Category Archives: Reflections

Come out for Shilts, Once Again. World AIDS Day 2020

“Later, everybody agreed the baths should have been closed sooner; they agreed health education should have been more direct and more timely. And everybody also agreed blood banks should have tested blood sooner, and that a search for the AIDS virus should have been started sooner, and that scientists should have laid aside their petty intrigues. Everybody subsequently agreed that the news media should have offered better coverage of the epidemic much earlier, and that the federal government should have done much, much more. By the time everyone agreed to all this, however, it was too late.

Instead people died. Tens of thousands of them.”

Randy Shilts, in a 1993 photo, with his dog Dash. Photo: VINCE MAGGIORA

Welcome Back, my friends,

Today, December 1st, is World AIDS Day. I know it sounds like a different topic from what I usually propose to you, but it isn’t.

Talking about AIDS, in the average reader, generates a reaction not different from talking about Nagorno-Karabakh: they think of a distant place where people die for apparently incomprehensible reasons, or at worst, for “barbaric” conduct. Just as I have proposed to talk about those distant places, I will also tell you about this place which, I admit with shame, until recently was also far away for my range.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome has killed over 25 million people since 1981, becoming one of the most destructive epidemics in the whole history of mankind. Although access to antiretroviral therapies and drugs has recently improved, in many regions of the world the AIDS epidemic claimed about 3.1 million victims in 2005 (estimates range from 2.9 to 3.3 million), more than half of whom (570,000) were children. This year the new infections amount to one million and seven hundred thousand and the deaths to 690,000.

Since 1988, the World Health Organization has set this day to raise awareness of the AIDS pandemic caused by the spread of the HIV virus, and to remember those who have died from the disease. Until 1985, however, the epidemic moved invisibly and uncontrollably throughout the world.

Why? Mainly because it struck the “pariahs”: in the West, mainly Homosexuals and Drug Addicts, and imagine then what could be the interest in its spread in what were the so-called “Third World” countries, where the disease originated, until things have reached abnormal proportions. Just like when we hear about tragic events in distant countries, those who die and suffer become a distant entity, and often we who deal with Geopolitics treat all this as a game of chess, in which necessarily “pieces” are lost.

As for me, I found myself face to face with this part of Western history, which we carefully closed in a drawer, about a year and a half ago, when I was asked for help for a project of a completely different nature, specifically, psychology. When I was asked to reconstruct the history of the first years of the pandemic, I was thrilled by the scarce amount of information available, even in specialized magazines. And it is by asking myself the reason for this lack of reporting that I “met” Randy Shilts.

I say “met”, because, although Shilts died when I was a child, his book “And the Band Played On”, which tells those first years shrouded in mystery is not just a historical account, but is the Echo of hundreds of voices that come to us from a not too distant past, and that we have forgotten. Surely it is thanks to his writing style (to understand, we could compare it to that of Truman Capote or, more recently, to that of Svetlana Aleksevic), but there is more than this: Shilts, a participant in the Homosexual Liberation Movement (as it was called then) since the University, he is personally involved in the AIDS pandemic, and makes us live together with him and his contemporaries, that part of history, through a choral story “as beautiful and terrible as an army lined up in battle”, in the words of Umberto Eco.

Reading the book, you get the feeling that you are participating in those moments, and, if you take into account that they are not fictional stories but first-rate investigative journalism (except for some parts added after his death by his publisher, which I consider a real stab in the back, but if you have read, or will read the book, you will immediately realize what they are), we face an extraordinary testimony. The journalist of the San Francisco Chronicle accompanies us in that glimpse of history, shows us the pinnacle of the struggle for civil rights of homosexuals and his fall at the hands of a mysterious disease, shows us the suffering of those who could not do anything but succumb , the courage of those who have spent themselves with every cell of their body to find a solution, the greed of the business of paid sex, the unawareness of the victims, the lack of action of the Reagan Presidency and the hatred towards those, like him, which demanded a change in homosexual lifestyle and was accused of being “fascists”, the righteousness of some unlikely politicians (like the Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch) and the contempt of those who wanted to take advantage of the situation.

