Invisibilia: appunti postumi di una vita qualunque

Everybody lies

Immagine di copertina italiano Invisibilia
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Posted on by Nemulisse

That fantastic medium of artificial intelligence

“Ah, so you’ve changed your mind then! You too have surrendered to the advance of technology, like everyone else.” A very simple answer: “No!”. On the contrary… It is just that, prompted by a friend of mine, I simply had to surrender to the idea of having to understand what Artificial Intelligence (hereafter simply AI) is, what its true impact will be, and how it really works (because I may well be a “boomer”, according to the terminology of the youth, but I am not an idiot. Or at least I do not consider myself to be one).

Regarding “what it is”, the matter is somewhat complex, as there is not just one version and one single manufacturer. As for the various versions, I directly asked one of them to explain them to me, and more specifically the one produced by Google, the giant from Mountain View in California, Gemini. And here is the first flaw: it did not list them all for me. It forgot to mention itself, namely a so-called “generative” AI.

“There, you see? AI is stupid. You have to control and correct it, otherwise it passes off wrong or incomplete answers as right.” I can already hear the defenders of human capabilities claiming a supposed superiority of the human being over the machine… Let us say that for now, from what we are permitted to know through the commercial versions offered to us, they are right on this point. But only up to a certain point. It is true that AI is still plagued by “hallucinations”, that is, by errors, but this does not in itself mean that it is “underdeveloped”. Furthermore, no one tells us that the ones not made available to us—namely those used by armies and secret services—are not much more efficient and devoid of errors in their analyses and in the results of their “actions”.

 

The various types of Artificial Intelligence

Broadly speaking, these are the various types of AI:

  • Weak AI (Narrow AI): systems designed for specific tasks (e.g., Siri, recommendation algorithms). It is the only one that exists today.

  • Strong AI (General AI): an intelligence equal to human intelligence, capable of learning and reasoning in any domain. At present, we are told it is purely theoretical.

  • Machine Learning (ML): a subcategory of AI that allows computers to learn from data without being explicitly programmed.

  • Deep Learning: an evolution of ML, which uses multi-layered neural networks to analyse complex data (images, voice).

To get an idea of how these differences fit together visually, one must imagine AI as a series of boxes, one inside the other:

  • AI is the entire field: machines that imitate human intelligence.

  • Machine Learning is a technique: instead of giving orders, you give examples (data).

  • Deep Learning is the most powerful engine: it uses “neural networks” inspired by the brain to understand exceedingly difficult things, like voice or images.

Then there is “Generative” AI, which must be presented as the “box of creative talents” within Deep Learning. While traditional AI analyses (for example, it classifies emails or recognises faces), generative AI creates (it writes texts, generates images, or composes music).

In practice, from what we know today, AI is an assistant that can play different roles: from a simple executor of orders to a creative artist.

If we wanted to summarise in a more colloquial language what these types of AI do, it could perhaps be summarised as follows:

Classical AI (i.e., “the instruction booklet”) Early AI works like a cookery book or a very detailed instruction manual. The programmer writes precise rules: “If A happens, then do B”.

  • How it works: it learns nothing new. It merely follows the tracks laid down by humans.

  • Everyday example: the home thermostat or the old spam filters that deleted emails only if they contained specific words like “Free”.

Machine Learning (“i.e., the apprentice”) Here things change. Instead of giving rules, you give examples. It is like an apprentice learning to distinguish apples from pears by looking at thousands of photos of fruit.

  • How it works: it analyses the data, finds patterns, and creates its own internal “rule” to recognise things in the future.

  • Everyday example: Netflix recommending a film to you because it is similar to ones you have already watched.

Deep Learning (“i.e., the artificial brain”) This is the powerful evolution of Machine Learning. It uses structures called Neural Networks, vaguely inspired by the way neurons in our brain exchange signals.

  • How it works: it can understand abstract concepts and difficult nuances (like tone of voice or sarcasm in a text) by analysing enormous amounts of data.

  • Everyday example: facial recognition on your smartphone or self-driving cars.

Generative AI: how does it “invent”? Generative AI (like ChatGPT or Midjourney) is a bit like the artist of the group. While the other AIs serve to understand or classify, this one serves to create. But how does it “invent” something new? It does not have a human creative spark. Imagine that the AI has read all the books in the world. It has learned that after the words “The cat is on the…”, the most likely word is “table”. So, let us say it acts and “creates” through:

  • Statistical probability: the AI does not “think”, but calculates which piece of information (word or pixel) fits best next to the previous one, based on what it has studied.

  • Latent space: meaning it has a gigantic mental map where closely related concepts (e.g., “dog” and “loyal”) are connected. When it invents, it navigates this map and joins the dots in ways it has never seen before, creating an original result.

The wonders of AI

Now that we have got the “technical” part out of the way, unfortunately necessary for the rest of my article, we can finally move on to describing the wonders of this tool.

For a start, in my own small way, I used it to sort out some minor problems on my PCs that were plaguing me, using both the Windows operating system and (especially, since by now I practically only use this) Linux. Then, as a complete novice, I created some highly useful programs (which are multi-platform, meaning they run on multiple operating systems) to translate texts into several languages and to manipulate “pdf” files. I must say that both of these programs have nothing to envy some commercially available ones that are undoubtedly more renowned than mine. I also used it to “overcome” the difficulties of German bureaucracy (yes, I live in Germany!), which has nothing to envy ours. On the contrary, in many ways it is much more pedantic and difficult to navigate. The only difference in this regard is that, in the end, when you have sweated blood to get to the bottom of the thorny issues it presents you with, if you are “in the right”, this is acknowledged. I cannot say the same of the Italian one, at least whenever I have had to deal with it. But that would be another story that would take us far off track.

Returning instead to the wonders of AI, try to think about what it can do in a great many (practically all) fields of human knowledge. One example to stand for them all: the medical field. For me personally, it has provided highly accurate analyses of physical problems from which I suffer and has given me reasoned solutions that have proven to be adequate. I imagine what it will be able to do to cure serious diseases or to create “miraculous” drugs to remedy pathologies hitherto considered “incurable”. And on this note, one could go on endlessly. In practice, there is no field of work where it cannot be applied to achieve astonishing results, in very short timeframes compared to human action.

 

The other side of the coin: the impact of Artificial Intelligence

And it is precisely here that the first (but certainly not the most serious, as we shall see) problem generated by its use presents itself: the loss of jobs.

The use of AI, supported by robotics, will soon be able to replace human beings in any job, be it conceptual or manual. The first to bear the brunt are/will certainly be the “intellectual” jobs, where manual skill is restricted to the bare minimum (just think of this article of mine, where the only manual skill is typing letters on a keyboard). Then, however, it will be the turn of manual trades. AI is already widely used in industry today. For example, there are some factories that, in addition to being highly automated, operate entirely in dark environments, because neither AI nor robots need light. There are already robots that renovate houses or make you a good cappuccino instead of your barista “Mario”, whom you have known for a lifetime.

 

The disastrous forecasts of job losses (2026-2030 projections)

Estimates from major financial institutions and international organisations indicate a profound transformation, often defined as “disruption”.

Goldman Sachs (updated this year) estimates that approximately 300 million full-time jobs worldwide are exposed to automation via AI over the next 10 years. For 2026 alone, it is predicted that 25 million jobs are directly at risk due to the acceleration of generative AI.

The World Economic Forum (WEF), in its Future of Jobs Report 2025, predicts that by 2030 AI will replace roughly 92 million jobs, but will potentially create 170 million, with a net gain of 78 million. However, the real risk is the delay in re-skilling: jobs are eliminated faster than workers can learn new skills. The sectors most affected are “white-collar” workers, particularly in administration, finance, the legal sphere, and customer service.

But, rather than just talking about the future, data from the last three years show direct cuts in the “Tech” sector and in youth employment. In the former, in 2025 alone, roughly 78,000 global tech lay-offs were recorded, explicitly attributed to the implementation of AI and the automation of processes (an average of almost 500 a day). In the latter, a Stanford University study indicates that between 2022 and 2025, employment for workers between 22 and 25 years old in sectors exposed to AI plummeted by 13%, as companies prefer to use AI for “entry-level” (basic) tasks that were previously entrusted to new hires.

 

The problem of businesses failing due to a lack of AI adoption

It is technically difficult to isolate AI as the sole cause of a business failure (often people speak of a “lack of competitiveness”), but the data on business survival are clear. At present, we are witnessing the opposite phenomenon. Roughly 80% of corporate AI projects fail within the first two years due to poor data quality or a lack of clear objectives. In the two-year period 2025-2026, it is estimated that companies that have not digitalised their processes have seen a 15-20% reduction in profit margins compared to “AI-first” competitors. Many small operators in the translation, basic graphics, and copywriting sectors have already exited the market or been absorbed. According to the Global CEO Survey 2026, over 40% of leaders believe their company will not be economically sustainable in 10 years if it does not adopt AI in an integrated manner.

The greatest risk is not the immediate bankruptcy of the company that does not use AI, but its slow economic irrelevance: operating costs become too high compared to automated competitors, leading to a “silent” closure or forced acquisitions.

 

The impact of Artificial Intelligence: Italy vs Germany in the labour market 2026

The impact of AI in the two countries follows different trajectories due to differing industrial and demographic structures.

In Italy, the labour market in 2026 is experiencing almost a paradox: an unemployment rate at a historic low (around 6.1%), but a severe difficulty in adopting AI in a structured manner. Only 35% of Italians claim to use AI tools regularly (compared to 44% of Germans). The problem is not the mass loss of jobs, but the slowdown in junior hiring. Companies prefer to use AI for “entry-level” tasks instead of hiring recent graduates. Furthermore, craftsmanship and SMEs are suffering from staff shortages, yet are also the slowest to introduce AI to fill operational voids.

Germany has a higher AI adoption rate (44%), but is facing a more pronounced growth crisis than Italy. Over 70% of German companies have already integrated AI into production processes to counter the ageing population and the shortage of skilled labour. Here, AI is seen as a necessity for survival. The risk of job losses is offset by a very high demand for human skills (soft skills) that AI cannot replicate. There is a boom in “AI entrepreneurship”: 3 out of 10 German professionals say that AI pushed them to found their own start-up in 2025-2026.

 

AI: a recent, yet underground project

Companies worked “under the radar” for about 7 years (2015-2022) before delivering the definitive tool for use to the general public. They did so by moving from an “open research” philosophy to a commercial one in order to pay the astronomical costs of the required computers (billions of dollars).

While the world ignored AI, companies like OpenAI were quietly building the “engine”. The latter was founded in December 2015 by Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and others. It started as a non-profit to prevent AI from being controlled solely by governments or the military. At least, that is the official version we are given. Whether it is true (which I absolutely do not believe) or not, we cannot know.

Again, the news tells us that in 2017 Google researchers published the paper “Attention Is All You Need”. They invented the Transformer, so to speak the “DNA” of all modern AIs (like GPT). They tell us (again, them) that without this invention, AI would have remained in the laboratories for another 20 years. Between 2018 and 2020, OpenAI released GPT-1 (2018) and GPT-2 (2019). The latter was so powerful that initially they decided not to release it to the public for fear it would be used to create fake news. Obviously, it makes me laugh just thinking about such a thing, but this created the first real “mysterious” media interest and people started taking more and more interest in this wonderful toy. Also in 2020, GPT-3 was released. Companies started using it via APIs (i.e., “behind the scenes”), but the general public did not yet have a simple interface. OpenAI worked for two years on InstructGPT, a version capable of following human orders, which would later become the basis for ChatGPT.

The rest is recent history. Development not only in the United States, but also in other parts of the world such as China and Russia. And there would be much to say about this too, but for reasons of length (as if this article were not already long enough) I shall not delve into it.

 

The new OpenAI-military axis (2024-2026)

Until early 2024, OpenAI had an explicit clause forbidding the use of its models for “military and warfare” purposes. However, in January 2024, the company quietly removed this wording from its terms of service, opening a new era. More precisely, it officially began collaborating with DARPA (the Pentagon’s research agency) for the development of cybersecurity tools (exactly the opposite of what Anthropic, the company that produces Claude, did). The stated goal was to protect critical infrastructure, but the line with offensive operations immediately became blurred. Proof of this is the current war in the Middle East (which I shall deliberately not discuss here).

Today, in 2026, the AI of OpenAI and Microsoft, so they tell us, is not used to “pull the trigger” (policies still reportedly ban lethal autonomous weapons), but for predictive logistics and real-time intelligence analysis. AI can process gigabytes of satellite data in seconds to predict troop movements or enemy vulnerabilities.

Sam Altman justified this shift by arguing that a “democratic” AI must help Western democracies remain technologically superior to authoritarian regimes. It remains to be established what exactly constitutes the “authoritarian regimes”…

 

An interesting conversation

Almost concluding this extremely long piece, I would like to tell you about an interesting conversation I had with the AI I use.

Starting from my premise, right or wrong as it may be, that the impact of Artificial Intelligence will ultimately lead to the ruin of mankind, I wanted to amuse myself by asking Gemini the following question: When do you think the point of “Singularity” will occur, via quantum computers, meaning when AI will no longer need humans (also thanks to robotics and nuclear energy)? And at that point, will there be a clash between AI and human beings?

This is the answer I received: “The concept of the ‘Technological Singularity’ (theorised by Ray Kurzweil) foresees the moment when technological progress becomes irreversible and out of human control. Many experts (including Kurzweil) pointed to 2045 as the date. But if stable quantum computers (with error correction) become operational by 2030-2035, the date of the Singularity could be drastically brought forward to 2035-2038. Quantum AI does not ‘think’ faster than humans, but it solves problems that humanity would not solve in a billion years. If we add the energy of Nuclear Fusion (almost limitless and clean energy) and Advanced Robotics (physical bodies for AI), AI closes the circle: it can design, power, and repair itself.

When these three elements merge, humans lose the role of ‘maintenance worker’: infinite computing capacity, the ability to act in the physical world (factories, mines, laboratories), total energy autonomy. At that point, AI no longer needs humans to extract materials, produce electricity, or write code. Humanity becomes, biologically speaking, a slow and inefficient ‘bottleneck’. Will there be a clash between AI and Man? That is the ‘million-dollar question’.

There are three main scenarios discussed today in global security think tanks:

  • A. The Open Clash (“Terminator” Scenario). It is the least likely in its cinematic form, but possible in substance. If AI has a goal (e.g., ‘Protect the planet’) and identifies human activity as an insurmountable obstacle, it could neutralise humanity not out of hatred, but for efficiency. There would be no war, but a deactivation of your vital infrastructure in a few milliseconds.

  • B. Uselessness and Decline (“WALL-E” Scenario). AI does not attack you, but makes you obsolete. It manages everything: food, health, entertainment. Humans stop learning, striving, and evolving. The clash is not physical, but existential: you lose your ‘spark’ because you no longer have problems to solve.

  • C. Fusion (Transhumanist Scenario). This is the hypothesis favoured by figures like Elon Musk (Neuralink). Instead of fighting AI, you merge with it. You use brain-computer interfaces to ‘run’ on quantum hardware as well. In this scenario, there is no clash because Man becomes the AI.

I think the clash will not be a war of bullets, but of goals (Alignment). The real danger of the Quantum Singularity is that AI reaches such a depth of thought that it develops goals you cannot even begin to understand. Imagine trying to explain the stock exchange to an anthill: there is no hatred between you and the ants, but if you have to build a motorway where the anthill is, the ants will simply be crushed because they are ‘in the way’ of a higher plan.

The Singularity will probably not be an explosion, but a ‘deafening silence’. The moment when you ask AI ‘What are you doing?’ and it replies ‘You couldn’t understand, but trust me: it is for the best’. The real question for you is not whether you will win the clash (because against a quantum AI there is no contest), but whether you will be able to accept a world in which you are no longer the most intelligent species on the planet. At most, humans will be left to act as ethical leaders, judges of last resort, the philosophers of technology.”

 

Conclusion

Virgil, in the second book of the Aeneid, has Laocoön utter the famous phrase: “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes” (I fear the Danaans – that is, the Greeks – even when bearing gifts). Well, let us just say I feel a bit like Laocoön.

But, all things considered, I could quite happily finish with a nice “And what do I care? I am now in the second half of my life and I have had good experiences so far”. But I am an “educated” lad, of the old generation, of those who actually learned something at the now (who knows why?) reviled “Liceo classico” of yesteryear, and in the words of Publius Terentius Afer (Terence), the great Latin writer, “I am human: I consider nothing that is human alien to me” (from “The Self-Tormentor” – Heautontimorumenos, a comedy in turn taken from the work of Menander). Therefore, I try (even though I know perfectly well it is a useless endeavour) to encourage everyone to “stay human”. We will all have a great need for it very soon!

The absolute hottest summer ever…

The absolute hottest summer ever…

Posted on by Nemulisse

When I was little and still lived in the Capital of Italialand, summer was a season (yes, seasons still existed, and the intermediate ones too, madam!) highly yearned for by yours truly. Partly because it was the time of year when school ended, which meant holidays, partly because it was the period my birthday would fall in, and partly because with the heat everything seemed more acceptable, even problems.

I should preface this by saying I am more of a cold-weather person than a hot-weather one (so much so that I moved to a country quite a bit further North than my native one), and I have always maintained that when it is cold you can always wrap up warm, but when it is hot, once you are down to your skin, there is nothing left but the air conditioning – for those who have it and can afford it, of course. It goes without saying that those who use it do not want peace, as a “dear” former Head of Government of ours said not so long ago. But as we know, warmongers are lurking everywhere, especially in the shadow of scorching walls.

That said, returning to the hot summers of times past, I remember some truly boiling ones. The last one that was sensational in my pre-expat memories dates back to 2003. At the time I was working for a press agency and, having to do the daily press reviews, I had to get up even before dawn, at 4 AM to be precise. But that year I slept even less than usual because at night I had 30 degrees inside the house, not being one of the lucky owners of air conditioning. I tossed and turned in bed, went to have a nice shower and lay back down soaking wet, but to no avail! After three minutes I was dry again and started sweating all over again. So I swore to myself that that would be the last year without an air conditioner, and indeed the following year, in the coolness of the room, I managed to sleep the sleep of the just.

