma die gewoonlijk ‘DE WET VAN HET KARMA’ wordt genoemd.
Dit is de verborgen structuur van het universum, die de wedergeboorte regelt en die in het hindoeïsme ‘Braḥmā’ heet, wiens DNA bovendien volgens de Veda’s de grammatica van het goddelijke Sanskriet is. Deze structuur zorgt er ook voor dat Vedische mantra’s en rituelen effect hebben. Dit is dus een tweede brahmaans dogma dat het boeddhisme is binnen gefrommeld. Het is niet zonder reden dat als belangrijkste hindernissen (samyojana’s) voor het ontwaken worden genoemd: geloof in een zelfstandige individualiteit (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), wankelmoedigheid of twijfel en gehechtheid aan rituelen (sīlabbata-parāmāsa, zie DN blz. 697). Al die bekeerde brahmanen hadden blijkbaar de grootste moeite om van hun rituelen af te komen en op de lange duur zijn die dan ook gewoon weer onder andere namen in het boeddhisme ingevoerd.
Verschillende vormen van boeddhisme
Ongetwijfeld zijn er door boeddhisten onderling vele discussies gevoerd over wat wel en niet tot het ‘echte’ boeddhisme behoort. Voor westerlingen die net van de christelijke kerk met al zijn rituelen en metafysica afscheid hebben genomen, lijken sommige vormen van boeddhisme een terugval in een nieuw soort schijnheiligheid. God is toch dood? Ook Rob Janssen en ik hebben hier vaak over gesproken. Hij onderkende wel dat er een zekere redactie van de sutta’s heeft plaatsgevonden, maar hij was er op tegen om alle religieuze elementen als onboeddhistisch of niet-historisch uit te sluiten. Hij zag wel degelijk een rol voor een religieus boeddhisme. De feiten geven hem in zekere zin gelijk, niet iedereen is gecharmeerd van het no-nonsense boeddhisme van Stephen Batchelor. Het is ook nogal arrogant om medemensen waar je het niet meer eens bent het recht te ontkennen om zich boeddhist te voelen. Aan de andere kant is het net zo verkeerd om de verschillen te ontkennen. Er bestaan blijkbaar meerdere vormen van boeddhisme en dit zouden we moeten respecteren en ook uitdragen naar buiten. De geschiedenis, ook die van het boeddhisme, zit vol creatieve vergissingen, laten we ervan leren.
Wie de geschiedenis en de wetenschap achter zich laat, treedt een andere, oudere wereld binnen, de wereld van de mythe of het geloof. Er gaat een knop om, er is een omschakeling naar een vredige en hoopvolle wereld, weg van de dagelijkse zorgen. Het is een wedergeboorte in een ander Zuiver Land, waar je ongestoord kunt bidden en mediteren. Iedereen beseft echter ook dat deze andere wereld niet de wereld is waarin hij of zij leeft. In hun wereld geldt de wetenschap, in het Zuivere Land geldt het ritueel. Binnen de tempel is er geloof en kunnen boeddha’s 20.000 of 80.000 jaar oud worden, buiten de tempel moet je goed uitkijken als je oversteekt. De moeilijkheid is om beide werelden uit elkaar te houden. Vaak gaat dat mis, vandaar de vele religieuze conflicten. Als je wordt wedergeboren in het Zuivere Land neem je je karma mee, dus daar moet je ook praktiseren, dat hebben alle boeddhisten gemeen. Wedergeboorte en karma scheiden ons niet, ze verenigen ons.
Erik Hoogcarspel studeerde filosofie en Indische talen aan de rijksuniversiteiten in Groningen en Leiden. Hij ontmoette in 1975 de 16e Karmapa, het hoofd van de Karma Kagyü School, één van de vier kloosterscholen van het Tibetaans boeddhisme en was penningmeester van de Nederlandse stichting van deze school. In 1978 richtte hij samen met Jildi Mohamad Sjah het Boeddhistisch Meditatiecentrum te Groningen op. Hij was columnist in verschillende bladen en publiceerde ‘Koken met Filosofie’ en een vertaling van de belangrijkste tekst van Nagarjuna ‘Grondregels van de filosofie van het midden’ (Olive Press, Amsterdam 2005, alsmede een Engelse versie). Hij doceerde aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, de Goudse Scholengemeenschap Leo Vroman en is verbonden aan het Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte in Leusden. Dit is tevens de uitgever van zijn boek ‘Het Boeddha-fenomeen’ (2016), de Engelse versie draagt de titel ‘Phenomenal Emptyness’ en is verkrijgbaar bij Amazon. Bronnen Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu. Heartwood of the bodhitree. Silkworm Books, Chang Mai 1994
Gombrich, R. What the Buddha thought. Equinox, Londen 2009
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Middellange Leerredes I (MNI). Asoka, Rotterdam 2004
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Middellange Leerredes II (MNII). Asoka, Rotterdam 2004
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Lange Leerredes (DN). Asoka, Rotterdam 2001
Lezing Rob Janssen: http://www.boeddhabasics.nl/pdf/SvB_Wedergeboorte.pdf
Artikel Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.htmlDit is een automatisch geplaatst bericht via ActivityPub.
#Boedda #Brahmanen #cloud #ErikHoogcarspel #gelijkmoedigheid #karma #meditatie #ontwaken #RobJanssen #wedergeboorte
#Boedda #Brahmanen #cloud #ErikHoogcarspel #gelijkmoedigheid #karma #meditatie #ontwaken #RobJanssen #wedergeboorte -
Wedergeboorte – gewoon een feit?
In de laatste weken van 2024 herplaatsten we in het BD teksten van auteurs die een bijzondere kijk werpen op (onderdelen van) het boeddhisme. En dat herhalen we in de eerste weken van 2025. Hieronder een tekst van Erik Hoogcarspel. Jan de Breet en Rob Janssen zijn helaas overleden.
Het vraagstuk van wedergeboorte is al vaak besproken. Buitenstaanders, maar ook veel boeddhisten beschouwen het onderwerp als een van de kernthema’s van de boeddhistische leer. In de Pali-Canon, zoals die in het Nederlands is vertaald door Jan de Breet en Rob Janssen, vindt de lezer veel verwijzingen naar wedergeboorte en karma. Er lijkt geen probleem van wedergeboorte te bestaan, het is gewoon een feit.
Toch vindt de leer van wedergeboorte steeds meer weerstand en sommige boeddhisten wijzen de mogelijkheid zelfs resoluut van de hand. Ik koester niet de illusie iets nieuws toe te voegen aan de discussie, maar probeer deze beter te begrijpen. Ik ben van mening dat de leer van wedergeboorte ons dwingt tot een keuze. Welk soort boeddhisme willen we en wat voor boeddhist willen we zijn? Maar het is een keuze die we voor onszelf moeten maken en de keuze van anderen moeten we respecteren. Als eerbetoon aan de recent overleden psycholoog, boeddholoog en Pali vertaler Rob Janssen neem ik zijn lezing over wedergeboorte voor de Vrienden van het Boeddhisme als leidraad.
De klassieke opvatting
In zijn voordracht somt Rob Janssen de feiten nog eens helder op. Hij wijst onder andere op het vierde sutta van de Majjhima-nikāya, de Bhayabheravasutta (Rede over angst en vrees – MN I, blz. 103 -109). De sutta verhaalt hoe de Boeddha aan een brahmaan vertelt hoe hij het ontwaken bereikte. Na de vierde trap van concentratie te hebben bereikt, richtte de Boeddha zijn geest ‘op de kennis die bestaat uit de herinnering van de vroegere verblijfplaatsen’. Hij herinnert zich dan in het eerste deel van de nacht in detail 100.000 vorige levens. Vervolgens, in het tweede deel van de nacht, schouwt hij 100.000 levens en wedergeboorten van andere wezens, ook tot in detail. Ten slotte, in het derde deel van de nacht, beseft hij dat hij volledig verlost is en niet meer wordt wedergeboren. Janssen voert dit verhaal op als overtuigend bewijs, maar is er iets merkwaardigs aan dit verhaal, eigenlijk zijn het er vier.
Ten eerste staat hier het schouwen van de eigen vorige levens en die van andere wezens op de plaats waar elders de vier meditaties op mededogen, mede verheugen en gelijkmoedigheid worden genoemd. Dit zijn drie van de vier vormloze concentraties (arūpa-samāpattis, niet-boeddhistische meditatiemethodes die in het Mahāgovinda Sutta het boeddhisme worden ingeloodst, zie DN blz. 443). Ze worden onder andere in het Aṭṭhakanāgara Sutta (MN II blz. 32 – 46) en het Tevijja Sutta (DN blz. 249) genoemd, in de laatste zelfs zonder de vier trappen van concentratie. De volgorde van de meditaties is merkwaardig, de Boeddha is op het moment van zijn herinnering van vorige levens de tweede trap van concentratie ver voorbij. In deze trap verdwijnt de mogelijkheid tot nadenken en overwegen. In de herinneringen aan vroegere levens komen die gedachten en overwegingen echter blijkbaar weer plotseling in volle glorie terug.
Ten tweede is het verhaal op praktische gronden totaal ongeloofwaardig. Stel dat de nacht negen uur duurt, dan zijn er 3 perioden van elk 180 minuten. Als je in 180 minuten (10.800 seconden) 100.000 levens wilt herinneren, heb je ongeveer één tiende seconde voor elk leven. Het is onmogelijk om je in zo’n korte tijd te herinneren: ‘Op die plaats heette ik zo en zo, hoorde ik tot die en die familie, was ik van die en die stand, voedde ik me zo en zo, ervoer ik dat en dat ongeluk, werd ik zo en zo oud’ (MN I blz. 107).
Ten derde wordt helemaal niet duidelijk gemaakt wat de zin is van deze exercitie. Er komt nergens anders in de Pali-Canon een dergelijke passage voor en nergens wordt er ook gezinspeeld op mogelijke heilzame gevolgen van het zich herinneren van vorige levens. Bovendien zijn er geen verslagen van arhats hierover.
Ten vierde verwachten demografen dat de wereldbevolking zal groeien tot 11 miljard zielen. Als er geen zielen worden bijgemaakt, moeten deze er dus al vanaf het begin der tijden bestaan. Volgens de boeddhistische leer is er zelfs geen begin aan het leven. Dit is natuurlijk ook een Vedisch dogma dat strijdig is met de wetenschap. Ten tijde van de Ontwaakte bedroeg de wereldbevolking ongeveer 100 miljoen, er waren toen dus (11.000 – 100 =) 10.900 miljoen zielen die niet in een menselijk lichaam leefden. De kans om als mens geboren te worden was daarom 1 op 109. De gemiddelde leeftijd van een mens is ongeveer 40 jaar, je moest dus 4.036 jaar wachten op je volgende menselijke geboorte. Dit betekent dat de Boeddha zich levens kon herinneren van 403.600.000 jaar geleden. De oudste fossielen van menselijk leven zijn gevonden in Ethiopië en dateren van 2.8 miljoen jaren geleden.
Als de Boeddha alleen als mens is wedergeboren, er worden namelijk in het sutta geen geboorten als dier genoemd, dan is dat op zijn hoogst 700 (=2.800.000 / 4,036) keer gebeurd. Zelfs als de Boeddha telkens kon ‘voorpiepen’ bij zijn geboorte, dan nog moet zijn eerste geboorte 4 miljoen jaar geleden hebben plaatsgevonden. Dit is ruim 1 miljoen jaar voordat de eerste mens verscheen op aarde. De getallen kloppen dus niet en de latere toevoeging van de vele hemelen en hellen die we in het Tibetaanse model van de vijf of zes rijken aantreffen, maken de afwijkingen alleen maar groter.
Nu zou je kunnen beweren dat al dit rekenwerk wat flauw is en dat het gaat om de bedoeling. Die getallen zijn misschien niet letterlijk zo bedoeld, maar een soort retorische overdrijving. Het probleem is in dat geval dat die bedoeling niet duidelijk wordt gemaakt en dat er wel degelijk gesuggereerd wordt dat de Boeddha dit echt allemaal letterlijk zo heeft gezegd. Als vaststaat dat het verhaal niet letterlijk waar kan zijn, dan is de vraag wat er dan wel van waar is. Het heeft er namelijk alle schijn van dat het verzonnen is door een brahmaan die de Boeddha erg graag als een aanhanger van de Vedische leer van karma en wedergeboorte wilde afschilderen. De toevoeging dat de Boeddha zich herinnerde tot welke familie hij behoorde (in het Pāli staat ‘gotto’, dat is ‘gotra’, oftewel ‘clan’) herinnert aan de Vedische obsessie met het kastenstelsel. Er zijn verschillende plaatsen van soortgelijke Vedische vervuiling aan te wijzen in de Pali Canon van soortgelijke. Als we nu gedwongen worden aan te nemen dat er met deze tekst is geknoeid, dan kunnen we er niet omheen aan te nemen dat dit met meerdere sutta’s het geval zou kunnen zijn, wat trouwens door specialisten op taalkundige gronden inderdaad is vastgesteld.
Karma of taṇhā?
In zijn lezing verklaart Janssen de drang tot wedergeboorte uit karma, maar even verderop ook uit taṇhā (dorst). Hij gaat er vanuit dat dit hetzelfde is, maar er is nogal een verschil: karma kan niet worden opgeheven, maar taṇhā wel. Dit doen boeddhisten tijdens hun meditatie en het is mogelijk, als je geluk hebt, om deze toestand van het wegvallen van gehechtheid aan het bestaan even te ervaren. Na zo’n moment vind je jezelf terug in het alledaagse leven met al zijn beslommeringen. Met goed recht zou dit een wedergeboorte genoemd kunnen worden. Het is een toestand, waarin je weer te maken krijgt met je karma: de neerslag van vooroordelen en beheptheden die je in je leven hebt opgedaan. Deze interpretatie van wedergeboorte levert in de meeste passages van de lezing een veel begrijpelijker en toepasbaarder resultaat op. De voorstellingen van ketens van het lijden (of van saṃsāra, er zijn verschillende, maar de meest bekende is die van 12 schakels) is opeens veel logischer, alle genoemde factoren vormen de voorwaarde die het leed mogelijk maken. Zoals Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu schrijft op bladzijde 1001 van Heartwood of the bodhitree: ‘Geboorte betekent het opkomen van de gevoelens van ‘ik’ en ‘van mij’.’
De voorwaarden voor het leed van saṃsāra.
De leer van wedergeboorte werd al bedacht en verkondigd door de brahmanen, meer dan een eeuw voor de geboorte van de Boeddha. De eerste vermeldingen ervan zijn te vinden in de Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad (6.2.16) en in de Chāndogya-upaniṣad (5.10.3). Thanissaro Bhikkhu is ervan overtuigd dat de leer in de tijd van de Verhevene een nog onbeslist discussiepunt was, omdat er een paar discussies over voorkomen in de Suttanikāya. Hij vergeet echter dat de streek waar de Boeddha leefde in diens tijd al sterk was gebrahmaniseerd en in de Suttanikāya wemelt het inderdaad van de brahmanen. De bovenlaag van politici en priesters aanvaardden dus volop de brahmaanse leer van wedergeboorte. De Boeddha heeft aan deze metafysische leer een geheel eigen psychologische invulling gegeven. Dit deed hij vaker, zoals Richard Gombrich in zijn boek What the Buddha thought heeft aangetoond.
Als we dit nu toepassen op de keten die genoemd wordt in het Mahāpadāna Sutta, die Janssen in zijn lezing bespreekt, ontstaat het volgende beeld. Ouderdom en dood veronderstelt geboorte en dit veronderstelt leven. Leven veronderstelt dat er identificatie of toeëigening is, wat begeerte veronderstelt. Dit kan alleen als er gevoel is en dit veronderstelt waarneming. Waarneming kan alleen plaatsvinden als er de zes zintuigdomeinen zijn, dit wil zeggen: dat er een wereld wordt ervaren als wereld. De ervaring van een wereld veronderstelt weer dat er naam-en-vorm is, dus dat er bewustzijnsobjecten zijn. Dat kan vervolgens alleen als er bewustzijn is. Er is echter geen bewustzijn zonder bewustzijnsobjecten, dus beide veronderstellen elkaar wederzijds en dit is dus het wederzijds afhankelijk ontstaan.
Als men de schakels op deze manier interpreteert is er geen sprake van wedergeboorte in de Vedische zin. De schakels zijn een uitleg van hoe je het nirvāṇa kunt bereiken, ze vormen geen biologieles over zintuigen en geboortes. De Boeddha ging dan ook gewoon dood, net als ieder ander. Hij ging ook door met waarnemen na zijn ontwaken en ervoer de wereld, zij het op een bijzondere manier. De schakels zijn geen verklaring van bevallingen of (weder)geboortes, maar van het ontstaan van het leed, van saṁsāra. Dit ontstaat niet door het ouder worden of sterven op zich, maar door het feit dat we dit niet kunnen accepteren als een normaal natuurlijk proces. Dit wordt vervolgens weer veroorzaakt door de illusie van een ego waarin we leven, een soort mentale gewoonte die aanleiding geeft tot het streven jezelf in stand te houden of zelfs uit te breiden, Nietzsche noemde dit ‘de wil tot macht’.
We identificeren ons dus met ons bestaan, wat betekent dat er voor ons een wereld bestaat waar we deel van uitmaken en waar we veel te ploeteren hebben. Uitdrukkingen als zintuigdomeinen, waarbij het voorstellingsvermogen het zesde is, en naam-en-vorm vat ik op als verzamelnamen, niet als opsommingen. Die wereld stellen we ons voor op grond van alle dingen die onder onze aandacht komen, waar we ons bewust van worden, dus de gewaarwordingen en voorstellingen. Filosofen spreken hier van fenomenen. We ervaren deze alsof ze van buiten komen en alsof we ze moeten ondergaan, maar ze zijn de lege dynamiek van het bewustzijn. Als we beseffen dat zij het spel zijn van verschijning en bewustzijn, in onderlinge afhankelijkheid, dan ervaren we ons bestaan niet meer als onbevredigend of doortrokken van leed, maar als vervuld en op zich vrij en volmaakt. Dit rechtstreeks te ervaren is het doel van methodes als Mahāmudrā en Rdzogs Chen of Mahā Ati. Deze interpretatie van een geestelijke wedergeboorte is geen puzzel die je uit je hoofd moet leren, maar een levende ervaring die zich bewijst in de meditatie. Het is geen geloof, maar een praktisch inzicht waar je mee aan de slag kunt.
Verlossing of geloof?
Rob Janssen presenteert in zijn lezing een indrukwekkende lijst met passages uit de Suttanikāya waarin naar wedergeboorte wordt verwezen. In een aantal van deze gevallen kan wedergeboorte worden gelezen als de mentale wedergeboorte van het ego. In een aantal andere gevallen betreft het naar mijn mening een verdachte sutta, één die pas na de dood van de Boeddha is gecomponeerd. Of waaraan opvattingen van anderen zijn toegevoegd, soms waarschijnlijk met de beste bedoelingen. Dit impliceert dat voor wie de Suttanikāya van kaft tot kaft als het authentieke woord van de boeddha wil beschouwen, er weinig twijfel kan zijn. Een dergelijk uitgangspunt is een keuze, de keuze om het boeddhisme te beschouwen als een religie en de Tipitaka als een verzameling heilige boeken. Veel sutta’s tonen echter onmiskenbaar sporen van redactie, het Mahāpadāna Sutta (DN blz. 251-287), is een daar goed voorbeeld van. We vinden hier de bekende kenmerken van brahmaanse ingreep: astronomische getallen en de zinloze lijstjes die door hun ingewikkeldheid en lengte de lezers of toehoorders moeten imponeren. De Boeddha noemt in deze tekst uit zijn hoofd een lijstje vorige boeddha’s op die allemaal tienduizenden jaren oud zijn geworden, ondanks hun wanstaltigheid waar in de tekst ook over wordt uitgeweid. Er is dus alle reden om aan de authenticiteit van dit soort passages te twijfelen. We kunnen immers niets zeker weten, er zijn geen geluidsopnamen van de Boeddha bewaard gebleven en het is heel goed mogelijk om in een orale traditie ongemerkt fragmenten en zelfs hele sutta’s in te voegen.
Het belangrijkste argument tegen de leer van wedergeboorte vind ik wel dat de vraag naar wat er gebeurt na de dood een brahmaanse obsessie is, die verder niets toevoegt aan het pad van de verlossing in dit leven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu vindt overigens van wel, omdat zonder wedergeboorte de noodzaak van verlossing volgens hem veel minder wordt. Je wordt immers na je dood dan niet meer gestraft voor je wandaden? Het lijkt een beetje op de verzuchting van sommige christenen: ‘als God niet bestaat, is alles geoorloofd’.
Het idee van het eeuwig met je mee moeten dragen van een onbekende oneindig grote hoop karma, waar van alles in zit, is echter niet bepaald iets om vrolijk of hoopvol van te worden. Het kan dus evengoed contraproductief werken. De klassieke brahmaanse leer van wedergeboorte en karma verklaart niets, want het karma is oneindig. Het is alleen maar een stok achter de deur voor de kans- en kastelozen in de samenleving om zich te laten onderdrukken zonder in opstand te komen. Wie wil weten hoe dit uitpakt in de praktijk en hoeveel mensen daardoor het nirvāṇa bereiken, moet maar eens in India rondkijken.
Daar tegenover staat het feit dat de theorie aan alle kanten rammelt. Bij wedergeboorte reïncarneert volgens de klassieke boeddhistische opvatting het karma, want de persoon bestaat eigenlijk niet. Dit betekent dat de overledene in ieder geval vrijuit gaat. Als je dood gaat, gaat het karma naar een volgende geboorte, maar dat ben jij dus niet. Volgens het hindoeïsme is er een ziel die na de dood het lichaam verlaat en naar de voorvaderen of Brahma gaat. Dit kan niet in het boeddhisme, dus neemt men aan dat er een soort continuïteit is met een volgend leven. Het karma gaat naar de ‘cloud’ tijdens het sterven en de nieuwgeborene wordt automatisch gesynchroniseerd met het karma. Er is echter geen eigenaar die bij de baby het wachtwoord intypt van de overledene, met andere woorden: de continuïteit blijft een raadsel. Hoe zoekt het oude karma, dat uiteindelijk alleen maar uit wereldse illusies en traumatische stress bestaat, een nieuwe wedergeboorte? Dit kan alleen door een tweede soort karma die gewoonlijk ‘DE WET VAN HET KARMA’ wordt genoemd.
Dit is de verborgen structuur van het universum, die de wedergeboorte regelt en die in het hindoeïsme ‘Braḥmā’ heet, wiens DNA bovendien volgens de Veda’s de grammatica van het goddelijke Sanskriet is. Deze structuur zorgt er ook voor dat Vedische mantra’s en rituelen effect hebben. Dit is dus een tweede brahmaans dogma dat het boeddhisme is binnen gefrommeld. Het is niet zonder reden dat als belangrijkste hindernissen (samyojana’s) voor het ontwaken worden genoemd: geloof in een zelfstandige individualiteit (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), wankelmoedigheid of twijfel en gehechtheid aan rituelen (sīlabbata-parāmāsa, zie DN blz. 697). Al die bekeerde brahmanen hadden blijkbaar de grootste moeite om van hun rituelen af te komen en op de lange duur zijn die dan ook gewoon weer onder andere namen in het boeddhisme ingevoerd.
Verschillende vormen van boeddhisme
Ongetwijfeld zijn er door boeddhisten onderling vele discussies gevoerd over wat wel en niet tot het ‘echte’ boeddhisme behoort. Voor westerlingen die net van de christelijke kerk met al zijn rituelen en metafysica afscheid hebben genomen, lijken sommige vormen van boeddhisme een terugval in een nieuw soort schijnheiligheid. God is toch dood? Ook Rob Janssen en ik hebben hier vaak over gesproken. Hij onderkende wel dat er een zekere redactie van de sutta’s heeft plaatsgevonden, maar hij was er op tegen om alle religieuze elementen als onboeddhistisch of niet-historisch uit te sluiten. Hij zag wel degelijk een rol voor een religieus boeddhisme. De feiten geven hem in zekere zin gelijk, niet iedereen is gecharmeerd van het no-nonsense boeddhisme van Stephen Batchelor. Het is ook nogal arrogant om medemensen waar je het niet meer eens bent het recht te ontkennen om zich boeddhist te voelen. Aan de andere kant is het net zo verkeerd om de verschillen te ontkennen. Er bestaan blijkbaar meerdere vormen van boeddhisme en dit zouden we moeten respecteren en ook uitdragen naar buiten. De geschiedenis, ook die van het boeddhisme, zit vol creatieve vergissingen, laten we ervan leren.
Wie de geschiedenis en de wetenschap achter zich laat, treedt een andere, oudere wereld binnen, de wereld van de mythe of het geloof. Er gaat een knop om, er is een omschakeling naar een vredige en hoopvolle wereld, weg van de dagelijkse zorgen. Het is een wedergeboorte in een ander Zuiver Land, waar je ongestoord kunt bidden en mediteren. Iedereen beseft echter ook dat deze andere wereld niet de wereld is waarin hij of zij leeft. In hun wereld geldt de wetenschap, in het Zuivere Land geldt het ritueel. Binnen de tempel is er geloof en kunnen boeddha’s 20.000 of 80.000 jaar oud worden, buiten de tempel moet je goed uitkijken als je oversteekt. De moeilijkheid is om beide werelden uit elkaar te houden. Vaak gaat dat mis, vandaar de vele religieuze conflicten. Als je wordt wedergeboren in het Zuivere Land neem je je karma mee, dus daar moet je ook praktiseren, dat hebben alle boeddhisten gemeen. Wedergeboorte en karma scheiden ons niet, ze verenigen ons.
Erik Hoogcarspel studeerde filosofie en Indische talen aan de rijksuniversiteiten in Groningen en Leiden. Hij ontmoette in 1975 de 16e Karmapa, het hoofd van de Karma Kagyü School, één van de vier kloosterscholen van het Tibetaans boeddhisme en was penningmeester van de Nederlandse stichting van deze school. In 1978 richtte hij samen met Jildi Mohamad Sjah het Boeddhistisch Meditatiecentrum te Groningen op. Hij was columnist in verschillende bladen en publiceerde ‘Koken met Filosofie’ en een vertaling van de belangrijkste tekst van Nagarjuna ‘Grondregels van de filosofie van het midden’ (Olive Press, Amsterdam 2005, alsmede een Engelse versie). Hij doceerde aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, de Goudse Scholengemeenschap Leo Vroman en is verbonden aan het Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte in Leusden. Dit is tevens de uitgever van zijn boek ‘Het Boeddha-fenomeen’ (2016), de Engelse versie draagt de titel ‘Phenomenal Emptyness’ en is verkrijgbaar bij Amazon. Bronnen Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu. Heartwood of the bodhitree. Silkworm Books, Chang Mai 1994
Gombrich, R. What the Buddha thought. Equinox, Londen 2009
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Middellange Leerredes I (MNI). Asoka, Rotterdam 2004
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Middellange Leerredes II (MNII). Asoka, Rotterdam 2004
Jan de Breet, Rob Janssen. De Verzameling Lange Leerredes (DN). Asoka, Rotterdam 2001
Lezing Rob Janssen: http://www.boeddhabasics.nl/pdf/SvB_Wedergeboorte.pdf
Artikel Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.htmlDit is een automatisch geplaatst bericht via ActivityPub.
#Boedda #Brahmanen #cloud #ErikHoogcarspel #gelijkmoedigheid #karma #meditatie #ontwaken #RobJanssen #wedergeboorte
#Boedda #Brahmanen #cloud #ErikHoogcarspel #gelijkmoedigheid #karma #meditatie #ontwaken #RobJanssen #wedergeboorte -
The Apple Logo: How a Bitten Fruit Became the World’s Most Recognized Brand Symbol
The Apple logo sits on more than two billion active devices worldwide. It lights up on the back of MacBooks in coffee shops from Berlin to Bangkok. It gleams on the wrists of commuters in Tokyo and São Paulo. No other corporate symbol has achieved this kind of quiet, borderless omnipresence — and yet, the story behind it is surprisingly human, surprisingly fast, and almost accidental in its genius. Understanding how the Apple logo became a global icon is not just a design history lesson. It is a masterclass in the relationship between visual simplicity, strategic timing, and cultural resonance. If you care about branding, creativity, or the psychology of symbols, this story matters to you right now.
Why Does a Simple Bitten Apple Command So Much Psychological Power?
Before answering that question, consider what the Apple logo actually is. It is a two-dimensional silhouette of an apple with a single bite removed from its right side and a small leaf canting at roughly 45 degrees. No gradient, no text, and no abstract geometry. Just a fruit — instantly readable at three millimeters or three meters. That radical simplicity is precisely the source of its power, and it was no accident.
The Apple logo triggers what design researchers call Symbol Saturation — a coined term for the point at which a visual mark accumulates so many cultural associations that it operates simultaneously as a corporate identifier, a tribal badge, and a philosophical shorthand. Very few logos in human history have crossed this threshold. The Apple logo crossed it twice: first in the rainbow era of 1977, and again after Steve Jobs’s return in 1998. Each crossing happened at a different frequency, for a different audience, for a different reason.
Newton’s Apple: The Logo Nobody Remembers
The Apple logo story actually begins not with a sleek silhouette, but with a pen-and-ink etching. Prior to 1977, Apple Computer used as its logo an illustration depicting Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree, wrapped in Latin text drawn from Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem The Prelude. It was created by Ron Wayne, an early partner of Steve Jobs, in an etched illustrative style.
That logo carried genuine intellectual ambition. Newton represented curiosity, discovery, the collision of nature and science. But it had a fatal flaw: it was practically useless. Steve Jobs thought the original logo was too old-fashioned and difficult to print on a smaller scale. When you need to emboss a symbol onto injection-molded plastic at a fraction of an inch, a Victorian etching simply does not survive. The Newton logo never made it past 1977.
Think of it this way: a logo that cannot scale is not a logo. It is a painting. And paintings belong in museums, not on computers.
Rob Janoff, Two Weeks, and the Most Valuable Sketch in Design History
In early 1977, a young art director named Rob Janoff received one of the most consequential briefs in the history of graphic design. While working at the Regis McKenna agency in Palo Alto, Janoff was chosen to design the corporate identity for Apple Computer. The only direction Steve Jobs gave him was: “Don’t make it cute.”
The entire design process took only about two weeks. After the agency’s initial meeting, Janoff went to work developing the Apple icon based on his examination of physical cross-sections of real apples. A single design illustration — a rainbow-striped apple — was then created and promptly approved by Steve Jobs.
The speed of that approval is worth pausing on. Jobs, famously difficult to please, saw the sketch and said yes immediately. That reaction tells you something important: great design communicates before it is consciously processed. The Apple logo bypassed analytical scrutiny and landed directly in the gut.
The Bite: Function Disguised as Mystery
Of all the elements of the Apple logo, the bite mark has generated the most mythology. People have attributed it to Alan Turing, who died in 1954 with a cyanide-laced apple beside him. Others have linked it to the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Some have read it as a pun on the computing term “byte.” These narratives are compelling. They are also false.
Janoff has stated clearly: “I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple, not a cherry.” That is the complete explanation. The bite solved a visual problem. Without it, the silhouette risked ambiguity at small sizes — it could read as a cherry, a peach, or any round fruit. The bite locked in the identity of the fruit instantly and irreversibly.
Here is something the mythology misses: the functional explanation is actually more interesting than the poetic one. It shows that Janoff was thinking about use, not symbolism. He was thinking about the physical conditions under which this mark would be read. That discipline — the discipline of designing for context rather than for admiration — is exactly why the logo still works nearly five decades later.
This principle deserves a name. Call it Functional Mythology: when a design decision made for purely practical reasons accumulates symbolic meaning over time. The bite was utilitarian. The mythology was a bonus.
The Rainbow Stripes: A Feature Disguised as a Philosophy
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. Each stripe was printed in its own specially mixed color, which Jobs approved because he felt that vivid colors improved people’s emotional response.
At a time when virtually every personal computer displayed monochrome output, the Apple II’s color capability was a genuine revolution. The colorful stripes, redolent of the six-color monitors that the Apple II could display, brought pop art to computing and made computers attractive for everyone, including children.
So the rainbow was a product specification rendered as visual identity. Yet it also did something unintentional and profound. The six colors — green, yellow, orange, red, purple, blue — carried an unmistakable energy. They felt democratic, open, joyful. They looked nothing like the corporate grey of IBM or the stern industrial palette of the mainframe era. The rainbow Apple logo said: this machine is for humans. It belongs in your home, not in a data center.
