ISIS / DAESH / ISIL

What’s the best way to combat it? Surely not only with weapons. An entity that operates also in digital territory to be conquered without impunity. Besides, it might be just the beginning, with all terrorist groups expanding online. An underestimated threat used to recruit terrorists and inspire attacks. A psychological warfare that helps immensely the physical one reducing the possibility of next revolts by oppressed populations. A broad-scale tactic that would require a similar comprehensive opposite strategy.

We’re facing highly educated leaders setting their agenda in a managerial way and then operating offline/online. Not to mention sympathizers, helping ISIS to disseminate its radical message in order to convert people to their ideology. And here’s the trick: apparently spreading extremism on line is not illegal, based on their right to free speech. I don’t think it should require considerable efforts to change a little bit our laws in this particular regard.

Nevertheless it can be marginalized, isolated as a digital threat. Still a possible, future, digital threat but incapable of growing on internet. Preventing the group’s messages to reach millions of people would prevent those people reaching later their ranks in combat. Whether this is easier said than done remains to be seen, because it would involve all internet/digital operators at all levels: all accounts have very strict privacy settings. You can well picture the relative difficulties.

Probably it would be much easier to covertly infiltrate ISIS’ internet connections with fake accounts. They may have passwords, encryption, rigid privacy settings but fortunately they’re also traceable, identifiable….ergo: weak. That’s to our governments’ advantage, with far superior technology capabilities elaborating software programs to quickly identify their digital leaders, probably even already in use. Let’s not forget that all the digital platforms belong to companies that oppose ISIS ideology and can’t be shut down.

You have a homework too: keep your eyes wide open while using internet! Be ready to quickly report dubious accounts.

Stop the money and the whole world will stop: this should be another very effective way to combat it.

It should apply to ISIS as well, shouldn’t it?! So what IS complicated?!

Surprisingly enough (and supposedly) it’s not fully understood where the money comes from, because it’s not a State, it’s an entity. I don’t know if it’s true. It certainly comes from oil black market and antiquities smuggling: so the real question is WHO’s buying.

The most used excuse is they’re extorting civilians and businesses. According to you would that pay for an entire (illegal) Army and relative weapons, using that money only?! Beautiful brand new Toyota S.U.V.s, by the way. Oh yes, actually it has also been declared money is coming in from kidnapping victims and engaging in human trafficking.

Please….! In reality ISIS earns $50 millions a month selling oil to local buyers, smugglers, THE SYRIAN REGIME ITSELF and Turkey. That’s how much it’s radicated and that’s the root of the problem: the Islamic “State” is even using banks and financial exchanges in Iraq.

So military force alone will never be enough (could someone explain this to Putin, please?!) to beat ISIL.

The remaining plausible excuse (not to intervene decisively) is that international efforts are trying to understand who assists them, hoping to dismantle the whole network. I'll  leave the decision to believe it or not up to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Christmas time

A small prayer for Christmas

(sorry to all of you because it’s not good enough, but I’m not a poet)

With no merit

only the Lord I entrust,

the Holy Spirit will reign upon all us,

in the Holy I can trust.

His days shall come.

My only supreme

Judge he will be,

no fear I will have

and serene I shall finally feel,

after the Holy I can finally see.

My day shall come.

Christians will sit closely to their Deity,

peacefully, together in pray.

There shall be that day.

We live as if we’ll never die. One day we will. Remember it while we’re still alive. May your Christmas be happy and peaceful.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Child marriage

It means nothing less then someone’s future flying away. Forever.

It’s not about poverty, that’s just an excuse. It’s about culture: 700 millions girls are / have been involved. They’ll stop going to school, probably face domestic abuse and early pregnancy without the choice of whom to marry. All their rights denied, nothing left, except the right to exist (if they don’t commit suicide). All under our noses.

I know, it’s fuelled by poverty, wherefore is one less mouth to feed: but is it the real reason or is more attributable to long-held beliefs and traditions based on gender inequality? Meaning that becoming a wife and mother is often deemed a daughter’s only choice, to the point that by 2050 an additional 1,2 billion girls worldwide will be married before their 18^th birthday. India surpasses any other countries by a wide margin: about 40 percent of all child marriages take place there.

When we say child marriage we might think by age 18. Right, that would be so easy, so convenient, so easily justifiable: you know…it also happens here (referring to developed Countries). I’m sorry to disappoint but we’re talking about one in nine girls by age 15 or even younger: this means “child”, you see? Some of them, based on broadly very well documented cases are even as young as eight or nine!

All those children without education will remain poor for the rest of their lives, without better paid works, no decision making in their communities, left at increased risks of diseases, without preparation for adulthood, a proper ability to create a family inside a sane community, isolated, exposed to a higher risk of injuries / abuses, even more likely to die in childbirth. Their first sexual experience will be forced (the correct term is RAPED), with all the traumatic psychological consequences connected.

Based on what? The REAL reason is culture.

