Generally, when we think about Science, we think about something absolute, universally valid, and that explains reality objectively. We have been taught this way, and this is what we have learnt perfectly: we have been trained so much to consider the Science as a constituent of life, that we are convinced that without it understanding anything is impossible. For our civilized point of view, the Science is the only way of reaching the understanding of reality. In fact, even when we escape from its absolutistic saying, and search for alternative solutions to understand the world, we always refer to science: not to question its ideological foundations, we call it “holistic”, “serious”, “ethical”, “responsible”, “gay”, even “true”; and oppose it to the “official” or “mainstream” one. In short, the underlying reasoning keeps being the following one: what the official science says is not scientific, and this would be demonstrated by the perfect scientific quality of true science.

In spite of the fact that, in this period, the Only Thought has gone too far with our ability to bear the injustice, and the trials of the subjection of worldly population have piqued not few people, the argument that moves our criticism of what we are suffering doesn’t seem able to go beyond the scientific ideology: we reply to a “bad” science (the official one, that offers fake remedies) with a “good” one (the alternative one, that offers the right remedies). Giving full value to the scientific project as a whole, and to its absolutistic result, the vicious circle in which the ideology of Science closes us, rings the bells of this fake opposition; that, substantially, reproduces the old commonplace about the presumed neutrality of Science: neither good nor bad, but depending on the use is made of it.

In this way, while everything remains circumscribed to a scientific, specialized, impenetrable to most people, scope, the criticism to the totalitarian drift imposed by the World Health Power stops going against Science itself to go toward simply an unprejudiced use of it. But Science, as an Institution, is always “unprejudiced”.

Exactly like Technology, that is its practical consequence and right, armed hand, Science is not neutral: instead, it is the expression of a certain ideologically oriented point of view; and even when it is addressed to the good, ethical or responsible, the whole of its organizational models, its canons, its categories, its overall approach to reality, reflect just this point of view, that is no other than the one belonging to the civilized mentality that produced it.

Although we aren’t aware of it, we don’t live in a natural world, i.e. impartial and devoid of a particular symbolic outlook. Instead, we live in a social system ruled by a precise mentality, the one of domination, inculcated in us since childhood, although afterwards it is substantiated in thousands of cultural shades, seemingly different, that appear in time and space. I mean that, differently from the wild animals and the uncivilized peoples, we the civilized subjects live in a world completely marked by the symbolic culture (language, number, art, rite, myth, religion, money, power), and the civilization, that founds and structures culturally our worldview, sustains itself precisely on the idea of domination, i.e. on the power of Culture of subduing the Nature to its will. The Science, as an Institution, an Instrument, an Expression of civilization, does not contradict this principle, but reproduces, develops, perpetuates it; and does this since its birth and its programmatic assumptions.

To understand how Science is not neutral, but precisely an ideological project that embodies perfectly the logic of domination (even when it is determined to the good), it is enough to read what Francis Bacon, one of the fathers of modern science, wrote between the end of Sixteenth Century and the beginning of Seventeenth one.

According to Bacon, the task of science is investigating Nature in order to know it objectively and subject it completely to the human domination (regnum hominis). Through the scientific method, in Bacon’s opinion, Nature can be “bridled, shaped and modelled”[1]. «Nature is a prostitute – he even dared write –; we have to subjugate it, penetrate its secrets, and chain it according to our desires»[2]. Moreover, Bacon affirmed that Nature: «must be “forced to serve” and “enslaved”, squeezed and tortured by the mechanical arts. The “investigators and informers of nature” must discover its complots and secrets»[3].

As an institution of that cultural universe marked by domination that we call civilization, therefore, Science has always been a war: precisely the war of (symbolic) Culture to dominate Nature. And, as an expression of Culture, Science generates exactly from these philosophical auspices: it mirrors, exalts, defends, realizes them. Indeed, it does not deal with acquiring a knowledge of the world, but with dominating it, subjugating it to human genius, manipulating it, using it (just like an enemy in war).