But above all, it shows us the indifference, guilty or not, of the society of the time (in this specific case American, but in other countries the situation was identical if not worse), while few fought against the tide: they were doctors, clinicians, researchers, politicians, activists, bureaucrats, writers and ordinary citizens. And a reporter from the Chronicle, who fought with them and got their words and deeds out to us.

I can only answer that I tried to tell the truth and, if not be objective, at least be fair; history is not served when reporters prize trepidation and propriety over the robust journalistic duty to tell the whole story.

(Randy Shilts, from an interview on Los Angeles Times, February 18, 1994)

Reading his writings, for me was not just a lesson in journalism, or a look into a period of recent history that is very little covered, but a lesson in humanity: he tells us about a society that does not intend to change its lifestyle, even in the face of the suffering and death of many, of politicians and journalists who try to take advantage of the situation to gain approval or popularity, of scientists and doctors who do not give up their academic vanity.

But also that there have been, and still are, people willing to fight for what is right, without means, without attention and without support against an invisible and lethal enemy. Reading his writings during this pandemic, gave me the strength to face it in my own way, despite watching everyday the same wrong, selfish, and demagogic behaviors repeated in front of my eyes: another story of cowardice and courage.

This short piece whould be an encouragement not to give up, to make sure that the legacy of men like Randall Martin Shilts is not forgotten after the storm has passed, and after their life has died out, perhaps deepening the subject soon.

Come out for Shilts, once again, not with your sexuality, but whit your braveness.

Thank You, Randy.

Hero,

Is the voice of reason

Against the howling mob,

Is the pride of purpose

In the unrewarding job… 

(Rush, “Nobody’s Hero“, from Counterparts 1993)

The U.S. Elections and the perils of the Illiberal Democracy

“In cauda venenum”

(Latin phrase traucibile as “The poison [is] in the tail”)

Protest groups have gathered outside vote counting centres across the US

Welcome back my friends,

This week, it was impossible not to deal in some way with the American elections of 2020, and as far as I am concerned I would like to do it in a particular way, exactly as this election was, which, I’m afraid, did not end here. On this blog we have dealt very often with those political systems called “Illiberal Democracies” or “Hybrid Systems”: a classification used to define those countries in which there is an authoritarian politics that for one reason or another enjoys strong popular support. We generally find this system in the countries that were part of the Soviet Bloc, but also in other realities around the world.

But this time it’s different: today we see this phenomenon at work even in completely different realities, with an important history of democracy behind it. This article aims to be a reflection on their development and on some of the factors that lead to the development of Illiberal models also in the West.

I decided to follow these elections closely for a “personal” matter: I wanted to verify as closely as possible what was happening in the United States, and, in the three days of counting required before Joe Biden was officially declared the winner, something I, and maybe nobody else, did not ever expected, happened.

Outgoing President Donald Trump announced he would give a speech, and, in unified networks, declared that the elections were rigged. Pandemonium has broken out. The television stations were even forced to interrupt the live broadcast, not being able to cross-question the president on his serious statements, and obviously fearing that there was an exaggerated reaction among the Republican electorate.

In a few minutes the word “Fraud” was on the lips of half the world, American and foreigner, for or against President Trump. Never expected such a thing, even from Trump. And it is even stranger, if I think of my country, Italy: here politicians and political parties declare electoral fraud before, during and after the elections, even if they win elections, not to mention all the times that somebody yelled for an ongoing coup d’état, obviously withouth any reason, and, needless to say, without any proof.

During the night (for us, in GMT +01) then, I came across this very good article by Professor Zeynep Tufekci published by the newspaper “The Atlantic”. In her article, Professor Tufekci highlights the “anomalies” of the Trump presidency (in the American context): its over-the-top TV star attitude, the compulsive use of social networks and the ever more striking promises, never realized. In addition, let us not forget, to far more dangerous ideas, such as his heavy abuse of presidential prerogatives, together with the diffusion of an idea of ​​State based on the concept of “herrenvolk democracy”, or rather on its ethnic-religious characterization (in this case, WASP), which should have “priority” over minorities, especially in matters concerning access to the welfare state and, in turn, to institutions.