That was not a coincidence. The main idea behind the Apple logo, as Steve Jobs stated in 1981, was “to bring simplicity to the people in the most sophisticated way.” The rainbow delivered exactly that message without a single word.
The Apple Logo as a Living Brand Document: Five Decades of Strategic Evolution
Most logos are static objects. The Apple logo is something rarer: a living document of its company’s strategic identity at any given moment in time. Each major transition in the mark corresponded precisely to a transition in Apple’s self-conception. Understanding those transitions reveals a model of brand management that very few companies have executed this deliberately.
1977–1998: The Rainbow Era and the Friendly Machine
For twenty-one years, the rainbow Apple logo appeared on every product the company shipped. The rainbow version adorned all Apple products, from computers to the Newton PDA. During this period, the logo successfully positioned Apple as a creative, accessible, humanist alternative to the dominant corporate computing culture. It attracted schools, artists, musicians, and writers — constituencies that IBM’s blue rectangle was never going to reach.
The rainbow era also established a key insight that most brand strategists still underestimate: Visual Constituency Building. By designing a logo that felt inclusive rather than corporate, Apple was effectively preselecting its audience. The rainbow said: if you are curious, playful, and slightly anti-establishment, this company is for you. That self-selection created the conditions for brand loyalty that money cannot simply manufacture.
1998: The Monochrome Pivot and the Rebirth Signal
When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 after a twelve-year absence, the company was weeks from bankruptcy. The rainbow logo — once a symbol of creative rebellion — had accumulated new, problematic associations. By 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy. The brand had become diluted. It was seen by many as a quirky, colorful “toy” for schools and creative types, but not a serious contender.
The 1998 monochrome pivot signaled a strategic brand rebirth: selling an ethos of simplicity and design, not a product feature. The decision to strip color from the logo was, in this context, a radical act. It abandoned two decades of visual equity. It risked alienating the loyal base that had stuck with Apple through its darkest period. And it worked.
The “Think Different” campaign, which accompanied this transition, featured black-and-white images of iconic figures such as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, and Amelia Earhart. As a marketing first, the campaign did not directly showcase Apple products, instead focusing on values and emotional resonance.
The monochrome logo and the “Think Different” campaign operated as a unified signal. Together, they communicated: Apple is not a product company anymore. It is a values company. And that shift — from product marketing to values marketing — is arguably the most important strategic move in the history of consumer technology branding.
2001–2013: Chrome, Glass, and the Material Language of Premium
In 2001, alongside the launch of the iPod, Apple introduced a refreshed logo featuring a chrome texture design in silver, symbolizing the company’s commitment to elegance and advanced technology. This was the era of material finish as brand language. The chrome Apple on a titanium PowerBook communicated precision manufacturing, premium positioning, and technological authority.
The glowing Apple logo on MacBook lids became one of the most effective ambient advertising placements in history. Every time a MacBook opened in an airport, a lecture hall, or a café, the Apple logo was displayed to everyone in the room. It was involuntary brand exposure, engineered into the product form itself. No media buy was required.
2013–Present: Flat, Matte, and the Confidence of Invisibility
Apple’s transition to flat design in 2013 reflected the broader shift in digital interface language initiated by iOS 7. The logo followed. Today’s Apple mark is a matte, monochromatic silhouette — often white on dark surfaces, black on light ones. It needs no finish, no gradient, no material effect. It is simply the shape, and the shape is enough.
This represents the final stage of what I call the Icon Maturity Curve: the progression from complexity to simplicity to invisibility. A logo reaches true icon status when it no longer needs to work hard to be recognized. The Apple logo at this stage is so embedded in global visual culture that it operates below the threshold of active perception. People see it without looking.
The Apple Logo and the Neuroscience of Brand Recognition
The Apple logo does something neurologically unusual. Research in neuromarketing suggests that seeing the Apple logo activates the same brain regions in Apple fans as religious iconography does in believers, fostering an emotional connection that transcends technical specifications. That finding is extraordinary. It places the Apple logo in a category of symbols that operate not just cognitively, but devotionally.
This is not a marketing exaggeration. The human brain has evolved to assign profound meaning to symbols associated with group identity and shared values. For a significant portion of its users, Apple has become exactly that kind of identity group. The logo is the tribal mark — the visual shorthand for a set of values around creativity, design sensitivity, and a particular kind of cultural aspiration.
Call this phenomenon Aspirational Semiotics: the process by which a brand mark becomes a signal of the owner’s self-concept rather than merely a product identifier. When someone puts an Apple sticker on their laptop, they are not advertising a computer. They are declaring membership in a value system. The bite mark becomes a personal statement.
Myths, Misattributions, and the Power of a Good Story
The Alan Turing connection deserves particular attention because it reveals something important about how brand myths function. Turing, the father of modern computing, died in 1954 under circumstances that strongly suggest suicide by a cyanide-laced apple. The detail is poetic to the point of being almost unbearable: the man who laid the theoretical groundwork for all modern computing died next to a bitten apple, decades before a computer company named Apple made the bitten apple its symbol.
One story linking the missing bite to Alan Turing was conveniently “discovered” just after the film Enigma came out in 2001. The timing is telling. The myth arrived when it was culturally useful, not when it was historically accurate. Janoff has consistently denied any Turing connection.
But here is the critical observation: the fact that this myth exists, circulates, and is believed by millions of people — despite the designer’s own denial — tells us something profound about the Apple logo. It is so culturally resonant, so open to interpretation, that people cannot resist loading it with meaning. That interpretive generosity is the hallmark of a truly great symbol. The Apple logo is a Rorschach test that everyone passes.
Discover the Apple Logo’s Influence on the Visual Language of Tech
The Apple logo did not just brand one company. It changed the visual grammar of an entire industry. Before Apple, technology companies gravitated toward angular, cold, industrial aesthetics. After Apple’s rainbow era, the design world began to understand that technology products could carry warmth, color, and human affect. After Apple’s monochrome pivot, the design world learned that restraint, silence, and reduction could communicate premium status more effectively than ornamentation.
Today’s tech logo landscape — full of flat, rounded, monochromatic marks — is, in a real sense, downstream from Rob Janoff’s 1977 sketch. The minimalism that defines visual communication in the digital age owes a significant intellectual debt to the decisions made around that bitten apple. From a design perspective, the Apple logo has had a major impact on logo design, which can be seen in the widespread minimalist visual approach so often used by tech brands in recent years.
This is what genuine design leadership looks like. It does not just define a company. It redefines the category.
What Makes the Apple Logo Structurally Timeless?
Most logos age because they are anchored in the stylistic conventions of their moment. The Apple logo has resisted this gravitational pull through a specific set of structural properties that deserve explicit analysis.
First, the silhouette is organic. Natural forms — fruits, leaves, animals — do not carry the stylistic fingerprints of any particular era. A circle is always a circle. An apple is always an apple. Janoff’s choice of a natural object as the primary form gave the logo a timeless quality that no abstract geometric mark could achieve.
Second, the form is bilaterally asymmetric in a precise way. The bite on the right side and the tilted leaf at the top give the silhouette directionality and energy. A perfectly symmetrical apple would read as static. The bite introduces implied motion — as if someone just took it — which keeps the form perceptually alive.
Third, the logo communicates at every scale. Rob Janoff’s 1977 silhouette with a bite solved scale ambiguity, ensuring instant recognition at any size. This is a non-trivial engineering achievement in visual design. A mark that works at three millimeters and thirty meters simultaneously is extraordinarily rare.
Together, these three properties — organic form, asymmetric energy, scalar resilience — constitute what I call the Timeless Mark Triad. Any logo that possesses all three will resist aging in ways that trend-dependent designs simply cannot. The Apple logo is a textbook case. It looked contemporary in 1977, it looks contemporary now, and it will likely look contemporary in 2077.
Personal Perspective: What the Apple Logo Gets Right That Most Brands Miss
Having spent years studying visual identity at the intersection of design culture and brand strategy, I find the Apple logo remarkable for one reason above all others. It is the product of a problem-solving mentality, not a meaning-making mentality. Janoff was trying to make a fruit legible at small sizes. He was not trying to encode philosophy into a symbol.
This matters enormously. Most logo design projects today begin with the wrong question. Clients ask: “What should our logo mean?” The better question is: “What problem does our logo need to solve?” When you start with a function, meaning tends to arrive on its own. When you start with meaning, you often end up with a symbol so encumbered with intention that it communicates nothing clearly.
The Apple logo became meaningful because it was first useful. That is the sequence. That is the lesson. And it is one of the most consistently ignored lessons in the history of brand design.
I also believe the rainbow era deserves serious reappraisal. Design culture tends to celebrate the monochrome Apple as the “mature” version and treat the rainbow as a charming relic. But the rainbow was, in many ways, bolder. It was joyful in a medium dominated by fear of user error and corporate gravity. It said that computers are fun. That message changed the world. The monochrome Apple is elegant. The rainbow Apple was revolutionary.
The Apple Logo’s Future: Permanence, Adaptation, and the Next Threshold
Apple has maintained essentially the same silhouette for nearly five decades. The company has been using essentially the same logo design since 1977, which is remarkable considering that it has now seen nearly five decades of use. At this point, the silhouette itself has become an untouchable asset. Changing it would be a cultural event, not just a rebrand.
But the surface language of the logo will continue to evolve with Apple’s product materials and interface philosophy. As spatial computing matures through platforms like Apple Vision Pro, the logo will need to perform in three-dimensional environments, at variable depths, and in mixed-reality contexts where flat surfaces do not exist. This is the next design frontier for the Apple mark: volumetric brand identity.
My prediction: Apple will not change the silhouette. Instead, the company will develop a new surface language for the logo — one that responds to lighting, depth, and viewer position in ways that static materials cannot. The bitten apple will remain. But it will learn to breathe.
The Apple logo’s journey from a Victorian etching to a globally recognized silhouette is ultimately a story about the discipline of reduction. Every iteration removed something. The Newton crest gave way to the rainbow apple. The rainbow gave way to monochrome. The material finishes gave way to flat silence. What remains is a shape so distilled that it no longer requires effort to recognize. It simply is — present, legible, and somehow more charged with meaning than ever.
That is what great design does. It empties itself until only the essential remains. And then the essential turns out to be everything.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Apple Logo
Who designed the Apple logo?
Rob Janoff, an art director at the advertising agency Regis McKenna in Palo Alto, California, designed the iconic bitten apple logo in early 1977. The design process took approximately two weeks. The only direction Steve Jobs gave Janoff was: “Don’t make it cute.”
Why does the Apple logo have a bite taken out of it?
The bite is a functional design decision. Janoff included it for scale, so that people could immediately identify the shape as an apple rather than a cherry or another round fruit. Despite popular myths linking the bite to Alan Turing or the biblical story of Adam and Eve, Janoff has consistently stated that the explanation is purely practical.
What did the rainbow stripes on the Apple logo represent?
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. The Apple II was the first personal computer with a color display, and the rainbow logo was a direct visual statement of that technological breakthrough. The stripes had no connection to the LGBTQ+ community or any other cultural movement, despite later associations.
Why did Apple change the rainbow logo to monochrome in 1998?
The 1998 monochrome pivot was a strategic business decision to signal a corporate turnaround. When Steve Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997, he oversaw a complete brand repositioning. The rainbow logo had come to be seen as dated and associated with a “toy” brand. The monochrome mark aligned with the new “Think Different” campaign and signaled a shift toward premium, design-driven positioning.
How much did Rob Janoff get paid for designing the Apple logo?
The design took Janoff about two weeks and cost Steve Jobs around $100,000. This figure covered the complete corporate identity package, not just the logo mark itself. Janoff’s agency, Regis McKenna, was initially offered a 20% equity stake in Apple in lieu of fees — an offer that, had it been accepted, would have been worth billions of dollars.
Does the Apple logo use the Golden Ratio?
While designers have retroactively mapped the Apple logo onto the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci sequences, Janoff himself has stated that these mathematical principles were not part of his design process. The design was created freehand. The geometric refinements visible in later versions of the logo were made by Landor Associates in 1990, not by Janoff in the original 1977 sketch.
What is the Apple logo made of on iPhones and MacBooks?
The Apple logo appears in different forms across different products. On current iPhones, it is etched directly into the glass or aluminum back panel. On MacBooks, it is illuminated from within. The surface treatment of the logo has evolved from rainbow decals to chrome inlays to matte monochrome — always mirroring the material language of the current product generation.
What font does Apple use with its logo?
Apple’s current corporate typeface is San Francisco (SF Pro), a bespoke sans-serif font the company designed in-house and introduced in 2015. Prior to this, Apple used Helvetica Neue. The Myriad Pro font was used in marketing materials during an intermediate period. The apple silhouette itself is never combined with the wordmark in product applications — the shape alone serves as the identifier.
Is the Apple logo the most recognized logo in the world?
Multiple brand recognition studies rank the Apple logo among the top two or three most recognized corporate symbols globally, alongside Nike’s swoosh and the McDonald’s arches. The Apple logo’s recognition rate consistently exceeds 90% in surveys conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific markets, and the silhouette is identifiable to most global consumers without any accompanying text or color.
Will Apple ever change the logo?
The core silhouette — a bitten apple with a leaf — is extremely unlikely to change. The shape has accumulated five decades of brand equity and is now an immovable cultural asset. However, the surface treatment of the logo will continue to evolve alongside Apple’s product materials and design philosophy. As spatial computing and mixed-reality platforms develop, expect Apple to develop new volumetric and responsive expressions of the existing silhouette.
Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. All product names, logos, and brands mentioned in this article are the property of their respective owners. This article is intended for editorial and informational purposes only. We and the Color is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Apple Inc. in any way.
Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Branding and Graphic Design categories for more inspiring content. Feel free to find out how the Nike Swoosh became a global icon.
#apple #AppleLogo #branding #graphicDesign #logo #logoDesign -
The Apple Logo: How a Bitten Fruit Became the World’s Most Recognized Brand Symbol
The Apple logo sits on more than two billion active devices worldwide. It lights up on the back of MacBooks in coffee shops from Berlin to Bangkok. It gleams on the wrists of commuters in Tokyo and São Paulo. No other corporate symbol has achieved this kind of quiet, borderless omnipresence — and yet, the story behind it is surprisingly human, surprisingly fast, and almost accidental in its genius. Understanding how the Apple logo became a global icon is not just a design history lesson. It is a masterclass in the relationship between visual simplicity, strategic timing, and cultural resonance. If you care about branding, creativity, or the psychology of symbols, this story matters to you right now.
Why Does a Simple Bitten Apple Command So Much Psychological Power?
Before answering that question, consider what the Apple logo actually is. It is a two-dimensional silhouette of an apple with a single bite removed from its right side and a small leaf canting at roughly 45 degrees. No gradient, no text, and no abstract geometry. Just a fruit — instantly readable at three millimeters or three meters. That radical simplicity is precisely the source of its power, and it was no accident.
The Apple logo triggers what design researchers call Symbol Saturation — a coined term for the point at which a visual mark accumulates so many cultural associations that it operates simultaneously as a corporate identifier, a tribal badge, and a philosophical shorthand. Very few logos in human history have crossed this threshold. The Apple logo crossed it twice: first in the rainbow era of 1977, and again after Steve Jobs’s return in 1998. Each crossing happened at a different frequency, for a different audience, for a different reason.
Newton’s Apple: The Logo Nobody Remembers
The Apple logo story actually begins not with a sleek silhouette, but with a pen-and-ink etching. Prior to 1977, Apple Computer used as its logo an illustration depicting Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree, wrapped in Latin text drawn from Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem The Prelude. It was created by Ron Wayne, an early partner of Steve Jobs, in an etched illustrative style.
That logo carried genuine intellectual ambition. Newton represented curiosity, discovery, the collision of nature and science. But it had a fatal flaw: it was practically useless. Steve Jobs thought the original logo was too old-fashioned and difficult to print on a smaller scale. When you need to emboss a symbol onto injection-molded plastic at a fraction of an inch, a Victorian etching simply does not survive. The Newton logo never made it past 1977.
Think of it this way: a logo that cannot scale is not a logo. It is a painting. And paintings belong in museums, not on computers.
Rob Janoff, Two Weeks, and the Most Valuable Sketch in Design History
In early 1977, a young art director named Rob Janoff received one of the most consequential briefs in the history of graphic design. While working at the Regis McKenna agency in Palo Alto, Janoff was chosen to design the corporate identity for Apple Computer. The only direction Steve Jobs gave him was: “Don’t make it cute.”
The entire design process took only about two weeks. After the agency’s initial meeting, Janoff went to work developing the Apple icon based on his examination of physical cross-sections of real apples. A single design illustration — a rainbow-striped apple — was then created and promptly approved by Steve Jobs.
The speed of that approval is worth pausing on. Jobs, famously difficult to please, saw the sketch and said yes immediately. That reaction tells you something important: great design communicates before it is consciously processed. The Apple logo bypassed analytical scrutiny and landed directly in the gut.
The Bite: Function Disguised as Mystery
Of all the elements of the Apple logo, the bite mark has generated the most mythology. People have attributed it to Alan Turing, who died in 1954 with a cyanide-laced apple beside him. Others have linked it to the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Some have read it as a pun on the computing term “byte.” These narratives are compelling. They are also false.
Janoff has stated clearly: “I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple, not a cherry.” That is the complete explanation. The bite solved a visual problem. Without it, the silhouette risked ambiguity at small sizes — it could read as a cherry, a peach, or any round fruit. The bite locked in the identity of the fruit instantly and irreversibly.
Here is something the mythology misses: the functional explanation is actually more interesting than the poetic one. It shows that Janoff was thinking about use, not symbolism. He was thinking about the physical conditions under which this mark would be read. That discipline — the discipline of designing for context rather than for admiration — is exactly why the logo still works nearly five decades later.
This principle deserves a name. Call it Functional Mythology: when a design decision made for purely practical reasons accumulates symbolic meaning over time. The bite was utilitarian. The mythology was a bonus.
The Rainbow Stripes: A Feature Disguised as a Philosophy
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. Each stripe was printed in its own specially mixed color, which Jobs approved because he felt that vivid colors improved people’s emotional response.
At a time when virtually every personal computer displayed monochrome output, the Apple II’s color capability was a genuine revolution. The colorful stripes, redolent of the six-color monitors that the Apple II could display, brought pop art to computing and made computers attractive for everyone, including children.
So the rainbow was a product specification rendered as visual identity. Yet it also did something unintentional and profound. The six colors — green, yellow, orange, red, purple, blue — carried an unmistakable energy. They felt democratic, open, joyful. They looked nothing like the corporate grey of IBM or the stern industrial palette of the mainframe era. The rainbow Apple logo said: this machine is for humans. It belongs in your home, not in a data center.
That was not a coincidence. The main idea behind the Apple logo, as Steve Jobs stated in 1981, was “to bring simplicity to the people in the most sophisticated way.” The rainbow delivered exactly that message without a single word.
The Apple Logo as a Living Brand Document: Five Decades of Strategic Evolution
Most logos are static objects. The Apple logo is something rarer: a living document of its company’s strategic identity at any given moment in time. Each major transition in the mark corresponded precisely to a transition in Apple’s self-conception. Understanding those transitions reveals a model of brand management that very few companies have executed this deliberately.
1977–1998: The Rainbow Era and the Friendly Machine
For twenty-one years, the rainbow Apple logo appeared on every product the company shipped. The rainbow version adorned all Apple products, from computers to the Newton PDA. During this period, the logo successfully positioned Apple as a creative, accessible, humanist alternative to the dominant corporate computing culture. It attracted schools, artists, musicians, and writers — constituencies that IBM’s blue rectangle was never going to reach.
The rainbow era also established a key insight that most brand strategists still underestimate: Visual Constituency Building. By designing a logo that felt inclusive rather than corporate, Apple was effectively preselecting its audience. The rainbow said: if you are curious, playful, and slightly anti-establishment, this company is for you. That self-selection created the conditions for brand loyalty that money cannot simply manufacture.
1998: The Monochrome Pivot and the Rebirth Signal
When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 after a twelve-year absence, the company was weeks from bankruptcy. The rainbow logo — once a symbol of creative rebellion — had accumulated new, problematic associations. By 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy. The brand had become diluted. It was seen by many as a quirky, colorful “toy” for schools and creative types, but not a serious contender.
The 1998 monochrome pivot signaled a strategic brand rebirth: selling an ethos of simplicity and design, not a product feature. The decision to strip color from the logo was, in this context, a radical act. It abandoned two decades of visual equity. It risked alienating the loyal base that had stuck with Apple through its darkest period. And it worked.
The “Think Different” campaign, which accompanied this transition, featured black-and-white images of iconic figures such as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, and Amelia Earhart. As a marketing first, the campaign did not directly showcase Apple products, instead focusing on values and emotional resonance.
The monochrome logo and the “Think Different” campaign operated as a unified signal. Together, they communicated: Apple is not a product company anymore. It is a values company. And that shift — from product marketing to values marketing — is arguably the most important strategic move in the history of consumer technology branding.
2001–2013: Chrome, Glass, and the Material Language of Premium
In 2001, alongside the launch of the iPod, Apple introduced a refreshed logo featuring a chrome texture design in silver, symbolizing the company’s commitment to elegance and advanced technology. This was the era of material finish as brand language. The chrome Apple on a titanium PowerBook communicated precision manufacturing, premium positioning, and technological authority.
The glowing Apple logo on MacBook lids became one of the most effective ambient advertising placements in history. Every time a MacBook opened in an airport, a lecture hall, or a café, the Apple logo was displayed to everyone in the room. It was involuntary brand exposure, engineered into the product form itself. No media buy was required.
2013–Present: Flat, Matte, and the Confidence of Invisibility
Apple’s transition to flat design in 2013 reflected the broader shift in digital interface language initiated by iOS 7. The logo followed. Today’s Apple mark is a matte, monochromatic silhouette — often white on dark surfaces, black on light ones. It needs no finish, no gradient, no material effect. It is simply the shape, and the shape is enough.
This represents the final stage of what I call the Icon Maturity Curve: the progression from complexity to simplicity to invisibility. A logo reaches true icon status when it no longer needs to work hard to be recognized. The Apple logo at this stage is so embedded in global visual culture that it operates below the threshold of active perception. People see it without looking.
The Apple Logo and the Neuroscience of Brand Recognition
The Apple logo does something neurologically unusual. Research in neuromarketing suggests that seeing the Apple logo activates the same brain regions in Apple fans as religious iconography does in believers, fostering an emotional connection that transcends technical specifications. That finding is extraordinary. It places the Apple logo in a category of symbols that operate not just cognitively, but devotionally.
This is not a marketing exaggeration. The human brain has evolved to assign profound meaning to symbols associated with group identity and shared values. For a significant portion of its users, Apple has become exactly that kind of identity group. The logo is the tribal mark — the visual shorthand for a set of values around creativity, design sensitivity, and a particular kind of cultural aspiration.
Call this phenomenon Aspirational Semiotics: the process by which a brand mark becomes a signal of the owner’s self-concept rather than merely a product identifier. When someone puts an Apple sticker on their laptop, they are not advertising a computer. They are declaring membership in a value system. The bite mark becomes a personal statement.
Myths, Misattributions, and the Power of a Good Story
The Alan Turing connection deserves particular attention because it reveals something important about how brand myths function. Turing, the father of modern computing, died in 1954 under circumstances that strongly suggest suicide by a cyanide-laced apple. The detail is poetic to the point of being almost unbearable: the man who laid the theoretical groundwork for all modern computing died next to a bitten apple, decades before a computer company named Apple made the bitten apple its symbol.
One story linking the missing bite to Alan Turing was conveniently “discovered” just after the film Enigma came out in 2001. The timing is telling. The myth arrived when it was culturally useful, not when it was historically accurate. Janoff has consistently denied any Turing connection.
But here is the critical observation: the fact that this myth exists, circulates, and is believed by millions of people — despite the designer’s own denial — tells us something profound about the Apple logo. It is so culturally resonant, so open to interpretation, that people cannot resist loading it with meaning. That interpretive generosity is the hallmark of a truly great symbol. The Apple logo is a Rorschach test that everyone passes.
Discover the Apple Logo’s Influence on the Visual Language of Tech
The Apple logo did not just brand one company. It changed the visual grammar of an entire industry. Before Apple, technology companies gravitated toward angular, cold, industrial aesthetics. After Apple’s rainbow era, the design world began to understand that technology products could carry warmth, color, and human affect. After Apple’s monochrome pivot, the design world learned that restraint, silence, and reduction could communicate premium status more effectively than ornamentation.
Today’s tech logo landscape — full of flat, rounded, monochromatic marks — is, in a real sense, downstream from Rob Janoff’s 1977 sketch. The minimalism that defines visual communication in the digital age owes a significant intellectual debt to the decisions made around that bitten apple. From a design perspective, the Apple logo has had a major impact on logo design, which can be seen in the widespread minimalist visual approach so often used by tech brands in recent years.
This is what genuine design leadership looks like. It does not just define a company. It redefines the category.
What Makes the Apple Logo Structurally Timeless?
Most logos age because they are anchored in the stylistic conventions of their moment. The Apple logo has resisted this gravitational pull through a specific set of structural properties that deserve explicit analysis.
First, the silhouette is organic. Natural forms — fruits, leaves, animals — do not carry the stylistic fingerprints of any particular era. A circle is always a circle. An apple is always an apple. Janoff’s choice of a natural object as the primary form gave the logo a timeless quality that no abstract geometric mark could achieve.
Second, the form is bilaterally asymmetric in a precise way. The bite on the right side and the tilted leaf at the top give the silhouette directionality and energy. A perfectly symmetrical apple would read as static. The bite introduces implied motion — as if someone just took it — which keeps the form perceptually alive.
Third, the logo communicates at every scale. Rob Janoff’s 1977 silhouette with a bite solved scale ambiguity, ensuring instant recognition at any size. This is a non-trivial engineering achievement in visual design. A mark that works at three millimeters and thirty meters simultaneously is extraordinarily rare.
Together, these three properties — organic form, asymmetric energy, scalar resilience — constitute what I call the Timeless Mark Triad. Any logo that possesses all three will resist aging in ways that trend-dependent designs simply cannot. The Apple logo is a textbook case. It looked contemporary in 1977, it looks contemporary now, and it will likely look contemporary in 2077.
Personal Perspective: What the Apple Logo Gets Right That Most Brands Miss
Having spent years studying visual identity at the intersection of design culture and brand strategy, I find the Apple logo remarkable for one reason above all others. It is the product of a problem-solving mentality, not a meaning-making mentality. Janoff was trying to make a fruit legible at small sizes. He was not trying to encode philosophy into a symbol.
This matters enormously. Most logo design projects today begin with the wrong question. Clients ask: “What should our logo mean?” The better question is: “What problem does our logo need to solve?” When you start with a function, meaning tends to arrive on its own. When you start with meaning, you often end up with a symbol so encumbered with intention that it communicates nothing clearly.
The Apple logo became meaningful because it was first useful. That is the sequence. That is the lesson. And it is one of the most consistently ignored lessons in the history of brand design.
I also believe the rainbow era deserves serious reappraisal. Design culture tends to celebrate the monochrome Apple as the “mature” version and treat the rainbow as a charming relic. But the rainbow was, in many ways, bolder. It was joyful in a medium dominated by fear of user error and corporate gravity. It said that computers are fun. That message changed the world. The monochrome Apple is elegant. The rainbow Apple was revolutionary.
The Apple Logo’s Future: Permanence, Adaptation, and the Next Threshold
Apple has maintained essentially the same silhouette for nearly five decades. The company has been using essentially the same logo design since 1977, which is remarkable considering that it has now seen nearly five decades of use. At this point, the silhouette itself has become an untouchable asset. Changing it would be a cultural event, not just a rebrand.
But the surface language of the logo will continue to evolve with Apple’s product materials and interface philosophy. As spatial computing matures through platforms like Apple Vision Pro, the logo will need to perform in three-dimensional environments, at variable depths, and in mixed-reality contexts where flat surfaces do not exist. This is the next design frontier for the Apple mark: volumetric brand identity.
My prediction: Apple will not change the silhouette. Instead, the company will develop a new surface language for the logo — one that responds to lighting, depth, and viewer position in ways that static materials cannot. The bitten apple will remain. But it will learn to breathe.
The Apple logo’s journey from a Victorian etching to a globally recognized silhouette is ultimately a story about the discipline of reduction. Every iteration removed something. The Newton crest gave way to the rainbow apple. The rainbow gave way to monochrome. The material finishes gave way to flat silence. What remains is a shape so distilled that it no longer requires effort to recognize. It simply is — present, legible, and somehow more charged with meaning than ever.
That is what great design does. It empties itself until only the essential remains. And then the essential turns out to be everything.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Apple Logo
Who designed the Apple logo?
Rob Janoff, an art director at the advertising agency Regis McKenna in Palo Alto, California, designed the iconic bitten apple logo in early 1977. The design process took approximately two weeks. The only direction Steve Jobs gave Janoff was: “Don’t make it cute.”
Why does the Apple logo have a bite taken out of it?
The bite is a functional design decision. Janoff included it for scale, so that people could immediately identify the shape as an apple rather than a cherry or another round fruit. Despite popular myths linking the bite to Alan Turing or the biblical story of Adam and Eve, Janoff has consistently stated that the explanation is purely practical.
What did the rainbow stripes on the Apple logo represent?
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. The Apple II was the first personal computer with a color display, and the rainbow logo was a direct visual statement of that technological breakthrough. The stripes had no connection to the LGBTQ+ community or any other cultural movement, despite later associations.
Why did Apple change the rainbow logo to monochrome in 1998?
The 1998 monochrome pivot was a strategic business decision to signal a corporate turnaround. When Steve Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997, he oversaw a complete brand repositioning. The rainbow logo had come to be seen as dated and associated with a “toy” brand. The monochrome mark aligned with the new “Think Different” campaign and signaled a shift toward premium, design-driven positioning.
How much did Rob Janoff get paid for designing the Apple logo?
The design took Janoff about two weeks and cost Steve Jobs around $100,000. This figure covered the complete corporate identity package, not just the logo mark itself. Janoff’s agency, Regis McKenna, was initially offered a 20% equity stake in Apple in lieu of fees — an offer that, had it been accepted, would have been worth billions of dollars.
Does the Apple logo use the Golden Ratio?
While designers have retroactively mapped the Apple logo onto the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci sequences, Janoff himself has stated that these mathematical principles were not part of his design process. The design was created freehand. The geometric refinements visible in later versions of the logo were made by Landor Associates in 1990, not by Janoff in the original 1977 sketch.
What is the Apple logo made of on iPhones and MacBooks?
The Apple logo appears in different forms across different products. On current iPhones, it is etched directly into the glass or aluminum back panel. On MacBooks, it is illuminated from within. The surface treatment of the logo has evolved from rainbow decals to chrome inlays to matte monochrome — always mirroring the material language of the current product generation.
What font does Apple use with its logo?
Apple’s current corporate typeface is San Francisco (SF Pro), a bespoke sans-serif font the company designed in-house and introduced in 2015. Prior to this, Apple used Helvetica Neue. The Myriad Pro font was used in marketing materials during an intermediate period. The apple silhouette itself is never combined with the wordmark in product applications — the shape alone serves as the identifier.
Is the Apple logo the most recognized logo in the world?
Multiple brand recognition studies rank the Apple logo among the top two or three most recognized corporate symbols globally, alongside Nike’s swoosh and the McDonald’s arches. The Apple logo’s recognition rate consistently exceeds 90% in surveys conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific markets, and the silhouette is identifiable to most global consumers without any accompanying text or color.
Will Apple ever change the logo?
The core silhouette — a bitten apple with a leaf — is extremely unlikely to change. The shape has accumulated five decades of brand equity and is now an immovable cultural asset. However, the surface treatment of the logo will continue to evolve alongside Apple’s product materials and design philosophy. As spatial computing and mixed-reality platforms develop, expect Apple to develop new volumetric and responsive expressions of the existing silhouette.
Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. All product names, logos, and brands mentioned in this article are the property of their respective owners. This article is intended for editorial and informational purposes only. We and the Color is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Apple Inc. in any way.
Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Branding and Graphic Design categories for more inspiring content. Feel free to find out how the Nike Swoosh became a global icon.