How do we solve this problem then? In my view forget more laws: they already are in place and…meaningless/useless. In many countries child marriage is prohibited, but existing laws are often not enforced exactly because of parental consent, traditions, customary laws. The more is tolerated, the more it becomes easier for others to perpetrate illegal human rights violations.

And instead of diminishing poverty it perpetuates it: married girls leave school and will lack the skills to lift their families out of poverty. My opinion is that it can be solved with shame. Shame on those parents who allow their children to get married so young! Shame on their future husbands! Shame on them! They should feel so ashamed to the point of wishing suicide for such actions (they’ll never get to that because they haven’t human feelings). That gives you the perfect idea of what I mean. Eradicate even the concept of child marriage.

That is just my idea. The complex mix of cultural and economic factors mean there is not a single, simple solution. The pressure to solve this problem must be global: connecting and amplifying all our voices through civil society organizations across the entire world like “Girls Not Brides”. Sensitize everyone you know involved, talk with them, make them understand, force them with ANY possible means to change: NOT ideas, but a deeply shattering culture to be ashamed of.

The definition of child must be universal. So far, we’ve all failed. The right to free and full consent to a marriage is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Period. That’s how it should be. Until all our attitudes don’t change, nothing will change. Think about it, don’t be passive, at least through social networks spread awareness.

“I was really in need of money and thought it was a solution for the family”: Abdul Mohammed Ali, father of a married nine-year-old girl in Yemen.

“Islamic law allows marriage not by age but by maturity, which is attained once a girl reaches the age of puberty”: Sani Ahmed Yerima, Nigerian Senator.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Donald Trump

I decided not to talk about this…”man” (surely he’s not a politician). Not because of the reasons you might think, just because I’m not American. I trust them, I trust their votes, they’re intelligent.

But…what IF he’ll be the next President? Which I personally consider impossible. In that case it would become a worldwide problem. I mean: banning all Muslims from America?! That’s enough! One Hitler was enough! There couldn’t be a bigger gift to terrorists. Given his steady consensus, I’ve changed my mind and here I am.

What’s his political tactic anyway? Or should we call it hysteria? Surely he has done a big favour to his fellow GOP contenders. Let’s also remember that those contenders have previously received money from Trump when he wasn’t running. When you use for your own purposes all the trash of a Country to tap into in order to win the race, can you call it tactic or merely opportunism? When you exploit racial tensions, religion tensions and terrorism for your interest and not for the higher interests of your Country, can you call it tactic? Can a frontrunner be called that way if he doesn’t play by the rules? Surely it works wonderfully: polls speak for themselves. But what kind of “man” are you? In my view that’s like buying your (controversial) votes, nothing less!

In my Country we had a “man” like that who won the elections making easy promises and we learned our bitter lesson the hard way: almost got kicked out of the European Union. That “man” was Berlusconi. Donald Trump is just appealing to racism and general anger, he goes straight to xenophobia. How convenient. What’s left? Oh, yes: mass deportation of American Muslims. That could be a little bit problematic, though, because so many of them are in the Army….ouch! Much easier with the Mexicans….(?)

But I don’t think the “unthinkable” will really happen, as he leads among Republicans but not among all Americans, Democrats included obviously. It’s not up to me to decide if remaining contenders would be up to their future job, whereas they certainly are too many now and this is also pushing Trump ahead.

He’s defying all the rules for one reason: the more he’s outrageous, the more he dominates the coverage thanks to TV networks which are interested merely in increasing their audience. And that is free, abundant advertisement for Trump as he grabs the spotlight every single day. One thing Trump could do if elected would certainly be to rewrite the Constitution and sadly the Thirteenth Amendment would allow that: I can only imagine the treacherous consequences. Banning all Muslims from America would be nothing compared: as I already said, one Hitler had been more than enough.

A ban ridiculous and dangerous: he’ll be realizing this very soon when his own business in the Middle East diminishes. Maybe even the polls are ridiculous: not to be misunderstood I’ll remember you December 2007 had Clinton with an 18 points lead over Obama. Who’s the President now? Trump might capture the GOP nomination only because is threatening to run as an independent, but is it meaningful given the way he’s campaigning?

In more than one previous posts I said that this is exactly what ISIS want: every Muslim to feel alienated. Thank God now the President is Obama. Trump, with his infantile threats of massive bombings (bombs: a very simple solution for an extremely complicated problem) is merely doing an enormous damage to Obama’s ability to lead a coalition. Unrealistic claims made by a xenophobic man. When enough will be enough?!

When Trump will be nominated as the GOP presidential nominee. But at that point it’ll be too late: they will lose total control over the image of their party, besides of course losing the presidential election, that’s for sure and that’s what they deserve. So what are they ready to do to stop this pseudo-Hitler?    

America should be a more confident nation unafraid to welcome newcomers. One of its founding principles is freedom of religion: among those who founded America were those fleeing religious persecution.

