24 October 2012

Letter from Lhasa, number 290.
Les Enfants du Diable

Letter from Lhasa, number 290. Les Enfants du Diable
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Petit, J.-P., Les Enfants du Diable. La guerre que nous préparent les scientifiques, Albin Michel, France, 1995. 
(Petit 1995).
Jean-Pierre Petit

Jean-Pierre Petit, born on 5 April 1937, was a researcher and a research director by the French CNRS. This book was commanded him from a French publisher. Finally, since the heretic contents of the book, the publisher was obliged from some irresistible entity, very likely from the French State/government (specifically from the militarist complex), not to publish it, in 1986.

In 1995, evidently it was not judged anymore a danger and it was published from Albin Michel. Knowledge is too a sensible matter for permitting people knowing anything about actual reality. ...At least, this seems the point of view of States/governments, which are controlled from ignorant and paranoid louses fearful about everything and everybody.

As Petit quotes: “...en matière de recherche, c'est parfois plus une question de courage que d'intelligence.” (Petit 1995, p. 14). ...The courage to see and report what is evident.

The author presents various matters.

In (Petit 1995), there is an interesting and reliable historical reconstruction of the creation and usage of the first atomic bombs. Their usage, for bombing Japan, was a mix of bureaucratic cynicisms and dynamics, with the accessory purpose to warn Soviet Union, then an Anglo-American ally. There was no military need and Japan was ready to capitulate. The surrender conditions, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not worse than Japan was previously ready to accept. The two bombardments were just experiments about the precise effects of such weapons of mass destruction, and also an exhibition of power in front of the Soviet sub-Empire just created in Europe.      

This book also shows as Soviet poor laboratories were not less advanced than the costly Western ones, because they stimulated original solutions for overcoming the disposable limited means. Soviet science and technology combined with imagination and custom to improvise. Also China was considerably more advanced than satellite espionage could detect.   

(Petit 1995) underlines that the exploded atomic bombs have contaminated the whole earth producing a great number of abnormal individuals, even if that tend to be denied by current propaganda whose purpose is just to reassure people about the actual biological risk. 

Oppenheimer had a relevant role in the creation of the first atomic bombs. The Oppenheimer case (his security clearance was suspended on 21 December 1953; it was later revoked), made up from the FBI-CIA, was a warning to the scientific world to be just obedient louses of the US government, specifically of the US military. Julius Robert Oppenheimer (22 April 1904..18 February 1967) had headed the Manhattan Project, which developed the U.S. atomic bomb during World War II. In 1954, he was submitted to a McCarthyist trial. It was a common case of U.S. government hysteria.

As a result of this 1954 inquiry by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, his security clearance was revoked a bit before his government consultant contract was due to expire. Although he resulted as unusually discreet relatively to atomic secrets, he was apodictically labelled as a security risk. He had some occasional moral scruple, perhaps. Albeit, according to (Petit 1995, p. 156, p. 168), he was similar to Mengele. Basically, he was perhaps ‘guilty’ of campaigning for international arms control and for avoiding arms race. He had become a U.S. State/government target to be purged.  

Directed-energy weapons are not a new, nowadays, discovery:
“Dans cette fin des années soixante-dix des rumeurs commencèrent à circuler, concernant la possibilité de l'existence de projets nouveaux, liés à des progrès réalisés en matière de lasers et de canons à électrons. En France, les spécialistes accueillirent ces nouvelles avec un sourire amusé. Je le souviens en particulier d'experts militaires qui avaient déclaré sur un plateau de télévision:
“- Une guerre dans l'espace, à coup de lasers ? Vous n'y pensez pas ! Les missiles et les ogives sont des cibles minuscules, dont la dimension est de l'ordre du mètre. Viser de telles cibles à des distances de plusieurs milliers de kilomètres, cela représente une précision d'un microradian. Autant viser une tête d'épingle à un kilomètre !
“Avec un fusil, certes, c'est problématique. Mais militaires ne sont pas astronomes. Ce que ces olibrius ignoraient c'est que le premier télescope venu, implanté au sol, a des capacités de visée déjà supérieures, sinon on ne pourrait pas faire d'astronomie.
“A l'Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale, les nouvelles continuaient d'arriver, que les experts accueillaient avec incrédulité. On pouvait lire, pêle-mêle, ques des satellites Américains, spécialisés dans l'observation du sol, dans la gamme de l'infrarouge ( pour détecter les départs de fusées ) aurait été aveuglés par des tirs laser émanant de stations basées sur le territoire Soviétique. D'autres parlaient de mystérieuses stations de tir orbitales, alimentées par des générateurs MHD à explosifs (celles que j'avais étudiées à l'Institut de Mécanique des Fluides de Marseille dans les années soixante-dix ), équipées d'un "canon à protons".”
(Petit 1995, p. 156).

People always do not believe what is not consistent with their belief system. If even supposedly informed scientists do that, one may imagine why common people may be even easier manipulated about whatever. (Petit 1995) underlines that the large majority of scientists and para-scientists did not believe many achievements would have been possible and even a part of those who knew they would have been possible claimed (eventually just as a moral justification) that nobody would have ever really used them. 

In addition to laser technology and its military utilization, the author describes the rapid advancement of the missile and nuclear sectors, and the ideas for their devastating war usage. In his book, he describes what is now perhaps hypothesized for an attack to Iran, the explosion of atomic bombs at high altitude (100 km) with the consequent frying of all the electric and electronic devices of the underlying area. A mini bomb would be sufficient for that. In alternative to atomic bombs, plasma weapons perhaps can be used or will be used if this technology is sufficiently developed. The (Petit 1995) description of the effects of a high altitude atomic bomb perfectly fit what has been let recently to know about the planned electric and electronic annihilation of Iran before being bombarded in its sensible targets.     

(Petit 1995) reports of a 1983 paper of two Russian scientists, Alexandrov and Stenchikov, on the consequences of an atomic war and the following nuclear winter would have erased all life in this planet. In practice, there would be no survivors in the whole planet (apart from those who could live in total isolation, as in a spatial capsule, for a long time), since the direct destructions and the following ‘winter’, which would suppress all previous life. The author of this book sent a translation of this paper to the main French media. Nobody published anything. Only later, there was some limited reaction, some limited interest, to his attempts.

