Emotional (Dis)information

The news must convey information. Enrich the viewer's cognitive baggage. Nothing more, nothing less.
If, when watching a newscast or a video, you instead feel emotionally struck—indignant, angry, saddened, euphoric, or pitied—you are the target of manipulative techniques designed to gather consensus on some issue. The purpose may be political, economic, bellicose, or strategic in general. Certainly, no one is trying to inform you.
Government bodies, propagandists, and so-called "spin doctors" are masters at using these techniques and use compliant media to carry them out.
I am not just talking about state TV and newspapers. You are also a victim, you who believe you are drinking from the pure springs of the phantasmagoric bluff called anti-mainstream.
The techniques are subtle, but the effects are so blatant as to render them harmless, provided one is aware of them and keeps their level of attention high.
To escape the spell, it is enough to ask yourself the question implicit in the opening: does the news affect me on an emotional level? If the answer is "yes": immediately turn off the squawking contraption, use the filthy sheet to wipe your ass, or place your cell phone on that stack of papers that are blowing away.
Train yourself to always subject yourself to that simple test. And act accordingly when the outcome is positive. Don't worry: what you are giving up is not true knowledge.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

They feel the weather

Every now and then, without actually intending to, I happen to eavesdrop on the conversations of little groups of young people. These kids often adopt a serious, or perhaps overly serious, almost offended tone, with strong tendencies toward indignation. When I fleetingly manage to catch the subject of their talk, I realize it's just simple chatter, almost always about people who aren't present.
Of course, gossip, otherwise known as small talk, has always existed. However, this is a less harmless version of it, in my view. It doesn't involve elderly women and men whose souls have been hardened by time and events, but rather kids who should be swept up in healthy youth enthusiasm.
It cannot be generational victimhood: with few exceptions, any of them would only need to go up two or three levels on the family tree to find individuals for whom life reserved much worse conditions and circumstances.
But then why do they do it? The first reaction of an older person observing them might be the usual accusation: "They're spoiled youth!". Instead, I have the impression that they use silly occurrences as a pretext to seek confirmation, comfort, and empathy from their peers.
However, this is only an interpretation of the symptom, which thus pushes the problem further back. What inner and intangible ogre is tearing their soul apart? Why precisely in this historical period? And why this generation in particular?
Perhaps, if I may be allowed the awkward quote: "They are like beasts, they feel the changing weather!" Where the weather, of course, is not the climate, but history.
And theirs is nothing other than natural agitation in the face of a future that, perhaps like never before, promises to be full of uncertainty.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Wars and Simpletons: Part Two

You can find the first part here.

Let's explain better why simpletons who root for one or the other belligerent, while being convinced they are inspired by sharp analytical-geopolitical insights, actually don't understand a damn thing. Worse still, they play more or less consciously into the hands of some filthy propagandist.
Remember that this does not refer here to the fans of Putin or Zelensky, of the Israelis or the Palestinians, of Trump or Khamenei. Here there is no "or", there are only "and": we are talking about ALL of them. About anyone who simplifies issues that are actually complex and whose roots are embedded very deeply in the rocky soil of history. History that they ignore, of course, apart from some artfully filtered sediment here and there. And which, just as obviously, they fail to analyze with a minimum of usefulness for the sake of the debate.
In war, any war, everyone has little right and everyone is very wrong. There is no right or wrong. Nor are there good guys or bad guys. Or rather, none of this exists in absolute terms. It can only be discussed in relative terms: relative to the motivations of each side, which are inspired by criteria of survival, security, and prosperity, and therefore of subjugation. These are subjective and biased perspectives by nature, selfish and ruthless. Also, why not, ancestral, primordial, and tribal.
Often, as in family or clan feuds, conflicts have been going on for so long that no one remembers why they started anymore. They are handed down from generation to generation, as if they were part of the genetic makeup.
Moreover, the tangle in which they are wrapped is vastly more chaotic than how it is presented by the spokespersons of the parties, or perceived by their supporters.
Finally, in every war, communication is always polluted by censorship and propaganda. ALWAYS. Therefore, if you read or hear something that seems to prove one of the contenders right — perhaps your favorite — or prove the other wrong, know that this is not information confirming or refuting your partisanship — which is anyway by its very nature misplaced. You are actually the target of crude advertising. What we precisely call propaganda.
If you take sides, therefore, not only do you not understand a damn thing, but you are also accomplices, as repeaters of a squalid megaphone.
Go ahead, if you like. But now that you know, you can no longer afford to pose as paladins of justice.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Wars and simpletons