Dump Trump. No more words are needed.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Gun control

Terrorism, wars….and guns. The biggest mistake is fatalism: things happen, you know. Not according to me. We should never get used to the ritual of shock and horror, thinking that nothing will change, accepting all those realities. Since 9/11 150.000 Americans have been killed by guns: 3 Vietnams. But I don’t see any evidence of intention to limit or somewhat regulate guns purchases. We, Europeans, look at that number quite astonished. How’s that possible?! Conveniently many politicians point fingers at mental health issues (oh, yes: some of them blame video games). But they all know that’s not the real point. The point is that gun lobbies are extremely powerful and they very powerfully nourish the concept of the presumed guns culture.

Quite often a new tragedy happens and relative ongoing criticism. Then…nothing else. Till when? So gun control groups are increasingly taking their case directly to the public. Maybe that’s the only effective solution. We can all see those kind of tweets on Twitter, for example. The best campaign is to pressure the public considering guns as any other possible danger to public health: do you care about your wellbeing? Do you smoke? Do you eat properly whenever possible? And so on, the concept is identical.

The message is that the main reason guns cause the deaths of so many Americans is just that America has so many guns. In other countries, like Australia, a proper regulation has been introduced after mass shootings. The result is an 80 percent decline in the rate of suicides.

At least, a background check should be carried out: it’s inexplicable that people on no-fly lists can buy guns. Isn’t that a contradiction? Although it wouldn’t be very effective in avoiding mass shooting, has to be considered a matter of principle anyway, in my view. Another consideration is that the overwhelmingly majority of homicides are between two people and so, all in all, a system of background checks could at least serve as a future deterrent. Similarly licenses should be revoked to dealers who knowingly supply guns to people not allowed to buy them as a result of the checks carried out.

Statistically there are far fewer deaths in states with more restrictive rules on firearms and fewer guns around. The same similarity can be noted in states with the most lax laws on guns having higher numbers in suicides and homicides. The connection is crystal clear and evident. The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is gun control: there are no other ways (of course the first step would be reducing lobbying and pandering politicians). The availability of firearms viciously feeds the problem.

I know, THE “Second Amendment” is like THE Bible for Americans: the right to own guns for defence. Not limiting the right the Government has to legally restrict their sales, though. They are two completely different matters. All the rest is merely rhetoric properly used in favour of the right to own them: but it’s not a right, it has become a claim. I.e., in parallel, just because the First Amendment exists, do you allow your children to watch pornography, do you constantly hear offensive words during a TV show, do politicians (except one "odd") say whatever they want wherever they want regardless? So….same point with gun rights.

If Americans really desire things to change about gun violence, they must realize that only THE People can change that, sorry! There are no quick loopholes.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Generosity

Christmas time is almost here. It could be called, you’ll forgive my broken English, the “generosity month”. All people around the world increase their charitable donations. During this particular month we have the need of feeling good. Donations have that effect, generosity has that effect.

Sadly it doesn’t apply to everyone, many donate just to impress their girlfriends, to impress their friends, to obtain favours, even jobs. Whereas I’m convinced the overwhelmingly majority of us donate for a genuine sense of altruism, generosity. To help those in need and to make the world a better place. Positive feelings that encourage more giving.

The more you give based on objective reasons, the more the positive sensation increases. On the contrary donating based on personal reasons (e.g. in memory of a relative) decreases that positive sensation, wherefore it’s note genuine generosity anymore but serves our personal relief, our individual suffering. I envy those who devote their lives to helping others, or those who take high-payed jobs merely to have a disposable income they can donate: there aren’t many of them around. It’s genuine selflessness replacing philanthropy-style kindness.

Of course there are evident tax-deductions benefits and very effective free advertisement in case of high-profile, like Elon Musk. Related to much higher benefits for poor people receiving the money, though.

But emotions reinforce kindness. Only when emotion, passion and empathy are added to philanthropy we have, in my view, evidence of a powerful altruism. Which otherwise would only be a positive but unnatural, distant, moral abstraction.

Scientists have also demonstrated that when emotion is involved makes altruism healthier. Because generous, kind behaviour and genuine concern for others reduce the stress and anxiety levels. It’s a win-win situation reducing suffering in the world. Just make sure who you’re donating to, I personally don’t trust worldwide organizations, but it’s just my opinion. The more directly you donate, the better. E.g. to a well known local missionary who collect the money and use it himself in a poor Country where it’s needed without being wasted.

If the feeling isn’t unnatural to you, try to be involved, to understand where the money you’re donating will be mostly needed and turn your empathy in that direction: the difference will be immense. Do not reduce your generosity, your values, merely to a generic goal-oriented action. Open your heart. Because giving in itself expresses our values and that link must be embraced, we must align with it.

It’s almost Christmas. Do yourself a favour by doing it for others.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Climate change

What will our children think? That we are a smart species or not? Should you smoke in your home, what will you do to clean the air: open the windows or stop smoking? We should find a similar solution for our planet, the sooner, the better, shouldn’t we? Here we go COP21. Don’t expect too much from it, though. No silver bullet, until our attitude will change, at least. But the change could begin right in Paris: stronger commitments and a shared sense of urgency.

