Papa Francesco ha danneggiato profondamente la Chiesa cattolica

 Lucetta Scaraffia(Torino, 23 giugno 1948) ha detto giustamente che Papa Francesco ha avuto un ruolo negativo per la chiesa cattolica, contro le donne ed eccessivamente mediatico; ha trasformato la chiesa cattolica in una filiale delle nazioni unite terzomondista ed antiUSA

Dazi di Donald Trump contro nazioni amiche ed altro

 A)John  Bolton, ex consigliere di Trump durante il primo mandato e Alberto Forchielli del movimento Drin Drin hanno ragione nel criticare Donald Trump che ha si preso dei dazi contro la Cina che e' un paese che ha dato luogo ad una concorrenza sleale, ha rubato proprieta' intellettuale occidentale ed ha protetto e sussidiato le aziende cinesi contro le aziende occcidentali ma ha anche imposto dei dazi contro la Comunita' europea, il Giappone, Singapore e la Corea del sud che sono paesi amici. Cosi' facendo gli Stati Uniti di america si isolano in un momento in cui la Cina tesse alleanze ad esempio nel sud east asiatico.

Cosi comportandosi Donald Trump compie un grosso errore.

B) La Lega di Matteo Salvini per un decennio ha parlato di secessione, per altri 10 anni di federalismo, poi di devoluzione e poi negli ultimi 10 anni di autonomia senza che cambiassse nulla senonche' i leghisti hanno continuato a percepire i lauti stipendi come parlamentari , mentre il residuo fiscale della Lombardia e' sempre rimasto a circa 54 miliardi;la Lega di Mattteo Salvini dal 2013 ha tradito il nord italia.

C) Il mio blog ed il mio canale you tube e' plagiato da una classe politica cassa di risonanza/pappagalla delle mie idee e tesi politiche.

E) Mi sono iscritto al Movimento DRIN DRIN di Alberto Forchielli.

F) L'Italia rimane il paese dei figli di papa' dove gli outsider vengono bastonati solo per il fatto di essere outsider.

G) Probabilmente non ho mai fatto carriera perche' non sono un leccaculo ossia difficilmente mi "prostro a Satana"

H) In Italia le cose migliori contro Donald Trump le sta dicendo il professore del Politecnico di Milano Giuliano Noci che ha detto, tra l'altro, che tra qualche settimane i beni sugli scaffali dei supermercati statunitensi  o saranno parzialmente assenti perche' non arriveranno piu' dalla Cina o saranno aumentati di prezzo perche' piu' costosi da produrre negli Stati Uniti di America

Distruzione del lavoro in Italia ed in occidente

 Il processo di involuzione dell'Occidente che porta alla crisi di oggi parte con Bill Clinton, Tony Blair ed i teorici della terza via.Si e' pensato, sbagliando, di poter fare a meno della manifattura e di mettere al centro del sistema economico finanza e tecnologia considerando i diritti civili piu' importanti di quelli economici;il diritto al lavoro, ad un salario equo, a un sistema di protezione sociale per i piu' deboli.

Se gli italiani non sono piu' in grado di pagare le bollette ed il cinque per cento in Italia possiede il 50% della ricchezza si deve ringraziare Bill Clinton che nel 1994 ha firmato il Gatt rendendo possibili le delocalizzazioni e l'entrata della Cina nel WTO a condizioni estremamente favorevoli come ho gia' detto nei miei video su you tube del 2012.

Si legga anche l'ultimo libro di Franco Bernabe' "In Trappola, ascesa e caduta delle democrazie occidentali (e come possiamo evitare una terza guerra mondiale")

Nessuno ha aiutato il nero migrante

 Circa due mesi orsono un nero migrante che chiede i soldi per portare la spesa ai clienti della COOP di Uggiate con Ronago era bagnato fradicio causa un acquazzone/temporale molto forte che lo aveva sorpreso in bici proveniente da Olgiate Comasco per andare ad Uggiate con Ronago. Tutti i clienti COOP che lo hanno visto gli hanno detto "guarda come sei bagnato, adesso cosa fai ?" ma nessuno lo ha aiutato. Solo io sono andato a casa a prendere un paio di calzoni ed un maglione asciutti e glieli ho portati da indossare !!!!!!!

MARTIN HELLMAN OF NUCLEAR RISK

 The following op-ed appeared in slightly edited form in The Houston Post, Thursday, April 4, 1985, under the headline “Arms race can only lead to one end: If we don’t change our thinking, someone will drop the big one.”

It also appeared in The Times (San Mateo, California), Wednesday, March 20, 1985, under the headline “Nuclear war 100 percent certain, unless …”

I should emphasize that this article did not call for unilateral disarmament. As noted in my work on war and peace, while ending war is necessary for humanity's long term survival, in the short term we need a strong military to deal with very real threats in a world that has not accepted that truth.