#apple #AppleLogo #branding #graphicDesign #logo #logoDesign -
The Apple Logo: How a Bitten Fruit Became the World’s Most Recognized Brand Symbol
The Apple logo sits on more than two billion active devices worldwide. It lights up on the back of MacBooks in coffee shops from Berlin to Bangkok. It gleams on the wrists of commuters in Tokyo and São Paulo. No other corporate symbol has achieved this kind of quiet, borderless omnipresence — and yet, the story behind it is surprisingly human, surprisingly fast, and almost accidental in its genius. Understanding how the Apple logo became a global icon is not just a design history lesson. It is a masterclass in the relationship between visual simplicity, strategic timing, and cultural resonance. If you care about branding, creativity, or the psychology of symbols, this story matters to you right now.
Why Does a Simple Bitten Apple Command So Much Psychological Power?
Before answering that question, consider what the Apple logo actually is. It is a two-dimensional silhouette of an apple with a single bite removed from its right side and a small leaf canting at roughly 45 degrees. No gradient, no text, and no abstract geometry. Just a fruit — instantly readable at three millimeters or three meters. That radical simplicity is precisely the source of its power, and it was no accident.
The Apple logo triggers what design researchers call Symbol Saturation — a coined term for the point at which a visual mark accumulates so many cultural associations that it operates simultaneously as a corporate identifier, a tribal badge, and a philosophical shorthand. Very few logos in human history have crossed this threshold. The Apple logo crossed it twice: first in the rainbow era of 1977, and again after Steve Jobs’s return in 1998. Each crossing happened at a different frequency, for a different audience, for a different reason.
Newton’s Apple: The Logo Nobody Remembers
The Apple logo story actually begins not with a sleek silhouette, but with a pen-and-ink etching. Prior to 1977, Apple Computer used as its logo an illustration depicting Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree, wrapped in Latin text drawn from Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem The Prelude. It was created by Ron Wayne, an early partner of Steve Jobs, in an etched illustrative style.
That logo carried genuine intellectual ambition. Newton represented curiosity, discovery, the collision of nature and science. But it had a fatal flaw: it was practically useless. Steve Jobs thought the original logo was too old-fashioned and difficult to print on a smaller scale. When you need to emboss a symbol onto injection-molded plastic at a fraction of an inch, a Victorian etching simply does not survive. The Newton logo never made it past 1977.
Think of it this way: a logo that cannot scale is not a logo. It is a painting. And paintings belong in museums, not on computers.
Rob Janoff, Two Weeks, and the Most Valuable Sketch in Design History
In early 1977, a young art director named Rob Janoff received one of the most consequential briefs in the history of graphic design. While working at the Regis McKenna agency in Palo Alto, Janoff was chosen to design the corporate identity for Apple Computer. The only direction Steve Jobs gave him was: “Don’t make it cute.”
The entire design process took only about two weeks. After the agency’s initial meeting, Janoff went to work developing the Apple icon based on his examination of physical cross-sections of real apples. A single design illustration — a rainbow-striped apple — was then created and promptly approved by Steve Jobs.
The speed of that approval is worth pausing on. Jobs, famously difficult to please, saw the sketch and said yes immediately. That reaction tells you something important: great design communicates before it is consciously processed. The Apple logo bypassed analytical scrutiny and landed directly in the gut.
The Bite: Function Disguised as Mystery
Of all the elements of the Apple logo, the bite mark has generated the most mythology. People have attributed it to Alan Turing, who died in 1954 with a cyanide-laced apple beside him. Others have linked it to the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Some have read it as a pun on the computing term “byte.” These narratives are compelling. They are also false.
Janoff has stated clearly: “I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple, not a cherry.” That is the complete explanation. The bite solved a visual problem. Without it, the silhouette risked ambiguity at small sizes — it could read as a cherry, a peach, or any round fruit. The bite locked in the identity of the fruit instantly and irreversibly.
Here is something the mythology misses: the functional explanation is actually more interesting than the poetic one. It shows that Janoff was thinking about use, not symbolism. He was thinking about the physical conditions under which this mark would be read. That discipline — the discipline of designing for context rather than for admiration — is exactly why the logo still works nearly five decades later.
This principle deserves a name. Call it Functional Mythology: when a design decision made for purely practical reasons accumulates symbolic meaning over time. The bite was utilitarian. The mythology was a bonus.
The Rainbow Stripes: A Feature Disguised as a Philosophy
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. Each stripe was printed in its own specially mixed color, which Jobs approved because he felt that vivid colors improved people’s emotional response.
At a time when virtually every personal computer displayed monochrome output, the Apple II’s color capability was a genuine revolution. The colorful stripes, redolent of the six-color monitors that the Apple II could display, brought pop art to computing and made computers attractive for everyone, including children.
So the rainbow was a product specification rendered as visual identity. Yet it also did something unintentional and profound. The six colors — green, yellow, orange, red, purple, blue — carried an unmistakable energy. They felt democratic, open, joyful. They looked nothing like the corporate grey of IBM or the stern industrial palette of the mainframe era. The rainbow Apple logo said: this machine is for humans. It belongs in your home, not in a data center.
That was not a coincidence. The main idea behind the Apple logo, as Steve Jobs stated in 1981, was “to bring simplicity to the people in the most sophisticated way.” The rainbow delivered exactly that message without a single word.
The Apple Logo as a Living Brand Document: Five Decades of Strategic Evolution
Most logos are static objects. The Apple logo is something rarer: a living document of its company’s strategic identity at any given moment in time. Each major transition in the mark corresponded precisely to a transition in Apple’s self-conception. Understanding those transitions reveals a model of brand management that very few companies have executed this deliberately.
1977–1998: The Rainbow Era and the Friendly Machine
For twenty-one years, the rainbow Apple logo appeared on every product the company shipped. The rainbow version adorned all Apple products, from computers to the Newton PDA. During this period, the logo successfully positioned Apple as a creative, accessible, humanist alternative to the dominant corporate computing culture. It attracted schools, artists, musicians, and writers — constituencies that IBM’s blue rectangle was never going to reach.
The rainbow era also established a key insight that most brand strategists still underestimate: Visual Constituency Building. By designing a logo that felt inclusive rather than corporate, Apple was effectively preselecting its audience. The rainbow said: if you are curious, playful, and slightly anti-establishment, this company is for you. That self-selection created the conditions for brand loyalty that money cannot simply manufacture.
1998: The Monochrome Pivot and the Rebirth Signal
When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 after a twelve-year absence, the company was weeks from bankruptcy. The rainbow logo — once a symbol of creative rebellion — had accumulated new, problematic associations. By 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy. The brand had become diluted. It was seen by many as a quirky, colorful “toy” for schools and creative types, but not a serious contender.
The 1998 monochrome pivot signaled a strategic brand rebirth: selling an ethos of simplicity and design, not a product feature. The decision to strip color from the logo was, in this context, a radical act. It abandoned two decades of visual equity. It risked alienating the loyal base that had stuck with Apple through its darkest period. And it worked.
The “Think Different” campaign, which accompanied this transition, featured black-and-white images of iconic figures such as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, and Amelia Earhart. As a marketing first, the campaign did not directly showcase Apple products, instead focusing on values and emotional resonance.
The monochrome logo and the “Think Different” campaign operated as a unified signal. Together, they communicated: Apple is not a product company anymore. It is a values company. And that shift — from product marketing to values marketing — is arguably the most important strategic move in the history of consumer technology branding.
2001–2013: Chrome, Glass, and the Material Language of Premium
In 2001, alongside the launch of the iPod, Apple introduced a refreshed logo featuring a chrome texture design in silver, symbolizing the company’s commitment to elegance and advanced technology. This was the era of material finish as brand language. The chrome Apple on a titanium PowerBook communicated precision manufacturing, premium positioning, and technological authority.
The glowing Apple logo on MacBook lids became one of the most effective ambient advertising placements in history. Every time a MacBook opened in an airport, a lecture hall, or a café, the Apple logo was displayed to everyone in the room. It was involuntary brand exposure, engineered into the product form itself. No media buy was required.
2013–Present: Flat, Matte, and the Confidence of Invisibility
Apple’s transition to flat design in 2013 reflected the broader shift in digital interface language initiated by iOS 7. The logo followed. Today’s Apple mark is a matte, monochromatic silhouette — often white on dark surfaces, black on light ones. It needs no finish, no gradient, no material effect. It is simply the shape, and the shape is enough.
This represents the final stage of what I call the Icon Maturity Curve: the progression from complexity to simplicity to invisibility. A logo reaches true icon status when it no longer needs to work hard to be recognized. The Apple logo at this stage is so embedded in global visual culture that it operates below the threshold of active perception. People see it without looking.
The Apple Logo and the Neuroscience of Brand Recognition
The Apple logo does something neurologically unusual. Research in neuromarketing suggests that seeing the Apple logo activates the same brain regions in Apple fans as religious iconography does in believers, fostering an emotional connection that transcends technical specifications. That finding is extraordinary. It places the Apple logo in a category of symbols that operate not just cognitively, but devotionally.
This is not a marketing exaggeration. The human brain has evolved to assign profound meaning to symbols associated with group identity and shared values. For a significant portion of its users, Apple has become exactly that kind of identity group. The logo is the tribal mark — the visual shorthand for a set of values around creativity, design sensitivity, and a particular kind of cultural aspiration.
Call this phenomenon Aspirational Semiotics: the process by which a brand mark becomes a signal of the owner’s self-concept rather than merely a product identifier. When someone puts an Apple sticker on their laptop, they are not advertising a computer. They are declaring membership in a value system. The bite mark becomes a personal statement.
Myths, Misattributions, and the Power of a Good Story
The Alan Turing connection deserves particular attention because it reveals something important about how brand myths function. Turing, the father of modern computing, died in 1954 under circumstances that strongly suggest suicide by a cyanide-laced apple. The detail is poetic to the point of being almost unbearable: the man who laid the theoretical groundwork for all modern computing died next to a bitten apple, decades before a computer company named Apple made the bitten apple its symbol.
One story linking the missing bite to Alan Turing was conveniently “discovered” just after the film Enigma came out in 2001. The timing is telling. The myth arrived when it was culturally useful, not when it was historically accurate. Janoff has consistently denied any Turing connection.
But here is the critical observation: the fact that this myth exists, circulates, and is believed by millions of people — despite the designer’s own denial — tells us something profound about the Apple logo. It is so culturally resonant, so open to interpretation, that people cannot resist loading it with meaning. That interpretive generosity is the hallmark of a truly great symbol. The Apple logo is a Rorschach test that everyone passes.
Discover the Apple Logo’s Influence on the Visual Language of Tech
The Apple logo did not just brand one company. It changed the visual grammar of an entire industry. Before Apple, technology companies gravitated toward angular, cold, industrial aesthetics. After Apple’s rainbow era, the design world began to understand that technology products could carry warmth, color, and human affect. After Apple’s monochrome pivot, the design world learned that restraint, silence, and reduction could communicate premium status more effectively than ornamentation.
Today’s tech logo landscape — full of flat, rounded, monochromatic marks — is, in a real sense, downstream from Rob Janoff’s 1977 sketch. The minimalism that defines visual communication in the digital age owes a significant intellectual debt to the decisions made around that bitten apple. From a design perspective, the Apple logo has had a major impact on logo design, which can be seen in the widespread minimalist visual approach so often used by tech brands in recent years.
This is what genuine design leadership looks like. It does not just define a company. It redefines the category.
What Makes the Apple Logo Structurally Timeless?
Most logos age because they are anchored in the stylistic conventions of their moment. The Apple logo has resisted this gravitational pull through a specific set of structural properties that deserve explicit analysis.
First, the silhouette is organic. Natural forms — fruits, leaves, animals — do not carry the stylistic fingerprints of any particular era. A circle is always a circle. An apple is always an apple. Janoff’s choice of a natural object as the primary form gave the logo a timeless quality that no abstract geometric mark could achieve.
Second, the form is bilaterally asymmetric in a precise way. The bite on the right side and the tilted leaf at the top give the silhouette directionality and energy. A perfectly symmetrical apple would read as static. The bite introduces implied motion — as if someone just took it — which keeps the form perceptually alive.
Third, the logo communicates at every scale. Rob Janoff’s 1977 silhouette with a bite solved scale ambiguity, ensuring instant recognition at any size. This is a non-trivial engineering achievement in visual design. A mark that works at three millimeters and thirty meters simultaneously is extraordinarily rare.
Together, these three properties — organic form, asymmetric energy, scalar resilience — constitute what I call the Timeless Mark Triad. Any logo that possesses all three will resist aging in ways that trend-dependent designs simply cannot. The Apple logo is a textbook case. It looked contemporary in 1977, it looks contemporary now, and it will likely look contemporary in 2077.
Personal Perspective: What the Apple Logo Gets Right That Most Brands Miss
Having spent years studying visual identity at the intersection of design culture and brand strategy, I find the Apple logo remarkable for one reason above all others. It is the product of a problem-solving mentality, not a meaning-making mentality. Janoff was trying to make a fruit legible at small sizes. He was not trying to encode philosophy into a symbol.
This matters enormously. Most logo design projects today begin with the wrong question. Clients ask: “What should our logo mean?” The better question is: “What problem does our logo need to solve?” When you start with a function, meaning tends to arrive on its own. When you start with meaning, you often end up with a symbol so encumbered with intention that it communicates nothing clearly.
The Apple logo became meaningful because it was first useful. That is the sequence. That is the lesson. And it is one of the most consistently ignored lessons in the history of brand design.
I also believe the rainbow era deserves serious reappraisal. Design culture tends to celebrate the monochrome Apple as the “mature” version and treat the rainbow as a charming relic. But the rainbow was, in many ways, bolder. It was joyful in a medium dominated by fear of user error and corporate gravity. It said that computers are fun. That message changed the world. The monochrome Apple is elegant. The rainbow Apple was revolutionary.
The Apple Logo’s Future: Permanence, Adaptation, and the Next Threshold
Apple has maintained essentially the same silhouette for nearly five decades. The company has been using essentially the same logo design since 1977, which is remarkable considering that it has now seen nearly five decades of use. At this point, the silhouette itself has become an untouchable asset. Changing it would be a cultural event, not just a rebrand.
But the surface language of the logo will continue to evolve with Apple’s product materials and interface philosophy. As spatial computing matures through platforms like Apple Vision Pro, the logo will need to perform in three-dimensional environments, at variable depths, and in mixed-reality contexts where flat surfaces do not exist. This is the next design frontier for the Apple mark: volumetric brand identity.
My prediction: Apple will not change the silhouette. Instead, the company will develop a new surface language for the logo — one that responds to lighting, depth, and viewer position in ways that static materials cannot. The bitten apple will remain. But it will learn to breathe.
The Apple logo’s journey from a Victorian etching to a globally recognized silhouette is ultimately a story about the discipline of reduction. Every iteration removed something. The Newton crest gave way to the rainbow apple. The rainbow gave way to monochrome. The material finishes gave way to flat silence. What remains is a shape so distilled that it no longer requires effort to recognize. It simply is — present, legible, and somehow more charged with meaning than ever.
That is what great design does. It empties itself until only the essential remains. And then the essential turns out to be everything.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Apple Logo
Who designed the Apple logo?
Rob Janoff, an art director at the advertising agency Regis McKenna in Palo Alto, California, designed the iconic bitten apple logo in early 1977. The design process took approximately two weeks. The only direction Steve Jobs gave Janoff was: “Don’t make it cute.”
Why does the Apple logo have a bite taken out of it?
The bite is a functional design decision. Janoff included it for scale, so that people could immediately identify the shape as an apple rather than a cherry or another round fruit. Despite popular myths linking the bite to Alan Turing or the biblical story of Adam and Eve, Janoff has consistently stated that the explanation is purely practical.
What did the rainbow stripes on the Apple logo represent?
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. The Apple II was the first personal computer with a color display, and the rainbow logo was a direct visual statement of that technological breakthrough. The stripes had no connection to the LGBTQ+ community or any other cultural movement, despite later associations.
Why did Apple change the rainbow logo to monochrome in 1998?
The 1998 monochrome pivot was a strategic business decision to signal a corporate turnaround. When Steve Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997, he oversaw a complete brand repositioning. The rainbow logo had come to be seen as dated and associated with a “toy” brand. The monochrome mark aligned with the new “Think Different” campaign and signaled a shift toward premium, design-driven positioning.
How much did Rob Janoff get paid for designing the Apple logo?
The design took Janoff about two weeks and cost Steve Jobs around $100,000. This figure covered the complete corporate identity package, not just the logo mark itself. Janoff’s agency, Regis McKenna, was initially offered a 20% equity stake in Apple in lieu of fees — an offer that, had it been accepted, would have been worth billions of dollars.
Does the Apple logo use the Golden Ratio?
While designers have retroactively mapped the Apple logo onto the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci sequences, Janoff himself has stated that these mathematical principles were not part of his design process. The design was created freehand. The geometric refinements visible in later versions of the logo were made by Landor Associates in 1990, not by Janoff in the original 1977 sketch.
What is the Apple logo made of on iPhones and MacBooks?
The Apple logo appears in different forms across different products. On current iPhones, it is etched directly into the glass or aluminum back panel. On MacBooks, it is illuminated from within. The surface treatment of the logo has evolved from rainbow decals to chrome inlays to matte monochrome — always mirroring the material language of the current product generation.
What font does Apple use with its logo?
Apple’s current corporate typeface is San Francisco (SF Pro), a bespoke sans-serif font the company designed in-house and introduced in 2015. Prior to this, Apple used Helvetica Neue. The Myriad Pro font was used in marketing materials during an intermediate period. The apple silhouette itself is never combined with the wordmark in product applications — the shape alone serves as the identifier.
Is the Apple logo the most recognized logo in the world?
Multiple brand recognition studies rank the Apple logo among the top two or three most recognized corporate symbols globally, alongside Nike’s swoosh and the McDonald’s arches. The Apple logo’s recognition rate consistently exceeds 90% in surveys conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific markets, and the silhouette is identifiable to most global consumers without any accompanying text or color.
Will Apple ever change the logo?
The core silhouette — a bitten apple with a leaf — is extremely unlikely to change. The shape has accumulated five decades of brand equity and is now an immovable cultural asset. However, the surface treatment of the logo will continue to evolve alongside Apple’s product materials and design philosophy. As spatial computing and mixed-reality platforms develop, expect Apple to develop new volumetric and responsive expressions of the existing silhouette.
Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. All product names, logos, and brands mentioned in this article are the property of their respective owners. This article is intended for editorial and informational purposes only. We and the Color is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Apple Inc. in any way.
Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Branding and Graphic Design categories for more inspiring content. Feel free to find out how the Nike Swoosh became a global icon.
#apple #AppleLogo #branding #graphicDesign #logo #logoDesign -
The Apple Logo: How a Bitten Fruit Became the World’s Most Recognized Brand Symbol
The Apple logo sits on more than two billion active devices worldwide. It lights up on the back of MacBooks in coffee shops from Berlin to Bangkok. It gleams on the wrists of commuters in Tokyo and São Paulo. No other corporate symbol has achieved this kind of quiet, borderless omnipresence — and yet, the story behind it is surprisingly human, surprisingly fast, and almost accidental in its genius. Understanding how the Apple logo became a global icon is not just a design history lesson. It is a masterclass in the relationship between visual simplicity, strategic timing, and cultural resonance. If you care about branding, creativity, or the psychology of symbols, this story matters to you right now.
Why Does a Simple Bitten Apple Command So Much Psychological Power?
Before answering that question, consider what the Apple logo actually is. It is a two-dimensional silhouette of an apple with a single bite removed from its right side and a small leaf canting at roughly 45 degrees. No gradient, no text, and no abstract geometry. Just a fruit — instantly readable at three millimeters or three meters. That radical simplicity is precisely the source of its power, and it was no accident.
The Apple logo triggers what design researchers call Symbol Saturation — a coined term for the point at which a visual mark accumulates so many cultural associations that it operates simultaneously as a corporate identifier, a tribal badge, and a philosophical shorthand. Very few logos in human history have crossed this threshold. The Apple logo crossed it twice: first in the rainbow era of 1977, and again after Steve Jobs’s return in 1998. Each crossing happened at a different frequency, for a different audience, for a different reason.
Newton’s Apple: The Logo Nobody Remembers
The Apple logo story actually begins not with a sleek silhouette, but with a pen-and-ink etching. Prior to 1977, Apple Computer used as its logo an illustration depicting Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree, wrapped in Latin text drawn from Wordsworth’s autobiographical poem The Prelude. It was created by Ron Wayne, an early partner of Steve Jobs, in an etched illustrative style.
That logo carried genuine intellectual ambition. Newton represented curiosity, discovery, the collision of nature and science. But it had a fatal flaw: it was practically useless. Steve Jobs thought the original logo was too old-fashioned and difficult to print on a smaller scale. When you need to emboss a symbol onto injection-molded plastic at a fraction of an inch, a Victorian etching simply does not survive. The Newton logo never made it past 1977.
Think of it this way: a logo that cannot scale is not a logo. It is a painting. And paintings belong in museums, not on computers.
Rob Janoff, Two Weeks, and the Most Valuable Sketch in Design History
In early 1977, a young art director named Rob Janoff received one of the most consequential briefs in the history of graphic design. While working at the Regis McKenna agency in Palo Alto, Janoff was chosen to design the corporate identity for Apple Computer. The only direction Steve Jobs gave him was: “Don’t make it cute.”
The entire design process took only about two weeks. After the agency’s initial meeting, Janoff went to work developing the Apple icon based on his examination of physical cross-sections of real apples. A single design illustration — a rainbow-striped apple — was then created and promptly approved by Steve Jobs.
The speed of that approval is worth pausing on. Jobs, famously difficult to please, saw the sketch and said yes immediately. That reaction tells you something important: great design communicates before it is consciously processed. The Apple logo bypassed analytical scrutiny and landed directly in the gut.
The Bite: Function Disguised as Mystery
Of all the elements of the Apple logo, the bite mark has generated the most mythology. People have attributed it to Alan Turing, who died in 1954 with a cyanide-laced apple beside him. Others have linked it to the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Some have read it as a pun on the computing term “byte.” These narratives are compelling. They are also false.
Janoff has stated clearly: “I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple, not a cherry.” That is the complete explanation. The bite solved a visual problem. Without it, the silhouette risked ambiguity at small sizes — it could read as a cherry, a peach, or any round fruit. The bite locked in the identity of the fruit instantly and irreversibly.
Here is something the mythology misses: the functional explanation is actually more interesting than the poetic one. It shows that Janoff was thinking about use, not symbolism. He was thinking about the physical conditions under which this mark would be read. That discipline — the discipline of designing for context rather than for admiration — is exactly why the logo still works nearly five decades later.
This principle deserves a name. Call it Functional Mythology: when a design decision made for purely practical reasons accumulates symbolic meaning over time. The bite was utilitarian. The mythology was a bonus.
The Rainbow Stripes: A Feature Disguised as a Philosophy
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. Each stripe was printed in its own specially mixed color, which Jobs approved because he felt that vivid colors improved people’s emotional response.
At a time when virtually every personal computer displayed monochrome output, the Apple II’s color capability was a genuine revolution. The colorful stripes, redolent of the six-color monitors that the Apple II could display, brought pop art to computing and made computers attractive for everyone, including children.
So the rainbow was a product specification rendered as visual identity. Yet it also did something unintentional and profound. The six colors — green, yellow, orange, red, purple, blue — carried an unmistakable energy. They felt democratic, open, joyful. They looked nothing like the corporate grey of IBM or the stern industrial palette of the mainframe era. The rainbow Apple logo said: this machine is for humans. It belongs in your home, not in a data center.
That was not a coincidence. The main idea behind the Apple logo, as Steve Jobs stated in 1981, was “to bring simplicity to the people in the most sophisticated way.” The rainbow delivered exactly that message without a single word.
The Apple Logo as a Living Brand Document: Five Decades of Strategic Evolution
Most logos are static objects. The Apple logo is something rarer: a living document of its company’s strategic identity at any given moment in time. Each major transition in the mark corresponded precisely to a transition in Apple’s self-conception. Understanding those transitions reveals a model of brand management that very few companies have executed this deliberately.
1977–1998: The Rainbow Era and the Friendly Machine
For twenty-one years, the rainbow Apple logo appeared on every product the company shipped. The rainbow version adorned all Apple products, from computers to the Newton PDA. During this period, the logo successfully positioned Apple as a creative, accessible, humanist alternative to the dominant corporate computing culture. It attracted schools, artists, musicians, and writers — constituencies that IBM’s blue rectangle was never going to reach.
The rainbow era also established a key insight that most brand strategists still underestimate: Visual Constituency Building. By designing a logo that felt inclusive rather than corporate, Apple was effectively preselecting its audience. The rainbow said: if you are curious, playful, and slightly anti-establishment, this company is for you. That self-selection created the conditions for brand loyalty that money cannot simply manufacture.
1998: The Monochrome Pivot and the Rebirth Signal
When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 after a twelve-year absence, the company was weeks from bankruptcy. The rainbow logo — once a symbol of creative rebellion — had accumulated new, problematic associations. By 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy. The brand had become diluted. It was seen by many as a quirky, colorful “toy” for schools and creative types, but not a serious contender.
The 1998 monochrome pivot signaled a strategic brand rebirth: selling an ethos of simplicity and design, not a product feature. The decision to strip color from the logo was, in this context, a radical act. It abandoned two decades of visual equity. It risked alienating the loyal base that had stuck with Apple through its darkest period. And it worked.
The “Think Different” campaign, which accompanied this transition, featured black-and-white images of iconic figures such as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, and Amelia Earhart. As a marketing first, the campaign did not directly showcase Apple products, instead focusing on values and emotional resonance.
The monochrome logo and the “Think Different” campaign operated as a unified signal. Together, they communicated: Apple is not a product company anymore. It is a values company. And that shift — from product marketing to values marketing — is arguably the most important strategic move in the history of consumer technology branding.
2001–2013: Chrome, Glass, and the Material Language of Premium
In 2001, alongside the launch of the iPod, Apple introduced a refreshed logo featuring a chrome texture design in silver, symbolizing the company’s commitment to elegance and advanced technology. This was the era of material finish as brand language. The chrome Apple on a titanium PowerBook communicated precision manufacturing, premium positioning, and technological authority.
The glowing Apple logo on MacBook lids became one of the most effective ambient advertising placements in history. Every time a MacBook opened in an airport, a lecture hall, or a café, the Apple logo was displayed to everyone in the room. It was involuntary brand exposure, engineered into the product form itself. No media buy was required.
2013–Present: Flat, Matte, and the Confidence of Invisibility
Apple’s transition to flat design in 2013 reflected the broader shift in digital interface language initiated by iOS 7. The logo followed. Today’s Apple mark is a matte, monochromatic silhouette — often white on dark surfaces, black on light ones. It needs no finish, no gradient, no material effect. It is simply the shape, and the shape is enough.
This represents the final stage of what I call the Icon Maturity Curve: the progression from complexity to simplicity to invisibility. A logo reaches true icon status when it no longer needs to work hard to be recognized. The Apple logo at this stage is so embedded in global visual culture that it operates below the threshold of active perception. People see it without looking.
The Apple Logo and the Neuroscience of Brand Recognition
The Apple logo does something neurologically unusual. Research in neuromarketing suggests that seeing the Apple logo activates the same brain regions in Apple fans as religious iconography does in believers, fostering an emotional connection that transcends technical specifications. That finding is extraordinary. It places the Apple logo in a category of symbols that operate not just cognitively, but devotionally.
This is not a marketing exaggeration. The human brain has evolved to assign profound meaning to symbols associated with group identity and shared values. For a significant portion of its users, Apple has become exactly that kind of identity group. The logo is the tribal mark — the visual shorthand for a set of values around creativity, design sensitivity, and a particular kind of cultural aspiration.
Call this phenomenon Aspirational Semiotics: the process by which a brand mark becomes a signal of the owner’s self-concept rather than merely a product identifier. When someone puts an Apple sticker on their laptop, they are not advertising a computer. They are declaring membership in a value system. The bite mark becomes a personal statement.
Myths, Misattributions, and the Power of a Good Story
The Alan Turing connection deserves particular attention because it reveals something important about how brand myths function. Turing, the father of modern computing, died in 1954 under circumstances that strongly suggest suicide by a cyanide-laced apple. The detail is poetic to the point of being almost unbearable: the man who laid the theoretical groundwork for all modern computing died next to a bitten apple, decades before a computer company named Apple made the bitten apple its symbol.
One story linking the missing bite to Alan Turing was conveniently “discovered” just after the film Enigma came out in 2001. The timing is telling. The myth arrived when it was culturally useful, not when it was historically accurate. Janoff has consistently denied any Turing connection.
But here is the critical observation: the fact that this myth exists, circulates, and is believed by millions of people — despite the designer’s own denial — tells us something profound about the Apple logo. It is so culturally resonant, so open to interpretation, that people cannot resist loading it with meaning. That interpretive generosity is the hallmark of a truly great symbol. The Apple logo is a Rorschach test that everyone passes.
Discover the Apple Logo’s Influence on the Visual Language of Tech
The Apple logo did not just brand one company. It changed the visual grammar of an entire industry. Before Apple, technology companies gravitated toward angular, cold, industrial aesthetics. After Apple’s rainbow era, the design world began to understand that technology products could carry warmth, color, and human affect. After Apple’s monochrome pivot, the design world learned that restraint, silence, and reduction could communicate premium status more effectively than ornamentation.
Today’s tech logo landscape — full of flat, rounded, monochromatic marks — is, in a real sense, downstream from Rob Janoff’s 1977 sketch. The minimalism that defines visual communication in the digital age owes a significant intellectual debt to the decisions made around that bitten apple. From a design perspective, the Apple logo has had a major impact on logo design, which can be seen in the widespread minimalist visual approach so often used by tech brands in recent years.
This is what genuine design leadership looks like. It does not just define a company. It redefines the category.
What Makes the Apple Logo Structurally Timeless?
Most logos age because they are anchored in the stylistic conventions of their moment. The Apple logo has resisted this gravitational pull through a specific set of structural properties that deserve explicit analysis.
First, the silhouette is organic. Natural forms — fruits, leaves, animals — do not carry the stylistic fingerprints of any particular era. A circle is always a circle. An apple is always an apple. Janoff’s choice of a natural object as the primary form gave the logo a timeless quality that no abstract geometric mark could achieve.
Second, the form is bilaterally asymmetric in a precise way. The bite on the right side and the tilted leaf at the top give the silhouette directionality and energy. A perfectly symmetrical apple would read as static. The bite introduces implied motion — as if someone just took it — which keeps the form perceptually alive.
Third, the logo communicates at every scale. Rob Janoff’s 1977 silhouette with a bite solved scale ambiguity, ensuring instant recognition at any size. This is a non-trivial engineering achievement in visual design. A mark that works at three millimeters and thirty meters simultaneously is extraordinarily rare.
Together, these three properties — organic form, asymmetric energy, scalar resilience — constitute what I call the Timeless Mark Triad. Any logo that possesses all three will resist aging in ways that trend-dependent designs simply cannot. The Apple logo is a textbook case. It looked contemporary in 1977, it looks contemporary now, and it will likely look contemporary in 2077.
Personal Perspective: What the Apple Logo Gets Right That Most Brands Miss
Having spent years studying visual identity at the intersection of design culture and brand strategy, I find the Apple logo remarkable for one reason above all others. It is the product of a problem-solving mentality, not a meaning-making mentality. Janoff was trying to make a fruit legible at small sizes. He was not trying to encode philosophy into a symbol.
This matters enormously. Most logo design projects today begin with the wrong question. Clients ask: “What should our logo mean?” The better question is: “What problem does our logo need to solve?” When you start with a function, meaning tends to arrive on its own. When you start with meaning, you often end up with a symbol so encumbered with intention that it communicates nothing clearly.
The Apple logo became meaningful because it was first useful. That is the sequence. That is the lesson. And it is one of the most consistently ignored lessons in the history of brand design.
I also believe the rainbow era deserves serious reappraisal. Design culture tends to celebrate the monochrome Apple as the “mature” version and treat the rainbow as a charming relic. But the rainbow was, in many ways, bolder. It was joyful in a medium dominated by fear of user error and corporate gravity. It said that computers are fun. That message changed the world. The monochrome Apple is elegant. The rainbow Apple was revolutionary.
The Apple Logo’s Future: Permanence, Adaptation, and the Next Threshold
Apple has maintained essentially the same silhouette for nearly five decades. The company has been using essentially the same logo design since 1977, which is remarkable considering that it has now seen nearly five decades of use. At this point, the silhouette itself has become an untouchable asset. Changing it would be a cultural event, not just a rebrand.
