Thoughts in the night (total 82)
(but for the day too)
Note: the thoughts are in order and numbered according to their
appearance, while normally those designed by others are ordered in
reverse order, so that one immediately finds the newest ones
without having to scroll the whole page. I preferred to follow the
other method because often a thought refers to a
previous one and it would become extremely inconvenient to have to
follow the thread of thought spread throughout the page.
Note 2: somewhere in the text there are references to phrases by english speaking authors. I beg pardon if they are different from the original because they are back translations from italian and I don't have the original. If one has, please send me the correct ones.
1
The earth would be a paradise without some categories of men, not
only useless but also harmful, that is those criminals who pretend to
determine the way of life of others through direct power and the
economy.
2
After any revolution the first institutions to be reconstituted
are the judiciary and the army, not surprisingly because in reality a
king was simply replaced by another king (commander, leader, or any
other name, nothing is different)
3
Kings and emperors have power proportional to the genocides and the robberies they or their ancestors have committed .
4
History has replaced a part of kings with clans, of which the
president is the person in charge of the hoax. But if you want to be
part of the clan you still have to steal and rob as in the past, with
less showy methods that still cause the death of many others.
5
Real democracy can only come from being aware of one's own rights
by every single man. This is why no power organisation is willing to
give him the chance to do it. Education, which should be the instrument
for this purpose, is aimed only to practical aspects, those that will
make him a good and obedient worker or executor of power. The story is
mystified, where the greatest murderers and robbers are shown as
heroes: Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Vittorio Emmanuele II, to
accustom him to think that killing in the name of the homeland is done
as heroes.
6
The civilization of a people is measured by the justice that is
administered. Where the trials last for over 20 years, there is no
justice and it is not a civilized country. And this happens also in
Italy, not only in the third world
7
John F. Kennedy said: "True peace can only exist when the
objector is valued the same as a military man." * We need to go
further, we must come to think that who speaks about , wants or
spreads ideas about war is just a criminal and a genocide.
There can be no excuse.
8
Don Milani* wrote: 'you worker how many words do you know?
100? your master knows 1000, so he is your master. ' The word is a
deadly weapon, it is enough to choose the right expression and
everything becomes lawful, especially if it is said and repeated many
times to the majority of people by those who have the power to do so.
These must be unmasked. To accept that these expressions are commonly
used also for us means to be accomplices of their misdeeds. Words can
be a drug, worse than marijuana, heroin or coca. Because no one warns
you about this, in fact you are sold off as much as you want. Some
examples: 'white deaths' -> premeditated murders during work,
'employer' -> job buyer, 'money distraction' -> aggravated theft
of public money, 'humanitarian' -> war action disguised as a
civilian in which some damage is repaired among the thousand caused by
the 'non-humanitarian' war actions, 'peacekeeping forces' ->
military occupation forces, 'security experts' -> secret service
officers with license to kill and torture to get rid of
'banditen' or 'terrorists' -> patriots and resistance against
foreign occupation or for civil rights, etc.etc.
To confirm: only a few days ago Nelson Mandela was struck off the list of CIA terrorists.
* A jew converted to the catholic church of which he became a
priest, who in the sisties of 20th century created a school in Barbiana
(near Florence). With his pupils he wrote two important books:
'Letter to a (female) teacher',
in which he said that the mandatory by law primary school mustn't
reject pupils (and in effect his Barbiana school pupils were
collected from the rejected ones by the public school and they had in
that way a full satisfactory education).
The second: 'Obeyance is no more a virtue' about the conscientious objection and against the militarism, for which he was condemned by a military tribunal.
9
'Who says it is good to die for the fatherland, however, is not
dead' (Archilochus, playwright of the 5th century BC). What is certain
is that when a businessman assumes a truly important businnes, he does
not send others to bring it to fruition, he himself goes. But why
every time rm that 'it is necessary' to enter the war, those who
declare it send others and do not show up as first volunteers?
10
It is true that all wars take place because of someone's interest
in gaining advantages: a kingdom. a market, an industrial supremacy, of
slaves to make work, etc.
Try to look at the 'shining' Italian Risorgimento history.
Garibaldi* for example. Therefore, the 'Hero (or
mercenary?) of the two worlds' (despite a warrant for his death
sentence on his shoulders), steals a ship at dawn and leaves with a
thousand garibaldini. Secretly? With a thousand men dressed in red, not
black or gray, with the pourpose not to be noticed? And does a
procession of a thousand men manage to pass unnoticed in a city and
among early people like fishermen, sailors and royal guards?
They steal a ship, not a boat, a ship able to fit a thousand men! Two
oars are enough to drive a boat, but before driving a ship you need to
get to know it well as shroud bay shroud, sail by sail, because
then there were only the sailing ships or the first steamships and
without autopilot vessels, GPS and DECCA-Loran like today. A small
distraction meant either felling in the sea or being strangled and
hanging from a flagpole by any of the ropes that tied or commanded the
sails or if you didn't know how to use a sextant you found yourself in
the open ocean instead of in Orbetello**.
The ship was of a certain Rubattino, whose monument is still found
today in Genoa, a wine merchant. Wines, wines? Marsala, of course!***
Yeah, but why was Garibaldi headed to Marsala and not for example to
Palermo, the capital of Sicily? In Naples rightly not, because it would
have been difficult to conquer before having conquered the peripheral
territory and weakened the Bourbon army.
But why not then go to Messina, from where he could then quickly control practically all of Sicily?
It must be said that Piedmontese wines are a bit weak and are adjusted
with strong wines, especially Sicilian. Having to pay the duties of
every state in which the goods passed, or even the journey by sea,
however, made them expensive. On the way back the ship could still
bring back some good wine that perhaps could have paid for the travel
expenses and Rubattino's wines would have become cheaper.
And the good old Vittorio Emanuele II**** who goes down along Italy to
shake hands with the revolutionary condemned to death (perhaps he had
forgotten it, probably because of the excitement of having also
acquired the 'Kingdom of the 2 Sicilies') does it to free the Sicilian
peasants from latifundia and serfdom or to add land to the one he
already have? Well, to clarify things with the first ones, Garibaldi's
deputy Nino Bixio had already thought of it in Bronte***** once
and for all. In fact, since then there were no more voluntary peasants
among the Garibaldians. Therefore only the other hypothesis remains.
* A well known fighter, considered an hero in Italy, who
had a personal army and fighted for the unification of Italy in
the 19 century.
** A small town in Tuscany where Garibaldi tried to find arms to conquer the Sicily.
*** a town in Sicily where it is produced a strong wine like Port with the same name of the town.
**** Then the king of north Italy
***** A small city in Sicily where an infamous event happened. After
riots and clashes of peasants struggling against latifundia and
serfdom, a lot of them ( each 1 every10s) has been sentenced to death
without any trial despite of the intercessions for forgiveness of the
offended ruling class.
11
It is necessary for the whole movement of the resistant to begin
to review all the old and obvious things from a new perspective, to
discover the unspoken truths, the cover lies and unmask the true
meaning of the sentences and ideas now accepted as acquired. We have to
start shouting 'The King is naked'*. To all, however, not only
among those involved in the work
12
The most deadly words are adjectives. In a perfect society they
should be banned. They limit the existential freedom of each or every
object, fixing it in a defined and unique category. For example the
'bad wolf'. Poor wolf, bad because he eats sheeps. But what should he
do to be good, become a vegetarian? Well, he also wanted with his teeth
and his stomach would live for a while. So why bad if he only does what
the Almighty forced him to do? But now the wolf is defined bad and
who will want to free his essence from this associated idea?
Another example 'Arab fundamentalists' Well, certainly there are
fundamentalists among the Arabs. But have you ever been to Israel? Have
you ever met anyone who does more than 5,000 km in a day round trip
without eating for fear that in the food prepared here there is meat
cooked together with milk and some unclean animal? Or have you ever
heard of a separate sex street, men on one side and women on the other
(gays are not allowed)? A bill proposed for Jerusalem, fortunately
never approved. For the Catholic Church there is no need to talk about
it, just open any history
book to read about massacres of Protestants, heretics or simple
dissidents burned or slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ. Those who
have a few years on their shoulders will then remember that not so many
years ago in Italy you could not sell or eat meat on Fridays. if
you tell it to someone of the new generations, you are looked at
as if you were a taleteller!
Why 'Arab fundamentalists' and not also' Catholic fundamentalists',
'Jewish fundamentalists' or Tamil fundamentalists' or' Buddhist
fundamentalists'? Associating the term fundamentalist with the Arabs
only means forcing them all into a single negative notation. And this
is the first success of warmongers who derive interest from conflicts
with the Arabs.
Moreover the confusion on the various plans for example religious and
ethnic is an additional means of separation and classification. For
example, Jews and Israelis, or Arabs and Muslims. Among Muslims there
are not only Arabs but also Farsi, Indonesians, Turks, Berbers,
Eritrean, Ethiopian, Somalis and many others. It can appear strange but
there are also Arabs of Christian religion (Lebanon, Syria, etc.).
On the other hand, thinking that a Jew is the same as an Israeli is
like thinking that Italian is the same as a Swiss!
13
The uncritical tale repeated and assumed as truth, if re-examined
with a minimum of intelligence and common sense, brings to light those
truths hitherto hidden or to increase of their value on an
imaginative level or to hide its obvious absurdity. As an example you
can read 'The History of Jesus Christ revised and corrected'
which I set aside, because it is a little longer than a little thought.
14
But why does Berlusconi* remind me of a song by Fabrizio de
André?** '... a judge like me judged the power. First they
changed the judge, then the law ... '(from' History of an employee ').
* a world well known italian politician
** an unforgettable italian singer and song writer. This disc was about the May 1968 revolution in France.
15
All states are extremely solicitous for humanitarian actions.
Immediately after the war that they did, thousands of companies are
available for the reconstruction of a war-torn country for the urgent
needs of the populations. See for example in Iraq, immediately after
the fall of Saddam there was already a company to rebuild the
telephone system for mobile phones. What? For water? But for that it
takes time, then the pipes cost, then for the water ,of course,you
cannot make it be payed a high price per minute, you have to
supply it at low price ...
16
It is strange, but while the Iraqis were destroying and looting
the various hospitals, immediately after the fall of Saddam, nobody
touched the hospitals or the personnel of Gino Strada and his
organization 'Emergency'. Perhaps because people had understood that
this was a truly humanitarian association, born from indiscriminate
solidarity with others, not linked to one of the occupying states. But
no, maybe not, the reason is of course because Gino Strada secretly
made himself a Muslim fundamentalist!
17
Look! Tremonti* said the economic crisis is serious. But you had
to do some reasoning to realize it easily before, even without having
been graduated in economics.
a) the cause of the crisis is oil. Economists have been saying for
years that oil production is reaching its maximum limit, after that it
can only decrease, the higher production the faster exhaustion of
reserves. All possible deposits have already been identified, apart
from the possibility of someone very small and irrelevant with respect
to future needs. It is not without reason that the Americans invaded
Iraq, which held the world's greatest resources frozen for years, since
the first Gulf War, and therefore today have definitly become the
most important. The real increase in the cost of living due to that has
meant that many people were no longer able to pay the mortgage loans
that they had contracted, thus causing the system of multi-level loans,
solid as a house of cards, invented by the managers of the financial
companies to show how good they were and get fabulous salaries.
b) the crisis is structural, ie in the laws of economics, as I
explained in my book 'Aura mediocritas?' to enrich oneself, others must
be impoverished. So far few Western countries have enriched themselves
on the shoulders of third world countries, with colonies, with control
of the international market etc. Now some countries are beginning to
increase their wealth, in particular but not only China, India and
Brazil, and this will inevitably have to be at the expense of rich
countries.
This is the challenge that awaits us as Italians and Westerners. If we
do not want to take the place of some country in the current third
world we will at least have to learn to do some things: to waste less,
to tackle the world market seriously, to reschedule our economy
according to our resources and capabilities (for example first of all
tourism ), eliminate corruption and the mafia from the institutions,
obtain a functioning justice. I know it needs intelligence, honesty,
that's why I'm so pessimistic.
* a former Treasure secretary in Italy
18
Let's make things clear. Jews are a population, not completely
homogeneous, of Semitic race like the Arabs and other Middle Eastern
populations, scattered in various states of the world including Israel.
Most are of Jewish religion, but there are also Christians and
unbelievers. The Israelis are citizens of the state of Israel,
consisting of a Jewish majority and an Arab minority. The official
language is Hebrew, an ancient language derived from Aramaic as Arabic
is. In the other countries of the world the languages spoken by the
Jews are various dialects, such as the iddish etc.
This clarification is necessary because many people have speculated on
the confusion between these data. For example the Oriana Fallaci*, to
justify the crimes committed by the Israelis with the concentration
camps of the Jews during the Nazism. But what do they have to do with
it?