Actually it should have changed back in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but little has happened since then nor during the following meetings. Emissions of greenhouse gases have risen with droughts, sea level rise and atmospheric temperatures rise. One thing has changed: in Rio there were 150 nations, now they are 196. Another difference is that we call this one “our last hope”, which reminds me of “There’s still HOPE!”. And so let’s hope it could mark a turning point.

Nothing can be taken for granted: think about Kyoto and Copenhagen. Lobbies are very powerful, opposing any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Let’s not mention entire groups of politicians denying the scientific statements on climate change: they must know something we don’t (and have very large wallets).

The point is that a global problem requires a global solution, to find a global solution everyone must agree on that solution, i.e. we already have the impossibility to solve the problem. Wherefore poor nations haven’t contributed to present levels of pollution and don’t even want to hear about stopping burning fossil fuels (like India), as richer nations has never done it themselves.

The same frictions between industrialized nations and developing countries were already seen in Copenhagen. And even among richer nations there are strong oppositions: e.g. think about Republicans in America. It’s also true that 170 countries out of 196 have submitted pledges this time. Although evaluating those pledges scientists have already calculated that temperature increases will reach more than 4 degrees by the end of this century (I’m talking about Celsius, or more than 6 d. Fahrenheit). May I remind you that the limit is considered to be 2 degrees Celsius? Maybe scientists will be wrong (I’m not convinced about my sarcasm). As a matter of fact there are contradictions among individual (individual) scientists too.

Let’s also hope another thing: that those pledges are only the beginning and not the end. It’s very difficult for me to have faith because there are no plans for monitoring and reporting on emissions. It’s like having a law with no police.

Do you know what I really rely on instead? Future technology (which is already constantly improving) and basic economics 101: China is already realizing that the costs and negative health/social impact of pollution related issues are superior that the benefits deriving from production of goods supported by fossil fuels’ energy. If China is at a turning point as it seems to be, America will be obliged to follow. Fingers crossed and eyes on Paris.

Back to my initial question: what will our children think about us? I’ll leave the answer to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

G.M.O.s (2nd part)

Organisms that should / must be safe, until proven not to be. This is the undisputable reality. Not the theory, thereby in theory they are (supposedly) approved after being tested. Nevertheless in so many cases the contrary happens and previously approved G.M.O.s are no longer allowed to be sold. This is not working, wherefore we don’t know what we are eating. An example is the recently approved genetically modified salmon able to reach market sizes in half time, thanks to inserted genes. But the overwhelming majority of examples can be found in the vegetables / grains area.

How come they are first sold and then recalled from markets? Exactly because they’re all new products, genetically engineered. Therefore we don’t know their direct health toxicity. Potentially allergic reactions. Toxic properties, stability of the inserted genes. Are nutritional effects superior? What about unintended effects? All questions unanswered. Supposedly answered by producers, whereas on the market real, final effects contradict them “too” many times.

Moreover once sold there is no control (AGAIN: there is only in theory). This particular phenomena is called: outcrossing. Which is the migration of genes from G.M.O.s plants into conventional crops, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with G.M.O.s crops. Plenty of cases have been reported. Search the web. There is just NO (practical) control whatsoever. Period. These products are utterly out of human management.

The law itself is not flawless: individual G.M.O.s and their safety are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Meaning that is not possible to make general statements on their safety. Thank God the European Union is a step ahead on this side. At least on this.

You might say these are merely my concerns. Yes, they are, but if you consider above example of G.M. salmon, 300 (three hundreds) environmental, consumer, health, animal welfare organizations, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) were all opposed to it. Not the FDA. Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union US declares: “the FDA is relying on woefully inadequate data. There is sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices”. I think he knows better than me. Plus so, so many others. There are even stores that have pledged not to sell this genetically engineered salmon: Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Target, Kroger.

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, declares: ”the risk of allergies, hormonal disruption, novel proteins and other serious issues, known or unknown, exist in these fast growing, gene-altered salmon”. Which reminds me of one fact: girls have been entering puberty at a much earlier age in the last twenty years. But of course injected hormones in meat or dairy products have nothing to do with it. Besides, in the specific case of G.M. salmon, hormones are not injected. They are “only” genetically-engineered delivered. Why worry then? We are all perfectly safe.

So let me ask you a question: would you consider safe an animal not allowed to be grown in your Country? The breeding of the G.M. salmon is forbidden on US territory. Why?! Is the FDA sure or not about it?! Isn’t it safe?! …..Maybe, just maybe, NOT.

And you will be eating it. Without being aware.

In fact, one thing I cannot understand nor condone: there is no proper labelling. Maybe the answer is in my previous post: “G.M.O.” of October. Don’t worry, my posts were much shorter before - XD.