Naturally, Science affirms that it does all this for the good of humankind, and this should be enough to reassure us. In reality, it is also through such declared aim that it betrays the fact of not being neutral. The symbolic culture, a human invention presumed to be for humans’ good, is intrinsically anthropocentric, and Science, as an expression of Culture, is not only a military, but also a clearly anthropocentric, program. Thus, it is based on the conviction that humankind is the aim of the universe, i.e. the centre of the universe itself, and that it is not only superior to any other living being and on the top of this hypothetical hierarchical scale of importance, but also the only species justified to exploit all the rest.

Throughout its history, Science arrived to vindicate explicitly this anthropocentric principle thanks to the commitment of another undisputed founding father of modern science: Cartesio (René Descartes). In Seventeenth century, with his famous axiom cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), Descartes explained us that only the human being, as able to represent for him/herself a reality separated from him/herself (I think), can boast the epithet of subject (therefore I am); all the rest is object: an object that the thinking being can just use in order to get what he/she needs.

Affirming solemnly the anthropocentrism of Science, Descartes reasserted not only the Baconian idea that Nature is separated from the human individual and potentially subjugated by his power, but also that it has not any meaning in itself: it would be simple, lifeless raw matter, merely in service of humankind. Quoting Jeremy Rifkin[4], Descartes deprived nature of its intrinsic «vitality reducing […] the creatures […] to mathematical and mechanical metaphors», and arriving to the point of «describing the animals as “soulless automata”, whose movements were very little different from the ones of the automata dancing in the clock of Strasburg».

In fact, as it was written, «the separation between Human and Nature that civilization had brought about from its very beginning, became, with modern scientific thought, a conscious statement. With Descartes, the path that had led civilized humanity to affirm the ideology of human domination over a totally objectified world was completed. The “insane Cartesian project”, as Clastres called it, had clearly established roles and hierarchies, and the world was now ready to be scientifically used, exploited, and shaped; it was ready to be reduced to a ware commodity, capitalized and commercialized. In short: the world was ready to become a modern world—a world made of science without conscience»[5].

Therefore, the Science, for its constitution itself, not only is not neutral, but is a well-defined ideological program: a terrible motor of the civilized machine that responds to, and reproduces, the logic of domination. Not only it does not deal with knowing reality, but with dominating it and using it like an object, and in this aspect, it shows its absence of consciousness. But Science is also an ideological system innately totalitarian, i.e. marked by the affirmation of the “truth” of the principles it professes. Before Descartes and after Bacon, another standard bearer of modern science made it clear: Galileo Galilei.

Contemporary of Francis Bacon, Galilei established the domain of the mathematization of scientific knowledge, giving the Baconian experimental method (founded only on the inductive observation) the dogmatic strength of the science of numbers. Two and two is four, there is no question about this. According to Galilei the “book of the nature” is written in the language of mathematics and readable only through mathematical characters[6]: consequently, not even Science, that, studying the Nature to dominate it, can decipher its mathematical language, can be questioned: it is as true as the fact that two and two is four. So much so that Science is able even to oppose God’s voice and to be right. As is of common knowledge, Galilei, affirming that the Earth turned around the sun, and demonstrating it scientifically, disagreed overtly with the authority of the Catholic Church, that founded its cosmology on the Holy Scriptures (i.e. on God’s Word), in which, on the contrary, the geocentric Theory was asserted. Apart from the ignorance of the Holy Scriptures (who is interested in deepening the argument can read the book of C. Pigault Sciocchezze e nefandezze della Sacra Bibbia [Nonsense and vileness of the Holy Bible] – Anteo, 1988), the fact that Galileo’s “mathematical” conviction did not stop even in front of God’s Word remains. Naturally, it stopped in front of the institutional repression of the Holy Inquisition that, after imprisoning him, induced him to abjure his thought. But this does not mean it was just the idea that his opinions were mathematically right what pushed him even to challenge (although he did not want it directly) the authority of his epoch. And nowadays, if Science can embody the position belonged to the Holy Inquisition, and move with his modern Torquemadas to the hunt of heretical scientists, it is just because it attributes to itself the function of Truth: what is scientific (analysable in a metric-quantitative manner) is true; what is not scientific (not objectively measurable) is false.