Israel was born by the will of a group of Jewish fundamentalists, not
all the Jews, headed by Ben Gurion, who wanted to return to the
"promised land". They, in 1949, went to cash that 'bill' that Churchill
had given them to get their entanglement in the 2nd world war, in the
hope of convincing them later to let it go. England then had the
protectorate of Arabia which included many of the current Arab states,
so the British found themselves forced, for the promises made by
Churchill, to allow a part of the Jews to move to Palestine, driving
away a part of the Arabs ( the Palestinians) who had lived there for
millennia, and to create a state of Jewish religion.
Hitler obviously could not have fought against the Israelis because
they did not exist yet, but with the Jewish (not necessarily religious)
race population.
Better, with some of the Jews ("Whoever is Jewish or not I do decide"
he said when someone pointed out to him that there were also some Jews
in the SS) who controlled German finance and industry.
Historically Jews have distinguished themselves both in the financial
sector, originally in money lending so much as to become synonymous
with stingy and usurer, and in that of culture (writers, musicians,
essayists, etc.). In reality, anti-Semitism, as it was a feeling rooted
and acceptable to the population, was the means to mask the true goal,
which was to destroy the economic power of a minority of Jewish
families. If he had explicitly declared this objective, perhaps he
would not have succeeded, using the widespread prejudice as a lever, he
had a good chance of succeeding.
"Dividi et impera", although it has been demonstrated for 2000 years,
this principle always works in favor of criminals. Even today, just
look at what the Lega Nord says to realize this.
Hitler didn't give a damn about the Jewish religion. In fact it was
enough just to have married a Jew to end up in a concentration camp (or
be forced to divorce).
* A female italian journalist and writer
19
A question that I think we must ask ourselves: why did Jews
during Nazism accepted everything without rebelling? Not certainly for
nonviolence.
Not only it is not in their culture ('Eye for an eye, tooth for a
tooth', say the sacred scriptures), but because non-violence is not
passivity, on the contrary it is a struggle or even a war with other
means instead of weapons. Ghandi waged a war against the English, in
which there were also deaths on his side. The English did not joke and
left India just because they understood that they could not stay there,
certainly not out of benevolence and courtesy.
'History is not made with 'if's, but they are useful to understand the
reasons of history. If the Jews had rebelled (and the financial means
were available there ) would there have been concentration
camps? Perhaps yes, but it certainly would have been a
limited phenomenon and with far fewer deaths. An internal guerrilla
would probably have been unsustainable on the part of the Reich and the
German army already engaged in external war actions, and would have
prevented the realization of the 'final solution'.
Certainly it would have required a huge sacrifice of lives. Yeah but even so it has not been light.
"To which distortion comes the mind of man, to the point of dying
for his master! But then it is not better to die for his own freedom"
(Gilbert Chesterton, the creator of Father Brown).
Similarly, then, between dying with the gas and dying to save one's
relatives, wasn't this better? Or the reason was because the Jews
expected their god to defend them? This can be true too.
"Insc'Allah" the Arabs say, 'If God wants'. Strange, but between Jews and Arabs I see more resemblance than difference.
20
Today it is called Shoah (but in nio opinion it should be called
simply multiple extermination), because, as that confusion is always
useful, in this way it appears as a genocide only against the Jews. It
is not true, if in absolute terms the Jews killed have been the
greatest number, in reality the victims were also Roma (gypsies), the
handicapped, the seriously ill and mentally ill, homosexuals, opponents
of the regime, Italian deportees (those experts were forced at work
inside German factories), Poles, Russians etc.
All those who polluted the Aryan race, for the people and for those who
believed in 'ideals', all those who were an economic burden or an
obstacle for the German economy for those who had and wanted to have
economic power as entrepreneurs, politicians and various parasites.
With this the Jews now come to beg for mercy in favor of Israel.
I would like to emphasize with reference to the Roma, assuming that I
do not compare in numbers, that 500,000 are perhaps a greater
percentage, if it refers to the total Roma population present then in
Germany, than the Jewish one. I believe that this, on the part of the
civilian population and those who believe in democracy should be
recognized to them. Even if they are a very closed people and
indifferent to the opinion of others (but for my experience I do not
believe so much), perhaps because like and probablyt more than the Jews
has always been hated and disliked by other populations.
21
In Arabic Palestine it is said Falistìnu. Probably
transcribed in Latin characters at first as Phalistina, then later,
easily by a pronunciation error, the 'H' then fell and became Palestine.
It is so obvious that the Philistines ( In Arabic and in Hebrew the
wovels are not written ) are the Palestinians! Yes those of Samson and
Delilah, they are the current enemies of the Jews, in a war of 3500
years now! I think it's really time to stop this pure and simple shame
for the humanity.
22
For what follows I would like someone to deny my affirmations, maybe a
rabbi who certainly knows the thing thoroughly (he can write to me at
the e-mail address on the home page). Taking as a premise the little
thought 18, I want to say that I will refer to the Jewish religion and
to the political and sociological implications, not to the Semitic race
Denying religious arguments is not anti-Semitism but pure and simple
atheism, which is also part of religions, as 0 is part of any set of
numbers, and therefore protected by the same laws on religious freedom.
The Bible states: 'We (the Jews) are the people elected by God'.
Now, first of all there is no evidence that justifies this preference,
nor does exist any written autograph, fax or whatsoever. It is true
that the Jews claim that they had the tables of the law, but they lost
them.
This simply to say that they are pure and simple statements, valid like any other statement of any other religion.
However, this opinion has influenced their culture to the point of
considering themselves authorized to abuse other populations around
them in order to conquer most of their territory. For example with the
Philistines (as we have seen above, the Palestinians). Then sometimes
they were beaten as deserved (from the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar
and from the Egyptians), and then they began to cry and complain about
their condition. I suspect they would have looked for it by themselves.
Some say that in the past there was an upheaval inside the Jewish
society, in which the military caste took power over the primordial
peasant one, a fact that would have been mirrored by a change of
reference to god like Javeh instead by Eloim (which would then be a
collective term that would therefore denote a primordial polytheistic
religion). In fact, the Bible contains a set of praises to massacres
and wars inconceivable with the concept of a god who states 'Do not
kill', otherwise he would have added 'the members of the elected
people'.
Think of the walls of Jericho that collapse due to the procession with
the tables of the law. God would have wanted the killing of the
inhabitants of Jericho because they were not part of the elected
people. What fault did they have? Why didn't he give them birth among
the Jews, since he can do everything?
Not only that, but this idea of superiority was the cement that kept
this people apart from others, demonstrated also by the fact that all
those who converted to other religions were thrown out of their
communities.
This is racism.
The other peoples have repaid them with the same coin.
The Messiah was the one who would free the Jewish people from foreign
oppression and lead them to become the ruling people because they were
chosen by God *. Fortunately he did not show up yet.
Then this, I don't know why, reminds me of others who more or less had the same ideas (Gott mit uns?).
* note: the Messiah was not, as for Christianity, considered to
be the savior of souls before God. Judaism, like many other religions,
does not foresee the existence of hell or paradise. These are concepts
that Christianity inherited from Zoroastrianism.
23
Birth of a dictatorship. The first thing a dictatorial system does to
achieve power is to control the information sources. In Italy this has
already happened through the direct control of the majority of
television networks (Mammì law) and editorial. Then the control
and the enslavement of the judiciary and the immunity of the ruling
class. And this is happening in Italy with the Schifano law. So with a
series of populist measures (let us remember that pensions were
established by the fascist regime after they had been requested for
decades by the socialists who were left-wing and combative).
Let us put our heart at rest, then, we will have a new beautiful
dictatorship (in white gloves we mean). On the other hand, the Italian
people are those who read less within the EEC, and therefore they are
an ignorant people, and an ignorant people does not know their own
history and will be condemned to commit the same mistakes again ', and
then they follow happy and content.
The only consolation for the democrats is that all dictatorships
inexorably fail in the face of real economic situations, and the
average time to reach the end of a dictatorship, perhaps thanks to the
global market, is becoming shorter and shorter.
As a term of reference we may now take less than 10 years. (well,
always better than the millenary dynasties of the past, right ?!)
If you also put the mustache on him, you will probably notice a certain resemblance.
24
A bomb for each one doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it's allied to the US.
Certainly Iran is a bad country because (maybe) they want to make the atomic bomb. So let's see who the good guys are or not.
They already have the bomb:
USA
France
England
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
India
Pakistan
China
and (coincidentally) Israel.
Now perhaps Iran could enter this very exclusive club and everyone
shouted at the scandal, but nobody did it for Israel or for India and
Pakistan. It is clear that if one of these countries used atomic
weapons, they would shoot themselves in the foot, because the
radioactive fallout would also fall on their territory. If the
Chernobil effect was felt thousands of miles away, what would happen
after a nuclear explosion within a radius of a few hundred kilometers?
25
Let me be straight and clear to avoid prosecution for contempt to
Fatherland, to God and to Family I declare as first matter that what
follows is a quote from George Bernard Show, not mine.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels".
How many people have been killed or forced to be killed for their
country? A smaller number only than the one killed or forced to be
killed for a god and his religion. Indeed, to do better often they have
combined the two reasons together to be more convincing.
Even as a young boy, in my high school years, studying history, the
concept of homeland seemed increasingly confused to me.
I
wondered, given that with every war the Saar region alternately became
German or French, for a resident of that region was France his homeland
and Germany the enemy nation that had invaded it or vice versa?
And which was his homeland for a Trieste inhabitant? The Venetian
republic, Austria, Italy, Yugoslavia (now we should say Slovenia) or
the independent region of Trieste A or that governed by the
Anglo-American allies?
An acquaintance of mines from Trieste once said 'We Trieste people have been "freed" 5 times! "
This is why every time I hear the word 'patria' (homeland), the phrase
of G.S.Show comes to my mind and whoever pronounces he loses all esteem
for me.
Only in these verses i can accept it:
"Our homeland is the whole world,
our law the freedom ... " (from an italian political song)
26
26
A few days ago, as I was walking, I passed by a group of free-range
chickens, which ran away. They fled me who, as a good vegetarian, I
would not have torn even the smallest feather, while then they trust
the master instead, who sooner or later will surely pull their neck and
take all their protein and what will be useful to him. Ok , it's
true, they are chickens.
But how many men then behave just like that? They run away from
everyone and everything that could help them live better, to rely on
someone who, with the mirage of some golden food, sucks away all their
energy for their own benefit.
The most incredible thing is that, if you try to make them understand
it, they curl up on their positions in defense of their master and
don't even listen to you.
27)
I believe that the meaning and the necessity of energy saving are well in mind to the majority of people.
Think: which is the organ of the human body that requires the most energy? The brain.
That's why so many people give up using it, to save energy.
28
I recall here a point of what is written in the little thought
22. Some say that the creation of man is told in the genesis twice, one
by Elohim and the other by Javeh. I do not know if it is so, I do not
know the Syriac or the Hebrew (which is a derivation of this) to verify
in person in the original version because every translation introduces
alterations anyway, nor did I get feedback on this from people entered
into Jewish religious problems.
The thing could be of little importance, maybe the same story told
underlining different points. But apparently Elohim is a collective
name. What does it mean? That is a singular name that refers to a
multitude of subjects such as the terms crowd, people, team, etc. In
this case it would therefore mean Gods.
Jews are extremely zealous about their religious writings and do not
admit mistakes. If someone copies some tracks and makes a mistake, he
can't simply correct it. He must throw away the copy and start over.
But if the double story is true, this would indicate that these texts
would have been started at a time when Jews were polytheists and
continued when they had already become monotheists. But how could it be
that writings "directly inspired by god" (as Jews and Christians
believe) could be written by people who believed in many gods but not
the only one who should have inspired them? how could it be happened
that Javeh inspired the story by indicating as authors the gods
instead of himself? ("I am your God. You will have no other god outside
of me" from the 10 commandments).
This is a huge mistake.
If this is true, the Jewish religion, the Christian that derives from
it, and also the Muslim religion, which stands as a revision of the
Hebrew, completely lose all sense and claim to truth, beyond any other
consideration.
I repeat it here, if an expert, a rabbi, could give me some further information and indication, I would be really happy
29
The documents published by Wikileaks have highlighted some interesting
things. They gave a documentary basis to many hypotheses and analyzes
derived from reasoning and subjective observations. But this is the
least interesting thing. But it is of more fun to analyze the reactions
of others.
First of all the shouting before the facts. All the documents have not
yet been published but the reactions have all been at the top.
The most apocalyptic declarations have been made: the end of diplomacy,
crisis of relations between states, deaths caused by revealed secret
information and so on. etc.
If we believe these things it means that we are perfect idiots and that we deserve these state organizations.
Let's see some of these overwhelming news:
that Berlusconi loses too much time with the whores and his problems,
not to be left for the government of the country, we have known for a
while, we did not need an American to tell us.
We knew that Gaddafi is a dictator. We didn't know (or at least I
didn't know) that he had a full-time Ukrainian personal nurse and took
botox. Who cares. These things are normal for the various dictators
that History holds for a while, then throws them in the trash.