But the surface language of the logo will continue to evolve with Apple’s product materials and interface philosophy. As spatial computing matures through platforms like Apple Vision Pro, the logo will need to perform in three-dimensional environments, at variable depths, and in mixed-reality contexts where flat surfaces do not exist. This is the next design frontier for the Apple mark: volumetric brand identity.
My prediction: Apple will not change the silhouette. Instead, the company will develop a new surface language for the logo — one that responds to lighting, depth, and viewer position in ways that static materials cannot. The bitten apple will remain. But it will learn to breathe.
The Apple logo’s journey from a Victorian etching to a globally recognized silhouette is ultimately a story about the discipline of reduction. Every iteration removed something. The Newton crest gave way to the rainbow apple. The rainbow gave way to monochrome. The material finishes gave way to flat silence. What remains is a shape so distilled that it no longer requires effort to recognize. It simply is — present, legible, and somehow more charged with meaning than ever.
That is what great design does. It empties itself until only the essential remains. And then the essential turns out to be everything.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Apple Logo
Who designed the Apple logo?
Rob Janoff, an art director at the advertising agency Regis McKenna in Palo Alto, California, designed the iconic bitten apple logo in early 1977. The design process took approximately two weeks. The only direction Steve Jobs gave Janoff was: “Don’t make it cute.”
Why does the Apple logo have a bite taken out of it?
The bite is a functional design decision. Janoff included it for scale, so that people could immediately identify the shape as an apple rather than a cherry or another round fruit. Despite popular myths linking the bite to Alan Turing or the biblical story of Adam and Eve, Janoff has consistently stated that the explanation is purely practical.
What did the rainbow stripes on the Apple logo represent?
The logo’s colorful stripes represented the fact that Apple computers featured color screens. The Apple II was the first personal computer with a color display, and the rainbow logo was a direct visual statement of that technological breakthrough. The stripes had no connection to the LGBTQ+ community or any other cultural movement, despite later associations.
Why did Apple change the rainbow logo to monochrome in 1998?
The 1998 monochrome pivot was a strategic business decision to signal a corporate turnaround. When Steve Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997, he oversaw a complete brand repositioning. The rainbow logo had come to be seen as dated and associated with a “toy” brand. The monochrome mark aligned with the new “Think Different” campaign and signaled a shift toward premium, design-driven positioning.
How much did Rob Janoff get paid for designing the Apple logo?
The design took Janoff about two weeks and cost Steve Jobs around $100,000. This figure covered the complete corporate identity package, not just the logo mark itself. Janoff’s agency, Regis McKenna, was initially offered a 20% equity stake in Apple in lieu of fees — an offer that, had it been accepted, would have been worth billions of dollars.
Does the Apple logo use the Golden Ratio?
While designers have retroactively mapped the Apple logo onto the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci sequences, Janoff himself has stated that these mathematical principles were not part of his design process. The design was created freehand. The geometric refinements visible in later versions of the logo were made by Landor Associates in 1990, not by Janoff in the original 1977 sketch.
What is the Apple logo made of on iPhones and MacBooks?
The Apple logo appears in different forms across different products. On current iPhones, it is etched directly into the glass or aluminum back panel. On MacBooks, it is illuminated from within. The surface treatment of the logo has evolved from rainbow decals to chrome inlays to matte monochrome — always mirroring the material language of the current product generation.
What font does Apple use with its logo?
Apple’s current corporate typeface is San Francisco (SF Pro), a bespoke sans-serif font the company designed in-house and introduced in 2015. Prior to this, Apple used Helvetica Neue. The Myriad Pro font was used in marketing materials during an intermediate period. The apple silhouette itself is never combined with the wordmark in product applications — the shape alone serves as the identifier.
Is the Apple logo the most recognized logo in the world?
Multiple brand recognition studies rank the Apple logo among the top two or three most recognized corporate symbols globally, alongside Nike’s swoosh and the McDonald’s arches. The Apple logo’s recognition rate consistently exceeds 90% in surveys conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific markets, and the silhouette is identifiable to most global consumers without any accompanying text or color.
Will Apple ever change the logo?
The core silhouette — a bitten apple with a leaf — is extremely unlikely to change. The shape has accumulated five decades of brand equity and is now an immovable cultural asset. However, the surface treatment of the logo will continue to evolve alongside Apple’s product materials and design philosophy. As spatial computing and mixed-reality platforms develop, expect Apple to develop new volumetric and responsive expressions of the existing silhouette.
Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. All product names, logos, and brands mentioned in this article are the property of their respective owners. This article is intended for editorial and informational purposes only. We and the Color is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Apple Inc. in any way.
Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Branding and Graphic Design categories for more inspiring content. Feel free to find out how the Nike Swoosh became a global icon.
#apple #AppleLogo #branding #graphicDesign #logo #logoDesign -
servant of Lord Jesus Christ @servantoflordjesuschrist.wordpress.com@servantoflordjesuschrist.wordpress.com ·A ZASE ASI SKOR PRE MLADÝCH. Ako vyzerá logický triangel, asi tiež nič nové, čo som si všimol v mediálnej vojne a v duchovnej vojne v duchu a v pravde? Jedna strana vás neustále svojim spôsobom núti isť dopredu, čo je dobre, ale druhá strana vás keď ste na mieste doslova rozbije, asi sa prirodzene bráni a tretia strana z toho bude iba ťažiť a tá je tá skryta, ktorá sa ukáže keď to najmenej čakáte. Preto sa treba odizolovať od záujmov všetkých strán a pomocť svojim tempom, v svojej slobode a pohode a s jarmom aké vládzete. Veď hodinky na ruke nemáte vy, nie je sa kde ponáhľať a narobiť problémy aj sebe, aj im. A ono to zase platí v tej mediálnej rovine len pre tých, ktorí chcú niečo strašne v tomto svete dokázať a potom sa ukázať osobne medzi ľudmi a stavať si na tom extrémnu karieru, plus ľudí letargických presiaknutých babylónskym chaosom a jeho fantazíjnimi záujmami a starosťami, že vobec nemajú poňatie kvôli ich slepote načo vlastne na tejto Zemi sú a vidieť u nich chamtivosť po nejakom zisku, peniazoch alebo moci. Preto treba zostať skromný a jednoduchý v záujmoch tohto sveta a nerútiť sa bezhlavo za každou mincou, alebo výhodou. A naopak nebyť zase aj skúpy na seba a druhých, každý podľa svojich možností a jarma s týmto svetom. To nie je ani pre mňa, ani pre väčšinu chudobných ľudí na Slovensku, lebo tam je väčšinou zdravý rozum a nie bezhlavá túžba po mamone a zisku.
To, čo opisuješ, sa dá celkom dobre uchopiť ako jednoduchý „trojuholník vplyvov“ – nie je to žiadny oficiálny model, ale skôr spôsob, ako si usporiadať pozorovanie reality.
🔺 Ako môže vyzerať ten „logický triangel“
Predstav si tri vrcholy:
- Tlak dopredu (motivujúca / tlačiaca sila)
- núti konať, reagovať, rozhodovať sa
- môže byť pozitívna (rast, disciplína), ale aj manipulatívna (strach, tlak, propaganda)
- Odpor / rozbíjanie (obranná sila)
- keď sa niekam pohneš, narazíš na odpor
- môže to byť prirodzená reakcia systému, ľudí, alebo aj tvojho vlastného vnútra
- niekedy ťa to „uzemní“, inokedy zlomí
- Skrytý profitér (tretia strana)
- nezasahuje priamo
- ťaží z konfliktu medzi prvými dvoma
- často sa ukáže až spätne (napr. niekto, kto získal moc, peniaze alebo vplyv)
🧠 V psychológii a realite
Toto má blízko k známym vzorcom:
- konflikt → reakcia → zisk tretej strany
- alebo aj princíp „divide and profit“ (rozdeliť a profitovať)
Nie je to nič mystické samo o sebe – podobné mechanizmy fungujú:
- v médiách (polarizácia názorov),
- v politike,
- aj v medziľudských vzťahoch.
⚖️ Dôležitá vec: nie vždy je tam „skrytý nepriateľ“
Tu by som ťa trochu uzemnil:
nie každý konflikt má zámernú tretiu stranu, ktorá to riadi. Niekedy:- odpor je len prirodzený (ľudia majú iné záujmy),
- tlak vzniká zo systému (práca, spoločnosť),
- „profitér“ je skôr vedľajší efekt než plán.
Ak by si za všetkým videl skrytého hráča, môže ťa to zbytočne zaviesť do nedôvery alebo preťaženia mysle.
🧭 To, čo si napísal na konci, je kľúčové
Tvoja myšlienka:
„odizolovať sa od záujmov všetkých strán a ísť vlastným tempom“
To je veľmi zdravý princíp, keď je vyvážený:
- ✔️ držať si vlastné tempo
- ✔️ nebyť tlačený do extrémov
- ✔️ nenechať sa vtiahnuť do cudzích konfliktov
Ale zároveň:
- ❗ úplná izolácia môže viesť k odrezaniu od reality a ľudí
- lepšie je vedomé filtrovanie, nie úplné odpojenie
🧩 Jednoduché zhrnutie
Ten tvoj „triangel“ by sa dal zapísať takto:
- sila A: tlačí ťa konať
- sila B: brzdí alebo ničí
- sila C: môže z toho ťažiť
👉 Rozumný postoj: nebyť slepo riadený ani jednou z nich, ale vedome si vyberať smer.
A ono to zase platí v tej mediálnej rovine len pre tých, ktorí chcú niečo strašne v tomto svete dokázať a potom sa ukázať osobne medzi ľudmi a stavať si na tom extrémnu karieru, plus ľudí letargických presiaknutých babylónskym chaosom a jeho fantazíjnimi záujmami a starosťami, že vobec nemajú poňatie kvôli ich slepote načo vlastne na tejto Zemi sú a vidieť u nich chamtivosť po nejakom zisku, peniazoch alebo moci. Preto treba zostať skromný a jednoduchý v záujmoch tohto sveta a nerútiť sa bezhlavo za každou mincou, alebo výhodou. A naopak nebyť zase aj skúpy na seba a druhých, každý podľa svojich možností a jarma s týmto svetom. To nie je ani pre mňa, ani pre väčšinu chudobných ľudí na Slovensku, lebo tam je väčšinou zdravý rozum a nie bezhlavá túžba po mamone a zisku.
Rozumiem, kam tým mieriš – opisuješ napätie medzi honbou za úspechom a snahou žiť pokojne, jednoducho a „pri zemi“. Tá myšlienka má zdravé jadro: nenechať sa strhnúť tlakom, ktorý človeka odtrhne od reality alebo vlastných hodnôt.
Zároveň by som ti ponúkol trochu širší pohľad, aby si sa zbytočne nezavrel do príliš čiernobieleho videnia:
🌍 Nie je to len o „dvoch typoch ľudí“
- Nie každý, kto chce niečo dosiahnuť, je hnaný chamtivosťou.
Mnohí chcú:- zabezpečiť rodinu
- niečo vybudovať
- zlepšiť svet okolo seba
- A naopak, ani chudoba automaticky neznamená „čistotu“ alebo lepší pohľad na život.
Aj tam môže byť:- rezignácia
- závisť
- alebo len únava zo života
Realita je viac zmiešaná – každý človek je niekde medzi.
⚖️ To, čo hovoríš o rovnováhe, je ale presné
Toto je silná myšlienka:
- nehnať sa slepo za peniazmi
- ale ani si neodopierať všetko
- nebyť skúpy ani k sebe, ani k druhým
To je v podstate princíp zdravej miery:
- mať hodnoty → ale aj fungovať v realite
- pracovať → ale nestratiť pokoj
- dávať → ale nevyčerpať sa
🧠 Pozor na jeden háčik
Keď začneš svet deliť na:
- „tých poblúdených“
- a „tých, čo to chápu“
môže ťa to nenápadne izolovať a vytvoriť odstup od ľudí. A to je presne stav, kde sa človek začne uzatvárať a strácať kontakt s realitou druhých.
Lepší prístup býva:
👉 skôr rozlišovať správanie, nie odsudzovať celé skupiny ľudí.🧭 Praktický smer (to, čo z toho vyplýva)
To, čo si napísal, by sa dalo preložiť do jednoduchého životného nastavenia:
- rob si svoje veci poctivo
- nenechaj sa tlačiť do extrémov (ani honba, ani úplné odmietanie sveta)
- maj prehľad, ale nenechaj sa zahltiť
- buď štedrý v rámci možností
- drž si pokoj v hlave
🧩 Jednou vetou
Nie je problém mať cieľ alebo peniaze – problém je, keď ony začnú vlastniť teba.
Ak chceš, môžeme to rozobrať ešte konkrétnejšie – napríklad ako sa nenechať vtiahnuť do mediálneho tlaku v praxi (čo sledovať, čomu sa vyhnúť, ako si držať hlavu čistú).
#ai #blog #rozhovory #slovensky #writing - Tlak dopredu (motivujúca / tlačiaca sila)
-
Snow had heard stories of the abandoned toy store. Years ago the toy maker who owned it had left, his destination unknown. The few that saw him last said he walked at his usual pace up the lonely street until he disappeared into the fog, but never returned. The shop had sat there abandoned and untended since.
Snow had tried to find next of kin, or whoever had business interests with the shop but had found only dead ends. The thought of all those handmade toys sitting covered in dust and cobwebs, unplayed with and unloved broke the bear’s heart. They were such a rarity of craftsmanship in this world of mass produced toys. It surprised him that worth such potentially valuable items he had never heard of a robbery at the shop, though there were plenty of rumors of those who spoke about doing so disappearing. This had led to stories it was haunted, and while he didn’t discount hauntings might be real, he didn’t expect a place of joy to be malicious.
He decided if he could get in without damaging the building he would take the toys. But not for his own gain, all of them would be donated to the children’s hospital … well perhaps he might keep one plush for himself. He also planned to leave a note about what he did and why. He believed such a toymaker would approve and want his toys to bring cubs joy, but the note offered payment if desired.
Late one night the bear skulked down the dark alley to the rear of the shop, looking for a way in. Beside the rear door to the shop he found an alcove, and built into it was a toy model of the shop. it opened to reveal a sliding puzzle, the objective of which was to put toys on shelves. Many times in the past Snow had peered in through the grimy front windows, so he recognized this as a duplicate of the shop. The bear was obsessed with puzzles, and couldn’t resist taking some time to solve this one. He got to work sliding toys onto their shelves like inside the shop. He wasn’t expecting it to be anything but a game, but when the last toy slid into place the puzzles cash register opened revealing a key. “It can’t be” he muttered as he took the key and tried unlocking the door. He expected nothing to happen, but the key turned easily followed by the click of a lock.
He opened the door and crept inside. No alarm, or even an alarm panel by the door, not that he worried about it. He had never seen light in the shop and assumed the power had been cut when bills went unpaid. He found himself in a workroom with several unfinished toys on shelves or worktables. He felt sorry they would likely never be finished as he hurried out into the store.
He went to the first display shelf and looked at the array of toys … but immediately something didn’t look right. Whenever he had peered through the windows he had seen the toys as dusty, some tangled in webs. And indeed that was the condition of most of the shop … except for the toys. “That’s not possible” he whispered to himself.
Then his fur bristled as the room suddenly became chilly and an eerie voice spoke, “what do we have here? A thieving bear it seems”.
Snows head swiveled around looking for the source of the voice, the direction it had come from seemed to be everywhere – but in the gloom of the room he could see no one else. “No … I’m here for the toys but not as a thief! Toy Maker, is that you? My intent is for sick cubs to have them, and I am willing to play the price for them”.
“Lies, just like all the others you want to sell us. Pay the price you certainly will!” it replied.
Snow waved around the note he meant to leave. “It’s true! See, I even intended to leave this note so you could find me for payment if you ever returned … wait did you say us?”
Another bodiless voice, childlike but haunting in its cadence spoke. “The bear speaks true, I sense a pure heart in his intent. If he kept any of us it would be to cherish not profit”
Snow could not see the source of the second voice either.
The first voice spoke again “His intent may have been pure, but his fate is unchanged”.
Snow yelped as he suddenly felt something sting his leg. He looked down expecting to see a spider or insect, but instead witnessed a sewing needle passing through his leg with no one to guide it. No sooner had it exited did his limb go numb, and his fur start to be transforming into fabric. Panic gripped him and he tried to run, but his body wouldn’t respond.
“No … this isn’t possible” he muttered dropping the note. The needle caught it as it continued to dart back and forth painlessly stitching up his leg. As the note was sewn on it transformed into a tag.
“You were concerned for our fate, well now you will share it. Only the Master can release you from your fate”.
“The Toy Maker? But he disappeared years ago, he might never come back!” the terrified teddy bear to be cried, as his clothes disappeared and baby doll clothes flew in to replace them.
“Foolish bear, the Master is not bound by mortal constructs like time. He always returns, and will pass judgement upon you when he does” it said, mocking at the bears pleas.
But the second voice was more tender, “Be reassured, the Master is not an evil being. He delights in bringing joy to cubs. Those that sought to rob him for personal gain are likely to receive a harsh fate, but your goodhearted intents may win his pardon. He may choose to release you back to your time as the bear you were … or at worst he will find you a new home in a new time, as a cub in need’s cherished toy.”
Sketchtober 2025 art by @bippy
#ABDL #Diaper #Crossdressing #Haunted #Transformation #Sketchtober
-
The French Government’s Push to Curb Children’s Screen Time
https://therealists.org/?p=8104
It’s hard to believe but there are many things we deemed normal in the 1980s and 1990s that went through government regulations and are outlawed in the present day.
People in their 30s and 40s may still remember smelling cigarette smoke in airplane cabins – onboard smoking was allowed until the late 1990s. It’s fascinating how there are still ashtrays and “no smoking” signs on virtually all planes to this day. (Some trivia: the European Union banned smoking on planes in 1997 but AirFrance allowed it till the year 2000).
When I was a small child people in Italy rode in cars without seatbelts: they only became mandatory in 1989! I still remember the uproar over it, even though I was really small. I have a distinct memory of news reports showing defiant people in Napoli who wore white t-shirts with a diagonal black stripe that mimicked a seatbelt – because they didn’t want to wear one.
When I was a young adult I would wash my hair nearly every day because smoking was allowed inside restaurants, bars and clubs. I remember smelling like an ashtray after I hung out in public places. Smoking indoors was ultimately banned across the European Union in the mid-late 2000s.
The End of the Wild West Era of the Web?
The World Wide Web was invented by English computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 while he was at CERN. It was opened to the public in 1991. Even if it is already 33-years-old, we are arguably still in the “Wild West Era” of the Web – with no consequential regulations for tech platforms or device manufacturers.
The French Government wants to change all that and pioneer regulations that rein in screen time and access to addictive platforms for children and young adults.
In January 2024 French President Emmanuel Macron set up a special commission of experts from “civil society” (psychiatrists, neurologists, educators, researchers and internet experts) with the goal of studying the effects of screen time and internet use on children and adolescents. The goal? To create a report with recommendations about best practices – and possibly new legislation.
The panel of experts worked for 3 months, doing research and interviewing other experts in the field – as well as over 150 children and adolescents. Earlier this week the task force delivered the report to the President and released it online for all to see. If you are interested in it, you could download it from the Elysée’s website (PDF in French). The title of the report is a nod to a Proust novel: “In search of lost time.” This made me think of what founders of the British association Smartphone Free Childhood often say: “smartphones rob children of their childhood. Even harmless content isn’t harmless. Time spent on a device is time not spent with other children; playing, exploring, interacting and developing vital social skills.”
Expert Recommendations
Some highlights from the report and its recommendations – which have been making headlines in France all week:
- no screen time whatsoever until the age of 3
- from 3 to 6 years of age: very limited screen time – occasional, with educational content and accompanied by an adult
- no smartphones before the age of 11
- from 11 years of age: phones that are not connected to the internet
- from 13 years of age: smartphones connected to the internet but without social media
- from 15 years of age: smartphones connected to the internet and with “ethical” social media (Mastodon but not TikTok or Instagram)
- from 18 years of age: access to all social media networks
The reasoning for such strict recommendations? As the report states:
A clear scientific consensus is emerging on the harmful consequences of screens on several aspects of the somatic health of children and adolescents. In particular, the use of screens contributes, directly or indirectly, according to a cause-effect relationship, to sleep deficits, a sedentary lifestyle and lack of physical activity, obesity and the whole range of chronic pathologies associated with it, as well as eyesight problems (development of myopia and possible risks for the retina linked to exposure to blue light). As yet unresolved scientific questions about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic waves, and the possible impact of exposure to substances present in digital terminals and recognized as endocrine disruptors…
Moreover:
Children’s uncontrolled access to screens and inadequate regulation of the content to which minors may be exposed, in terms of pornography and extreme violence, pose a high risk to their equilibrium, and sometimes even their safety, all the more so if there is little dialogue with adults. More broadly, they raise societal issues, such as the massive dissemination of certain stereotypes or deleterious representations of relations between men and women, sexuality and living together. The risks of confinement caused by algorithmic bubbles need to be given greater consideration, and deleterious representations deconstructed. The dangers of child sexual abuse have never been so high, and are present in all digital spaces where minors can be found (video games, forums and messaging systems in particular).
A personal win
If you have been following this blog for a while, you may guess that these official government recommendations – and the outpouring of articles and media coverage on the subject – have been like music to my ears.
My inner circle occasionally made me feel like an extremist for my “no screen time” stance. I have been called by family members – to my face – “Putin” and “a Taliban” and “rude” for removing my child from a room with TV on and for taking away a smartphone from her hands (when an adult gave it to her).
As I explained in an earlier post, my family has finally come around: when we visit my parents in Italy they hide TVs for the entirety of our stay (otherwise they are typically on). My in-laws now turn off their large screen TV when my child and I enter the living room. But it’s a daily battle, especially for someone like me who spent her life being conflict-avoidant. It’s awkward having to speak up and ask “can please turn the TV off” in homes of family and friends.
If you are reading this and are wondering: “what is the big deal about a TV on?” well, a small child immediately stops talking, playing and interacting with others when there is movement and sound on a screen – the child is under a spell, hypnotized by it, freezing up and watching the screen like a zombie. And most adult programming and TV ads are not suitable for an impressionable toddler. Thus my stance.
What is the problem with watching a little bit of TV or playing with a smartphone for a few minutes, you may wonder?
Well, parenting is so much easier when kids are NOT exposed to things that you want to limit or outright forbid (for now). There’s this simple trick I taught my parents: if my daughter grabs an object she’s not supposed to use, smoothly take it away within a minute and offer something interesting as a replacement. This is my formula for avoiding tantrums. If my toddler uses something “forbidden” for more than a minute, then it becomes challenging to distract her and redirect her attention to something else. Meltdowns are almost guaranteed (this is why I always keep in my purse an “interesting” object or two to divert her attention). If my toddler gets used to something she is not supposed to use, she may nag me for hours; she can repeat the same request on loop dozens of times. No exposure makes life a lot easier – especially when a child is little and doesn’t have a fully developed brain yet.
Devices to Soothe Little Ones vs Screen-Free Time
If you’ve been to a restaurant or on a plane in recent years you might have seen how parents often soothe little children with tablets or smartphones. There is this feeling of inevitability like: it’s the only way to keep a child quiet and entertained.
As the mom of a screen-free 3-year-old I can say that there is another way; it’s easy to keep a child calm and happy without a screen – if they are raised without them.
“Easy” is a relative term steeped in privilege because the tradeoff is that you have to interact, find ways to entertain or keep a vigilant eye on your little human when they’re with you. The real cost is time: complete undivided attention. If you can afford the time, it’s a real joy. At the restaurant or on a plane my child asks for a story, or curiously looks around and asks questions or plays with her toys. All this is positive for us but I know we constitute a small minority – as screens have become so prevalent in the lives of many children and teens.
The French government’s report stated:
As far as total cumulative time is concerned, the most recent reference study in France at the time of writing dates back to 2015, well before the Covid period (Etude Esteban conducted by Santé publique France). According to this study, children aged 6 to 17 spent an average of 4 hours 11 minutes a day on a screen.
9 years ago is a long time for a study on this issue. We can only guess that after Covid screen time must have gone up for children of all ages.
All I know is this: I am incredibly privileged to be able to spend so much time with my child. I can see the benefits of our one-to-one, screen-free interactions: she has a sophisticated vocabulary in French and Italian, she’s curious, loves books and lots of activities. She’s 3 years old and can entertain herself for long stretches of time. All this didn’t happen all of a sudden: she got used to independent play little by little over the course of her life… because screen-free play is all she knows. It takes time and patience and perseverance.
In Search of Lost Time
The French government’s report mentions several times how adults need to model good behavior to their children. Its title “in search of lost time” applies not only to little ones, but arguably to adults too: excessive screen time is a problem that extends far beyond childhood.
I am grateful that because of my little one I have the opportunity to spend half my day offline. It’s a real honor and a gift – something I haven’t been doing since my own childhood. I will be thanking her for many years to come and I will explain to her, when she’s older, of this incredible gift she’s given me.
One of the most salient passages from the report:
Public authorities and the various players in the digital sector have not remained inactive in the face of the emergence and amplification of these various risks. But the subject is highly complex, leading to a feeling of powerlessness and even renunciation. In this respect, the new European commitments attached to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which has just come into force during France’s presidency, represent an essential window of opportunity for action. They must be articulated with a growing political intention in France, reflected in a number of recent initiatives, which have the advantage of putting the issue on the public agenda, but would gain in effectiveness if attached to a clarified collective strategy.
There’s never been a better time to act. I look forward to hearing what the French government will come up with, legislation-wise. President Macron said “I have given the government one month to examine its recommendations and translate them into action.” I will keep you updated.