In 1983, Alexandrov already knew of an antimatter bomb. An antimatter bomb would be very powerful and without radioactive wastes, so a clean bomb. Such a bomb would have infinite power. Alexandrov disappeared in Madrid, in 1985. Alexandrov was just a meteorologist, although well informed about weapons of mass destruction (antimatter bomb included) since his scientific interests and his good connections also in the USA. He had anyway no secret to ‘sell’ to Americans, and no propensity to defect, while ha had banally discovered something contradicted the militarist complex interests and paranoia: how any arms race was useless. His paper showed that. It may be he had just known something he should not and that this put in some very serious alarm the US or connected government. 

He was kidnapped in front of his hotel, in Madrid, and he simply disappeared. In the opinion of (Petit 1995), he was immediately or nearly immediately assassinated. Only a CIA (or British) Death Squad, with Spanish cover, could do such an operation in Madrid. Or also a Spanish government Death Squad on foreign request (Spain had no direct interest in assassinating him!). Not casually, the Spanish police did not show any interest to investigate his disappearance (on the contrary it showed its interest not to investigate, so it had been deactivated from a Spanish irresistible Secret Police) and some imaginative and absolutely unreliable disinformation was occasionally diffused about his disappearance. Apart from that, even noisier was the nearly absolute silence on this case. No media showed any interest to investigate on it. A too curious Spanish secret agent tried to know something was assassinated in a parking. Since there are bureaucratic procedures in these matters, it is probable the US (or British) government contacted the Soviet one, and got or bought its agreement for his CIA (or British) assassination. Finally, he was only a sociable meteorologist having touched untouchable US (or British) militarist complex interests. 

Plasma weapons use high-energy ionized gas. Their destructive power would be considerably superior to nuclear weapons. According to (Petit 1995, p. 221), 100 gram antimatter would be equivalent to 4000 megaton TNT. By a unique bomb, it would be possible to destroy the whole earth’s life. The only problem would be to synthesize such a quantity of antimatter. According to (Petit 1986, p. 223), such a bomb would be operative, in the USA, since 1985. Consequently this problem would have been solved.    

This work is a compelling firsthand testimony on the scientific world. Also the scientific annexes of (Petit 1995) are very useful and interesting.  

Petit, J.-P., Les Enfants du Diable. La guerre que nous préparent les scientifiques, Albin Michel, France, 1995. 

Letter from Lhasa, number 289.
Stop Stealing Dreams

Letter from Lhasa, number 289. Stop Stealing Dreams
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Godin, S., Stop Stealing Dreams. What is school for?, 2012. 
(Godin 2012).
Seth Godin

This work is a kind of Illuminist manifesto full of good ideas and inevitably partial as whatever essay on education. 

The educational system (as, for instance, the health system and the military) has followed the usual pattern of bureaucratic proliferation, exponentially growing without any connection with people and economy’s needs and without any real sustainability.  

Education is centred on obedience and conformism. Should and could it teach disobedience and a-conformism. It should, but how? What are reasonable doubt, risk-taking, bravery etc? Is it possible to teach them?

For (Godin 2012), school destroys dreams. Is school or life to destroy dreams? Can real dreams be destroyed?

For (Godin 2012), school should amplify dreams and inculcate passions. Can dreams be amplified and passions inculcated? Which passions, the passions of a teacher or professor?  

It is certainly true that competence be indispensable, however it is not necessarily enemy of change. Routines and a routinary way of thinking are enemies of change. Just do not put people thinking or operating in a routinary way in ‘innovation departments’...

For (Godin 2012), a great teacher wants to communicate emotions, not just facts. Actually, a person may be great orator, transmit emotions and to be listened with pleasure from his/her students and not to be a good teacher if one cannot transmit what is reputed to transmit. Manipulators and cheaters are generally skilful in communicating emotions even if, of course, not everybody communicating emotions necessarily be a manipulator and a cheater. 

It is certainly true that a teacher should coach. While it seems more doubtful that everybody could be transformed in a creative leader instead of remaining a happy obedient servant.

About the so-called ‘freedom of teaching’ one should define what precisely be. It is frequently typical of undeveloped and under-developing areas. It does not make them more developed and competitive.

‘Freedom of teaching’ can be a chance and a limit at the same time. It can become the cover to indoctrination from a teacher, because also where there is the ‘freedom of teaching’, or where it is claimed there is, there are curricula for each subject. Finally, ‘freedom of teaching’ is some ideological/political freedom while a teacher should teach in the most aseptic way, more concerned with improving student learning mechanisms, the cultural and spiritual development of the student, etc than with transmitting teacher’s personal (ideological/political) values.

‘Freedom of teaching’ became a great mystification of underdeveloped and under-developing areas. On the contrary, the previous knowledge of the contents of the provided services (a certain course, the services provided from a certain teacher or professor) is a consumer/student guarantee for not wasting time and energies in something not wanted from the student-customer. Even that is not so easy because a lot of people attend educational institution not precisely for knowing more, but overall for a formal certification where the need of eventually acquiring some skill and the parallel need of acquiring a formal certification variously combine. There are career advancements needing only education formal certifications. There are job supposing that at least some ‘technical’ education correspond to a formal certification. Various forms of learning-by-doing characterize working places, jobs, professions. Nowadays, formal education tends to be overvalued while there are other ways of acquiring and transmitting skills.    

According to (Godin 2012, p. 115), the hacker mentality can be taught. In a general way, everything can be taught even if it be impossible to know actually from whom and from what, and what is learned of what is taught. People skills and behaviours are the outcome of mysterious chemical combinations.

How not to agree with that: “Isn’t that our most important job: to raise a generation of math hackers, literature hackers, music hackers and life hackers?” (Godin 2012, p. 115). However, why to do that? A lot of people have no interest in excelling in anything or would like to excel but without studying and hard working for excelling.

Everywhere, there is a lot of courses and classes about personal development. They supposedly teach creativity and excellence too. Is it really possible to teach that? Do creative and outstanding persons really teach other people how to become creative and outstanding? Or they are just good businesses providing some positive suggestion and showing some possibility to unsecure or simply curious people.

Also States/governments sometimes declare they like and wish innovators. Acritical and obedient, conformist and submitted, but ‘innovators’. It is sufficiently ridiculous. They are absolutely ridiculous, ...while real innovators are regularly lynched and assassinated from States/governments and connected interests.  