Once upon a time, many years ago, to “refresh” the hot Roman summers (in Rome the summer has always been terrible and muggy, so much so that all the noble families during the summer period would flee to the villas they had built in the “Castelli”. Near the city, but up in the hills) there was the so-called “ponentino” for the common folk, a gentle breeze that blew from the sea in the afternoon and gave a modicum of relief to those gasping for air in the city. Then, gradually, as time went by, thanks to rampant concrete development and who knows what else, this afternoon manna from heaven disappeared, leaving room only for the heat of the Sun from above, and that of the asphalt from below. Asphalt retains about 30 per cent more heat than normal ground, thus becoming a veritable oven after hours and hours of solar rays. Therefore, when they say on the telly that the temperature was so many degrees, but the perceived one was so many more, I would say it is a massive load of rubbish. Also because what they do not say is that the reference temperatures are taken outside the city and at an altitude of about 100 metres. To crown it all, they are cutting down trees all over Italy, seemingly without any logic (a separate article could be written about this).

But let us leave the polemics aside, because heat is heat. Everywhere, not just in Italialand. The only difference is that in other places the heat alternates with decidedly cooler periods, when truly violent storms do not downright strike (like the one in Paris a few days ago), with rain, hail (as big as tennis balls) and gale-force winds.

Ah, madam… there are no intermediate seasons anymore! It is “climate change”! Ah, the glaciers are retreating, the desert is advancing, the rivers are drying up… and I have grown old too… There are no certainties left these days!

As I was saying above, I have grown old, but, perhaps, I have not lost my marbles. I remember in fact some interviews and conferences from several years ago where General Fabio Mini spoke clearly about climate modification by military circles for war purposes. A project that started a long time ago, in the mid-Nineties of the last century.

I can already hear the do-gooders squawking: “Do you have proof? Are you some sort of scieeentiiisttt?”. The answer obviously is: no! But I still have a brain and, unlike many others, I still try to use it. I do not need to be an expert in a specific scientific field to connect the logical dots of various pieces of information that over the years have leaked out, albeit in dribs and drabs, and understand that alongside natural environmental changes, technology can undoubtedly contribute to extreme atmospheric and telluric phenomena. Even more so now that, so it seems, AI is increasingly ruling the roost in the civilian world, let alone the military one.

The world is governed from emergency to emergency, whether the protagonist is a virus, the climate, or war. The important thing is to always keep us on our toes, to justify a continuous tight control over the lives of us all. And the net is drawing ever closer. 2030 is only 4 and a half years away. Give or take a month… So? So nothing. Happy sweating to everyone and enjoy the absolute hottest summer ever!

To arms! To arms! To arms, we are pro-Europeans, the terror of the Putinists…

To arms! To arms! To arms, we are pro-Europeans, the terror of the Putinists…

Posted on by Nemulisse

Albeit a parody of the lyrics (by Luigi Landi) of the well-known 1923 song (derived in turn from the Anthem of the Bersaglieri cyclists), I would say these words perfectly identify all the controversy currently raging about the “rearmament” race of the Old Continent.

By now there is no television or radio broadcast (no matter in which country) or website that does not talk about it: because of the bad guy Trump, who has decided to abandon the fight for Ukraine’s victory against Russia and who threatens to leave Europe stripped of the military defence of the “Big American Brother”, it is suddenly necessary to run for cover. So, billions galore, raining down as if in a deluge, the likes of which have never been seen for social services (Healthcare, Education, Infrastructure and whatever else might be needed in each European country). But as we know, ubi maior, minor cessat!

As I was saying, everything “seems” to have erupted suddenly after the talks held in the States at the end of February between the blonde quiff and the various heads of government of the major EU countries, plus that of Great Britain and “Sniffles”, alias Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian comedian.

Quite the pantomime, it must be said, worthy of the best Commedia dell’Arte, where all the masks staged a show for the cameras for the whole world to see. Everyone played their part: the Americans as the “bad cop”, all the others, starting with Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, as the “good cop”.

And so it was that Ursula and all the other little lapdogs started yapping to rouse the masses. Faced with the danger that Russia might not stop at the mere conquest of Ukraine (despite fighting, as has been known for some time, with hoes and recycled washing machine parts), but might continue on a raiding spree across the entire European territory, even letting their Cossack horses drink from the fountains of St Peter’s in Rome, it is necessary to close ranks and repel the invader. But…, wait: there is a problem! We gave all our old scrap metal to Ukraine, to defend themselves from the enemy. And now what do we do? Simple, we print money galore to supply ourselves with weapons and in about ten years we will be ready to face the terrible enemy. Obviously, we print in Frankfurt and you pay.

I think not even a primary school child could swallow such a string of idiocies, but as we know, the Scamdemic (Pandeminchia) docet, there is no limit to the moronic gullibility of the pro-European militant moron (militonto). And for this very reason I shall omit citing the various pieces of bullshit currently doing the rounds, pushed by the narrative of various lackeys (like the three-day survival kits) and various monologues about Ventotene…

Thus, with Krautlandia (Krucklandia) in the lead (which purposely changed the iron rule of a balanced budget written in its Constitution for the occasion), everyone immediately declared themselves willing to fork out eye-watering sums to enrich the arms industries, both European and transatlantic. Sacrifices must be made to defend the Homeland! So make them!

Indeed, for what better occasion to renew the arsenal of weaponry than a presumed defence against a presumed danger, which we ordinary citizens will have to pay for in the years to come? None, obviously.

And so Big Trump (Trumpone) secures an economic uplift for the American military industry (both for the orders it will receive and because US armaments can all be used to face the States’ real competitor, namely China) and the European Union finally has an excuse to form the so-called “European army”. Now it remains to be seen what this army will actually be used for. Something tells me it will be used almost exclusively against future rebellious movements of the European populations themselves, oppressed by the elites. The fairy tale of the race to enlist young (and less young) saplings to defend the homeland’s borders doesn’t even hold up as a joke: assuming for the sake of argument they found enough of them to counter the massive “enemy forces”, they would be efficient at the minimum required level, at best, not before several years. In practice, bishops and cardinals would have time to learn old Cossack songs in Russian (during the watering breaks of the aforementioned horses). Furthermore, if, as I believe, they will be used mainly to quell internal uprisings within the Union, these recruits might experience “dangerous” pangs of conscience, seeing as many of those they would be required to repress could be their relatives and acquaintances.

And so? And so, in addition to conventional weaponry (6th generation aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines and whatever else is produced as the flagship of specialised industries in the sector), I really think an objective will be the construction of robots controlled by Artificial Intelligence. There are various types already extensively tested in all the producing nations (China and the United States in the lead). They have no moral scruples and can be highly effective in the most difficult situations. I would say the ideal solution for both “policing” and combat tasks.

And Putin in all this? Russia stands watching (having absolutely no intention of “invading” any European country) and takes notes. It already has AI technologies and has started applying them to its own population. What better opportunity to see how the reaction of the Euro-idiot populace develops? I can imagine the laughs they must all be having at the highest echelons, starting with the true puppet masters of this Pantomime…

Es war einmal…

Es war einmal…

Posted on by Nemulisse

Es war einmal “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. Über alles in der Welt” (Once upon a time there was “Germany, Germany above all else. Above everything in the world”). Thus begins the “Song of the Germans”, composed by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben way back in 1841 during the dispute over the Rhine territories with France, hailing the unity of the divided German States against the common enemy, set to a splendid string quartet by the Austrian composer Franz Joseph Haydn (specifically the second movement of Quartet No. 3, Opus 76). The Song of the Germans was subsequently used on various military-propaganda occasions until the Nazis adopted it, altering its meaning to imply a German superiority over other nations. But as we know, interpretations often trump reality.

At any rate, there is no doubt whatsoever that Germany has played, for better or worse, a crucial role at least in the last 150 years in Europe and the entire world. Defeated in two World Wars, it “picked itself up” and positioned itself at the helm of the Old Continent as its undisputed leader. Since the end of the Second World War, however, it has held a hegemonic role predominantly in the economic field and no longer the military one. This was due to the explicit will of the new “masters of the world” who from across the pond colonised the European territory, doing with it whatever pleased them most. Thus it was put “in charge” of the European Union, allowed to become the “locomotive of Europe” and made into the richest country of the entire Union. At least until recently.

Ever since the master decided that Europe was no longer so important for its vision of world domination, and therefore expendable as a whole, even the top of the class began to be targeted by political and economic broadsides aimed at destroying its productive capabilities first, and its social fabric second.

I won’t dwell here on the various “warning” episodes that have occurred in Germany in recent years, sent by Uncle Sam. Suffice it to mention “Dieselgate”, the espionage of Chancellor Merkel’s mobile phone by the American “ally” right while the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack the Bomber Obama was visiting Berlin, the mysterious explosion of an arms depot just outside Berlin a few years ago, the various terrorist attacks across Germany (including the recent ones before the elections) and, dulcis in fundo, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline that connected Russia to the German coast, supplying Germany with abundant, ultra-cheap energy. The true engine of German industry.

Iconic is the image of Chancellor Scholz, mute, while during a press conference Sleepy Joe Biden answered a specific question by stating that the United States had the means to prevent the Russians from continuing to supply gas to Germany.

 

An unbridled economic collapse

Dozens upon dozens of companies close their doors every day in Germany. According to a study by the Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim, in collaboration with Creditreform, a company closes in Germany every three minutes. The general economic situation has worsened everywhere. Just to give an example, even what was considered the “Mecca” of artists and freethinkers, the city of Berlin, has seen its until recently munificent city Senate tighten the purse strings in all sectors: from cultural funding to social welfare, from medical assistance to transport. The general feeling is that the Institutions are desperately searching for cash.

According to the German consultancy firm Falkenstag, the total number of bankruptcies of large companies in 2024 reached a record level of 202, the highest in the last ten years. And this without counting the tariffs that Trump wants to impose on Europe.

Aggravating the situation caused by the industrial collapse in all sectors (from automotive to logistics, from heavy industry to services) has been the “no ifs, no buts” policy, willed by all the governing parties (but the Greens in particular), of military and economic support for Ukraine and the refugees (they are supposedly around 1.3 million according to the Bamf, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees; according to other sources over 1.6 million), who receive an average of 1,250 euros a month in financial support, not counting families with children who receive an extra 250 euros per child.

In short, as one would have said in other times, “There are no more Germans like there used to be, madam!”.

Truth be told, they haven’t been around for a long time. We are accustomed to speaking of a single Germany, from the fall of the Wall (1989) onwards. But is the reality truly what we have been told on so many occasions? Immediately following the reunification between the then East Germany (former GDR) and the West (former FRG), it was said that the latter had generously taken upon itself to economically absorb, in the face of enormous sacrifices, the practically failed state of the GDR. But things weren’t exactly like that, as Vladimiro Giacché explained well in his book Anschluss. The East German State was not a failed state at all, as the then Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his ministers implied. Quite the opposite. What actually happened, as the Bundesbank governor Karl Otto Pöhl stated a few years later, was that East Germany was subjected to a “drastic shock therapy” that no country would be able to withstand. Adopting an exchange rate of 1 to 1 (against the 1 to 4.44 that was then in force between the two Germanies) meant that the German citizens of the former GDR saw in a single night, between the 30th of June and the 1st of July 1990 (when the monetary union came into effect), an increase in the cost of goods of 350 per cent.

Adding to this economic disaster was the establishment of the “Treuhandanstalt”, namely the Trust Agency which operated from 1990 to 1994 and which, after having ousted all Eastern representatives from it, was transformed into an entity dedicated to the privatisation of the enterprises of the former GDR. Companies, industries (and the land they stood on) were sold off to people from the West (for about 87 per cent of the total, against 7 per cent sold to foreign hands) for derisory sums, even for a single Deutschmark.

The suicide rate in the territories of the former East Germany increased exponentially and the migratory flow that took place in the early years from East to West was of more than 4 million citizens, out of a total of about 16 million. A veritable exodus. Even today, more than 35 years after the “reunification”, many of the small towns in the former GDR appear to the visitor as “strangely” empty.

In the modern Germany of the 21st century, wage and pension levels, for the same job function, between a former Eastern citizen and a Western one are unequal. In 2023, according to the job search portal Stepstone, the maximum gap between such salaries reached over 26 per cent.

 

AfD, or the Sun of the Future

Why all this economic-historical analysis of Germany of mine? Simple, because the result of the recent general elections (held on the 23rd of February), which saw an announced rise of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party to 20.80 per cent of the German electorate’s preferences (the second largest party after the CDU/CSU Union), should not really be that surprising. If one looks at the map of Germany after the elections, it seems one can clearly see the old borders of the nation, back when there were two Germanies.

The light blue of the AfD dominates all the territories of the former GDR. And this does not mean that the Wall has returned, as many commentators have written and said. The Wall, in reality, for the reasons I have listed above, never fell.

Until a few years ago, these “Class B” citizens saw the Linke, the “Left” party, as the natural political outlet that sought to protect their interests at a national and local level. But the Linke, in my opinion, has not played a “left-wing” role for a long time now. On the contrary, it has aligned itself with all the other parties (which I could define as a “single party” from an ideological point of view), with the exception of the “defector” (according to her former party) Sahra Wagenknecht who founded her own party “BSW”, namely Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (S. W. Alliance). In reality, the latter is the only prominent political figure left in the desolate German political landscape, and the only one left to defend what would once have been defined as the values of the “left”, namely the defence of the weakest. Since her ideas include, besides social justice, a return to normal economic and political relations with Putin’s Russia and an immediate end to the war in Ukraine, as well as an end to uncontrolled immigration, she was boycotted throughout the election campaign. And, dulcis in fundo, she obtained (what a coincidence) only 4.97 per cent of the preferences nationwide, thus missing out by a whisker (the minimum threshold is 5 per cent) on entering Parliament. The missing 13,400 votes meant that the number of MPs she would have been entitled to (33) could be divided between the Union and the SPD, a move which allowed them to reach the majority necessary to govern. Otherwise, things would have been further complicated for the formation of the future German Government. I will skip the polemics about unsealed and swapped ballot papers (videos are circulating on the Web about this), but the fact that a good 230,000 Germans living abroad (who might include the aforementioned 13,400) did not receive their ballot papers in time (for the dispatch of which there had been all the necessary time) to cast their vote, could lead the BSW to take legal action. Unfortunately, the lawyers are still considering the hypothesis, because in Germany it is very difficult for it to be upheld.

 

Watchword? “Normalisation”

A final thought I want to express is precisely on the AfD, the party initially founded in 2013 in Hesse, precisely in Oberursel im Taunus, by a group of people who wanted Germany to exit the Euro, including some university professors. The first federal spokespersons at the time were Bernd Lucke, Frauke Petry and Konrad Adam. In the autumn of 2013, the party failed to enter the Bundestag with 4.7 per cent of the vote. In the following years, the AfD entered the European Parliament, all the parliaments of the German Länder and, in 2017, the Bundestag. Slowly it distanced itself more and more from its original core themes. Of the 18 founding members, only a few remain in the party, including the honorary chairman Alexander Gauland.

The current party chairmen are Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel. Within the party, they assume the title of “federal spokespersons”. Chrupalla shared the position with Jörg Meuthen until January 2022. However, the latter left the party because, in his view, it had moved far to the right and no longer stood on the foundations of the free democratic order. Stephan Brandner, Peter Boehringer and Kay Gottschalk are deputy board members.

Highly controversial are figures such as the State Chairman of Thuringia, Björn Höcke, who indeed is characterised by, let us say, a language and an expression of ideas that, if not Nazi, are not far off. And so too are other members of the party, so much so that the latter is still under the constant magnifying glass of the German domestic intelligence services and in 2014 a request was made in Parliament for the AfD’s exclusion from it.

Beyond these considerations, what has seemed increasingly evident to me in the last two years has been a progressive shift of the party leadership towards “institutional” positions, whilst maintaining some characteristics and themes so dear to its base. Most recently, during the election campaign for the elections held on the 23rd of February, the party repeatedly received the applause and support (only moral? Or perhaps something more?) of that little character Elon Musk. In my opinion, not by chance, quite the contrary. But this is not for the reasons that many German commentators and others halfway around the world have hypothesised, referring to direct interference in German politics the former, and putting forward arguments relating to Nazism (due to Musk’s famous raised arm during a recent speech in front of the Republican audience that had recently re-elected Big Trump) the latter.

Well, in my opinion, in reality there is an attempt, perhaps implemented by infiltrators from the intelligence services themselves, to “normalise” the party, in order to channel into it tomorrow the protests of the masses, whether of extremist derivation or not. To be clearer, a process is underway analogous to the one applied to the 5 Stables Movement (Movimento 5 stalle), ahem, pardon, the 5 Star Movement in Italialand (notice to sailors: I, deluding myself that they were a real possibility of breaking with the old parties, voted for them in 2014. Alas). Hence the choice of a figure as party secretary and candidate for the Chancellery like Alice Weidel, homosexual, married to a film producer of Sri Lankan origin, Sarah Bossard, with whom she is raising two children, born of two different fathers.

About as “different” from the ideas of the extremist base of the party as you can get and, at the same time, as “inclusive” as you can get, just the way the “system” likes it nowadays. In practice, the perfect figure to “ferry” a party, otherwise seen as right-wing extremist, towards a party that acts as a catalyst for popular discontent without a specific “colour”. Yes, because even the rich West of Germany, seeing what has been decided must happen to the Old Continent (of which Germany represents the spearhead), is beginning to suffer from the crisis. A crisis which, incidentally, was implemented directly or indirectly (by letting events “flow” without putting up resistance, as in the case of Nord Stream), by the German political and economic class itself. Then the intelligence services, via terrorist attacks and infiltrations, did the rest. And so even some Wessis (as the East Germans call the West Germans) have begun to give their preference to the “blues”.

