rebelde

Yes, definitely a beautiful work. I'm not an expert in manga; I generally keep my distance for rather questionable socio-philosophical reasons. But this is truly an extraordinary find, unmissable! I haven't finished it yet, so I'm temporarily abstaining from a rating, which for now would be 5! I agree with those who previously pointed out that discussing the plot too broadly can spoil the fun for someone.

But you see, you also say that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is incredibly complex and delicate; and our politicians and media, at the outbreak of a war (a war! a serious matter!) all promptly take sides, as if it were a football match. Santoro's program can also be biased and 'partisan' (I watched it online precisely because I wanted to understand the reason for so much confusion; otherwise, I wouldn't have watched it at all, just for the record) but it is the only program that has tried to inform about what the situation is on the Other side, and this seems to me a sacred and indispensable thing, regardless of the methods. We, as 'external' observers, have the duty to analyze what is happening with a minimum of cool-headedness (a harsh word in this context) and awareness; to not declare ourselves blindly supporters of one side doesn’t necessarily mean becoming fans of the other. We need to put an end to the philosophy of "you’re either with us or against us"; and this discourse should be extended to many other areas: if I am here telling you how rotten I think our country is, and that in my opinion communism is not an ideology that kills in itself, I don't automatically become a visionary communist as it seems you want to portray me, but maybe I'm wrong. I haven't defined freedom; I said we lack a fundamental one, the freedom of the press, free information, and this is a fact; from this, it follows that our thinking, albeit formally free, turns out to be deficient, corrupt, incomplete. Do you want to know (or 'does he want to know' since you suddenly started calling me 'Lei') what scares me about your last speech? The fact that you, a person who despite everything seems to possess her own intelligence, are so scandalized by Santoro's "disinformation"; in a scenario where politicians and journalists agree on questions and answers, deputies from opposite camps suggest what to say to each other, directors of political talk shows tailor the episodes for ministers, and where news broadcasts talk about Kakà, showgirls, and Italy caught in the grip of frost, you think that the disinformation lies within Santoro's program: I frankly find this insane. I don't understand: do you perhaps feel better thinking that your money funds Bruno Vespa? For consistency's sake, you should be outraged every time you see a Mediaset news broadcast, or a Del Debbio (horror) who spits out his insane nonsense every single morning, or a Floris who practically serves tea and biscuits to his guests. And Travaglio? You contest the method? What do you mean? He's arrogant, he has a slap-worthy face, and he has an aggressive tone when talking about certain things; is he biased? How could he not be, if he truly believes in what he says? He's a journalist, for heaven's sake, his job is not to be likable, but to ask questions, shed light on facts, inform; a profession that evidently no one likes anymore.. A small postscript: sometimes, reading you, I seem to notice a veil of derision, as if you were speaking with a hint of superiority, wanting to mock others; avoid certain jibes or barbs, like the one about the "fascist squad," which some might not find too funny to hear.

The matter is very simple: if you are really a 14-year-old, you are also quite good at writing, and intelligent and more prepared than average, there's no doubt about it, but you need to learn to count to ten before talking about certain things, and then shut up; or at least discuss them with your classmates: you'll see they will be enthusiastic about you and raise you as a banner of their childish and iconoclastic attachment to ignorance, urging you to defend your positions, which they will share without understanding, and you'll end up debating in front of the buzzing class with your unfortunate literature teacher, who will probably wonder if what she does in life makes any sense; in short, you will be a heroine for an hour; then you will return to anonymity, unless you are cool enough to avert this fate; in the end, that’s what matters in our society, you know? Not intelligence. Please, don’t listen to me; listen to me instead when I say that next time it’s better if you go out with T. If you’re a fake, then you’re pathetic.

If we have to mess with each other, there's no point in continuing the discussion. More than misrepresenting and distorting what I said, you haven't done anything. As for Mr. Santoro: beyond the criticisms and their motivations, it is completely unacceptable for the president of the chamber to demand the censorship of a program. Just as it is entirely unacceptable for the government to establish a monitoring committee for public television, a unique case and ridiculed all over the Western world: there's your freedom. Enjoy it. For me, the discussion can end here; thank you for the wishes, and good luck with your work.