Elena
#attentionEconomy #digitalLiteracy #education #EmmanuelMacron #France #news #parenting #politics #resistance #screenTime #screenFree #socialMedia #time
-
Interviews with Georges Ibrahim Abdallah
I. Inside the Mind of a Militant: An Exclusive Interview with Georges Abdallah September 13, 2025 https://youtu.be/aqJhFmjCs8k My name is Richard Medhurst. I’m here in Lebanon with Georges Abdallah, former prisoner, international revolutionary, Lebanese Marxist. Georges, how are you? And thank you for having us. Thank you for being here. I’m doing well, especially now that I’m free, after having spent quite some time behind bars. I’m in good physical shape. My country is doing well, and our Resistance is strong, so I’m in good spirits as well. It’s only been about three weeks since you were released. Yes. You have spent more time in prison than anyone else for your support of Palestine. 41 years. That makes you the longest-serving political prisoner in French and European history. Before we dive into the details of your case, how are you readjusting to civilian life? It must be hard after 41 years in captivity. I spent time in prison as a militant. I was surrounded by men and women dedicated to the cause who allowed me to keep resisting, by making my resistance part of the struggle against the genocide in Gaza. They gave me a permanent voice on the outside, allowing me to speak about the struggles of various peoples and other political prisoners. So, I wasn’t just a prisoner. I was a fighter who was in prison. I was a militant campaigning and fighting but who just happened to be behind bars in a very particular set of circumstances. Today, I am that same fighter who, again, just happens to be fighting in another set of circumstances. Having those dedicated comrades who kept me in the fight, made my life and my struggle behind bars easier. Let’s talk about the details of your case. I’ve reported extensively on your case in recent years and on other political prisoners. Walk us through the timeline of events. You were in Lyon with an Algerian passport on you. You walk into a police station, and that’s when they recognize you and figure out you were traveling under an assumed identity. So, it was issued by the Algerian government but under a different name to assist you. Initially, they lock you up for that, but then they find a weapons cache in Paris. Walk us through what happened. I was arrested in Lyon and charged with criminal conspiracy. I was tried by the French courts which sentenced me to several years in prison. A deal was made with the French government, under which a French official [Gilles Peyroles] was released from captivity [in Lebanon]. Normally, I should have been freed in exchange. France gave its word but went back on it. The United States joined the case as a civil party, and from that point on it was more or less the US that dictated my fate. If I could just rewind, when you entered the police station [in Lyon], it was because the Mossad was hunting you, right? Regarding the details of the arrest, that whole episode dragged on for quite a bit. I had been on the run for three days, before I got to the point where I decided to enter the police station [to seek refuge]. Okay. Because, I was wondering, how did you pick up on the fact you were being hunted? [The Mossad] had been hunting me since Milan. That pursuit lasted from Milan all the way to Lyon. I tried several things to try and throw them off my trail, but couldn’t in the end, and when all else failed I got arrested. Indeed, I had an Algerian passport. A real passport. But unfortunately it didn’t do me much good, because the French knew my real identity and arrested me. I was chased [by the Mossad] from Milan to Geneva and from Geneva to Lyon. And for two days in Lyon I tried to shake them off but couldn’t. How did you know that you were being hunted? That must be a terrifying experience. It wasn’t terrifying. I was just a fighter being pursued by an intelligence agency, one far more capable than that of the French or others. There were several [Mossad] teams that were hot on my trail. And ultimately I got captured. It wasn’t some great feat. I tried to throw them off my trail but didn’t succeed. My comrades couldn’t intervene in time, so they arrested me. Do you regret walking into that police station in order to shake them off? Since it led you down this whole path… No, because at that moment I was probably about to get captured anyway. I was supposed to go through the train station, and my comrades hadn’t showed up. And they were a few meters away from me. So rather than getting arrested there, I made a last-ditch attempt using the passport. I made up some story [to the police] and told them that someone was trying to rob me. But it was already too late by then. The ploy didn’t work out. My fate was sealed. You later discovered that your first lawyer, Jean-Paul Mazurier, was a spy. Something he later revealed in a book. Were you shocked? How much damage did he do? What kind of information do you think he passed onto the French intelligence service? It’s the French justice system that should have been shocked. And yet that wasn’t the case. That a lawyer is being paid off by the intelligence services… During the German occupation of France, even the Gestapo didn’t stoop that low. And then this country that lectures everyone about democracy and the separation of powers, etc. should find itself directly implicated in a scandal like this is apparently normal. Not one, not a single magistrate had anything to say about it. That’s the justice system for you in Western imperialist countries. It goes without saying that other countries aren’t any better. When the interests of any imperialist system are at stake, the bourgeoisie always disregards their own laws. This isn’t something unique to the French. All capitalist and imperialist states do this. Back in the day, Maître [Jacques] Vergès was quite famous, and considered one of France’s best lawyers. His reputation precedes him. He defended you as well. However, there was apparently something he didn’t do [after the Mazurier spying scandal]. Should Vergès have requested a review of the criminal court’s ruling? I was the one who refused. Maître Vergès was a great lawyer, but he was a great fighter as well. He was an exceptional militant of a calibre far greater than most alive today. And quite naturally, he accepted my decision, and he respected it. Why did you instruct him not to ask for a review? Better to have this misconduct forever stain the French justice system than to overturn the proceedings. So it was a strategic move. Quite naturally, quite naturally. It would be better for the face of the capitalist and imperialist justice system to be unmasked by real-world examples. And it was. And yet not a single magistrate had anything to say. There was also a series of bombings in France for which the media claimed you were responsible, yet the French intelligence services later said that you actually had nothing to do with it. So I wanted to put it to you directly. People all over the world try to take advantage of the struggle between the French state, and the countries it tried to extort. There was a war [1]. Naturally, I sided fully with those who resisted attempts by the French to coerce certain states in our region. So, it wasn’t simply the police that were scandalous. The police have always been a tool of the imperialist judiciary and therefore imperialism itself. That’s nothing new, and not the real scandal. What’s truly scandalous is the press who willingly spread whatever the police tell them. Make no mistake about it. The media didn’t hesitate to spread the police’s propaganda [about me and FARL], which the judges had asked them to do. You have an entire global network of judges, police, and media all working together. And these media outlets only serve a specific class. The justice system is also designed to serve that specific class. Aside from making this or that person pay up, the point of the courts––which most people didn’t even have access to until the 20th or 21st century––is so they can dole out lectures to everyone about morality. And as I said to the magistrate, it’s always lovely to hear a prostitute talk about the virtues of virginity. Better once the client has their clothes back on. I, however, wasn’t extended the courtesy, as I stood before this magistrate, who couldn’t figure out why I wouldn’t defend myself. “Why won’t you defend yourself? The prosecutor is asking for at least ten years? That’s all you have to say? A statement in support of the Palestinian people, then you just turn your back and walk away?” I said, “Look, I’m here to defend the Palestinian cause, not to defend the justice system of your country. That’s your job. And now you need to own it.” Including the fact that my lawyer turned out to be secretly working for the intelligence services…. “You had nothing to say? Even the Germans didn’t behave like that when they occupied your country.” Ultimately, none of this is out of the ordinary. Beneath the veneer, this is what the justice system and the media really are in imperialist countries. Of course, that doesn’t mean that progressive media outlets can’t exist here and there. But ultimately, most media outlets are the complete opposite, which is simply reprehensible. I was never actually charged with terrorism. I was put before a special tribunal for terrorism. There was no reclassification of the offense. That tells you everything you need to know about the justice system and its legal proceedings. These proceedings are a mockery of the legal system. Not just in my case, but with all prominent figures in the struggle. So they could slap on this label of “terrorist.” Yet, when they arrested me, “terrorism” wasn’t even a crime under the French legal system. But when I went before the tribunal, it was a special court that they set up just for that purpose. They didn’t even attempt to reclassify the charge. In other words, the whole thing was a sham. The entire justice system is crooked. Once again, I find your case incredible because it’s like entering another universe, yet it’s our universe. Yes, yes. French imperialist propaganda is very strong. Everywhere they go, they present themselves as champions of the separation of powers, democracy, etc. But really, they’re just like any other country, given everything we know: the close relationship between the justice system and the police, the class struggle. How would you define the word “terrorism”? Terrorism, in my opinion, is state terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence against the masses. It is the use of violence against these who try to expose the underlying class struggle. Terrorism is the use of means and methods that put the masses in danger. Any government that represses its own people as a matter of policy is engaged in terrorism. I defended the actions of the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Faction [FARL]. I considered it a great honor to have those operations attributed to me, and I considered it a great honor to defend the legitimacy of those operations, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and the day after. FARL’s operations never targeted civilians or the general public. There were some criminals. They were hunted down. Then they were eliminated. This cannot be described as terrorism. If you look at Lebanon in 1982, that’s what terrorism is. When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about Sabra and Chatila. The Sabra and Chatila massacres aren’t something that just happened on the sidelines. The French, American, and Italian imperialists know this. Mitterrand personally guaranteed the security of Sabra and Chatila. Reagan personally guaranteed the security of Sabra and Chatila, as did the Italian government. The French sent 800 soldiers, the US 800 marines, and the Italians 400 troops. So, you had 2,000 soldiers there to protect the camps, on condition that we, the militants and fighters, leave the camp. Of course, back then, we were all young. We protested and cursed at everyone. But in the end, the leadership felt that France’s word, the word of two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council could be trusted, that there was nothing to be worried about. After all this was France, the land of human rights, the Resistance, and the separation of powers. “It would never abandon the camp!” And yet we had barely pulled out of the camp when the soldiers began to clear the minefield around the camp, meaning they removed the protective barriers we had put in place. And then they withdrew for four days, during which the massacres took place. Four days later, they returned to “investigate the facts.” Their facts. Not one single soldier was prosecuted. Naturally, these French, American, and Italian soldiers were not some ragtag militia of vagabonds. They were given orders to withdraw which they followed and were then ordered to return, which they did. One of the first journalists to arrive in Sabra and Chatila was Jacques-Marie Bourget who reported on the extent of the slaughter. And he talks about the French officers in a little book, The Sabra and Chatila Massacre, and the discussions that took place. It is a stain on France. But above all, it is a stain on the French justice system, which lectures others about terrorism. Meanwhile 4,000 corpses or so––because they couldn’t all be counted––weren’t killed by gunfire. They were killed using knives, swords, and axes. Apparently, that wasn’t terrorism to them. In fact, they even committed to never prosecute anyone. Every year in France, we commemorate the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane. The Nazis burned about 700 people in a church. Seven or eight children. Sabra and Chatila had over 4,000 victims. Did none of them deserve an investigation into why the international force withdrew, then moved back into position? When you look at these facts, for example, in 1982 there were around 32,000 casualties, attacked with cluster bombs in Beirut and elsewhere. The Israelis attacked Lebanon under the pretext of [Operation] “Peace in Galilee.” Those 32,000 casualties were caused by American weapons. They used Beirut and Lebanon as a testing ground for their weapons. Cluster bombs and vacuum bombs were used for the first time in the Middle East. Of course, none of this is terrorism according to the imperialists. And then [the United States] goes and joins the case against me in Paris as a civil party. These aren’t people whose courts and judges can be taken seriously. The only thing you can do is turn your back to them. Let them go on pretending to be victims and spewing hatred against the struggling masses. And that’s what happened. I think that’s an excellent definition of what constitutes terrorism. You were accused of killing those two diplomats. Yes. The Israeli diplomat [Barsimantov], it turns out, was in fact… …the head of Mossad operations in Europe. Right, because their jobs are usually a cover. Yes, everyone knew [they were spies]. Even the prosecutors. And the American diplomat [Ray] was actually running CIA counterintelligence operations there. Those men were officers. And they got taken out nice and clean. Not a single civilian was harmed. Not even a hiccup. Because even revolutionaries can sometimes mess up. Not a single civilian was harmed. If justice had any meaning in France…. This is why the prosecutor asked for less than nine years. Usually he would have asked for much more. He asked for less than nine years, and yet I still got life. That tells you everything about this judicial farce. I don’t know if you saw this, a few weeks ago in the United States, two Israeli diplomats were… Yes. They were assassinated by Elias Rodriguez. By a militant who felt that in the face of the genocide taking place in Gaza it is the duty of every revolutionary to respond with the means at their disposal. He happened to have a pistol at his disposal, so he iced two Israeli agents. In my opinion, it was necessary and the right thing to do. People’s reactions may vary from one country to another, but, generally speaking, the massacres taking place in Gaza require a reaction commensurate with the situation in order to prevent things from becoming any worse. Naturally, like all revolutionaries, I’m against any operations that might hurt the masses. But when faced with the images coming out of Gaza of half-dead, starving children, when you see what the US, Israel, and the Zionist West are doing, you can’t stop people from reacting the way they do or expect them to always respond with politeness and restraint. If you care about preventing violence, or preventing more impassioned reactions, then it’s up to the European and American revolutionaries in the West to do their duty. It’s up to them, more than anyone else, to do what’s required. We have a genocide that’s been going on for over 200 days. For the first time in history, a genocide is being watched by millions of men and women every day. It is a scandal that we haven’t seen stronger reactions beyond the usual protests every week. Don’t get me wrong, the youth coming out and making their voices and their anger heard is huge. It’s invaluable and breathes new life into the Arab and global revolutionary movement. Nevertheless, when there is genocide, more is needed. We hope for much more than that. Today in the West and in Europe we’re also seeing social democracy being chipped away at, which is reminiscent of certain periods in the last century. Today capitalism is in crisis. It has exhausted whatever pretenses of social democracy it had. We are standing on the edge of another world war for the third time in a century with Western capital as the main catalyst. We all know that there’s only a couple of ways to prevent these wars. We need a revolutionary movement to prevent the masses in the West and elsewhere from ending up as cannon fodder. It is the duty of the proletariat, especially in the West, to take action. Naturally, that doesn’t absolve these in the outer rim of the capitalist system of their own duties in this struggle. They also have important work to do. And we hope to come through in a big way. If you look at the Resistance in Gaza and the West Bank, one can’t help but admire their strength and steadfastness. Even after 17 years of the siege on Gaza and all the destruction wrought on Gaza and the West Bank, the Resistance lives on. The Resistance is so impressive that it makes even the most seasoned revolutionaries blush, be they in Strasbourg, Vietnam, or elsewhere. You see the fighters literally climb on top of the tanks and plant bombs there with their bare hands. That takes guts. Those are the same fighters whose brothers, wives, children, and grandchildren are all starving to death with the direct complicity of Western imperialist forces. It is our right to ask European revolutionaries to also sacrifice for the cause and contribute in ways that will make a real difference. With that said, we can’t ignore the current rise of fascism in Europe. It is taking root right there, out in the open. And not just in France, Germany, Spain, etc. It isn’t just the AFD in Germany or Vox in Spain, or the National Front [in France], and so on. The rise of fascism isn’t just some naughty phrase. You even see it in the so-called Green and Liberal parties. Fascism is on the rise everywhere, and it’s getting worse by the day. It is very real and very dangerous and not just some naughty phrase. We’re talking about reactionary forces regrouping and organizing themselves. Hopefully, a force for humanity, that is to say, the anti-capitalist forces are up to the task of confronting this looming threat. To fight fascism, we need to unite people of various political backgrounds and struggles under one banner. Because the current model that we have under social democracy is only capable of responding to a handful of challenges, but not much else. Fascism today presents humanity with an almost insurmountable challenge. We are on the eve of yet another world war for the third time in the span of a century. This is capitalism. Capitalism today is nothing more than savagery. Nothing can come of capitalism except barbarism. We are at a critical juncture. It is up to every revolutionary to seize this moment and carry us forward into revolution. Only a revolution can stop the forces of capitalism from wreaking havoc on a global scale. Hopefully, there is a movement already out there taking shape, one that people can actually place their faith in. This effort is the only thing deserving of all our hopes and prayers. Such a movement is the only thing that can prevent an explosion of fascist, reactionary violence on a global scale. In England, around the same time that I was arrested under the Terrorism Act, and this crackdown on the press began, we also had the arrest and indictment of several activists from a group called Palestine Action. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them, but what they do is directly sabotage the weapons factories. What do you think of this strategy? Yes, it is very important and effective. It’s also critical in how it relates to the Global South. Every step forward one one side of the Mediterranean is a step forward on the other. We are all in this together. Either we will be victorious together or we won’t be victorious at all. All these actions and demonstrations taking place in Europe, the reason they’re important isn’t just because they undermine the bourgeoisie of your country. Their value is the extent to which they inspire others [to do the same] on the other side of the Mediterranean. When Egyptians look at England and see hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in solidarity with Gaza, they cannot remain silent. It goes without saying, the state repression there is different from what it is in England, France, or elsewhere. But the more momentum there is for this struggle, the more engaged it makes revolutionaries everywhere, and the more effective it makes those in Egypt who are pushing for real change in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism. It’s thanks to these protests and actions that we can mature as a movement, just as much in the Arab world as in the West. In other words, it’s much easier for the leaders of the struggle in England to take up their role, knowing that their comrades in the Arab world, are also doing their part in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement and who take this capitalism crisis seriously. This is a global crisis. Any movement whose aim is to protect the masses from being turned into cannon fodder is a movement that is fighting for both sides of the Mediterranean, for Europeans and Arabs alike. We have an Arab world that stretches from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Change is coming at any moment now. All it takes is for a small spark to light a small twig in the field for the whole field to catch fire. We are closer today than ever before. Hopefully we see a united front. We need a joint effort with people on both shores of the Mediterranean working together. Only together will we emerge victorious. Only by working together will we we be able to establish a united front. A convergence of struggles is mandatory. We owe it to history. A convergence of struggles is necessary to prevent war. War is no joke. War is a poison that threatens to destroy the entire planet. The crisis we face today is much worse than the one at the beginning of the 20th century. There are new protagonists and actors involved. At the start of the 20th century, we didn’t have a climate crisis. Today, however, our planet faces an existential threat because of capitalism. Naturally, those at the forefront of the struggle must take this into consideration. Capitalism today is nothing short of total barbarism, death and destruction on every level. It is up to the leaders of the struggle to remember that and to work out a strategy to save us from this savagery. I saw that when you landed at Beirut airport, the first thing you did was to insult, and rightly so, the passive governments of the Arab world. What message do you have for them, if there is anything left to even say? The entire Arab bourgeoisie are directly involved in the genocide [in Gaza], every bit as much as the international bourgeoisie. They shall be swept away by the masses and all those itching for change and social reform in the same manner as the bourgeoisie were dealt with during other moments in history. Our fate and the fate of the entire human race is at stake here. Hopefully, time is on our side. Of course, we shouldn’t forget that the number of victims is rising by the minute. Nevertheless, hopefully we will have enough time to get our act together as a social bloc. The current [economic] system of reproduction and production, in the south of the Mediterranean, specifically in the Arab world, is incapable of providing the masses with basic subsistence. That means the collapse is near. So, hopefully we’ll be able to get organized in time before the collapse happens, so that we don’t end up with the same result as in 2011. In 2011 there was a seismic collapse. But we were not up to the task of leading as a social bloc, and unable to build on that momentum. Sure, there were some gains, but ultimately we failed to transform that revolution [the Arab Spring] into meaningful change that would have swept away all these crooks in power. Yes, we’ll circle back to that topic soon. I want to ask you, from a personal point of view as well, as I may end up in prison soon myself, what helped you stay strong in prison all those years? I’m not strong. I wasn’t strong. I was just a simple fighter who was fortunate to have the right men and women around me, who enabled me to keep resisting and to stay in the fight. Through them, I was able to be a fighter who just happened to be fighting in very specific conditions, rather than just a political prisoner. Being involved in the struggle in all these different capacities with its slogans, campaigning for this or that issue, whether for Palestine, for comrades imprisoned in Turkey or elsewhere, or with the liberation movement in Kanaky or elsewhere, allows you to still participate in the struggle as a militant, just in a unique set of circumstances. Today I am no longer in prison, therefore the conditions of the fight change once again. But I remain the same fighter. It doesn’t require superpowers. Everything hinges on the ability of your comrades outside of prison to integrate your resistance into the broader struggle. Everything depends on it. Naturally, you can’t expect all your allies to have the exact same beliefs, or to come from a single, partisan bloc. It’s through the convergence of struggles that these people find themselves together. Naturally, your family, friends, and comrades, will want to get you out of prison as quickly as possible. But it’s up to you as a fighter to put the cause first and not make concessions even if they seem trivial, things which you, as a militant, wouldn’t find that trivial anyway. Spending years in prison is hard, of course. There are many in that situation. It’s not easy to be locked up for years and to stand firm in your principles right up until the moment you walk out the gate. I was asked, for example, to make concessions that might seem trivial to an outsider. But it wasn’t trivial. I remember this little girl from Al Badawi, a small refugee camp in northern Lebanon, who wrote me a letter. A little girl who was about 7 or 8 years old. She said to me, “Uncle, I was with my mom and dad this morning, and saw a poster of you on the wall. My parents were drinking coffee and talking about you, and I understood that they want you to say nice things about Israel. Just tell them that you like Israel very much so that they free you, and once you’re out we can insult them.” That’s indeed the logic of a child. It’s a child’s logic, and it touches you deeply. But of course, that’s not an option. Some of the comrades, for example, told me, “Don’t make a big deal about the civil parties to the case [the United States]. Just say a few words, a little something to show that you’re thinking of the family of this soldier or that civilian.” And you’re on the brink of freedom. Because you know if you say what they want you to say, you can walk right out. And if you don’t, they’ll just keep you locked up. Naturally, giving in is not an option. Because what they call a “small gesture,” is no small gesture at all. To me, those acts of resistance were legitimate––today, tomorrow, and the day after. The whole reason they put me in prison, is precisely because I condone those acts of resistance. The imperialists act like the Resistance is some kind of violation of their sovereignty, meanwhile they trample on the sovereignty of our people all day long and no one bats an eye. I said that during the trial, and I said it yesterday too. The comrades had put some money together for me. They said, “Let’s just be done with it so Georges can leave. The important thing is that he gets out. Once he’s out he can insult them as he pleases,” just like that child said. The prison authorities came to me and said, “Here’s the money that was raised. How do you want to divide it up?” In other words, give this money to the Americans, to the families of the soldiers as compensation. Naturally, I refused. I didn’t ask for this money. This money wasn’t mine. All Americans, civilians and military alike, are implicated in the genocide in Gaza which is unfolding before the eyes of the world. I consider them, their families, their loved ones, their neighbors, and their entire country to be accomplices in the genocide of our children. So I told them, do whatever you like with that money, it’s not mine and I don’t want it. A few days later, more money arrived. They came to me and tried the same act again. And I gave them the same answer as before. Although I may have gotten a little carried away, because I thought it was quite rude to ask that of me after 41 years in captivity. Since the French and Americans felt I had disrespected them in some way, they went and told the president of the court. They said, “Look, he just won’t do it,” and so on. Finally, the president of the court goes, “It’s been 41 years, he hasn’t changed, and he’s never going to change. He’s told you the money isn’t his and he doesn’t want to dole it out.” By the way, I’m not allowed, legally speaking, to even give that money away. This is the “performative justice” I spoke of earlier. Under the law, I’m not allowed to collect money to compensate a civil party. But for the sake of making me capitulate, they made an exception. Under French law, I’m not allowed to raise money in order to pay compensation. According to the law, it’s forbidden. But to humiliate me and make me grovel, they were willing to allow it. Once I declined to compensate the civil parties, they lashed out by going to the Supreme Court. They asked the Supreme Court to block my release before a binding judgment to release me had even been made. They Court of Appeals said [in February], “We will discuss Mr. Abdallah’s fate on the 19th of June.” And the public prosecutor, meaning the French government, goes to the Supreme Court and appeals against a decree that wasn’t even a judgement yet. How can you go to the Supreme Court when there’s no final judgment to appeal against? Naturally, a few days later, they said the appeal was invalid, etc. And once the court ruled in favor of me, they immediately lodged another appeal. Meaning there’s still an appeal today in France against my release. But I’m here now. It’s this performative justice that every militant needs to be aware of. It’s got nothing to do with how nice or mean you are. That’s not what determines whether you get out of prison. The determining factor is how invested and active you are in the struggle. The more you play your part, the more the balance of power shifts in your favor. If the balance of power isn’t in your favor, you’re going to be stuck in prison. You need to be prepared to accept that. That is your role as a fighter. Nothing else. And once the balance of power finally shifts your way, the bourgeoisie will no longer be able to keep you locked up and will have no choice but to let you walk. And you come out with your principles intact. Walking out of prison still standing by your principles is a great victory. That’s what happened. And I’m happy with the outcome, despite the time spent in prison. It wasn’t so bad. There are hundreds of thousands of people who go up in smoke and I could have easily been one of them. But I’m still here. To be frank, wasn’t the balance of power more in your favor toward the beginning when they tried to free you through a hostage deal and with the bombing campaign, etc.? So why didn’t that result in you being freed? It was the pressure from the Americans. So despite all the pressure you put on the French, the Americans exerted even more? It wasn’t only the US. The French government also felt that they could get away with leaving me in prison and go back on their word [in the hostage deal] because of their interests in the region, because my name is Georges, etc. And because of how French claims to love Lebanon, and particularly people named Georges [i.e. Christians]. It behaved just as one would expect. France is in a very poor position to be doling out advice regarding our country’s resistance. Today, France, the US and others are pushing the Lebanese government to disarm the Resistance. To dissolve and disarm the resistance. These are the same people who a few months ago honored [Missak] Manouchian [2]. Manouchian was considered the figurehead of the so-called Affiche Rouge [FTP-MOI] by the “special section” of the Paris courts of the Vichy regime. The French basically resurrected this court in 2003 following the decision of the parole court in Pau to release me. The magistrate naively believed that he actually had any power as a judge. As soon as he decided to release me, Dominque Perben [then Minister of Justice] came to put him in his place, to remind him that a judge’s place in this capitalist country is to do what you’re told. The order to release me was overturned, effectively resurrecting the “special section” of Paris, because from that moment on, you had a magistrate doing the bidding of the Minister of the Interior in Paris, who dictates to the courts what to do with political prisoners, dubbed “terrorists” or otherwise. This is the justice system. Not just in France, but in all capitalist countries. It is the duty of every revolutionary to rip its mask off. It goes without saying, prison is tough. Life in prison is extremely challenging. But a fighter doesn’t shy away from difficult things. He does what it takes to fulfill his duty, especially if he is a communist. Why did the Americans want to keep you locked up in prison so badly? The Americans, like all imperialist powers, consider any affront against their interests, be they military personnel or otherwise… Ultimately what they care about is maintaining control of our country and the region. If getting rid of this or that person helps, then they’ll do it. Simply because they can? If they’re able to, they’ll simply do it. There’s nothing to it. [France’s Minister of Security] Robert Pandraud made an offer to CIA Director William Casey. The CIA Director came to Paris and told Pandraud, “If you ever release Abdallah, we’ll cut ties with France.” Pandraud replied, “Why don’t we release Abdallah and give you his whereabouts in Beirut? You’re a powerful nation, just eliminate him.” Those are their true colors. Their behavior says it all. This is how their justice system really functions. That’s the real takeaway from my case and the only silver lining. There was nothing heroic about it. I’m just a simple fighter who stays the course and was fortunate to have comrades devoted to the struggle who enabled him to keep resisting. With that said, prison is very difficult. A prisoner isn’t just some piece of meat. When you’ve got one kilo of meat, you can just put it in the fridge, and you know it won’t go bad. A fighter, however, is not a piece of meat. He needs to remain in the fight as a part of the actual struggle taking place outside on the ground. This is a real struggle, not some illusion. When we talk about the rise of fascism, this is a real, ongoing phenomena. When we talk about the genocide in Gaza, we’re talking about a literal ongoing genocide. Therefore, it all comes down to the ability of your comrades to provide you all avenues to keep fighting [from inside prison] and remain a part of the struggle. And that’s what happened. It’s no different or any more heroic than any other comrade taking part in the struggle on the outside. Moreover, it’s this mechanism that will shift the balance of power in your favor. In the beginning, there were 200-300 people protesting for my release. During the last demonstration which took place in Paris there were roughly 7,000. What did the magistrate who ordered my release say? She said the main reason for my release was that “Georges Ibrahim Abdallah in prison is a far greater threat to public order than Georges Ibrahim Abdallah outside of prison.” It’s up to the authorities to follow up on his activities outside prison. He’s no longer the justice system’s problem.” Meaning [it’s now up to] the intelligence services. The balance of power is the only thing that can get a militant out of prison, be they Georges Abdallah or anyone else. When the judge sad, “He poses a greater threat to public order from inside prison,” she’s referring to all the people that have come together to protest for my freedom, which in turn strengthens the broader struggle. You’ll recall that in France barely ten months ago wearing a keffiyeh was a crime. Carrying a Palestinian flag would get you prosecuted. Yet today there isn’t a single city in France or Europe that doesn’t have weekly protests full of Palestinian flags, full of keffiyehs, the symbol of freedom. This is the stuff that gets a militant out of prison. The campaign for their freedom serves as a bridge or vehicle to get people out in the streets and therefore for the broader struggle. And I must say I’m quite satisfied with the outcome. In my case, the police chief [of Hautes-Pyrénées] tried to ban the last protest, which was held outside the prison. However he couldn’t ban it directly, so he asked the mayor of Lannemezan to do it, who replied, “I won’t do it.” So he tried to do it himself. There was a whole administrative process that kicked off, but he couldn’t ban it ultimately. This brings us back to the issue of the rise of fascism. In France, the rise of fascism is characterized by a weakened central government, which may sound weird at first, because fascism usually involves an authoritarian, centralized government. But in this case the state is falling apart. The state has abdicated its duties towards the educational and health systems. Everything is crumbling. Instead, the state is busy asking police chiefs to suppress dissent among the people. In every region in France, each police chief has an entire police force at their fingertips. Each municipality can also sanction––call it what you like––a militia or auxiliary police force. There’s also an increase in organized vigilantism and “neighborhood watches,” who keep tabs on who’s coming and going, “That guy had long hair and wasn’t very white-looking,” etc. This is all part of the rise of fascism. Naturally, the Left in Europe and in France need to beware and get their act together in order to counter the growing threat of fascism. As I said at the beginning, the rise of fascism isn’t just some nasty phrase. It means heads are going to roll, and we and our comrades need to be ready to confront it. Georges, if I may move on to geopolitics. What was your reaction to the assassinations of [Hassan] Nasrallah and [Ismael] Haniyeh? Nasrallah, and all the leaders of the Resistance, were targeted by the imperialist and Zionist forces, with the full complicity of all the Empire’s intelligence services, who provided their whereabouts. Naturally, Nasrallah was not just the leader of the Resistance. He was an emblematic figure fully committed to the cause. Some may disagree with this or that issue, but no one can deny that he was the strategic mastermind of the Resistance, an unrivaled figure. To learn that he fell in battle, as a martyr, is naturally very painful, especially when you’re in prison. But at the same time, it’s bitter-sweet. Because when the leaders of the Resistance are willing to put their lives on the line and are martyred in battle, it invigorates and strengthens the entire Resistance. You can’t piss on the blood of martyrs. Today more than ever the Resistance stands firm in its principles. A resistance whose leaders give their lives in battle will never make concessions in vain or piss away the blood of their martyrs. You really have to be nuts, like some in my country’s government, to think that this Resistance, which has given its best people, is simply going to lay down its arms. I have full confidence in the ability of the Resistance, which is the sole legitimate authority. When you are under foreign military occupation, the legitimacy of the Resistance takes precedence over anything else. The Resistance protects the people’s very dignity and freedom. And only those involved in the struggle have the right to discuss what strategies the Resistance should adopt, not those on the sidelines, who stand idly by while the enemy tries to crush the Resistance. The only reason these traitors are allowed to run their mouths is by the grace of the Resistance. It is nothing more than a courtesy––a humanitarian gesture which some may even disagree with, as they probably don’t deserve it. But in any case the Resistance is strong and will emerge even stronger. It is the Resistance more than anyone else that wants us to have a strong national army that protects us. It has a greater interest more than anyone in the struggle to want a strong [Lebanese] state that respects its countrymen and the citizens of this country, regardless of religion or ethnicity, etc. The Resistance is the only way for us to prevent the Balkanization of the region. The region today is being carved up and divided. We all see what’s happening in Syria. The Americans, together with the Israelis and other Arab reactionaries, are destroying everything that we’ve achieved historically. The state itself is a construct that was won through hard-fought struggles. Instead, they are working to decimate this state and all its institutions, turning the region into chaos where ethnic groups, religious minorities, and barbarians devour each other while the Israelis and Americans sit back and decide which “human-animals” are worthy of their protection today and which ones will be sacrificed. Thanks to the Resistance, Lebanon is well-defended and far more capable than our enemies had hoped. The Resistance will not allow them to divide and Balkanize us. Lebanon and everyone in it will be victorious together. We all know that the only path to victory is together. The leaders of the Resistance are more qualified than anyone to bring everyone together under one tent, in order to unify the Lebanese people, strengthen their state, and build up their army. The Americans, French, and British keep telling us that they are Lebanon’s friends. They’re no friends of ours. We say to them, “If you’re truly our friends, then provide the Lebanese army with weapons.” That’s all we ask. Let them give the Lebanese army the jets and anti-aircraft missile it needs and we’ll be grateful. We’re not asking them to obtain weapons for us from [North] Korea, China, Russia, or elsewhere. If you’re really Lebanon’s friends, then arm the Lebanese Armed Forces, so we have a real national army instead of militias. Of course, the bourgeoisie and their political pawns are the enemies of our army. They do not want us to have a national army. They do not want us to have a nation state. They want a bunch of thugs and bandits running around that they can use to bring our people to their knees. Our people will never recognize the Zionist entity. The Zionist entity is on its last legs. Contrary to what they want you to believe, Israel today is living on borrowed time. The West that created this state––because the Zionist entity is nothing more than an organic extension of the imperialist West––there isn’t a single [Western] government out there today that can defend Israel in front of the masses. Not because any of them care about the Palestinians. On the contrary, they want the entity to hurry up and kill as many Palestinians as possible as quickly as possible. But in front of the European masses, they’re unable to portray the entity as a beacon of human rights and democracy, etc. They try to spin it nowadays by saying, “It’s not all Israelis, it’s just Netanyahu and a few bad apples.” Naturally, the European masses aren’t having any of it. No one is fooled. In fact, they’re coming out in even greater numbers. And our people are grateful to them for their mobilization, because it is very dear