Coming back to Galilei, indeed, the essence of the world must be brought back just to the metric-quantitative aspects of the matter, therefore only they matter, because they are objectively measurable. All the rest would not be anything else than a simple mental projection, completely unable to supply an objective description of nature, and thus insignificant for the aim of knowledge. On these basis, the English psychiatrist Ronald Laing will write in 1982: with Galilei, «the sight, the sound, the taste, the tact and the smell go away, and with them the aesthetics and the ethic sensibility, the values, the quality, the form; all the feelings, the motives, the intentions, the soul, the consciousness, the spirit. The experience in itself is expelled from the field of the scientific discourse»[7].

Nowadays, we see perfectly the disastrous effects of this mechanistic epuration implemented by the scientific knowledge on the living beings. «The scientific method deals only with the quantitative aspect. It does not admit the values or the emotions, or the smell of the air when it begins raining; or, if takes them into account, transforms them into numbers and the total participation with the smell of the rain in abstract interest in the chemical formula of the ozone, translating the sensation into an intellectual concept in which the emotions are only an illusion provoked by excited neurons »[8].

Science, either official or alternative, is always founded on laws and formulas, that are fixed, static, dead, while life is dynamic, in continuous mutation. But Science is not interested in life as it is, but as it is observed mechanically, i.e. with the detachment typical of the notion of “observation”: perception of a phenomenon distancing from it emotionally and physically, and considering it as an element extraneous to the “I” that observes it.

In conclusion, Science, either it deals itself with the universal good or is mystified by the affairs and the power, is not concerned with a reality perceived as an inseparable unit, but only with a pseudo-reality separated from the observer, purged of its vital part, asseverated by its mathematization, and finally chained in formulas and laws. This is tantamount to saying that Science is not concerned with the real reality, but with a certain, idealized (symbolic) representation of reality: precisely a representation that bans any participation of the senses, the emotions, the feelings. An abstract reality is what interests Science. In fact, if we think well, Medicine does not deal with every singular individual, but with the abstract person; Biology knows the abstract nature; the Law disciplines the abstract litigations; Economy pays attention to the statistics and the percentages. All what is alive, indistinct, unclassifiable and unmeasurable does not interests science.

In short, Science, since is not aimed to understand the world, but to seize and possess it, is always the expression of an arrogant and hegemonic attitude, that explains by itself its necessity to reduce continuously Nature to a sum of elements to separate and govern singularly: this is called specialization.

As the famous motto of the Roman Senate divide et impera (divide and reign) well explained well, in order to dominate somebody, first of all you have to separate, divide him/her. If it is necessary separating people from others (and, moreover, from theirselves and their needs), in order to dominate them, it is necessary to parcel out the totality of the world, to violate its whole, to find the way in its entire body in order to dominate its knowledge. Maybe is not this one the specialized function of Science? All the sectors of scientific knowledge are separated and the parts are divided and parcelled out: let’s think about the human body “broken up” by the medicine into heart, teeth, genitals, etc. Who would let a dentist examine his/her genitals? And who would let a cardiologist examine his/her teeth? The cardiologists don’t know anything about teeth. The comedian Paolo Villaggio, with his proverbial sympathy, had the chance to mock the ignorance to which specialization pushes.

Making his mythical accountant Fantozzi* struggle with unreachable Professor Grandi, Consultant of Orthopaedics, reported their amusing dialogue: “Excuse me, professor Grandi, Mahatma Grandi, but don’t you know that a pregnancy takes nine months?” And the professor, piqued, replied: “But I told you I am an orthopaedist!”.

The sublime ignorance of the expert, well ridiculed by George Bernard Shaw, too (“Anyone is a bit a specialist is, strictly speaking, an idiot”[9]), is valid for all sciences: a civil lawyer knows absolutely nothing about taxation issues; a mechanical engineer of course could not build a skyscraper, and a military graduated from the Civil Engineers would never be able to direct the route of a battleship or to pilot a military fighter.