Even if Karzai tried to play the double game, we could guess from his
moves reported by the press. After all, what has really changed in
Afghanistasn since he is in power?
One of the few interesting news is that the Americans have tried to spy
on the UN (we know that they have always tried to blackmail and
condition it ).
No one, however, has moved to this news to incriminate those
responsible. Evidently in the diplomatic environment and among the
managers of power this fact, which to a normal person would
perhaps seem immoral and unacceptable, is completely normal and
accepted.
But then why all this ado on the publication of these documents?
Well, it's simple: criminals are sorry that people know what they are
doing. In addition to the fruits of their crimes, they want
respectability.
After all even the various godfathers, after having killed a certain number of people, go quietly to mass.
Assange's crime was to have shown that they are not respectable.
He shouted 'the king is naked!' and a king, when he is naked without
his precious and imaginary clothes, resembles any other man and also,
like all other men, is similar to a monkey. How can a king accept this?
30
There are nonsenses that should be so obvious, that no one would like
to tell them seriously, but for some mechanism of our mind we accept
uncritically even for years or even for a lifetime.
Look at certain stories in the Bible, such as that of Moses.
Therefore the Lord, wanting to punish all men, wanted to send the
universal flood, but since there was still a just man he wanted to save
him and communicated his intentions to him.
So Noah took saw nails and went to saw trees, make planks and build his
ark, all by himself. It had to be of the trade because making a ship
that could contain all the species of animals was not a trivial thing.
It had to be much bigger than an ocean liner, and he had to hurry, and
even if he had made a boat, it's not so easy, just think of knowing how
to caulk it, I wouldn't know where to start from, and I could have
available so many electric tools made for this work that Noah could not
use.
On the universal flood, there is no doubt. The Mayan scriptures report
images first with two moons then one. Almost certainly there was the
impact of an asteroid (there are several thousand) with the earth,
probably ended up in the ocean, whose energy will have been enough to
vaporize enormous amounts of water then fell back like rain, probably
for months, which it made rivers overflow and created appalling
torrents that swept away everything. In particular in desert areas,
like Israel, where for miles there is no vegetation that can counteract
and slow down the effect of
water erosion. This is very evident for example near the Dead Sea,
where there are narrow valleys with steep walls because when it rains
(rarely) the water comes from the overlying desert with force and high speed and almost saws the rock.
And it will have caused appalling figures of deaths. And not by divine
revenge, but by statistical probability. Even recently some asteroids
have passed very close to the earth, these times it went well, but next?
What really doesn't fit is the story of Noah. Let's see: therefore Noah
finished building the ark made all the animal species come in pairs ...
But do you know how many animal species are? only insects are more than
750,000 species, add birds, mammals, terrestrial oviparous animals,
etc. etc. we come to over 1,800,000 known species, but they are
certainly many more in reality by adding them to those we have not yet
discovered, that is at least double. And the food where it was, the
food no one calculated, but where could he have room to keep it? and
the antagonistic animals how did he keep them? and what did the
carnivores feed? seaweed or part of the animals it housed?
Perhaps he meant only house bred animals, but it does not seem so. In
any case, as the over two million of the other species (excluding fish
and marine animals) have survived without his intervention, why even
the domestic ones could not have survived?
The fact is that those who wrote that part of the Bible felt compelled
to give an explanation to a frightening and incomprehensible phenomenon
whose story was handed down from generation to generation. But they
could not write 'the asteroid X1004 during its turn around the
sun collided with the earth on its orbit and fell into the ocean
sinking the island of Atlantis (maybe) and causing an amount of steam
that has surrounded the Earth ..... '
Certainly he could not write something that we know today and not much.
So the only thing he could do was invent something that with the
knowledge of that time he could think credible. Only if he had been
inspired by God, perhaps he could have written the truth ..
31
Initially the societies were matrilineal. That is, if a men or a woman
belonged to the family, to the tribe was determined by the mother, not
by the father. Even today some societies maintain this characteristic.
For example, Jewish society: you are a Jew only and exclusively if your
mother is Jewish. This for the logical reason that 'mater semper
certa', as the ancient Romans claimed. And indeed in the ancient
pastoral or nomadic societies, the organizational work was in the hands
of them who ran the family and the society did not require
specialization of functions. The management of animals and the
collection of agricultural resources could be done equally by both
sexes and did not required excessive physical effort (the plowing of
the land was discovered in relatively recent historical times).
With the advent of hunting, after the discovery of weapons, strength
(and violence) had the upper hand, because considerable force was
needed to kill.
The social control is therefore passed into the hands of men
(ment as males), as they were able to defend women from other
assailants, that is also enemies in turn with weapons, besides being
able to threaten them to vent their violence on them if they were
opposing (as so many men still do today).
In
exchange for the role of defenders, however, men also demanded the
submission of women to their power, leaving them only subordinate
roles.
It is not a coincidence that the struggles for the emancipation of
women began in countries where self-defense firearms, which did not
require force and were easily transportable, were also available for
them, not least the famous Derringer, the weapon of gamblers because
they can be easily camouflaged even in elegant clothes and, precisely,
for women because they can be easily hidden even in makeup bags.
With guns women can protect themselves and free themselves from the
role of guardian by the man and therefore disown the subordinate roles
left to them and demand equality.
After all, men, with their desire to make the killing and domination of
others easier, have created their own 'fall of the gods' with their own
hands.
32
The thread of the previous thought can also be useful in understanding
other things. For example it is feminine that thing that generates
others. This includes men and animals, but also other. For example, the
Romans considered fruit trees to be feminine because of this, while the
fruit itself was of neutral gender .
God should be female then!
Yeah,
the first logic should lead us to this, if it is he who created the
universe then he is female. On the contrary, he is evoked as a father
god. Why?
But it is clear that the man who had made himself the protector and
master of women could not allow the woman to assume the role of God.
This would have bid the men to deny the inferiority that
they wanted instead to see in women.
Here then is the logic denied at all costs to affirm one's interests.
It is not the only case, we can see many others. The historical change
of the dominant figures in religions, such as the passage from
polytheism to monotheism in ancient Jewish society (the passage from
Elohim to Javeh), can be an indication of a change in social power from
that managed by women (or even indifferent and equal) matriarchal to
the purely male and patriarchal one.
At the head of the armies there are men and even God must be male
because now he is the 'god of armies', as creator God has been made
destroyer and murderer..
33
In France it is forbidden to deny the slaughter of Armenians by Turkey.
The truth by law!
This brought back the civilization of that country at least three
centuries, when the witch trials were every days: either you are with
us or you are with Satan. Tertium non datur, no alternative.
No doubt allowed.
It is not unlikely that the massacre took place, indeed it is very
probable. In northern Syria there is a very strong minority of
Armenians, most probably descendants of the refugees of that time from
Turkey.
What has to be seen is the size of the massacre and its real history.
The truth is never all on one side.
Not only that, there is an interest from one of the two sides to
diminish the facts, from the other to aggravate them in order to go
then to beg favors showing the serious wounds and infirmities as all
the beggars do or to raise the requests and get better conditions in
the negotiations (let's not forget that Turkey is negotiating to enter
the European Union).
As the Jews did by appropriating the Holocaust, trying to make them
forget that they were not the only victims but also Roma, homosexuals,
Russians, the handicapped, the physically and mentally ill, etc.
To impose a truth by law means only to increase confusion and doubts
and in the end the thing turns back on itself. Because if a truth must
be imposed by law for it to be recognized, then it means that it does
not have sufficiently valid arguments to support it so that it can
impose itself, indeed it is precisely the demonstration of its
weakness and the violence of those who impose it .
It is enough to look at history how many truths were imposed by law and
the consequent massacres: Catholics and Protestants, Muslims and
Christians, forced conversions in Latin America, Muslims and Christians
towards agnostics or apostates etc.
Truths all still to be proven..
34
The most blasphemous idea of ??god is given by religion itself, no matter which.
If you open a manual of Catholic doctrine, you will see that it is
affirmed: god is the most perfect omnipotent, all-knowing, infallible
being of infinite goodness.
This also applies to the other two monotheistic religions: the Hebrew
along with the Christian one and the Muslim one that derive from it.
So let's see what we are told more: God created angels but a part of
them rebelled. Ouch, ouch. So he was wrong in creating angels.
But the same mistake commits him again, creating man. Adam also
disobeys. But how it is, he is omnipotent,isn't he? And didn't he know
before he created him that it would have happened this way? Isn't it
like it was said that he is omniscient?
Or he wanted it so, that there was evil. So is he sadistic? No it is to
make us gain heaven, those who do not succeed will go to hell.
But forgive me. it has not been said that he is
omniscient? So why not just create good ones. In any case, having
people who suffer even if they are bad does not seem to me a good
thing, besides the fact, precisely, of giving the impression of being
incapable.
The 5th commandment for both Christians, Jews and Muslims says: "Don't
kill." It is strange, however, that the Bible (let us remember that
this is the basis of all 3 religions) is full of tales of wars and
genocides, made with the consent, if not the direct participation of
God. Just remember that he intervenes to stop the sun to allow the
victory of the Jewish army. But why these favoritisms? Because the
jewish people is the chosen people.
And who elected it?
Is God therefore also racist?
35
Muslims say "Insch'Allah" ('if God wants it') on every occasion.
Because, according to them, 'on earth does not move leaf that
Allah does not want'.
For example: "see you at the bar later, if God wants it".
Then if your child is raped by a pederast you must be happy, because
that is what Allah wanted. So if you can't support your family or maybe
you run out of legs in a work accident. Insch'Allah, god wanted it.
Evidently to have fun, because if he hadn't wanted it he wouldn't have
allowed it (since he can do everything). But then is God really
sadistic?
36
The apotecary god.
Every religion has rules that viewed from the outside are completely absurd. For example, only a few:
Jewish
religion: meat cannot be eaten together with milk. In Israel, in
hotels, at breakfast in the morning you find milk but nothing that
contains meat, during lunch you can find all the meat you want but you
won't be able to drink a glass of milk.
Not all animals can be eaten, it depends on how their feet and other
characteristics are made. Don't ask me about this, I really didn't want
to listen to these stupid things.
Saturdays you cannot do activity. Even in the palaces there are the
'Saturday lifts' which on this day go continuously from the first to
the last floor, automatically stopping at all intermediate floors to
avoid that someone commits a sin in violation of Saturday's rest by
pressing the elevator button to select the intended floor.
Christian religion: Years ago you could not eat meat on Friday, then finally a pope smarter than the others abolished it.
Muslim
religion: you have to pray turning toward Mecca, and at least
once in your life you have to go on a pilgrimage (lucky are those who
live there).
Infibulation, chador etc. that completely debase women. Few things have
given me a sense of disgust like being near a group of women completely
invisible in their black chador.
Hindu religion: the division into castes. You cannot have relations with the members of the Paria caste.
Cows cannot be killed and some species of animals eaten.
A woman's submission must be complete, she cannot decide whom to marry. Once married, the husband can do what he wants with her.
Many 'primitive' religions have specific taboos, their violation means death.
Now if you've never done it, go to a shop of optical instruments
and buy a telescope, with a few hundred euros you can buy one of 11 cm
in diameter that allows you to already see the most beautiful things in
the sky: the M13 cluster , the Andromeda nebula, the gas ring in the
Lira etc. Mount it and start looking at the sky, thinking that what you
see is even millions of years old, because so much time the light has
to travel to reach us from certain parts of the universe. Try to
guess how long the time is and how big the space is.
It will certainly be an unforgettable experience and most likely
afterwards you will be less inclined to think that god is there to
weigh what men have done violating those rules like an apothecary
with his precise balance, in front of the meaning of life and the
universe.
37
I post here an aphorism of mine, a few years old but for those who will read it here it will certainly be new:
The zombie does not notice that he is that, otherwise he would be alive
The ignorant ignore that he is that, otherwise he would be wise
The imbecile does not understand that he is that, otherwise he would be intelligent.
This is the inescapable law of existence. (10/09/12)
38
Even as a boy I never had myths, but the figure I most admired at the time and gave me the most spiritually was Albert Einstein.
His book "How I See the World" has been a reference for me for a long time.
These days, a letter to the philosopher Eric Gutkind went to the
auction, the content of which has now been brought to light by the
press and in which he wrote his ideas on religion. In particular on the
Bible, which I remember once again is the basis of the three
monotheistic religions: "For me, the word God is nothing more than an
expression and a product of human weakness, and the Bible is a
collection of honorable but primitive legends, which are actually quite
childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can make me change
my mind about this. For me, the Jewish
religion, like all others, is an embodiment of the most childish superstitions ... "
I am happy to discover that I am in agreement with what he thought. Let
us also remember that he was Jewish but had attended Swiss Catholic
schools, and therefore knew the two religions well.
It is true that he never declared himself an atheist, but between then
(1950) and today more than 60 years have passed with many discoveries
made by science that have led to totally new concepts on the formation
of the universe, and now perhaps he would declare himself in other way.