The poor deluded souls are many, so many, far too many.
You see them facing off on two sides of public opinion artificially created on the battlefield of a conflict, a diatribe, or a dispute.
With the stubborn certainty of a mule, they always know who is right and who is wrong. They accuse the deluded souls of the opposing camp, which is equally phony, of naivety or malice. They accuse opposing public opinion of being subservient to propaganda and wave the sources aligned with their own side as custodians of pure truth.
They cheer, putting on that pathetic yet irritating air of misunderstood analysts.
The tragicomic twist to all this is that they are right. Every single one of them is right. The accusations they hurl against their "enemies" are true. They are true on both sides, however.
The reason for this moronic polarization is well known: the inability—which characterizes certain simple minds—to handle chaos, the complexity inherent in every sector of reality, not only social but also anthropological, biological, natural. A complexity they deal with every day in their miserable lives, but which paradoxically they cannot accept when it comes to events taking place at a higher, and therefore even more complicated, level.
One could watch them with tenderness and leave them splashing around in their pathetic simplified kiddie pool for those who don't know how to swim in rough waters.
The problem is that their number is not negligible; on the contrary, it is massive, and thus it influences the society that we too must live in. Those who wield power—political, media, or financial—know this and act accordingly, feeding the polarized explanations provided to these self-proclaimed clever ones. They thus manage to evade the control that would be necessary to make them perform their duties for the benefit of the community rather than themselves.
It is the "divide and conquer" of Roman memory. Still extremely relevant and effective today.
Unfortunately, this is a self-feeding spiral, a vicious circle, an almost irreversible tendency.
We nevertheless have a duty—moral, human, secularly sacred—to keep trying. If it was all in vain, at least we will have nothing to reproach ourselves for.
And if it ends in catastrophe, we can point the finger and declare: "We told you so!" A meager consolation is always better than fat and cowardly inaction.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Uncontrolled immigration: the theories

I read a provocative cartoon. It went something like this: <<Who wants uncontrolled immigration according to populists? The "do-gooder progressives". But who really wants it? The "industrialist-capitalists" (meaning anyone who needs a pool of cheap labor).>>
I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but the second thesis convinces me more than the first. First of all, because it makes more sense. Why on earth would ordinary people, based on their political views, wish for uncontrolled immigration with all the public order problems it entails? The others, those in the second scenario, instead have very concrete interests in importing low-cost workers. And besides, as Americans say, if you want to untangle a mess, "follow the money". And it's pretty clear where the money trail leads.
Be careful though, this completely dismantles the other conspiracy theory about it. The one about ethnic replacement, which according to lovers of the most fanciful hypotheses is supposedly pursued by the usual pluto-judeo-fascist-marxist-nonsense cabal.
Whoever wants cheap labor is interested, as the very expression says, in the cost of that labor, not in its ethnicity. Ethnic replacement would at most be a consequence and not the goal of the mechanism.
Ironically, once replacement has occurred, the "capitalist industrialists", or whoever acts on their behalf, in order to save on labor costs would go looking for super-Christian, marginalized white people, thus setting in motion a process of ethnic replacement in reverse.
A vicious circle in short. The usual blind alley that those who believe in fanciful theories get themselves into just because they have the charm, precisely, of fanciful theories.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Sinister agenda - part seven: the extremization

Find the other episodes of the "Sinister agenda" saga by following this link.

The imbalance generated by polarization fuels—and is fueled by—a socio-political-media vicious circle through which polarization itself is amplified and exalted rather than mitigated or placated.
In the long run, this unstable process aimed at constant growth can only lead to extremization.
Today we are indeed at one of the peaks due to this diabolical mechanism, the effects and symptoms of which are evident by observing the tone and level of the debate within public opinion.
A debate that I would summarize like this: bullshitting, bullshitters shouting at the top of their lungs.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Uselessly amazing

After reading this I suddenly realized that some pieces of information can be jaw-droppingly amazing and yet utterly useless:
"The time between Biden's birth and Lincoln's presidency is less than the time between Biden's birth and his own presidency."
Wow! And yet...Who cares?

