Stoney

I endorse every word of comment 2.

In the previous post, I was referring to H.B.'s comment; I didn't write it, sorry.

It's easy to blame extremism or the current majority, the government thugs, or who knows who else. I start from a premise that is actually quite simple: we are in an economic and social system that has always pushed us to follow our interests and maximize our profits, and after all, I believe it's in human nature; any force, if left unopposed, will lead to monopoly. What do we expect, perhaps that politicians will make a pledge to Jesus and self-limit their overwhelming power, or that the criminal-masonic organizations you mention will have a moment of conscience? The serious problem is that no one is concerned with countering these powers. After all, who could do it? Me? You? The "Italian people"? Let's be realistic: that's not how it works. Revolutions (cultural or "of the square") can also start from the bottom, but if they lack representation, they end up in repression or indifference, which is even worse (does the huge student uprising from last fall ring a bell? What happened to it? Why do you think?). We have an opposition party that should be the guarantor of certain sentiments, yet for 20 years it has been playing dead. And then, can you picture Veltroni taking charge and becoming the spokesperson for a generation of really angry students? No, that's too "communist"! They would accuse him of being a KGB spy. Because that’s the problem with the left (which you vote for, and which I voted for) since the post-tangentopoli era: it always has to apologize before expressing its ideas. For 20 years, the left has been doing one thing: defending itself from the populist accusations of "communism" (understood in the Soviet sense of the term) that its opponents throw at it. I'm used to speaking my mind when I have an idea, and if someone tries to discredit me by slapping on a label because they lack arguments, that’s their problem, not mine, as I shouldn't have to defend myself from a provocative and senseless accusation. I've gotten fed up with hearing weak, powerless arguments from these clowns, who blabber nonsense about big alliances that bring together everyone indiscriminately—from clericals in hair shirts to reformists ("moderates," of course, don’t forget)—in a clumsy attempt to convince the undecided voter, God-fearing, that former communists no longer eat babies like they used to. And do we complain every time the right wins by default? Well, that’s the least of it! Every time a member of the left opens their mouth, it’s a free assist to the right; every time it’s playing the game in the opponent’s home turf with their rules. The right throws out a bait, and the left bites; the right provokes, and the left responds. The right shifts every discussion onto slogans rather than criticizing the content, and the left concerns itself with crafting a new slogan that's catchier. In the end, with their cheap rhetoric, the right has not only demolished the credibility of the opposition but has adapted it to their linguistic and cognitive standards, effectively stripping it of its ideas. The left spends so much time finding the rhetorical loophole to win debates that it ultimately loses sight of what it wanted to say, to the point that now nobody remembers it anymore. So much so that populism, which is the most natural reaction to disorientation from the lack of ideas, is also taking hold of the left (I’m referring to those who say Travaglio is a great journalist and Di Pietro the only honest politician: that's not how you solve things). One cannot win against the current majority in advertising communication; if you think you can, you’re either presumptuous or simply foolish.

Isis, the "I've got a bigger one than you" mentality in today's twenty-somethings, who do you think taught them? Perhaps if we called it by its correct name, which is "competition," things would be clearer. Remember that children always follow the example of their parents...

However, I continue to say that DeBaser is turning out to be the gang of "aficionados" of autoerotism, aka "double-handed solo wank," that I always suspected. FAPSTERS!! :DDD P.S.: Alizée is hot but too skinny for my taste; I prefer a bit of meat (cf. Joss Stone back in the day of her first album).

Hypnosphere Boy, maybe the future were in the hands of the young, maybe. The truth is that these gentlemen have taken everything from us; they will leave behind a desert and ruin, and we will tear each other apart to grab the crumbs that remain. Or perhaps they believe that we will all settle for precariousness and underpaid jobs? People in difficult situations turn nasty and play cunningly; there will be no great uprising, not now. This is because there is no consciousness to leverage: they brainwashed us to make us docile and flexible to consumerism, they used advertising to make us increasingly foolish, they initiated and supported the culture of appearances and excess because that way we would buy more. This is what lies behind the so-called "lack of values" of the new generations; everyone speaks as if the young were a rotten mass of idiots unable (which is true) and they do not realize that the blame lies solely with them.

Here, this is truly a group with hypercubic balls.

Well, these girls who have the chance to make an album just because they’re hot really annoy me for no reason. If I want to see some hot chicks, I use Google; I don’t need to listen to a song.

Well, I'll tell you... it's true that this album isn't so bad, considering the prog-rock abominations we've been enduring for the past fifteen years, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. It may be pleasant to listen to, but masterpieces are something else, in my opinion. Moreover, it has several weaknesses, such as the almost omnipresent sense of déjà-vu throughout the duration of the two discs and the preference for catchy, '80s-style melodies that pop up again and again during the listening experience, physically draining the listener's patience. In short, it's enjoyable here and there, but giving it five stars is completely illogical.

I’m in a hurry and I don’t guarantee the grammatical consistency of the following post: It’s normal that the news doesn’t talk about certain things; in fact, it seems almost obvious for a country like Italy. Didn’t this happen during the years of the First Republic? It certainly seems so to me. I remember the hypocrisy of the Tangentopoli era, when the media pretended to wave some great revealed truth while for fifty years the worst crimes had been committed against journalists who had already uncovered the immense financial circles of the Mani Pulite pool long ago. Since the dawn of time, media information has been incomplete and biased; news is cut and rewritten, not only political or legal news; even scientific discoveries, for example, are trivialized to the point of absurdity, and their most important aspects are downplayed (especially regarding new technologies for renewable energy production, where precise figures are never provided and it’s rarely pointed out that there are feasible ways to resolve many conflicts, or medical discoveries that must be presented in a way that prevents the usual papists from raising ethical doubts). Those hungry for true information and deeper insights can’t complain that TV doesn’t bother to meet this primary need: it never will. This desire to get everything from television is unfortunately the result of an old and anachronistic attitude that wants TV to be a bearer of values and culture as it was in the ’50s when people were taught to speak Italian. Although such a claim may seem noble, it actually conceals the laziness inherent in the average Italian: one builds culture through effort and dedication, not slouched on the sofa at home passively watching a screen. It’s like expecting to build muscle with an electrostimulator, no more, no less.