Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis was a proud and bitter enemy of Gaius Julius Caesar. A defining characteristic of the man, even according to his enemies, was that he was an upright, inconvenient, impartial, and consistent individual. He was so much so that he preferred to take his own life rather than accept a pardon from the advancing “homo novus”, namely Caesar himself, his political adversary. For him, freedom mattered more than his own life. It is precisely for this characteristic that Father Dante places him in Purgatory, and immortalises him with the famous tercet: …libertà va cercando, ch’è sì cara, come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta. (Purg. I, 71). (…he goes seeking freedom, which is so dear, as he knows who refuses life for her sake.) The concept of “freedom” has always been hotly debated throughout history, and contemporary philosophy in particular has dealt with it extensively. For Kant, freedom concerned a universal and abstract subject, but one that was de-socialised and de-historicised, whose imperatives were totally abstract. Fichte, a contemporary of Kant, understood that Kantian freedom, by presupposing the dogmatic existence of the “thing in itself”, represented a dogmatic premise for the unmodifiability of the world. He, conversely, believed that freedom is always relatable to individual situations, meaning it is a concept that is always determined. For instance, for someone dying of hunger, it means being able to eat and drink, and not “freedom of speech”. At the centre of philosophical analysis is the good, the truth, not freedom. Hegel speaks profusely of the latter in various works and particularly in his “Elements of the Philosophy of Right” clarifies the concept well, retrieving that of Plato and Aristotle and inserting the individual into concrete public life. Civil society is not the arena for the competitiveness of individuals who have the freedom to drive each other to ruin, because for Hegel the community must bring into play those ethical roots (such as public schools that must give equal opportunities to everyone to evolve). Freedom is a relationship between equally free individuals, but to be equally free it is not enough to have the liberal possibility of not harming each other; rather, there must also be the rights of everyone (materielle Rechte), first and foremost the right to existence, then others such as healthcare, education, work (the latter being a right-duty), and not least the right to sustenance. Individuals, therefore, are free to the extent that they realise themselves within the framework of the community.

The virus and the fear of dying

Coming to our present day, the oft-heard maxim according to which “my freedom ends where yours begins” is nothing but an empty axiom. If anything, it is your fear that must end where my freedom begins. The concept of “freedom” is today framed as the right not to be infected, as the right to “health” and not as the right to choose. Health is posited as a universal and necessary good, mistaking an individual’s value, or their psychological need, for an obligation of the entire community. Which is a false principle. And this is aside from the downright hysteria we are witnessing during this period, in which we are seeing scenes that until a couple of years ago anyone would have judged senseless (people attacking someone walking alone outdoors without a mask, drones chasing people on the beach, abuses of all kinds by “law enforcement”, etc.). I merely point out that in the name of freedom, hundreds of millions of people in history have sacrificed their lives, placing it above their own safety or health. And despite this, one cannot equally elevate freedom to a universal and necessary good. Do you feel free to wear a useless mask outdoors (the most terrible virus history remembers, according to the mainstream media, is practically stopped by a pair of underpants), when you are distant from others? Go ahead and do so if it makes you feel “safe”, but this does not mean that I necessarily have to do it too, because I am not harming you in any way. If you want to get vaccinated, believing this protects you from the virus, go ahead. This does not mean that I compulsorily have to do it too, since the “vaccine” (more correctly, an experimental drug) does not prevent a vaccinated person from transmitting the virus to others; rather, “side effects” apart, it is supposed to trigger an antibody reaction in the individual’s body (via the famous spike protein) such as to protect them from the virus. All this with a probability of it happening that varies from individual to individual and which, at most (depending on the “vaccine”), can reach just over 90 per cent of cases. This is without taking into account the fact that many illustrious scientists believe that the data provided in this regard by the pharmaceutical companies is heavily skewed.

