Hetzer

A review written in this way is almost embarrassing, especially considering that it feels like a fifth-grade level of thought. Nothing to say about the judgment, but I think arguing in a more serious and precise manner would be better. The flaw that I personally found the heaviest is the verbosity regarding elves and their language; however, I greatly appreciate Tolkien's inventive effort, as well as his vivid artistic sense. Being the only fantasy book I've read, I cannot judge the genre, but I find this work is certainly worth reading because, aside from the flaws, it is truly well-written.

Apologies for the delay in my response, but fortunately (or unfortunately) I still have a job.
I’m surprised: I didn’t think that being free meant having the ability to appear on television (or on the radio) to say what you think. I have always believed that being free meant being able to think what you consider to be right, and to discuss it with those who listen. I thought it meant being able to read what you want, organize debates and cultural events; I thought that being free meant our personal and autonomous formation in ideas that resonate with us; I thought it meant being able to write articles, comment, and perhaps publish (or try to publish...) what we have written, if it has a recognizable value. I also thought that freedom meant manifesting civilly and trying to communicate a constructive message.
But perhaps I am wrong. Maybe true freedom is going on television and “informing,” or saying that a certain politician is a mafia dog. Perhaps I am truly blind and a slave to a mortifying oppression that gags me every day. Or maybe the real prisoners are those who feel an unstoppable need to color their ideas red or black. Who knows? However, I must acknowledge one thing: we live in an age of misinformation. A brilliant example was given to me the other day by the resilient and heavily gagged Mr. Santoro.
Anyway, I wish you a smooth escape abroad and I extend my best wishes for your pursuit of happiness.
Now excuse me, I have to go: I heard some voices outside the window, and I would never want it to be a fascist squad. Vale.

What questions would I have dodged? Ask away... If you feel like you’re living in a fascist state, dominated by a stifling ideology that prevents the spread of personal and free ideas, that’s your problem, not mine. You can't accuse me of superficiality and nonsense if my harmless provocations have offended you. Ideology and tyranny go hand in hand because the principles of the latter are embedded in the former. Let’s take the issue of equality. Lenin admitted this example; a factory, a railway, a transport ship: none of these organizations can function without a hierarchy, a system of subordinates and leaders. And hierarchy is the exact negation of equality, and it is also the fundamental premise of social injustices and the oppressor-oppressed dynamics. The communist theory has historically proven to be unfeasible, and its practical application has led to the disastrous results we are aware of. Probably Marx would have never wanted this, but the offspring of his ideas are tyrannies. If there is an effective response to unbridled capitalism and globalization, I don't know it. But personally, I don't believe it can be communism.

Who ever said they were a worshiper of the Dwarf (nothing could be further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned)? Have I ever said to ignore the fascists, or rather their regurgitations? It’s curious and at the same time disheartening how you tend to lump everything together, generalize, and stick me with a comfortable label that is already well worn and established. Of course, it’s easier for you to think this way, by branding as smug and bourgeois any opinion that doesn't align with yours and strays from the beaten path. You are the curious one, denying the evidence, and denying that ancient (murderous) ideologies still exist, unfortunately, and that in the case of communism, they still take shape in State realities. Perhaps you don't know this, or have never wanted to know, but there are indeed communists who justify China and the USSR. If you’ve convinced yourself that I am blind and that for me the capitalist system is the way of truth, that’s your own concern, because I have never thought or stated anything like that. Clearly, you belong to a culture that labels anyone with their own ideas as Berlusconian, as a failure, as smug, or perhaps even as fascist. I’m sorry, but you have completely missed the mark.

The world I would like does not include Vasco Rossi.

I cannot say that anyone here has in any way defended totalitarian communist regimes. But I have encountered many who widely justify it, and not a few. Moreover, I believe that the true communism that has been "killed" is the one theorized by Marx, not the Soviet version, which is both its offspring and its death, and which is still very much alive, being the result of applying Marxist and Leninist theories to an actual state system. Regarding Germany: I firmly believe that Nazism is still an open wound because it is indeed a total aberration, a widespread and irreplicable madness, an indelible shame; there, the sense of guilt plays a significant role. Communism, on the other hand, not only has solid theoretical and academic foundations but has also had a much longer and more articulated path of historical ideas (if we exaggerate, we could start from Plato, just to be clear). However, it is essential not to confuse the revival of sick ideas with revisionism, which is a different thing, like that of Ahmadinejad.
In my opinion, Italy's problem is not that fascism has not been condemned enough, but that a certain political culture has indicated for decades, and still indicates, communism as the only path to purity and justice, extolling its merits while forgetting its criminal faults. To Rebelde: first of all, the "myth that is being constructed and that wants communism to be viewed as a monstrous and bloodthirsty ideology on par with Nazism or fascism" is, unfortunately for you, far from being a myth or ideological construction but rather a positive truth decreed by history. Furthermore, I find it tragic and deadly for a democracy that the courageous politicians (with communist heritage) who oppose this "lord of evil," the richest man in Italy, are equally entwined in illicit activities while professing the most righteous justice and morality. I instead find it epic and revitalizing for a democracy that there exist, in this country which you claim to be mortally wounded, situations where everyone can truly express their thoughts freely without censorship, conditioning, distortions, or manipulations (an example: this website). You might say that the shadow of Arcore has not yet reached here?

Personally, I have respect for this group. It’s light and easy music, that's fine, but aside from the freshness and pleasantness, the thing that struck me the most about them is the sound, which I find really excellent and well-crafted. I think they put a lot of effort into production, and that's admirable. I imagine they are a good example of "intelligent" pop with a certain dignity; in short, pure gold compared to the stuff that gets shoved in our faces these days. Moreover, I find your position in comment 9 more than agreeable.

The review is precise and concise, and I agree with the judgment you give on the film. I also agree with you about the cinematography, which contributes greatly to the success of the movie. It's a gripping and very well-made film, one of the few thrillers that I adore and always enjoy rewatching.

The subject of Mondadori, highly valued, seems to me a ploy so childish that it’s entertaining. In any case, the “competition to see who can kill more” cannot be a serious historiographical criterion for assessing one historical demon over another. In reality, this book is not needed to truly understand what communism is and the damage it has done, continues to do, and will keep doing. Its legacy in Europe is the Eastern countries, where satraps, corruption, and misery dominate. Do we remember that China exists (not to mention Tibet), and that its cultural revolution severed the very identity of the Chinese people? Nazism and fascism were an aberration, a monster that found its source and sustenance in the mental disorders of the mad. For this reason, it can never return to power. Communism, on the other hand, is a culture, an oligarchic power planning, a country-system that creates a new feudalism behind the facade of equality. And it kills, like all totalitarian regimes. The problem is that too many people still idolize it and will never admit its contradictions, its sordid ambiguity, and its proven destructiveness.

Any insult against this man would be too poorly expressive.