In the article, a comparison is then made with other leaders who the professor considers somewhat similar to Trump: Bolsonaro in Brazil, Putin in Russia, Orbán in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey. The warning that is thrown through this brief comparative analysis is that a more capable, future politician, without Trump’s grotesque excesses, might be able to inherit his legacy but without discredit, carrying out identical policies but with a “public figure” which is more institutional.

And it is at this point that the question finds me both in agreement and in disagreement.

Let me explain: the warning that Professor Tufekci launches is sacrosanct, since one of the main problem of the “Trump phenomenon” lies in the identification with the person. Those who support him, identify themselves with him, rather than in a political project or view. And the silence (or, worse, the support) that in recent days many Republican leaders have given in response to his narcissistic delirious is eloquent, it shows us how they do not know how to turn back, once supported all the abuses committed in recent years, and above all how to behave with their’s own electorate, which from now on will hardly accept someone more “moderate”.

Furthermore, this is not just a problem of a political side: Biden will have, for the next four years, to deal with more than 70 million voters who consider him a President detestable at best, and abusive in the worst. At the time I write, Trump has not yet conceded him the victory, despite his lawyers being turned down in every court they appeal to.

This involves two things: first It puts us in front of the “personalization” that this electoral campaign has had (I can only vote for Him vs I whould vote for everyone except Him), and the fact that the former President has decided (he or whoever for him) to launch his latest poisoned “tail shot”, creating a very dangerous climate of institutional delegitimation. These two factors, together, are the keys that open the doors to Illiberal Democracy.

Where is my disagreement, then?

It is in the models taken for example, which, in my opinion, are strongly decontextualized and fail to give an idea of ​​what can happen within a democratic system. Don’t take it as an academic habit: understanding “where” your country is going can really make the difference. And don’t take it as some kind of “prediction” either, because it’s happening right now, in the meantime you’re reading.

The countries cited as an example, rather than having intelligent politicians who win elections, all have in common a historically undemocratic background. Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan were not necessarily “better” or “luckier” than Trump: they were instead able to exploit that illiberal streak already present in their society (even in those who opposed them) to take power. But on the contrary, the United States discovered this vein recently, or at least it became evident when someone went to dig to get it out. With it, however, also a strong opposition movement emerged, which in the end managed to prevail.

Unfortunately it is my opinion that the problems have only just begun.

And here is where the example of Italy comes in handy: despite the complete diversity of political systems (and their “scale”), Italy has had, and have (over time always to a lesser extent, unfortunately) a democratic spirit in its own way, and, although not as strong as in the US, it has withstood tremendous blows for decades, and now is on the verge of collapse. The United States is experiencing a phenomenon similar to the one that, for about twenty years, has gripped my country. Yes, I’m talking about Silvio Berlusconi and his legacy. Maybe you’ve heard of him (just in comparison to Trump) or maybe not.

In that case, a small summary may be useful to better understand why we are in this situation now. Berlusconi came to power with slogans that today would be called “anti-enstablishment”: he represented the outsider who challenged a sclerotic political system overwhelmed by corruption scandals. For twenty years he was, for better or for worse, the undisputed protagonist of our national politics, regardless of whether in power or not. Not unlike Trump, he treated “public affairs” as his property, he appeared as a showman, a histrionic television entertainer, a testimonial who had to sell a product, which was none other than his Party. He has never hidden his sympathies towards illiberal regimes (one above all, Vladimir Putin, but also, Muhammar Gaddafi) and his acquiescence towards the extreme right, of any kind, and he himself has always governed on the edge of the institutional context, pushing the powers of the state to clash on each other for personal pourpose.

For its part, the opposition merely said to its constituents “we are not Berlusconi” and little else. Surrendering on income and only managing to bring together coalitions and coarse and quarrelsome governments, without a vision other than to send the Black Man away and restore “national prestige”. It will be precisely in those years that an increasingly illiberal feeling will begin to manifest itself even in the opposite field: anything was lawful in order to strike Him.

For two decades the country was clearly split in two, and all attention was focused on the figure of Berlusconi.