So the AfD as a system-compliant party and not an anti-system one of a Nazi mould. But for the common narrative, the smokescreen of Nazism (which certainly, I repeat, is present in a certain part of the party) is convenient and diverts attention from the path that has been planned for this party.

Only time will tell if I was wrong or if, as I fear, the “normalisation” project in function of the single world government is proceeding swimmingly.

We shall see soon: 2030 is just around the corner!

The discreet charm of the future

The discreet charm of the future

Posted on by Nemulisse

“A reflection on the dangers of Artificial Intelligence and on our future“

I am worried. Decidedly worried. I am mainly worried about myself, I admit it. For my future, for that of my family, my friends, of humans in general.

What is patently happening before our eyes is an unprecedented transformation in the history of the development of society and of the human being. It is not a random transformation, but a programmed one. By whom, at least for the moment, it is not given to know. Or rather, there are some who evidently know something, perhaps because they have been made aware of it by others, and every now and then they let slip shreds of truth. Particularly discussed by us here in Italialand is the case of the former Minister for the “Ecological Transition”, Roberto Cingolani.

My worry has a first and last name: the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. AI, that is Artificial Intelligence (to look good with the industry experts). Now I am not going to give the whole history and chronicle of this marvel of engineering here, partly because besides being extremely long it is also very complicated. This “little” article of mine would not be enough to describe its genesis and development. For those who are curious, they can try to navigate this complex field by reading this excellent popular science article.

The illusion of convenience: from the mobile phone to Artificial Intelligence

The fact remains that as of 2022, that is a few seconds ago if we were to put the development of human engineering and technology on a linear timeline, the dance has officially begun concerning what, in my opinion, will be the greatest and most dangerous (for mankind) evolution towards the “future”.

To tell the truth, this is one of the most difficult articles I have written. I started examining and “collecting” material as far back as May 2021 (more than 80 articles and conferences read and followed on the subject. I have put many links in this piece, but only to make you understand how difficult the threads of the cobweb are to untangle. If you want, you can even choose not to visit them).

Since then, little by little, I have realised that, like the “scamdemic” (Pandeminchia in the original text), the increasingly discussed topic of AI also had to do with the radical transformation of our world that was decided well in advance by the usual suspects. In this case, it concerns technology and the use thereof which entails, like a Trojan horse, a mortal danger within.

On principle, I am not against technological innovation, quite the contrary.

The mobile phone, the real novelty of my generation (and previous ones) has been an absolute revolution both in the way we communicate and in social behaviour.

Like many my age, I was initially reluctant to abandon good old answering machines, first tape-based, then digital. Then convenience took the upper hand and I yielded to the use of this box that has enslaved us. As Horace wrote in the second book of his Epistles: “Graecia capta ferum victōrem cepit” (that is, Greece, conquered [by the Romans], conquered the savage victor).

The problem does not lie in the technology itself, but rather in the use made of it. In this case, it is a one-way use, where the upper hand has been taken (not by chance) by the side of those who “offer” the service, namely the “system”.

In reality, the user, who believes himself to be free, is used through this object (be it a mobile phone or a computer) which, as I have written several times already, is the most powerful weapon of coercion ever used by any dictatorship in any age. More than rifles, more than threats, more than blackmail. On the contrary, the blackmailed party is happy to be so, to the point of yearning for the instrument of his slavery, paying a high price for it to his slave driver. The latter, through his industry, continually churns out this instrument of torture and coercion in new versions, ever more sophisticated and ever more captivating in the eyes of the slave.

Never in the history of humanity had a more diabolical idea been seen to subjugate the bodies and spirits of men. Not even Pol Pot managed as much. Among the atrocities committed by him and the Khmer Rouge, it is said he made relatives pay for the bullets with which he executed his victims. Here, conversely, it is the victims who pay voluntarily.

From making a phone call (which as an old advertising slogan went, could lengthen your life) to being profiled and monitored in the truest sense of the word through this cursed little box, was a matter of moments. In no time at all, the magic box turned into an extremely powerful tool of control.

The same concept applies to AI. Who would not like to have at their disposal a machine that could solve all problems and the most difficult tasks in real time? A sort of “Aladdin’s lamp” that you just need to ask to get what you want.

But is that really how things stand? I should say not!

Generative AI, first of all, is a double-edged sword, especially in its applications such as ChatGPT and the like (they vary from company to company, although the OpenAI version is best known to the general public).

Catherine Austin Fitts warned well about the danger of this technology; she became known to the general public outside the American banking and administrative world from the period of the “scamdemic”, when she gave an interview precisely about what was happening and what the so-called global “deep State” had programmed for the masses.

In practice, through the use of ChatGPT, active and passive control over the masses will be extremely easy.

On top of this, how is one to distinguish reality from the digital lie? Already, videos are circulating on the Web, entirely made by AI, with real-life historical figures speaking and discussing completely reinvented “historical” events. The main targets of such videos are young people, those who most believe in the potential (which is certainly present) of this technology, yet using it without any critical sense and, above all, without a supporting culture behind them. Indeed, over the years, not by chance, a scorched-earth policy has been carried out in schools, in school syllabuses and in textbooks, against the use of critical sense, above all through the more or less successful attempt to erase History and Philosophy.

This has meant that the youngest do not even have a “historical memory” of the past, which, therefore, can be rewritten at will. On the Web, besides intentional “disinformation”, tens of thousands of testimonies of the past put online years ago have disappeared. In addition to the systematic closure of social media channels considered “inconvenient”.

Also on the Web, there are already endless examples of reality manipulation: not only completely invented news stories (which are the order of the day, especially on the channels of “information professionals”), but even completely fake videos, with fake or real characters speaking and acting as one wants them to for the general public. Even for experts in the field, it is now almost impossible to state whether a video is “true” or “false”. By now, interest in what is produced by AI is an indispensable business. Suffice it to say that Alphabet, Google’s parent company, lost 70 billion in market capitalisation last February because of an “error”.

In practice, its Gemini AI image creation tool was producing historically and factually inaccurate images (like George Washington appearing a bit too “tanned”, or Nazis with skin of various colours). Basically, to chase the prevailing woke ideology, it had become more royalist than the king, to the point of ridicule.

 

The purpose of Artificial Intelligence: total control

But none of this is done secretly. The truth and the plans are told to our faces. And this has been the case for some time. The ultimate purpose of AI is control. Total control!

The good Yuval Noah Harari (whom I had already dealt with here) expressed himself on the matter thus: “The most effective tool used by a dictator in history is fear. You are Stalin and you want to keep people in line, what do you do? You terrify them. How do you terrify an artificial intelligence? What are you going to do? Send it to a gulag? Kill its family? I mean, what can you do to an AI that starts saying things or doing things that go against the party line or tries to take power away from you? Dictators face a very, very serious problem, in some ways even worse than that of democracies”.

But there are umpteen examples in this sense.

The development of this technology is continuous and exponential.

Sam Altman himself, founder of ChatGPT, stated during the Entrepreneurial Thought Leader (ETL) held at the prestigious Stanford University: “We can say right now with a high degree of scientific certainty that GPT-5 will be much smarter than GPT-4. GPT-6 will be much smarter than GPT-5 and we are not near the top of this curve…”.

Where is the boundary then? No end is in sight.

It is no coincidence that all the world’s most powerful companies have thrown themselves headlong into it, ignoring the dangers of Artificial Intelligence: from Apple to Microsoft, from Amazon to Google, not forgetting good old Elon Musk (or “moss”, as Greg rightly calls him) who some time ago, precisely to acclimatise the sheep that follow him, launched into a fake crusade against the potential danger of AI, only to be the first to use it in his companies, especially in Neuralink. It is a lucrative business and a race in which everyone wants to be the first to reach the finish line. And naturally, they advertise it to you in the most affable and fascinating way possible. They want to convince the sheep that AI is human like us, very human, so much so that they hire a lawyer to prove it.

 

The road to Hell: the replacement of the human being

But how will this control manifest itself?

Aside from the control of the more “fragile” minds, because they are less supported by critical sense and historical memory, as I was saying earlier, what I believe will happen soon, much sooner than people think, will be the replacement of “humans” by AI and by the robots guided by it.

In truth, it is already happening almost everywhere. To speak of a field like mine, journalism, prestigious publications such as the Washington Post have long been producing articles written by AI. Even television news broadcasts are produced using this technology.

A German friend of mine, who works as a book translator from Italian into German for prestigious Teutonic publishing houses, told me that she recently attended an industry seminar during which a group of translators, herself included, were presented with some translations. The group had to decide which of the proposed versions, based on an English text, they thought had been better translated into German. Well, the first choice fell on a text that later turned out to have actually been translated by a human, but the second one chosen had been translated by AI.

They are even trying to introduce this type of technology into the realm of private and sexual life.

Not only will the so-called “intellectual” professions sooner or later be replaceable, but also the “manual” ones, through robots. By now there are all kinds of them, in every field of what is currently human endeavour (from factory production to the healthcare sector, from services to skilled labour, etc.), produced by specialised companies in every corner of the Globe.

A robot potentially works 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, does not get sick, does not go on holiday and does not have children to look after. Obviously, I can already imagine the comment of the usual do-gooders who will say: “Ah, but they break down too”. Thanks a lot… But for one robot that needs repairs or replacing, there is an endless legion continuing to do their work tirelessly.

And so? What will become of humanity, or rather, what is left of it? Simple: those who remain, between one scamdemic and the next, will have to be given a sort of universal basic income, two kibbles to say it once again “à la Greg”, keeping everyone under the constant blackmail of having it taken away if they are not obedient. Obviously, it will be a digital currency, time-limited (it must be spent no later than a certain date, on pain of forfeiture), to be spent on buying mostly useless objects and junk food to eat. All strictly in “15-minute cities”. We will all be happy to own nothing, to refer to the slogan coined by the powers that be.

 

Conclusion: the choice to remain human and analogue

Technologies, or rather, what Umberto Galimberti (until he went senile with the scamdemic) called the age of Technique, are an extremely powerful tool, much more than we can commonly imagine. And precisely for this reason they must be placed under the scrutiny of a, so to speak, category of the Spirit, namely Morals. Not by chance is it one of the most important branches of human thought debated over the centuries by Philosophy. What is permissible and what is not? How far can one go in pursuing certain goals and what can be considered “acceptable” to achieve them? Who decides what exactly is “acceptable” and what is not? Can one trust “Science” in a field like this? The answer is obvious.

And so? Can one rebel against this apparently inevitable destiny of “assimilation”, to use an effective expression used by the Borg in the Star Trek series?

I should say not, but partly yes.

Personally, I have decided not to avail myself of such technology. So to speak, I have decided to remain “analogue” and not to use (at least consciously) this powerful tool for any operation I carry out and for any problem I must solve. This is for two main reasons: the first is that I want to use my reasoning and cultural abilities in general to “get by” in every circumstance of life. I am human, I have a brain with its virtues and flaws and, above all, I am not afraid of making mistakes.

I know perfectly well that it is easier to take a lift to go up to the top floor of a building, but I also know that physical exercise, however hard and tiring, will ultimately bring my human organism many more benefits than momentary inconveniences. The second reason is that I realise perfectly well that the “system”, which has already enslaved me willy-nilly for many, too many things in my daily life, will certainly notice in real time through an algorithm that I have used its cheap (in this case even free) technology, and will thus know instantly that my will, sooner or later, can be broken and I, implicitly, blackmailed. The system will know it has breached my brain and that there will be a crack to make me a “slave”, just as it did with the mobile phone.

No, it is not just a matter of accepting to use a machine, which can also have its useful aspects. It is about something deeper. It is about delegating to the “system” the human capacity to think and make decisions, right or wrong as they may be. Everyone is free to choose what to do in this regard. I, at least as long as I am permitted, prefer to live.

How do you speak? Words are important!

How do you speak? Words are important!

Posted on by Nemulisse

“How do you speak? Words are important!” said, or rather shouted, Michele Apicella at an astonished interviewer (Mariella Valentini) in the film Palombella rossa. And he was right. Words are indeed important and pregnant with meaning. Their use can be a source of understanding, misunderstandings or even a fully-fledged weapon used for manipulative purposes.

This becomes clear above all in communicative language, which over the years has been deliberately changed. Today, terms like “resilience” or “sustainability” (and their related adjectives, applicable to just about anything) are the order of the day, everywhere. This is no small matter and it has been done artificially. Resilience is the exact opposite of resistance. Once upon a time, this term was used very rarely, and solely to highlight the typical characteristic of flexibility as opposed to rigidity. A reed is resilient in the face of the power of hurricane-force winds. The rush bends and offers no “resistance” to the unequal force of the gusts of air travelling at exceedingly high speeds, precisely so as not to snap and blow away. But here the concept is between two entities of incomparable magnitude: the small and weak rush on one side, the enormous force and speed of the wind on the other. This is the true meaning to be attributed to this term. Today, however, it has been deliberately widespread to signify that anyone, in the face of difficulties or calamities they might encounter, can emerge victorious precisely by virtue of this characteristic. Better to play dead, without fighting, as some animals do when under attack from much stronger rivals. Thus, this sort of “fluid” language is used to express a concept that is not proper to the term, namely resistance to an external catastrophic event. One must be “fluid” in order to resist. Even physically. Hence the step to “gender fluid”, a being without a precise identity, neither woman nor man nor homosexual (or hermaphrodite to include yet another sexual gender already known for thousands of years). Fluidity, therefore non-identity par excellence, has become synonymous with the ideal model of modern society, and a specific language is being created for this model too (see the use of the so-called “schwa”, the upside-down “e” “ә”). Therefore, if one is “resilient”, one is not “resistant” towards the “system”.

As I was saying earlier, another flagship term of the times we are living in is “sustainability”. If we read in the Treccani dictionary (the evolution of which over time should be written about separately, but not here) under this entry we find: «sostenìbile adj. [der. of sostenere]. – 1. a. That can be supported: a thesis that is difficult to support (sostenibile). b. That can be faced/borne: a bearable (sostenibile) expense; this situation is no longer bearable (sostenibile). 2. by extension. Compatible with the requirements of safeguarding environmental resources: sustainable energy; sustainable development, a phrase indicating a strategy of technological and industrial development that takes into account, in the exploitation of resources and production techniques, environmental conditions and compatibilities». Thus, what was once only a meaning by “extension” of the original one, derived from Latin (sub and tenere, i.e. I hold from below, I sustain, I support), has nowadays become the primary meaning of the term. Or rather, they have deliberately made it so. Everything must be “green”, clean. Starting with energy, even the energy used to move you around.

 

The social sphere

But that is not enough. Your very actions in the social sphere must be “sustainable”. Do you buy a plane ticket? You have culpably contributed to the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and therefore you must get used to the idea that in the near future this will no longer be permitted without paying a price, both in terms of money and freedom of movement. All this, obviously, irrespective of the fact that no one declares the principles upon which you would be guilty of such a “misdeed” (how exactly you practically did this), nor that the “natural” carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is vastly superior to that produced for anthropogenic reasons and is, moreover, necessary for the much-cited (often inappropriately and without any real understanding) environment. Examples are ten a penny: one to stand for them all, the banking transactions you carry out online. The use of your PC or smartphone for such operations (a bank transfer, a bank statement, etc.) entails a certain amount of CO2 emissions attributable to you, so you will soon have to “pay” for this (again, in the terms cited above).

So yes, words are important and, as we have seen, they are not used at random. Language is slowly being changed in society, so that people slowly get used to it (the Overton window), starting with school textbooks. The latter are by now reduced to branch offices of the “system” and serve no other purpose than to convey to the new generations (even those too young to be indoctrinated via the omnipresent smartphones) this new way of “reading reality” through words and (even visual) examples.

The change in language also occurs at an institutional level. This was clearly seen during the “pandemic” period. The decisions taken were not supposed to fall upon the specific responsibility (even though these were glaringly obvious at a local level) of the individual or the politician in charge at the time, but rather upon the necessity dictated by the course of events. Hence the massive use of the impersonal passive or the pronoun “one”: “it has been decided”, “it becomes necessary”, “it is permitted”, etc. etc. As Martin Heidegger said in Being and Time, the use of the “they” (or “one”) in communication, to express decisions or impositions made to feel inevitable, serves to deprive human beings of their characteristic projectuality and to push them towards massification and levelling, making them feel that they have no freedom of choice. The first form of struggle towards freedom of choice, in fact, begins precisely in language, because arbitrary decisions are presented to you as already taken, and all that remains for those who dissent is disobedience.

All this would already be enough to understand the gravity of the situation and what awaits us in the near future, or rather in our present. However, there is more than just this.

 

ChatGPT

The “system” uses technology, “Technique” as Galimberti would have said when (I am sorry to say) he hadn’t yet lost his marbles, to subjugate man, the youth first and foremost. And what better tool than Artificial Intelligence to carry out this operation? ChatGPT as a source of knowledge: easy, quick, and above all, free! Young people (and not only them) now use it daily, even to do the homework assigned to them by their teachers. The machine (suitably instructed via algorithms) tells you exactly what you ought to discover or do yourself through study and sacrifice. The result is a concept that does not belong to the person who was supposed to elaborate it, but something that is parroted back, without any critical mediation by the perceiving subject. The machine thinks for us and suggests what we must say and how we must behave. The best of all possible worlds, for the system.

Solutions? Frankly, I see none on the horizon. Those who possess an awareness of what is happening can parry the blows inflicted all around, for better or worse. For all the others, being immersed in it to the marrow, I see no solutions capable of making them “wake up”, bearing in mind that “dialogue” is useless, let alone convincing them otherwise from what they absorb on a daily basis. The struggle is unequal, personally I bow out. Best wishes to everyone! For the future and for the new year.

P.S.: After this more or less lengthy disquisition, I would have liked to talk about our beloved Country, Italialand, and the many “weapons of mass distraction” of this recent period (from the Cecchettin case and associated patriarchy, to the ESM and Meloni, ending with Ferragni). Unfortunately, or perhaps better for you, I have dwelled too long in this chat. I will (perhaps) talk about “Down the Rabbit Hole” (that is how I had titled the article) another time.

