linusvanpelt

Okay. I’ve been trying for hours to establish a serious conversation with you. First you say I have no arguments, now you still don’t like it. Make up your mind, damn it. In the world I’m talking about, differences would exist anyway. Differences born from mixing would still exist. I don’t know if you know Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian playwright and Nobel laureate; he is one of many who supports this thesis (not the elimination of nations, but the significance of immigration and what comes from it). If we want to talk, let’s talk based on serious arguments.

Alright, the United States a solid nation? But where? Half the people don’t vote, are poor... And you call it solid? Bush tells you it's solid... The United States has to wage a war every now and then to be "solid." The other great nations don’t. Come on, the discussion is too complex and delicate to tackle here. I still invite you to write to me (I’m not doing it to mess with you, but to seriously compare notes if you're up for it).
Come on, I get that you don't agree with me, I’ll keep my illusion that, as I said, helps me live and believe the world can be better. And rest assured, I won’t be offended...

Anyway, I would go back to the original topic...
I celebrated Grosso's penalty like all Italians did, if only for a memory linked to the '82 World Cup. I had predicted a final between England and France. Football-wise, the English are the ones I'm most interested in (also because they have a monstrous midfield), but in the end, it's known: the World Cup is won by the team that has been luckier and is tactically better positioned. On this, I have nothing to say against Lippi. It's just that I wouldn't have played Totti so much. As someone said, if you're not in shape, try to play it safe. Not with backheels and magical tricks. Totti will never be a complete champion; he lacks intelligence. I would have left Iaquinta at home (a player who scored six goals, four of which were penalties, if I'm not mistaken), I would have brought Cassano along even with his belly (he always gives his best for the national team) and Lucarelli. I don't like Gilardino; in my opinion, he's a copy of Inzaghi. In fact, maybe Inzaghi is more decisive, and I would have played him more. Of course, playing with only one striker without wingers crossing the ball is pure suicide: he did it against Germany, and repeated the same in the final. Toni can't come to collect balls in midfield. Obviously, now that Italy has taken home the trophy, any technical-tactical musings make little sense. But we must always keep in mind that we won on penalties, against a team deemed dead that dominated us for most of the time. If the French are bitter, we need to understand. We've been there too.

Um, I replied to you, alright. What else do you want? Could it be that the fru-fru is you, huh? ;)

And then don't worry, there will always be a reason to play soccer... ;)

I know it's not that simple; I never said otherwise. But I like to think that it could happen, it makes me optimistic. Beyond the feasibility of it all. It's a thought that I find very stimulating and that allows me, in my small way, to act so that I and others can live peacefully.

It's a pity, dear Vabbè, that between communism and fascism there is a whole world in between. Understanding this once and for all would help tone things down and reduce the insults. I have friends on the right, even VERY far right, and yet I've never found myself discussing politics with them based on insults. If this country is in such a state, it's also for this reason: political discussion has been underground for years.

My explanation, upon rereading it, is rather fragmented; to those interested (but I hope you have time to waste on more interesting things) we can go deeper...

I gave you my phone number, my email, my address, what more do you want?
In trouble? Never been calmer.
I even give you satisfaction, here it is: nations can’t be taken away overnight. Something like that requires a different kind of humanity. Rules, in general, exist because man, as Hobbes argued, is unable to live in peace in a state of nature. I believe that man can come to conceive an existence free of hatred, weapons, and conflict. Through education, a reevaluation of the spiritual sphere (note, spiritual, not religious). As a Buddhist, I can say that, on an individual level, one can become compassionate beings. That said, the transition to a non-nation is possible. First of all, just the migratory movements alone challenge the concept of nation. Either one closes oneself off in nationalism (and it has historically been proven that this doesn't work, indeed it’s quite the opposite) or one opens up to the understanding that a nation is not made by those who are born there but by those who live there. That being said, from my point of view, the concept of nation weakens: to an extreme, if we all mixed together, in the end, the only elements that define a nation are its borders and the laws of the nations themselves. You can eliminate the first, extend the second. Just like institutions. Man created nations in a historical period when it was necessary to create them, and really, this happened rather recently in his history.
Now, it's clear that I'm talking about an unachievable de facto condition. But like all utopias, the purpose of this idea is to help us live better. From my perspective, believing that one day there will be no nations comes from the fact that for me, people are not Italian, French, Indian, and so on. People are just people, each with their own experience to share.
Are you satisfied? I already know you're not, and that you'll increase the load of insults, so in the end, did we both waste time? And bore everyone else?

If you want to tell me something, do it by email, you know it. If you want to discuss with me, do it by email, CIVILLY. But since you stated that you don't care, kindly be silent. And from now on, if you want your comments to appear on the screen, subscribe. Otherwise, you will be talking into the void.