It is also true that as a great scientist he was, he had a very strong
sense of the complexity of the universe combined with a global order,
the only thing that could make one think of a superior intelligence.
But this is still to be demonstrated in the face of the fact that
science today declares the non-existence of God. Read the books of
Stephen Hawking, certainly considered today the most important
astrophysicist, who states that the presence of a god is not
necessary to justify the existence of the universe, the pure
physical laws we know already suffice. Therefore for the postulate of
physical existence, that is, what is not necessary to explain a process
does not exist for that process, since God is not necessary to explain
the universe it does not exist for the universe.
Then if someone wants and claims by force and despite everything that a
god exists, then it can only exist in the same identical way that there
is the " Turquoise Haired Fairy"*, the Great Zot, Superman or any other
that also is not equally necessary to justify the existence òf
the universe. But he cannot pretend that others shall believe it and,
above all, that he can kill in his name.
*from the book 'Le avventure di Pinocchio' by Carlo Collodi
(10/10/12)
39
Years ago a friend of mine told me, with a pinch of almost envy: "Look
at that girl, 20 years old, she has already furs, jewelery and a
powerful lover!"
I asked her "But would you like to be like her"
She replied "No, certainly not" -
And I in return, "Then be content with how you are."
Men are divided at least in two categories: the smarts and the suckers.
The firsts, all are careful to grab for themselves what the can: money
power and notoriety, regardless of the others (even if they want to
appear as altruists) for example a Berlusconi.
The second ones that throw away time money freedom and sometimes life
for others or to find solutions to the problems of the world, in their
big or their small, as well as for example a Gino Strada.
The strange thing is that they are happy to be suckers as they are. Who
knows why. But the smart ones will never understand it. (14/06/2013)
40
Taking up the theme of thought 30, another interesting bible episode.
Therefore God stops the sun to allow the Jewish army to defeat ....
Stop the sun? First of all he should have stopped the earth. But the
exegetes found the excuse that this had adapted to the knowledge of the
moment, but in reality meant the earth. Now it seems very strange to me
that a book that intends to be the absolute Truth to be inspired by God
adapts itself to the non-knowledge and to the wrong interpretations of
the world of the recipients of this truth: for example it could have
affirmed that God had stopped the objects of the sky. It would have
been a truth, but this is the less important side of the thing.
I did a little calculation to get an idea of the energy involved
in stopping the earth, the formula is very simple e = 1/2 m x v2 Energy
= 1 half of mass per squared speed. The result was a number with
37 zeros! That is billions of billions of billions of billions of
Joules of energy to be dissipated to be able to stop it. More than
enough to blow the earth in an instant! (this in accordance with the
energy accumulated by the original powders which then formed its
solidified mass when approaching the sun).
Someone may remember some women's stockings a few decades ago, in
which a tiny stretch mark in a short time translated into huge holes
until it completely destroyed the stocking. It can give an idea of
the laws of the universe: it is not possible to violate one of
them in a small point because this would lead to the destruction of the
universe itself. Even God could not intervene in this way and cancel
some law even in one point, the whole universe would be upset.
Not only that, but what comes out is the idea of a completely idiotic
God. If, as the doctrine states, he is most perfect all-powerful
and omniscient then he must use the best method with the least effort.
What a waste to allow the Jewish victory to upset the universe!
But was not it much easier to arouse the commander of the enemy
army perhaps a heart attack, or hit him with lightning as used Jupiter
or have him bitten by a poisonous snake or let him have an Ebola
infection, among the many possible methods that did not require useless
waste of
energies and violations of physical laws such as stopping the
earth? Once their leader died suddenly, the enemy army would be
defeated.
41
Why the 'ius soli' (citizienship by birth) is necessary, not only an
act of civilization. It is a hot topic with supporters and
detractors. Among the fundamental human rights there is also that of
being able to live where we want because the earth belongs to humanity
and governments are only a tool for the administration of a territory
but cannot prevent the exercise of man's natural rights . The
recognition of the 'ius soli' therefore means the recognition of the
right to people, who by now speak think are part of the culture
and have already consolidated human ties, of living in a country
and sharing the same rights as those born of citizens of that country.
But there is another aspect that I would like to highlight: the
country's interest (in this case, Italy) in the integration of those
born here, but foreign, into Italian citizenship.
In Bologna on the "Palazzo della Mercanzia", the Renaissance seat of
the merchant brotherhood, there is still a 13th century plaque in which
it is reported that the 'ultramontani' (ie foreign from outside the
mountains) and 'citramontani' (ie italian, from inside the mountains)
students of the University of Bologna were expensed of everything, they
and their 'famigli' (ie the servants).
I had always wondered why Bologna, which was never so important then as
Florence and Rome and later Naples or Milan, was well known abroad as
these cities and with an excellent reputation. Certainly not enough was
'mortadella' (also called 'bologna' because of its fame) sufficient to
justify it.
That plaque clarifies why. Foreign students were mostly young of
ruling families or of the high nobility (and therefore also able to pay
for the costs of the study), the gratuitousness of city life was not
only a reason for making them prefer Bologna, for example,
to Sorbonne, but above all to create a relationship of affection
and gratitude towards this city that hosted them so lovingly. Bologna
was 'Fat', for the excellent cuisine, 'Learned' for the university and
the other city institutions and 'of beautiful women', among other
things also very easy. But it was clear that sooner or later the
students had to return to their place of origin, with an infinite
nostalgia inside them.
So when a merchant of Bologna arrived in their possessions, he was welcomed with open arms, cuddled and served in his business.
Think for example of a prince who turned to a merchant and asked '..and
Maria still lives in via degli Orefici* ..?' remembering the
happy hours spent with her cosiness.
And the memories and the nostalgia turned also into a logistic support
to the merchant of turn and this could sell his goods more quickly and
at better conditions than those of the merchants of the other cities.
Yes, the Bologneses at that time had a very long sight and made their
city very rich, if not the richest in Italy, even if it was not at all
flashy, in accordance with the character of the Bolognese at that time.
To realize this, it is sufficient to walk through the streets of the
center and take a look in the old buildings (all with a courtyard or an
inner garden where, maybe, they made music on summer evenings)
and be able to peek in the apartments where it is very easy to
find paintings and frescoes of great artists such as a Reni or a
Carracci or others.
Even then they understood the importance of the commercial image and customer loyalty.
Think,
instead, of young people rejected by the society of which they are or
feel they are a part, from always for them, and forced to live
precariously or in their whole lives (with the sword of Damocles of a
sudden expulsion) or to re-enter the their country of origin. They will
cover for Italy an infinite grudge, which will turn into a rejection of
everything that is Italian, a feeling that they will spread to their
fellow citizens. Think for example of a company that participates in a
auction in the country of one of these where he has become the manager
who has to choose: he will never choose Italy. A personal feeling
generates an economic consequence.
Although the example may seem unlikely or trivial, still think of the
common and widespread feeling of people that derives from the opinions
of those who know the flaws of the Italians very well for having
lived together since birth. Feeling that will also act in an economic
sense by diverting preference to other countries that have shown
themselves to be more welcoming than Italy.
This common sentiment is not at all of little importance, I assure you,
since I found myself repeatedly, in my very little, defending an
Italian product compared to a German one (especially for electronics).
It made me understand why the Germans (and the others as well) sell
everywhere and the Italians don't (except for the moment the voluptuous products like the fashion).
42
Thought on the grass (that is to say about the grass, not lying
on it). The one that grows wild in the meadows, not the one to smoke!
I have always misplaced those who cut the grass where it is not
strictly necessary (ie only where the tall grass can restrict the view
of the road and increase the dangers for objects not in sight).
Not only for an aesthetic sense (the spuncions of cut grass and the
earth that emerges is certainly not more beautiful than a uniform
expanse of grass especially if there are flowers), but also from a
hygienic point of view: cutting grass means reducing the chlorophyll
surface exposed to the sun and therefore able to absorb CO2 and make
O2. To those who think that this is something of low importance I would
remember that we are very lucky that the other 7.2 billion people who
live on Earth do not do it because I am sure they would then be of a
totally different opinion.
But there is a very trivial experiment that confirms me in my belief.
A few days ago I bought an infrared thermometer. Unlike the other
types, it does not need physical contact to make the measurement and at
a variable distance in less than 1 second it gives a precise reading of
a restricted area of the surface to be measured.
So in trying it to get accustomed of it, I measured the asphalt, a
piece of ground, the dry mowing and the fresh green grass, close
together and in the same conditions of light. Tests which I then
repeated in different hours and angular positions with respect to the
sun. The results were interesting and indicative. While mowing and soil
were sometimes at or above the asphalt temperature, the grass was
always at least 10 degrees lower than this, sometimes even more than 20
degrees when the sun was perpendicular to the inclination of the
ground. The foliage of the trees gave the same behavior.
This is the reason why if you lie down on a lawn in full sunlight, even
in the hottest hour, you get a fresh feeling. Not only that, but also
beeing near trees, even in the sun, the heat is lower.
The thing is perfectly logical and according to the physical laws. The
grass, like all plants, absorbs light with chlorophyll and uses it as
an absolutely necessary energy to chemically manipulate the CO2 it
draws from the air and water and turn them into sugars. Then with
successive transformations into all the other substances it needs to
grow and live.
Since nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but only it is
transformed, if I use energy for a chemical process I will not be able
to use it accordingly also for another, the energy used for these
transformations will therefore not contribute to raising the
temperature of the grass as it does the energy absorbed by other
objects or substances (for example mowing or asphalt) according to the
principle of Kirchhoff: the light and other electromagnetic radiations
(infrared UV X etc.) when absorbed raise the temperature of a body
which emits calorific waves according to the temperature to which it
arrives.
Not only the plants but also the air above the grass or around the
plants remains at a lower temperature, because, being the temperature
of these lower, also the heat re-emitted and passed around the air is
much lower. You will never see a thermal inversion effect on a lawn
(mirage).
So, don't complain about the heat if you are among those who cut the grass. But be happy. (07/09/13)
43
Thought about women. I have always badly tolerated and despised
men who speak badly about women and then, if they lose their partner,
they no longer know what to do.
But there is one thing I agree as truthful, at least in part, when they say that women act without thinking.
And fortunately! I will explain here why.
In many species of animals, especially mammals but also birds and
others, the female is the one that raises the kids, therefore she must
also protect them.
This means having to deal with unforeseen situations that require
absolutely immediate decisions, on pain of an irreparable tragedy.
Nature (understood as the evolution of the set of living species) has
therefore provided females with the ability to make quick syntheses, at
an almost instinctive level that allows them a greater chance of
survival. Think of a deer that suddenly finds herself in front of a
lion, she does not have the time to think an escape strategy, she must
immediately choose which way to go. If she started to evaluate each
single statement from the most rational point of view, she would end up
with her and her little ones going straight into the lion's mouth. But
there is an additional advantage in her favor, although it may seem
strange. Even a rationally wrong choice can turn out to be optimal,
because unforeseen by the predator and therefore disrupts his plans and
while he tries to adapt them to the new situation the prey has time to
escape.
Take for example the episode reported on this site on the page 'To my
mother'. Faced with the probable danger of a worsening of my brother's
condition, my mother does a wrong thing, she descends and defenselessly
confronts a man holding a gun (she later said 'I did not realize the
danger and that he could kill me' ). But it is precisely this, the
unexpected move, which baffled the man who failed to reorganize his
strategy and fled, he who had the actual power given to him by the
weapon in his hand.
So if we men sometimes are criticizing a choice that is not entirely
rational by our half, not only do we forgive her but also pay close
attention to her, very often it turns out to be more correct over time.
This ability to eliminate what is not important in a situation
sometimes allows them to see more clearly and fundamentally the
important part, which tends to be less visible submerged by the details
at a too precise analysis.
From this point of view personally, in many situations, I tend to
give more credit to their judgment than to that of many more
experienced and rational men. (17/2/14)
44
If you lie to yourself how can you tell if others lie to you? If you
deceive yourself how can you discover and prevent others from deceiving
you? If you refuse to look for the truth because this means abandoning
already consolidated comfortable ideas, enduring the vertigo and fear
derived from facing unknown roads, fighting with the preconceived
opinions of others and feeling ridiculed and derided as if you were the
village idiot, when not fought violently, then certainly you will
have an easier and more pleasant life, like most people, but you will
be mean like them and as they you will be deceived, led where you have
not chosen, sacrificed for the interests of others who believe
themselves more cunning. But which in turn inevitably become victims of
others because they too have refused to seek the truth for the same
reasons. (03/04/14)
45
"The truth hurts me, I know ..." Caterina Caselli* sang it almost a
lifetime ago. Yes it is true, it hurts, but once accepted it
makes life better. Freedom also hurts, but then it also makes
life better and you never want to go back.
One requires the other: you cannot be free if you accept falsehood, you
cannot be truthful if you are forced to choose truths that are not
yours.