Hetzer, don’t take offense, but I have the impression that you’re one of those who covers their ears when others speak and puts their hands over their eyes when the facts are right in front of them. 1) I already touched on the response to your view of communism in my previous post, and the topic has been widely debated on this page, so if you feel like it, read it again; otherwise, feel free to keep skipping the lines you don’t like. 2) I could also agree with your remarks about the politicians of our "left" (in a thousand quotation marks); however, you’ll understand that I don’t feel addressed at all, as I am perfectly aware of the state of decay of the entire (or almost (perhaps)) political class in our country. 3) Freedom of expression? Do we live in the same country, Hetzer, or not? Of course, as long as we’re here happily writing our nonsense on a webpage that, if we are very lucky, will be visited by a few hundred people, then we are free to do so. But do you really think they would let us go on television to discuss the same nonsense we’re writing about now? The truth is that the voice of the media is a single voice; people who step out of line are purged, chased away, slandered, silenced, practically erased, and if you haven’t noticed, for example, what happened to someone whom I consider impeccable like Enzo Biagi, or to Luttazzi and Travaglio when in 2001 they aired that famous interview (both were tried and acquitted because the content was TRUE AND PROVEN FACTS), I could go on, the Guzzantis, Santoro... the point is that we do not live in a democracy, but in a regime: regime is the word used to define the government of a country when the tools for the people to choose freely and consciously what to think, which side to be on, and in the case of a democracy, whom to vote for, are missing; if information is caged, distorted, muzzled, people are denied the possibility of knowing and understanding things clearly, and consequently of choosing in their own interests and in those of the common public which side to take. It’s not a fairy tale; it’s the reality of this country. I have lived abroad (and I will return to stay) and I assure you that “from the outside” one has a very clear and dramatic view of our situation. There is no more miserable slave than one who believes they are free. Best regards.

@hetzer: I don't agree with you either, because it seems to me that you don't make the important distinction between what communism essentially is as an ideology, and how it has been applied in a bloody hegemonic and authoritarian manner, and how its symbols and slogans have been used for legitimization in the eyes of the people by various leaders and dictators who had nothing communist about them. Fundamentally, I believe that the main cause of the various failures or tragic degenerations of communist governments has been precisely the fact that they imposed themselves in an authoritarian manner and consequently relied on the figure of charismatic leaders, thus becoming what you define as new feudal oligarchies, but which I would simply call dictatorships. And when ever are dictatorships a good thing? By itself, communism is not a failing ideology, nor unachievable; for example: in the federal state of India, the region of Kerala has had a democratically elected communist government for years, which has been re-elected democratically multiple times, because it has managed to transform the region (relatively small and sparsely populated) into a kind of ecological oasis, a sought-after tourist destination, where the per capita income of the inhabitants is among the highest (if not the highest, I don’t recall) in the country. It is necessary to debunk this myth that is being built, which wants to label communism as a monstrous and bloodthirsty ideology on par with Nazism or Fascism, for reasons that have already been abundantly debated on this page. I also disagree with you regarding the Mondadori issue: this topic is anything but childish or amusing. Regardless of the alleged political-propagandistic implications of this essay, the fact that one of the largest publishing houses in a country belongs to the Prime Minister, who is also the richest man in the country, the head of an immense financial and media empire, and who moreover acquired said publishing house illegally, is far from amusing; I find it tragic, lethal for a democracy (or what Italy should be). One last note, somewhat unrelated, but the topic touches me closely: the cultural revolution in China did not sever Chinese identity; if this head was severed, which I, as a two-bit sinologist do not believe, well, it was cut off long before, I would say from the 1910s. Best regards.

@saputello: I probably prefer it to funeral too; sure, funeral has some extraordinary tracks that stand out in a dazzling way, but this neon bible for me is a monolith, with no weak points at all, and listening to it is one big thrill. Or maybe I don't understand a damn thing either. @nickwire2: I think that eneathedevil wasn't referring to you with that saputè, but rather to saputello.. just a hunch..

masterpiece!

@macaco: the response you gave me is in no way relevant to the issue I raised. First of all, I have never touched upon the topic of re-education camps, nor have I in any way, overtly or subtly, supported a thesis different from the one you propose, which, by the way, you've mentioned without reason. As far as I'm concerned, the numbers are nothing more than a clear, glaring example of how the data contained in this book can be absolutely approximative, if not completely pulled out of thin air. (Or even instrumentally manipulated, one might think). Ultimately, to know that communist regimes, or self-proclaimed ones, have committed serious crimes against humanity, there is no need for this reading, despite the fact that Spielberg has not yet produced a blockbuster on the subject. Or perhaps I also come from a family of UFOs.

@macaco: rereading your last comment, I notice this sentence "where I went wrong was in the comparisons, and in reporting some anecdotes deliberately biased or even untrue. However, you can't convince me that the information presented in this book is false"... do you see how you contradict yourself? In light of this, I would like to raise my serious concerns regarding the estimated data from this book about the victims of Chinese communism... it would at least be interesting to see what method they used; for example: did they also consider the victims after '78, the year of Mao's death and Deng's rise, with the gradual but total abandonment of communist ideology? Finally, I would like to express my sincere disgust towards the expression "The truth is that the deaths caused by communism have often been necessary" from comment 117; as far as I'm concerned, one lesson that humanity must learn is that the logic of progress cannot take precedence over the right to life and freedom of EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.