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.
Go to the most recent
Go to the index
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.
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)
Kings and emperors have power proportional to the genocides and the robberies they or their ancestors have committed .
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
'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?
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.
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
* As in the Andersen's tales.
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!
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.
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.
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 ...
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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?
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 ..
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).
exchange for the role of defenders, however, men also demanded the
submission of women to their power, leaving them only subordinate
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.
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!
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
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..
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..
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?
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?
The apotecary god.
Every religion has rules that viewed from the outside are completely absurd. For example, only a few:
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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.
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
** ** see the thought 26 Free-range chickens
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?
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 ___
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)
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
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
26 Free-range chickens
27 Brain and energy savings
28 Javeh and Elohim
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
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
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 ...
49 Amene stories
50 Whitefeet and Blackfeet
51 Theories and truths
52 EU, a missed opportunity
53 Poor Adam!
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
80 A space
82 The piano
This text is available, if you don't distort the meaning, under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.