to us. Georges, as you know I am English through my father’s side and from my mother’s side, Syrian Christian. I was born in Syria. Syria fell when you were in prison and I know that you were also a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party [SSNP]. What was your reaction to the fall of Syria? Looking back, it’s clear that there was a point when the Syrian bourgeoisie started to look after its own interests while destroying the people. Sure, the Syrian bourgeoisie developed the country in some ways, such as agrarian reform and by industrializing some parts of the country. They implemented some reforms in the health, education, and agricultural sectors, etc. They succeeded in establishing themselves as a state-bourgeoisie. However, once they normalized relations with the global capitalist system, this state-bourgeoisie fell into decline and became repressive against the people. And we, the progressive forces, were unable to turn it around. Instead, the darkest and most reactionary forces in our history took power, with the direct support of Israel, the US, and other players who then turn around and pretend to condemn terrorism. [President] Hollande and [Foreign Minister] Fabius told Al Nusra [Al Qaeda], “Great job!” as they set off bombs in Damascus. When the Bataclan was attacked, they called it terrorism, and yet, today, the French were among the first to recognize this [Syrian] government. The Syrian people have a very long history. And right now they are going through a difficult period. I have no doubt that progressive forces will emerge in Syria and rise to the challenge. Of course it won’t be easy. There will be widespread destruction and many martyrs. We in Lebanon have the means to fight back against such things, contrary to what the Americans and others think. We will not allow Lebanon to be Balkanized. The Resistance is strong enough to fight it. The various political factions in the country, from the communists to the socialists, Al-Mourabitoun, the Arab nationalists, and the Resistance [Hezbollah], etc. are capable of pushing back, and they will. They are up to the task, and our country will be victorious. Without a doubt. Georges, you come from a Christian background, as do I. Many leaders in the struggle against Zionism also come from a Christian background, like Georges Habash, Ghassan Kanafani, Antoun Saadeh, Bishop Capucci, Hanan Ashrawi, etc. who founded or helped lead many anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist political projects. Why do you think the West glosses over them and refuses to see this as a national struggle portraying it instead as a religious conflict? They don’t just see it as a religious war, they’re trying to provoke a religious war. It’s not by mistake. They know exactly what they’re doing and will go to any lengths to destroy the fabric of our society. That’s why they look for sellouts from our region to help them stir up religious hatred and provoke massacres that weaken our communities. Because they always say it’s “Jews vs Muslims,” instead of saying it’s an anti-colonial struggle. It’s not about Jews vs Muslims. Israel isn’t a Jewish issue either. If you look at the United States today, roughly 30-35% of the Jewish youth are out protesting, wearing keffiyehs, and saying that the Zionist entity is a greater enemy to Judaism than Palestinians. So, no, this is not a religious conflict. Otherwise the Saudis and the Gulf would be at the forefront of the struggle instead of being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This conflict is not sectarian. Israel is an organic extension of the imperialist West. People need to have the courage to see the West for what it is. That it has a history of wiping out entire peoples. When we talk about Western imperialism, look at how North America became the United States, for example. The United States was built on the corpses of 20-25 million Native North Americans. When you look at so-called “Latin” America, or Central and South America, in what way are the Mayans and others “Latin”? The Latinization of South America, meaning the death and destruction of the native population, claimed the lives of millions of men and women. This is the legacy and foundation of the imperialist West. When you look at Australia, Aboriginal Australians, the indigenous people of Australia, are the earth’s oldest continuing civilization. They were decimated. Today all that’s left are few tourist sites. This is Western imperialism. Western imperialism, however, did not succeed in our legion [in the Levant] despite a century of Zionists trying to colonize our land, which began in the period between the late-19th century and mid-20th century, and was fully supported by all the great powers of the imperialist West. What happened? The Palestinians remained. In 1949 the Palestinian population was barely 1 million. Despite a century of Zionist colonization, the Palestinian population today in historical Palestine is 7,300,000 and counting. While the Israeli settlers who’ve been pouring in for over a century number around 7,200,000. That means there are fewer Zionist settlers than there are Palestinian natives. On top of that you’ve got all the Palestinians in the diaspora and neighboring countries who were driven out of their homes in the Nakba. That means the Palestinians today number around 14 million in total. This is a people who in spite of the permanent genocide waged against them have fought back, multiplied several times over, and number around 14 million today. They have failed in their attempts to erase the Palestinian people. With that said, Israel should not be considered peaceful or harmless. It is incapable of peace. Israel has always been and still remains a fascist country. And it grows more fascist by the day. The global rise of fascism that we see today is a natural extension of the imperialist West. You see this phenomena everywhere in the West. You’ve got the AFD in Germany, the National Front in France, Vox in Spain, and in Portugal it’s even worse. This is all happening out in the open. And when it comes to the Empire’s outposts, their fascist nature sticks out even more. You see it in the way the Israel treats native Palestinians as human animals and openly describe them as such. Even the Nazis didn’t go so far as to openly say it. Even if they behaved the same way, they didn’t proudly announce it. Today, Israel is on its last legs. It has nothing to lose anymore. So it is hitting the Palestinians with all its cruelty and everything its got. But the Palestinian people are not alone. Just next door there are 400 million Arabs who share the same food, the same prayers, the same wedding ceremonies, and the same history, etc. The Palestinian people will not be eliminated. The Palestinian people will be victorious. The Palestinian people and their struggle are the driving force behind the Arab revolution. Palestine isn’t just an area of 27,00 square kilometers. Palestine is the driving force of the Arab revolution from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Make no mistake, the Arab revolution will succeed thanks to the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and others. I was in France, I believe, at the same time that you were released. I visited the museum of the French Resistance. As you know I grew up idolizing figures like Jean Moulin, [Massik] Manouchian, etc. and this whole culture of the resistance, as I believe you and many others did as well. How is it that the French recognize they were under German occupation and were able to identify a military occupation and to fight it. But when it comes to this struggle against Zionism they change positions? I don’t think they really changed. If you look at France today, those who support Palestine are no small minority. Take for example the stance of the French Communist Party or Le France Insoumise (LFI). That’s not insignificant. If you look at French Parliament, Le France Insoumise have 80 MPs who stand fully with the Palestinians. Same with the communists, anarchists, Revolution Permanente (RP), and other groups. Obviously that’s not the case in the imperialist media, which is to be expected. They lie and obfuscate, that’s what they do. It’s no conspiracy theory to say that. The imperialist media are doing what they do, which is to justify the unjustifiable. Capitalism in this country can only bring death. Resistance in its various forms can only fuel the momentum of revolution, whether in France or elsewhere. Of course, this is no walk in the park. Capitalism is in crisis on a global scale. It is up to the leaders of the struggle to unite people of various backgrounds and struggles under one banner and use that momentum in order to lead the revolution to victory, whether in Europe or in the Arab world. And hopefully victory is near. Georges what message would you give to this generation and future generations of revolutionaries? Firstly, I salute and commend the European youth for rising to the occasion for taking to the streets and standing firm in support of Palestine and against the genocide in Gaza. This is the most important and potent political stance of our time. I say to the youth of today, be careful. Fascism is on the rise. This is a very real criminal undertaking that is happening in real time. You need to be ready, because it’s up to you to confront it. Do not waver. You can do this and you have the numbers and the strength for it. Greetings to all the comrades and activists who helped make the Palestinian liberation movement so bright and powerful. Palestine has never been more relevant and important than it is today, and it is thanks to the youth who are out in the streets all across Europe. Georges Abdallah, thank you for your time and for receiving me to conduct this interview It is to you, your comrades and your viewers that I extend my heartfelt congratulations and thanks. II ‘No Heaven without Gaza’: A Palestine Chronicle Exclusive Interview with Lebanese Revolutionary Georges Abdallah, by Samaa Abu Sharar August 14, 2025 https://www.palestinechronicle.com/no-heaven-without-gaza-a-palestine-chronicle-exclusive-interview-with-lebanese-revolutionary-georges-abdallah/ ‘Prison Does Not Change Fighters’ We all know George Abdallah as an international activist who dedicated his life to just causes, most notably the Palestinian cause and the fight against colonialism in all its forms. How would you present yourself? I am a fighter amongst our Arab fighters, a fighter of the Palestinian revolution, and a fighter of the Lebanese resistance against imperialist and Zionist oppression. Our activism stems from our assessment that the Zionist entity is an organic extension of Western imperialism. We consider that this entity has currently reached the final chapter of its existence, and, therefore, it will unleash all its barbaric and murderous reserves on our people. The masses of our people must prepare for this stage, keeping in mind that they will prevail over this entity. What you say is completely in line with how many people view you: as an icon of resistance who represents the correct compass of our great struggle. So there is no difference between how Georges Abdallah sees himself and how people see him. Our people have great confidence in the Palestinian resistance, so any expression of resistance is highly esteemed. Our people are prepared to provide a lot of support and facilitate the struggle. What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank today confirms this. As an ordinary fighter in the ranks of the resistance, historically, I see that our people are steadfast. There are loopholes, as always happens in revolutions, but this does not stop us. The masses in Gaza embrace their emaciated children, continue to resist, and refuse to raise the white flag. Thus, we can say that the resistance is in great shape despite all the subjective and objective problems. Did prison change you? Prison does not change fighters. In reality, prison helps shape sound positions if the required solidarity from resistance forces is available, and this is what happened with me. This means that Georges Abdallah, who was imprisoned 41 years ago, came out of prison the same man? An older fighter, with more experience and more willingness to give. How did you relate to time while in prison? In fact, time in prison for fighters and activists is a framework within which life’s priorities are organized. If the activist has found solidarity—in other words, if he has a group of people who make solidarity a practical expression within the daily struggle of our nation’s masses—then the imprisoned activist is simply a fighter doing what he must under exceptional circumstances. Time becomes tight, as he doesn’t have enough time to do whatever he deems appropriate to support the struggle, whether in terms of reading, interventions, or other things. This applied to me. So, time was tight for you in prison? Time was not sufficient to do what is required of fighters and activists. I did all I could within my modest capabilities. You said in your interview with Al Mayadeen that your day in prison was very organized and that you had a daily schedule that involved much reading of the mail you received. With whom did you correspond while in prison? With fighters and activists who were in prison or remained in prison, with my family, and with friends. This is normal, considering there were facilities that were secured through the struggle of the masses in this country or that. In French prisons, a telephone was made available to call whomever you wish, provided you gave the number to the relevant authorities. Accordingly, you could contact anyone you wished. Books were provided by comrades, so you had ample opportunities for reading and doing other things. However, it takes a lot of time to read everything that needs to be read and to participate in the ongoing debate on these matters. Were you one of the people who made many phone calls? One of the people who did what he had to do. Were the phone calls more with friends or family members? The family was certainly within the circle of communication. There is a continuum, so to speak, that extends from home to the arena of struggle. The concerns of the homeland are an essential part of my life, so communication is constant through family, friends, loved ones, and all other expressions of struggle present in our country and abroad. I did not feel alienated in this regard. Were you subjected to any psychological or physical violations while in prison? I was subjected to everything fighters and activists are subjected to. I can say that all the procedures didn’t constitute a problem for me. In other words, from a personal perspective, I wasn’t subjected to any particular pressure, and from an objective perspective, I had plenty of resources that were made available by my numerous comrades. There were a large number of comrades, and they alternated so they could all come to see me in prison. Therefore, I never experienced the feeling of alienation or isolation. The solidarity movement is part of the daily struggle; therefore, there was no personal anguish in that sense. There is a struggle with time. I wanted to use all of this time to enhance my readings and interventions for as long as possible. However, there are limits to this time because of life’s priorities. What did you miss most while in prison, besides freedom, of course? In reality, I missed all aspects of life and all its expressions. Such as? Everything. It’s not easy to say what I missed most: family, loved ones, the stars, the trees, and the animals. You miss the comrades, you miss your discussions with them; there is no set priority. If you could go back in time, is there anything you would have done differently in your struggle? I am not currently engaging in self-criticism of my struggle. Throughout my struggle, I have done everything I consider appropriate for the path of struggle. Certainly, as with everyone else, there are successes and failures, and there is the possibility to improve this or that. However, overall, I am satisfied with my path of struggle. Despite its modesty, it is acceptable as any other fighter or activist of our people within the framework of the available popular base. ‘The Resistance is in Great Shape’ Let’s talk about Palestine and Lebanon. You said in more than one interview that solidarity with Georges Abdallah was equal to, or part of, solidarity with Palestine. Solidarity with Georges Abdallah only takes on meaning when it falls within the framework of the struggle against the war of genocide in Gaza. This is within the path of struggle that falls under the issues of solidarity, not outside this framework or parallel to it. It falls within this framework, and I think it was very effective. In your opinion, if it weren’t for the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation, would you be among us today? The “Al Aqsa Flood” is a very important operation. However, my case does not fall within this framework without going into details of the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is very good in terms of its timing and effectiveness. Although we may find a loophole here or there, we are not in a position to beat ourselves up; we are in a position to evaluate the operation itself. This operation came at the right time, is very appropriate, and has moved the struggle forward, placing new responsibilities on the shoulders of those who carried it out and lived it. I hope that the comrades within the framework of the Palestinian revolution will succeed in examining the national program of the Palestinian revolution. We know that there is a historical impasse facing the Palestinian national program. Certainly, the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation has a role to play in clarifying some aspects and correcting some deviations. However, without resolving the crisis of the Palestinian national project, we will remain stuck and pay a heavy price. It is the responsibility of all forces in the Palestinian arena to work on overcoming this crisis because it is a crisis, not a matter of national or non-national unity. The crisis is deeper than that, and it is the responsibility of all active forces to do what they must to deserve to be part of the Palestinian national liberation movement. What is this crisis? The crisis affects all aspects of the entire Palestinian national project. Israel is an organic extension of Western imperialism. Israel is not a colony or merely a settlement. It is an organic extension of this imperialist West. Therefore, confronting this imperialist West requires confronting the crisis of the imperialist system in its capitalist form. Those who confront this organic extension must stand on a ground hostile to capitalism. Therefore, the leadership of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, in its various expressions—Islamic, nationalist, semi-nationalist, state-oriented, etc.—faces a problem in this regard. And the Palestinian left is in a very embarrassing situation, having so far been unable to build a national unity to confront this organic extension and failed to affirm national unity. Of course, these are great responsibilities that fall on everyone’s shoulders. Nevertheless, the resistance is in great shape. The masses of our people continue to confront the Zionist enemy with great and advanced effectiveness, although the children of Gaza are emaciated and in dire need of a glass of milk. However, Gaza will not raise the white flag, and this is a very important issue. As for how we move forward, that is a matter for the Palestinian leadership to determine. But we are keen to hear what you have to say in this regard! Everyone is concerned, but the actual leaders of the Palestinian revolution know best and are required to answer a number of questions. They are required to provide an answer on the crisis of this national project, the Oslo crisis, the crisis of the Palestinian Authority, the crisis of the division between Fatah and Hamas, the crisis of the dispersion of Palestinian forces, the crisis of the retirement of entire organizations that have been transformed into names without titles, the crisis of the mother of the Palestinian revolution, Fatah. Where is Fatah and what is Fatah now? Where is Fatah and where is Hamas? What are they both doing? The crisis is complex and has numerous aspects. The Palestinian people have the intellectual, organizational, and resistance abilities to address this crisis, but a lot is required on all levels. It is not acceptable that there are around 60,000 full-time fighters with the Palestinian Authority whose task is limited to security coordination with Israel. And when we speak of national unity, which national unity are we talking about? A unity in which 60,000 fighters chase the Fedayeen (freedom fighters-PC) and hand them over to Israel, versus those who see their children dying of hunger and are still holding the flag! We all certainly know the dangers of a civil war, but the dilemma of the national project remains. The leaders of all Palestinian organizations agreed on something at the Beijing conference, but what was its result? The result was the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Why assassinate Haniyeh? Because he was part of the wing in Hamas who called for unity. This does not mean that the Palestinian Authority welcomed the call. This is the crisis of the national project. Those who bear the responsibility are those in Palestine and outside of Palestine; they are the resistance fighters in Gaza and the West Bank, and even those who are part of the Palestinian Authority and inside the Israeli prisons. It is certainly a major crisis, but I am sure that the active members of Palestinian society will be able to overcome it. ‘No Heaven without Gaza’ You spoke briefly about the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. Were you surprised when you first heard about it? The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation surprised everyone, and that in itself is an issue and falls within the scope of the crisis of the national project. This certainly does not undermine its value. “Al Aqsa Flood” marked a turning point in the history of the conflict with Israel, but it also imposes enormous responsibilities on everyone. The enemy is well aware that it is now in the final chapter of its existence; it is not a matter of a military setback. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is the first step in determining the priorities of this final chapter. Everyone must rise to this responsibility, especially those in charge of the priorities of the struggle in Palestine and outside Palestine. The Arab street also bears a responsibility, and those in charge of the national project must ask the question: why this abandonment on the part of the Arab street? The Palestinian leadership is no stranger to this abandonment. When Egypt and the UAE are playing the roles of mediators, how can we expect the Egyptian masses to apologize for not being at the forefront of the struggle? This is a tremendous crisis. The value of the Palestinian revolution lies in its role as a lever of the Arab revolution. It is the historical lever of the Arab revolution, but it is no longer playing its role for several reasons. The Palestinian leadership must answer why it abandoned this role. I see Qatar, which hosts the main base of American imperialism, as a mediator. The question is: a mediator between whom and whom? I also see Egypt, with a population of 120 million Arabs, as a mediator. The same question applies. Egypt is Al Azhar (considered the largest Islamic institution in the Arab World-PC), and Al Azhar is not a tourist agency; it is a civilized institution that encompasses all the values of this nation with people of different colors. Eighty million people consider Al Azhar their (moral) authority. Where are the eighty million? Who is responsible for their inaction? Al Azhar is the one responsible for them. What has it done, and what is the role of the Palestinian revolution in this context? It suffices that one of the eighty million, meaning one million, move toward Rafah and perform prayers there. They are not required to carry a gun and offer it to Hamas or the Popular Front (for the Liberation of Palestine – a socialist organization-PC) or any other faction; all they have to do is offer a cup of water or a cup of milk to the children of Gaza. Al Azhar is responsible for this inaction. It must know that its prayers are not accepted if they are not held at the crossing to Gaza. It must also be known that there is no path to heaven for all believers in Egypt because the children of Palestine have occupied all the roads while they are ascending to heaven. Those who wish to enter heaven must come to Gaza; otherwise, there is no heaven for them. Al Azhar, along with the Sheikhs of Palestine and the leaders of the Islamic movements, know this all too well. They are the ones to determine whether Egypt is a mediator or a partner in this genocide. They also know whether Saudi Arabia and Mohammad Bin Abdallah are playing their role or not. The Kaaba of Mohammad Bin Abdallah is not an antique vessel; it embodies everything this nation has. Where is it in all this? Do you agree with those who say that the Arab people are powerless, ruled by dictators and agents of the Israeli entity? This is utterly unacceptable. The Arab regimes are not agents; they are actually participating in the ongoing genocide, and this is certainly not up for discussion. What I see, however, is that not a single person in Egypt was killed in the street while demonstrating, simply because they did not demonstrate. Where are they from young Greta, who came all the way from Sweden to raise a glass of water in solidarity with Gaza? Where are they from Rima Al Hassan, who came from Belgium and raised a glass of milk in solidarity with Gaza? Where are the sailors of Egypt? These activists came in a boat not even fit to carry fish, and the sailors of Egypt watch like “monkeys.” Where is the Palestinian revolution in all this? Betrayal is in the entire Arab world; a demonstration in Yemen or in other Arab cities is not enough. Where is Jordan? Where are the masses of Jordan? Where are the 60% of the people of Amman who are originally Palestinians? Certainly, all this falls within the crisis of the national project, because these forces are responsible for national action. The Palestinian national action either works to elevate Palestine as a revolutionary lever for the entire Arab nation or works to shield these regimes. Following the atrocities in Gaza, many who were believers in the resistance project have stopped being so. What do you say to that? I don’t see such people. I see parents in Gaza watching their children trembling as skeletons and still raising the red flag, not the white flag. Gaza has not yet raised the white flag, and the masses of Gaza will not leave Gaza. There is no time to self-flagellate or claim that morale has collapsed. In Gaza, there are heroes. There are no people on this planet like those in Gaza. Gaza has been hit three times more than what hit Hiroshima was. 17,000 tons of explosives in Gaza, while Dresden in Germany was hit with 5,000 tons. Gaza did not surrender while Dresden fell. Today, there isn’t a single city in Europe that does not raise the Palestinian keffiyeh, the symbol of freedom. The Palestinian revolution has historically never been as prominent on the global stage as it is now. The problem remains in our national project, in our national leadership. The masses of the world, all over the planet, stand with Gaza. Do our leaders really stand with Gaza? When 30 to 35 percent of the Jewish youth in America raise the Palestinian keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag and declare that this Zionist entity is the enemy of the Jewish people and of Palestine, what does this mean? It means that the countdown to Israel’s existence has started. Where are our leaders in all this? It’s not enough for leaders to be martyred or chased after. They need to pinpoint the energy of the masses and be able to invest in it. Again, this is not happening because this is part of the crisis we spoke about. Let us not forget that over 50 percent of the prisoners of the Palestinian revolution in Israeli jails are from Fatah, but it is also Fatah that brokered the Oslo Accords, and it is the one that caused the crisis of the national project. Nonetheless, Fatah remains the mother of martyrs, the mother of the revolution, and the mother of prisoners. This is the dilemma of the national project. How do we explain that over 50 percent of Fatah members are in Israeli captivity, while there are 60,000 Fatah fighters who are mercenaries under the command of (PA President Mahmoud) Abbas and others? This embodies the national project crisis. These issues need to be addressed by the leadership of the Fatah movement. It is a reality we must confront. How will they confront it? The forces that lead the Palestinian struggle everywhere must answer these questions. They should also provide an answer regarding the status of our camps outside of Palestine and their fate. The Palestinian revolution is a revolution of camps. The Palestinian people are a people of camps. There are no Palestinian people without camps. Camps are the Palestinian identity. Where are our camps today? What is Sabra and Shatila today? What is the percentage of Palestinians inside the camp? What is their future? The relevant leaders must answer. These places are semi-liberated in principle and are not places of security chaos as we are told. They are semi-liberated because they bear all the characteristics of the liberation of Palestine; they are not hubs that bear the characteristics of prostitution, drug smuggling, etc. Who bears the responsibility for the camps? Again, this is the crisis of the national project. What will the scene in Palestine be like after the genocide in Gaza? The genocide in Gaza will not continue. The genocide will not succeed, and Gaza and the West Bank will triumph as Israel witnesses the last chapter of its existence, and this is not a poetic speech. You have repeated this in more than one interview. I am not the only one to repeat it. We have to understand that Israel has never been through what it is currently going through; this is why it will use its entire barbaric stockpile on us. This will translate into intensifying its killing machine to the maximum. Israel will throw all its unexploited barbarism at our masses in the coming days, weeks, and months. What are the leaders of the national project going to do in light of this? How will those who planned the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation face this? These are questions that require answers from all factions. When a leader like Yehya Sinwar falls as a martyr and not a fugitive in a shelter in Qatar or somewhere else, his resistance is bound to triumph. Our people’s resistance will triumph. It will triumph because of people like Sinwar and Haniyeh who neither fled nor sought ‘peace’. These leaders and their resistance cannot be defeated. Our people are aware of this and will not raise the white flag, neither in Gaza nor anywhere else. Accordingly, the responsibility of the current leaders is immense to find solutions for the national crisis. These solutions will inevitably come, although we surely regret that they are delayed because the human cost is immense. Resolving the Left-Islamic Dilemma Could the Gaza genocide kick-start a world revolution? It is bound to happen, if not today, then tomorrow. The greatest responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leaders of the revolution; they are the ones to anticipate the next stage, not me. How do you view the Islamic revolutions in the Arab world? Your approach seems to be different from many leftists. We have the impression that you view the issue from an operational perspective rather than an ideological one. Is this accurate? We are not engaged in an ideological competition; we have Arab masses, the majority of whom are Muslim. This is the organic makeup of our nation. This is not an ideological choice. These people resist with whatever is at their disposal, be it the Quran, a scientific analysis, or a missile. It is the responsibility of those in charge of the struggle to determine what is at the disposal of the Arab masses. When the Egyptian plays the mediator and the Qatari hosts the biggest American base, what message am I giving to the Arab masses? Do I expect that meeting with Egyptian intelligence, so they can coordinate with Qatari and American intelligence, will find me a way out of the revolution crisis or the national project crisis? I doubt it. All these actions contribute to the impasse we find ourselves in, including the inaction of the Arab masses. Do you think there can be a meeting point between the left and the current Islamic revolutions? All liberation movements have established a national project within which all societal actors work. Wherever a revolution triumphs, it does so through national unity. But that unity is not that of one person meeting with another; it actually entails the meeting of the entire popular bloc together to champion a project. Let’s take Al Azhar again. As any Arab or activist connected to Palestine, I don’t view it in light of the relationship between Marxist ideology and Islamic ideology, but rather in view of its objective position within the framework of our people’s movement. The same applies to Mecca. I don’t look at it from an ideological perspective but rather from its significance to Muslims around the world. What have those in charge of the national project done with their ‘Qiblah’ to incite the masses of the world to move toward Palestine? I don’t say this because I’m a communist or because I’m a believer; I say this as any person with the slightest connection to the conflict who looks at this matter and says, this is simply inconceivable. Lebanon: Resisting vs ‘Watching’ Moving to Lebanon, away from slogans, how do you see the situation there? The situation is delicate, but it is also good. The resistance has sacrificed the best of its leaders as martyrs. But there is a deep division in the country. What we have in Lebanon is not different from any other country in the world. In all the resistance movements of the world, you will find people who will sacrifice themselves in defense of their country and cowards who simply watch. In the entire world, there isn’t a country where the resistance enjoys the support of all the people. Sectarian affiliation is another issue, but I ask: who is behind the project that defends Lebanon’s identity and dignity? The resistance. There is an occupation; thus, the resistance is the initial response. Outside of the resistance, there is no solution with a national character. You can say all you want about this resistance—that it needs to represent all the Lebanese people, or it needs to be this or that. However, for you to have the right to speak, you must be on the side of the resistance, not the occupation. If you are on the side of the occupation, then you have no right to speak or even exist. When your country is under occupation, whoever stands with the enemy, regardless of their status or justifications, has no right to even exist. So, what do we do with these people? This is the responsibility of the resistance and the resistance masses: to figure out how to isolate the forces that cooperate with the enemy and open up to the masses of these forces. I did not spend a lifetime in captivity, nor did the martyr who sacrificed his life for the country, just to be labeled in the end as not representing the sovereignty of this country. Those who defend the homeland are the sovereignty of this country, not those who are ready to welcome Israel. To say that there is a contradiction between the army and the resistance is wrong. In my opinion, as with any resistance fighter, our duty is to build a very strong national army to eliminate the justification for the existence of any resistance. This is our ambition. Our ambition is for a soldier to receive a decent salary—not twenty dollars per month—to be able to support his or her family and defend the country. The leadership of the resistance should have the courage and clarity to open up to everyone with all its capabilities to build a national state that isolates all those who fail to fulfill their responsibility of sovereignty and defending the homeland for us all. A homeland in which we are all safe; otherwise, we will all lose, and no party will triumph over the other. So, until we build such an army, do you believe that the resistance should remain? Certainly, what do we do otherwise? All over the world, resistance is the first response to any aggression. I hope we succeed at building a strong army able to defend us and one that replaces all resistance. But until this happens, do I remain naked in the face of Israel? Do I face Israel with a statement here and a statement there? I want an army that considers Israel the enemy. Our soldiers are honorable; they are not members of a mafia. They are from all over Lebanon but they need to be well-trained and equipped to be able to defend the country and us. They tell us the US, France, and Britain are our friends. Brilliant, let them provide our army with weapons. But to come and tell me the US is our friend while it comes and asks us to surrender our weapons and recognize Israel, or otherwise Israel will slap you—this is unacceptable. I will continue to resist with all the means I have. The resistance should not have allowed itself to welcome the American envoy or anyone else. We, the people of this country, should meet and determine how to resist the enemy, not how to submit to the enemy. We meet to determine how to confront, not how to normalize. Everyone is well aware of what is required of Lebanon today. Lebanon is asked to abandon its Arab identity, and particularly to abandon the issue of Palestine, and live in peace with the Zionist enemy. There will be no coexistence with this enemy, not today, not tomorrow, and not the day after. If someone stands with this normalization, the resistance will fight him. If a party stands with this normalization, it will also fight it. If a sect stands with normalization, the resistance will also fight it. Whoever wants to gamble can do so, but normalization will not happen because our people will not accept it, and our people are a resistant people. The existing resistance might have certain flaws, and we might have certain reservations towards it. Go ahead and get me a better resistance. But to come and tell me this resistance is not good and that you’ll bring me an Israeli soldier instead—then I will fight you and the Israeli soldier. It is as simple as that, despite the complexities of the situation in Lebanon. We have a model meters away from us in Damascus, where the resistance project is being struck, and so is the state and society. They want Lebanon to turn into sects and tribes! They want to strike the state and the army and turn us into fighting militias, before America and Israel come to the rescue and tell each sect, “I will protect you from the other.” What is being proposed in Lebanon is the same as what is happening in Syria. This will be fought by our masses of the resistance. You want better resistance? Work on building a better one. But to come and tell me that you have to submit to Israel for the sake of the sovereignty of Lebanon—this is absurd. Sovereignty is not a suit; sovereignty is operational measures to protect the country. Israel occupies part of the Lebanese soil; what should I do? Some say you have to submit to it and you will live in peace. I tell them no, our people have historically offered millions of martyrs and have not and will not accept an alliance with this entity. Finally, do you fear for your life? No, I do not fear anything. Georges Abdallah is an ordinary citizen like all others and is not courageous, by the way. How do you spend your time nowadays? As you can see, I spend it between interviews and welcoming friends. Later on, I want to visit the camps and see my friends and find out the whereabouts of my people. Links to zines: print-imposed: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/1/items/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed.pdf read only: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/1/items/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed/georges-abdallah-interviews-read.pdf Received by email.https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=22318
#antiImperialism #georgesAbdallah #lebanon #resistancePalestine #solidarityPalestine #westAsia
-
Interviews with Georges Ibrahim Abdallah