….Always humble,

Angiolino   

Sugary beverages

We all know sugar is harmful. Theoretically it should be our choice to use it or not. Whereas there’s plenty of hidden sugar in so many beverages, we can’t avoid it. You might think you can /should avoid those beverages, so where is the problem? The problem is that we’ve been so tricked for so long that now sadly so many people consider it normal to drink a soda (with plenty of sugar in it). Let me clarify: people are aware of the presence of plenty of sugar, they just don’t care, considering it acceptable. Which is not, by all means.

Advertising agencies are really good at their job. But it’s not their fault: soda industries are behind them, lobbying politicians as usual (see my post “Electoral promises”). Paying absurd amount of money to make people desire their products, to block unfavourable legislation, influence policy, ultimately ruining our own health. Afterwards, it’s “just” called brilliant marketing.

And I am not comfortable with it. Even though its consumption is declining in richer areas where people are more and more worried about their health, it’s increasing in poorer countries like Latin America. The industry knows it (someone is already saying it’s winning the battle, but losing the war, because sooner or later everybody will realize the hidden danger) and consequently also perfectly knows where to place the right kind of advertisement. They know that educated, wealthier people don’t drink harmful sodas. Statistically: Hispanics and Africans drink more than whites and Asians. With everything else in between (more cans, less cans, etc.) They know everything. They know where to sell it, how to sell it.

Why are we buying it? Are we all stupid? Of course not. But we’re all emotional, we’re all human beings. And they take advantage of it. Meaning: soda companies have never advertised their products but a “somewhat” emotional “something” else, with attached the soda to it. At a more or less subliminal, so pervasive level, that you don’t notice it. We think we know, we think we consciously accept the product because we see the brand, but they know better how to subtly sneak in.

The smartest move had been giving it away for free to all soldiers during World War II. This is ONE example, but those were different times: less money around and less drinking. Nowadays there are diabetes and obesity. These companies perfectly knows, have all the data, and act to limit damages denying the evidence. Like tobacco companies or chemical ones (see my post “A contaminated world”).

We’re all adults, presumably smart, we can / should take duly notice. You know what’s pissing me off instead? Targeting children. To the point they’ve been forbidden to advertise on children’s television under the age of 12. As if “that” could work…please! Look at the toys around you. And when they’ll be teenagers, they’re going to be SO doomed: no more limits whatsoever. Gosh, they’re good at their job! They deflect attention from the product itself, but propose it in many other ways. Funding organizations, even (paradoxically) health organizations, recommending it for hydration after exercise (?!), buying silence from all of them. Nothing to be surprised of, if you think about it. Falsity, deception, lobbying, double standards, double behaving, bribery, betrayal of our health: THAT is their real job, not selling sugary beverages.

We have to buy food to eat, to live. We don’t really need sodas to drink. Awareness is the key. Spread it.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

A contaminated world

Ask chemical companies and they’ll deny. Everything. Their products are totally healthy. Like tobacco companies had been declaring for decades. Profits come first, health maybe…fourth? Something like that. Whereas there is a big difference: if you were smoking you were hurting yourself, while chemicals contamination is hurting all of us regardless, with no distinction. I’m even more worried now, though. Wherefore chemical industries are so much more powerful, second only to oil industries.

These cancer-spreading companies declare there are no proofs of links between their products and prostate cancer, breast cancer, obesity, infertility, genital deformities, diabetes or any other form of cancer. Exactly like tobacco companies were denying. Thankfully there are tons of proofs instead: look for yourself! So why is nobody intervening? Same old, same old. Outrageously powerful lobbies, like in every other area.

Yes, my posts were a little bit shorter before: but chemical industries are NO short in briberies. In the last 70 years 80,000 new chemicals have been synthesized and every year 4 billion of these carcinogens are released into the environment: we have NO defence, nowhere to escape. There are at least 46 of them into our bodies. We’re born pre-polluted, from the very beginning of our lives, directly from our mothers. Can you believe it?!

Millennials should be called the new chemically “connected” species, but not in the positive way you might first think. Born already connected to internet (a mother can monitor a newly born from her home) and already heavily polluted. Oh my, oh my!

Who exactly is warning us of above dangers? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Endocrine Society, Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the International Association of Doctors, the World Health Organization: I suppose they’re more than enough to be worried about.

The basic risk / problem is based on the fact that all chemical products should be tested for safety before being commercialized. Well, they are NOT. They’re supposed to be safe. Until proven otherwise.      

And even when proven otherwise, they are replaced with a similar product equally harmful. Business comes first. Absurdly, the situation is equally outrageous all over the world. Europe is just now moving toward testing chemicals before they go on the market: lobbies are extremely powerful. In America there is an identical situation.

Our only defence is to be informed. E. g. we can eat organic (it doesn’t have to be necessarily more expensive). For more help and practical examples (like not touching register receipts), have a look at: ewg.org.