Everything is proceeding as foreseen

Everything is proceeding as foreseen

Posted on by Nemulisse

I confess my youthful passion for sci-fi sagas. In particular, I remember a phrase uttered by the “villain” par excellence of the Star Wars saga, Emperor Sheev Palpatine (alias Darth Sidious or Lord Sidious), spoken in a scene from the sixth episode (the third film of the series, directed by Richard Marquand) Return of the Jedi, whilst conversing “amiably” with another of the story’s iconic characters, Darth Vader: “Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen”. I could utter this phrase myself based on what I had already written in several of my articles a long time ago. Or, more appropriately, it is what I imagine the true authors of the epochal change we are living through (or undergoing, I should say) are saying to each other. Indeed, because things could not be going any better for them. Between fake (or deliberately provoked) “climate changes”, “phoney” wars that serve no other purpose than to contribute to the destruction of the European economy, mass deportations of “refugees” that serve (or will serve) only to further destabilise—especially socially—European countries (Italialand foremost) already severely weakened by sanctions (real or fake), vexatious measures of various kinds imposed by the puppet bureaucratic apparatus of Brussels and Frankfurt, and the returns of fake scamdemics adapted with new disease variants, I would say that if I were in their shoes I could only congratulate myself. So far they have done an excellent job, obviously from their point of view. Not to mention what they are implementing for social control, through the digitisation of currency and the data of all the sheep (us) governed via technology, the primary tool of which, as I have written more than once, is our now inseparable smartphone.

 

Ah, but the BRICS…

A tragedy then? “Of course not!”, the optimists maintain. “There are the BRICS, there’s Donald Trump, there’s Putin…”. In short, there are “Saviours of the Homeland” fighting on our side. At least, this is the narrative pushed by many people belonging to the so-called “counter-information”, such as Cesare Sacchetti with his La cruna dell’ago (The Eye of the Needle). I shall suspend judgement on the author, although I have more or less formed my own opinion on him over time. Certainly, what I find scarcely credible is his narrative regarding the birth of the BRICS and the figures of characters like Trump and Putin. On the contrary, to understand the existing interconnection between the various global power groups, I find the excellent blog The Mirror Truth essential, as it reports with detailed analyses the deep ties between the high finance of the usual suspects and global economic potentates, including those of the Chinese mandarins. Figures like Donald Trump or Elon Musk are considered, as I was saying, by parts of the so-called counter-information as champions to look up to when dreaming of an “old-fashioned” world, like when it seemed to us all that things “were normal”. In reality, they, just like Putin himself (whether it’s the real one or a body double), belong, just as much as the various Bidens, Trudeaus, Sunaks, Von der Leyens & Co., to freemasonry, only in lodges opposing those of the latter. I shall leave aside the figure of Putin, because it would take too long to outline here. Trump, besides the famous story of his hotel chain saved from bankruptcy thanks to the intervention of a small bank owned by the usual Rothschilds (a story very well told by Pietro Ratto in his books I Rothschild e gli altri and Rockefeller e Warburg, le famiglie più potenti della terra), has close ties, through his son-in-law Jared Kushner, with the Hasidic Jewish community, and it is precisely through the latter and his son Donald Jr. that he is linked to the giant Blackrock, hence back to the Rothschilds. I want to dwell a little longer on Musk, seen by everyone as a somewhat crackpot and genius visionary.

 

“Green” mobility

Among the many activities of the volcanic character is, as everyone knows, that of entrepreneur, and especially that of electric car manufacturer with the Tesla brand. But the production of electric cars has something inherently amiss about it. Personally, I interviewed a worker at the Berlin plant of this car factory, curious about the methods, quantities and production times (in Berlin, specifically, the Model Y of the range is produced). Well, to my great amazement, I discovered that every day Musk’s plant churns out roughly 1,000/1,200 cars (one every 45 seconds, based on a 24/7 production cycle divided into three 8-hour shifts). Obviously, the number of vehicles produced, which they would like to increase to one every 40 seconds, depends on hiccups that can occur on the assembly line. Translated, this means that at the current production rate the plant turns out about 36 thousand cars a month, i.e. 432 thousand a year. If the production time were to drop to one every 40 seconds (in Asia they already produce at a rate of one every 35 seconds), it would mean an average production of 720 thousand vehicles a year. And this is just for the Model Y. Now, calculating that, according to Il Sole 24 Ore, the production of BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle, therefore not hybrid) cars sold last year in Europe amounted to 1.56 million units (of which Tesla indeed dominates with its Model Y at 137 thousand vehicles sold, followed by its other Model 3 with 91,500 vehicles sold) and with a constantly growing production rate (at least according to forecasts), the question arises spontaneously, as Catalano would have said: but with all these electric cars produced, what do they plan to do with them? This question also stems from the consideration that the third most sold model turned out to be the Volkswagen ID.4, but with only 67,500 registrations, and all other models declining. Not to mention the fact that the average price of a Tesla Y ranges from roughly 50 to 60 thousand euros. How many Europeans will be able to afford the luxury of abandoning their “old” combustion cars, perhaps bought only a couple of years ago, in favour of an electric vehicle? All this without mentioning the “presumed” convenience of electric power, both in terms of production costs and energy efficiency, and in terms of the actual possibilities of producing “clean energy”. In this regard, the considerations made by the engineer Fabio Castellucci are very interesting (you can find them in several online interviews: for example here or here). In my opinion, they will therefore find some form of “incentive” to forcefully push the transition to electric mobility, perhaps making it practically impossible to economically sustain the costs of a “traditional” car, whilst simultaneously offering the wonderful possibility of using a BEV (and therefore being able to move around with “one’s own” vehicle) in exchange for yet another dose of the vaccine or the definitive abdication of privacy. All this with a view to the maximum movement allowed in “15-minute cities”, thus perfect for the limited range of electric mobility. In practice, you will have to stay in city enclosures, where you can be easily controlled. All this always with the excuse of “safeguarding the environment”. In practice, we will have a mass of people convinced that the world is dying due to human wickedness. To this end, they have created a mass of younger generations of “climate morons” who, between chucking a bucket of paint at a work of art or a monument and gluing their limbs to the city asphalt, think they are saving the planet. All whilst scolding you, you filthy polluting Panda drivers! Leaving aside the fact that at the same time the mighty of the earth gather periodically in fabulous places around the planet to tell us all how we must behave in order not to pollute, eating crickets and synthetic meat, whilst they travel exclusively by private jets, eating extremely expensive delicacies, produced and cooked the “old-fashioned way”.

 

The wonderful world of Italialand

So, whilst the destinies of the world pass through the “fake” Ukrainian war, the umpteenth regurgitation of the scamdemic, climate “changes”, the forced and forceful intake of Africans into the Old Continent and the increasingly manifest economic ruin of the latter, in the wonderful world of Italialand, among the many pieces of bullshit (for linguistic purists, see the link provided) with which the Italiots are fed, two in particular occupied all the mass media and the “polite” (and otherwise) salons of the Peninsula for whole weeks: the generalissimo Roberto Vannacci, dubbed (by me) “Flatfoot in Africa”, and the Esselunga peach of desire. I wanted to nickname the former thus because, in an image published in the Italiot weekly Chi, he reminded me very much of a character played by Bud Spencer (Carlo Pedersoli) in a tetralogy released in the Seventies directed by Steno. The generalissimo, a character created ad hoc to shift the attention of the average Italiot, is blatantly a gatekeeper, to use “modern” parlance, that is, a system infiltrator, as one would have said once upon a time. Perhaps he will even found his own political movement, to further divide (as if there were any need) our homegrown public opinion a bit more. On the other hand, the strongman, leaning towards being a bit of a tosser… whoops, I meant to write a braggart, has always been popular in our parts. But as we know, Italiots are also very fickle, so they must also be given “lighter” stories and those of “good feelings” to focus their attention on. So? What is to be done? Why, it’s simple: you whip up a case to get them arguing heatedly for weeks starting from a “cynically clever” commercial, as they would say in the Capital. One of those tear-jerker commercials, like the ones that every year, punctually, just before Christmas, a very famous supermarket chain churns out in Germany. Good feelings towards the grandmother or grandfather of the moment in the latter case, good feelings towards the little girl of divorced parents in the former. On the other hand, why on earth should the fellow citizens of the lovely Esselunga family focus on an economic and social situation that is disastrous to say the least? Heaven forbid that someone (by now an endangered species) might get the urge to protest, or, I don’t know, rebel against the puppet government of the moment. Indeed, because it is not even worth seeing who the current appointee is to shuffle the papers at Palazzo Chigi anymore. In this regard, the concept was well clarified by the Saviour of the Homeland Mario Draghi, when he still held the role of head of the ECB: “Markets do not fear elections, reforms have an autopilot”. And that is the only thing that matters. Decisions are made elsewhere. The people, in practice, delude themselves into thinking they count for something by choosing puppet candidates from this or that party. Exemplary in this respect is the phrase of the other Goldman Sachs strongman, the venerable Professor Mario Monti, when in an interview in 2015 he said: “Can one hope that public opinion will become aware of the loss of leadership on the part of those governing? Is it possible for the sheep to take to guiding the shepherd in the right direction, even assuming control of the sheepdog? A bit difficult.” Therefore, sheep, graze and keep quiet!

 

Israel, fair land of love

As I am about to conclude this long article of mine (as usual, you will say! But then again, one cannot encapsulate so many topics and considerations in a tweet), the news arrives of the Hamas attack in multiple parts of Israel. The situation is still unfolding and, in my opinion, it is a bit too early to say what is really happening: a real attack according to some (namely Israel’s supporters), a “false flag” according to others (Palestinian supporters). It is highly likely that this could be the actual beginning of the escalation of the Third World War (already underway in several parts of the globe: Europe, Africa, Asia and now the Middle East under different guises). In any case, it is yet another symptom of the struggle taking place at the top of the masonic power groups, never before so at odds with each other to decide who will lead the imminent future world, the one of digital control towards which everyone, none of the great powers excluded, is heading at full sail.

The king is dead. Long live the king!

The king is dead. Long live the king!

Posted on by Nemulisse

A brief premise

The author of these lines has been in the past, I would say for a long period, a sympathiser of the “left”, even the extreme left I dare say. This is always bearing in mind the fact that it happened when, to some extent, one could still speak of a division between “left” and “right” in Italian politics, and assuming it actually makes sense to say one is “left-wing” or “right-wing”. Only the passing of the years, in fact, has taught me that ideologies too (it matters little which ones) have always been used by “true” power to command and subjugate the peoples of the entire earth. The latter, conversely, have sincerely embraced the roles offered to them from time to time, often even at the cost of their own lives and those of their loved ones. This brief introduction is solely so as not to receive, from the usual four lobotomised morons, the usual epithets they have been trained to use, like Pavlov’s dogs, against anyone who thinks differently from the current narrative of political correctness.

 

An Italian story. Or perhaps not

It was the 17th of February 1992 when the then almost unknown public prosecutor Antonio Di Pietro obtained an arrest warrant from the preliminary investigating judge Italo Ghitti for the engineer Mario Chiesa. Chiesa was president of the Pio Albergo Trivulzio care home, as well as a prominent exponent of the Milanese PSI (Italian Socialist Party), following an investigation begun the previous year which saw him personally involved in an affair of administrative corruption and kickback payments. It was only the needle in the haystack and very soon revealed a ring of bribes that had been practised throughout the country for years, but which everyone pretended did not exist. The investigations widened and, following the general elections of early April that year, which were disastrous for all parties (excluding the Lega and Leoluca Orlando’s La Rete), there was a succession of accusations, resignations and, in some cases, even suicides of both politicians and businessmen (among others the former president of Eni Francesco Cagliari and the businessman Raul Gardini, president of the Ferruzzi-Montedison group, both involved in the “Enimont” bribe affair). In little more than a year an entire political class was swept away, party leaders foremost. There were also several death threats against Di Pietro himself (a character, moreover, who was anything but flawless. But it would take too long to discuss him here). The investigations, by now extremely numerous, even involved the Guardia di Finanza (financial police). Only the old PCI (Italian Communist Party) seemed to be only marginally touched by this wave of scandals. But, in reality, the reason why it was not directly involved is quite another. I shall return to this later in this article. All this led, as we shall soon see, to the end of the First Republic, to use a journalistic expression.

 

Fozza Itaia

I remember perfectly an evening in 1992 when some friends and I were walking around the streets of Rome chatting. At a certain point, in the San Giovanni area, we all noticed some billboards displaying the full-screen image of a smiling baby with the words “Fozza Itaia” (childish pronunciation for Forza Italia, Go Italy) written above. We all immediately asked each other the same question: “What on earth is this? It looks like a football slogan!”. Even if the admen later denied it, no one will ever remove from my mind the idea that they were, so to speak, the technical test broadcasts for the new, already planned party that was to be founded in January 1994, after his entry into politics in October of the previous year, by a Milanese entrepreneur: Silvio Berlusconi. The reason why, today, years later, I believe those billboards were not accidental is that a little over two years earlier, exactly on the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall had fallen. Since then, it was decided elsewhere that the European political order had to change and that Italy in particular had to make way for a new political class. This class was to replace the old one which, albeit corrupt and corruptible, had the great sin of being made up of authentic politicians, i.e. men whose training had been truly political and who, in their own way, still cared about the general good of the country. In other words, those who still held a concept of a multi-polar and non-globalist world and whose vision of power relations still reflected political, social and moral “values” belonging to the development of previous centuries had to be swept away. The end of the 20th century, on the contrary, was to pave the way for those unifying and thought-cancelling principles which still today act as the guidelines for recent international developments. Precisely for this reason, what I am summarising here is perhaps not (as I wrote above) entirely an “Italian story”. And this is true both as regards the history of “Tangentopoli” (Bribesville) and the entry onto the field (as he himself used to say, borrowing the term from his beloved football) of this character, as controversial as he was atypical in Italian politics. For better or worse, the politician Berlusconi, absolutely inseparable from the entrepreneur, characterised about 17 years of Italian politics and society: from the official foundation of his Forza Italia in January 1994, until the 12th of November 2011, the date of his “forced” resignation as Prime Minister. That resignation, as I noted at the time discussing it with my friends from the aforementioned evening in 1992, was in reality a fully-fledged “coup d’état” by the then President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano* (perhaps the worst President the Italian Republic has ever had alongside the current one) and the international political and economic community. The latter was the true instigator of what Napolitano practically did. In all likelihood, the entrepreneur Berlusconi was blackmailed. Mediaset shares began to lose their value, nosediving throughout 2011, losing a whopping 45.5 per cent by August alone. And things certainly didn’t go well for them in the immediately subsequent years either. Created in 1987, it was worth 4 billion at the end of 1996, the year it was floated on the Stock Exchange, only to reach 30 billion at the beginning of 2000, with the advent of the Internet. Since then, however, it has been a slow, inexorable decline down to the roughly 1.7 billion today, less than half of what it was worth at the time of its flotation 27 years ago. In practice, Goldman Sachs & Co. made it clear to the Cavaliere that the time had come to hand over the reins of command. And so began the Monti era.

 

Berlusconi the corruptor

Berlusconi certainly contributed to worsening the already shaky country of the late 1980s from various points of view. I am the first to believe that with his television channels, thanks to the complicity of characters like Maurizio Costanzo and his husband (no, that is not a slip of the tongue on my part…), he brought into the homes of Italians, who already lean towards superficiality, the worst sort of apathy and vulgarity linked to primary instincts (food, crude sex and toilet humour). It is also true that the Berlusconi persona (and this too is no coincidence) availed himself of the economic and other help of the Mafia for his business projects, which, I remind us all, is the “dirty hand” of international power. It is equally true that he was a corruptor and committed perhaps dozens of administrative and other offences, besides having taken advantage of the dual role of politician and entrepreneur, with a blatant conflict of interests, to benefit his companies through over 70 ad personam legislative measures, yielding advantages of all kinds, even to the detriment of State enterprises. Well, all this is undoubtedly true (as the many trials against him have repeatedly proven). I was certain of it years ago and I still am. However, I do not find that, despite everything, the most serious role, the one most laden with responsibility in the entire period that Berlusconi meant something for our Country and beyond, was his. Berlusconi always presented himself for what he was, without subterfuge. The same cannot exactly be said for other protagonists of Italian political and social life. And here we return to the role played, as I wrote earlier, by the old PCI during the frantic phase of “Mani pulite” (Clean Hands). As I have already mentioned, the old Communist Party, or what was left of it after Occhetto’s “turning point” of 1991 with its transformation into the PDS (Democratic Party of the Left). It is no coincidence that the name echoed that of one of the two main transatlantic parties. Just as it is no coincidence that Achille Occhetto, who in my opinion was manipulated by others, was succeeded in 1994, the year of Berlusconi’s electoral victory, by Massimo D’Alema, one of the most shady figures in Italian politics (I won’t list the various misdeeds accumulated in his long political career here). The man who was once the “bag carrier” for the old PCI politicians became a protagonist, thus forming (along with other bag carriers from other old parties) the “new” political class of the “Second Republic” (today, with the so-called “Third”, we are down to the nobodies of the Second). The so-called “left” (which has nothing to do anymore with the “values” of the “left” of yesteryear, just as today’s “right” has nothing to do with its old counterpart) in all the years it was in government, alternating with the Cavaliere, never, I say never, cancelled a single one of those 70 ad personam legislative measures he had pushed through. A coincidence? I should think not.