The vaccine as a miraculous panacea

The vaccine, this modern panacea against the ills afflicting humanity (not just against Covid-19), has recently been at the centre of international media attention. The pharmaceutical multinationals, in a burst of “generosity” the likes of which had never been seen before, threw themselves headlong into finding the saving magic potion. And, what has been praised the most, they found it in just a few months. A pity, though, that they apparently did not have the foresight to test this “doomsday weapon”. A vaccine (and these ones found are not vaccines in the strict sense, because they are actually full-fledged drugs) requires a variable testing period, up to ten years. But never less than three. Just to give an example, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), resulting from HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), has to this day seen no definitive cure. And this is since way back in 1981, when it came to the fore due to the suspicious deaths of five homosexuals in Los Angeles (the virus had actually chosen man as its “host” many years earlier). In practice, there is still no vaccine capable of defeating this virus. So how one can claim that the remedy for Covid-19 was found in just a few months remains a mystery, so much so that the pharmaceutical companies themselves do not allow us to know exactly the contents of the vaccines, and have demanded immunity in the event of “adverse side effects”. But are these vaccines useful? According to many scholars, no. Among the many homegrown experts arguing this are Dr Stefano Montanari, a pharmacy graduate with a thesis in Microchemistry, and his wife Antonietta M. Gatti, a physicist and microbiologist who has been dealing with nanopathologies for years. But besides them there are Dr Loretta Bolgan, a graduate in Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Technologies, with a PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Dr Francesco Oliverio, a psychiatrist and pulmonologist. On the other hand, it doesn’t take a genius in the medical field to understand that each individual reacts to viruses, as well as to vaccines or medicines, in a completely different way. What can be good for you, to be clear, can be bad for me. For this reason, it would be important, before injecting any vaccine, to carry out specific analyses to see if our body might be adversely affected by the contents we are about to inject into it.

Miracle vaccine vs aspirin

In this regard, consider the argument of those who state: “Well, they take any medicine whose leaflet has an endless list of possible side effects, including death, even in the common aspirin, and then they don’t trust a (supposedly saving) vaccine”. Or: “But there’s no comparison! In percentage terms, what are the chances that the vaccine could harm you compared to those where this doesn’t happen? There’s no comparison!”. Yes, minor detail, however, that even if there were only one adverse case, it would already be enough. And this is based on that precautionary principle that suddenly seems to have gone out of fashion. Even a single death must be enough. Not least because that dead person could be us. Regarding the first “boutade”, one can simply point out that whereas when you sign a consent form to, for example, be injected with contrast dye for a CT scan, you know full well what is in the fluid, and it has been extensively tested. Conversely, here, you haven’t the slightest idea what you are injecting into your veins and, above all, the possible medium-to-long-term reactions are unknown. Furthermore, compulsory vaccination is looming here, whilst simultaneously demanding immunity for those who have to inject the vaccine. Why on earth? One would only need to ask oneself this simple question to understand that something is wrong. Moreover, since according to the WHO itself, the vaccine would serve to protect us, but not others from the danger that we might infect them, then why compulsory vaccines? Why should I inject into my veins something whose contents cannot be known (a contract to this effect was signed between the pharmaceutical companies and the EU and other countries) if this does not allow me to return to my former life? And what if I preferred to die of Covid, why wouldn’t I be free to do so? Perhaps because I would set a “bad example” to others? I won’t even mention the famous “variants”, which are produced precisely because people are being vaccinated. That one should not vaccinate during an epidemic is stated by all virologists. This is because with the vaccine, the virus, feeling attacked by the antibodies, mutates to survive, generating precisely the variants (not covered by the vaccine that has been put into circulation worldwide during this period. On this subject, watch Dr Bolgan’s video linked above). But the even more dangerous thing following the ongoing vaccinations is the possibility of the appearance of the so-called “chimeras”, i.e. new viruses that have nothing to do with the original one and which, therefore, are unknown, with all the ensuing consequences. A separate chapter should be devoted to home treatments, which exist and work if the disease is caught in the early stages, but which are demonised and pilloried. As in the case of Dr Mariano Amici. Or hospital therapies like the hyperimmune plasma used by Dr De Donno.

Ah, but in Israel…

Israel, like Chile and, now, Great Britain, are held up as successful examples of the global vaccination campaign. I will dwell briefly only on the first case, so as not to further lengthen this long piece. Israel, with about 9 million inhabitants in all, saw the number of deaths skyrocket precisely after the start of mass vaccination, jumping from 5,000 Coronavirus deaths in the entire previous year, to around 6,200, in a single month, due to vaccine side effects by the end of January. But why did this country decide to vaccinate everyone in such a short time? Perhaps because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a contract with Pfizer which envisages almost the entire population being vaccinated in a very short time? And this is because the country has the unique characteristic of being a rare case indeed, since the population is catalogued from a health point of view, thanks to a gigantic centralised database. In practice, every citizen’s health data is recorded. What better opportunity to test an experimental drug, than in a gigantic laboratory with 9 million guinea pigs? Not even during Nazism. History sometimes uses the law of retaliation (Dante’s contrappasso).