I ended my post “Renewables” quoting: “There’s just one little detail: can our planet wait for lobby groups’ interests? Can your children wait?! When in 15 years time they’ll ask you why half of the population has some form of cancer due to pollution, what will you answer them? I suggest you to prepare your justification. Right now.”

Substitute the word pollution with chemicals. Or don’t.

It doesn’t actually change anyting.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Euroscepticism

Are we united? Will we be called (hopefully sooner than later) United States of Europe one day? Can we be compared to USA? Although I’m not convinced at all it would be a fair comparison. After all even America wasn’t unified until the end of the Civil War. To be completely honest I perfectly recall the controversy about the Confederation flag of just a few months ago, but if Americans say they’re now truly united, so be it. I strongly want to believe them.

We’re just newly born: at least give us the benefit of doubt. Europe wasn’t born in 1959, that (called EEC) was merely the idea of the future Europe to be. That date can’t be taken as a reference. According to me the first date coincided with the creation of a common European currency, the Euro (€), back to 1999. A big psychological change, paving the way for all the rest. Gradually we’re getting to “all the rest”: political and fiscal.

Ask to millennials and they’ll tell there’s no going back! Ask to elderly and they’ll tell there will never be a united Europe (or even it wasn’t due to be created at all). To foster a change of attitude takes a lot of time.

For the time being it’s an imperfect union: the financial crisis (started in USA, by the way, not here), the refugee crisis, even the terrorists “crisis”/attacks are a clear proof of it. But our direction is crystal clear, as a matter of fact we’re still accepting refugees, aren’t we? Look instead at what’s happening in America: they’re closing the door to them (so...are THEY really united? Ok…again, IF they say so).

We’re making so many mistakes, I give you that. We’re trying to maintain open internal borders while leaving the management of external borders to national governments: an enormous contradiction, especially in Greece so impoverished by austerity! (see my post “Austerity”).

Same mistake on the anti-terrorism front left up to national governments.

EU countries vary widely in front of major problems, and signs of strain are showing. The ideals are very strong, but it needs to reform itself to become less bureaucratic, to complete the single market in services and capital, to politically integrate. These are the main issues, not the three above which will be solved by solving the root problems.

This promise has been made over and over. “We’ll bring Europe closer to the people”. It’s far from getting closer, but THAT is the key for anything else and now they’re appearing to finally get it. Because in spite of what’s happening Schengen is holding, the willingness is holding. Someone is complainig it’s never been so bad: compared to what / when? World War II when we were killing each others’?

Nobody can argue, Europe is at a pivotal moment in its history: the biggest mistake would be not fighting populism. As a matter of fact I don’t see any Donald Trump’s populism around here. There is an increasing populism, but not at that level. I'm surely not going to argue about a possible Brexit: there's definitely too much political interference "over" there.

What’s my personal view of integration? When future generations will be asked who they are: Italians, Scandinavians, French, Polish? And they’ll answer: Europeans.

Yes, I’m optimistic. Nevertheless, it takes time.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Thanksgiving

I’m deeply, sincerely sorry: I’m not American. So some of you might rightly argue: mind your own business, don’t mind ours. But I highly value all American people. I also must do some good with this blog, right? Otherwise, what’s the point? So, here I am. Sorry.

Thanksgiving: a peaceful pause of reflection dedicated to parents, family and friends. Remembering how it was first celebrated. Pilgrims back then were the refugees nowadays, they were starving and survived thanks to a local native Indian tribe. How everything has changed, hasn’t it? Time doesn't always change people for the better. Nowadays it’s all the opposite. Refugees face desperate situations and right now we’re turning them away (I’m saying “we”, not “you”). When they most need us. I’ve talked about refugees in my previous posts, more than one time. Poor, poor, miserable Europe. 

They’re people, not animals. THEY ARE NOT ANIMALS. One thing has been going on in Germany: refugees are giving back food to German homeless and giving flowers randomly to German people along the streets. That is Thanksgiving as the Pilgrims did in 1620.

Gratitude can change your lives. It already did centuries ago.

Now we want everything: success, achievement, money, status, a nice home, a nice job, a nice car. Things, things, things, things! But in reality small things and moments generate more satisfaction and happiness than large ones. Satisfaction comes from success, NOT happiness.

Happiness comes from practicing gratitude.

Gratitude to everybody and for everything you have. That you have now, not in your future. Whereas you know that happiness can’t be found outside you, but inside you. Use Thanksgiving as an opportunity to show gratitude.

What does it mean to live a good life? Do you feel a sense of disconnection? It might not be a bad thing, after all. Considering our crazy world. But the point is: do you like it? What do you do on Sunday? Do you work or consider it as a day of rest, as it should be? As our Lord command us. Is yours a merely material life, or at least a little bit spritual one? What’s your level of understanding and insight? If it’s only material, you’ll NEVER get the deep, true feeling of gratitude. You will never get the spirit of Thanksgiving.   