The initial evil is compensated by life after you've endured it. But
most people don't do it, and so they are forced to endure a dark life
that cannot, however, cause the truth to disappear, but only to be
pushed to the bottom of their mind, but even there it hurts. They
cannot ignore freedom too, there will always be someone who
will show them in its greatest charm. So, to avoid it, they want no one
to be free by imposing as much as possible on rules, ideas, laws and
other fantasies, even completely idiotic ones, that will minimize
freedom.
And so they live doubly badly even having to endure the effort to
impose these restrictions on themselves and others. Poor fools!
* A well known italian singer (03/08/14)
46
There are also men who, out of fear of having to find their own truth,
rely on the truths (or falsities) of others, like a buttress, saying
"he said so" ("ipse dixit"), especially referring to the people
they consider important. But a truth is not that if it does not have
inside the reasons why it is such. It is not someone who affirms
something that makes it true or not. If it happens that the truths of
the person so important collapse miserably, those, who believed they
had chosen to be safe, are commiserated and derided twice. As an
exercise, look into past and recent history. (03/08/14)
47
Otherwise if they don't have an important person to refer to,
because they are completely ignorant on the subject, they have (and the
Italians are very clever at this) the uncle of their husband's sister
... who does the cleaning in a university that once took care of such a
thing ....
Of course they believe they have absolutely the truth in their pockets. (02/08/14)
48
Killing for money or power is not very smart, only a minority of times it gives a reward.
Killing for love or jealousy is stupid, perhaps sometimes seems to free
from the anger and anguish of a finished love, but nothing else.
Killing in the name of god is only idiotic because it never returns you absolutely anything. (01/08/15) /15)
49
Not only the old testament is full of pleasant stories, but also the new:
Virgin Mary: it should be clear that Mary seemed virgin because Saint
Joseph had it too small and could not deflower her (i.e. break her
hymen) as much as he tried, or suffered of 'ejaculatio precox '. But he had ejaculation anyway and so
at least twice he got her pregnant.
The Magi: beyond the fact that it seems strange that they were there
waiting for the birth of the child, the most amusing is the idea that
they found him following the comet as a GPS. I saw a comet a few years
ago, like most contemporary people, but if I wanted to follow it I
would have found myself turning the whole earth without being able to
reach a specific place. Also because, coincidentally, the comets are
not geostationary, but revolve around the sun (not the earth). Then, as
anyone who knows a minimum of trigonometr y knows, to find a precise
point it takes at least three references, so it would have required 3
non-aligned comets!
In addition, these bear gold, frankincense and myrrh as gifts. All
extremely expensive things: even with these gifts alone, Jesus' family
would become one of the richest in the area. Where they have
disappeared there is no trace in subsequent stories.
The ox and the donkey. This seems to be just sticking there, as they
say 'posthumously' by western fantasists: as far as I have been in the
Middle East (Syria and Israel) I don't remember seeing oxen.
Dromedaries yes, but oxen no. Of course I can be mistaken, if so
someone send me evidence of my mistake. Even the donkey would not give
it frequent (from the roman army), but it is possible. So if there had
been a dromedary in the cave and a donkey it would have been more
credible, but how many people in Rome and the Roman Empire knew what a
dromedary was? Speaking of oxen was undoubtedly easier to fascinate the
uncultured minds of the people to be converted to the Christian
religion.
The shepherds: it is strange that the shepherds come to know of the
birth of the 'redeemer', but they immediately forget it. No one
offering hiding to the little one in the subsequent massacre of the
innocents. Not only that, Jesus lives in complete anonymity for 30
years without anyone remembering the exceptional event. More, Sheperds
are not so many, in Israel I saw only one (arab), in Syria only three
in a trip of 800 km from Damascus to Al-Kameshly, because they are
desertic land and only the goats (and few) can live by the rare
vegetation of the desert.
Since
we spoke of nothing less than god, it was clear that an environment
similar to what we used to imagine for a royal court was told. The
birth of a lonely child, poor, and chilling in precarious
conditions would not have fascinated and impressed anyone .
But then who is the historian who, with his memories, brings to light
this information, Mary? She doesn't seem to have written anything. Did
she describe all that in some exclusive interviews with the evangelists
or did they invent everything to hit people's imagination? Autograph
statements of Mary to the evangelists do not seem to exist.
This tendency to strike the imagination is present in all the gospels,
recognized or apocryphal, due to the need to get attention from people
who otherwise would have thought only of their existential problems,
far more important than what was reported to them.
It is still the reason for the use by religious (but also for those who
recommend the sanctity of the state) of the absurd vestments and
objects used as a symbol of faith.
If the Pope went around dressed in a casual way who would listen to
him? But with his white skirt, he could say, like his colleagues in the
past, the biggest nonsense and send a lot of people to die, believed
followed and revered by almost everyone. (Please read the history books
before shouting at the scandal and insulting!) The same applies to the
archbishop and cardinal bishops without the stick with the hook or the
absurd flat hat. (01/12/15)
50
In an old film, 'Charade', Cary Grant recounts a kind of parable (which
I bring back from memory, therefore probably incorrect): ... once there
were two Indian tribes in one territory: that of the Whitefeet
whose members always said the truth and that of the Blackfeet who
instead always lied. If a tourist met an Indian and asked him "are you
a sincere Whitefeet or a liar Blackfeet?" The Indian replied "I am a
sincere Whitefeet".
But this is really the truth? ...
A big logical problem is posed lightly. It is not possible within the
statement to verify its logical correctness because it can be
identified with a fundamental principle a = - (- a), the principle of
non-contradiction. Therefore from the logic point of view the
expression is perfectly correct either the Indian is actually a sincere
Whitefeet or a liar Blackfeet who claims a lie - (- a). Not only
that but it is the only possible answer because the other would be in
contradiction with itself (that is, that a sincere Whitefeet lies
saying that he is a Blackfeet or that a liar Blackfeet tells the truth
by sincerely telling him to be a Blackfeet).
Let's look at the same problem applied to a different case: 1: was the
Bible inspired by God who is good and sincere or 2: by the evil Devil who
lies by declaring that it was inspired by God?
It is not possible to know this only from this statement. Therefore the
majority takes the first alternative for good, so it takes all the
statements contained in it as good and just. And what if the other one
is the correct one? If it is the Devil, that we know devises all to do
evil to man and make him sin, who inspired the bible falsely claiming
to be god, so he can mislead man who in that way would go
straight to hell?
This is not a quite small matter.
Any way to get out of the impasse? Yes, analyzing the consistency of the contents.
For example, the Bible tells us that God gave the tablets of the law to
Moses. Take care, he delivered them directly, he did not write them in
the bible. Why? Why not use the same type of media for both? Yes, I
understand that the bible written on stone slabs would have been quite
heavy and uncomfortable to carry, but why then do not have the
commandments written as an initial and fundamental part of the Bible?
Did he not trust the material writer? Did he know that it was inspired
by the devil?
Two. The law (the commandments that are obviously the basis of all the
rest) says "don't kill". Why then in the Bible there are so many
praises and celebrations of single and mass killings that undoubtedly
contrast with the commandment? Can the good God, the sincere Whitefeet,
behave like a liar Blackfeet? And he, who knows everithing, inspired such a collection of stupid and untrue stories just for ignorants. Didn't he know the phisics he has created? Uhmm I'm afraid the bible is the case 2.
For those who want to think that I am against the Bible, I will say
that the problem is absolutely identical for almost all other
religions. We exclude only Confucianism and Taoism because they are
moral theories and partially (for some sects the problem exists)
Buddhism because it does not deal at all with the existence or not of
god. (01/23/15)
51
That religions have no foundation is also demonstrated by the
fact that after thousands of years there is no one recognized as more
valid than the others. None that showed real reasons to be considered a
winner. In the scientific field there is always a theory that in the
end is considered truthful bersus the others concerning the same
phenomenon, according to the principle that the one that gives a
logical answer to all the questions and is the simplest then is the
most truthful
In the religious sphere this has not happened because they are not
theories on which a truth is sought, but only affirmations without any
foundation and confirmation in reality, indeed with indications
completely divorced from every physical and real law.
It
is not a coincidence that they all ask believers to have "faith".
Without a blind and stupid faith (ie not supported by reality) a normal
person would laugh. And to be more sure that a criticism cannot
ridicule their claims, they have always used the strength of conviction
derived from the fires, mass extermination, torture, political power
and conditioning already at the tender age of primary schools. All.
That up until a few centuries ago there could be partially sustainable
arguments,it was possible, but certainly in the 20th and 21st centuries
this is not possible.
For this reason, since they have no real reason for existence, we still
have religious terrorism, holy wars, intolerance towards other
religions, etc.
The sleep of reason generates monsters.
States should be the ones to restore the truth and abolish the public
teaching of religion, but even state power is made up of 'believers'
and people who know that they can benefit from the stupidity of others.
It is no coincidence that one of the first social structures to be
called to the forefront of power, after the fall of the Soviet
regime in Russia, was the Orthodox church. Listening to the broadcasts
of radio Moscow (russian government) and radio Liberty (of the US
government in russian language) it seemed to be in front of expressly religious radios because
the presence of popes and other religious at the microphone. Well, that
way, for the new power, was the best method to have the greatest number
of consenting idiots who would have endured, in the hope go to Heaven,
any overwhelming power of the Russian political mob in power at the
moment. (01/30/15)
52
I have always been a staunch supporter of a world without states,
free just and solidaric. As a result of a united Europe as
the first stage of this process.
Today I do not think it is possible anymore, but that the European
Union is going towards its own failure. We already see the symptoms. In
addition to native resistance, that is, from the initial accession
process of the various states, the return from the disappointed is
increasing. In particular the Greek, Italian, Spanish and part of
eastern citizens.
In particula towards Greece, Europe has lost its most important
opportunity to grow and increase integration, minimizing centrifugal
pressures, and starting to become a solidarity state.
The fact is that it did not behave like a solidarity organism but as a
mere jumble of states, some with unrealistic desires of political
rule over others.
Europe pays and will pay the price of the reasons for its creation, an
association of states in a purely commercial sense. It is nothing more
than this and the results are visible.
A normal state is concerned with the whole course of it, intervening to
move resources where it is most lacking, so as to ensure means for a
harmonious development of the whole territory. It invests. It does not
make loans with an obligation to repay and interest payments, or worse,
it does not delegate some regions to provide loans to others.
We have never seen, for example, that Lombardy or Emilia-Romagna have
made a loan to Lucania or Campania. It is the state that has given
non-repayable capital or economic facilities to the poorest regions (we
leave aside the effectiveness of these measures, very often polluted by
the intervention of crime or by the greed of companies and individuals,
this is a genetic defect of Italians). A state must be like a body that
makes no distinction between its parts and organs and distributes its
blood equally everywhere. If he did not do so after a short time he
would be in gangrene and disintegration with the mere prospect of
death shortly.
It was not France or Merkel's Germany that had to help Greece, with the
prosopope of imposing ways to fight the crisis. Lung medications are
not the same as for the spleen. Every part of the body or every state
has different characteristics, the methods of intervention for one do
not automatically adapt to the other.
It was the European central bank that should have intervened, not as a
financial bank of the 27 member states of the community, but as a piggy
bank of the entire community that distributes its blood where it is
most needed.
It's a sin, a lost and unrepeatable historic occasion. It is not
possible to know the details now, that is to say if Greece will soon
decide to leave the euro or Europe, but it is clear that the feeling of
repulsion towards the EU is destined to increase, increasingly also due
to infection in neighboring countries . If a state or its
citizens, that is then the same, does not feel part of a community that
is supportive, protected and helped in its moments of need, why should
it then adhere to it if not exclusively for immediately selfish
economic reasons? If a toe does not receive blood, it
goes into gangrene, which then ends up extending throughout the body.
Of course, it can be amputated but the whole individual will be impaired
53
Poor Adam!
I take the thought 34 back.
God creates man, Adam, and gives him a companion, Eve (hopefully they
were in love each other, also because they had no other choices). So he
wants to put them to the test, to see if they can stay in Paradise or
if they have to take it alone in the valley of tears.
Then he prepare the quiz. He select an apple tree, he puts a sign with
'Forbidden picking apples' he hides behind the tree, calls the devil to
fuck Adam and waits. He arrives accompanied by Eva who the bible shows
a bit silly (this is how women must be, isn't it?) Which is persuaded
by the devil to pick the apple and give it to Adam who begins to eat
it. But paff! God reappears angry black and drives them out of
Paradise to go and work the earth with the sweat of their foreheads.
I'm sure someone, hearing the story in that way, will get angry.
But even if told otherwise, it does not change at all.
Let's see some comments that should be spontaneous
First we have already asked ourselves: if God is omniscient, why does
he make the test? He knew the result in advance even without Adam
be failing.
Not only that, but he also behaved in a subtle way to be sure of the
result: why in contrast to the devil didn't he put even a
fascinating angel who could have convinced Adam not to accept the
apple? A simple right to defense!
More, who is that man who truly loves his woman who can refuse a gift from her? He played it safe.