The passion for something is not necessarily competence in something. One would need determination too, for achieving competence. Obedience could actually surrogate passion, if there is determination. It is not true that a genius be necessarily more competent and successful than a determined mediocre person. It depends on other various factors.   

“When access to information was limited, we needed to load students up with facts. Now, when we have no scarcity of facts or the access to them, we need to load them up with understanding.” (Godin 2012, p. 143). Overall do not assume that there be everything online, if you are not capable to find and use what you need when you need it. Yes, people need understanding and a way to build paths of understanding and for understanding. If facts or supposed facts, notions, are not inside your head too, it is useless to abstractly know ‘understanding’.  

For (Godin 2012), subjects connected with problem solving are not taught in traditional schools. For (Godin 2012), one should teach how to learn not how to become perfect.

Perfection may be an aspect of conformism, although it be a solid base for further achievements too. Real people make the difference. Perfection is not a defect. Perfectionism may be a problem while dealing with reality’s imperfection.

Universities sell degrees not necessarily education. Employers frequently need to minimize risks. A McDonalds certainly feel safer if you are a university student or a graduate instead of an illiterate chap from a slum. Goldman Sachs too.  

How to fix school in twenty-four hours? (Godin 2012, p. 187).
“Don’t wait for it. Pick yourself. Teach yourself. Motivate your kids. Push them to dream, against all odds.” (Godin 2012, p. 187).

“When we teach a child to make good decisions, we benefit from a lifetime of good decisions.
“When we teach a child to love to learn, the amount of learning will become limitless.
“When we teach a child to deal with a changing world, she will never become obsolete.
“When we are brave enough to teach a child to question authority, even ours, we insulate ourselves from those who would use their authority to work against each of us.
“And when we give students the desire to make things, even choices, we create a world filled with makers.”
(Godin 2012, p. 188).
You should also teach your children and student to become invisible because a chap educated in this way would be immediately selected from a CIA-SIS-military computerized program for being liquidated, perhaps even physically by a drone. ...Do not hope that a President, or a Queen/King, or a Prime minister, does not sign the liquidation decree!

Actually, everybody reacts in different way to indoctrination, to whatever taught, to learning processes and how to approach life. Consequently, education produces different results according to different people. One can create a favourable environment for certain values or attitudes one wish to transmit. Later, each student interacts in different ways with this environment. Or would Godin like to replace the current totalitarian vision with another totalitarian vision reputed as the right one?   

Finally, there is the usual question: who does teach whom and how? Geniuses do not become teachers... In addition, frequently geniuses are not good teachers. In the same universities there is a lot of geniuses. Generally, they do not know how to teach. Certainly, one could find some technique for making mediocre teachers and professors transmitting a more useful education.

And we would be again to the original question: who and what would need more critic and innovative people? Perhaps the spontaneous production of them is already more than sufficient.  

Godin, S., Stop Stealing Dreams. What is school for?, 2012. 

Letter from Lhasa, number 288.
L'insurrection qui vient ... mais sans aller nulle part!

Letter from Lhasa, number 288. L'insurrection qui vient ... mais sans aller nulle part!
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Comité invisible, L'insurrection qui vient, La fabrique éditions, Paris, France, 2007. 
(Comité invisible 2007).
Comité invisible

This essay is literary elegant, with the usage of paradoxical language and skilful employ of apocalyptic expressions. However, one needs to rationally analyse the contents of a work.

It may be true that present times are hopeless ...for people not wanting or not been able to change their daily lives. In addition, whatever nihilist or insurrectionalist political manifesto needs to claim that it be the end of times. Anyway, also hopeless situations tend to reproduce themselves, even infinitely. It is easy to confuse one’s own attitude or state of mind with external conditions.

Very rarely there are stagnant situations without any possible way out. Reality changes also without hope, which is just a psychological posture. ‘Hopeless’ people just contemplate, and sometimes exploit, other people improvements, or, simply, marginalize themselves.    

People [claimed] autonomy, but with French Jacobeans rhetoric, evidences a discomfort without imagining and practicing any solution to it. It is a reality that State/government has destroyed society and sociality. There is nothing to do. State is the louses’ kingdom with the worst louses as rulers. However, that does not represent the end of times.   

There is no solution to this society’s destruction, if not perhaps in old religions if they could be really autonomous from State what nowadays they are not. Even if these old, or also new, religions, traditions, have their drawbacks when they try to create they alternatives to the current orders.  

We have now referred to ‘society’ with the meaning of ‘civil society’, frequently used as something different and opposed to ‘political society’, alias State/government. The distinction is more theoretical than with solid bases in reality. They can be seen as two different and sometimes opposed kinds of society and sociality, while actually civil society largely depends on State/government.

The autonomous self-organization of private interests is something more imagined or wished than really happening. And State/government is another form of society and sociality. Even without any State/government, whatever self-organization of private interests would rapidly evolve in State/government for the simple reason that ‘democracy’ would not be sustainable, people are not equal and ‘democracy’ does not solve any problem. Whatever executive structure becomes a policy maker, not only or overall a policy implementer, and frequently for its same interests, although making to believe some its own general and unsubstitutable function.

This is neither a solution to anything, nor a different society or sociality: “«Devenir autonome», cela pourrait vouloir dire, aussi bien: apprendre à se battre dans la rue, à s’accaparer des maisons vides, à ne pas travailler, à s’aimer follement et à voler dans les magasins.” (Comité invisible 2007, p. 26). It would be only a form of parasitism, as a lot of other options, relatively to the current reality and without any innovation or improvement relatively to it. That may be a necessity, some momentary reaction, not the creation of something different from the stigmatized order or regime.  

It is a classic anarchist myth of the Workers Autonomy to be ‘against the work’. It is a consequence of opulent economies, where intensive working is less and less explicable, although people, from the other side, need motivations, to reach achievements, to feel active and sometimes important. An imposed work is, for the large majority, a very good motivation, the motivation of accumulating wealth or, simply, of bills and bills to be paid.   

This same manifesto tells that the same French State/government detests capitalism, entrepreneurs, because it wound like to control and, if possible, suppress whatever residual autonomous ‘civil society’ so even the private economic world, formally private entrepreneurship: “Les managers, leurs moeurs et leur littérature ont beau parade en public, il reste autour d’eux un cordon sanitaire de ricanement, un océan de mépris, une mer de sarcasmes. L’entrepreneur ne fait pas partie de la famille. À tout prendre, dans la hiérarchie de la détestation, on lui préfère le flic. Être fonctionnaire reste, contre vents et marées, contre golden boys et privatisations, la définition entendue du bon travail.” (Comité invisible 2007, p. 28).

