Pray for Charlie

Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard is a wonderful 10-month-old baby. He suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage – yet, he’s not terminally ill. However, he’s in danger of dying: not (only) from his disease, though, but because of a bunch of English doctors and judges who claim that killing him (against his parents’ will!) is more ethical than let him live.

That’s not even euthanasia: it’s eugenics, it’s the arrogance of Man demanding to stand as God, to be entitled to choose those who deserve to live and those who don’t. It’s like a horrible mirroring of ancient practices, which we all hoped to be extinct: like the Spartan custom of abandoning the unfit newborns on the slopes of Taygetus – or throwing them into a chasm of the mountain.

Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the doctors to keep Charlie alive until its final judgement (just a little common sense: what’s the point of deciding on someone’s life, if he’s already been killed?!). Yet, the European judges didn’t indicate the day of this final judgement, just ensuring “the utmost urgency” to treat the application, as a spokesperson said.

I can’t even imagine what Chris Gard and Connie Yates – Charlie’s parents – are going through. They’re fighting a battle to win what should be the most natural thing in the world – their baby’s right to live. They know there’s an experimental treatment in the U.S.: it’s dangerous, but it may be Charlie’s last hope. That’s why Chris and Connie have raised £1.3m on a crowdfunding site to pay for the therapy trial: yet, last April a British High Court judge ruled against the journey, saying that Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.

To this, lawyers representing Chris and Connie respond by saying that parents should be free to make decisions about their children’s treatment unless any proposed treatment poses a risk of significant harm.

It’s amazing how deeply the prophets of Evil care about an innocent child’s death – and how many useful idiots are following them like puppy dogs. How nice it would be if as much energy were devoted to Life and Good!

We’ve got just prayer on our side – but prayer can change History. Let’s pray for Charlie, therefore. Let’s pray for Chris and Connie. And let’s pray for the European judges: so that their judgement can be wise and enlightened, and they can reject Death, and choose Life instead.

#PrayforCharlie

 

Star-spangled hypocrisy

Bandiera USA

Just out of curiosity: is the Obama who (without any evidence) complains about alleged Russian interference in the campaign for the US presidential elections, the same Obama who intrudes in the Italian campaign for the constitutional referendum, on December, 4th?

Was Hobbes right? A reflection on the Social Networks

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes stated in the 17th century that, before human societies were established, a state of nature existed, characterized by the war of all against all. Savage and brutal creatures used to wander through the world with no rules nor laws, only obedient to the instincts of self-preservation and oppression. Homo homini lupus.

Nowadays, this state (which is merely hypothetical anyway) would no longer exist, thanks to the establishment of modern societies. Yet, something may have survived. Something much more real than a speculation.

I refer to the Social Networks. A virtual world with no rules – nor, if they existed, they could be enforced. Anonymity, as a matter of fact, has become a guarantee of impunity, to the point that it’s possible to insult, to slander, to bully anyone for any wretched reason (today, those who dare reasoning against the ruling single thought are particularly targeted); in the worst cases, it can even lead an innocent victim to get rid of persecution in the only, atrocious way which in that moment seems feasible. With no consequences for the craven.

Private wish must rise to a right publicly acknowledged, and man, who’s a wolf to another man, becomes god to himself.

Neither reputation nor prestige is worth anymore. Mass media have been induced a levelling to mediocrity for decades, and now this process is being accompanied by the arrogance which claims every opinion must be equally valued – the one of an expert and the one of an ignorant.

In the near future, the excellent ones will be ostracized just like Hermodorus, banished from Ephesus because his fellow-citizens didn’t want anyone to be outstanding in their homeland.

Hobbes could never provide an effective explanation of how such beastly beings could make the Covenant which was to lead to the origin of modern societies. Whatever happened, we just can hope the process may be replicated – and well soon.

Because too many rules are rarely good. But the anarchy, the absence of laws is bad, it’s always been, and always will be.

An inconvenient truth

Elezione Benedetto XVI

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon […]. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name (Revelation 13, 11; 16-17).

 

Few people know what SWIFT is (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication): it’s supposed to be a world “clearing house”, which joins 10.500 banks (by 215 Countries) together. Actually, it’s the most concealed and unquestionable centre of the global – and internationalist – financial power, the source of the blackmail to the dollar hegemony; it constitutes the most powerful means of economic and political spying (especially to the detriment of the Europeans), and, above all, the most dreadful means which allow global finance to overwhelm the States which dare rebelling against it.

When a bank or a Nation is thrown out of the SWIFT system, all transactions are stopped. This is the kind of threat Russia faced after the annexation of Crimea, but Moscow responded by establishing, together with China, an alternative financial circuit, extended to the other BRICS Countries and operating through yuan and roubles.

However, not everyone is strong enough to oppose such diktats. In early 2013, a violent campaign was triggered against the Institute for the Works of Religion (Italian, IOR), the “Vatican Bank”: a campaign which had as its armed wing, among others, the Italian magistracy, always obsequious to power.

A blackmail, orchestrated through SWIFT by someone who was plotting in the shadows, for never revealed reasons – but, perhaps, they can be guessed in the light of what happened later.

In February, 2013, treacherously and arbitrarily, the IOR was thrown out of SWIFT. All payments were impossible to the Vatican, the Church was suddenly treated as a “terrorist” State (actually, even worse, since the banks fallen into the ISIS’ hands in Iraq and Syria are still part of the SWIFT system), and Vatican finance could no longer pay the nunciatures nor convey money to the missions – indeed, even the ATMs in Vatican City had been blocked. It was the Church’s economic ruin.