Obviously, the explanation supplied by Science to hide the specialists’ deep ignorance, is the following one: if we sum the dentist’s maximum knowledge with the cardiologist’s, the gastroenterologist’s, etc., we get the maximum knowledge about the human body. Dividing and reassembling. Science pours out, in fact, from this process: it divides the phenomena of reality into branches, isolates them from Nature, and examines them with microscope as if they were dead tissues disconnected from all the rest; afterwards, it rebuilds the knowledge on the sum of those separated outcomes. There is only one problem: Nature is not as we want. It is alive, i.e. slippery, free, refractory to any alleged submission to conceptual and symbolic categories. And, above all, Nature is not a simple sum of classified parts. Nature, Japanese agro-philosopher Masanobu Fukuoka said, «is an organic entity that cannot be classified and subdivided. When it is divided into two complementary halves, and they, on their turn, are subdivided, […] Nature loses its unity»[10]. In the same way in which «the pieces of a broken mirror will never can be reassembled together into a mirror as perfect as the original one»[11], «the pieces of scientific knowledge can never be reassembled into an organic knowledge. What has been broken cannot be reconstructed as perfectly, and what can be understood through a single fragment that has been separated from its context may be misleading»[12].

Fukuoka used the famous tale of the blind men and the elephant to explain better this last concept: one of the blind men goes near to the elephant and touches its proboscis, deducing that it is a snake; another one gets near to the elephant and touches one of its legs, convincing himself that it is a trunk; the third one touches its tail and believes that it is a broom. Since they cannot see the whole, the blind men are not able to understand that those different parts they touch are an ELEPHANT.

The civilized human being, mislead by Science (and by its method), believes him/herself to be able to understand Nature examining its dismembered, killed and reassembled parts. «And he fails, because in nature the sum of all parts is never the whole»[13]. Fukuoka drew this conclusion: the human being devotee of the Science «believes he/she has become able to know and understand nature […], but what he/she has understood is nothing else than the elephant seen by the blindmen»[14].

Science, either official or alternative, far from immerse us into reality, distances us from it: it does not do this because of badness, affairs, or power, but because of its method. In this way it, either official or alternative, makes us understand reality ever less. Therefore, it is not an issue of good or bad science, but of Science. The more it, with its specialized knowledge, will move us away from reality, making us understand it ever less, the more we not-specialists will fall into the specialists’ hands: today they are called scientists; yesterday they were called ministers and priests; at the origins of civilization they were called sorcerers or shamans. The result does not change: that inseparable whole that lives inside and outside of us, and that we call Nature, is ever more unknown to us, and thanks to Science – that moves us away from it step by step, putting us in the hands of who deal with it as a profession – we stay in the experts’ power and authority, forced only to trust: to trust in the physician, the biologist, the chemist, the engineer, the lawyer. To trust precisely like the devotee in the parish priest.

Either it is official or alternative science, actually, we haven’t any chance to interfere in the process of knowledge the professional says he/she controls perfectly, thus we put in him/her all our faith. Nevertheless, we are perfectly convinced that Science is something different from Religion: we rely on it with a devote belief, but don’t catch its transcendent mark.

Above all in the West, that seemed to develop just through the gradual liberation from a clerical knowledge imposed for centuries, Science still appears like something “opposed” to Faith: Galilei against cardinal Bellarmino. In reality, what happened from the eighteenth century onwards, thanks to the developments of the so-called scientific revolution, has been only a changing of the guard within the same civilized world conception. In the same way in which French Revolution did not blast the  Power, but simply installed in it a new class (the bourgeois), or the Russian Revolution did not free the people from the oppression, but has only changed the features of the oppressor, Science did not twist at all the absolutistic saying brought by Religion, imposing only upon the latter its absolutistic power (nowadays, this is well represented by the silent acceptance by the Jew-Christian Churches of the violation – for reasons of declared health emergency – of the respect of the Third Commandment of God’s Law: “Remember to sanctify the feasts”).

It is Science who commands now, with its (viral) “inquisitors”, its (civil) “protectors” and its “pinocchio” (sat at the government).

On the other hand, Science and Religion, as expressions of the symbolic culture and legitimate daughters of civilization, have a deep common root. The pretension of Truth that both declare to possess finds its origins in the fact that both stand on the same theoretical basis of Magic. James G. Frazer, one of the founders of anthropology, explained it since the end of Nineteenth century. Magic, it is written in his classic The golden bough, starts from the premise that «in nature one event follows another necessarily and invariably without the intervention of any spiritual or personal agency. Thus its fundamental conception is identical with that of modern science; underlying the whole system is a faith, implicit but real and firm, in the order and uniformity of nature. The magician does not doubt that the same causes will always produce the same effects»[15], exactly like the scientist (and all of us that believe in science) is convinced of it. «Thus the analogy between the magical and the scientific conceptions of the world is close. In both of them the succession of events is assumed to be perfectly regular and certain, being determined by immutable laws, the operation of which can be foreseen and calculated precisely; the elements of caprice, of chance, and of accident are banished from the course of nature»[16].