If the same French ‘bourgeois order’ detests private entrepreneurs, French communists, anarchists, far-rightists etc work for their claimed enemies. They are their cultural by-product.

...Do you understand why France is genetically inferior to the Anglophone area where some economic autonomy is neither opposed nor simply tolerated? On the contrary, economic autonomy is there encouraged from and functionalised to the Crown for its fiscal extraction and for its same Imperial policies.

As the authors show, to whatever element of strength and power of a certain order corresponds new weaknesses. Technology is power and, at the same time, new weaknesses. As common to the other ‘subversives’, they avoid to evidence that that ‘diabolic’ technologized order frequently has in key positions, even in the repressive ones, idiots. Geniuses invent and produce, while idiots are in charge of the system. And those who are not idiot need to simulate to be such, and to behave as such, for not being fired. There is a totalitarian system but without heart and without brain, acephalus. What means that frequently, not always, individual actions and perceptions determine this system actions and reactions.

For instance, instead of affirming themselves in some way outside this totalitarian system, there are people consciously or de facto acting in ways activating this system against them. One may claim to pursue one’s own autonomy while de facto pursuing only one’s own dependency.      

Reality always is a representation, overall for States/governments inventing, imposing, their legitimacy. The legitimacy of State/government is not formal democracy. Whatever State/government, whatever regime, has general elections ...even the UK-USA! General elections are just shows for testing how people are impotent and subordinated. The legitimacy of a State/government is the imposition of the belief that it provide some public good. Since that, State/government invented useless wars, criminality etc.

By creating insecurity in hidden ways, a State/government shows it provides some solution, some security. ...Creating a problem è Providing a pseudo-solution è Creating other problems è Creating other pseudo-solutions for showing you (State/government) are indispensable. The nowadays fiscal crisis (it is not the first one in the world history) derives from bureaucratic proliferations determined from useless ‘services’, wars and ‘security’.

If you State/government do not want anymore wars, stop creating and fighting them! If you State/government do not want anymore terrorism, stop creating and managing it! If you State-government do not want any more organized criminality, stop creating and managing it! ...Unmask that if you want to do something perhaps useful but without any illusion you can change anything. It is more probable everything implode since unsustainability, although there rarely are necessary outcomes. Even unsustainability can self-organize in new, unknown, forms, without any necessary collapse.

The positivist (pseudo-Marxian) vision of a theoretically linear development of societal forms has no real foundation. Historical research shows that even a precise characterization of different social orders be arduous and frequently impossible. Physics’ determinist and reversible systems, and chaos theories, provide considerable more tolls for societal analysis and representation than positivist (pseudo-Marxian) visions of necessary developments.

Power uses the domination tools it needs. Sense-making, storytelling, has no connection with what happens at structural level. Basically, structural levels are combinations of tools without any concern for whatever labelling of them. ...Engels was just a wealthy uncomfortable chap, making sense of his discomfort telling and writing that his problems were historical problem... Those have been called ‘socio-economic formation’ are just scholastic formalisms without any connection with reality. Reality shows a permanent and changing combination of characteristics that scholastic visions have attributed to the various ‘socio-economic formations’. There are technological changes. There are not qualitative jumps, ruptures, cleavages, in the field of socio-economic relations. If one deeply investigated the real difference between feudal (or even slave) and bourgeois orders, usually considered so different, one could not find any real opposition. Appearances, more than forms, change, not substance. About that, tale telling paradigms, ideologies, have been created, not really science permitting societal understanding. What has been called bourgeoisie has created theories about its difference, novelty and superiority, so it has created its ideological ‘enemies’ ...actually working for it! 

No regime changes because ‘wrong’ or because people want to collapse it, not even because its structural level need to break current social structures (basically the same through the ages). The concept of ‘people’ is an abstraction and a deception. People are manipulated from the same few really in power. What current propaganda calls ‘revolutions’ are manipulation from internal and world powers. The so mythicized Russian 1917 one was a work of the German military intelligence and, later, Soviet Russia was taken over from the Anglo-Americans for freezing key parts of Europe, Asia and Africa. If one prefers to believe in tales, ...no problem! However, all the theories of revolutions and counter-revolution have showed themselves as ideological syllogisms without any connection with reality. They were and are just propaganda for deceiving ignorant and naive people.

The proposal to create communes and to use these communes for living without working is an old illusion. Of course, if there are revenues it is possible to live without working... A bit later, this living without working becomes the need creating an alternative economy. Finally, this ‘alternative economy’ inevitably operates inside given orders. It is the impasse of all ‘alternative’ models. Inevitably, one creates another mini-State, absolutely similar to the one that one declares to fight, but claiming this ‘other State’ as alternative. ...No problem, if some people like to do that, ...however without any illusion to have solved any problem or to have overcome any order one declared to oppose, or to refuse, or to fight.  

The myth of secret and anonymous conspiracy and action is only useful for feeling as part of a diffused movement there is not. The vision of Communes, as basic unit of a partisan reality, there is in whatever statu nascenti and in whatever simulation of a statu nascenti.

The authors suggest insurrection as multiplication and coordination of communes. OK. And later? The outcome would be another State absolutely equal or even worse than the previous one, if one could realize what wished.

They exalt the 2006 Mexicane case of the Oaxaca State, a protest movement against a corrupted and repressive governor, and the Argentinean blockades. In practice, it is the classic myth of the insurrectionalist general strike. It is just a myth. In the quoted examples, nothing really alternative was built and could not be built. There are always small groups or intellectuals claiming of a going on revolution and later stigmatizing the failed and betrayed revolution, while real people mobilized for thousands of other reasons. The conditions of Mexico and Argentina are well known. So, such movements were expressions of deteriorated contexts without being alternative or solutions to them. They are temporary negations, destructions, not creative destructions for building something else.

The for-somebody-unpleasant truth is that all revolutions are lead from fractions of the same power they declare to assault. Actually, all revolutions take over the existing State/government ...for preserving it! They change the political form, more precisely political rhetoric, letting all the rest absolutely equal, eventually worsening it adding new clients to the old State/government structures.