And then, like a bolt from the blue, on February 11th, Benedict XVI announced his resignation. Pope Ratzinger, a brave and tireless defender of the Faith against the ruling secularization and relativism, the Pope who would have never allowed Peter’s Boat to submit to the will of the great internationalist powers, sacrificed himself to let the Mystical Body of Christ survive.

Resignation under duress, or so it would seem… And, perhaps, Benedict XVI’s very declaration may support this scenario. As pointed out by Latinist Luciano Canfora, His Holiness’ original (i.e. Latin) message contained some embarrassing grammatical mistakes, such as the lack of the case concord. A literate man, a man of culture, a man of such an intellectual culture as Joseph Ratzinger is would have never made similar blunders. Which makes very likely that the text was read, but not written by the Holy Father. So much for the motu proprio.

And – coincidentally – just after Benedict XVI’s difficult announcement, SWIFT unfroze Vatican transactions, opened ATMs again, rehabilitated the IOR.

Why did it do this? Did it have a kind of guarantee about the course of the subsequent Conclave? And why didn’t it simply let the Catholic Church fail – an institution which would have hardly yielded to the worldly and internationalist ideologies?

One possible answer is disquieting. SWIFT may have acted this way to get the mental control of believers. Because, if it could, somehow, guide the Vatican policy (by even leading, possibly, so-called doctrinal openings), it would get a most powerful – and hidden – tool of persuasion.

And it seems that ancient words can echo again – words said by Pilate standing in front of Jesus Christ. What is truth?

Perhaps, the false lamb with the power to starve and stop, so that “no man might buy or sell” without the mark in his hand or forehead, was showing itself, although staying in the dark. The world – and its Prince – had won another battle.

Those who remained, those who weren’t going to give up, were anyway given a simple but powerful comfort. Jesus Christ’s promise. Non praevalebunt.

 

The lesson of the old Syracusan woman

Renzi - Berlusconi - Grillo

In the late Twenties of last century, the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel, while analysing (in Kollektive Demokratie) the progressive erosion of Parliament’s powers in the Weimar Republic – which soon after would have resulted in the Nazi dictatorship -, traced it back to the excessive power which the magistrature had unilaterally arrogated to itself, through the interpretation of the judicature by the judges and the establishment of would-be “basic principles” which had to assure the judicial control over the activity of the Reichstag.

Maybe someone will see a parallelism with the current situation in Italy. Where a Government of judges (hyper-politicized and hyper-ideologized), backed by a ruling and equally gallows-obsessed mediacracy, has been for a long time engaged in a work of de-legitimizing all those who are regarded as its political enemies.

Then, sure, the so called representatives of the people are doing their very best to make their image match with the one conveyed by the mass media – a representation at this point rooted in the citizens also on account of the connivance of would-be anti-system movements which are part of the system, indeed (besides being afflicted by chronic incompetence).

An aphorism attributed to former Italian Premier Alcide De Gasperi says that “a politician looks to the next election; a statesman looks to the next generation. A politician thinks about the success of his party; the statesman about the success of his Country”.

The problem of the Italian ruling class is that it has such a shortsighted vision that it can’t contextualize not the long or even the short period, but neither the same scene unwinding before its eyes.

A State which almost by magic becomes aware of chronic problems only when they turn into authentic tragedies (as in the case of immigration, although here there’s a shared responsibility with the EU, as well as with other institutions whom Alberico Gentile’s injunction should be spontaneously told: Silete in munere alieno!); which prefers ideology to the citizens’ welfare (and accuses of populism those who, giving voice to their needs, try to embody the solutions); which, when atavistic troubles (like smoking or hooliganism) reveal themselves to it, places the interest of the lobbies before the benefit of the community – and yet, on account of the obsession for the pillory and of the scapegoat syndrome, it gives the illusion of doing its best to eradicate the bad habits (while being actually aware of the uselessness of the risk phrases written on cigarette packets or of the barriers imposed in the Stadio Olimpico in Rome).

The analysis regards those who are in power (being never-elected, but that’s becoming a ruinous habit in Italy), but also the members of the opposition. It’s normal that the minority wants to do everything to overthrow the Premier in office. But the Centre-Right doesn’t seem to catch a crucial aspect of the contingent historical moment: the fact that the continued de-legitimization of the Executive, which it actively contributes to, dangerously threatens to move the electoral axis to the anti-politics.

As a matter of fact, in the most widespread vision, the “traditional” parties are united in the system, a kind of original sin which only a force would be free of – the one which made anti-politics its reason for existence: the Five Star Movement.

That’s why the biggest mistake the Centre-Right can make is trying to bring down the current Government without identifying an alternative, first of all. Otherwise, two scenarios open up, both terrifying: if we should vote with the pure proportional system (the so called Consultellum), the situation of ungovernability would come back, which had been typical of the First Republic for fifty years; if instead, as it seems likely, the election should happen with the Italicum, the result would be a second ballot between the would-be Democratic Party and the incompetent “Five Stars”.

In both cases, the risk is a dictatorship, albeit masked. The same outcome which resulted from the Weimar Republic crisis.

Then, perhaps, it’s not a nonsense to wish the Executive a long life, like the old Syracusan woman prayed for tyrant Dionysius’ health, fearing he would be replaced by an even worse despot.

Because it’s true, as Winston Churchill said, that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”, and it’s certainly true that democracy is the worst of the possible forms of “benign” Government. But the dictatorship is the worst form of Government ever.

An Executive created through a Palace trick, which clings to turncoats and traitors, which is sick of “announcementitis” and doesn’t give then what it promised at that time (Giacomo Leopardi, A Silvia) is not the best one, definitely. But it could be the last spasm of a sick and agonizing democracy. Let’s hope not to be forced, in a not so distant future, to remember it regretfully.