When, at the end of 2011, he was forced to resign for bringing the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the context of the European Debt Crisis, we all (myself included) thought it was truly over. We were wrong. The drastic measures necessary to stem the economic problems he created throught the years allowed him to return to the fore one last time: conspiracy theories about “foreign interference” or a “White Golpe” orchestrated to make him resign became part of the mainstream debate (in fact they already were, but not to an extent so marked) and thanks to the promise to bring everything back as before (i.e. Make Italy Great Again) he was one step away from winning the elections again. Neither Berlusconi nor his party managed to regain the hegemonic role of the past, but the climate of constant confrontation remained, and this cancer had metastasized in Italian society.

But the worst was yet to come.

In fact, Berlusconi was out of the political game, but was quickly replaced by far more aggressive and undemocratic heirs. The personalization of politics and the de-legitimization of any institution had opened the doors to unscrupulous individuals, ready to do anything to enter the vacuum of power. Much more virulent and demagogic than their worthy predecessor, it took them just over 5 years to conquer the whole country, whit the help of new technologies and a more viral “marketing”, based on fake news (the good, old, lies) and conspiracy theories.

Even the most traditional media, such as newspapers and televisions, have done nothing but continue with the same behavior as before, but with new subjects who represented the “novelty of the day”, contributing with an “idiotic equanimity” putting intellegible debate and conspiratorial nonsense on the same level, when they did not directly leave these subjects free to speak, and to spread their “ideas” without any contradictory.

To date, they have a majority in parliament and in the country, while the democratic opposition has dwindled to a flicker.

Now the United States is facing a similar problem: a pathologically narcissistic President, after losing regular elections, has decided to poison the wells by claiming that there has been electoral fraud. Now 70 million of its supporters are more or less convinced that the System is rigged, empathizing with a character who presents himself as the victim of an unfair world, just like them. An explosive mixture, of which, observing what surrounds me every day, I can already anticipate the results.

In a Democracy, Society creates Institutions, in a Dictatorship, Institutions create Society. In an Illiberal Democracy, Society is viewed split into “Us and Them” and the institutions were used to increase the level of confrontation, necessary to strengthen the Parties involved and their respective electorates. Be aware that the real war begins now: if Americans (not just the President, or the politicians) fail to cut off the climate of perennial confrontation and delegitimization, together with the personalization of politics, they will not find themselves with another “more institutional Trump”, but with 70 million Trumps, narcissists, bullies and prone to victimization, and at that point it will become difficult to hope that they will simply go away.

In conclusion, the question is not whether or not the GOP is organizing itself to field the next Trump, and who he may be, the question is whether or not they can do otherwise. The other question is what can be done now to prevent the same situation from happening again, and thats a matter for all the american civil society. If the sole purpose of this election was to beat Trump, then in four years we will see another, and then another, until the phenomenon infects all politics in a game in which electors become mere “supporters” and democratic competition will have no purpose other than victory itself.

Paraphrasing Giorgio Gaber, a famous Italian songwriter: “Don’t be afraid of Trump himself, but be afraid of the Trump in yourself”.

I hope you found it interesting these few lines, and have made you understand what I mean (it would take the books, but at the moment we lack). Also a heartfelt thanks to all those who followed and commented with me during the election days, and to Professor Tufekci for the inspiration.

Stay Vigilant. Toghether.

The War of the Wor(l)ds – II

“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”

(George Orwell, Politics and the English Language)

A Struggle for Everyone

Welcome back,

In this second part of the series “The War of the Wor(l)ds” I would like to analyze more in depth one of the four points taken into consideration by George Orwell in his paper “Politics and the English Language” where he builds the theory that would influence his later works, and which I find extremely actual, as only a writer like him could be.

I will not start from the first point I listed in the previous article, but from the third, that is:

  • How the problem exposed is not a question of “Sentimentalism”, “Archaism” or “Linguistic Luddism”, which only affects academics, but a political question of primary importance;

The motivation behind this choice is simple: we have never been used to considering language as something relevant in our life, but as a mere communication tool. Its study, and its uses, have an esoteric fashion and the speeches on the language are considered “academic” at best. So the first criticism that will come to mind when reading this series of writings will be something that evokes the image of professors locked in their own “Ivory Tower” arguing how many toes God has.

