vellutogrigio

Be careful when citing the Terezin concentration camp (or Teresienstadt) for denialist purposes, as it is a "particular" structure: it was used for the internment of elderly people and children, and it was the only one that could be visited by the International Red Cross. A decoy, therefore, in wartime. Indeed, the gas chamber is small, and the camp itself seems well-structured, almost welcoming: but it was NOT a true concentration camp - in substance - and only towards the end of the conflict was it used to exterminate its guests. As for Katarsys, which perhaps provokes, perhaps not, reducing the Holocaust to a numerical issue, it misses the point: one must question the "quality of the work," starting from the following assumptions: a) it was conceived by an advanced culture like the German one; b) it was ideologically and philosophically justified by overturning the thoughts of several thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries (Nietzsche, but not only); c) it was planned with the modern tools of the rule of law; d) it was carried out with the non-opposition of the majority of the German population, which only a certain narrative wants to portray as unaware of the situation. The Holocaust caused fewer victims than Pol Pot or Stalin, but what is frightening is its cultural and ideological matrix, as well as its "scientificity."

On the very idea of the State, I find that the most brilliant thesis remains that of Hobbes and the Leviathan. Ultimately – I quote quite from memory and rather loosely – the State emerges as a structured social aggregation according to law, with the monopoly on the use of force and, above all, sovereignty over a specific territory, to guarantee and protect individuals, who on their own would be at the mercy of natural forces and their own enemies (homo homini lupus). The seed of totalitarianism can be found especially if we return to certain pages of Rousseau on the general will, and on the majority/minority relationship, etc., not to mention Tocqueville's insights on the tyranny of the majority and the associated risks.

The involuntary pairing of Zanicchi and Arendt on the site's homepage, all things considered, brings a smile, albeit a bitter one. You're not at your best, even if with a "Hello guys," a few banalities about "the meaning of life" in the style of Bonolis, a drop of "average Italian," and an adverb to seal your empty remarks, you always manage to get something. More profession and technique than heart, then.

Ah, Hitler and his followers considered Slavs and Latins no less inferior to Jews (or would have found excellent justifications to consider them such). Perhaps not so much the Gauls-French, but the racial pretext would probably not have been necessary to dismiss the not-so-loved France and its inhabitants. Then history is not made with "ifs."

Well, Katharsys, that the Holocaust as a historical fact actually occurred seems beyond doubt to me. Without reasoning in numbers, it was planned and carried out with the instruments of the rule of law of the '30s and '40s (this is the novelty compared to other exterminations and genocides), and executed almost in its entirety. Then, more fruitful considerations could arise regarding the role of the Holocaust in the imagination of the second half of the twentieth century, and on the instrumentalization of a concrete historical event for political needs of the opposite sign, which have nothing to do with it.

Thank you all, the important thing is not the review, but the book. Until next time.

A film that's easy to watch, where the protagonist is the location (essentially, they’re funding Allen to advertise Catalonia and the like). The rest, a bit clichéd, really says a lot about the idea Americans have of Europe, a kind of 1950s paradise; not much has changed since Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn's scooter trip in "Roman Holiday." The Spanish in the untranslated dialogues doesn't lend itself to drama at all; it’s actually quite funny (and reminiscent of the Veneto dialect). That said: Penelope Cruz completely outshines the other two; there's no denying it, she's magnetic.

Great Tollani. I'm amazed: you believe in Radio Birdman more than Tek or Younger! Among other things, I remember the insane riff of Murder City Nights. I listen to it before going to sleep, but not for a couple of hours, I guess. Good night to the others.

The fact that a debate like this arises around Radio Birdman (thanks Supersoul for the reference to Blue Cheer, you’re not wrong, but try to draw a parallel with the first three of the Blue Oyster as well, which were essential for certain "garage rock" and clearly influenced by the MC5 - see covers done live) is reassuring. At least someone remembers them and follows them with passion. They deserve it!

I disagree only on one point: these overlooked Australians are superior to at least 90% of the music I've listened to in my life (and that's quite a lot). Highly recommended, even though to cut to the chase, it’s enough to get your hands on a compilation of theirs, which has been residing in my car for quite some time. Perhaps, to help them be better known, you should have said a bit more about their influences: not so much the Doors (everyone emphasizes the use of keyboards, but overall it’s secondary) as the rock and indeed the garage sound of Detroit - from the MC5 to the Stooges - including the very early Blue Oyster Cult. The simplification of language brought about by Radio Birdman at the end of the '70s - and the intensity of some of their tracks - made them a model for the punk scene itself - to a minor extent HC - and, above all, for those who later ended up in the grunge melting pot. It’s no coincidence that Subpop reissued some of their work!