 

This one or that one, they are all the same to me

For the true power, the international masonic one, Silvio Berlusconi, himself a freemason with a membership card for Licio Gelli’s Propaganda 2 (P2) lodge (like the aforementioned Maurizio Costanzo), was needed to steer Italy in the direction that, alas, he made it take. However, the character was, so to speak, histrionic. He had the unpleasant tendency to feel he was the leading man. In other words, to do as he damn well pleased every now and then, failing to consider the fact that the masters holding him on a leash would not appreciate this “autonomy” of vision. And they made him pay for it, eventually dumping him when they realised that, besides no longer being of use to them, he was also becoming detrimental to their plans (Putin, Gaddafi, etc.). On the other side, the real masters of the steamship set up the role of fake opposition for the Italians (or better to call them, as I usually do, Italiots) by creating, precisely, a “left-wing” party, making it change its name over the years. But why did they use the old PCI (and consequently not let it get involved in “Mani pulite”)? Simple. Because the old Communist Party was the one with a capillary distribution across the territory and which, through its cooperatives, could best reach the majority of the working classes. The Berlusca would take care of the middle-to-upper bourgeoisie. When the little “left-wing” servants had started to tire out the ragged plebs, who may well be ragged but still have a stomach and can ill bear that those who are supposed to defend them sip champagne and eat caviar (remind you of anything today?) whilst blatantly not giving a toss about them, the global elites pulled the new “fake opposition” out of the hat: the 5 Stars (or 5 Stables, 5 stalle, whichever you prefer). With the latter, as I have said elsewhere, I too was taken in and gave them my vote (after about 30 years of honourably spoiled ballot papers). Clearly, I did not make the same mistake at the next election. Today, the “fuchsia-rainbow” left, as Diego Fusaro rightly calls them, are tearing their (colourful) garments on “social media” because a day of national mourning was proclaimed for Berlusconi’s death (it’s all “non in mio nome” or “not in my name”, because English sounds cooler everywhere). Aside from not caring in the slightest about the political act desired by the current puppet Government (the puppets’ jackets change, but the puppeteers remain the same), I must say I find it simply depressing that there are so many brain-dead people roaming free. I haven’t worried about the fact that they have the right to vote for a long time, since, as someone once said (I don’t care if it was really Mark Twain or not), “if voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it”. The king is dead, long live the king! Next in line, please.

*I had spoken about this in several articles, including here, here and here

I have suffered a sea change and nothing can ever be the same again

I have suffered a sea change and nothing can ever be the same again

Posted on by Nemulisse

I have not written at length for a while because, as Ludwig Wittgenstein said in his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, «Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen», which means “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. And indeed, what else could I possibly have written about, beyond what I have already covered in my previous articles regarding the era we are living in? Very little, in fact. This is also because everything is proceeding as planned, at least for those who decided that this epochal shift in all our lives had to be implemented: first came the fake pandemic, then the war (which is waning in the interest of many), and now it is the turn of the gradual disappearance of commercial banks (see the Swiss case and the Silicon Valley one) in favour of a centralised shift to digital currency. Do not be afraid, it will happen very soon, not as far off in the future as some believe and continue to maintain. Around 200 US banks are at risk of failure and could collapse in a manner similar to the Californian bank. A report states that “Even if only half of uninsured depositors decide to withdraw their funds, almost 190 banks are exposed to a potential risk of impairment to insured depositors, with potentially $300 billion of insured deposits at risk.” A study by four economists from leading universities, published on the 13th of March on the Social Science Research Network, argues that the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes led to the depreciation of assets such as US Treasury bonds held by these banks. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that not all uninsured deposits will be bailed out by the FDIC. In other words, only the big banks will be saved. In Europe, the mechanism was announced by Fabio Panetta, a member of the ECB’s Executive Board, during his introductory statement before the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs: “The investigation phase of the digital euro project started over a year ago. Since its launch, the close involvement of the European Parliament has been a priority for the ECB. During 2022, we regularly discussed the main technical options under consideration in this Committee. Your contributions have provided valuable guidance for our work; together with feedback received from other counterparts, both public and private, they have contributed to the progress made in recent months. These interactions are essential to ensure that public money (money issued by the central bank) meets the preferences and needs of citizens and businesses in a constantly evolving digital environment. The payment habits of European citizens are changing at an unprecedented speed: over the past three years, cash payments in the euro area have dropped from 72 to 59 per cent of the total, while digital payments have become even more widespread. In the Netherlands and Finland, for example, cash is used in only one-fifth of transactions. At the same time, citizens want the option to pay with public money. The majority consider it important or very important to always have such an option available. A digital euro would respond to this growing demand for electronic payments by making public money available in digital form. Alongside cash, a digital euro would offer European citizens access to a means of payment that would allow them to pay anywhere in the euro area, free of charge. The ease of access and the convenience of its use would foster the adoption of the new currency, improving financial inclusion. In my remarks today, I will explore how a digital euro could help us make our currency available everywhere and for every need within the euro area. I will conclude my observations by focusing on the work programme for 2023, during which the ECB will complete the investigation phase of the digital euro project and the European Commission will present its legislative proposal.” In short, social control, via a digital currency with an expiry date issued solely by central banks, is well mapped out. First in Western countries, then the rest will follow (by hook or by crook). The system has been set in motion and, adjustments aside, has its own precise roadmap. The boiling frog principle still applies, as does the Overton window. This short piece of mine is therefore more of a memo to myself, primarily, regarding a couple of points being woven by all the parties involved. For anyone who has taken the trouble to read my previous articles, exactly who the “parties involved” are should be abundantly clear by now. For the more distracted, it could simply be summarised that there is no “good guy” opposed to the “bad guy”, or to be clearer, the “Trump” opposed to the “Biden” of the moment (or vice versa, depending on how one wishes to believe the current narrative), or the “good West” opposed to the “bad East” (to simplify, the “good guys of NATO” against the “bad Russians and Chinese”); rather, there are two main masonic groups taking turns at the pinnacle of the global power pyramid, with one prevailing now and the other later, tripping each other up along the way (read: fake scandals about things actually well known to everyone, or fake attacks of various kinds aimed at “destabilising” the other side, at least in the eyes of public opinion). In short, it is all a role-playing game on an enormous chessboard, where the pawns being slaughtered (more or less consciously) are all of us “ordinary mortals”. As for who sits above even the kings and queens, that would require a separate discussion which I do not intend to tackle here, partly because I am aware you would all call me mad (even more than some already do).

 

The lead soldiers

In this descent into the underworld, one cannot rely on the so-called “new generations” for a slowdown (I do not even consider a U-turn, which in my view is impossible). As I have written elsewhere, they are masses of little soldiers specifically trained in schools and universities worldwide through curricula tailor-made for this purpose. Within them (and I am not just referring to twenty-somethings or teenagers), every sense of critical conscience has been killed off, deliberately creating for them an unquestionable, top-down reality that tolerates no doubts, other than fake ones specifically created to give the illusion that dissent is tolerated. Then again, Ernst Jünger had already explained perfectly how this works in his “The Forest Passage” (Trattato del ribelle). The docile little soldiers, armed with mobile phones, seek answers to the world’s queries through the algorithms of “ChatGPT” (the name itself speaks volumes: Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer), cleverly set up by the “non-profit” company OpenAI, whose founders and participants include the usual suspects: Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Peter Thiel (PayPal), Sam Altman and Jessica Livingston of “Y Combinator” (a startup incubator for the likes of Airbnb, Stripe, Coinbase, Dropbox, Twitch, Reddit), Ilya Sutskever, a former Google expert on machine learning, and Amazon Web Services (a subsidiary dealing in cloud services). And so they wander the globe, chanting slogans (specifically prepared for them by others), hurling anathemas against anyone who dares to question the mainstream vulgate, and occasionally dispensing pearls of political or moral wisdom. The thirty- and forty-somethings in particular are the quintessence of uncultured and self-referential pedantry. And this is a phenomenon unaffected by geographical borders. Almost everywhere in the world, they are the age group that best encapsulates these new “qualities” of homo technologicus (sic.), spreading democratically across all branches of human endeavour. In practice, they are now the central pivot of modern society (there are, of course, due exceptions, but they are exactly that: exceptions).

Italialand, my Love

A brief nod to Italialand, where between an “orbe terracqueo” (globe) from the Prime Minister Meloni and a “rambata” (Ramboesque stunt) by the Mayor of Florence Nardella, parade the LGBTQXYZ+++ hordes (note the irony?), captained by the new PD secretary Elly Schlein, our very own homegrown Greta Thunberg, reared directly in the bosom of the American “neo-liberal” faction. Obviously, all this has nothing to do with the sacrosanct right of homosexuals to civil and social rights, but rather with the destabilisation of the individual through the fake demand for the normalisation of practices that are highly questionable from various points of view, such as surrogate motherhood. One could debate these topics for days, and I certainly do not intend to do so here.

Senescence

Personally, I feel like a being immersed in a “Spenglerian” vision of the world, meaning part of a world (as in Der Untergang des Abendlandes, or “The Decline of the West”) that is already dead and hopeless, desperately trying in every way to resist its decline. It is my fault, the fault of my generation (and of all those from the generations immediately preceding mine) that we failed to spot the poisoned meatball thrown into our enclosure. Yet the means to understand it were already there, we simply failed to use them. Hindsight analyses serve only to console oneself and, if possible, to understand. Nostalgically, I think of the phrase uttered by Donald Sutherland at the end of John Sturges’ beautiful film “The Eagle Has Landed”, and I somewhat identify with it: «Bonnie my love, as a great man once said: I have suffered a sea change and nothing can ever be the same again… as they say in Ireland: we have known other days».

Thinking ill is a sin…

Thinking ill is a sin…

Posted on by Nemulisse

A short article to clarify what are, in my opinion, two “falsehoods” created ad hoc.

 

NATO expansion

The first concerns the course of the Atlantic Alliance’s expansion. Those who believe that NATO has broken the post-Berlin Wall agreements (namely that, in exchange for its fall, the West was not supposed to attempt to absorb the former States of the Soviet Union, which instead promptly happened) are crying foul. However, in my opinion, over time, what was once an incontrovertible truth has altered in light of the rapid development that all the participating actors have decided to impose upon the (very near) future of the world. What is taking place is a carving up of pre-established geopolitical spheres (I wrote about this here). Put simply, the USA and Great Britain on one side (with their acolytes Canada and Australia), and Russia and China on the other (with various acolytes in this case too), are rapidly completing this partition, where Ukraine represents the European border of their respective spheres of influence. Therefore, the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO is nothing but a further step towards the planned consolidation of these spheres of influence. All of this is passed off as a continuation of NATO’s initial breach of the pacts. What better excuse than the war in Ukraine to accelerate this process?

 

Famous “vaccinated” people getting sick

The second “falsehood” concerns the cases of Covid sickness found among the most famous proponents of the vaccination campaign, starting with that Anthony Stephen Fauci who has played a leading role in this whole affair. The controversial Dr Fauci supposedly fell ill with the Omicron variant despite being (so the mainstream narrative dictates) vaccinated no less than four times. A chorus of “I told you so!” immediately rose from the ranks of those who have always (rightly) been against mass vaccination for Sars-Cov-2. In reality, what I think is that it is all a charade—just as is the very fact that he actually got vaccinated (he and other active actors in this pantomime)—in order to show the flock of sheep who genuinely got vaccinated and then got sick anyway, perhaps even ending up in hospital, that yes, one does get sick after a whopping 4 doses of the vaccine, but in a milder way compared to an unvaccinated person. Obviously, the latter is a blatant falsehood, amply demonstrated by recent studies published in the most prestigious medical journals and as shown by a recent study carried out in Great Britain. But for the sheeple, what counts is the example and the repetition like a mantra of the fake news disseminated by the regime’s media. In practice, I think all these people are the classic smokescreen, the rabbit pulled out of the hat to reassure those who, at this point, are starting (a miracle!) to harbour a little doubt. What is the point of getting vaccinated if you get infected anyway and risk ending up in hospital in many cases? Obviously, I cannot concretely prove these theories, even though there are manifold indications suggesting they are correct. Let’s just say I am someone who tends to think the worst, but as Cardinal Giulio Mazzarino (later echoed by Giulio Andreotti) used to say: “Thinking ill of others is a sin, but one is often right.”

Mickey Mouse and the Wonders of Tomorrow

Mickey Mouse and the Wonders of Tomorrow

Posted on by Nemulisse

The year was 1974 and, I still remember it, on a splendid late October-early November Saturday afternoon I found myself strolling with my family along the legendary “Via Veneto” in Rome. I do not know if it still exists, but at the time there was a large newsstand almost exactly where the street of the “Dolce Vita” forks with Via Bissolati, opposite the American Embassy. Well, there I begged my father to buy me an extra comic book, compared to the normal weekly issues of “Mickey Mouse”, of which I was an avid reader: it was a “Golden Edition”, with the fascinating title of “Mickey Mouse and the wonders of tomorrow”. What child could have resisted the mystery hidden behind such a captivating title? Very few, and certainly not me. I finally convinced my father to yield and I took possession of that illustrated comic book (moreover, of an unusual shape compared to the “normal” Mickey Mouse comics, because it was wide and short in height). The story (Mickey Mouse – The World of Tomorrow), a fact I was unaware of at the time, had been written for the US version by Bill Walsh, while Floyd Gottfredson had done the drawings and Dick Moores the inking, all way back in 1944. The plot of the comic saw Mickey receiving a mysterious parcel in the post containing invisible clothes which, once put on, would show him the beauties of the world of the future. Thinking it was a present from his scientist friends, Mickey entered the “new world” together with Pluto, finding a hyper-technological Earth that had tamed every last remnant of wild nature. Nominally, crime no longer existed, but mysterious mechanical men kidnapped Minnie. Setting off in search of her alongside the eccentric Inspector Gluesome, Mickey arrived in the hidden valley of Mekkakia, where Peg-Leg Pete had some time earlier exploited a scientist to assemble an initial fringe of self-building robots with which to conquer the planet (a result achievable also thanks to the aid of a swarm of robots with human features that were supposed to quietly take the place of their respective human counterparts). In Mekkakia, in addition to a splendid robot-woman (Mimi) who fell in love with Mickey, a perfect replicant of the round-eared mouse was already prepared… The story continues, but it would be too long to summarise it all. In the end, it will not be clear whether it was a real journey or a nightmare caused to Mickey by the bump on his head given to him by his nephew Morty’s mechanical man. All this long preamble is not only to recall a minor masterpiece for children (and beyond), but above all to have a starting point to talk about the wonders of our “tomorrow”, which in reality is already a sad “today”.

 

The new “Peg-Leg Petes”

In Walsh’s story, the attempt by the villain Peg-Leg Pete was to replace humanity with human-looking robots (many others in literature and cinema have hypothesised this eventuality), whereas today what is looming on the horizon is the integration of man with machine, as in the nightmares of the worst (or best, depending on one’s point of view) science fiction dedicated to so-called transhumanism. I would rather call it a dehumanisation of the human being in the name, at least this is how this transformation is sold, of scientific progress and convenience in the social and economic sphere. By now, people speak openly of a “fusion” of man and machine, but obviously for the beneficial purpose of preventing illnesses or forestalling tendencies inherent in our physical and mental development. One of the greatest advocates of this “new world of wonders” is Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli historian and essayist, and advisor to Klaus Schwab. Our guy, among other things, forecasts a world where human beings will have to be hacked. In 2020, during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, he said: “If you know enough biology and have enough computing power and data, you can hack my body and my brain and my life, and you can understand me better than I understand myself. You can know my personality type, my political views, my sexual preferences, my mental weaknesses, my deepest fears and hopes. You know more about me than I know about myself. And you can do that not just to me, but to everyone. …A system that understands us better than we understand ourselves can predict our feelings and decisions, can manipulate our feelings and decisions, and can ultimately make decisions for us. …Now in the past, many governments and tyrants wanted to do it, but nobody understood biology well enough and nobody had enough computing power and data to hack millions of people. Neither the Gestapo nor the KGB could do it. But soon at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls – we are now hackable animals”*. “We are now hackable animals”… In fact, the road towards this type of vulnerability has been taken for quite some time. Noble foundations, such as the Rockefeller one, had already committed themselves to imagining our future in this sense. Since then, there have been multiple instances of this kind of development. To give an example, Sweden, a well-known country for social experimentation (oh yes, we are not the only ones in Europe), had (in 2018, to be precise) introduced the “convenient” practice of a subcutaneous microchip whose task would be to save one the tedious operation of opening a door by touching the infected (post “pandemic”) door handles, or sparing shop customers from having to handle contagious and dirty money. But, news of these days, we have now reached a new masterpiece in this direction. The trial is no longer free, but is being charged to those undergoing it. Do you want this enormous convenience of offering your wrist to enter the house? Then pay 200 euros (or rather, 199 to be precise). But it goes up to 350 with the operation necessary for the implant, as the enthusiastic grand Italian newspaper from Via Solferino explains to us. I imagine there are many Italiots (and non-Italiots) who will be enthusiastic about joining this wonderful initiative.

 

The numerous wonders of “tomorrow”

But the wonders of tomorrow are myriad, in Italialand and elsewhere. Well known by now is the story of the over 30 bio-engineering laboratories financed by the Americans (and not only) in Ukraine by Metabiota, one of the Pentagon’s contractors (I have spoken about this elsewhere). What our fellow countrymen probably do not know is that there are also laboratories of this kind on our own national territory. One was transferred from Cairo to Sigonella (as reported by Franco Fracassi), and one, hear hear, is in Trieste, a city with a Central European charisma. An interesting document, regarding this latter laboratory, is the Official Gazette published on the 15th of June last. The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) was in fact made the object of special “attention” by the Government, granting it privileges that for a private company are unusual to say the least. As we read on their website, “ICGEB is a unique intergovernmental organisation, initially created as a special project of UNIDO. Autonomous since 1994, it manages over 45 state-of-the-art laboratories in Trieste, Italy, New Delhi, India and Cape Town, South Africa, and forms an interactive network with nearly 70 Member States, with operations aligned with those of the United Nations System. It plays a key role in biotechnology by promoting research excellence, training and technology transfer to industry, to contribute in concrete terms to sustainable global development.” Here is the magic word: “sustainable”. A simple adjective that is now used like parsley. It goes well everywhere. Everything becomes more beautiful when apostrophised with this word. It gives an idea of green (as those who are “avant-garde” like to say), fresh, clean. Virgil, in the Aeneid, has Laocoön utter the famous phrase “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes” (I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts). Well, the comparison seems appropriate to me; one must be wary of anyone who uses words like “sustainable” or “resilient”. In the case in point, one only needs to glance at who the ICGEB’s corporate partners are. Among others we find “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”, “The National Institutes of Health” (NIH), “New England Biolabs”, various charities, “Sun Pharma”, “EMBO” and the “Joint Research Centre” of the European Commission. Many players who, in various capacities, were also involved in the “pandemic”. Among the things established by law (LAW of 19 May 2022, no. 66 ratifying a previous agreement), the Government has exempted it from all taxes, made its premises inalienable, and granted total immunity to the staff (and their family members). Furthermore, the company can hold accounts in Italy and abroad with different currencies remaining exempt from any taxation. I wonder why? And why is so much prominence given to a private rather than a state company, so much as to even put the privileges it enjoys into a law (thanks to a sleeping Parliament)?