«Religion is the mother of sciences», Tobias Dantzing had written about this[17]. Science stands on the same theoretical basis of magic, and Magic precedes in time the coming of religion as its necessary antecedent. On the other hand, isn’t it true that the ideological strength with which the Science now is claiming the power of imposing itself as the only acceptable way of knowledge of the world, is perfectly identical to the absolutism with which Religion has always imposed its dogmas? Talking about Scientocracy, thus, means talking about the dictatorial government of Science, just like talking about Theocracy means talking about the dictatorial government of Religion. That the official or the alternative Science directs the scientocratic social repression does not change very much the situation; just like debating either the Catholic or the Islamic religion leads the theocratical social repression does not change very much the situation.

On the other hand, Science, exactly like Religion, IS NEVER DEMOCRATIC. It is the auto-proclamation of the voice of the Truth, how can it be referred to the people’s judgment? How can it be considered plural or opposable to another one? On the website of C.i.c.a.p. (Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni sul Paranormale [Italian Committee for the Control of the Affirmations about Paranormal]) the argument is made explicit since many years with a brave limpidity: «talking about pluralism in the scientific field demonstrates only a deep ignorance of what science is. Science is not democratic by its nature. If there are two opposed positions about a certain problem, they cannot be considered equally legitimate, nor the choice between them can be delegated to the judgment of the public. In the scientific field only one of the two positions can be true. […] The idea that more of one science exists is meaningless. Science is born just from the necessity to overcome the individual opinions, therefore only one science exists»[18].

On the other hand, don’t ourselves affirm just this when, criticizing the lack of scientific quality of the thesis of official science, defend the exclusive, true, only scientific quality of the alternative one?

As a religion-like phenomenon, Science, either official or alternative, is always intrinsically projected towards integralism. When it declares itself founded on the doubt or open to different theories, it lies! It is open and founded on the doubt only insofar its power is not yet completely affirmed, because, as soon as it will became so, its ostensible broad-mindedness, too, will lessen proportionally. Also Lenin, at his beginnings, talked about freedom; exactly like Mussolini with his fascist program; or like Hitler that, as the leader of the “workers’ national-socialist” party (let’s remember: “workers’”!) became a candidate and triumphed in the democratic political elections 1933. The more the Power of Science will be strong because recognized by everyone, the more it will become as intolerant, arrogant, despotic as Lenin’s, Mussolini’s, Hitler’s or the Catholic Church.

That’s why we must strengthen our awareness of the fact that Science is not neutral, in order to avoid the legitimacy of this or that scientific theory, and the fall into the trap of the belief in the existence of a good and a bad science.

Thus, our problem is not this or that science: it is Science; just like our problem is not this or that technology (black technology against the low-impact one), but Technology.

The same thing happens with Politics. We have seen how the intentions of moralization of the governmental caste initially promoted by the Movimento 5 Stelle have been completely buried by their rise to power. Just them, that reproached the Democratic Party to resort abusively to the emergency decrees, have ended up resorting to it in order to suspend even some of the constitutional freedoms (the famous Prime Minister Conte’s decrees, afterwards ratified and legitimized hurriedly with the Law Decree n.19/2020). A veer into totalitarianism without precedents in the history of Italian Republic. And all this, be careful, has not happened because of a “bad” inclination of the activists, but because the Politics, exactly like Technology or Science, IS NOT NEUTRAL; and the problem of Politics (as of Science and Technology) is not in the people that  practice it in the institutions, but in the Politics itself: «it is in the blackmails on which it stands, in the logic of exchange in which it moves, and in the practice of the advantage, of the benefit, of the selfish interest that leads and directs it in any case; it is in the dynamics of power that weave and accompany it, all impossible to change by the individual. […] the politician that arrives to sit on the chairs of Politics must make the System work […]; elected to allow the motor of the System to keep on and go in the best way, he/she will work to do exactly this»[19]. Undoubtedly, he/she may do it well or badly, but it will be impossible that avoids it. «For this reason, anyone decides to enter into the perverse “mechanism” of Politics, even if he/she is the most [incorruptible or the most] subversive among the humans in the world, will always end up doing only all what will be necessary to stay in that position»[20].