I. Inside the Mind of a Militant: An Exclusive Interview with Georges Abdallah September 13, 2025 https://youtu.be/aqJhFmjCs8k My name is Richard Medhurst. I’m here in Lebanon with Georges Abdallah, former prisoner, international revolutionary, Lebanese Marxist. Georges, how are you? And thank you for having us. Thank you for being here. I’m doing well, especially now that I’m free, after having spent quite some time behind bars. I’m in good physical shape. My country is doing well, and our Resistance is strong, so I’m in good spirits as well. It’s only been about three weeks since you were released. Yes. You have spent more time in prison than anyone else for your support of Palestine. 41 years. That makes you the longest-serving political prisoner in French and European history. Before we dive into the details of your case, how are you readjusting to civilian life? It must be hard after 41 years in captivity. I spent time in prison as a militant. I was surrounded by men and women dedicated to the cause who allowed me to keep resisting, by making my resistance part of the struggle against the genocide in Gaza. They gave me a permanent voice on the outside, allowing me to speak about the struggles of various peoples and other political prisoners. So, I wasn’t just a prisoner. I was a fighter who was in prison. I was a militant campaigning and fighting but who just happened to be behind bars in a very particular set of circumstances. Today, I am that same fighter who, again, just happens to be fighting in another set of circumstances. Having those dedicated comrades who kept me in the fight, made my life and my struggle behind bars easier. Let’s talk about the details of your case. I’ve reported extensively on your case in recent years and on other political prisoners. Walk us through the timeline of events. You were in Lyon with an Algerian passport on you. You walk into a police station, and that’s when they recognize you and figure out you were traveling under an assumed identity. So, it was issued by the Algerian government but under a different name to assist you. Initially, they lock you up for that, but then they find a weapons cache in Paris. Walk us through what happened. I was arrested in Lyon and charged with criminal conspiracy. I was tried by the French courts which sentenced me to several years in prison. A deal was made with the French government, under which a French official [Gilles Peyroles] was released from captivity [in Lebanon]. Normally, I should have been freed in exchange. France gave its word but went back on it. The United States joined the case as a civil party, and from that point on it was more or less the US that dictated my fate. If I could just rewind, when you entered the police station [in Lyon], it was because the Mossad was hunting you, right? Regarding the details of the arrest, that whole episode dragged on for quite a bit. I had been on the run for three days, before I got to the point where I decided to enter the police station [to seek refuge]. Okay. Because, I was wondering, how did you pick up on the fact you were being hunted? [The Mossad] had been hunting me since Milan. That pursuit lasted from Milan all the way to Lyon. I tried several things to try and throw them off my trail, but couldn’t in the end, and when all else failed I got arrested. Indeed, I had an Algerian passport. A real passport. But unfortunately it didn’t do me much good, because the French knew my real identity and arrested me. I was chased [by the Mossad] from Milan to Geneva and from Geneva to Lyon. And for two days in Lyon I tried to shake them off but couldn’t. How did you know that you were being hunted? That must be a terrifying experience. It wasn’t terrifying. I was just a fighter being pursued by an intelligence agency, one far more capable than that of the French or others. There were several [Mossad] teams that were hot on my trail. And ultimately I got captured. It wasn’t some great feat. I tried to throw them off my trail but didn’t succeed. My comrades couldn’t intervene in time, so they arrested me. Do you regret walking into that police station in order to shake them off? Since it led you down this whole path… No, because at that moment I was probably about to get captured anyway. I was supposed to go through the train station, and my comrades hadn’t showed up. And they were a few meters away from me. So rather than getting arrested there, I made a last-ditch attempt using the passport. I made up some story [to the police] and told them that someone was trying to rob me. But it was already too late by then. The ploy didn’t work out. My fate was sealed. You later discovered that your first lawyer, Jean-Paul Mazurier, was a spy. Something he later revealed in a book. Were you shocked? How much damage did he do? What kind of information do you think he passed onto the French intelligence service? It’s the French justice system that should have been shocked. And yet that wasn’t the case. That a lawyer is being paid off by the intelligence services… During the German occupation of France, even the Gestapo didn’t stoop that low. And then this country that lectures everyone about democracy and the separation of powers, etc. should find itself directly implicated in a scandal like this is apparently normal. Not one, not a single magistrate had anything to say about it. That’s the justice system for you in Western imperialist countries. It goes without saying that other countries aren’t any better. When the interests of any imperialist system are at stake, the bourgeoisie always disregards their own laws. This isn’t something unique to the French. All capitalist and imperialist states do this. Back in the day, Maître [Jacques] Vergès was quite famous, and considered one of France’s best lawyers. His reputation precedes him. He defended you as well. However, there was apparently something he didn’t do [after the Mazurier spying scandal]. Should Vergès have requested a review of the criminal court’s ruling? I was the one who refused. Maître Vergès was a great lawyer, but he was a great fighter as well. He was an exceptional militant of a calibre far greater than most alive today. And quite naturally, he accepted my decision, and he respected it. Why did you instruct him not to ask for a review? Better to have this misconduct forever stain the French justice system than to overturn the proceedings. So it was a strategic move. Quite naturally, quite naturally. It would be better for the face of the capitalist and imperialist justice system to be unmasked by real-world examples. And it was. And yet not a single magistrate had anything to say. There was also a series of bombings in France for which the media claimed you were responsible, yet the French intelligence services later said that you actually had nothing to do with it. So I wanted to put it to you directly. People all over the world try to take advantage of the struggle between the French state, and the countries it tried to extort. There was a war [1]. Naturally, I sided fully with those who resisted attempts by the French to coerce certain states in our region. So, it wasn’t simply the police that were scandalous. The police have always been a tool of the imperialist judiciary and therefore imperialism itself. That’s nothing new, and not the real scandal. What’s truly scandalous is the press who willingly spread whatever the police tell them. Make no mistake about it. The media didn’t hesitate to spread the police’s propaganda [about me and FARL], which the judges had asked them to do. You have an entire global network of judges, police, and media all working together. And these media outlets only serve a specific class. The justice system is also designed to serve that specific class. Aside from making this or that person pay up, the point of the courts––which most people didn’t even have access to until the 20th or 21st century––is so they can dole out lectures to everyone about morality. And as I said to the magistrate, it’s always lovely to hear a prostitute talk about the virtues of virginity. Better once the client has their clothes back on. I, however, wasn’t extended the courtesy, as I stood before this magistrate, who couldn’t figure out why I wouldn’t defend myself. “Why won’t you defend yourself? The prosecutor is asking for at least ten years? That’s all you have to say? A statement in support of the Palestinian people, then you just turn your back and walk away?” I said, “Look, I’m here to defend the Palestinian cause, not to defend the justice system of your country. That’s your job. And now you need to own it.” Including the fact that my lawyer turned out to be secretly working for the intelligence services…. “You had nothing to say? Even the Germans didn’t behave like that when they occupied your country.” Ultimately, none of this is out of the ordinary. Beneath the veneer, this is what the justice system and the media really are in imperialist countries. Of course, that doesn’t mean that progressive media outlets can’t exist here and there. But ultimately, most media outlets are the complete opposite, which is simply reprehensible. I was never actually charged with terrorism. I was put before a special tribunal for terrorism. There was no reclassification of the offense. That tells you everything you need to know about the justice system and its legal proceedings. These proceedings are a mockery of the legal system. Not just in my case, but with all prominent figures in the struggle. So they could slap on this label of “terrorist.” Yet, when they arrested me, “terrorism” wasn’t even a crime under the French legal system. But when I went before the tribunal, it was a special court that they set up just for that purpose. They didn’t even attempt to reclassify the charge. In other words, the whole thing was a sham. The entire justice system is crooked. Once again, I find your case incredible because it’s like entering another universe, yet it’s our universe. Yes, yes. French imperialist propaganda is very strong. Everywhere they go, they present themselves as champions of the separation of powers, democracy, etc. But really, they’re just like any other country, given everything we know: the close relationship between the justice system and the police, the class struggle. How would you define the word “terrorism”? Terrorism, in my opinion, is state terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence against the masses. It is the use of violence against these who try to expose the underlying class struggle. Terrorism is the use of means and methods that put the masses in danger. Any government that represses its own people as a matter of policy is engaged in terrorism. I defended the actions of the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Faction [FARL]. I considered it a great honor to have those operations attributed to me, and I considered it a great honor to defend the legitimacy of those operations, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and the day after. FARL’s operations never targeted civilians or the general public. There were some criminals. They were hunted down. Then they were eliminated. This cannot be described as terrorism. If you look at Lebanon in 1982, that’s what terrorism is. When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about Sabra and Chatila. The Sabra and Chatila massacres aren’t something that just happened on the sidelines. The French, American, and Italian imperialists know this. Mitterrand personally guaranteed the security of Sabra and Chatila. Reagan personally guaranteed the security of Sabra and Chatila, as did the Italian government. The French sent 800 soldiers, the US 800 marines, and the Italians 400 troops. So, you had 2,000 soldiers there to protect the camps, on condition that we, the militants and fighters, leave the camp. Of course, back then, we were all young. We protested and cursed at everyone. But in the end, the leadership felt that France’s word, the word of two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council could be trusted, that there was nothing to be worried about. After all this was France, the land of human rights, the Resistance, and the separation of powers. “It would never abandon the camp!” And yet we had barely pulled out of the camp when the soldiers began to clear the minefield around the camp, meaning they removed the protective barriers we had put in place. And then they withdrew for four days, during which the massacres took place. Four days later, they returned to “investigate the facts.” Their facts. Not one single soldier was prosecuted. Naturally, these French, American, and Italian soldiers were not some ragtag militia of vagabonds. They were given orders to withdraw which they followed and were then ordered to return, which they did. One of the first journalists to arrive in Sabra and Chatila was Jacques-Marie Bourget who reported on the extent of the slaughter. And he talks about the French officers in a little book, The Sabra and Chatila Massacre, and the discussions that took place. It is a stain on France. But above all, it is a stain on the French justice system, which lectures others about terrorism. Meanwhile 4,000 corpses or so––because they couldn’t all be counted––weren’t killed by gunfire. They were killed using knives, swords, and axes. Apparently, that wasn’t terrorism to them. In fact, they even committed to never prosecute anyone. Every year in France, we commemorate the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane. The Nazis burned about 700 people in a church. Seven or eight children. Sabra and Chatila had over 4,000 victims. Did none of them deserve an investigation into why the international force withdrew, then moved back into position? When you look at these facts, for example, in 1982 there were around 32,000 casualties, attacked with cluster bombs in Beirut and elsewhere. The Israelis attacked Lebanon under the pretext of [Operation] “Peace in Galilee.” Those 32,000 casualties were caused by American weapons. They used Beirut and Lebanon as a testing ground for their weapons. Cluster bombs and vacuum bombs were used for the first time in the Middle East. Of course, none of this is terrorism according to the imperialists. And then [the United States] goes and joins the case against me in Paris as a civil party. These aren’t people whose courts and judges can be taken seriously. The only thing you can do is turn your back to them. Let them go on pretending to be victims and spewing hatred against the struggling masses. And that’s what happened. I think that’s an excellent definition of what constitutes terrorism. You were accused of killing those two diplomats. Yes. The Israeli diplomat [Barsimantov], it turns out, was in fact… …the head of Mossad operations in Europe. Right, because their jobs are usually a cover. Yes, everyone knew [they were spies]. Even the prosecutors. And the American diplomat [Ray] was actually running CIA counterintelligence operations there. Those men were officers. And they got taken out nice and clean. Not a single civilian was harmed. Not even a hiccup. Because even revolutionaries can sometimes mess up. Not a single civilian was harmed. If justice had any meaning in France…. This is why the prosecutor asked for less than nine years. Usually he would have asked for much more. He asked for less than nine years, and yet I still got life. That tells you everything about this judicial farce. I don’t know if you saw this, a few weeks ago in the United States, two Israeli diplomats were… Yes. They were assassinated by Elias Rodriguez. By a militant who felt that in the face of the genocide taking place in Gaza it is the duty of every revolutionary to respond with the means at their disposal. He happened to have a pistol at his disposal, so he iced two Israeli agents. In my opinion, it was necessary and the right thing to do. People’s reactions may vary from one country to another, but, generally speaking, the massacres taking place in Gaza require a reaction commensurate with the situation in order to prevent things from becoming any worse. Naturally, like all revolutionaries, I’m against any operations that might hurt the masses. But when faced with the images coming out of Gaza of half-dead, starving children, when you see what the US, Israel, and the Zionist West are doing, you can’t stop people from reacting the way they do or expect them to always respond with politeness and restraint. If you care about preventing violence, or preventing more impassioned reactions, then it’s up to the European and American revolutionaries in the West to do their duty. It’s up to them, more than anyone else, to do what’s required. We have a genocide that’s been going on for over 200 days. For the first time in history, a genocide is being watched by millions of men and women every day. It is a scandal that we haven’t seen stronger reactions beyond the usual protests every week. Don’t get me wrong, the youth coming out and making their voices and their anger heard is huge. It’s invaluable and breathes new life into the Arab and global revolutionary movement. Nevertheless, when there is genocide, more is needed. We hope for much more than that. Today in the West and in Europe we’re also seeing social democracy being chipped away at, which is reminiscent of certain periods in the last century. Today capitalism is in crisis. It has exhausted whatever pretenses of social democracy it had. We are standing on the edge of another world war for the third time in a century with Western capital as the main catalyst. We all know that there’s only a couple of ways to prevent these wars. We need a revolutionary movement to prevent the masses in the West and elsewhere from ending up as cannon fodder. It is the duty of the proletariat, especially in the West, to take action. Naturally, that doesn’t absolve these in the outer rim of the capitalist system of their own duties in this struggle. They also have important work to do. And we hope to come through in a big way. If you look at the Resistance in Gaza and the West Bank, one can’t help but admire their strength and steadfastness. Even after 17 years of the siege on Gaza and all the destruction wrought on Gaza and the West Bank, the Resistance lives on. The Resistance is so impressive that it makes even the most seasoned revolutionaries blush, be they in Strasbourg, Vietnam, or elsewhere. You see the fighters literally climb on top of the tanks and plant bombs there with their bare hands. That takes guts. Those are the same fighters whose brothers, wives, children, and grandchildren are all starving to death with the direct complicity of Western imperialist forces. It is our right to ask European revolutionaries to also sacrifice for the cause and contribute in ways that will make a real difference. With that said, we can’t ignore the current rise of fascism in Europe. It is taking root right there, out in the open. And not just in France, Germany, Spain, etc. It isn’t just the AFD in Germany or Vox in Spain, or the National Front [in France], and so on. The rise of fascism isn’t just some naughty phrase. You even see it in the so-called Green and Liberal parties. Fascism is on the rise everywhere, and it’s getting worse by the day. It is very real and very dangerous and not just some naughty phrase. We’re talking about reactionary forces regrouping and organizing themselves. Hopefully, a force for humanity, that is to say, the anti-capitalist forces are up to the task of confronting this looming threat. To fight fascism, we need to unite people of various political backgrounds and struggles under one banner. Because the current model that we have under social democracy is only capable of responding to a handful of challenges, but not much else. Fascism today presents humanity with an almost insurmountable challenge. We are on the eve of yet another world war for the third time in the span of a century. This is capitalism. Capitalism today is nothing more than savagery. Nothing can come of capitalism except barbarism. We are at a critical juncture. It is up to every revolutionary to seize this moment and carry us forward into revolution. Only a revolution can stop the forces of capitalism from wreaking havoc on a global scale. Hopefully, there is a movement already out there taking shape, one that people can actually place their faith in. This effort is the only thing deserving of all our hopes and prayers. Such a movement is the only thing that can prevent an explosion of fascist, reactionary violence on a global scale. In England, around the same time that I was arrested under the Terrorism Act, and this crackdown on the press began, we also had the arrest and indictment of several activists from a group called Palestine Action. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them, but what they do is directly sabotage the weapons factories. What do you think of this strategy? Yes, it is very important and effective. It’s also critical in how it relates to the Global South. Every step forward one one side of the Mediterranean is a step forward on the other. We are all in this together. Either we will be victorious together or we won’t be victorious at all. All these actions and demonstrations taking place in Europe, the reason they’re important isn’t just because they undermine the bourgeoisie of your country. Their value is the extent to which they inspire others [to do the same] on the other side of the Mediterranean. When Egyptians look at England and see hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in solidarity with Gaza, they cannot remain silent. It goes without saying, the state repression there is different from what it is in England, France, or elsewhere. But the more momentum there is for this struggle, the more engaged it makes revolutionaries everywhere, and the more effective it makes those in Egypt who are pushing for real change in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism. It’s thanks to these protests and actions that we can mature as a movement, just as much in the Arab world as in the West. In other words, it’s much easier for the leaders of the struggle in England to take up their role, knowing that their comrades in the Arab world, are also doing their part in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement and who take this capitalism crisis seriously. This is a global crisis. Any movement whose aim is to protect the masses from being turned into cannon fodder is a movement that is fighting for both sides of the Mediterranean, for Europeans and Arabs alike. We have an Arab world that stretches from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Change is coming at any moment now. All it takes is for a small spark to light a small twig in the field for the whole field to catch fire. We are closer today than ever before. Hopefully we see a united front. We need a joint effort with people on both shores of the Mediterranean working together. Only together will we emerge victorious. Only by working together will we we be able to establish a united front. A convergence of struggles is mandatory. We owe it to history. A convergence of struggles is necessary to prevent war. War is no joke. War is a poison that threatens to destroy the entire planet. The crisis we face today is much worse than the one at the beginning of the 20th century. There are new protagonists and actors involved. At the start of the 20th century, we didn’t have a climate crisis. Today, however, our planet faces an existential threat because of capitalism. Naturally, those at the forefront of the struggle must take this into consideration. Capitalism today is nothing short of total barbarism, death and destruction on every level. It is up to the leaders of the struggle to remember that and to work out a strategy to save us from this savagery. I saw that when you landed at Beirut airport, the first thing you did was to insult, and rightly so, the passive governments of the Arab world. What message do you have for them, if there is anything left to even say? The entire Arab bourgeoisie are directly involved in the genocide [in Gaza], every bit as much as the international bourgeoisie. They shall be swept away by the masses and all those itching for change and social reform in the same manner as the bourgeoisie were dealt with during other moments in history. Our fate and the fate of the entire human race is at stake here. Hopefully, time is on our side. Of course, we shouldn’t forget that the number of victims is rising by the minute. Nevertheless, hopefully we will have enough time to get our act together as a social bloc. The current [economic] system of reproduction and production, in the south of the Mediterranean, specifically in the Arab world, is incapable of providing the masses with basic subsistence. That means the collapse is near. So, hopefully we’ll be able to get organized in time before the collapse happens, so that we don’t end up with the same result as in 2011. In 2011 there was a seismic collapse. But we were not up to the task of leading as a social bloc, and unable to build on that momentum. Sure, there were some gains, but ultimately we failed to transform that revolution [the Arab Spring] into meaningful change that would have swept away all these crooks in power. Yes, we’ll circle back to that topic soon. I want to ask you, from a personal point of view as well, as I may end up in prison soon myself, what helped you stay strong in prison all those years? I’m not strong. I wasn’t strong. I was just a simple fighter who was fortunate to have the right men and women around me, who enabled me to keep resisting and to stay in the fight. Through them, I was able to be a fighter who just happened to be fighting in very specific conditions, rather than just a political prisoner. Being involved in the struggle in all these different capacities with its slogans, campaigning for this or that issue, whether for Palestine, for comrades imprisoned in Turkey or elsewhere, or with the liberation movement in Kanaky or elsewhere, allows you to still participate in the struggle as a militant, just in a unique set of circumstances. Today I am no longer in prison, therefore the conditions of the fight change once again. But I remain the same fighter. It doesn’t require superpowers. Everything hinges on the ability of your comrades outside of prison to integrate your resistance into the broader struggle. Everything depends on it. Naturally, you can’t expect all your allies to have the exact same beliefs, or to come from a single, partisan bloc. It’s through the convergence of struggles that these people find themselves together. Naturally, your family, friends, and comrades, will want to get you out of prison as quickly as possible. But it’s up to you as a fighter to put the cause first and not make concessions even if they seem trivial, things which you, as a militant, wouldn’t find that trivial anyway. Spending years in prison is hard, of course. There are many in that situation. It’s not easy to be locked up for years and to stand firm in your principles right up until the moment you walk out the gate. I was asked, for example, to make concessions that might seem trivial to an outsider. But it wasn’t trivial. I remember this little girl from Al Badawi, a small refugee camp in northern Lebanon, who wrote me a letter. A little girl who was about 7 or 8 years old. She said to me, “Uncle, I was with my mom and dad this morning, and saw a poster of you on the wall. My parents were drinking coffee and talking about you, and I understood that they want you to say nice things about Israel. Just tell them that you like Israel very much so that they free you, and once you’re out we can insult them.” That’s indeed the logic of a child. It’s a child’s logic, and it touches you deeply. But of course, that’s not an option. Some of the comrades, for example, told me, “Don’t make a big deal about the civil parties to the case [the United States]. Just say a few words, a little something to show that you’re thinking of the family of this soldier or that civilian.” And you’re on the brink of freedom. Because you know if you say what they want you to say, you can walk right out. And if you don’t, they’ll just keep you locked up. Naturally, giving in is not an option. Because what they call a “small gesture,” is no small gesture at all. To me, those acts of resistance were legitimate––today, tomorrow, and the day after. The whole reason they put me in prison, is precisely because I condone those acts of resistance. The imperialists act like the Resistance is some kind of violation of their sovereignty, meanwhile they trample on the sovereignty of our people all day long and no one bats an eye. I said that during the trial, and I said it yesterday too. The comrades had put some money together for me. They said, “Let’s just be done with it so Georges can leave. The important thing is that he gets out. Once he’s out he can insult them as he pleases,” just like that child said. The prison authorities came to me and said, “Here’s the money that was raised. How do you want to divide it up?” In other words, give this money to the Americans, to the families of the soldiers as compensation. Naturally, I refused. I didn’t ask for this money. This money wasn’t mine. All Americans, civilians and military alike, are implicated in the genocide in Gaza which is unfolding before the eyes of the world. I consider them, their families, their loved ones, their neighbors, and their entire country to be accomplices in the genocide of our children. So I told them, do whatever you like with that money, it’s not mine and I don’t want it. A few days later, more money arrived. They came to me and tried the same act again. And I gave them the same answer as before. Although I may have gotten a little carried away, because I thought it was quite rude to ask that of me after 41 years in captivity. Since the French and Americans felt I had disrespected them in some way, they went and told the president of the court. They said, “Look, he just won’t do it,” and so on. Finally, the president of the court goes, “It’s been 41 years, he hasn’t changed, and he’s never going to change. He’s told you the money isn’t his and he doesn’t want to dole it out.” By the way, I’m not allowed, legally speaking, to even give that money away. This is the “performative justice” I spoke of earlier. Under the law, I’m not allowed to collect money to compensate a civil party. But for the sake of making me capitulate, they made an exception. Under French law, I’m not allowed to raise money in order to pay compensation. According to the law, it’s forbidden. But to humiliate me and make me grovel, they were willing to allow it. Once I declined to compensate the civil parties, they lashed out by going to the Supreme Court. They asked the Supreme Court to block my release before a binding judgment to release me had even been made. They Court of Appeals said [in February], “We will discuss Mr. Abdallah’s fate on the 19th of June.” And the public prosecutor, meaning the French government, goes to the Supreme Court and appeals against a decree that wasn’t even a judgement yet. How can you go to the Supreme Court when there’s no final judgment to appeal against? Naturally, a few days later, they said the appeal was invalid, etc. And once the court ruled in favor of me, they immediately lodged another appeal. Meaning there’s still an appeal today in France against my release. But I’m here now. It’s this performative justice that every militant needs to be aware of. It’s got nothing to do with how nice or mean you are. That’s not what determines whether you get out of prison. The determining factor is how invested and active you are in the struggle. The more you play your part, the more the balance of power shifts in your favor. If the balance of power isn’t in your favor, you’re going to be stuck in prison. You need to be prepared to accept that. That is your role as a fighter. Nothing else. And once the balance of power finally shifts your way, the bourgeoisie will no longer be able to keep you locked up and will have no choice but to let you walk. And you come out with your principles intact. Walking out of prison still standing by your principles is a great victory. That’s what happened. And I’m happy with the outcome, despite the time spent in prison. It wasn’t so bad. There are hundreds of thousands of people who go up in smoke and I could have easily been one of them. But I’m still here. To be frank, wasn’t the balance of power more in your favor toward the beginning when they tried to free you through a hostage deal and with the bombing campaign, etc.? So why didn’t that result in you being freed? It was the pressure from the Americans. So despite all the pressure you put on the French, the Americans exerted even more? It wasn’t only the US. The French government also felt that they could get away with leaving me in prison and go back on their word [in the hostage deal] because of their interests in the region, because my name is Georges, etc. And because of how French claims to love Lebanon, and particularly people named Georges [i.e. Christians]. It behaved just as one would expect. France is in a very poor position to be doling out advice regarding our country’s resistance. Today, France, the US and others are pushing the Lebanese government to disarm the Resistance. To dissolve and disarm the resistance. These are the same people who a few months ago honored [Missak] Manouchian [2]. Manouchian was considered the figurehead of the so-called Affiche Rouge [FTP-MOI] by the “special section” of the Paris courts of the Vichy regime. The French basically resurrected this court in 2003 following the decision of the parole court in Pau to release me. The magistrate naively believed that he actually had any power as a judge. As soon as he decided to release me, Dominque Perben [then Minister of Justice] came to put him in his place, to remind him that a judge’s place in this capitalist country is to do what you’re told. The order to release me was overturned, effectively resurrecting the “special section” of Paris, because from that moment on, you had a magistrate doing the bidding of the Minister of the Interior in Paris, who dictates to the courts what to do with political prisoners, dubbed “terrorists” or otherwise. This is the justice system. Not just in France, but in all capitalist countries. It is the duty of every revolutionary to rip its mask off. It goes without saying, prison is tough. Life in prison is extremely challenging. But a fighter doesn’t shy away from difficult things. He does what it takes to fulfill his duty, especially if he is a communist. Why did the Americans want to keep you locked up in prison so badly? The Americans, like all imperialist powers, consider any affront against their interests, be they military personnel or otherwise… Ultimately what they care about is maintaining control of our country and the region. If getting rid of this or that person helps, then they’ll do it. Simply because they can? If they’re able to, they’ll simply do it. There’s nothing to it. [France’s Minister of Security] Robert Pandraud made an offer to CIA Director William Casey. The CIA Director came to Paris and told Pandraud, “If you ever release Abdallah, we’ll cut ties with France.” Pandraud replied, “Why don’t we release Abdallah and give you his whereabouts in Beirut? You’re a powerful nation, just eliminate him.” Those are their true colors. Their behavior says it all. This is how their justice system really functions. That’s the real takeaway from my case and the only silver lining. There was nothing heroic about it. I’m just a simple fighter who stays the course and was fortunate to have comrades devoted to the struggle who enabled him to keep resisting. With that said, prison is very difficult. A prisoner isn’t just some piece of meat. When you’ve got one kilo of meat, you can just put it in the fridge, and you know it won’t go bad. A fighter, however, is not a piece of meat. He needs to remain in the fight as a part of the actual struggle taking place outside on the ground. This is a real struggle, not some illusion. When we talk about the rise of fascism, this is a real, ongoing phenomena. When we talk about the genocide in Gaza, we’re talking about a literal ongoing genocide. Therefore, it all comes down to the ability of your comrades to provide you all avenues to keep fighting [from inside prison] and remain a part of the struggle. And that’s what happened. It’s no different or any more heroic than any other comrade taking part in the struggle on the outside. Moreover, it’s this mechanism that will shift the balance of power in your favor. In the beginning, there were 200-300 people protesting for my release. During the last demonstration which took place in Paris there were roughly 7,000. What did the magistrate who ordered my release say? She said the main reason for my release was that “Georges Ibrahim Abdallah in prison is a far greater threat to public order than Georges Ibrahim Abdallah outside of prison.” It’s up to the authorities to follow up on his activities outside prison. He’s no longer the justice system’s problem.” Meaning [it’s now up to] the intelligence services. The balance of power is the only thing that can get a militant out of prison, be they Georges Abdallah or anyone else. When the judge sad, “He poses a greater threat to public order from inside prison,” she’s referring to all the people that have come together to protest for my freedom, which in turn strengthens the broader struggle. You’ll recall that in France barely ten months ago wearing a keffiyeh was a crime. Carrying a Palestinian flag would get you prosecuted. Yet today there isn’t a single city in France or Europe that doesn’t have weekly protests full of Palestinian flags, full of keffiyehs, the symbol of freedom. This is the stuff that gets a militant out of prison. The campaign for their freedom serves as a bridge or vehicle to get people out in the streets and therefore for the broader struggle. And I must say I’m quite satisfied with the outcome. In my case, the police chief [of Hautes-Pyrénées] tried to ban the last protest, which was held outside the prison. However he couldn’t ban it directly, so he asked the mayor of Lannemezan to do it, who replied, “I won’t do it.” So he tried to do it himself. There was a whole administrative process that kicked off, but he couldn’t ban it ultimately. This brings us back to the issue of the rise of fascism. In France, the rise of fascism is characterized by a weakened central government, which may sound weird at first, because fascism usually involves an authoritarian, centralized government. But in this case the state is falling apart. The state has abdicated its duties towards the educational and health systems. Everything is crumbling. Instead, the state is busy asking police chiefs to suppress dissent among the people. In every region in France, each police chief has an entire police force at their fingertips. Each municipality can also sanction––call it what you like––a militia or auxiliary police force. There’s also an increase in organized vigilantism and “neighborhood watches,” who keep tabs on who’s coming and going, “That guy had long hair and wasn’t very white-looking,” etc. This is all part of the rise of fascism. Naturally, the Left in Europe and in France need to beware and get their act together in order to counter the growing threat of fascism. As I said at the beginning, the rise of fascism isn’t just some nasty phrase. It means heads are going to roll, and we and our comrades need to be ready to confront it. Georges, if I may move on to geopolitics. What was your reaction to the assassinations of [Hassan] Nasrallah and [Ismael] Haniyeh? Nasrallah, and all the leaders of the Resistance, were targeted by the imperialist and Zionist forces, with the full complicity of all the Empire’s intelligence services, who provided their whereabouts. Naturally, Nasrallah was not just the leader of the Resistance. He was an emblematic figure fully committed to the cause. Some may disagree with this or that issue, but no one can deny that he was the strategic mastermind of the Resistance, an unrivaled figure. To learn that he fell in battle, as a martyr, is naturally very painful, especially when you’re in prison. But at the same time, it’s bitter-sweet. Because when the leaders of the Resistance are willing to put their lives on the line and are martyred in battle, it invigorates and strengthens the entire Resistance. You can’t piss on the blood of martyrs. Today more than ever the Resistance stands firm in its principles. A resistance whose leaders give their lives in battle will never make concessions in vain or piss away the blood of their martyrs. You really have to be nuts, like some in my country’s government, to think that this Resistance, which has given its best people, is simply going to lay down its arms. I have full confidence in the ability of the Resistance, which is the sole legitimate authority. When you are under foreign military occupation, the legitimacy of the Resistance takes precedence over anything else. The Resistance protects the people’s very dignity and freedom. And only those involved in the struggle have the right to discuss what strategies the Resistance should adopt, not those on the sidelines, who stand idly by while the enemy tries to crush the Resistance. The only reason these traitors are allowed to run their mouths is by the grace of the Resistance. It is nothing more than a courtesy––a humanitarian gesture which some may even disagree with, as they probably don’t deserve it. But in any case the Resistance is strong and will emerge even stronger. It is the Resistance more than anyone else that wants us to have a strong national army that protects us. It has a greater interest more than anyone in the struggle to want a strong [Lebanese] state that respects its countrymen and the citizens of this country, regardless of religion or ethnicity, etc. The Resistance is the only way for us to prevent the Balkanization of the region. The region today is being carved up and divided. We all see what’s happening in Syria. The Americans, together with the Israelis and other Arab reactionaries, are destroying everything that we’ve achieved historically. The state itself is a construct that was won through hard-fought struggles. Instead, they are working to decimate this state and all its institutions, turning the region into chaos where ethnic groups, religious minorities, and barbarians devour each other while the Israelis and Americans sit back and decide which “human-animals” are worthy of their protection today and which ones will be sacrificed. Thanks to the Resistance, Lebanon is well-defended and far more capable than our enemies had hoped. The Resistance will not allow them to divide and Balkanize us. Lebanon and everyone in it will be victorious together. We all know that the only path to victory is together. The leaders of the Resistance are more qualified than anyone to bring everyone together under one tent, in order to unify the Lebanese people, strengthen their state, and build up their army. The Americans, French, and British keep telling us that they are Lebanon’s friends. They’re no friends of ours. We say to them, “If you’re truly our friends, then provide the Lebanese army with weapons.” That’s all we ask. Let them give the Lebanese army the jets and anti-aircraft missile it needs and we’ll be grateful. We’re not asking them to obtain weapons for us from [North] Korea, China, Russia, or elsewhere. If you’re really Lebanon’s friends, then arm the Lebanese Armed Forces, so we have a real national army instead of militias. Of course, the bourgeoisie and their political pawns are the enemies of our army. They do not want us to have a national army. They do not want us to have a nation state. They want a bunch of thugs and bandits running around that they can use to bring our people to their knees. Our people will never recognize the Zionist entity. The Zionist entity is on its last legs. Contrary to what they want you to believe, Israel today is living on borrowed time. The West that created this state––because the Zionist entity is nothing more than an organic extension of the imperialist West––there isn’t a single [Western] government out there today that can defend Israel in front of the masses. Not because any of them care about the Palestinians. On the contrary, they want the entity to hurry up and kill as many Palestinians as possible as quickly as possible. But in front of the European masses, they’re unable to portray the entity as a beacon of human rights and democracy, etc. They try to spin it nowadays by saying, “It’s not all Israelis, it’s just Netanyahu and a few bad apples.” Naturally, the European masses aren’t having any of it. No one is fooled. In fact, they’re coming out in even greater numbers. And our people are grateful to them for their mobilization, because it is very dear to us. Georges, as you know I am English through my father’s side and from my mother’s side, Syrian Christian. I was born in Syria. Syria fell when you were in prison and I know that you were also a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party [SSNP]. What was your reaction to the fall of Syria? Looking back, it’s clear that there was a point when the Syrian bourgeoisie started to look after its own interests while destroying the people. Sure, the Syrian bourgeoisie developed the country in some ways, such as agrarian reform and by industrializing some parts of the country. They implemented some reforms in the health, education, and agricultural sectors, etc. They succeeded in establishing themselves as a state-bourgeoisie. However, once they normalized relations with the global capitalist system, this state-bourgeoisie fell into decline and became repressive against the people. And we, the progressive forces, were unable to turn it around. Instead, the darkest and most reactionary forces in our history took power, with the direct support of Israel, the US, and other players who then turn around and pretend to condemn terrorism. [President] Hollande and [Foreign Minister] Fabius told Al Nusra [Al Qaeda], “Great job!” as they set off bombs in Damascus. When the Bataclan was attacked, they called it terrorism, and yet, today, the French were among the first to recognize this [Syrian] government. The Syrian people have a very long history. And right now they are going through a difficult period. I have no doubt that progressive forces will emerge in Syria and rise to the challenge. Of course it won’t be easy. There will be widespread destruction and many martyrs. We in Lebanon have the means to fight back against such things, contrary to what the Americans and others think. We will not allow Lebanon to be Balkanized. The Resistance is strong enough to fight it. The various political factions in the country, from the communists to the socialists, Al-Mourabitoun, the Arab nationalists, and the Resistance [Hezbollah], etc. are capable of pushing back, and they will. They are up to the task, and our country will be victorious. Without a doubt. Georges, you come from a Christian background, as do I. Many leaders in the struggle against Zionism also come from a Christian background, like Georges Habash, Ghassan Kanafani, Antoun Saadeh, Bishop Capucci, Hanan Ashrawi, etc. who founded or helped lead many anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist political projects. Why do you think the West glosses over them and refuses to see this as a national struggle portraying it instead as a religious conflict? They don’t just see it as a religious war, they’re trying to provoke a religious war. It’s not by mistake. They know exactly what they’re doing and will go to any lengths to destroy the fabric of our society. That’s why they look for sellouts from our region to help them stir up religious hatred and provoke massacres that weaken our communities. Because they always say it’s “Jews vs Muslims,” instead of saying it’s an anti-colonial struggle. It’s not about Jews vs Muslims. Israel isn’t a Jewish issue either. If you look at the United States today, roughly 30-35% of the Jewish youth are out protesting, wearing keffiyehs, and saying that the Zionist entity is a greater enemy to Judaism than Palestinians. So, no, this is not a religious conflict. Otherwise the Saudis and the Gulf would be at the forefront of the struggle instead of being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This conflict is not sectarian. Israel is an organic extension of the imperialist West. People need to have the courage to see the West for what it is. That it has a history of wiping out entire peoples. When we talk about Western imperialism, look at how North America became the United States, for example. The United States was built on the corpses of 20-25 million Native North Americans. When you look at so-called “Latin” America, or Central and South America, in what way are the Mayans and others “Latin”? The Latinization of South America, meaning the death and destruction of the native population, claimed the lives of millions of men and women. This is the legacy and foundation of the imperialist West. When you look at Australia, Aboriginal Australians, the indigenous people of Australia, are the earth’s oldest continuing civilization. They were decimated. Today all that’s left are few tourist sites. This is Western imperialism. Western imperialism, however, did not succeed in our legion [in the Levant] despite a century of Zionists trying to colonize