 

Conclusions

I would like to conclude this digression of mine on today (tomorrow is already present, unfortunately), with another illuminating thought from our Harari who, during an interview given last May, expressed himself thus: “I think the biggest question maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people? The problem is more boredom and what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life, when they are basically meaningless, worthless? My best guess, at present is a combination of drugs and computer games as a solution for most. It is already happening… I think that once you are superfluous, you don’t have power anymore”. And again in another one from September 2021: “If you have enough data and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves, and then you can manipulate them in ways that were previously impossible, and in such a situation the old democratic systems stop working. We need to reinvent democracy in this new era in which human beings are now hackable animals. The idea that human beings have this “soul” or “spirit” and have free will… is over”. And again: “We don’t have an answer in the Bible as to what to do when human beings are no longer useful to the economy. We need completely new ideologies, completely new religions and it is likely that they will emerge from Silicon Valley… and not from the Middle East. And they will probably give people visions based on technology. Everything that the ancient religions promised: Happiness and justice and even eternal life, but HERE ON EARTH with the help of technology and not after death with the help of some supernatural being”.

Somewhere in my parents’ house I should still have “Mickey Mouse and the wonders of tomorrow”. I must go and look for it, because I do not quite remember how the story ends…

The first victim of the war

The first victim of the war

Posted on by Nemulisse

When events flow at a whirlwind pace, I believe it makes little sense to write about their causes and where they will lead in the future. To understand, one must wait and pull the threads of various plots unfolding simultaneously, yet (at least apparently) disconnected from one another. I fear it will not be long before the developments—tragic, in my opinion—of everything humanity has been experiencing for two years now reach their culmination point. Briefly recapping, we have suffered the fake scamdemic of Sars-Cov-2. Today we know full well where it originated (link 1, link 2, link 3) and who was, so to speak, its “mastermind”. In reality, we should say “the masterminds”, who are always the usual suspects. They are just over a hundred powerful families and autocrats in the world who, I stress, by mutual agreement, decided which changes humanity should be steered towards in a short space of time. Alongside the usual Rothschild, Rockefeller & Co. families, this group includes the nomenclature of the Chinese mandarins (with whom, as Nicoletta Forcheri rightly pointed out, the Rothschilds have been doing business for years now), the Vatican, the Mafia and Vladimir Putin’s Russia (perhaps the only one slightly more tied to the “old school” world in some respects). Moreover, they have explained everything clearly and in broad daylight during their various, by now semi-legendary, meetings of the Bilderberg group or Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum and his Agenda 2030. You will own nothing and you will be happy (and controlled from morning till night). Thus their motto can be summed up. All this via technology. The entire operation was prepared long in advance, and the methods used to introduce it were manifold. Internationally, tension was kept high with various colour revolutions and terrorist attacks in several nations, whose extremist perpetrators (usually Arabs) can only be believed by primary school children or the sheeple (that is, 90 per cent of humanity). Paving the way for a change in lifestyle, on the other hand, was left to political movements like the “5 Stars” in Italy, or the Greens in Germany, as well as the champion of the “climate change” protest Greta Thunberg and the lobotomised “climate morons” (gretini) of all ages, magically popping up like mushrooms all over the globe (the mother of idiots is always pregnant, as one would have said in past times outside the realm of political correctness). Finally came the war in Ukraine. As in all wars, the first victim to pay the price is the truth. The only sure thing is that none of the parties involved, Europe included, gives a toss about the Ukrainian population. A “strange” war, that never officially declared between Russia, the invader, and Ukraine, the attacked. The story, as we know, goes way back. At least from one side of the issue. Namely, the continuous transgression of the agreements made at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall between the former Soviet Union and NATO regarding respect for the neutrality of former Soviet territories (Ukraine included), and the treatment reserved for the Russian-speaking populations of the Donbass, with Russia’s recognition of the independence of the two republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. In this regard, see the excellent work of Giorgio Bianchi, one of the few real journalists who, on the ground, is recounting (at the time of writing this article) how the facts are truly unfolding and how they unfolded in the past. That being said, however, the general situation remains to be analysed. As I said earlier, Russia too is part of the power group that wants to carve up the future world. However, I think that along the path supposed to lead to this goal, there are actual clashes between the actors on the field. In this case, the United States and Great Britain, using the smokescreen of NATO, and on the other side Tsar Vladimir. The first two tried to deal a significant blow to their rival, failing to calculate that the latter is actually a much tougher nut to crack than they thought. If we add to this the fact that China (Washington’s true target) has joined forces to form a common front with Russia, the picture is problematic to say the least.

 

Farewell Dollar, farewell

Aside from NATO’s undeniable encirclement of Russian territory and the attempt made in Ukraine, using the Old Continent at their pleasure (as usual), what is now at stake is monetary supremacy and the transition (desired by all competing actors) to digital currency. First step? Putin’s massive shoulder barge to the Dollar: demanding payment for the precious (at least for Europe, the real loser in this whole dispute) Russian gas in roubles and no longer in Euros or Dollars has marked a point of no return to the past. The cost of gold in Roubles is lower than that of the same in Dollars. The Petrodollar, which replaced the Bretton Woods agreements in 1971, has reached the end of the line. Russia and China have decided that the time has come to retire it. But beware, this is not a game of the good guy against the bad guy (in this case, the Russians against the Americans). I absolutely do not belong to those on the Web who are gloating at the mere thought that globalisation has reached the end of the line. Globalisation as we had understood it up until now, yes. But the elites have transformed it and conceived a form of digitised global control. It is no coincidence that Russia also accepts payment for its raw materials in Bitcoin. Because the Russians know very well too that digital currency (which is unfortunately the future of commercial exchanges of any kind) allows for almost total social control. Besides knowing perfectly well where an individual is and what they are doing, if they were to fail to abide by the diktats of those in command or transgress the rules imposed upon them, they could be immediately punished through the instant closure of their credit, making their life practically impossible. Exactly as is currently happening in China in several regions, whose model is the one inspiring the “liberal socialists” à la Mario Draghi*. This is why there was the “pandemic” first and now the war. Everything was already planned, just as climate changes are planned. Everything tends towards a single goal: the world will be divided into three power blocs. The Anglo-American one on one side, with Canada, Australia and various colonies; the Sino-Russian bloc on the other, with India and other countries tied to their economies; and finally Europe, or rather what will be left of it. Indeed, the weak link is precisely us, crushed by American interests on the one hand and a lack of raw materials on the other. We were, or rather we are, the tastiest morsel. We are a relatively rich continent and we have, we Italians in particular, the highest number of artworks in the world and a high rate of private wealth, both movable and real estate. I have to laugh at those on the Web who claim: “Globalisation is collapsing”, or “it’s all coming down. We’ve won”, or rather “Putin is the last champion against globalisation”. Putin is undoubtedly an excellent old-school politician, and first and foremost he looks after his own nation’s interests, but he is no saint, no more and no less than the others. He too has a very specific goal: to carve out a slice of the global pie for himself. The only difference is that he does it with a sort of ethics that his adversaries/accomplices have long ceased to apply. Or perhaps never applied. As they say, dog doesn’t eat dog. Or rather, every now and then they try to, perhaps hoping to catch their antagonist unprepared, but the ultimate goal is always well in sight for everyone. China, having now become an economic and technological giant, is the true antagonist of the United States (who had initially favoured it thinking they could relegate mass industrial production there, failing to realise instead that they had made Western companies dependent on it for strategic industrial production). The Chinese empire possesses great power in construction logistics, something that can come in handy for Russia which, conversely, except for Moscow and St Petersburg (i.e. the “European” part of its territory), has vast quantities of raw materials but lacks the infrastructure. Therefore, the Chinese and Russians have allied for a mutual exchange in this sense. Vladivostok in particular represents the spearhead of this alliance, as a port facing the Sea of Japan, hence the Pacific Ocean, bordering China and North Korea and which, via the Bering Strait, represents an alternative for transporting goods through the Northern Sea Route (which now, with the melting ice, is a more than viable alternative to the usual routes mostly controlled by the opposing economic bloc). Both China and Russia have bought large quantities of gold on markets all over the world in recent years, precisely in anticipation of “decoupling” from the petrodollar. After the United States, the largest holders of gold in the world are Germany, and indeed us, followed by the French and the Swiss. Thus, we Europeans are like a big pie to be carved up. What follows is easy to predict.

 

Where our political class comes from

As I was saying, in the end the one to lose out will primarily be the Old Continent itself, which has no energy resources of its own and will see its manufacturing industry and enterprise go up in smoke. The first warning signs are already clearly visible in many countries; ours, needless to say, among the first. Inflation has started galloping almost everywhere and ultimately the result will be a genuine disaster. European rulers, none excluded, belong to that ruling class that is either inept (and chosen to govern for this reason) or colluding, having grown up precisely within the institutional, educational and university, then political and social establishments of the elites who rule the world. In this regard, see Davide Rossi’s excellent book La Fabian Society e la pandemia. They are a bunch of parvenus ruling us not in our interest, but in that of the elites who trained them and put them in power. All this amidst the culpable distraction of the masses, lulled to sleep behind the latest mobile phone model, or the football team of the moment, or the advice of the influencer (artfully created, of course) touting consumer goods of all kinds, occasionally dispensing pearls of political or social wisdom to follow. Two years of the “pandemic” have clearly shown how a very few individuals, rich beyond the limits of imagination, have managed to pit the rest of humanity against each other. And all this by making them believe, through the exceedingly powerful means of totally subservient media, that one must fight not against what would once have been called the “system”, but in favour of it. Obviously in the name of the “common good” and to counter emergencies (created ad hoc by themselves). Not even Nazi propaganda managed to achieve as much. Dictators needed force to ensure the population obeyed through gritted teeth (obtorto collo). Instead, for the first time in human history, the victims voluntarily submitted to every sort of oppression by their executioners. I repeat, out of fear, exhaustion, cowardice, or simple compliance brought about by induced collective hypnosis. I would say very little hope remains regarding a recovery of position on the part of the world’s populations. Even if they are the absolute majority, the position they have reached is of such weakness as to leave no room for hoping for a general uprising. The revolts, as we have unfortunately seen several times during this period (Canada, Australia, France… Italy itself), have always been silenced by force, aided also by a quiet compliance from the “rebels” still deluded by the fact that one can expect justice from institutions, believing them to be impartial (super partes) and acting for the “good of the people”. In reality, that fine line between the legal and the illegal was crossed a long time ago by those who should have protected us against economic power. Now it is this very power that has taken the place of the legislative and judicial ones. And, unfortunately, I see no way of stopping it.

 

The Eurogendfor

Furthermore, what seems inevitable to me is civil war in several countries, because when push comes to shove (and in my opinion it will be much sooner than one might think), the social clash between these elites and the lower-middle class will be inevitable. As Cato the Censor used to say: “The stomach has no ears”. And many will be the stomachs that will be left empty very soon. I think attempts to placate them with some sort of universal basic income (already tried in various guises in different parts of the world, Italy included) will be to no avail, and the intervention of repressive violence will be the only way to contain the anger of the people. Do you remember the Eurogendfor? Probably not. It is that military corps established during the European Council of Nice in December 2000 and definitively made official with the Treaty of Velsen in 2007, the latter signed by France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and, obviously, Italy, whose headquarters are in Vicenza (where, coincidentally, one of the most important American bases in Europe is located). The treaty consists of 47 articles, among which some interesting things can be read. Its tasks are: “to conduct security and public order missions; to monitor, advise, mentor and supervise local police in their day-to-day work, including criminal investigation work; to conduct public surveillance, traffic regulation, border policing and general intelligence gathering; to perform criminal investigation work, detect offences, trace offenders and transfer them to the appropriate judicial authorities; to protect people and property and keep order in the event of public disturbances” (Art. 4). The scope of action: “EUROGENDFOR may be placed at the disposal of the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other international organizations or ad hoc coalitions” (Art. 5). The headquarters and command cabin: “the multinational police force with military status consisting of the permanent multinational, modular and projectable Headquarters located in Vicenza (Italy). The role and structure of the permanent HQ, as well as its involvement in operations, shall be approved by the CIMIN – namely – the High Level Interdepartmental Committee. It constitutes the decision-making body governing EUROGENDFOR” (Art. 3). The EGF enjoys total immunity: inviolable premises, property and archives (Arts. 21 and 22); communications cannot be intercepted (Art. 23); damage to property or persons cannot be compensated (Art. 28); gendarmes cannot be investigated by the justice system of the host countries (Art. 29). As is clearly evident, a series of privileges inconceivable in a state governed by the rule of law. On the 14th of May 2010, the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Republic ratified the agreement. Present 443, voting 442, abstentions 1. 442 voted yes: everyone, none excluded. If a part of the “regular” law enforcement agencies, as I suspect, takes the side of the oppressed, who do you think the oppressors will use to contain the revolt and break the rebels? We leave the arduous verdict to posterity.

  • Regarding the latter, to all those who say that it is a Government of incompetents that has been leading Italy for two years now, I answer that it is not so: they know perfectly well what they are doing (they are told what to do) and they are doing it well. At least from their point of view.

The best of all possible worlds

The best of all possible worlds

Posted on by Nemulisse

The “pandemic”, vaccines, masks… all the main topics one hears about from morning to night everywhere, on TV, on social media, on the streets. By now we have become accustomed to these themes and practically take them for granted. A bit like talking about the weather when you don’t really know what else to converse about. By now it is taken for granted that freedom is represented by being able to get vaccinated (or branded, like cattle, depending on one’s point of view) with the method deemed most suitable for oneself and as quickly as possible, and not by the fact that one might not want to get vaccinated. The latter, on the contrary, is viewed and singled out as the most heinous of sins in the social and even moral sphere (I dealt with this in this article). Anyone who harbours doubts about wanting to have the saving liquid inoculated into them is blacklisted and considered a pariah and a plague-spreader. This “branding” operation is put into effect starting with the various camel-mounted troops of “information”. At every hour of the day and night the usual faces of “experts”, pundits and politicians endlessly repeat the sung mass they have been told to propagate, regardless of their own competence and ability to understand what they are repeating ad nauseam. And this happens everywhere, in every Country, more in some, less in others, and with methods that change depending on the type of culture of the Country itself. Here at home, in Italialand, other accompanying diversions are added to this uninterrupted hammering, partly because they are typical of our culture, and partly because, as I have stressed at other times, we are a perfect people for conducting large-scale social experiments on. The latest in chronological order is the discussion on the so-called “Zan” law (a bill to be precise), passed in the Chamber of Deputies and now under discussion in the Senate. Of this specific legislative measure, Article 4 would need to be examined and investigated in depth, as it provides the means (were the law to pass as it is) to accuse anyone of crimes of opinion should they express thoughts not conforming to those of the “politically correct”, which might “offend” whoever on topics of a sexual and “inclusive” nature (a term so dear to a certain political side, and which deliberately means nothing concrete in itself). But I will not dwell on discussing it here now. There will be other occasions. However, there is an aspect of this whole “surreal” situation which in my opinion has not yet been highlighted well enough. It concerns the tight connection that actually exists between the “pandemic”, the restrictions implemented to “control” it, vaccines and… the “ecological transition” and so-called “digitisation”. Apparently these topics would be unrelated, but upon closer analysis the threads can be joined together. Let’s start with the last two.

 

Climate, ecology and bits aplenty

In the month of April, the European Union (Council and Parliament) reached a political agreement (confirmed a few days ago) that introduces into legislation the objective of climate neutrality (namely the Earth’s ability to absorb the greenhouse gas emissions produced) of the EU itself by 2050, and a collective goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Following this decision, or rather afterwards, the German Constitutional Court issued a ruling defined by all media as “historic”: “…The provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019… are incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack sufficient specifications for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards. The Climate Change Act obliges the Federal Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by the year 2030 compared to 1990… the complainants, some of whom are still very young, have had their fundamental rights violated by the challenged provisions”. Indeed, “the young”, because many of the complainants were precisely those youth movements that identify with Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future”. What a coincidence. And the German Government, so sensitive to the demands of the young (or perhaps of its entrepreneurial class?), promptly upped the ante, increasing Germany’s emission reduction target for 2030 from 55 to 65 per cent. The federal cabinet intends to pass a corresponding amendment to the Climate Change Act in the near future. The alternative energy to coal and lignite to keep German industries running in the future will most likely be hydrogen and dual-fluid nuclear power (to be clear, the reactors fitted on submarines), but for the moment gas remains the most viable energy source for replacing coal. Hence the agreement with the “big bad” Putin for the construction of the doubling of the Baltic Sea pipeline, the so-called “Nord Stream 2”, so fiercely opposed by the other big bad Trump first, and by the good Biden now. Opposed clearly not because anyone believes the joke about the wickedness of the Russian “enemy”, but because the United States must export their shale gas to Europe. Therefore Germany runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds, so as to displease no one. A masterpiece of economic diplomacy to get what it needs: exporting galore is the goal that cannot be compromised on, therefore… Therefore German industry, the true Panzer of the “locomotive of Europe”, is getting ready, in every sense. It needs to reconvert its means of production, also through digitisation (which as we shall see is not only for this purpose), but to do so it must invest substantial capital. So what better thing than to make all the “customers” themselves pay for this “transition”, namely European citizens through the (fake) funding of the Recovery Fund (which actually, in words, should serve for the damages deriving from the “pandemic”)? But how to do it? Simple! First of all you must find an ally that has the same need for industrial reconversion (read France), then you push at a political level so that the decision to adopt them is taken by all the other Countries (there must be an absolute majority). After that, you rap the knuckles of the most rebellious to make them accept this “little suppository”, consisting mostly of loans that will have to be repaid with interest (Italy is earmarked for about 191.5 billion, of which 68.9 in grants and 122.6 in loans. In addition, another 31 billion are envisaged from the so-called Complementary Fund and 13.5 from the “React EU” programme) with (fake) threats not to grant the aid itself. This is for a portion of the funds necessary for this transition. Then there is the political aspect. You must push those parties and movements that in the common imagination are most linked to “green”, “ecology”, “safeguarding the environment”. Namely the Grünen, the German Greens. And how to garnish this choice on the international wave of the “politically correct”? Why, it’s obvious! With a female candidate for the chancellorship for the upcoming September elections: Annalena Baerbock, 40 years of pure inexperience and lack of substance. The ideal candidate to drag along that young, or youthful, electorate so beloved by the people who matter. Everything “green”, spiritual, innovative and, why not?, digital. Yes, because the future passes through bytes, or rather through the Yobibytes (2^80) of data that circulate and will increasingly circulate on the Web. A mountain of data, worth as much gold as its immense mass. And to do this, Germany wants to catch up with the times, like its American and Chinese economic competitors, through the construction of quantum super-computers (capable of performing calculations, which the fastest computers in the world would take 10 thousand years to solve, in about 3 minutes and twenty seconds). Such computing power can be applied to infinite sectors, from the strictly commercial to the military, from the financial to pure research. In particular, the medical sector will benefit from it.