Thus, such as the problem of the Power is not in its colour, the problem of Science is not in the adjective attached to it, and that, generally, makes it only an oxymoron (holistic science; responsible science; gay science; good science).

That Science, recently defined by Francesco Benozzo, philologist of Bologna University and nominee for Literature Nobel Prize in 2015, a «new religion of the contemporary world: a monotheist, anti-dialogic, totalitarian, and obscurantist religion»[21], is, in short, a danger to everyone. Its government, Scientocracy, is a danger to everyone.

Those Technical trials of the subjection of worldly population that have put under house arrest all of us in these weeks (scaring us even of the air we breathe), and that professor Benozzo himself has defined “trials of subjugation of populations, founded on a scientocentric vision of reality”[22], HAVE NOT ANY PROPHYLACTIC AIM, but only a political one: i.e. they help to make us accept as normal the suspension of our most inviolable freedoms.

There is absolutely nothing healthy in the un-hygienical pretension to keep all locked at home, suffering like prisoners. Viruses do not attack anyone and Science, with its claim to explain dynamic phenomena in an absolute way through static concepts, is simply ridiculous. Life is not a book, nor a logic-rational fixed formula or an ensemble of numbers. We are much more than our mental faculties, that, on their turn, are laughable when we compare them with the complexity of Nature. The idea that we can do better than Nature (thanks to Science, Medicine, Technology, Economics, Politics, etc.) is a manifestation of megalomania, a delirium of omnipotence that Science itself supplies us because it is a Power Institution; that, as such, does not admit any dissent nor other viewpoints. What is more, it conditions us to believe that its theories are not theories (i.e. disputable opinions), but the Truth.

Its current ministers, too, are perfectly aware of this arrogant weakness of Science, and indeed they have begun using all the available arms to avoid the propagation of the thousands of dissent voices. Through the AGCOM (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni [Authority for the guarantees in communications]), they order the providers of platforms of video sharing to adopt «all the most adequate measures aimed to oppose the spreading in the web, and particularly on social media, of inaccurate information about coronavirus, or anyway spread by sources not scientifically accredited. The aforementioned measures must preview also efficacious systems of identification and reporting of the offenses and of the guilty»[23]. They ban all the videos published on social networks that are considered unsuitable and question the government’s Word. They report to the judicial power any celebrity or eminent person that dares question the contagion idea. As if that wasn’t enough, they force to silence through the professional orders the specialists that critic, or oppose, the official truths. For instance, with the directive issued on 11th of March by the FNOMCeO[24] (Federazione Nazionale dell’Ordine dei Medici e degli Odontoiatri [National Federation of the Physicians’ and Odontologists’ Order]), the silence on media was imposed to all the enrolled that show disagreement with the official dogmas of Medicine and that have not been authorized expressly to speak, under penalty of notification of disciplinary proceedings (as, in fact, have already begun doing): are these, too, healthy measures? We have passed from the facemask for everyone to the gag for doctors: is this to defend us from coronavirus?

Also URCOFER (Unione Regionale dei Consigli degli Ordini Forensi dell’ Emilia-Romagna [Regional Union of the Councils of Forensic Orders of Emilia-Romagna]), in a note to the enrolled of 31st of March 2020, deprecating with reason the so-called profiteering of self-declared lawyers ready to give legal assistance without a qualification (or that profit the situation to realize criminal manoeuvres of clients cornering), on the other hand, launched an excessively ambiguous condemnation when wrote: “We say the same thing about the suggestions offered, also by lawyers, on possible judicial “remedies” to the violations of the norms imposed by the emergency about the citizens’ unjustified circulation”[25]. What’s the meaning of this? That it is not more possible offering legal assistance to all those citizens vexed by the abuses of policemen transformed into Sheriffs, that, interpreting the law with their personal John Wayne-like sensibility, yank violently pairs of citizens that went down from home to throw the garbage[26], subject to sanctions people walking near their home[27], or going to do the shopping with tracksuit and gym shoes[28], or going to buy foods in a pair[29], or going down from home to buy the newspaper[30]? Must we think that, in the time of coronavirus, not only the general jurisdictional function of State (art. 24, clause 1, Const.), but also the specific and inviolable right to defence (art. 24, clause 2, Const.), have been suspended? And then: would be the suspension of the right to oppose the abuse of the sheriff-like State, too, a healthy measure adopted by the government to prevent us from “catching” the coronavirus?