The virus to destroy small and medium-sized enterprises

That the virus has an artificial origin is no longer in any doubt. This had been stated by the Nobel laureate in Medicine Luc Montagnier, discoverer of HIV. And for this statement he had been pilloried by the media in half the world (a photo of him was shown during an interview, where a bottle of wine could be seen resting on a mantelpiece behind him. Obviously implying he was a drunkard) and by “illustrious” scientists (or presumed such, simply by virtue of appearing every day on our media) holding the opposite view. Only for them to “change their minds” when the matter became evident. Obviously it is said that the virus, in any case, had probably slipped out of the hands of some “distracted” scientist. Naturally, not even a primary school child would believe an “oversight”. And indeed… But then what is the virus for? Well, the lords of the global elite, who gathered in Davos last January, say so without even hiding anymore. We must move on to a New World Order. Which means the transformation of traditional industry in favour of digitalisation and fake “green”. I say fake because, in reality, “green” industries do not exist, and their owners are the same people who own the “traditional” and “polluting” ones. The electricity used to charge (where?) electric cars, what do you think it is produced by? “Well, by wind and solar power,” you might say. Actually no! In the vast majority of cases, it is produced precisely by the old coal or lignite (even more polluting) power stations, or by nuclear power stations in those countries that also produce energy that way (like France, to stay close to home). To give an example of how far away the “mirage” of electricity produced by wind and solar power still is, just think that Germany, a country that has made wind power in particular an absolute flagship after the so-called Energiewende (the energy transition with the phasing out of nuclear power) decided in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, produces only about 25 per cent of its energy needs from this sector. And yet the “locomotive of Europe” is dotted with wind turbines. Not to mention the fact that batteries capable of storing the energy produced for a long time, before it is used, do not yet exist. Every year the bar for achieving the self-set targets (in words) of limiting harmful emissions into the air is moved further and further away, because they are never met. And now they are thinking of returning to nuclear power with dual-fluid reactors, namely those fitted on nuclear-powered submarines. Worldwide, the chemical energy products of coal, oil and gas still provide more than four-fifths of humanity’s energy (81.1 per cent). However, the virus serves to favour a shift towards large-scale production. Small and medium-sized enterprises will have to disappear from the face of the earth, except for some very small niches of excellence which the economic elites of the planet also wish to use because it would be impossible to overhaul their production without affecting their quality. All the others will either have to adapt, allowing themselves to be swallowed up by the multinationals, or they will be strangled and then bought up for peanuts. Only the large conglomerates must remain. Everything has been carefully calculated, at least since 2015, but in my opinion from well before. In the end, the people, exhausted by the non-accidental accordion-style closures, or lockdowns to use a “modern” term, which serve no other purpose than precisely to bankrupt small and medium-sized businesses (and not for the health protection of the population. Here at about minute 2:47), will initially be forced to sell off what they have saved in order to survive. Then, once the money runs out, to avoid inevitable rebellions, the elites will grant an obolus, or universal basic income as you may wish to call it, to survive and with which to buy the products that the elites themselves produce. Private property, another thing they aim at, must no longer exist and everything will have to be rented from the large conglomerates. For this reason, the mainstream media are continuously propagating the fairy tale (moreover false and quickly debunked by the Web) that the old professions made individuals “unhappy”, who are now instead, with the pandemic, forced to do part-time jobs like high school students for a pittance, but obviously “happy”. Like the serfs of yore. All this was clarified very well by the monetarist Nicoletta Forcheri.

The virus as an educational method

One must get “used” to the idea of the virus. And to do so, in addition to vaccines, we need those fetishes that are masks, as well as “social distancing” (not random words, used instead of physical distancing). Individuals who “work remotely” (those who are able to) are isolated and weaker, precisely because they are divided. They are also controllable, even with specific software, as the historian and philosophy teacher Pietro Ratto clearly points out. Furthermore, censorship falls like an axe on anyone attempting to break the wall of silence that has been built around the Covid narrative or who simply questions mainstream thinking. I myself, in my own small way, have been censored several times by Facebook, with threats to close my account for “violation of community standards” (unspecified, of course). It is precisely for this reason that I decided to purchase independent web space, or rather independent for as long as the servers hosting me allow it. If you are a nuisance, in any capacity whatsoever, in the digital world it takes just one click to make you disappear. Exemplary are the closures first of Donald Trump’s Twitter and Facebook accounts, when he was still President, or the deletion (later withdrawn) of RadioRadio’s YouTube channel, or the more recent one of Byoblu’s channel (seemingly permanent). Google, the most powerful search engine used in the world, could make you disappear from search results or conceal from you the information you are seeking. Think about it, tomorrow you could be the next victim with no voice left to express your thoughts. It is always a matter of… freedom.