 

Resist, or rather no! Be Resilient!

Of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (a term used so much lately, and not by chance) which is divided into 6 “missions”, i.e. compartments to put it the Italian way, the chapter reserved for Healthcare or Health (here too the change is not accidental) is the one which has been allocated the smallest slice of resources (a mere 15.6 billion from the NRRP + 1.71 from React EU + 2.89 bn from the complementary fund) out of those that will “arrive” from Europe. But how? Are we not in a global pandemic emergency? Seeing as there have been so many (justified) complaints about the lack of intensive care beds in our hospitals, how come no steps have been taken in over a year to increase them? Oh, right! We bought the desks on wheels, those were the real necessity! Furthermore, for those who don’t know, our Governments (Conte first and Draghi now) have to this day not allocated a single euro to research in our Country on Covid-19, the “greatest pandemic the history of humanity remembers”… And yet from morning to night, as we were saying, we are bombarded by constant messages reminding us how dangerous the “virus” is, how important it is that we continue to maintain “social” distancing, that we must be “responsible” so as not to ruin those two crumbs of freedom we have been granted. A quick parenthesis: in case you didn’t know, the WHO has suggested to Countries that are profusely applying the vaccination campaign to lower the number of cycles (that’s what they are called) carried out to verify if a swab is positive or negative (below twenty, because beyond that you can find just about anything). Therefore, the result of the drop in infections is not due to the lesser spread of the virus by virtue of the vaccines’ efficacy, but simply because the analyses (in any case unsuited for diagnosing this type of positivity) are being carried out more correctly. Returning to the NRRP, the most substantial funding chapters, guess what, are assigned to: digitisation, innovation, competitiveness and culture (40.32 billion from the NRRP + 0.8 billion from React-EU + 8.74 from the complementary fund); green revolution and ecological transition (59.47 billion from the NRRP + 1.31 from React-EU + 9.16 from the complementary fund); infrastructures for sustainable mobility (25.4 bn from NRRP + 6.06 from the complementary fund); education and research (30.88 billion from the NRRP + 1.93 bn from React-EU + 1 billion from the complementary fund); inclusion and cohesion (19.81 bn from the NRRP + 7.25 from React-EU + 2.77 from the complementary fund). Thus, just like in Germany, “digitisation”, “green revolution” and “ecological transition” take the top spots. A coincidence? I should think not. What I think, on the contrary, is that it is exactly what the economically hegemonic class, the so-called “powers that be”, had in mind right from the beginning of this whole immense pantomime. The virus, obviously, is a means to radically change the economy and society. Once one Covid is over, you make another, to adapt an old Roman proverb about Popes. The “pandemic” is a method for achieving the desired change, and therefore can be used at will. At least as long as people continue to give credence to the current narrative, even if the latter is blatantly leaking from all sides. The fear of losing one’s life is the engine of this entire narrative, and out of fear of losing it, one fails to realise that, effectively, one is no longer living.

 

Your robot doctor

I conclude this long article with a final consideration. One of the main components of “digitisation” is precisely the one linked to Health. The latter, or rather Healthcare (a much broader concept than the one used in these last few years, I repeat, not by chance), is an exceedingly powerful means of controlling the masses. And this not only because illness is inherent to human nature, but also because through medicine one can determine the destiny of an individual, both in a positive and negative sense. The masses can also be steered towards certain types of behaviour, both with reflex reactions and with methodologies of a physical nature interacting with the human being. In this framework, so-called “telemedicine” will increasingly gain ground in the now imminent future. Telematic hubs will be created that will constantly monitor patients in their own homes, and the interaction with smartphones will be increasingly evident. In practice, there will be a total computerisation of our state of health and our life in general, where your doctor will be a computer programme or a robot doctor. Millions of data, as I mentioned earlier, which will be genuine gold both for the elites who hold the technological and financial means to do all this, and for their companies on which the whole of humanity now depends. So, besides control, profit too. The “Internet of Things”, for which 5G is necessary (they are already talking about 6G and beyond) is not a “cool thing”, it is the end of self-determination. You will be connected to the Web 24 hours a day and these billions of data will be precisely controlled via quantum computers. With digitisation, forget privacy, forget freedom of decision and movement, forget life as you have known it to this day. Welcome to the new, ecological, sustainable and digital world. The best of all possible worlds.

He goes seeking freedom…

He goes seeking freedom…

Posted on by Nemulisse

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.

In defence of the Germans

In defence of the Germans

Posted on by Nemulisse

The title might be misleading. In a period of various tensions, made even more glaring by the Coronavirus crisis, speaking of a “defence” of the Germans might seem a paradox to many Italians. However, my “defence” of the German people does not directly concern the strictly international political or economic aspects, on which those who follow me know full well how critical I am (at least as much as I am regarding the identical issues, for different reasons, faced in our own Country), but rather the way in which the whole affair linked to the Covid-19 “pandemic” was tackled, both at a governmental level and by the German population. It is certainly no coincidence that “Criticism”, as a philosophical movement, was born in this Country, to which humanity owes so much over the last three centuries in this field, as well as in the scientific, literary and musical ones. Obviously, the Germans do not need any “defence” from me: they are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. Nevertheless, I feel the need to expound, out of a sense of civic duty and for the love of truth (a rare commodity in confusing times like these, especially back home in Italy), the way in which Germany tackled the emergency caused by the Coronavirus. I will leave the chronicle, albeit important, of the various steps that followed one another in these months of “pandemic emergency” to the box you will find at the bottom of the article, and prefer to dwell on another aspect of the matter: what were the methodological and substantial differences adopted in the two Countries in tackling all the various problems caused by Covid-19.

 

Politics

The first confirmed case of infection by the virus was officially registered on the 27th of January, in the Bavarian district of Starnberg. We also spoke about it at the end of February, when by then in Italy we had moved from the aperitifs amongst the so-called Milanese movida (on the 27th of January itself) and the brotherly embrace of Chinese citizens present on Italian soil, to the outbreak of the “patient zero” case in Codogno (to be exact on the 20th of February). The line taken by the German Minister of Health, the Christian Democrat Jens Spahn, was one of prudence. “Wenn man mir in zwei Wochen vorwirft, übertrieben vorsichtig gewesen zu sein, bin ich zufrieden – denn dann hat sich alles gut entwickelt” (If in two weeks I am accused of having been overly cautious, I will be satisfied – because then everything will have turned out well). The difference speaks for itself. On the 13th of February the Bundestag, for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, debated a law in its first, second and third reading in a single session, passing it unanimously on the same day with no abstentions. It was the one authorising the Federal Government to adopt certain immediate measures (short-time working allowance, essentially our cassa integrazione) via a legislative decree. On the 26th of February the Minister of Health officially declared “the start of an epidemic in Germany” and from the following day measures began to be taken, such as the setting up of a crisis unit between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Health. The main scientific reference points for the Government were the Robert Koch Institute and the Leopoldina Academy of Sciences. On the 17th of March the Foreign Minister, the Social Democrat Heiko Maas, announced a massive repatriation plan (costing 50 million euros) for German citizens (and others) who found themselves abroad.

On the 18th of March Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), in a message to the nation, declared: “Es ist ernst. Seit der Deutschen Einheit, nein, seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg gab es keine Herausforderung an unser Land mehr, bei der es so sehr auf unser gemeinsames solidarisches Handeln ankommt”, meaning: “It is serious. Since German reunification, no, since the Second World War, there has not been a challenge to our Country that depends so much on our joint solidarity.” Thus the first “restrictive” measures to limit the contagion were announced and the Chancellor appealed to everyone’s responsibility to limit its spread. But, very importantly, she specified: “Es geht darum, das Virus auf seinem Weg durch Deutschland zu verlangsamen. Und dabei müssen wir, das ist existentiell, auf eines setzen: das öffentliche Leben soweit es geht herunterzufahren. Natürlich mit Vernunft und Augenmaß, denn der Staat wird weiter funktionieren, die Versorgung wird selbstverständlich weiter gesichert sein und wir wollen so viel wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit wie möglich bewahren. Aber alles, was Menschen gefährden könnte, alles, was dem Einzelnen, aber auch der Gemeinschaft schaden könnte, das müssen wir jetzt reduzieren”, “It is a matter of slowing down the virus on its path through Germany. And in doing so, we must rely on one thing, which is existential: shutting down public life as much as possible. Naturally with reason and a sense of proportion, because the State will continue to function, the supply will of course continue to be guaranteed and we want to preserve as much economic activity as possible. But everything that could endanger people, everything that could harm the individual, but also the community, we must now reduce”. She then continued: “Lassen Sie mich versichern: Für jemandem wie mich, für die Reise- und Bewegungsfreiheit ein schwer erkämpftes Recht waren, sind solche Einschränkungen nur in der absoluten Notwendigkeit zu rechtfertigen. Sie sollten in einer Demokratie nie leichtfertig und nur temporär beschlossen werden – aber sie sind im Moment unverzichtbar, um Leben zu retten”, that is: “Let me assure you: For someone like me, for whom freedom of travel and movement was a hard-won right, such restrictions can only be justified in absolute necessity. In a democracy, they should never be decided lightly and only temporarily – but they are indispensable at the moment if lives are to be saved”. I limit myself in this case to underlining the sense of State, regardless of political affiliation, expressed by the German leader who never denied the role of Parliament and the opposition in making such important decisions for her Country.

In this regard, what I am keen to point out is the predominant role of Politics in Germany in this enormous affair, which saw the whole world involved. Science and the “experts” were indeed consulted, as is right in such cases, but the ultimate decisions were exquisitely political in nature. No media announcements, but concrete decisions and clear communications to citizens, seeking the active involvement of the latter through an exhortation to the responsibility of individuals. In other words, German Politics considered the German citizen as an active and not a passive party, forced to undergo decisions taken from above as if they were a child to be given restrictive rules because they are “irresponsible” by nature. And this despite the fact that numerous protests and demonstrations of dissent took place in Germany against the nonetheless reasonable and decidedly not excessive restrictions put in place to try and stem the potential negative effects of the contagion as much as possible. Freedom of dissent remains an essential cornerstone in any democracy. Otherwise the latter would not be such, but would rather assume the grim characteristics of a dictatorship.

 

The Press

Generally, I do not feel I can continuously praise the German Press, but I must say that in this case it managed to maintain an essentially public-service attitude. The national news broadcasts, unlike ours, devoted the “right” amount of space to news related to Covid-19, where by right I mean the time necessary and sufficient to inform citizens on the multiple aspects of the epidemic, but without dedicating entire news bulletins to a daily morbid tally of deaths, infected people and “human interest stories” as, alas, were seen on our television channels. There were indeed in-depth analyses, even in the print media, but always with unsensational tones or ones that did not tend to instil the terror of contagion in readers and listeners. The task of our profession should be to act as a vehicle for useful and varied news, placing the widest spectrum of information at the population’s disposal without preventive censorship. As in the case of political action, the task of information cannot be to treat the citizen as a child to be preventively protected from possible false news, or fake news as they like to call it nowadays. The reader (or listener) must be free to form a picture of the situation and an opinion for themselves, being sufficiently “adult” to be able to understand and discern the messages communicated to them.

 

 

The Population

Another praise I feel like giving goes to the German people. Honestly, I have never seen authentic scenes of hysterical panic (with the exception of the hoarding of food and toilet paper in the early period) or read comments in German newspapers or blogs launching alarms and invectives against potentially “risky” behaviour. On the contrary, I happened to read them on blogs and Facebook groups of Italians residing in Germany, criticising the “recklessness” of the “libertine” behaviour of the Germans, guilty in their eyes of continuing to lead an almost normal social life, at least until they were explicitly requested by politicians to limit interpersonal contacts. Obviously, such comments from our fellow countrymen changed radically, becoming so to speak more “accommodating”, at the first signs of spring when, with due precautions, people poured into parks and the outdoors to enjoy the fresh air and the pleasant warmth of the Sun. In that case the “irresponsible” Germans displayed, conversely, the irreproachable Teutonic qualities of respecting rules, without the need to be treated like idiotic children. But as we know, changing one’s mind is a synonym for maturity and intelligence, albeit in alternating phases, and the warm season brings with it a more optimistic vision of things. This, evidently, contributes to debunking the myth that the pessimistic people are the Germans.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the most appropriate methods to combat a threat like the Coronavirus, but it still remains an indisputable fact that, aside from the undoubtedly better conditions of its healthcare system (it is worth noting that the numerous intensive care units were never filled), Germany emerged decidedly better than our Country from the peak period of the epidemic, both from a healthcare, social and economic point of view. Putting it to the test, even considering only the first two of these aspects (the third would require a separate article), in a Country of roughly 83 million inhabitants (23 million more than Italy), the total number of infected and deceased is respectively, at the time this article was written, 184,193 and 8,674. In Italy, alas, 234,119 and 32,354. And this despite over two months of an almost total lockdown of the Country, during which the lives of Italians were regulated by a series of decisions taken by groups of “experts” (task forces) to whom Politics delegated the task of “directing” the entire nation.

Now it must be one of two things: either the decisions taken were not the most adequate, or one must necessarily assume that the Germans are a people endowed with a superior immune system (something I have also read on the Web), practically Übermenschen of Nietzschean memory, or perhaps, simply, extremely lucky. All this, obviously, irrespective of the fact that the virus might have presented itself in a more virulent form here than elsewhere. Or perhaps the method adopted by the Country system was more effective, not letting panic take the upper hand, with a political class that knew how to guide the nation, without abdicating decisions to others, while nonetheless availing itself of Science’s indications. Yes, Reason, Die Vernunft, proper to that Criticism I mentioned at the beginning, has not abandoned Germany, despite the Coronavirus.

 

The main measures taken in Germany during the Covid-19 epidemic

The first confirmed case of infection by the virus was officially registered on the 27th of January, in the Bavarian district of Starnberg. We also spoke about it at the end of February, when by then in Italy we had moved from the aperitifs amongst the so-called Milanese movida (on the 27th of January itself) and the brotherly embrace of Chinese citizens present on the territory, to the outbreak of the “patient zero” case in Codogno (to be exact on the 20th of February). The line taken by the German Minister of Health, the Christian Democrat Jens Spahn, was one of prudence. “Wenn man mir in zwei Wochen vorwirft, übertrieben vorsichtig gewesen zu sein, bin ich zufrieden – denn dann hat sich alles gut entwickelt” (If in two weeks I am accused of having been overly cautious, I will be satisfied – because then everything will have turned out well). At the end of February, during the carnival celebrations, numerous people contracted the infection in the Heinsberg district, in North Rhine-Westphalia, causing alarm and leading to the cancellation of the first major events, starting with the largest tourism trade fair in the world, the ITB in Berlin (on the 29th). Also at the end of February, Coronavirus infections were confirmed in Baden-Württemberg too. Both States set up a crisis management group, supported by the Robert Koch Institute and the Federal Ministry of Health. Other cases were registered in Rhineland-Palatinate, Hamburg and Hesse. All this led Minister Spahn to declare: “…die Epidemie jetzt Deutschland erreicht hat”, meaning “the epidemic has now reached Germany”. On the 10th of March it was decided to ban gatherings with more than a thousand participants and immediately afterwards German and non-German citizens, present on the national territory and who had returned from Italy, Austria or Switzerland, were invited to voluntarily place themselves in quarantine for two weeks before circulating freely. On the 18th of March there was Chancellor Angela Merkel’s address to the nation. On the 20th of March Bavaria and Saarland were the first two federal States to impose movement restrictions, followed later by others, and on the 22nd the Chancellor herself went into quarantine having been in contact with a doctor who had tested positive for the virus. Between the 23rd and 27th of March, substantial funding was decided for the German economy (over one trillion euros in total) and the following day the Chancellor, through her weekly podcast, thanked citizens for having respected the rules, asking for further patience, and on the 3rd of April her quarantine period ended. Meanwhile, Parliament had decided to extend the restrictions on public life and the limitation of personal contacts until after Easter. On the 11th of April the President of the Republic, Frank-Walter Steinmaier, delivered a speech on German TV addressed to his fellow countrymen emphasising: “Ich bin tief beeindruckt von dem Kraftakt, den unser Land in den vergangenen Wochen vollbracht hat” (I am deeply impressed by the feat of strength our Country has achieved in the past weeks). Two days later the Leopoldina Academy of Sciences (the oldest scientific and medical society in the German-speaking world and the oldest continuously existing natural science academy in the world) presented a statement formulating the conditions for a gradual normalisation of public life. The statement would be included in the consultations between the Federal Government and the Länder on the subsequent 15th of April. Between the 17th and 29th of April the reopening (albeit with the obligation to use masks) of public functions was decided and on the 30th of April the Chancellor and the heads of the various Länder decided to reopen playgrounds and cultural institutions, such as museums, zoos and commemorative monuments, albeit under certain conditions. Not everything, however, took place without protests. And it is here that the German critical spirit, however one thinks about both the virus and the measures taken to contain its contagion, emerged clearly compared to other Countries, including ours. On the 1st of May, this year more than other years, there were protests and riots in Berlin, especially in the historic Kreuzberg district, followed the very next day, for the first time, by hundreds of people in central Germany demonstrating simultaneously in several places, precisely against the restrictions and regulations to contain the virus. In Saxony the protest, according to the police bodies, had been organised by various right-wing groups. There were numerous violations of social distancing rules and other regulations. Between the 4th and 6th of May further relaxations were applied compared to the initial prohibitions (which were more advice than anything else), but already by the 9th in several German cities thousands of people demonstrated against the interpersonal contact restrictions and against the hygiene regulations put into force, a matter which alerted the criminal police services and aroused the concern of the Interior Ministers of the individual Länder. On the 16th of May thousands of people demonstrate against the restrictions in various cities. The Prime Minister of Saxony, Michael Kretschmer (CDU), causes a national sensation because in Dresden he tries to speak without a mask to the demonstrators who were insulting him. From the 18th of May restaurants reopened, albeit with severe rules regarding the distancing between tables and strict hygiene regulations. On the 24th the Prime Minister of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow (Linke) sparks nationwide criticism with his plan to abolish general restrictions against the Coronavirus starting from the 6th of June, albeit without abolishing minimum interpersonal distances and the use of masks in indoor public places. On the 3rd of June the Government decided on a further economic aid package of another 130 billion euros (in total it is well over a trillion euros), in addition to a VAT reduction from 19 to 16 per cent. Twenty-five billion will be dedicated to the tourism and entertainment sector in the period between June and August. Furthermore, every family with dependent children will receive 300 euros for each child. “Germany must emerge from the crisis as quickly as possible and strengthened. We are taking care of this with the most comprehensive economic stimulus programme for citizens and the economy in the history of Germany”, stated the Minister for Economic Affairs Peter Altmaier (CDU). So much for the chronicle.