But more and worse, why didn't God take the Devil out of the way
when he accidentally created him , instead of leaving him there to
confuse and hurt the man? If he had simply said 'vade retro Satana'
('go back Satan') this would have found himself immanently, even in
violation of the Relativity law, squashed at the borders of
infinity without being able to do more harm to anyone
But the heaviest thing is this: the apple gave the possibility to
understand and to know the reality (that is the intelligence),
therefore it follows that Adam, at the time of the test, did not have
this ability, that is he only had the intelligence of a monkey. So how
could he be aware of what the quiz represented and what was at stake?
Only after eating the apple he could be aware. He simply saw an apple
that was good to eat and he took it and ate it like any monkey would.
But do you really can conceive a god who uses these cheap ways? And why, if he wasn't sadistic? (02/08/15)
54
Let's talk about sex. Someone will turn up their noses just at
seeing this word written, and there will be those who sit comfortably
and eagerly expecting who-knows-what. Both will be disappointed.
Why sex? it comes from a simple and pure statistical rule and nature invented it to overcome a simple problem.
Let's start with an example. There are very few animal and plant
species, above all multi-cellular, that use asexual reproduction, ie
parthenogenesis (that means reproduction from a virgin), ie natural
cloning. There are also those that use both methods: they are of the
division of the rotifera: they under normal conditions use the
parthenogenesis method, but when the living conditions are more
difficult (for example towards the winter) the males are generated
and the generation becomes sexed, giving rise to eggs much more
resistant to the difficult climate.
But this method, a bit complicated and inadequate for species of
greater complexity, was then definitively abandoned for the animals
that evolved later. The reason we said is statistics. If for some
reason there is a negative change in the DNA of an individual, in
reproducing he creates other individuals with the same problem. If, for
example, man reproduced by parthenogenesis, and an individual was born
with a single kidney, all his children, all of them, would have a
kidney only by perpetuating a population with the same problem (and
with consequent greater mortality). Since instead in the sexual
reproduction the son's genetic patrimony is half of the mother and half
of the father, mixed in a rather casual way, we will find that only one
will actually be sick, two healthy carriers, and one perfectly healthy.
If these then mate with other healthy people, the number of patients
will be one in sixteen. In other words, with each successive generation
the number of patients will be reduced further until they practically
disappear. This of course, in broad terms, there are special cases,
such as haemophilia that is transmitted by females but only men get
sick. So a genetic error tends to disappear statistically, the faster
as the genetic differences are great. Thus the populations that have
formed from several different strains (for example following invasions
of external population), have fewer genetic errors and are also the
most robust and healthy.
So nature (and here I always mean the evolution of living beings in the
Darwinian sense) has definitely opted for sexual reproduction in
successive species.
Not only that, to be sure of the survival of the species it invented
sexual pleasure, so that the two sexes are attracted towards each other
and easily and pleasantly mate and have a sexual relationship that then
ensures the fertilizatiohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotifern of the female and the subsequent birth of
other individuals. If this were not the case, individuals of both sexes
would have something more pleasant to do, such as eating, and would
have no time or desire to generate other individuals, and the species
would become extinct in a short time. This is absolutely true for all
species that use sexual reproduction. For some species it is very
simple, the attraction derived from single pheromones, but as the
species become more complex, the motivations and attraction mechanisms
also change.
Have you ever seen two birds in a sexual relationship that give each
other beaked beaks? This mechanism exists up to and even in humans.
Indeed there is another consideration to make. While in other animal
species, sexual attraction exists only or almost exclusively at certain
times of the year when the female is ready to be fertilized, in humans
it is continuous throughout the year (and independent of the woman's
fertility status) .
Now the conclusions.
If therefore sex is necessary and nature has worked so hard to make men
(both males and females) have desire and pleasure in a sexual
relationship, why are there idiots who want to repress this?
Even more so, for those who want to believe that creation is the work
of God, why do they come to say that sex is a sin if it was so wished
by God? Do they know it better than he? (02/14/15)
55
Continuation of the previous one. But then why do religions, more or
less all, condemn sex? Because sex unleashes energies and impulses that
if repressed can become violent and, in addition to other beneficial
effects, it frees endorphins, substances created by our body that give
a feeling of tranquility and well-being. Who in these conditions would
like to make war?
This is why religion, as we have seen in previous thoughts, a
fundamental tool to justify war, bans sex. It would be decidedly more
difficult to convince men that they were in this state of well-being
and desire, to face the danger of death and the otherwise unbearable
conditions of war. Only by preventing them from having sex (and when it
is inevitable for demographic reasons it must be accompanied by
feelings of guilt and as much as possible without pleasure by either
sex) the consequent violent impulses can be used for war. Not only
that, but since religion does not admit criticism and analysis from
logic, but only blind faith such as that which the leader also demands,
soldiers accept everything uncritically (even to kill themselves). The
same drive to violence is then transferred to all human activities,
including sex, where the warrior has the right to rape the women in
front of him, both those of the enemy and those of his own people,
because in the end even this (that is the neighbor), for the violent
vision of life consequent to the habits of war, is then seen as
an enemy (Violence does not allow solidarity. A warrior in solidarity
would end up being so also towards the enemy).
Violence against women even today is the consequence of religious
dictates, of all religions, without exception. (also Confucianism
requires the submission of women to men). How many priests and how many
times have recommended to women victims of violence to endure, in the
name of faith, the violence of man so that suffering would have opened
the doors of paradise to them?
Of corollary, power, which draws the greatest advantage from both
internal and external conflicts (and often even coincides with the
religious structure), supports and will always support religion in all
its worst manifestations (let us not forget the massacres made by the
power with the excuse of religion, such as the massacre of St.
Bartholomew night in which at least 30,000 Protestants were killed, by the
French Catholic government and Henry IV, who became a Catholic from a
Protestant saying 'Paris is worth a mass', because only in this way he
could become king).
Even today there are military chaplains who bless the army of the state against the face of Christ's teachings. (14/02/15)
56
Let's
continue and explore the topic on violence. We have seen how sexual
repression produces violent impulses and these are useful for war. If
this were really for the defense of one's own people they would not be
necessary, because the need for defense would be sufficient enough to
make people participate, indeed it could also defend itself without
violence, as has already happened in history, and this would keep the a
high level of solidarity within the group. Once the need is over, every
feeling of violence is over. Think of the Resistance in Italy, France
or Denmark in the WWII
But the vast majority of wars are made to offend, that is, to claim
things of which one has no right (for example territories or natural
resources), therefore violence is necessary to obtain them, even when
then wars are declared by both parties.
Violence is therefore absolutely necessary to force the soldier to kill
innocent people, which he would not do. Violence to the truth is also
absolutely necessary to mask the obvious economic reasons in favor of
the few and to motivate the many who will then suffer the consequences.
History is full of lies, false provocations, two-part and partial news,
etc. Even now and by everyone, even just to prepare a future scenario.
The most recent are those on the Russian aviation that would have
passed in the skies of Sweden, then we learn that instead they were
outside the Swedish administration sky and that (to do more fear to
those who do not know the rules, ie almost all) do not they used the
transponder, something that military aircraft do not use at all and
radar only identifies their presence even without transponders. Perhaps
the most serious lie is that of the shooting down of the twin towers,
which on-line documents obtainable by anyone * prove to be a whole
collection of lies, which have collapsed not because of the impact of a
plane (of which the black box because it melted on impact, but the
pilot's passport was found without a burn at the base of the
skyscraper!) but from coordinated explosions as can be seen very well
in a movie. We can then add many more such as the chemical weapons of
Saddam Hussein etc.
This type of violence, on the truth, is also directed at one's same
country citizens because they are led to approve the costs they will
suffer as a result of the war. Deceived (with their consent) and raped
by those who had their trust. **
But this violence cannot be armed as needed as if it were a cannon, if
you instill it in a person it will become part of his personality and
you will not be able to eliminate it. Just as solidarity, on the other
hand, are two fundamental and irreconcilable characteristics in an
individual. Nor can you limit it only to the war scenario, it will
become the way in which the individual will tend to solve problems and
conflicts even in social life. It is no coincidence that many of the
feminicides are committed by people who use weapons and have a culture
linked to violence and not to solidarity: carabinieri, security guards,
soldiers, hunters, criminals etc. Among other things, precisely in
femicide, two impulses complement each other: violence as a solution to
conflicts and the 'right', as indicated in the previous thought, of the
male to rape the woman, who is clearly understood only as a supplier of
sexual pleasure (in the best case also for something that could
consider a child). Those who are used to violence are not really
capable of having a relationship based on love, respect and solidarity,
such as that between men and women in particular. (19/02/15)
* * download the movie Loose
change
** ** see the thought
26 Free-range chickens
57
Lightning thought. More and more often we hear about marijuana for
therapeutic use, while never therapeutic tobacco or alcohol. But
why is marijuana prohibited but tobacco and alcohol not?
58
Let us review the history of the thought 30, that is the 'universal' flood, just for fun, only to highlight the incongruities.
# 1 god wants to punish all men because they are bad (he
should punish himself because he was wrong to do them that way and
should have given himself to another activity of which he was instead
capable). But there is still one just and he wants to save it. He then
advised him to build an ark where he could escape the fury of the
waters.
# 2 Now Noah finds himself in this need, he and his family: to
build something that can navigate with more than 3000000 pairs of
animals on board (god will have teased him and filled him with anabolic
substances to prevent him from feeling the fatigue to do it, at least
it is hoped);
# 3 load and give place to all the necessary food (you have the
idea of ??how it can be? Do you know how much certain animals like eg
elephants, etc.?) To over 6000000 individuals;
# 4 building containment structures (cages and artificial
environments) to prevent antagonistic species (cats-mice,
lions-gazelles, insect-birds, etc.) from eating each other.
# 5 go all over the Earth to recover them. From Svalbard to
Pitcairn, from China to Mato Grosso, from Siberia to Australia, from
the Sahara to Malaysia, etc. etc.
# 6 know them all and make sure you've found them all (we can't even do that, despite computers and databases)
# 7 to convince them to get on the ark (without being stung by a
scorpion or by having a cobra spit in their eyes) and make them take
their place in the pre-established cage, also checking their sex. (big
problem for the relative species if they had taken by mistake a couple
of males instead of male and female);
# 8 to collect them, then, the ark naturally had to be amphibious
to reach the middle of the desert (which is less desert than it seems)
or the savannah or on top of a mountain at least 2000 meters (and for
the condors and eagles how to do?). And how could he get into the thick
of the tropical forest with such a huge boat?
# 9 all in a very limited time. Obviously the ark had to have a
supersonic rocket super-propulsion (at least 10 if not 100 MACs) to be
able to sift the whole earth in such a short time.
# 10 the sextant was invented thousands of years later and even
nautical charts did not exist, much less decca-loran and gps. How did
Noah navigate with the necessary precision throughout the earth and
know where he should go?
# 11 The deluge begins: he and his family must feed every day almost
over 60,000,000 individuals, clean them, collect their excrement
(Pfuii! What a job!).
# 12 universal flood means that at least all of the earth is submerged
by water (but the rest of the universe just isn't, so it should be
called 'global' and not 'universal'). Up to heights of at least 2000
meters, where men lived (thankfully that there were no high mountain
climbers, otherwise you know the problem of submerging the earth to
over 8000 meters!). But where did all this water come from (enjoy
calculating how much it took, the calculation is very simple)? And
where did it end up? With the extra weight it would have slammed the
earth out of his orbit.
# 13 population: if the Jews were the 'chosen people' why was
there only one right? A swallow does not make spring and a just one
does not make a just and 'chosen' people.
# 14 we all know, and even the ancients knew, that the descendants of
an individual of a certain or race are of the same race. So the sons of
Noah, as he was Jewish, were Jews, so were his nephews and other
descendants. There were no more men of other races because they were
all dead, so all current men are Jews, aren't they? No? Why no one has
said anything to the redskins, the Chinese, the blacks, the
Polynesians, the Indian Indians and so on. who continue to exist and
make children of their race? How do they allow themselves to disobey
God and continue to be alive, while they should have disappeared in the
universal flood?
# 15 but the fact also poses a big moral problem. Since only one
family remains, the continuation of the species can only take place
within it. that is, through the incest repeated between mother and
father, brothers and sisters. But is not incest forbidden by God as
indicated by religion?
But can you really believe that this story is the truth 'revealed' and 'inspired' by God?
Certainly someone will want to argue that for every point there was the
intervention of God. What an effort though! All this work, all this
having to mess up everything, this putting all the burden on the family
of a poor wretch who is then the only just, instead of giving him a
prize, to get something that could be achieved in a much simpler way.
For example, arousing a super-virus, such as ebola or legiona fever,
just for the human species (as are so many viruses), and vaccinating
Noah's family would not have solved the problem in a simple way?
