Fallen

Fedee, there is really little fascist about that phrase. It certainly needs to be taken in a sense that goes beyond the literal; your interpretation may work, but the person who told me those words meant something else. He wanted to say that a man can talk as well as he likes, but put him in extreme conditions, make him suffer, test him, and you'll see if he acts consistently with the beautiful words he reveled in when he was dressed and healthy. It’s a phrase that would fit well in the Book of Job.

And as I expected, not a word on Marx the Christian... well. Then, let's get to the point; I've never said that; I just wonder if you're a "talker"; someone who's only good at talking. Because you talk just like someone who's always on the verge of saying "and if you don't shut up, I'll hit you." But apparently, you never really get to the point. It seems to me, Alessio, that you are truly stuck in your mental world. Wouldn't it be better to try to find a point of contact? I often have discussions, just ask Psycho, for example, but we always reach a synthesis. With you, however, we always end up with you replying "and if you want to hit me, go ahead but I'm right."

Ah, one more thing: for heaven's sake, I may have expressed myself poorly, lacking your own mastery of technical language, but I don't see the nonsense I said. I only see someone who wants to show off that he is more cultured than the others. Do you think your culture is enough to make you a valuable person? You're wrong, oh, how wrong you are. In your infinite stupidity, what would you do? Would you take away the right to vote from anyone who doesn't have an average of 30 in political science? Do you know what they call people like you around here? "i chiacchiera". You're just talk and arrogance, Alessio, at least as you speak. But I would be curious to meet you, because if you are like you seem, holy Christ, you are the ultimate expression of the decadence of modern man.

Nono, I laugh at that difference just as you do. Because someone who implies that the difference between Catholicism and Christianity is nonexistent is clearly ignorant not only about Christianity but also about religion in general. Your ridiculous clinging to the diversity between Christianity and Judaism, as if they were separate compartments, is childish. [Not to mention that, if we want to nitpick, Marx professed himself a Christian in his youth: I don’t know much about this period, but I will look into it.] But do you know what a profound relationship exists between Judaism and Christianity? The mere use of the term "Judeo-Christian" means nothing to you? This you could really understand as well. Marx a Satanist and eternal revolutionary? And so what? Come on, just stop, because according to me, you didn’t even know what Marx wrote about Christ.

I knew someone would come up with such a bullshit :-D No, he wasn't my grandfather's friend, he didn't even know him. He was just an old man who was a bit of a philosopher, but gay I don't think so, considering how he complained to the girls at the bar down the street about not being able to give them a nice roll in the hay anymore. Then, oh, I played chess with him and chatted occasionally.

And then between the lines, you still say you're worth more than me, since you are a person and I am not. You know, an elderly gentleman who is my friend used to say that if you really want to see how much a man is worth, beyond his words, his culture, his doctrine, you must strip him and beat him.

You see, if you explain yourself you're not even that annoying. But just as you laugh at the difference between Catholicism and Christianity, I laugh at the difference between Marxism and Communism. That the Russians are Orthodox is a given, but that they would be offended by my conception of Christianity is a bit less certain. See the beautiful "Cristo nel freddo dell'Est." The idea that communism has nothing religious about it is an opinion I don't share: what does "religious" even mean? Aside from the naturalistic connotation, which I hope you won't resort to, the term "religious" has a transcendent connotation beyond instinctuality, which it shares with reason. But breaking bread based on reason ultimately doesn’t hold because it's still something you do for yourself, while sharing it out of love for others, even at the expense of oneself, really makes the machine work because it eliminates the nemesis of individuality. As for the fact that you enjoy yourself with me, you know how much I laugh seeing you so mired in your sterility...

You know what's funny? That you're an idiot. Because you don't even know me, you don't know who I am, you've never seen me, and yet you demand to know that I'm a stereotype. You're presumptuous to a degree that I find offensive to human reason. With what right do you call me a pitiful person? What makes you conclude that you are worth more than me as a person (because that's what is clear from every word you say: in Rome, we say "I am who I am and you are nothing")? I said communism instead of Marxism. Forgive me, father, I have sinned; as a rough undergraduate in modern languages and literature, I make mistakes that no cool political scientist like you would make. But those who wanted to understand did understand. You didn’t; you hide behind verbal subtleties, eristic science, and specialized competence, forgetting the core of the matter. This isn't about whether I'm right or you're right. It’s about understanding whether an idea is good for humanity or harmful. As far as I'm concerned, data in hand, I say it’s harmful, and I add that the good that communism/Marxism preaches was already said by Christ. After all this fuss, can you explain why you're so pissed off? Life disappointing you? Did you discover that what you were taught in class doesn't match reality? No, I'm asking because maybe a trip to the gym wouldn't hurt YOU. And I swear, I'm just curious to know if when pushed hard, you can do anything other than repeat lessons.

Just to test it out, I copied and pasted on Google and nothing comes up about Malaparte. You try it too. What is it, do you care not to be the only one with a diploma higher than the eighth grade? I remembered that the phrase was his because I had already seen it cited in another context - Russian literature, if you care to know - whether it’s from "La pelle" now I'm sure because I asked someone who knows more than you, so lower that nose and cut the insinuations. As for the rest, you know, I would really like to know if in person you are equally arrogant, and if so, how many times you’ve been hospitalized.

@Fiquata: maybe instead of quoting Malaparte, you could explain yourself in your own words. Let me make a small off-topic note: I find it obnoxious how you quote without references and fill your comments with philosophical-political drivel. You turn culture into a mysterious cult for yourself and never speak with your own voice; that’s a typically intellectual-bourgeois attitude. HUMILITY. Does that word mean anything to you? I'm not the one to teach it to you, but it would be nice to remind yourself of this beautiful term every now and then. For yourself, you know, not for me. To me, you’re an idiot and you remain one. That said, I would focus on a particular sentence from this passage (which you should have taken from "la pelle", but I don’t want to be mistaken - by the way, hats off if you remembered it by heart, but take my advice and get a life if instead you had to go check it in print), the one that says "without the existence of evil there can be no Christ." We could say it’s a controversial statement, and for certain philosophies it’s an absurdity... I prefer to say it’s nonsense. That said, for me, with Augustine, malum est absentia boni, let me try to explain myself: evil is a priori condition of man, because, rising from his animal impulses, he finds himself fractured in his spiritual tension towards a vocation he does not know and does not understand (which is the good). Given this tension as a measure of judgment, the main human impulses are "evil." If you understand Christ as the attained knowledge of the path opposite to these impulses that the spiritual tension indicates but does not explain (which is why Christian teachings are also known as Revelation), then you see that the things (Christ and Evil) go hand in hand, at least in man, and are not subordinate to each other. Best regards.