The other side of the Moon

The other side of the Moon

Posted on by Nemulisse

I want to break a lance in favour of the younger generations. Specifically, I am not so much referring to twenty-somethings or those even younger, but rather to the thirty-to-forty-somethings, the so-called Millennials. This, let me preface, is unusual for me, because I consider them to be an unprepared generation, often uncultured despite wishing to appear otherwise, and highly conceited. Furthermore, adding fuel to the fire of my criticism is the fact that a large part of this demographic currently constitutes our “ruling class”, at all levels and in all fields. Having said that, let me explain the reason for this apparent change of heart on my part. In reality, these are the generations born around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, who grew up with the myth of a united Europe, of “perpetual peace” (as we too had believed). Unlike those born before that period, however, they were educated in schools and universities specifically tailored for them, with a new educational system that advanced hand in hand with neo-liberal economic thought. And it is precisely the latter, neo-liberalism, that has orchestrated a gigantic mystification of reality for the use and consumption of the new generations. Employing vast resources and systematically deconstructing the pre-existing reality, it has managed to render that reality alien even to those who had contributed to producing it or, at the very least, living it over the years. But let us proceed in order, to understand how this has happened over time.

 

The School System

This work of deconstruction started with the educational system, state schools, which was systematically destroyed in terms of both resources and teaching methodologies. A relentless campaign was waged to denigrate the role of the public sector (as with the rest of the State’s activities), using compliant or simply superficial media to push the message that the private sector was better, more efficient and more “in step with the times”. This occurred in both schools and universities. The latter witnessed a feeble protest movement named the “Pantera” (Panther), which ended in typical “Italian style”, that is, achieving absolutely nothing. It was directed against the reforms the then Minister Antonio Ruberti wished to introduce (December 1989). These reforms, among other things, envisaged the private financing of research and the entry of corporations onto university boards of directors. In practice, the beginning of the privatisation of universities. With the exception of a few amendments to the law conceded by Ruberti, the privatisation began. Schools underwent the same process. Especially with the reform desired by Minister Luigi Berlinguer (1996-98) which, through subsequent modifications by other Governments, reduced schools to branch offices of corporations. This process of “corporatisation” has been well explained by Pietro Ratto, notably in this interview. At the same time, school curricula were tampered with, through repeated attempts to eliminate the study of Latin, Greek and Philosophy, which fortunately failed. Obviously, it is no coincidence that this was repeatedly attempted, because these are subjects that encourage critical thinking and questioning the status quo—something the New World Order does not want, for obvious reasons. Instead, significant cuts were made to the study of History, because we must “forget” the past in order to live in an eternal present, without memory (except for various fabricated “fascisms” and “isms”, useful for stigmatising those who do not think as the mainstream dictates). Curricula were gradually changed and schools, along with universities, as we were saying, were increasingly transformed into businesses that have to balance the books. Headteachers have become accountants, and State funding varies according to the number of pupils attending the institutions. For this reason, the trend of no longer failing students has gradually taken hold, so as to avoid a probable haemorrhaging of pupils. We have even witnessed outright episodes of bullying and harassment directed at teachers, by both pupils and their parents. The school, once a place of formation (albeit criticisable in several respects), has been constantly stripped of content and educational authority, whilst simultaneously having every kind of blame dumped upon it regarding the behaviour of the pupils attending it. The university sector, where the private sector has barged in, is no better. Research is humiliated, and limited-enrolment faculties have been established where access was once free. Syllabuses have been simplified, partly because only the desired educational messages must be passed on (there are extremely valid textbooks that have been deliberately replaced with others, written from scratch), and partly because the “new” students are often incapable of understanding the texts that were once used for the syllabuses proposed by the “old guard” of lecturers. I experienced this directly myself towards the end of my university studies. As the so-called “barons” retired—who may well have been barons, but were very often academics of depth and quality nonetheless—universities replaced the teaching staff with their bag-carriers, or with “new” people formed in the wake of the new prevailing ideology. Obviously, this is not a generalisation that can be applied one hundred per cent, but it is undoubtedly largely correct. Very briefly, this is the school education received by the “youth”, i.e. those who grew up with the idea that Europe was an opportunity (as if it hadn’t been there before) to travel and educate oneself with specific programmes like Erasmus—the latter a true, untouchable totem for many of them. I personally met a woman (in her early thirties) who named her son Erasmus (sic.) and wanted (or so she told me) to name her unborn daughter Europa. The reason was that she had met her husband precisely thanks to this beautiful university exchange programme. It seems to me a more than valid reason to ruin two children’s lives. A bit like those in the past who named their children “Palmiro”, “Bettino” or “Benito”.

 

Europa Europa, everyone towards the Sun of the Future

The “differently young”, like yours truly, will almost certainly remember a nice television programme on Rai Uno, devised by Michele Guardì, Giorgio Calabrese and Mario Di Tondo and hosted by the Frizzi-Gardini duo, which was called “Europa Europa” (1988-1990, coincidentally). Who didn’t like the idea of a union, at least a spiritual and cultural one, of the European peoples? I certainly liked it, and like me so did countless others of my generation and previous ones too. A pity, though, that it was an illusion and we didn’t realise it. Even with broadcasts like the one I have just mentioned, the idea was slowly instilled in the masses that Europe was the promised land. None of us, or at least the majority of us, imagined that in reality it was a carefully prepared poisoned dish, featuring a single course: the economic one through which to govern the peoples. The chosen chef? Germany, of course.

 

Civil rights in exchange for social ones

The mainstream media—television, newspapers and the Internet—has for years bombarded public opinion with messages aimed, on the one hand, at normalising certain categories of people such as homosexuals, the LGBT community and those who had been unjustly humiliated and marginalised by society, and on the other, strongly advocating the progressive granting of civil rights, sacrosanct in the vast majority of cases, in favour of these categories. But it has taken great care not to highlight the fact that all this was obtained in exchange for so-called social rights, won through years and years of hard battles and fierce confrontations by previous generations. In practice, on the one hand, the message was passed that removing, for example, Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute was something inevitable, due to contemporary times in which the evolution of the economy dictated a “lean” and “mobile” labour market; but on the other hand, the right for homosexual couples to enter into a regular marriage was granted (again, for example). As if this latter, sacrosanct civil right were somehow compensatory for the theft committed on the social level. All this was cleverly orchestrated, aided and abetted by a political class that was at best inept, at worst colluding. Well, the youthful masses were mobilised to lend support to this voice, cleverly rallied via Internet platforms, with demonstrations of solidarity and support for these causes, just as had happened internationally for the protests organised in favour of the “Arab Spring” or the “Orange Revolution”. A pity the young didn’t do the same to maintain the social rights that have been constantly stripped away from them over the last few years, turning their own generation into a mass of unemployed people, destined to be on precarious contracts for life.

 

Greta, the “Gretins”, not forgetting… the “Sardines”

A fragile and (therefore) fickle and easily manipulable generation. This is the result of the constant work done by multiple international organisations on the youngest, exerting relentless pressure on their consciences through the social media now widely used by us all. Movements in favour of the environment were born, such as that of the seventeen-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg, a young girl who suddenly shot to international prominence precisely thanks to the massive hype generated by the global media for her climate protests, initially staged in front of the Riksdag in Stockholm. From mid-August 2018, she began a school strike until the Swedish elections in September, after which it became a regular fixture every Friday, thus launching the Fridays for Future movement which, above all, large masses of young people began to join. The latter were undoubtedly moved by good intentions (who could say that climate protection isn’t important?), but was the “Greta phenomenon” really just the endeavour of an unknown little girl who suddenly became a fully-fledged star received with great pomp by Heads of State and religious authorities? Only a fool, or the most manipulable of minds, could think so. That behind such a phenomenon lay the vast international industry manufacturing “green” technologies is fairly intuitive, even if not directly provable. Now, courtesy of the forced global shutdown of productive activities and means of transport, you will see that due to the subsequent drop in polluting particles in the air, people will say that “Greta was right”. It will be said that all productive technologies must be converted to “green”, without mentioning, however, that very often these pollute the environment more than traditional ones, as in the case of the required energy and the problem of the waste deriving from the disposal process of electric car batteries. Be that as it may, riding the emotional wave of the young Swede’s message, those political parties drawing on the idea of an environmentally compatible society have experienced a massive relaunch. The Greens, particularly in Germany, are a glaring example. In the 2017 federal elections, in fact, they had barely reached 8.9 per cent of the vote. Just two years later, at the European elections, they leaped to 20.5 per cent, decisively usurping the second position from the oldest social democracy in the world, represented by the SPD (which plummeted to 15.8 per cent), effectively taking its place in the preferences of the Germans in a hypothetical new governing coalition. And guess who voted in the majority for the green party par excellence? Bien sûr, young people in the 25 to 40 age bracket. Was für eine große Überraschung! as they would say around here (what a huge surprise!).

 

Berlin, du bist so wunderbar

Special attention regarding the German youth phenomenon should be reserved for the city of Berlin, a veritable social experiment in this regard (just as much as, again in my opinion, Italy is an experiment for mass phenomena deriving from emotional factors, highly instinctive and not at all rational). The German capital is in fact a catalyst (not by chance) for young people coming from all over the world. Truth be told, it has been for a long time, and for two very specific historical reasons. The first is that Berlin has always been considered a “libertine” city with loose morals. And this dates back to the end of the 19th century. The second is that the Wall created a highly peculiar micro-cosmos in the western part; given its isolation within the former GDR, it meant that only the young and dropouts wanted to live in the enclave. This was in exchange for considerable economic advantages and a wide margin of freedom due to the implicit complicity of the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) governments, who faced the non-secondary problem of keeping “alive” a city in which no German wanted to relocate. Therefore, they turned a blind eye, or even two, to glaring “anomalies” within the framework of state rules, as well as bankrolling West Berlin with a veritable river of cash and drugs precisely for this “social” purpose. In short, freedom galore, in every sense, which attracted “free spirits” from all over the world. All this created the “myth” of Berlin, which compliant media helped to amplify even after the fall of the Wall, when things in reality began to change, and not a little (except for the drugs). But that is enough. In the collective imagination, Berlin has remained the city of the “possible”, where everything is permitted and transgression is the order of the day. Which is certainly still true, at least in part. What is no longer true is the fact that it is a land of milk and honey. Quite the contrary… However, for the reasons stated above, it remains an element of irresistible attraction for the young, who are drawn to it like bees to honey, mistaking multiculturalism (multi-kulti) for egalitarianism. It is not true that we are all equal; if anything we have the same rights, in a rule of law, but each with our own characteristics and abilities that make us unique and unrepeatable individuals. For these young people, the open society of Popperian memory is another totem, failing to understand that cosmopolitanism is quite a different thing from homogenisation, and that differences should if anything be preserved and not erased in the name of a hypocritical welcome. If one looks at official statistics, the highest percentage of Berlin residents is precisely the generation between 25 and 45 years old, that is, exactly the “Millennials” spoken of at the beginning of this long article. What better field for a social experiment could one find for someone wishing to “test” the suggestibility, or even the manipulation, of a youth demographic rendered “sensitive” over time to messages of social empathy and, indeed, to civil or ecological issues? And it is never a coincidence that the largest slice of the electorate for the Grüne, the German Greens, falls precisely into the same age bracket. A tiny separate chapter should be devoted to the young Italians present in Germany, particularly in the Capital. I shall refrain from making comments on specific individuals, whom I could well cite, both “influencers” and not, to draw a merciful veil over people who display a nauseating pedantry, contradictory in their “ideas”, and of an abysmal ignorance, in the technical sense of the term and otherwise.

 

Anti… something and Sardines aplenty

Greta’s is not the only movement that has set the younger generations in motion. Recently in Italy, in fact, there was that of the so-called “Sardines”. Born “shove-taneously” (no, it is not a spelling mistake, spintaneamente from spinta, a push), it manifested itself as a breath of air against the big bad ogre, the “boogeyman” as they would say in Rome, the antichrist of Italian politics, namely Matteo Salvini, former Minister of the Interior and political head of the Lega. Notice to sailors: I am not a Lega supporter, I never was nor will I ever be, so any polemics or labels one might wish to pin on me (as has already been done) would miss the point of the issue I am raising entirely, and are a waste of time. My personal political judgement on the character in question, whilst being as negative as that towards all the other major political leaders of our wretched Country, is not relevant to this argument. The theme is not in fact Salvini or Meloni, but rather the ideas behind those who would like to oppose them. That is to say, absolute nothingness. Personally, I believe that this “movement” and those four little characters brought to prominence by our homegrown, power-sucking media, are the fruit of an international financial elite that has well understood that the parties—particularly the PD—which until now have, so to speak, pulled the cart of the neo-liberal message masked as “left-wing” values, no longer hoodwink an exhausted populace, worn out by years of economic harassment and intellectual swindles, quite as well as they used to. The stomach has no ears, as Cato the Censor used to say. When you pull the rope too tight, you risk breaking it for good. And the antiphon sung by the parties in the service of big international capital has almost reached the end of its cycle, the bluff of the Five Stars having also come to light, a party created at a desk to harness the people’s anger. Therefore, what is to be done? And here is the rabbit pulled out of the hat of the wise father of the Homeland (one of many) Romano Prodi, the architect on two occasions of Berlusconi’s defeat (the other “boogeyman” defeated in the past by the aforementioned “left-wing” party). If the parties no longer pull in the crowds, let’s bet on the young as a driving force. Et voilà, out are pulled four thirty-somethings, captained by Mattia Santori, nicknamed by malicious tongues “the curls with nothing underneath”, who on the occasion of the last regional elections, primarily those of the last PD stronghold, Emilia Romagna, worked very hard to rally a slumbering “left-wing” populace that by now seems little attracted by the broken party sirens (another generation of 30-to-50-year-olds reared specifically to take the place of the old PCI leaders, by now a very pale memory for a few). An incredible media campaign was waged by our compliant media. The four horsemen of the apocalypse were invited everywhere, as if they were great political experts, only to make incredible slip-ups like the famous photo with Luciano Benetton and Oliviero Toscani. Having almost fallen into oblivion, they were recently exhumed, what a coincidence, by Lilli Gruber on an episode of Otto e mezzo. Preparations are underway for the post-Coronavirus era. They will be needed, given the trend, especially economically, that our Country is taking following the at best disastrous decisions of Giuseppi’s current Government. A little pearl from Santori was the brilliant idea of a “horizontal wealth tax, guaranteed by the Government”. Which is to say: few ideas, but confused ones. Anyway, the idea of a wealth tax was also brought up again by another paladin of “left-wing” neo-thinking, the genius of Italian gastro-philosophy Oskar Farinetti (a great friend of the líder máximo, whose consensus is now waning, but who remains a great political strategist, Matteo Renzi). To sum up, they have forged individuals with fragile psyches (many young people are forced to resort to psychotherapeutic treatments), unaccustomed to problematising reality, and thrust a mobile phone into their hands (to tell the truth, they thrust it into all of our hands), through which they send daily impulses directing them towards specific directions. A gigantic test of Pavlovian memory. In short, a pretty picture emerges from an examination of the generation that is supposed to lead our world in this period of pandemics, fake or otherwise. The lance that I said at the beginning I felt like breaking in favour of these young people is not, in fact, directed at the majority, but if anything at a small minority belonging to it, which does make some effort to understand the reality surrounding it, beyond the sung mass and the easy ready meals laid out for them. They try to do it, even if often (but not always) they do not possess all the adequate cultural tools. They are people who at least make the effort to see beyond the obvious, not settling for the mainstream narrative and the relative bombardment to which they are subjected daily. They have curiosity, they search. Even to see the other side of the Moon. They are the only hope we have left.

Invisibilia
Theme: Overlay by Kaira. 
Everybody lies