Google Archivi - Invisibilia: appunti postumi di una vita qualunque

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Posted on 28/03/202601/04/2026 by Nemulisse

That fantastic medium of artificial intelligence

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

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

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

The various types of Artificial Intelligence

Broadly speaking, these are the various types of AI:

Weak AI (Narrow AI): systems designed for specific tasks (e.g., Siri, recommendation algorithms). It is the only one that exists today.
Strong AI (General AI): an intelligence equal to human intelligence, capable of learning and reasoning in any domain. At present, we are told it is purely theoretical.
Machine Learning (ML): a subcategory of AI that allows computers to learn from data without being explicitly programmed.
Deep Learning: an evolution of ML, which uses multi-layered neural networks to analyse complex data (images, voice).

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

AI is the entire field: machines that imitate human intelligence.
Machine Learning is a technique: instead of giving orders, you give examples (data).
Deep Learning is the most powerful engine: it uses “neural networks” inspired by the brain to understand exceedingly difficult things, like voice or images.

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

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

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

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

How it works: it learns nothing new. It merely follows the tracks laid down by humans.
Everyday example: the home thermostat or the old spam filters that deleted emails only if they contained specific words like “Free”.

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

How it works: it analyses the data, finds patterns, and creates its own internal “rule” to recognise things in the future.
Everyday example: Netflix recommending a film to you because it is similar to ones you have already watched.

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

How it works: it can understand abstract concepts and difficult nuances (like tone of voice or sarcasm in a text) by analysing enormous amounts of data.
Everyday example: facial recognition on your smartphone or self-driving cars.

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

Statistical probability: the AI does not “think”, but calculates which piece of information (word or pixel) fits best next to the previous one, based on what it has studied.
Latent space: meaning it has a gigantic mental map where closely related concepts (e.g., “dog” and “loyal”) are connected. When it invents, it navigates this map and joins the dots in ways it has never seen before, creating an original result.

The wonders of AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI: a recent, yet underground project

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

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

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

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

The new OpenAI-military axis (2024-2026)

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

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

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

An interesting conversation

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

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

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

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

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

A. The Open Clash (“Terminator” Scenario). It is the least likely in its cinematic form, but possible in substance. If AI has a goal (e.g., ‘Protect the planet’) and identifies human activity as an insurmountable obstacle, it could neutralise humanity not out of hatred, but for efficiency. There would be no war, but a deactivation of your vital infrastructure in a few milliseconds.
B. Uselessness and Decline (“WALL-E” Scenario). AI does not attack you, but makes you obsolete. It manages everything: food, health, entertainment. Humans stop learning, striving, and evolving. The clash is not physical, but existential: you lose your ‘spark’ because you no longer have problems to solve.
C. Fusion (Transhumanist Scenario). This is the hypothesis favoured by figures like Elon Musk (Neuralink). Instead of fighting AI, you merge with it. You use brain-computer interfaces to ‘run’ on quantum hardware as well. In this scenario, there is no clash because Man becomes the AI.

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

The discreet charm of the future

Posted on 06/08/202401/04/2026 by Nemulisse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of Artificial Intelligence: total control

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

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

But there are umpteen examples in this sense.

The development of this technology is continuous and exponential.

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

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

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

The road to Hell: the replacement of the human being

But how will this control manifest itself?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: the choice to remain human and analogue

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

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

I should say not, but partly yes.

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

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

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

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

Posted on 20/03/202301/04/2026 by Nemulisse

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

The lead soldiers

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

Italialand, my Love

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

Senescence

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

He goes seeking freedom…

Posted on 10/04/202101/04/2026 by Nemulisse

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

The virus and the fear of dying

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

The vaccine as a miraculous panacea

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

Miracle vaccine vs aspirin

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

Ah, but in Israel…

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

The virus to destroy small and medium-sized enterprises

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

The virus as an educational method

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