How much it hurts

how it aches to realize
that you have wounded someone
without meaning to
without noticing

The double burden of heat

Heat is an objective, physical problem that is practically unsolvable by individuals. However, the mental reaction to heat is subjective, arbitrary, and at least partly controllable.
When it's very hot, like now, our system perceives it and reacts in a biologically predictable way. Our mental reaction, however, depends entirely on us.
These days I perceive the heat just like everyone else. I sweat, I get tired, I look for relief in the cool air. But I can't say I'm suffering. Not like most of the people I interact with, at least.
I'm probably lucky, my system handles the blow a bit better than average. But I believe this is a negligible factor.
The fact is I don't think about it, I don't talk about it, I don't complain. I use a, so to speak, Buddhist or meditative approach. I don't do it entirely intentionally. By nature, I always keep my mind focused on some goal: a line of reasoning, a memory, a fantasy. It's a bit like focusing on breathing when meditating. The thought of the heat is therefore kept away. And it doesn't plague me.
Feeling hot is a problem. Thinking about it obsessively, negatively, complaining instead of solving it makes it worse. It adds a second problem, so to speak. And this second problem doesn't depend on the weather, but on our mind.
It is a normal, human mechanism, but not for that reason inevitable. Falling into a victimhood spiral is addictive. It makes us suffer and satisfies us at the same time. Complaining about it to others also serves two functions. First of all, as the saying goes: "a trouble shared is a trouble halved". Secondly, we look for understanding, sympathy, and empathy in our interlocutor.
Unfortunately, however, this mechanism requires a total concentration of our mind on an unpleasant condition — precisely feeling hot — and this makes us suffer.
It may seem counterintuitive, but to better endure the heat, suffering less from it, you have to let the body bear it while keeping the mind anchored to more pleasant, or at least more useful, thoughts.
As a sage of everyday truisms would say: having one problem is bad, but taking on two is even worse.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

I'm not vegan: if anything, I'm an herbivore

For about ten years now I have been feeding exclusively on the produce of the earth: vegetables, grains, legumes, fruit. No meat, no fish. I also avoid eggs and dairy, even though every now and then I find myself eating them against my better judgment.
So then you're vegan? NO!
How so? And thus comes the usual, pedantic (as well as incorrect) classification, straddling the bureaucratic and the anthropological: if you eat eggs and dairy YOU ARE vegetarian, if you don't eat even those YOU ARE vegan.
As I already said: NO!
First of all, the vegetarian diet should not include eggs or dairy. And thinking about it for a moment you would understand this immediately. Do eggs grow on trees? No. Does milk flow from plants? Neither. They are animal products. The root of the word "vegetarian" is "vegetable", so eggs and milk are NOT included. True vegetarian nutrition is actually what is commonly (and erroneously) called vegan. And what is commonly called vegetarian, in the jargon of nutritionists is defined as ovo-lacto-vegetarian. Therefore NOT vegetarian.
Okay, fine, but let's get back to the point. Why, if you eat like a vegan, can't you be called a vegan? Precisely because of what you said, my friend. Because I EAT LIKE a vegan, but I AM NOT a vegan.
What does that mean? What is the difference? Well, I premise that I am not an expert on the subject, but, for what little I know, veganism is an activist movement that fights in defense of animal rights. Rights that also include that of not being used for food purposes. It is a group that lobbies at the political level, exerts social pressure, practices evangelization, and takes care of its own marketing. It goes without saying that if you fight for the right of animals not to be exploited for food purposes, you cannot eat animal products.
Did you catch the subtlety? The vegan is not vegan because he only eats plants, but rather he only eats plants because he is vegan. If the difference (which is huge) is not clear to you, I advise you to pick up your high school logic textbooks.

Consequences of all this (in parentheses my position on the matter):
- A vegan might make their mouth water when they see a steak, but still forces themselves not to eat it. (I frequently eat sitting at the table with omnivores and their dishes do not make me want them at all. If I felt like eating meat, I would eat meat. I don't choose the menu for matters of principle but of taste.)
- If it seems to you that the vegan is a pain in the ass, it is because they are dedicated by stance to social pressure and evangelization. It is the social role they have assigned themselves. They are a pain in the ass, yes, but they are consistent with their principles. (As already mentioned, I often eat with people who order meat or fish and I don't break anyone's balls, indeed the exact opposite often happens: there are people who bust my chops. Furthermore, I sympathize with animal rights, but I understand that there are ancestral habits that cannot be ignored.)
- The vegetarian diet (the real one, see above) is called vegan because vegans have proven very adept at carrying out marketing actions. And those whom vegans get on the nerves of have fallen for the trap like suckers, ending up giving them publicity. (I didn't fall for it and what I write is proof of that. Furthermore, I try to carry out outreach work, but, believe me, it's like emptying the sea with a small shovel.)
- Veganism is a rather recent movement (mid-twentieth century) and Western (it was founded in the United Kingdom). However, in the East millions of people have been eating only plant products for millennia and have never dreamed of calling themselves vegans. (I have favored plant foods ever since I was a child. It is a personal trait of mine, which even differentiates me from other members of my family. I moved on to completely excluding animal ingredients from my diet as an adult, untethering myself from social conditioning and learning to listen to my body, after spending longer or shorter periods in environments dedicated to vegetarianism, right in the Far East. I have never had anything to do with modern, activist-oriented and Western-style veganism.)