What is Thanksgiving? Being thankful. Again: what does it mean to live a good life? Do you live as if you’ll never die? You won’t hold it in your grasp forever. Be grateful to refugees. Reserve one more place at your table, as tradition. This time, just this one, for a refugee. You’ll feel happy.

And if you don’t do that, at least accept them.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Mass hysteria

I admired Hollande when he decided to take in 30,000 more Syrian refugees in spite of recent attacks. Wherefore the choice between security and liberty is a false one: if we lose liberty, there is no security. Over what?! One possible terrorist among 500,000 refugees? And even that one was most probably meant, conceived to create an anti-Syrian backlash.

I’ve already said it and now repeating it: the Caliphate strategy is to divide Muslims and non-Muslims and the success of it depends only on us, not them.

Stigmatize, categorize, dehumanize, spreading fear are not difficult to avoid, if you choose to be intelligent and fearless: over fearfulness we make bad decisions. After the Paris attacks our resolve to help refugees should be stronger than ever, not weaker. Not turning them away, but managing them. Properly. So far where governments have failed volunteers have stepped in: how long will it last “organized” like that? Volunteers are the real heroes, by far. Not someone else. Why don’t they provide humanitarian assistance instead of leaving it solely to volunteers?! They shouldn’t be pressured to act in that way, on the contrary it should be taken for granted according to our democratic values.

Governments are very well organized to help in emergency situations in developing countries, whereas are utterly unprepared in this case: but this has been an excuse for too long.

We should be grateful to refugees, because acting grateful itself can make us grateful according to Christians values, raising our happiness. And choosing happiness brings out the best of us: the opposite of what ISIS wants. See? We are SO much better than them! If we express gratitude, we will receive gratitude. One single terrible night in Paris must not, at all costs, diminish our sense of humanity and responsibility.

The hysteria surrounding the Syrian refugees is a victory for ISIS because the aim of terrorism is to scare governments and their population: capitulation to fear should be the first reaction to avoid. 2000 years ago there was another refugee, named Jesus. And there’s an ENTIRE Country made solely (well, let’s say 99%) by migrants. If we don’t learn from history, we’re so doomed.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

KEYWORDS: CALIPHATE, REFUGEES,

The Caliphate

The Paris slaughter produced one effect: ISIS cannot be allowed any longer to control territory on which it’s able to organize, finance, direct and plan its savagery.

President Hollande has demanded a NATO collective response. Probably that won’t happen because it would require forces on the ground and that would require a credible local ally (like in Iraq or Afghanistan), which there is NOT. But the only adequate measure is (also) military anyway. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the recent downing of a Russian passenger jet as well. It’s not a regional threat, it’s global. We already had money, technology, intelligence, military power and now international cooperation: the only thing remaining and most needed. ISIS itself has given it to us. Well done!

This level of evil cannot be allowed physical terrain on which to breed. More time cannot be allowed: it’s not enough to say ISIS will be defeated without a corresponding plan to do so.

Moreover those killings occurred as hundreds of Muslim refugees from Syria are getting into Europe: they’re fleeing ISIS too. This increases the possibility of a spiral of religious violence against them. The final winning will come from hundreds of millions of Muslims living in peace who raise their voice in unison. Unity is now attainable because the Caliphate has become the enemy of everybody. Its territory is drawing back, its message totally wrong (why refugees are here?). But patience is needed, not rush.

The second goal will be to allow good non-ISIS Sunnis to create their own island of peace and decency, their own land. Otherwise everything else is pointless: once Evil is gone, Good must flourish instead, or Evil will be back. Defeating ISIS militarily wouldn’t be difficult, because it’s surrounded by deadly armed adversaries, all against it. But to keep it defeated, someone must rule its territories or else, it would come back. Kurds are a crucial ally but are only an ethnic minority and cannot govern afterwards.

One thing must be clear: this is not our crisis. Islam is in a state of crisis. Many aren’t getting this point.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Spying on who?!

Everybody is spying on everybody, by doing so it becomes widely accepted. Is it truly acceptable?! The excuse is terrorism: I wasn’t spying on you, I was spying on your presumed terrorists. Now the game is even more facilitated: many intelligence officials are saying that the terrorists in France communicated using encrypted services like WhatsApp. They have been warning about this threat for decades and so for decades nations are spying on each others’. But when did terrorists went dark? 30 years ago WhatsApp wasn’t around yet. Have they always been impenetrable to law enforcement surveillance? Maybe before they just used a generic “encryption method”,…it has to be encrypted, right? Maybe not.

Teenagers last month hacked into the AOL account of the director of the CIA. Every now and then there are spectacular data leaks: our data is so unprotected that even governments are hacked. And here it is the other issue: privacy. Weakening encryption would allow malicious hackers to spy on us, but the real point is that governments don’t like encryption because it impedes mass surveillance. I think instead that “honest” governments don’t need mass surveillance, wherefore there are other methods to get into potential terrorists’ phones and computers, more suited to serious counterterrorism. Because mass surveillance isn’t the only tool to use against terrorists. Governments can break into computers and phones’ doors left open, into other areas of computer weaknesses, where there’s no encryption: it has to be done house by house, phone by phone. Targeted surveillance: respecting our privacy.