Nothing could be more wrong. And dangerous.

Ten years after the writing of this pamphlet, and five after Orwell’s death, i.e. in the mid-50s, what became known as the “Cognitive Revolution” began: an interdisciplinary work of psychology, linguistics, neurology, anthropology and philosophy that has radically changed our way of conceiving the mind and its processes. Scholars like George Miller or Noam Chomsky, just to name two, certainly need no introduction: since then our approach to the study of the mind and human behavior has been completely reversed.

But we will talk about this in later articles.

Six or seven decades later, however, the problem of the decay of language and how it relates to the decay of our society is still there, both as a case study and as a concrete problem. This in my opinion is due to the fact that massive academic efforts are not matched by as many educational efforts, thus bringing us back to the “Ivory Tower”.

How was this possible?

This vicious circle has reasons that go beyond the “pure” scientific dimension, and that we can understand more clearly if we look at them from a historical point of view: language is related to politics and economics (and, we will see, vice-versa), which in turn are linked to the Rule of Law and to what was once called “Civic Sense”. In recent years, at least the last thirty, under this point of view we have definitely let ourselves go.

T. Snyder, The Road to Unfreedom. Russia, Europe, America (Penguin, 2018)

In one of the latest works by the American historian Timoty Snyder, there are two concepts that could help us better understand the question: the first is named “Politics of Inevitability” and the second “Politics of Eternity”. In my opinion, these are two very important concepts, which we do not, however, have the opportunity to analyze in the way they deserve (which perhaps can be done later. For the moment we are only interested in the first of the two, and the definition given by the author in his book:

“The sense that the future is just more of the present, that the laws of progress are known, that there are no alternatives, and therefore nothing really to be done. In the American capitalist version of this story, nature brought the market, which brought democracy, which brought happiness.”

In this passage Snyder refers to what the Western world felt at the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus to its victory at the end of the Cold War. If in 1945 Orwell described a world that was preparing itself for that confrontation, and for this the language “suffered” in the emergence of an ideological war, in this case we have the reverse process: language suffers from the lack of confrontation. If the future is predetermined, not only is there no need to do anything, but there is no longer need to think about anything.

If in Orwell’s book we find a critique of a language constructed in a complex, pretentious way, full of paraphrases, courtly metaphors and technical terminology out of context, aimed at hiding the ideas and intentions of those who write or speak, today we can say that the problem it is exactly reversed: the political discourse is made up for the most part of slogans, clichés and ambiguous statements which, in addition to hiding ideas and intentions in the same way, above all serve to hide the absolute emptiness that generated them.

In the same way, those who ask for a good use of the language, in 1945 were branded as an incurable romantic, one of those people who prefer candles to electric light, while today he is a “technocrat”, one of those who want to tangle and cheat the people with their “Latinorum”.

It is for this reason that, as stated at the beginning, the struggle for a correct use of language (and this too we will talk about later) is not a question that concerns only philologists or linguists, but is an integral part of the modern political struggle, one of the few ways in which we can really act, as citizens, towards the state, political and economic power.

If we are not able to preserve this, and we can only do it ourselves, we will never be able to stem the “bad atmosphere” that seems to have take control over our society. If we are not able, soon we will no longer be citizens, but subjects: the process of degradation has already been going on for a long, long time, and it is time to begin to climb the dangerous slope in which we are slipping.

The War of the Wor(l)ds

That was the ultimate subtlety:consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” (1984)

George Orwell’s legacy in the 21st Century

Who doesn’t know George Orwell (whose real name was actually Eric Arthur Blair)? Even just by hearsay, he is recognized as an author that had a primary role in the creation dystopian literature: his best known novel, “1984”, published in 1948, two years before his death, is perhaps the one that more than any other it is rooted in the collective imagination as a metaphor for the power, violence and control exercised by a totalitarian state.

I still remember that rainy night, in the bunk of a train while everyone else was sleeping, finishing that book in the light of a small flashlight. Looking back on that day, i can say it was, together with a few others, one of the few really significant books in my life. From that day on, there was no turn back.