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Too little for too much

There is a lot of talk about low wages. People busting their asses working for a boss for a little over a thousand euros a month. An insult, really.
I tried it myself (for a short time, to be honest) to be a luxury servant, with degrees, livery, and various bullshit. I even earned enviable salaries, let's say at a level where an average Italian today would stop complaining.
Yet I always felt defrauded. 8 hours or more in the office, 5 or 6 days a week, barely a month of vacation a year. A horizon as distant as retirement day, meaning when the best part of life has been wasted between open spaces and company cafeterias and only enough energy remains to decide how to rest.
They were asking for what I held most precious: the freedom to manage my days. Every morning upon waking, I felt my stomach squeezed between the mallets of a vise as invisible as it was physically real: I couldn't make sense of the kind of life I was living. No raise, bonus, assignment, title, or role would have compensated me for what I was giving up.
Besides, in the companies where I worked, I was always treated well all things considered. I also met some great people, with some of whom I've stayed in touch. So it wasn't a matter of the wrong workplace. It was strictly a personal incompatibility of mine with that way of life.
The decision to quit everything, which seemed like madness—especially back when a permanent contract was practically ironclad by law—was the easiest one I could possibly make for myself.
I've always preferred being a permanent freelancer, without safety nets, sometimes broke, but carefree, serene. Even, why not, happy.
So far, with its ups and downs, I've managed to scrape by. Maybe one day it will be a catastrophe. I'll accept it precisely because up until the moment before, I will have done what I wanted. If one cannot live long, it's better at least to live well.
Summing it all up with an aphorism, I could say: "The price of my freedom is material poverty, because I said no every time I was offered money to give it up."

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Evolutionism vs creationism: complexity

Many creationists argue that the complexity of advanced organisms is proof of the existence of a creator, because only a deity could have created something so complicated.
In reality, complexity proves the exact opposite. Evolution proceeds without a plan, without even a purpose, through progressive tiny steps of adaptation, over immensely long periods of time, adding a piece at a time randomly, without having a direction.
Precisely for this reason, only evolution can arrive at such outrageously complex solutions.
If there had been a creator, functions in nature would be the same (or even better), but they would be performed through much simpler structures and mechanisms.

The typical complexity of some structures in nature cannot therefore be used as conclusive proof of the creationist hypothesis. 

This post was machine-translated from Italian.

Homegrown progressivism

A brief reflection on progressives in Italy. First of all, the name. I call them that for lack of a better term: "left", just like "right", now makes anyone who pronounces them sound pathetic.
Their problem, because it is evident that for some years now they have had a problem, is partly one of identity and partly of approach.
In a world where the old proletarian and working class no longer exists, by their very nature they have had to identify new battles, new vulnerable people whose rights must be defended.
This is the source of the first problem, because these groups whose defense they have taken up are heterogeneous, with demands that are often in opposition to one another (for example, gender minorities and immigrants coming from places with an extremely traditionalist and often bigoted cultural background), opposed even by their historical voters.
Actually, I even agree with some of their positions. First of all because they are often anti-populist, and that in itself is a merit.
Instead, I disagree with the method they adopt. And this is where the second of the problems I mentioned comes into play.
You cannot force visions onto society that, however right they may be, are nonetheless revolutionary compared to ancient and deeply rooted ways of thinking. People must be guided toward modernity with humility, understanding, and easy-to-grasp explanations. They must not be insulted, despised, looked down upon, and made to feel backward just because they are hesitant in the face of change. Even where change is necessary or even inevitable.
I read some reactions from prominent Venetian intellectuals and artists to the victory of the "right-wing" mayoral candidate. Arrogant rants, contempt for the rabble, lack of interest in the problems of ordinary people by those who do not realize they do not have the same problems as those people, not because they have a better view of the world, but simply because they are privileged, and believe that privilege will last forever.
This won't do. If this is their communication style, or rather their very code of conduct, they will end up becoming increasingly detached from an electorate that struggles to understand what they are talking about. Even when they are actually trying to get a fair message across.

This post was machine-translated from Italian.