I also should note that my references to wars in Iran and Iraq referred to the war between those two nations that lasted throughout most of the 1980's, with America supporting Iraq against what was seen as Iran's larger threat. Similarly, my reference to war in Afghanistan referred to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89), not the current American invasion of Afghanistan, post 9/11.

While the imminent danger of an all-out nuclear war that would destroy civilization has greatly diminished in the post-Soviet era, there are processes at work that make nuclear war much more dangerous than might first appear. Nuclear proliferation is creating more and more nuclear tinder that could set off a global fire, with India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea being the most obvious possible flash points. Secondly, America now tends to treat Russia as a has-been superpower which need not be consulted before we take action that might bring us into confrontation. This is very dangerous behavior toward a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons. During the 1990's I was very concerned that American military action in the former Yugoslavia might bring about a situation similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where both Russia and the US found themselves dragged, reluctantly but inexorably, toward full scale nuclear confrontation. And as I update this in 2008, the danger is increasing rapidly as explained on part of my current project's website.

So, while this op-ed at first may seem inapplicable in the post-Cold-War world, it has many elements of long-term truth that demand our attention. Given that a process of ending war will take decades, a long-term view is appropriate.

This page can be viewed in Romanian courtesy of azoft.

 

On the Probability of Nuclear War

Martin E. Hellman

Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun, declared, "Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." But send them they did. In World War One, the machine gun often mowed down tens of thousands of men in a single day.

Orville Wright saw a similar vision: "When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought we were introducing into the world an invention that would make further wars practically impossible." Far from ending war, however, the airplane increased the ability to maim and kill. In firebombing raids on London, Hamburg and Tokyo the airplane wrought previously unimaginable levels of destruction. In a single night, March 9, 1945, 25 percent of Tokyo was destroyed, 80,000 people were killed, and over 1 million left homeless.

History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used. And yet we dare to hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War II’s, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world. All in the belief that they will never be used.

But unless we make a radical shift in our thinking about war, this time will be no different. On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable.

The inevitability concept can best be understood by analogy to finance. It does not make sense to talk of an interest rate as being high or low, for example 50 percent or 1 percent, without comparing it to specific period of time. An interest rate of 50 percent per year is high. An interest rate of 50 percent per century is low. And the low interest rate of 1 percent per year builds up to a much larger interest rate, say 100 percent, when compounded over a sufficiently long time.

In the same way, it does not make sense to talk about the probability of nuclear war being high or low -- for example 10 percent versus 1 percent -- without comparing it to a specific period of time -- for example, 10 percent per decade or 1 percent per year.

Having gotten the units right, we might argue whether the probability of nuclear war per year was high or low. But it would make no real difference. If the probability is 10 percent per year, then we expect the holocaust to come in about 10 years. If it is 1 percent per year, then we expect it in about 100 years.

The lower probability per year changes the time frame until we expect civilization to be destroyed, but it does not change the inevitability of the ruin. In either scenario, nuclear war is 100 percent certain to occur.

This pair of examples brings out a critically important point. Our only survival strategy is to continuously reduce the probability, driving it ever closer to zero. In contrast, our current policies are like repeatedly playing Russian roulette with more and more bullets in the chambers.

We have pulled the trigger in this macabre game more often than is imagined. Each action on our current path has some chance of triggering the final global war. And if we keep pulling the trigger, the gun will inevitably go off. Each "small" war -- in Iran, or Iraq, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan -- is pulling the trigger; each threat of the use of violence -- as in the Cuban missile crisis -- is pulling the trigger; each day that goes by in which a missile or computer can fail is pulling the trigger.

The only way to survive Russian roulette is to stop playing. The only way to survive nuclear roulette is to move beyond war in the same sense that the civilized world has moved beyond human sacrifice and slavery.

When it was merely moral and desirable, it might have been impossible to beat swords into plowshares. Today, it is necessary for survival.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said in his 1961 address to the Philippines Congress: "You will say at once that, although the abolition of war has been the dream of man for centuries, every proposition to that end has been promptly discarded as impossible and fantastic. But that was before the science of the past decade made mass destruction a reality. The argument then was along spiritual and moral lines, and lost. But now the tremendous evolution of nuclear and other potentials of destruction has suddenly taken the problem away from its primary consideration as a moral and spiritual question and brought it abreast of scientific realism."

There is potential for this to be the best of times or the end of time, depending on which direction we take at this critical juncture in human evolution. Technology has given a new, global meaning to the Biblical injunction: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live."

To avoid extinction, we must take action to shift from an old mode of thinking which justifies war as necessary for survival to a new mode of thinking which recognizes war as the ultimate threat to survival.

FORZA ITALIA

 Da una settimana circa voto FORZA ITALIA di Antonio Tajani e Letizia Moratti .

LO STATO CANAGLIA

 Un ottimo testo ancora atttualissimo : "Lo stato canaglia, come la cattiva politica continua a soffocare l'italia" di Piero Ostellino 2008