The 117th anniversary of the writer’s birth occurred on June 25, and the following quote was popping up everywhere: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act“.

The fact is, that quote is not from Orwell, but is only attributed to him.

This made me think. Of all the production of an intelligent, far-sighted and sagacious author, nearly everyone goes to get an “attributed” quote to pay him omage. Strange? Yes and no.

The next day I went to look for another of Orwell’s work in my library, a small pamphlet entitled Politics and the English Language, first published in 1945. Rediscovering this little book was a real pleasure, no doubt about it: in just twenty pages the writer’s pen traces what will become the theoretical framework behind his novels, and that today, 75 years after its writing, still shows the true problem of our society.

If you are thinking about surveillance cameras everywere, high-tech control instruments, spy smartphones, and all that “Big Brother Is Watching You” kind of imagery, you are out of the way. As the title says, the author’s reflection is on Language (in this case English, but anyone can safely think of their language and the reasoning will not change), what we do with (and to) it and what it does to us.

For anyone who assimilated the concepts Orwell wanted to express in his writings, the question was already glaring. For many others, however, the writer’s imagination has turned exactly into what he fought against: banal metaphors, sloppy writing, “imitative style”.

Considering all the time that has passed, obviously we will have to “rethink” some statements, which could seem “out of date”. The fundamental point is another, or how much Orwell’s sharp thinking has managed to grasp a mechanism that has accompanied the development of society (not only the British one, on which the writer dwells, but the world one, given the diffusion and development increasingly immediate and sophisticated communication systems, and the spread of the English language as a “Lingua Franca” over the course of seven decades.

Before introducing the fundamental concept, I would like to illustrate the four points that the writer takes into consideration to elaborate his theory:

  • How language and thought influence each other, creating an “organic” system and not a simple communication system;
  • How, already in the period in which the book was written, there was a phenomenon of “Automatic Construction” of the sentences and what this implies in relation to the previous point;
  • How the problem exposed is not a question of “Sentimentalism”, “Archaism” or “Linguistic Luddism”, which only affects academics, but a political question of primary importance;
  • What “Defending Language” means (and what it does not mean), and how (and if) it is possible to do so;

The four points listed above will be analyzed in detail in as many weekly articles: if it is true that everything is well expressed by the writer in a few pages, it is equally true that the issues deserve a more in-depth analysis, and also a “historical” look: as mentioned previously, almost eighty years have passed and, however “actual” it turns out to be analysis, Orwell was not a seer and certainly could not imagine any change that occurred within our way of expressing ourselves and any developement our society.

For my part, I believe that the focal point of this particular paper (and of Orwell’s subsequent production, up to “1984”) is that through language all of us, as a society, are fighting a War. A war which, like the others, is political, economic and social, and which even involves victims. Each one of us is, consciously or unconsciously, involved. And that if, as the author says, the fundamental goal of a “Good Writing” is to obtain “clarity and comprehensibility”, I can safely say that over the course of these decades we have lost many battles.

With this statement it is not my intention to instill a sense of depression or to declare surrender: only the point is made of a situation that is very compromised, and whose borders have grown larger and larger over the years: in some ways “fossilizing” and for others progressing at a staggering speed (in particular from a “technological” point of view). What I mean is that not only must we act, but we must do it critically, with strategy. To do this we must take back the legacy left to us by Orwell, and start from where he left us: observing and analyzing the language and its relationship with our reality.

The War is not over. We can still reverse the process.

I have a hard time imagining who and how he can take up such an appeal, or what idea he can make of it. But after all, I would like to reiterate that this is not a place to make “Proclamations”. I hope that as I have explained the different issues, everything becomes clearer. I believe that for now, obtaining intellectual contributions and observations on the phenomenon may already be a great step in itself and a way to resume observing a question which, I repeat, is not the prerogative of only the academics who deal with the “branch”, but it is something that concerns us very closely, from how we behave, express (or do not express), communicate and write every day.

Take this writing and those that follow not as a decadent criticism, but as an idea for a new beginning.

Nay, come, let’s go together.


 






So, Why this Blog?

"Hope is a risk that Must be Run. It is even the Risk of the Risks."