our land, which began in the period between the late-19th century and mid-20th century, and was fully supported by all the great powers of the imperialist West. What happened? The Palestinians remained. In 1949 the Palestinian population was barely 1 million. Despite a century of Zionist colonization, the Palestinian population today in historical Palestine is 7,300,000 and counting. While the Israeli settlers who’ve been pouring in for over a century number around 7,200,000. That means there are fewer Zionist settlers than there are Palestinian natives. On top of that you’ve got all the Palestinians in the diaspora and neighboring countries who were driven out of their homes in the Nakba. That means the Palestinians today number around 14 million in total. This is a people who in spite of the permanent genocide waged against them have fought back, multiplied several times over, and number around 14 million today. They have failed in their attempts to erase the Palestinian people. With that said, Israel should not be considered peaceful or harmless. It is incapable of peace. Israel has always been and still remains a fascist country. And it grows more fascist by the day. The global rise of fascism that we see today is a natural extension of the imperialist West. You see this phenomena everywhere in the West. You’ve got the AFD in Germany, the National Front in France, Vox in Spain, and in Portugal it’s even worse. This is all happening out in the open. And when it comes to the Empire’s outposts, their fascist nature sticks out even more. You see it in the way the Israel treats native Palestinians as human animals and openly describe them as such. Even the Nazis didn’t go so far as to openly say it. Even if they behaved the same way, they didn’t proudly announce it. Today, Israel is on its last legs. It has nothing to lose anymore. So it is hitting the Palestinians with all its cruelty and everything its got. But the Palestinian people are not alone. Just next door there are 400 million Arabs who share the same food, the same prayers, the same wedding ceremonies, and the same history, etc. The Palestinian people will not be eliminated. The Palestinian people will be victorious. The Palestinian people and their struggle are the driving force behind the Arab revolution. Palestine isn’t just an area of 27,00 square kilometers. Palestine is the driving force of the Arab revolution from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Make no mistake, the Arab revolution will succeed thanks to the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and others. I was in France, I believe, at the same time that you were released. I visited the museum of the French Resistance. As you know I grew up idolizing figures like Jean Moulin, [Massik] Manouchian, etc. and this whole culture of the resistance, as I believe you and many others did as well. How is it that the French recognize they were under German occupation and were able to identify a military occupation and to fight it. But when it comes to this struggle against Zionism they change positions? I don’t think they really changed. If you look at France today, those who support Palestine are no small minority. Take for example the stance of the French Communist Party or Le France Insoumise (LFI). That’s not insignificant. If you look at French Parliament, Le France Insoumise have 80 MPs who stand fully with the Palestinians. Same with the communists, anarchists, Revolution Permanente (RP), and other groups. Obviously that’s not the case in the imperialist media, which is to be expected. They lie and obfuscate, that’s what they do. It’s no conspiracy theory to say that. The imperialist media are doing what they do, which is to justify the unjustifiable. Capitalism in this country can only bring death. Resistance in its various forms can only fuel the momentum of revolution, whether in France or elsewhere. Of course, this is no walk in the park. Capitalism is in crisis on a global scale. It is up to the leaders of the struggle to unite people of various backgrounds and struggles under one banner and use that momentum in order to lead the revolution to victory, whether in Europe or in the Arab world. And hopefully victory is near. Georges what message would you give to this generation and future generations of revolutionaries? Firstly, I salute and commend the European youth for rising to the occasion for taking to the streets and standing firm in support of Palestine and against the genocide in Gaza. This is the most important and potent political stance of our time. I say to the youth of today, be careful. Fascism is on the rise. This is a very real criminal undertaking that is happening in real time. You need to be ready, because it’s up to you to confront it. Do not waver. You can do this and you have the numbers and the strength for it. Greetings to all the comrades and activists who helped make the Palestinian liberation movement so bright and powerful. Palestine has never been more relevant and important than it is today, and it is thanks to the youth who are out in the streets all across Europe. Georges Abdallah, thank you for your time and for receiving me to conduct this interview It is to you, your comrades and your viewers that I extend my heartfelt congratulations and thanks. II ‘No Heaven without Gaza’: A Palestine Chronicle Exclusive Interview with Lebanese Revolutionary Georges Abdallah, by Samaa Abu Sharar August 14, 2025 https://www.palestinechronicle.com/no-heaven-without-gaza-a-palestine-chronicle-exclusive-interview-with-lebanese-revolutionary-georges-abdallah/ ‘Prison Does Not Change Fighters’ We all know George Abdallah as an international activist who dedicated his life to just causes, most notably the Palestinian cause and the fight against colonialism in all its forms. How would you present yourself? I am a fighter amongst our Arab fighters, a fighter of the Palestinian revolution, and a fighter of the Lebanese resistance against imperialist and Zionist oppression. Our activism stems from our assessment that the Zionist entity is an organic extension of Western imperialism. We consider that this entity has currently reached the final chapter of its existence, and, therefore, it will unleash all its barbaric and murderous reserves on our people. The masses of our people must prepare for this stage, keeping in mind that they will prevail over this entity. What you say is completely in line with how many people view you: as an icon of resistance who represents the correct compass of our great struggle. So there is no difference between how Georges Abdallah sees himself and how people see him. Our people have great confidence in the Palestinian resistance, so any expression of resistance is highly esteemed. Our people are prepared to provide a lot of support and facilitate the struggle. What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank today confirms this. As an ordinary fighter in the ranks of the resistance, historically, I see that our people are steadfast. There are loopholes, as always happens in revolutions, but this does not stop us. The masses in Gaza embrace their emaciated children, continue to resist, and refuse to raise the white flag. Thus, we can say that the resistance is in great shape despite all the subjective and objective problems. Did prison change you? Prison does not change fighters. In reality, prison helps shape sound positions if the required solidarity from resistance forces is available, and this is what happened with me. This means that Georges Abdallah, who was imprisoned 41 years ago, came out of prison the same man? An older fighter, with more experience and more willingness to give. How did you relate to time while in prison? In fact, time in prison for fighters and activists is a framework within which life’s priorities are organized. If the activist has found solidarity—in other words, if he has a group of people who make solidarity a practical expression within the daily struggle of our nation’s masses—then the imprisoned activist is simply a fighter doing what he must under exceptional circumstances. Time becomes tight, as he doesn’t have enough time to do whatever he deems appropriate to support the struggle, whether in terms of reading, interventions, or other things. This applied to me. So, time was tight for you in prison? Time was not sufficient to do what is required of fighters and activists. I did all I could within my modest capabilities. You said in your interview with Al Mayadeen that your day in prison was very organized and that you had a daily schedule that involved much reading of the mail you received. With whom did you correspond while in prison? With fighters and activists who were in prison or remained in prison, with my family, and with friends. This is normal, considering there were facilities that were secured through the struggle of the masses in this country or that. In French prisons, a telephone was made available to call whomever you wish, provided you gave the number to the relevant authorities. Accordingly, you could contact anyone you wished. Books were provided by comrades, so you had ample opportunities for reading and doing other things. However, it takes a lot of time to read everything that needs to be read and to participate in the ongoing debate on these matters. Were you one of the people who made many phone calls? One of the people who did what he had to do. Were the phone calls more with friends or family members? The family was certainly within the circle of communication. There is a continuum, so to speak, that extends from home to the arena of struggle. The concerns of the homeland are an essential part of my life, so communication is constant through family, friends, loved ones, and all other expressions of struggle present in our country and abroad. I did not feel alienated in this regard. Were you subjected to any psychological or physical violations while in prison? I was subjected to everything fighters and activists are subjected to. I can say that all the procedures didn’t constitute a problem for me. In other words, from a personal perspective, I wasn’t subjected to any particular pressure, and from an objective perspective, I had plenty of resources that were made available by my numerous comrades. There were a large number of comrades, and they alternated so they could all come to see me in prison. Therefore, I never experienced the feeling of alienation or isolation. The solidarity movement is part of the daily struggle; therefore, there was no personal anguish in that sense. There is a struggle with time. I wanted to use all of this time to enhance my readings and interventions for as long as possible. However, there are limits to this time because of life’s priorities. What did you miss most while in prison, besides freedom, of course? In reality, I missed all aspects of life and all its expressions. Such as? Everything. It’s not easy to say what I missed most: family, loved ones, the stars, the trees, and the animals. You miss the comrades, you miss your discussions with them; there is no set priority. If you could go back in time, is there anything you would have done differently in your struggle? I am not currently engaging in self-criticism of my struggle. Throughout my struggle, I have done everything I consider appropriate for the path of struggle. Certainly, as with everyone else, there are successes and failures, and there is the possibility to improve this or that. However, overall, I am satisfied with my path of struggle. Despite its modesty, it is acceptable as any other fighter or activist of our people within the framework of the available popular base. ‘The Resistance is in Great Shape’ Let’s talk about Palestine and Lebanon. You said in more than one interview that solidarity with Georges Abdallah was equal to, or part of, solidarity with Palestine. Solidarity with Georges Abdallah only takes on meaning when it falls within the framework of the struggle against the war of genocide in Gaza. This is within the path of struggle that falls under the issues of solidarity, not outside this framework or parallel to it. It falls within this framework, and I think it was very effective. In your opinion, if it weren’t for the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation, would you be among us today? The “Al Aqsa Flood” is a very important operation. However, my case does not fall within this framework without going into details of the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is very good in terms of its timing and effectiveness. Although we may find a loophole here or there, we are not in a position to beat ourselves up; we are in a position to evaluate the operation itself. This operation came at the right time, is very appropriate, and has moved the struggle forward, placing new responsibilities on the shoulders of those who carried it out and lived it. I hope that the comrades within the framework of the Palestinian revolution will succeed in examining the national program of the Palestinian revolution. We know that there is a historical impasse facing the Palestinian national program. Certainly, the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation has a role to play in clarifying some aspects and correcting some deviations. However, without resolving the crisis of the Palestinian national project, we will remain stuck and pay a heavy price. It is the responsibility of all forces in the Palestinian arena to work on overcoming this crisis because it is a crisis, not a matter of national or non-national unity. The crisis is deeper than that, and it is the responsibility of all active forces to do what they must to deserve to be part of the Palestinian national liberation movement. What is this crisis? The crisis affects all aspects of the entire Palestinian national project. Israel is an organic extension of Western imperialism. Israel is not a colony or merely a settlement. It is an organic extension of this imperialist West. Therefore, confronting this imperialist West requires confronting the crisis of the imperialist system in its capitalist form. Those who confront this organic extension must stand on a ground hostile to capitalism. Therefore, the leadership of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, in its various expressions—Islamic, nationalist, semi-nationalist, state-oriented, etc.—faces a problem in this regard. And the Palestinian left is in a very embarrassing situation, having so far been unable to build a national unity to confront this organic extension and failed to affirm national unity. Of course, these are great responsibilities that fall on everyone’s shoulders. Nevertheless, the resistance is in great shape. The masses of our people continue to confront the Zionist enemy with great and advanced effectiveness, although the children of Gaza are emaciated and in dire need of a glass of milk. However, Gaza will not raise the white flag, and this is a very important issue. As for how we move forward, that is a matter for the Palestinian leadership to determine. But we are keen to hear what you have to say in this regard! Everyone is concerned, but the actual leaders of the Palestinian revolution know best and are required to answer a number of questions. They are required to provide an answer on the crisis of this national project, the Oslo crisis, the crisis of the Palestinian Authority, the crisis of the division between Fatah and Hamas, the crisis of the dispersion of Palestinian forces, the crisis of the retirement of entire organizations that have been transformed into names without titles, the crisis of the mother of the Palestinian revolution, Fatah. Where is Fatah and what is Fatah now? Where is Fatah and where is Hamas? What are they both doing? The crisis is complex and has numerous aspects. The Palestinian people have the intellectual, organizational, and resistance abilities to address this crisis, but a lot is required on all levels. It is not acceptable that there are around 60,000 full-time fighters with the Palestinian Authority whose task is limited to security coordination with Israel. And when we speak of national unity, which national unity are we talking about? A unity in which 60,000 fighters chase the Fedayeen (freedom fighters-PC) and hand them over to Israel, versus those who see their children dying of hunger and are still holding the flag! We all certainly know the dangers of a civil war, but the dilemma of the national project remains. The leaders of all Palestinian organizations agreed on something at the Beijing conference, but what was its result? The result was the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Why assassinate Haniyeh? Because he was part of the wing in Hamas who called for unity. This does not mean that the Palestinian Authority welcomed the call. This is the crisis of the national project. Those who bear the responsibility are those in Palestine and outside of Palestine; they are the resistance fighters in Gaza and the West Bank, and even those who are part of the Palestinian Authority and inside the Israeli prisons. It is certainly a major crisis, but I am sure that the active members of Palestinian society will be able to overcome it. ‘No Heaven without Gaza’ You spoke briefly about the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. Were you surprised when you first heard about it? The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation surprised everyone, and that in itself is an issue and falls within the scope of the crisis of the national project. This certainly does not undermine its value. “Al Aqsa Flood” marked a turning point in the history of the conflict with Israel, but it also imposes enormous responsibilities on everyone. The enemy is well aware that it is now in the final chapter of its existence; it is not a matter of a military setback. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is the first step in determining the priorities of this final chapter. Everyone must rise to this responsibility, especially those in charge of the priorities of the struggle in Palestine and outside Palestine. The Arab street also bears a responsibility, and those in charge of the national project must ask the question: why this abandonment on the part of the Arab street? The Palestinian leadership is no stranger to this abandonment. When Egypt and the UAE are playing the roles of mediators, how can we expect the Egyptian masses to apologize for not being at the forefront of the struggle? This is a tremendous crisis. The value of the Palestinian revolution lies in its role as a lever of the Arab revolution. It is the historical lever of the Arab revolution, but it is no longer playing its role for several reasons. The Palestinian leadership must answer why it abandoned this role. I see Qatar, which hosts the main base of American imperialism, as a mediator. The question is: a mediator between whom and whom? I also see Egypt, with a population of 120 million Arabs, as a mediator. The same question applies. Egypt is Al Azhar (considered the largest Islamic institution in the Arab World-PC), and Al Azhar is not a tourist agency; it is a civilized institution that encompasses all the values of this nation with people of different colors. Eighty million people consider Al Azhar their (moral) authority. Where are the eighty million? Who is responsible for their inaction? Al Azhar is the one responsible for them. What has it done, and what is the role of the Palestinian revolution in this context? It suffices that one of the eighty million, meaning one million, move toward Rafah and perform prayers there. They are not required to carry a gun and offer it to Hamas or the Popular Front (for the Liberation of Palestine – a socialist organization-PC) or any other faction; all they have to do is offer a cup of water or a cup of milk to the children of Gaza. Al Azhar is responsible for this inaction. It must know that its prayers are not accepted if they are not held at the crossing to Gaza. It must also be known that there is no path to heaven for all believers in Egypt because the children of Palestine have occupied all the roads while they are ascending to heaven. Those who wish to enter heaven must come to Gaza; otherwise, there is no heaven for them. Al Azhar, along with the Sheikhs of Palestine and the leaders of the Islamic movements, know this all too well. They are the ones to determine whether Egypt is a mediator or a partner in this genocide. They also know whether Saudi Arabia and Mohammad Bin Abdallah are playing their role or not. The Kaaba of Mohammad Bin Abdallah is not an antique vessel; it embodies everything this nation has. Where is it in all this? Do you agree with those who say that the Arab people are powerless, ruled by dictators and agents of the Israeli entity? This is utterly unacceptable. The Arab regimes are not agents; they are actually participating in the ongoing genocide, and this is certainly not up for discussion. What I see, however, is that not a single person in Egypt was killed in the street while demonstrating, simply because they did not demonstrate. Where are they from young Greta, who came all the way from Sweden to raise a glass of water in solidarity with Gaza? Where are they from Rima Al Hassan, who came from Belgium and raised a glass of milk in solidarity with Gaza? Where are the sailors of Egypt? These activists came in a boat not even fit to carry fish, and the sailors of Egypt watch like “monkeys.” Where is the Palestinian revolution in all this? Betrayal is in the entire Arab world; a demonstration in Yemen or in other Arab cities is not enough. Where is Jordan? Where are the masses of Jordan? Where are the 60% of the people of Amman who are originally Palestinians? Certainly, all this falls within the crisis of the national project, because these forces are responsible for national action. The Palestinian national action either works to elevate Palestine as a revolutionary lever for the entire Arab nation or works to shield these regimes. Following the atrocities in Gaza, many who were believers in the resistance project have stopped being so. What do you say to that? I don’t see such people. I see parents in Gaza watching their children trembling as skeletons and still raising the red flag, not the white flag. Gaza has not yet raised the white flag, and the masses of Gaza will not leave Gaza. There is no time to self-flagellate or claim that morale has collapsed. In Gaza, there are heroes. There are no people on this planet like those in Gaza. Gaza has been hit three times more than what hit Hiroshima was. 17,000 tons of explosives in Gaza, while Dresden in Germany was hit with 5,000 tons. Gaza did not surrender while Dresden fell. Today, there isn’t a single city in Europe that does not raise the Palestinian keffiyeh, the symbol of freedom. The Palestinian revolution has historically never been as prominent on the global stage as it is now. The problem remains in our national project, in our national leadership. The masses of the world, all over the planet, stand with Gaza. Do our leaders really stand with Gaza? When 30 to 35 percent of the Jewish youth in America raise the Palestinian keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag and declare that this Zionist entity is the enemy of the Jewish people and of Palestine, what does this mean? It means that the countdown to Israel’s existence has started. Where are our leaders in all this? It’s not enough for leaders to be martyred or chased after. They need to pinpoint the energy of the masses and be able to invest in it. Again, this is not happening because this is part of the crisis we spoke about. Let us not forget that over 50 percent of the prisoners of the Palestinian revolution in Israeli jails are from Fatah, but it is also Fatah that brokered the Oslo Accords, and it is the one that caused the crisis of the national project. Nonetheless, Fatah remains the mother of martyrs, the mother of the revolution, and the mother of prisoners. This is the dilemma of the national project. How do we explain that over 50 percent of Fatah members are in Israeli captivity, while there are 60,000 Fatah fighters who are mercenaries under the command of (PA President Mahmoud) Abbas and others? This embodies the national project crisis. These issues need to be addressed by the leadership of the Fatah movement. It is a reality we must confront. How will they confront it? The forces that lead the Palestinian struggle everywhere must answer these questions. They should also provide an answer regarding the status of our camps outside of Palestine and their fate. The Palestinian revolution is a revolution of camps. The Palestinian people are a people of camps. There are no Palestinian people without camps. Camps are the Palestinian identity. Where are our camps today? What is Sabra and Shatila today? What is the percentage of Palestinians inside the camp? What is their future? The relevant leaders must answer. These places are semi-liberated in principle and are not places of security chaos as we are told. They are semi-liberated because they bear all the characteristics of the liberation of Palestine; they are not hubs that bear the characteristics of prostitution, drug smuggling, etc. Who bears the responsibility for the camps? Again, this is the crisis of the national project. What will the scene in Palestine be like after the genocide in Gaza? The genocide in Gaza will not continue. The genocide will not succeed, and Gaza and the West Bank will triumph as Israel witnesses the last chapter of its existence, and this is not a poetic speech. You have repeated this in more than one interview. I am not the only one to repeat it. We have to understand that Israel has never been through what it is currently going through; this is why it will use its entire barbaric stockpile on us. This will translate into intensifying its killing machine to the maximum. Israel will throw all its unexploited barbarism at our masses in the coming days, weeks, and months. What are the leaders of the national project going to do in light of this? How will those who planned the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation face this? These are questions that require answers from all factions. When a leader like Yehya Sinwar falls as a martyr and not a fugitive in a shelter in Qatar or somewhere else, his resistance is bound to triumph. Our people’s resistance will triumph. It will triumph because of people like Sinwar and Haniyeh who neither fled nor sought ‘peace’. These leaders and their resistance cannot be defeated. Our people are aware of this and will not raise the white flag, neither in Gaza nor anywhere else. Accordingly, the responsibility of the current leaders is immense to find solutions for the national crisis. These solutions will inevitably come, although we surely regret that they are delayed because the human cost is immense. Resolving the Left-Islamic Dilemma Could the Gaza genocide kick-start a world revolution? It is bound to happen, if not today, then tomorrow. The greatest responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leaders of the revolution; they are the ones to anticipate the next stage, not me. How do you view the Islamic revolutions in the Arab world? Your approach seems to be different from many leftists. We have the impression that you view the issue from an operational perspective rather than an ideological one. Is this accurate? We are not engaged in an ideological competition; we have Arab masses, the majority of whom are Muslim. This is the organic makeup of our nation. This is not an ideological choice. These people resist with whatever is at their disposal, be it the Quran, a scientific analysis, or a missile. It is the responsibility of those in charge of the struggle to determine what is at the disposal of the Arab masses. When the Egyptian plays the mediator and the Qatari hosts the biggest American base, what message am I giving to the Arab masses? Do I expect that meeting with Egyptian intelligence, so they can coordinate with Qatari and American intelligence, will find me a way out of the revolution crisis or the national project crisis? I doubt it. All these actions contribute to the impasse we find ourselves in, including the inaction of the Arab masses. Do you think there can be a meeting point between the left and the current Islamic revolutions? All liberation movements have established a national project within which all societal actors work. Wherever a revolution triumphs, it does so through national unity. But that unity is not that of one person meeting with another; it actually entails the meeting of the entire popular bloc together to champion a project. Let’s take Al Azhar again. As any Arab or activist connected to Palestine, I don’t view it in light of the relationship between Marxist ideology and Islamic ideology, but rather in view of its objective position within the framework of our people’s movement. The same applies to Mecca. I don’t look at it from an ideological perspective but rather from its significance to Muslims around the world. What have those in charge of the national project done with their ‘Qiblah’ to incite the masses of the world to move toward Palestine? I don’t say this because I’m a communist or because I’m a believer; I say this as any person with the slightest connection to the conflict who looks at this matter and says, this is simply inconceivable. Lebanon: Resisting vs ‘Watching’ Moving to Lebanon, away from slogans, how do you see the situation there? The situation is delicate, but it is also good. The resistance has sacrificed the best of its leaders as martyrs. But there is a deep division in the country. What we have in Lebanon is not different from any other country in the world. In all the resistance movements of the world, you will find people who will sacrifice themselves in defense of their country and cowards who simply watch. In the entire world, there isn’t a country where the resistance enjoys the support of all the people. Sectarian affiliation is another issue, but I ask: who is behind the project that defends Lebanon’s identity and dignity? The resistance. There is an occupation; thus, the resistance is the initial response. Outside of the resistance, there is no solution with a national character. You can say all you want about this resistance—that it needs to represent all the Lebanese people, or it needs to be this or that. However, for you to have the right to speak, you must be on the side of the resistance, not the occupation. If you are on the side of the occupation, then you have no right to speak or even exist. When your country is under occupation, whoever stands with the enemy, regardless of their status or justifications, has no right to even exist. So, what do we do with these people? This is the responsibility of the resistance and the resistance masses: to figure out how to isolate the forces that cooperate with the enemy and open up to the masses of these forces. I did not spend a lifetime in captivity, nor did the martyr who sacrificed his life for the country, just to be labeled in the end as not representing the sovereignty of this country. Those who defend the homeland are the sovereignty of this country, not those who are ready to welcome Israel. To say that there is a contradiction between the army and the resistance is wrong. In my opinion, as with any resistance fighter, our duty is to build a very strong national army to eliminate the justification for the existence of any resistance. This is our ambition. Our ambition is for a soldier to receive a decent salary—not twenty dollars per month—to be able to support his or her family and defend the country. The leadership of the resistance should have the courage and clarity to open up to everyone with all its capabilities to build a national state that isolates all those who fail to fulfill their responsibility of sovereignty and defending the homeland for us all. A homeland in which we are all safe; otherwise, we will all lose, and no party will triumph over the other. So, until we build such an army, do you believe that the resistance should remain? Certainly, what do we do otherwise? All over the world, resistance is the first response to any aggression. I hope we succeed at building a strong army able to defend us and one that replaces all resistance. But until this happens, do I remain naked in the face of Israel? Do I face Israel with a statement here and a statement there? I want an army that considers Israel the enemy. Our soldiers are honorable; they are not members of a mafia. They are from all over Lebanon but they need to be well-trained and equipped to be able to defend the country and us. They tell us the US, France, and Britain are our friends. Brilliant, let them provide our army with weapons. But to come and tell me the US is our friend while it comes and asks us to surrender our weapons and recognize Israel, or otherwise Israel will slap you—this is unacceptable. I will continue to resist with all the means I have. The resistance should not have allowed itself to welcome the American envoy or anyone else. We, the people of this country, should meet and determine how to resist the enemy, not how to submit to the enemy. We meet to determine how to confront, not how to normalize. Everyone is well aware of what is required of Lebanon today. Lebanon is asked to abandon its Arab identity, and particularly to abandon the issue of Palestine, and live in peace with the Zionist enemy. There will be no coexistence with this enemy, not today, not tomorrow, and not the day after. If someone stands with this normalization, the resistance will fight him. If a party stands with this normalization, it will also fight it. If a sect stands with normalization, the resistance will also fight it. Whoever wants to gamble can do so, but normalization will not happen because our people will not accept it, and our people are a resistant people. The existing resistance might have certain flaws, and we might have certain reservations towards it. Go ahead and get me a better resistance. But to come and tell me this resistance is not good and that you’ll bring me an Israeli soldier instead—then I will fight you and the Israeli soldier. It is as simple as that, despite the complexities of the situation in Lebanon. We have a model meters away from us in Damascus, where the resistance project is being struck, and so is the state and society. They want Lebanon to turn into sects and tribes! They want to strike the state and the army and turn us into fighting militias, before America and Israel come to the rescue and tell each sect, “I will protect you from the other.” What is being proposed in Lebanon is the same as what is happening in Syria. This will be fought by our masses of the resistance. You want better resistance? Work on building a better one. But to come and tell me that you have to submit to Israel for the sake of the sovereignty of Lebanon—this is absurd. Sovereignty is not a suit; sovereignty is operational measures to protect the country. Israel occupies part of the Lebanese soil; what should I do? Some say you have to submit to it and you will live in peace. I tell them no, our people have historically offered millions of martyrs and have not and will not accept an alliance with this entity. Finally, do you fear for your life? No, I do not fear anything. Georges Abdallah is an ordinary citizen like all others and is not courageous, by the way. How do you spend your time nowadays? As you can see, I spend it between interviews and welcoming friends. Later on, I want to visit the camps and see my friends and find out the whereabouts of my people. Links to zines: print-imposed: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/1/items/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed.pdf read only: https://ia800605.us.archive.org/1/items/georges-abdallah-interviews-imposed/georges-abdallah-interviews-read.pdf Received by email.https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=22318
#antiImperialism #georgesAbdallah #lebanon #resistancePalestine #solidarityPalestine #westAsia
-
An Outside the Box version of the Delta Loop antenna
I have written about delta loop antennas before – notably in April 2023 in a post entitled “Delta Loopy Ideas“. A few weeks ago I received an email from Alan WA3EKL who suggested I should take another look at delta loops and offered a lot of helpful advice, tips and suggestions for making this type of antenna a success. Alan’s suggestions have been a tremendous help in designing this latest iteration of my rapid deployment, field expedient, portable delta loop antenna for the 20m band.
Before we go on to describe what is definitely an “outside the box” variant of the delta loop I should comment that I remain welded to the idea that delta loops can be tricky to set up. There are so many variables to consider:
- orientation (apex up, down or sideways)
- feedpoint (at the apex, at a corner, a quarter wave from the apex or somewhere in between) giving horizontal or vertical polarization
- loop length (1005/wavelength or some other length, bare or insulated wire)
- equilateral triangle (or not)
- height of wire above ground
- Matching device (quarter-wavelength 75 ohm coax / impedance transformer / L-network / tuner)
On the positive side you can simplify all the variables and just throw up an “inside the box” version. You will make contacts – but will the standard, don’t-bend-the-rules version of a delta loop be as efficient as possible?
My personal quest has been to find an antenna that is efficient enough to let me carry on working QRP during the Sun’s current spate of hissy fits. With that in mind I wanted to experiment with the variables to see if every last picowatt of RF energy could be transferred from my humble, so-small-its-hard-to-see-without-a-lens QRP-Labs QMX transceiver to the ionosphere via whatever variant of the delta loop became necessary. I have a muscle radio that could get the job done, but there is an engineering and physics challenge built into this quest. Part of the challenge of QRP is to use brains over brawn.
So let’s examine those design variables and see what emerges from the mist. First up:
1. Orientation (apex up, down or sideways)
There are arguments to be made for and against each way of orienting the loop – and let’s emphasize that we are discussing only vertical orientations here. This is not meant to be a treatise on the basic theory of delta loops, so let me just state that only one orientation fills my needs. The use case we will discuss here is a rapid deployment, field expedient, portable antenna. The antenna must be lightweight, pack into a very small space and will remain erected for perhaps only an hour – just long enough to complete a POTA activation.
The orientation that fills this need is an apex up triangle supported by a telescoping fiberglass pole (a 7m Spiderbeam) at the center. Each end of the bottom section of the loop is supported by a modified trekking pole stuck in the ground.
The Spiderbeam pole could be omitted if a tree limb is available for the center support. A fence or bush could replace the trekking poles. I prefer to be self-sufficient out in the Big Blue Sky Shack and not depend on whatever might be available at the end of the trail. Trekking poles can also be used for their intended purpose en route to the operating site.
2. Feedpoint
2:1 impedance transformer at feedpointA delta loop can be fed at the apex, at a corner, a quarter wave from the apex or somewhere in between. I chose to feed my loop at a corner for convenience. The choice of feedpoint affects whether the radiated signal is vertically or horizontally polarized. Frankly, I don’t care; the radiated signal is going to be fired up to the periphery of the “Final Frontier” where it will be kicked around by the ionosphere’s D-layer, then refracted back down to Earth with who-knows-what polarization. We might be more concerned at, say, a Field Day site where it might be desirable to chose vertical or horizontal polarization to avoid interference in the near field with other stations.
3. Loop length
Far end of antenna supported on a trekking poleThose who don’t wish to rock the boat of antenna orthodoxy will just cut their wire using the formula 1005/wavelength. Should the wire be bare or insulated? Does it matter? Some sources say absolutely not. Other sources suggest the effect of insulation is finite, but insignificant.
I decided to consult the stone tablets to get an official view of the effect of wire insulation. First I consulted the EZNEC manual in which EZNEC creator Roy Lewallen W7EL suggests the difference between bare and insulated wire is very small – perhaps 2-3%. EZNEC allows users to specify wire insulation in its calculations. If we consider that a 20m delta loop has a nominal wire length of 71.5ft, even a 2% impact could change the wire length by almost 18 inches. Significant? Perhaps not, but when I explain how I derived the wire length of my Outside the Box delta loop you may understand how my thinking was swayed on this issue.
Bottom wire section center secured to pole with a Canadian Jam KnotOne source may not be enough to establish a rule, so I also consulted the excellent website portable-antennas.com from Rob DM1CM. Modeling a delta loop on that site was a simple exercise of selecting various drop-down selection boxes – fast and easy. Portable Antennas.com also allows wire insulation to be calculated into the loop design. After plugging in the numbers for my loop the model gave a correction factor of 0.9754 when insulated wire is used. Based on a 71.5ft loop length that would suggest a shortening of 1.76 feet even using just a 2% shortening factor.
How did I determine my loop length? I made the decision to choose the loop length by trimming the wire until I obtained resonance in the CW QRP portion of the 20m band. I set my RigExpert AA55 Zoom antenna analyzer to plot an R,X (Resistance and Reactance) chart. The wire was then trimmed until the RigExpert showed an X value of zero. The wire length? I laid the wire out on the lawn I had neatly cut the day before and measured the length – it turned out to be just 68 feet. If the shortening factor of the wire insulation is taken into account the corrected length would be between 69.36 and 70.1 feet. Is that significant? Perhaps; if the resonant frequency were changed by 2% it might no longer lie in the desired part of the band.
4. Equilateral triangle? Height above ground
Ideally a loop antenna should enclose as much area as possible (source: well, I read it somewhere). My design was influenced by two factors – the height of the Spiderbeam pole (7m, 23ft) and the recommended height of the bottom section of wire above ground (source: Alan WA3EKL recommended between 4 and 6 feet; I chose 4 feet). So the Outside the Box variant of a delta loop is not an equilateral triangle. The bottom section of the wire (the hypotenuse) is longer than the other two sides. Less efficient than an equilateral triangle? Piff!
5. The matching device
Alan WA3EKL suggested a quarter-wavelength section of 75 ohm coax to match the impedance of the loop to 50 ohms, but cautioned against the use of foam dielectric coax whose velocity factor can change over time which affects its electrical length. The only 75 ohm coax I had available is RG-6 which has foam dielectric so I ruled that out.
I recently watched an interesting YouTube video by Michael KB9VBR, who was discussing his way of matching a delta loop antenna. Michael used an impedance transformer with an impedance ratio of 2.5:1 (8:5 turns ratio). That seemed like a convenient and field expedient way of matching the delta loop impedance of 100-120 ohms to 50 ohms so I built one. Out in the antenna test range (my backyard) it was discovered that a 2:1 ratio worked best (turns ratio 7:5).
The final result
My Outside the Box delta loop antenna is resonant at 14168 KHz (slightly higher than planned, but not a problem). The minimum SWR is 1.03:1 at 14175 KHz. At the lower band edge at 14000 KHz, the SWR is 1.15:1 and at the upper band edge of 14350 KHz, the SWR is 1.11:1. And, yes, I have made contacts with it. I bent the rules but the end result is worthy of making the trip to the field this summer.
Help support HamRadioOutsidetheBox
No “tip-jar”, “buy me a coffee”, Patreon, or Amazon links here. I enjoy my hobby and I enjoy writing about it. If you would like to support this blog please follow/subscribe using the link at the bottom of my home page, or like, comment (links at the bottom of each post), repost or share links to my posts on social media. If you would like to email me directly you will find my email address on my QRZ.com page. Thank you!
The following copyright notice applies to all content on this blog.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.#AmateurRadio #Antennas #CW #OutdoorOps #Portable #POTA #QMX
-
Forest-fire model in #dusa+#p5js
https://editor.p5js.org/robsimmons/sketches/nLlyYX9E4
I think the way-too-slow problem was a combination of both of the upthread-listed issues. I'm sure I can still make this 100x faster, but pulling out the RNG to the JavaScript level makes this work not-terribly.
