Invisibilia: appunti postumi di una vita qualunque

Everybody lies

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!

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!

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 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.

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