Mass surveillance is not suited to analyze data of a very small number of people: it would be like finding needles in haystacks. I think instead they want to hide the somber truth: their failure. They had dossiers on some of the terrorists, but failed to connect the dots: that’s the reality. All the rest is just an excuse for not having identified the tracks.

Facts: many of the Paris attackers lived in the same area, even the same house. They didn’t need to text each others’ and even IF, they were speaking a Moroccan dialect police didn’t understand. Intelligence failed. Period!

This year files containing security information of more than 20 million Americans have been stolen by hackers: this is weaken encryption. I didn’t hear them calling for even weaker defence in that case. How strange!

Though, I’m recalling one thing: a website offering to download a software to decrypt WhatsApp. It must have been a fake, “probably”?

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Kids and terrorism

Yesterday I read a very worrying, disturbing, somber tweet: a twelve yrs old boy was talking about ISIS without getting the tragedy of it. Tweeting something like: stuff happens, so what? Which reminded me of a politician, by the way. I didn’t understand it. At all.

But then, considering how often we’ve seen the coverage of Paris’ attacks, I realized that for a kid could be possible to lose touch with reality. They’re home all day and that’s what they’re broadcasting 24/7. Unlimited TV time, all day long, as many kids. Eventually some of them consider it as the normality.

There’s a lack of communication with his parents, obviously. How to cope with this problem? Talking about it, first of all.

They live with us, not on any other planet. Nevertheless, if adults don’t comprehend, just imagine children. Why carry out an attack, if they were going to kill themselves afterward? Will they come back? Why killing innocent people? Were other children killed? Are we safe here? Will we die and who were the people who died? Very simple questions with very complicated answers to be fully accepted by youngsters. So complicate they should be handled by a psychoanalyst.

And I am not a psychoanalyst. But I thought about a couple of things. You can tell them about the tragedies of life, in general and according to their age. Teach them not to hate others because of terrorists: thank God they’re just a very small minority. Talk them about life, which is not simple at all. Teach them not to judge different people. First of all not to fear other religions: this has nothing to do with religion. Teach them what real terror is (wars), not what madness is.

Most of all: ONE thing they utterly must not do: watching these events on TV alone all day long. That’s not reality, that’s perversion. They’ll have plenty of time to learn about perversion, to learn about fearing a 5 years old refugee boy, to fear the need of having a home, to learn about our sinful world and atrocities of this world, to fear the dignity of starving people leaving their countries because of war, not because they’re terrorists as rendered on TV.

Just talk to them with honesty and sincerity (don’t let them learn through perverted networks).That will be enough because they’re young, but understand everything: so much more than adults, wherefore they’re still pure.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Terror! (2nd part)

I wasn’t going to talk about it again. At least not for a few days. Today I am not going to post my usual daily “quote”, I’m really not in the mood. This afternoon I saw the identical obsession about Paris on the network I usually watch: I’m beginning to wonder how long it will last. I don’t want to minimize, on the contrary. But we must be very careful in not giving the wrong-headed responses to terrorism. I don’t mean France should withdraw from the international effort against ISIS, I don’t mean there aren’t peacemakers. But on the other hand it’s also wrong to exacerbate the problem declaring the only answer is tougher language, tougher action, even accusing refugees. The crisis must be alleviated, not aggravated.

Not because I’m saying it, but because we already know what happens if we follow that tragic path. Try to achieve total security (impossible) by eliminating all threats (impossible) only makes things worse. 9/11 = invasion of Iraq = a Country destroyed = tribal wars = total mess = rise of ISIS = Paris. Maybe written this way is clear enough.

Exploit terrorism, refugees and Paris for political gain, kill more civilians along the way to put it into practice, isn’t very clever: it just do wonders for terrorists, which are ALREADY thanking that particular network because it’s playing into their hands. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization (as I said in part one), but global warming will! There are other issues to talk about. Thank God now the President is Obama and not “someone” else.

Again, not because I’m saying it (a poor nescient), wherefore the damage is already done: America is shutting doors to refugees, fear is spreading, proud traditions abandoned, generosity disappeared, international credibility lost, moral authority thrown away. Why?! It was once a nation of courageous people. Refugees don’t want to leave their Country, they have no choice and America is making them the enemy: have terrorists achieved their goals with just a fake passport stolen to a real, poor refugee? Oh my! Oh my! Is that easy?! Facts count, facts. Not speculations.

They want to divide the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. Between defenders and attackers of Islam. Whereas we are SO much better! 

What is the goal of terrorists, why do we call them that way? To inspire terror. I’M NOT terrorized. Parisians ARE NOT. Stop broadcasting terror 24/7: don’t let them win.

….Always humble,

Angiolino