But are you sure that god is an incapable as you paint him? (03/04/15)
59
The two major political theories in use liberalism and communism
(Marxist) (although the latter is less fashionable at the moment) from
the social point of view, that is when they want to determine social
relations, are extremely limited. Both present only an economic vision
of a world that is made up of many other components. So fundamental
relationship are examined, but they do not reach the essence of things
and therefore their realization proves impossible. Even if it seems to
be winning, liberalism, in reality is so full of anti-liberal
interventions that it has little of the original formulation. Take the
stock exchange for example, which should be the most representative
institution of the liberal system: how many rules have been introduced
to limit those freedoms that generate damage to the whole society and
to the market itself and not a balance as the theory would indicate,
which states that free and uncontrolled competition would benefit
everyone. The lack of restrictive (and therefore anti-liberal) rules
would instead lead to concentrations of economic power and, through the
lobbies, also political in the hands of very few to the detriment of
all others. For this reason, for example, anti-monopoly laws have been
introduced.
That absolute liberalism is a disgrace was demonstrated already in the
seventeenth century with the London fire, where a fire destroyed part
of the city, due and fueled by the state of abandonment of poor,
crowded and wooden buildings without fire prevention measures so that
the houses they cost as little as possible but make the most of it and
without state controls and laws that would otherwise have been
interpreted as an intrusion and a violation to the liberalist thinking
of British society at the time.
But Marxism was wrong anyway because even this did not consider the
other components beyond the economic ones. If he had based his vision
on solidarity he might even have been successful. Certainly this should
have been based on intelligence and would have taken a long time to be
realized because it would have had to change the general way of
thinking of humanity. I'll try to explain it in the following thought
60.
Once
upon a time there were the Incas, who were communists. Everyone had his
own land to cultivate, in concession from the state, and they had to
deliver their harvest to the state from which they then received the
necessary to live. All, without exception, including widows, orphans
and the sick ones. For these, who clearly did not have the strength and
the material possibility to cultivate their portion of
land, squads of strong men were constituted who, in
addition to cultivating their own, cultivated and cared for the land of
these categories of people. So everyone had what they needed to live
decently.
It was therefore a society founded on solidarity. Then the Spaniards
arrived who had instead a society founded on the robbery and therefore
the Incas and their extraordinary social system were destroyed.
Some commentators have argued that a system like that of the Incas was
possible because it was a relatively small society and the needs were
more limited, but in the modern century it would not be possible. All
claims yet to be proven. Indeed with the necessary adjustments and
thanks to the modern technology, perhaps a society based on solidarity
would be even easier.
62
A fact that happened in Bologna caused quite a stir, where a gas
station owner killed a man who tried to rob him. I believe that a man's
life cannot be evaluated in economic terms. Certainly not because it
belongs to God, but precisely because everyone, without exception, has
the natural right to manage his life as he wishes without having to
make it depend on others.
Yes, I know he was a villain, but that doesn't change much the
assessments of the fact. Society has the right to defend itself by
isolating criminals, but nothing more.
If I accept the logic that if someone steals something from me he can
be killed, then the murder of someone who does not pay a debt or causes
material damage, even if only by competing with me, becomes lawful (how
many murders for these causes!), But then there are those who cheat,
those who adulterate food, politicians and corrupt public officials,
bank officials who advise bankruptcy investments, entrepreneurs who do
not pay contributions or who take advantage of situations of necessity
to pay their employees as little as possible and so on, because also
these and many others are forms of larceny and robbery. In the end very
few would remain on this earth if we use this logic.
What would then be the value to which this could become lawful? 1
billion, a million, a thousand euros or an apple? Clearly, then the two
counterparts would never agree in assessing the value.
Again near Bologna, many years ago there was a fact that made
people talk a lot. In Castelmaggiore a goldsmith was killed during a
robbery because he reacted by trying to kill the robbers.
Apart from the idiotic move (even with all the respect and sorrow
towards the dead), because only an idiot try to overwhelm those
who already have a gun or another weapon in their hand and have it
ready, there is another aspect to consider . Trying to kill the robbers
for the amount of the loot he gave an estimate of the market value of
his and their life, a figure on which the robbers disagreed considering
it should be higher and they defended it. Everything is then resolved
in a treatise on the cost of a life, and the goldsmith has lost.
But was it really so important that money to risk and worse to lose his
life? Wouldn't it have been better to have reluctantly accepted the
idea of losing money but not life?
Some people might say that these things are not thought of in advance.
But this is the fundamental error. Whoever makes a profession that
involves even fatal risks, before doing it he must ask himself the
problem and think about what he will have to do in a condition of
danger in order to have the least possible damage. Thus it will have
the necessary cold blood when it actually happens.
In addition, another thing must be taken into account: in most thefts
and robberies there is an insurance that covers or reduces the damages
and on this also thieves and robbers count . In a small company where I
worked in the distant past, thieves let the owner know that they were
sorry they didn't know in advance the company was without insurance
coverage, (the insurance companies no longer wanted to insure it after
the two previous thefts) because otherwise they would not have carried
out the theft.
64
In my opinion, a correct attitude towards human stupidity is this: if I
see someone walking towards a ravine, it is my duty to inform him of
the danger. But if, despite my warnings, he continues in that
direction, it seems right to me to take a comfortable chair and put
myself in a favorable and panoramic position where I can enjoy the
spectacle of his fall.
66
What said in the preceding thoughts applies to all levels: personal,
collective or of the entire humanity. The situation of present humanity
derives from the choices made previously. From ISIS to the war in
Syria, from poverty in the third world to the destruction of the Amazon
forest, from climate change to cancer deaths caused by pollution. Do
not look for unsustainable excuses! It's our fault, ours alone. If the
choice had been and was for solidarity instead of egoism, the earth
would truly be paradise.
Also where apparently solidarity choices have been made, such as the
various social structures eg. the family the group the state etc. the
fundamental laws with which all they are regulated have an egoistic
foundation only. In fact, individuals fight each other, as do small
communities, families or family clans, as well as states, all of which
are careful to protect their alleged wealth. Thus they make themselves
and others poorer. A society based on solidarity would make everyone
richer.
Certainly not all structures, some are also based on a solidarity
foundation such as the Red Cross, hospitals (in Europe), Emergency. But
they are still restricted to a marginal role, where they can be useful
as an alibi (to show that egoism is good because it also makes
solidaristic structures) but do not affect the economic choices that
are and remain all selfish.
67
The fundamental law of war is selfishness, there can be no
doubt. At all levels: from the commander (king, emperor,
president of the republic, dictator, religious leader, etc.), who wants
to acquire more power and wealth at the expense of other commanders,
the simple soldiers, who think of war loot and women that he will be
able to rape. Even those who accept it without rebelling (for fear of
losing that little or nothing they possess) are equally guilty: those
who do not object agree.
72
On sex again. Let us free ourselves from prejudices and acquired
opinions. There is a problem for males regarding sex: women when they
are pregnant or immediately after childbirth (and, for the most part,
on the day of menstruation) for a certain period are not available (or
for short periods they are alone a little), while the sexual drive in
the male is continuous. This poses some social problems on how to vent
this. The various societies have found different solutions, let's see
them:
a) abstinence. It is the most difficult, even to be observed and does not solve the problem.
b) polygamy. The disadvantage for the male is the economic cost. In fact in the population in which it is or was legal (Arab countries, Israel, sect of the Mormons, China before the revolution) it was the prerogative of the rich, indeed it was an index of their economic capacity.
c) prostitution. The most widespread today, both legally and otherwise. It is very cheap, and therefore the most widespread also at the level of popular classes. At a higher level it is often camouflaged with a single-mandate prostitution (sometimes even legalized with the marriage bond) where direct money is replaced by rich gifts, such as houses, jewelry, fur coats, credit cards or stocks etc.
d) open structures without fixed links. Now obsolete system that has made its last appearance in the post-1968 communities. The difficulty that has condemned them as a solution is that they require the abolition of the sense of possession and oppression (on the male side in particular but also of the female) in the emotional relationship and the abolition of every consolidated emotional relationship.
e) adultery. Certainly it is the cheapest (indeed sometimes at no cost) and therefore also the most widespread. The only disadvantage is that sometimes the original couple is undone and a new one is created which again presents the same problem.
But then is there an optimal one?
Yes, but it requires an absolute understanding and a clear and
reciprocal understanding of the needs of one party from the other,
adapting to the possibilities of both at that time. There is not only
penetration for a satisfying relationship. Only two who are really in
love each other can do this.
73
About love again. It is my opinion, but I do not pretend that others
see and feel it in the same way. A relationship of love
must be totalizing. What does it mean? That the loved one must become
the most important thing to sacrifice everything else. It is not a
'romantic' and unreal vision of idealized love, but in my opinion a
necessity if you want to build a lasting relationship. I will explain
it below:
if I allow that there is something else more important, for example my
work,time after time other things will inevitably be introduced that
will become more important such as the bar, the game or the beer. How
many unions ended in tragedy after a discussion on the television
channel to see? But already before that point it is clear that love no
longer exists. In fact the normal conclusions are, at best, the
consenting divorce or adultery and consequences or gender murder if one
of the two parties fails to understand that the relationship is already
finished, with no possibility of remedy, because over time the
relationship of mutual trust and connivance has broken up and therefore
the two lives have become increasingly separate and alien.
I knew a couple who were no longer young with a twenty-year-old
daughter. When I went to them I didn't understand why they were still
together, since they didn't even talk to each other. One day they
decided to rent a room in their house to a 35-year-old girl and a
little after the crime broke out: the girl and the husband fell
in love each other. When his wife noticed it she tried to recover the
bond with her husband also by offering herself again in bed, but it was
the too late and unthinkable. The new couple went to live together
elsewhere and after a few years they got married. As he told me if the
wife's attitude had been different over time probably the fact would
not have happened.
If on the contrary, I put the person I love first of all she feels
protected, desired and listened to and she will want to share her
things and her mood with me and vice versa. Mutual knowledge will tend
to unite us more and more as a whole. Her needs will become mine and
when necessary I will defend she and support what is important to her,
eg. her work. We may find ourselves arguing (gently) on the contrary,
eg. for the fact that I want her to choose the broadcast that interests
her and she, instead, to have the TV tuned for the game for me. In the
end the losing part will be happy because the other will be able to see
what wants.
A couple united in this way is also perceived externally and is a
disruptive force: I heard a bank manager say 'how could anyone
deny something to them?' In general, bank managers are not very
inclined and willing to give things so easily.
I always have in my eyes the image of the grandparents of my ex: he was
rather tall and she, on the other hand, was rather small, quite
advanced in age, always together and holding themselves hand by hand.
When she died after an accidental fall, he said: "Never mind, I will
rejoin her soon." Three months.
74
May the best man win! How many times we have said or heard this
sentence! But this is never the case, the one who wins is always the
strongest, when not the most violent, and if in the particular case he
is the best he is also the strongest. Including sport, with some
exceptions, where strength is made up for example by the possibility of
having adequate equipment, by the luck of being noticed and supported
and understood by others who have power in the sector in which one
operates, and also by the authority of these last ones. Or for example
in the field of art, where there are some acclaimed painters because
some critics are so powerful as to impose their vision on the media,
confident that the stupid majority will accept their word for it at
face value. I could make concrete names, but I don't want be legally
procuted by much stronger and more influential people than me. Look in
history, a van Gogh, surely the best of his period, still not
completely understood in his greatness, but completely a loser in the
struggle for life.
75
one of the most interesting characteristics of the idiots that
allows us to identify them immediately is that they cannot shut
themselves up without being seen. Idiocy is compulsive and there they
are, loudly demonstrating at all costs that they are really idiots.
(01/05/19)
76
Some thoughts on one of the most difficult and fascinating topics: time. That flowing inexorably.
What is time? I think the most appropriate definition is: the
mathematical arrangement of the sequence of things. A little
confused?
Well, let's see: it comes from mathematics, from the possibility of ordering and numbering things and being able to assign them a place. This certainly applies to space. If, for example, I put coins in a row, I count them from left to right, I will give a measure of space because otherwise they would coincide and there would be no distinction between one and the other, and therefore they would not even be countable. If there were no space there would exist only a single infinitesimal point. If things did not have their own space, there would be no big or small things, there would be no forms and everything possible in the universe would be at that point. But space does not in itself allow ordering. My coins could be scattered, without the possibility of having an counting sequence.
If time wouldn't exist, they could not be placed in series. Everything would be immovable in one instant, unchanging. Time is therefore necessary for them to have a specific place. Don't think about the time I need to order them. But to the fact that there cannot be a third coin if there is not already a second, because in this case the third is the second and if it is the second it cannot be the third, even if I have written the number 3 on it , even if it will be placed in third position in space: as a sequence it will be the second and that's it.