People exalting ‘revolutions’ really should materialistically analyse the so-claimed ‘October Russian revolution’. It was a clandestine operation of the German Army intelligence for collapsing Russia, a war enemy. Since Russia was a strategic enemy of Western powers, also in the pre-WW1 phase whatever Russian ‘revolutionary’ was generously subsidized from Western power. Secret Police department used local social-democracies, and other parties or organizations, for doing that. If one wants materialistically analyze reality, one needs to track the money, in this case who funded ‘revolutionaries’. Of course, those who have been abundantly subsidized from Western powers, as Trotsky and Lenin were, do not like that. They love tale telling. 

This clandestine operation of the German Army intelligence was exploited from fractions of the Russian State/government, from Russian bureaucracies, for creating a war economy and so powerful Russian armed forces. Nevertheless the attempt to create a strong Russian bureaucratic State/government miserably failed on the long run. However the model was proposed again, only, now, under the form of a para-State private capitalism. There is now the advantage that the Russian State/government has not to provide to the needs of everybody and it can claim that problems depend on ‘markets laws’ while the post-KGB, alias real State/government, remains omnipotent. The ‘advantages’ for the Soviet/Russia people?! ...A pitiless and terrorist slavery! Between ‘reds’ and ‘whites’ no anarchist or other revolution would have been possible. Mutatis mutandis, it is everywhere, in whatever epoch, the same. ‘Revolutions’ are ex-post tale telling, ‘making-sense’, propaganda. As ‘democracy’ or ‘liberalizations’ are other tale telling. There is the usual fight of everybody against everybody under different tale telling, and some secondary different legal/formal frame and constraints.    

No problem, if some people like this kind of ‘activities’, although it be a sterile way, an impasse, a cul-de-sac, an agitation without any positive outcome. People liking this kind of activities are finally manipulated from power.

‘The alternative’?! Frequently there is no alternative. Accepting that there are no alternatives generally open minds and spirits to other personal and collective achievements and fulfilments. Oppressive powers spasmodically need ‘revolutionaries’, for manipulating them, for squeezing/exploiting and discarding/liquidating them, ...and going on using them even after having defeated and liquidated them. The cop needs the revolutionary and the criminal. If there are not, the cop invents, creates, them. Let the cop become useless. If one kills one cop, one legitimizes that one become ten. Let the cop become useless. ...If you can, you can use it as a gardener and as a cleaner.  

A very light State/government (something between “That government is best which governs least” and “That government is best which governs not at all”) would be the real innovation, what cannot be done by insurrectionalist assaults. Or perhaps it is just a libertarian dream. Anyway, modernization courses have no connection with what are called ‘revolutions’. They obey to different logic and they are the product of different contexts and dynamics. Actually, all the developmental [strong modernising] courses were generated and led from regimes the current political and politological vulgate would define as ‘reactionary’. Evidently they were not such, in certain or in many contexts. Is ‘reactionary’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘authoritarian’ what develops and ‘revolutionary’ what sinks everybody into underdevelopment? ...Nonsense... Reality cannot be seriously analysed and discussed by ideological/political frames, and by deceiving concepts.      

“Tout le pouvoir aux communes!”: what would be the difference relatively to the present order? If the police and the army become red or black, are they different from the ‘republican’ ones? Freedom is certainly a positive value. Historically, democracy has always exalted the worst sides of people. Not casually, in the Anglophone States/governments, the most efficient or the less inefficient in the last centuries, it is just an empty formality, a cover of something else.

Wherever there were or there are regimes of people’s democracy, they were and are more liberticidal than ‘fascist’ ones. It is a fact... Where is the improvement? ...And with spreading corruption and chronic economic depression, apart from phases of comprador development as the nowadays China which is not anyway an example of communalist or anarchist paradise. Permanent war economies as Soviet Russia and North Korea create open slavery, of course with privileged oligarchies inside as a big concentration camp.  

When Soviet Russia went through its forced industrialization, it was an industrialization for a permanent war economy so with no benefit for the large majority of the Russian people. Finally, this war economy was used for the needs of the British clash against Germany (while Russian interest would have been its integration with the German economy; England pushed it again Germany had to be attacked from Soviet Union on 1, or the first days of, July 1941) and, after WW2, for justifying the US arm race with the large majority of the Russian people going on starving. ...‘Communist’ or ‘socialism’ as indispensable complement of ‘capitalism’...

Sure, with “Tout le pouvoir aux communes!” would be different... They always tell that... Déjà vu!

People are always the same. The fact that they be not in office or power do not make them necessarily better than people in office or power. ‘People democracy’ is a pitiful illusion and it does not solve any problem. On the contrary it is the source of a lot of additional problems. Discussion and voting have never solver anything. They eventually are source of additional complications. These are fact, not preferences of who wrote these comments. Universities teach different things because they are just power agit-prop centres, about these matters. 

Indirectly, this work, this ‘libertarian’ manifesto, witnesses the stupidity of power, specifically of the French State/government. Until they are only literary declarations, there is no reason for any State/government alarm and repressive action. Only an obtuse State/government would use its intelligence and special units for hysterically chasing those who may have written it. It is without any justification making up cases for framing up suspects of these milieus. It is always silly and counterproductive to persecute and trying frame up people.

If this work represents some social problems and jacqueries, the point is the social problem and the jacqueries, alias some social disintegration which is not contrasted by repression. There are always intellectuals appropriating, making as theirs, jacqueries and casseurs having a source absolutely independent from them. This book is an intellectual operation after jacqueries/revolts it may be even triggered in various ways (manipulating criminality, for instance) from power, from State/government, for justifying a more aggressive and hysterical police State. 

This book is the consequence of something happened and of a climate State/government wanted to create. It is not and will not be the cause of anything. If, for demographic and economic reasons, there is some ethnic and social emergence, the reply to that is not State terrorism against lower classes and specific ethnic groups.  

Hollande seems more interested in striking the rich instead of making them to invest money for creating jobs and affluence also for the lower classes. France has a relatively low employment rate. State terrorism and State/government narcotics polices for lobotomizing the youngsters of poor districts do not create jobs nor do create diffused affluence. ‘

At the same time, some hysterical propaganda on ethnic supposed terrorist plots do not seem to solve any problem. On the contrary, it is a propaganda smoke while Secret Police have been charged of inventing terrorism for justifying State terrorism. Repression is something to be done in absolute silence, and only if and when there is something to repress. Hollande do not know how to use State/government so he appears to be used from State/government bureaucracies and other interest centres. They create problems. They offer themselves as the false solution. 