George Bernanos
Photo by Eleftherios Markidis on Unsplash

After some time thinking about it, in the end here I am, writing the first article of a personal blog.

So, the question is, why am I doing this?

I thinked about this nearly two weeks, realizing there are two types of answers I can give to the question:

The first, is a practical reason: I want to do this to find a new way of living, a new job where I hope to find a personal realization. I’m so sick and tired of italian media locic, political logic, social logic. This could be my ticket away from all that junk.

The second one, is a most personal reason: my Law professor in high school always tells me that I desperately try to “hide my intelligence” from others. He was right. For years I hide what my thoughts to others, preserving them as a precious treasure not to be shared. Now is enough. From now on, listened or not, I will express myself and put my knowledge into something more than merely speculative theory.

All of this will be also in His loving memory.

The name of this Blog comes from an old joke from the former Soviet Union, that sais: “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable”, wich probably inspired the famous George Orwell’s quote of the IngSoc motto in his distopian novel 1984: “Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

The quote below, the Blog motto, is obviously a joke on “The Washington Post” slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness“, made after the election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency of the United States. I know that maybe in the US this was a shoking event, but in Europe, expecially in the East but not only (Italy itself is a perfect example), this tendency goes on for years and was there, “In Bright Light” for all to see, it was only a matter of time that the “Death of Democracy“, will spread like a virus.

In this Blog, i will try to write principally about that, and correlated issues:

  • History, our “Voiceless Teacher”
  • Philosophy, or, well, making philosopy
  • Literature, specifically tied to the themes above
  • Politics, and his developement
  • Various issues related to all of the above

So if you share any of these interests with me, you want to read about them, but above all to talk about them, I welcome you to “An Unpredictable Past”, I hope to succeed from here on, to be able to involve you and make you more curious.

I want, or at least I hope, that this is the Place of the Questions, and not of the Answers, because only thanks to the former can we hope to resist a world that seems to overwhelm us with its overbearing greatness, and its events that seem to run fast and out of control.

That’s, in the end, the sense of the quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet: the world really seems “Out of Joint” and all of us start feeling alone in front of this, despite the matter of fact that make everyone in some way “being born to make it right”. But, as Hamlet sais in the end of the Act I, we are not alone, and I hope to be an helping hand.

So sit down, my friend, and we will try to clarify together what surrounds us.

Nay, come, let’s go together!”

 


Rate this Post:

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Time in Lockdown

"O let not Time deceive you,

You cannot conquer Time."

W. H. Hauden, "As i Walked Out One Evening", 1937
Photo by Sasha Freemind on Unsplash

 

So, as we say, in this blog we gonna talk pretty much about History. And, to talk about history, it is necessary that we first talk about Time, or at least our concept of Time.

I was born and raised during the “Post-Ideological Era”, or, rather, after the end of the “Cold War Era”. In one of it’s most influencial books, “The End of History and the Last Man”, Francys Fukuyama theorized that, as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, only the West Block would have remained to influence the rest of the World.

And so, the End of History was decreed.

Matter of fact, we start living not only in a “Time without History” as Professor Timoty Snaider said, but in a “Time without Time”. A long, infinite, straight line that, no matter what, projects the present into Eternity. There were not only more problems of thinking about History, there were no more problem thinking about Time.

In my life as an academic, I spent so much hours talking and writing about this, and then: It Happened.

A sweep of wind, and all became Past.

A Past, perhaps, that not even became Future yet.

What this virus, called SARS-COVID-19, brought back to our lives, it is not only the concept of humanity tied to its Mortality, but also that of humanity tied to its Time. We asked ourselves many times if the problem was thinking little about the past, or little about the future. We were all wrong: the problem is that we didn’t think of the Present at all.

The “Lockdown”, or “Measures of Social distanciation”, stuck everything and everybody in a Perpetual Present, an anxyous waiting for something nearly to come: Freedom or Doom.

Now we all have to deal with it, every single day, every single minute. Impossible to know what will come, impossible to prevent it from happening.

There is only a question we need to ask ourselves: when will this present become the Past or the Future?


Rate this Post:

Rating: 1 out of 5.