This is why time and space are inextricably linked to each other, and time and space constitute the marking of the existence of things: their identification in the three coordinates of space and that of time, as the law of 'relativity' also indicates, constitute their existence. In other words, an object that does not have coordinates in all four dimensions, therefore, does not exist. (1/14/2019)
77
Time 2. Why do we have to take time into account while giving
coordinates in space? In many cases in fact this does not make
much difference compared to the time and place to which we refer: for
example, if I indicate someone an address, in particular that
determined by a GPS, I can consider it valid for years, even the whole
life, unless the name of the street get changed or it is
dragged or moved by an avalanche: in this case the reference to time
becomes necessary or useful. Even more so if I indicate the coordinates
of a moving object. The same coordinates after a short time will no
longer be valid. If I want to be able to identify that object I will
also have to indicate the exact time in which that object is located at
those coordinates. Before or after this it will be elsewhere.
Perhaps the majority of those who read these thoughts will consider
this to be a demonstration of hot water in particular. It could be. But
sometimes it is useful to ask ourselves idle questions because ideas
are worse than cherries, one draws two more, and so new unforeseen
aspects appear which open up different perspectives.
Let's go back to time. It is a common opinion that time is passable in
one sense only, while space is passable back and forth. As we have
seen, we must say that this is completely false. If we leave home, when
we return it will not be the same one we left, even if it will seem the
same to us. The changes will perhaps be very small, for example it
could have been inclined by 1 tenth of a mm, or moved downstream by the
same measure. Opening the door caused a displacement of air that
altered the amount of dust or the percentage of oxygen in the same
ecc.ecc. But in that hour when we may have been absent, it will have
traveled an average of 108000 km in the outer space around the sun. Not
so a small value then! If we wanted to give our coordinates to an alien
we should definitely also indicate the time.
So since space, both in terms of coordinates and composition, changes
over time we cannot go back to that space of a past moment, because it
no longer exists. There is another, probably similar but it is not the
same.
The law of 'general relativity' states that any mass deforms the space
around it. And indeed this law has also been demonstrated by
highlighting this phenomenon. This in agreement and demonstration of
the above.
P.S. This should also be meditated by those who claim (Salvini,
Brexiters, Nostalgics, Venetian Independents, etc.) to return to a rosy
past (thought as theorically possible but not granted that it
really was so rosy) that the current bad progressives have destroyed.
It is not possible to go back to previous conditions. (01/15/1978)
78
The scientific
community is compact in stating: it is not possible to predict the
future. This is quite wrong, in contradiction and precisely in the
light of science itself. This states universal laws valid at any time
in the infinite time. There is no expiration date or validity limit for
a scientific law. It is the same today and tomorrow.
For example: if I have to shoot a cannon, before doing it I have to do
a series of calculations that assure me the right trajectory and the
point of impact. We know the calculations and the precision will be
more or less high depending on the accuracy of the parameters provided.
When I finish the calculations (a fraction of a second on a computer)
before firing the shot I will have foreseen the future, inexorably and
unquestionably.
But I can also know the past in the same way. Indeed, it will be more
difficult to know the past than the future! From the incision angle,
weight, etc. referable to the projectile, I can reconstruct its path
and the point from which it was fired with the same parameters. The
greatest difficulty lies in the fact that sometimes different causes or
values lead to the same identical result, as we know for example from
algebra or analysis where the solutions of an inverse calculation can
be more than one, for example a positive one and a negative one. To
know which is the right one we need to have more knowledge about the
environment that precedes the moment we are trying to know. This is a
very important point: both for the future and for the past: a worste or
better knowledge on a fact depends on the amount of information
connected to the subject that we already have available.
Another important point to take as a principle is the continuity
between past, present and future: today is the past of tomorrow and the
future of yesterday. Not everyone agrees on this, for example the
proponents of quantum physics, against which Einstein turned. Read the
book 'Albert disse " Dio non gioca a dadi" ('Albert said "God
doesn't play dice"), (I apologize but right now I don't remember the
name of the author and my copy was destroyed in the fire of my house).
I know that what will happen in the present is the consequence of
things started in the very recent or remote past. I repeat. no law has
time limits. For example the equation s = v / t (the space is equal to
the speed divided by time) is not only valid for a certain interval of
t but from -OO to +OO, from negative infinity to positive Infinity. Try
to find the end of infinity! It is therefore not possible to think that
suddenly in space there is an abyss between a moment and the next in
which a function already in place ends, for example the rotation of an
electron around a nucleus.
In previous thoughts we have seen that the existence of something
changes the space around, we have also seen the space-time
relationship, so these are all one. A pebble thrown into the pond not
only generates a movement of water in all directions (including time)
but also changes the space even on Jupiter or on the sun or in any
other part of the universe. The fact that it is not possible to notice
and measure it depends only on the fact that we do not have instruments
with the necessary sensitivity, in particular to extract it from the
background noise. And the noise (understood as a continuously variable
random value that interferes with the exact value of a measure) is the
sum of all the interactions derived from all the pebbles thrown into
the ponds at the same time throughout the universe, combined with that
of all the existing objects, large or small, moving or not * that are
also modifying the space around. It is not possible to think that these
alterations end up in an instant and no longer exist in a subsequent
instant. Moreover it is not possible to think that suddenly the pebble
appears from nothing, without someone or something that has launched it
a moment before or that at the moment of impact disappears because it
entered a different time.
The concept is not easy to swallow, I will take it again.
* impossible according to the law of relativity, since there is no
absolute fixed point respect to which verify that it is
still and the space-time coordinates are in any time constantly
changing.
(01/17/19)
79
It is quite common today either on the web or in a discussion to
be called a 'do-gooder', as if it were an offense. But isn't it more
stupid to be a 'do-bader'? Is there not enough wickedness in the world
today, without adding more? If you happen to find a too salty soup in
front of you, do you add more salt ?. Unless you are masochist (in this
case, if you are happy ...) you will try to reduce the effect with
something that contrasts it, not that favors it. So why should I think
of something that increases suffering and violence, and not something
that can counteract it? Most people who feel like throwing these
insults have the far-west as an ideal situation, as if it had been
useful for something!. In fact, even there, in the West, they
eliminated it. There are always so many people who believe that they
are at the vanguard proposing the past and being intelligent in
believing in what others, by necessity and experience forced by
reality, have abolished. (01/20/19)
80
More about space. We have said that something, a star, a planet or any
object modify the space around them, in their large or small. But also
that these changes fill, albeit in an infinitesimal way, all the space
and overlap and interact with each other. Because they are subject to
time anyway, they have their own history.
Knowing the physical laws I can, as in the case of the cannonade,
having as much information as possible, reconstruct this story.
Astronomy is based on this simple fact, with information gathered here
and there trying to discover the evolution of the universe.
But is the space made up only of the xyzt
coordinates? Yes and no. Yes depends on the fact that in the end I can
express everything with these coordinates, but there is something that
describes history better and more effectively: the interaction between
the modified spaces. For example, I can describe a trajectory of a
celestial body, like a simple succession of xyzt
coordinates and also verify if it follows the law foreseen for an orbit
of a satellite. But in the case this does not coincide with the
expected, how is it possible? Caused by an interaction with something
else unknown. In this way Uranus and Neptune were discovered.
From the wrong trajectory of the other planets it has been possible to
hypothesize the existence of other unknown planets that were
interfering and, pointed the telescopes, there they were!
We can therefore hypothesize a space as 5-dimensional xyzti where i
stands for interaction. This does not trivially mean a simple casual
effect of closeness between two bodies, but a constraint of one on the
other, reciprocally and in a positive or negative way, to modify one's
state and trajectory, or rather one's past and future history. This
view is extremely important. The universe, that is space-time, is not
simply a jumble of randomly close individual existing objects, but a
set of entities linked to each other in an indissoluble way whose
history is such only if it includes that of the others. (02/28/19)
81
A lifetime ago, in 1968 at the University of Florence in full protest,
with the faculty occupied, we created study groups and seminars on
various subjects. What I belonged to dealt with, among other things,
something unknown in the curriculum at that time in the Architecture
faculty, even though the raw material was the foundation on which an
architect operates: space. Not only in a physical sense but in all its
meanings and denotations: we discovered that in reality the spaces are
many or, better said, that the space is one but with a thousand facets
and different points of view.
There is therefore a space xyzti,
but also a city space, a home space, an object space but also a
political, a social, a cultural, a psychological, an emotional, an ...
etc. etc.
Each with different characteristics but similar and connected. In
particular and mainly for the last ones mentioned above, the most
important coordinate is that of interaction, which then binds and
amalgamates the various types together.
Certainly it is not always permissible to import the same law from one
branch to another. But often, if not always, certain basic
principles exist in completely different branches, such as between
economics and physics, for which the same Einstein principle exists:
'nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, but only it is
transformed'. In fact in both branches the budgets are made to
check if there are errors in a process (between initial energy -
initial mass and final energy - final mass) or in an economic
transaction (give-have). As I show in my book 'Aurea mediocritas' there
is also a connection between an emotional and an economic space,
between a cultural-social and emotional space or a city and a social
space, etc. that is, an interaction as we have seen above. As a result,
I can do balance sheets even within interactions between completely
different spaces.
All this can help us discover that in all the spaces we know, there are
similar rules and laws that condition the evolutions (ie the changes)
within these spaces. Even the social universe, and therefore like the
xyzti universe, is determined mainly by interactions.(02/28/19)
___ New ___
82
When I was a child I wanted to learn to play the piano and so my mother
sent me to take lessons from an elderly lady, it seems to me that her
name was Grilli. Unfortunately, however, one day my mother told me: 'I
am sending you to another teacher who is younger and uses a more modern
and rapid method'. That was how I give up studying. She screamed
for every little thing and studying had become a pain. For a very long
time I then hated piano.
Much later, already an adult and already with the appropriate cultural
tools, thinking back to that, I realized what happened and why.
The first teacher was a concertist of the Orchestra of the Teatro
Comunale di Bologna (her instrument was the harp) married to a
violinist of the same orchestra. For her, music was her world and her
life, her passion and at the same time her work. Her joy, which she
wanted to share by pouring it out on me with her attention, her love,
her encouragement up to overestimate (I think, but I'll never
know) me and my abilities.
The other was a housewife, with a teenage daughter and a husband
without legs. She was a failed one from the musical point of view,
despite the studies. But why her behavior? Because she had to prove to
herself that basically the fault of her failure was not hers. By making
others fail, especially those who were as gifted as I could have been,
if the first teacher had been right, she could say to herself: 'I
learned, I did it, the others didn't!'
One of the things that make me sad, when I think about it, is that I couldn't somehow repay the first teacher's love for me.
But how many other people behave in the same way as the second one? Lots. We see it every day.
Failed people at human level, who are worthless and who think they can
pass for intelligent proposing stupid and outdated ideas and being a
benefactor of humanity in blaming those who have no possibility of
defending themselves: migrants, Roma, the handicapped, etc. They only
have hate and sorrow to share because they have neither love nor
solidarity inside themselves and they do know it. They need to prove
themselves, before than other people, that they are worth
something. Of course they only succeed with those just like them.
(05/12/19)
Index
1 The earthly paradise
2 A king has fallen
3 King emperors and genocides
4 A clan has replaced the king
5 Democracy and rights
6 Justice
7 Objectors and genocides
8 The word is a deadly weapon
9 Dying for the homeland
10 Garibaldi and the 'shining' Italian resurgence story
11 A new perspective
12 The adjectives
13The story of Christ revised and corrected
14 ... a judge ...
15 Humanitarian actions
16
Gino Strada
17 Tremonti and the crisis
18 Hitler and the Jews
19 Non-defense of Jews in WW2
20 Shoah and Roma, homosexuals, sick people, etc.
21 Palestinians and Philistines
22 The elected people
23 Birth of a dictatorship
24 A bomb for each one
25
IPatriotism
26 Free-range chickens
27 Brain and energy savings
28
Javeh and Elohim
29
Wikileaks
30 Moses and the universal flood
31 The women's liberation process
32 God is female
33 The truth by law
34 Who is the blasphemer
35
Insch'Allah
36 God as a pharmacist
37 The inescapable law of existence
38 Honorable primitive legends
39
FSmart ones and suckers
40
60.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 Joules
41
Ius Soli
42 Grass
43 Women
44 How can you tell if they're lying to you?
45 The truth hurts ...
46
Ipse dixit
47 The uncle of her husband's sister ...
48 Kill
48
Uccidere
49 Amene stories
50 Whitefeet and Blackfeet
51 Theories and truths
52
EU, a missed opportunity
53
Poor Adam!
54
Sex
55 Continuation
56 Violence
57 Lightning thought
58 More on Noah
59 Liberism vs. Marxism = 0 to 0
60 Once upon a time there were the Incas
61 Selfishness and solidarity
62 The cost of a life
63 A dictatorship is a dictatorship
64 Admire the ravine
65 Crying over spilled milk
66 The fault is ours
67 The foundation of war
68 ISIL is your
69 Bolognese from outside the EU
70 Solidarity and economic miracle
71 Old and New Testament
72 More on sex
73 More on love
74 Win the best!
75 The Idiots
76 Time 1
77 Time 2
78 The Future
79 Dogooders
80 A space
81 Multispace
82 The piano
Homepage.
This text is available, if you don't distort the meaning, under the
Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.