Comité invisible, L'insurrection qui vient, La fabrique éditions, Paris, France, 2007. 

12 October 2012

Letter from Lhasa, number 287.
Mille Piante per Guarire dal Cancro

Letter from Lhasa, number 287. Mille Piante per Guarire dal Cancro
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Nacci, G., Mille piante per guarire dal Cancro senza CHEMIO, October 2008.
(Nacci October 2008).
Giuseppe Nacci

A patient would need to cure oneself or to be cured. On the contrary, the pharmaceutical industry just needs submitted people to be infinitely exploited by it products. Against cancer, there are more affective and natural therapies than the panacea of industrial drugs. The same GMO have the precise function to spread cancer and other illnesses ...for later permitting to ‘cure’ them by growingly expensive industrial drugs. As in every field, those creating problems later offer their false solutions. It is a banal device for creating infinite dependence. States/governments are part of this infernal mechanism.     


Il cancro, una malattia degenerativa, è prodotto da carenze vitaminiche e da intossicazioni da sostanze chimiche presenti nell’alimentazione. Gli OGM, che sono interventi radicalmente differenti da tradizionali incroci o da accorciamenti temporali di normali miglioramenti delle specie, sono una fonte ulteriore di introduzione di cancri e di altre malattie. La frode degli OGM è occultata non dicendo che cosa si sia modificato e con quali effetti. Una cosa è una specie migliore, altra la creazione di una specie indigeribile e velenosa, che è quello realmente viene prodotto pur conservando delle etichette ed apparenze di copertura. Inoltre, gli OGM rappresentano una distruzione dei semi che, di conseguenza, devono essere acquistati ogni anno dalla ditta produttrice, ed una contaminazione delle altre piante dato che il vento e gli insetti e volatili diffondono gli OGM anche sulle culture tradizionali. Il segreto su ogni specifico OGM e sui suoi effetti sulle specie viene rigorosamente preservato. Perché se non fossero da occultare gli effetti devastanti che, tra l'altro, ma questo è pubblico, si estendono pure all’ambiente? Per distruggere le culture tradizionali, conquistare il monopolo dell’agricoltura da parte degli OGM, si deve tacere sui disastri essi producono e diffondono sia nella natura che nelle specie animali. ...Se lo stesso cibo, produce malattie e cancro invece di curare creando difese...  

Medicina e blocco delle industrie farmaceutiche hanno interessi assolutamente divergenti. Il blocco farmaceutico deve asservire i medici perché non curino i pazienti, ma li sottopongano a terapie sempre più lunghe e costose. L’industria farmaceutica deve solo creare soggetti dipendenti dai suoi prodotti. In questo modo, può sottrarre fondi crescenti ai privati, ed allo Stato che spende somme crescenti nella ‘salute pubblica’.

Il paziente avrebbe interesse ad essere curato. L’industriale farmaceutico ha bisogno di malati drogati a vita con le sue medicine che ne prolunghino la vita fisica senza curarlo, perché se curato perderebbe clienti. Di conseguenza, il medico viene trasformato in un dispensatore di medicine o pseudo tali.

Se un medico si fa scienziato e cura i pazienti, finisce facilmente sputtanato ed in galera.

Rispetto al cancro, ma non solo, aglio, limoni, mandorle amare (vitamina B17), laetrile (vitamina B17) etc possono prevenire e curare quello che l’industria farmaceutica non vuole e non può curare. Essa necessita di fondi crescenti per pseudo-ricerca, dietro cui coprire sempre nuove e costosissime medicine, con relativi profitti crescenti ed incontrollati. Per cui, essa avversa le terapie nutrizionali e la medicina preventiva. Ed occulta i danni dei prodotti delle sue ricerche. Una ricerca seria dovrebbe testare tutto ed esporre i risultati dei test. Questo non avviene.  

Il cancro è già stato sconfitto da tempo. L’industria farmaceutica ha silenziato, perseguitato, incarcerato ed assassinato chi rischiasse di intralciarne le predazioni coperte con la scusa della ‘salute’. Per cui, il cancro continua a colpire ed a mietere vittime solo per permettere all’industria farmaceutica di vendere i suoi prodotti costosissimi.

La maggior parte delle malattie deriva da carenze vitaminiche. Esse non possono essere curate con farmaci di sintesi chimica.     

La chemioterapia è particolarmente devastante. Essa è realizzata con farmaci citotossici. Essi sono o introdotti direttamente nel sangue o somministrati per via orale. Ciò causa danni irreversibili a chi ne è trattato. Solo le difese immunitarie del paziente possono risolvere le patologie neoplastiche e condurre alla guarigione completa dal cancro. La chemioterapia le distrugge.

È possibile guarire dal cancro mentre è impossibile guarire dalla chemioterapia. Perché la fanno? Perché ci guadagnano somme enormi. Il costo può raggiungere anche centinaia di migliaia di euro a persona. Per il sistema sanitario, sono costi considerevoli ogni anno. I sopravvissuti da chemioterapia sono percentuali infime. Un ‘ottimo’ investimento ...per una soluzione finale!

A differenza degli interventi chirurgici e radio, anch’essi non sempre strettamente necessari, la chemioterapia avvelena tutto l’organismo. La chemioterapia è di qualche utilità solo in infime percentuali di casi. Ma ha egualmente devastanti effetti collaterali.    

Questo libro è una guida piuttosto ampia ai vari tipi di cancro, ad interventi sia preventivi che terapeutici attraverso l’alimentazione, ed all’uso di specifiche piante e parti di esse. Esso considera e discute anche molte altri malattie, e possibili terapie alternative all’assunzione di farmaci spesso tossici o complementari a farmaci. Non ha le caratteristiche di un opera fondamentalista ma anzi valuta con attenzione la ricerca corrente, ma anche la sua assenza su prodotti altamente tossici e altamente profittevoli per il blocco dell’industria farmaceutica e connessi.

Sono presentati numerosi case studies di soggetti trattati sia con la chemio che con metodi alternativi.  

Nacci, G., Mille piante per guarire dal Cancro senza CHEMIO, October 2008. 

