Elon Musk Archivi - Invisibilia: appunti postumi di una vita qualunque

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Posted on 28/03/202601/04/2026 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!

Es war einmal…

Posted on 28/02/202502/04/2026 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

Posted on 06/08/202401/04/2026 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.

Everything is proceeding as foreseen

Posted on 09/10/202302/04/2026 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.

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

Posted on 20/03/202301/04/2026 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».