11 October 2012

Letter from Lhasa, number 286. Occulto Italia

Letter from Lhasa, number 286. Occulto Italia
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Del Vecchio, G., and S. Pitrelli, Occulto Italia, Rizzoli, 2011.
(Del Vecchio 2011).
Gianni Del Vecchio
Stefano Pitrelli

Many people need totalitarian organizations submitting them in exchange of taking care of them, even if the costs of that are slavery conditions of life. Basically, the sect leader is a paranoid cheater well connected with State/government institutions protecting him/her. 

A sect is a structure one cannot freely leave, without any form of blackmail, and with the possibility to keep normal relationships with people of the left organization. Other aspects of a sect are siege syndromes and total obedience to the chief and his/her hierarchy.

Actually, many political parties, movements, associations etc are sects according to this definition. 

The main sects quoted and analysed from this work are Damanhur and Scientology. Scientology, as Damanhur, is a machine for producing money. Pay and you are welcome. If you are not an asset guarantying growing quantities of funds for the sect, you become a burden to be marginalized and fired. 

Other sects, or supposed such, are reviewed in this work.

Antonio Meneghetti is the founder of so-called ontopsychology. He is an ex-Franciscan friar turned independent ‘preacher’ and intellectual. ...The best choice... ...Instead of manipulating people for a Church or a congregation, creating one’s own enterprise! The authors accuse him of mental manipulation because he would have about 500 followers in Italy and about 500 abroad.

Are people under medical and psychological treatment critical and without any form of attachment or dependence relatively to their therapists? Are other people independent individuals without any form of psychological subordination? Or only some form of dependency from Meneghetti is a crime?

Antonio Meneghetti is also ‘guilty’ of teaching, apparently with some success, to university students and of creating leadership courses for managers. Also some connected businesses are stigmatized from the authors. Differently from Damanhur and Scientology, they cannot accuse him of disposing of private ‘secret services’ for persecuting ‘defectors’.  
Soka Gakkai, as represented in this book, actually exhibits ‘sectarian’ attitudes not different from, for instance, many political parties, while it provides its member with stimulus and frames for happy lives although possibly inside its organization. 

The Humanist Movement teaches that by forms of self denial the disciple can reach one’s deepest resources and powers. It is another movement offering standardized techniques for happiness to its members.

Sathya Sai Baba was a classic Indian guru impressing people with rituals and some fraud. 

Danilo Speranza is a not uncommon manipulator offering some service and asking for money and absolute submission. If there are abuses of underage people, clearly there are also crimes. If there are not, in the world there is abundance of people wanting to be submitted and generously paying for that. If he has the skill for profiting from that...

For people in need of help, easy solutions are more efficient and effective, also cheaper sometimes, than complicate philosophies, never-ending psychoanalyses or other State/government certified treatments.  

Arkeon is one of the thousands of individual development and self-knowledge methods existing in the world. If one is not well subordinated to Secret Police [dis-]Services, it is easy to be prosecuted as a cult. First, they destroy one. If one is later acquitted, one is anyway ruined and can be again prosecuted if one persist acting in the same or also in other fields. The book does not provide any evidence that there were abusive practices, apart from relatively normal commercial techniques and pressures from salesmen of the structure.

Arkeon sold and provided motivational courses, without any organisation of communities et similia. It declared to be inspired from a method called Reiki. When there will a be a definite sentence, people will know the judiciary point of view about it that is not anyway historical or moral evidence of anything. A Wikipedia Italian page about Arkeon has been removed, very likely since some external [government/police] pressure, while a short page in English has been maintained. The whole case seems a persecution about a method (with censorship, shut down, of the websites), not a prosecution about crimes, although the Bari judiciary inquiring into Arkeon expressed a different opinion.

Nithael, alias Antonio Bruno, was a healer asking for money. If people gave it to him... Evidently, some repentant donor denounced him... Sometimes people feel cheated, although they previously donated money without any constriction. That can be easily used for persecuting and prosecuting whoever...   

Is the Raelian Movement (http://www.rael.org/) a sect? They propose original visions (common to other people and movements) and do not harm anybody... Perhaps no Italian Secret Police targeted it, ...until now! Differently, Italian judiciary could exhibit the standard package of charges and media slandering...

The crime of mental manipulation or psychological kidnapping (plagio, in Italian) was suppressed after the Braibanti case, the first and last person sentenced, in Italy, since this crime. A jealous and envious family denounced him for a story of homosexuality with its son who was put in a psychiatric hospital.  

This book (which carefully avoids the numerous Catholic and similar sects) campaigns for the reintroduction of such a crime. Actually, mental manipulation, or psychological kidnapping, is a very disputed and disputable field. People are currently manipulated from whatever and whoever, from TV to GPs (‘family doctors’)...  

Whatever religion can be qualified as a sect. In addition, there are specific congregations nobody touches only because they are under the umbrella of powerful Churches. See I Ricostruttori, a Catholic sect ‘selling’ oriental traditions just for enslaving its members and extorting funds from them. Not casually, it is a very rich small congregation, founded from a Jesuit. It was created since the cover of a bishop of a small city. One can easily find testimonies not different from whatever other of the main sects quoted in this book. ...Although it be a protected sect. It belongs to the Catholic Church!

States/governments already have thousands of ways for persecuting people, also absolutely illegally by Secret Police corps and officers. They do not need a further formal crime permitting them to do whatever they want for abusing people, and movements and organizations. Big sects as Churches, powerful congregations etc would remain widely protected, since their lobbying power, while whatever independent person or movement would be exposed to a too easy criminalization, if not adequately connected with State/government powers. 

The authors seem aimed from a Jacobean vision wishing that only State/government have an absolute power over its subjects. It is already in this way. Making that stronger and more totalitarian, by introducing the crime of mental manipulation or psychological kidnapping, seems a maniacal anxiety, in the Carabinieri’s Italy.      

Del Vecchio, G., and S. Pitrelli, Occulto Italia, Rizzoli, 2011. 

09 October 2012

Letter from Lhasa, number 285.
La scoperta dell’alba

Letter from Lhasa, number 285. La scoperta dell’alba
by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Veltroni, W., La scoperta dell’alba, Rizzoli, Milano, Italy, 2006. 
(Veltroni 2006).
Walter Veltroni

Il testo è dell’ordine del 28’000 parole. Il libro è intenso e scorrevole, ottimo per lo schermo, non necessariamente come racconto o romanzo. Sullo schermo le immagini attraggono lo spettatore, mentre il lettore è obbligato al ritmo della parola. Sullo schermo, le immagini rimpiazzano trame sconclusionate che, al contrario, nello scritto, restano lì, non disattivate.

Il protagonista è un quarantenne (anche se non torna con l’età della moglie e la connessa età della figlia down) che lavora all’Archivio di Stato dove è immerso tra diari di persone qualunque. Quando era tredicenne, il padre, preside di facoltà, un giorno, una domenica, fa la valigia di nascosto e sparisce. Poi, telefona per dire che aveva bisogno di stare solo ed è in viaggio. Ma non ricompare più. 

Su questo punto, la storia non è né abbastanza realistica né abbastanza fantastica. Come suo solito, l’autore evita le complicazioni. È un ultra-semplificatore. Le complicazioni sarebbero anche ricchezza letterario-psicologica. Non sa muoversi a questo livello. Resta a quello sicuro delle descrizioni dei luoghi. Rimane bloccato ad andare oltre.

Chissà come ha potuto fare l’amministratore, se non riesce a vedere le connessioni delle cose, gli aspetti amministrativi. Eppure, è uno che i fatti suoi li sa fare. È non è che Italiozia abbia dei corpi amministrativi cui basti dire quel che si deve fare, e lo facciano e con efficienza. Sarà stato un politico da comizio, e da stampa e propaganda. Eppoi avrà tirato a campare coperto dalle Polizie Segrete CC quirinalizie che hanno nelle liste di quelli da coprire, oltre che di quelli da colpire. Sennò, si può immaginare come abbia amministrato, gestito, uno con immagini puramente fumettistiche della realtà.    

...Un preside di facoltà che doveva uscire col figlio e che all’improvviso sparisce. Era essere il marzo 1977. Fuga non preparata. Come vive? Come vive la famiglia? Come ha regolato le cose colla facoltà che presiedeva da un paio di mesi? Non è che si possano mandare certificate medici all’infinito. Già può essere complicato, fuori città o fuori Stato, anche inviarne il giorno dopo. Nessuno che ne abbia mai saputo nulla? ...Uno che se ne va perché aveva bisogno di stare solo ...all’infinito. Altra cosa, se ne fosse semplicemente andato di casa per vivere altrove e continuare a lavorare alla facoltà. L’autore evita sempre questi terreni. Vola tra realtà senza esser capace di costruire connessioni plausibili. Poi, si scopre perché è fuggito ma la cosa resta ancor meno plausibile.   

Ed ecco che il figlio tredicenne del fuggitivo, ora divenuto grande, il protagonista, viene improvvisamente attratto dalla casa del fine settimana dell’infanzia, ora abbandonata, acquistata dal padre nel 1968. Vi si reca. Il telefono è staccato ma lui riesce alla fine a telefonare varie volte a sé stesso quando aveva tredici anni e proprio mentre il padre sta fuggendo. Si finge uno zio dagli Stati Uniti. L’adulto telefona al bambino. Finzione o invenzione legittima. Comunicazione della stessa persona ognuna delle quali in tempi differenti, dunque tra due persone in tempi differenti, distanti. L’adulto lo sa. Il bimbo non lo sa perché immagina di ricevere queste telefonata dal suo stesso tempo, non dal futuro.   

Assieme, il bimbo e sé stesso ora adulto, indagano, per quel che possono sulle ragioni della sparizione del padre, forse sentitosi nel mirino (ipotizzano) come il collega aveva sostituito come preside, ucciso da terroristi, forse (si dicevano) a causa di un basista, loro giovane collega ritenuto, da vari indizi (o calunnie), all’origine della cosa ed in contatto con giovani estremisti di area sospetta. L’adulto si incontra anche con la figlia dell’ucciso, che già aveva incontrato da piccolo a ridosso dell’evento.

Anche qui, l’autore sceglie l’ipotesi più banale di quello successe in Italiozia: il terrorismo indipendente, quando era, anche se hanno fatto di tutto per oscurarlo, dipendentissimo, una creazione e manipolazione (etero-direzione non che fossero, nelle stragrande maggioranza, ‘al soldo di’) delle Polizie Segrete CC ed altre ‘andreottiane’. Veltroni vede quello che hanno avuto l’interesse far vedere, inventare: quello che ti segnala e la banda che esegue. In realtà, quando l’obiettivo non era gradito ai manipolatori di Stato, sapevano ben come operare. Cosi come sapevano come orientare verso chi gradivano e volevano colpito o liquidato. Ci sono operazioni politico-istituzionali dietro al terrorismo, incluso il ‘grande segreto’ del 1978. Se non liquidato, Moro sarebbe divenuto Presidente della Repubblica. Quante volte ve l’hanno detto? Perché lo tacciono? Idem tutto il resto. Gli obiettivi casualmente scelti e senza che lo Stato ne sapesse nulla sono una leggenda. Qualcuno, secondario, può essere sfuggito, ma non se gli esecutori erano organizzazioni di un minimo di consistenza, dunque infiltrate, o con sistemi di informazioni o falle varie... Hanno fatto poi un pubblico patto: non vi ammazziamo, per quanto possibile, ma, in genere, vi arrestiamo e basta, ed, in un modo o nell’altro, poi uscite tutti senza clamori, ...purché vi facciate la parte degli indipendenti ed infine sconfitti. Veltroni banalizza, mistifica, anche come scrittore, rimuove.   

Poi, il protagonista, mentre ha questo legame telefonico con sé stesso nel passato, rintraccia ed incontra chi ha sparato in quell’occasione. Scopre così che il mandante è il padre, colui che ha rimpiazzato l’ucciso come preside della facoltà prima di sparire, e che lui e la ragazza sparò si amavano. Per cui, il padre sparisce per la fifa di essere scoperto. Anche qui, l’autore getta la cosa e la lascia lì. Non la costruisce in modo plausibile e profondo. Non dà vita alla sua creazione. Anzi, la banalizza. Il professore, addirittura capo colonna, che fa ammazzare il collega attivando un gruppo di fuoco. Scoprono il gruppo di fuoco ma non lui.

Veltroni non ha idea come funzionino le cose. O lo sa, e sé lo nega e lo tace. Per cui, inventa senza basi. Il tutto resta tra l’improbabile e l’impossibile. Anche solo per farlo vivere come giallo, l’autore avrebbe dovuto curare i dettagli delle interazioni, cosa che non fa mai.

Veltroni, W., La scoperta dell’alba, Rizzoli, Milano, Italy, 2006.