Let’s wake up!!! Let’s recover from the lethargy of a civilized, viced life, become a shadow of what it was! Let’s stop behaving like a flock, scared servants of the System, living dead or – like professor Benozzo, quoting him again, said – “lobotomized people singing the praises of the homeland” from their balconies[31].

Professor Ugo Mattei, jurist and academic of Turin University, always says: “Who sleeps in a democracy wakes up in a dictatorship”[32]. I add that continuing sleeping also in a dictatorship can only worsen further the situation.

The mystification of data on the assumed contagiousness of coronavirus is within everyone’s reach: it suffices stopping feeding on that television propaganda defined by Doctor Massimo Pietrangeli, allergist and pediatrician, “fake and boor communication of RAI [the public television] and Mediaset” [Berlusconi’s TV network][33], and starting reading directly the numbers published by the ITALIAN NATIONAL HEALTH INSTITUTE and the Civil Protection, in order to get an idea autonomously. While the days at house arrest are passing, exactly these data tell us, in an ever-clearer manner, that THERE IS NOT ANY CONTAGION UNDERWAY, and that the contact between people IS NOT IN ANY WAY THE CAUSE of the spreading of coronavirus.

44 days by now have passed since the government locked all of us at home, guaranteeing us that this dictatorial measure would stem soon the supposed contagion: 44 days, i.e. more than 6 weeks, one month and a half! Nevertheless, the number of positives to COVID-19 continues growing vertiginously every day. The 9th of March (date of the government’s provisions) there were about 8.000 people positive to COVID-19 (about 1.500 more than the day before) in Italy; today, 22nd of April of 2020, they are more than 185.000 (187.327)[34] and the daily rate of growth of the new  positives is not of about 1.500 subjects a day, but about 3.000 every day: they are 3.370 more today[35].

If the cause of the spreading of coronavirus were truly in the contact between people, after eliminating it almost completely, the spreading, too, would have been minimized. On the contrary, in Italy, in France, and in Spain, that are the European countries where the suspension of the constitutional freedoms has been hardest, the positives to COVID-19 increase excessively every day, while this does not happen in the Netherlands, in Germany, in Switzerland or in England, where the measures coercive of freedom are less pressing. Nor it does happen in Sweden, where the government has even decided not to impose restrictions to people, leaving open shops, bars, night clubs, primary schools and any other common occasion of personal meetings[36]. Why??? Maybe because those people do not live in the most polluted place in Europe? Maybe because the populations of those countries have not been undergone to a winter campaign of carpet vaccination, as the elderly population of Bergamo and Brescia, with 185.000 anti-influenza vaccinations and 35.000 against meningococcus? Maybe because those populations of Europe have not already had their immune system weakened also by the trials of functioning of 5G, with the eletcrosmog further increased (as happened since December of 2019 in Lombardia, with Brescia, Milano and Monza – take a look – as trailblazer[37])?

If the cause of spreading of coronavirus were the contact between people, why in the twenty days after the first case of death in Italy (21st of February), when everyone could still move everywhere and shake their hands, touch, embrace, kiss and make love, there were only 8.000 positives to COVID-19 and afterwards, in the 44 following days of suspension of the contacts between people, the cases have become 187.327, with a constant increase of about 3.000 individuals for day?

If the contact between people were the cause of spreading of coronavirus, why did the large exodus of population that moved from the Valley of the Po to the South in the days of the adopted dictatorial provisions, not extend the contagion, since the number of positives continues growing in the Valley of the Po and remaining irrelevant in the rest of Italy?

If the contact between people were the cause of spreading of coronavirus, why is the disastrous condition of overcrowding of Italian jails not provoking any health catastrophe in those dehumanizing places? Maybe does coronavirus prefer, besides of the residence, the age and the presence of serious and previous diseases, the prisoners above “free” citizens?

The porky of contagion that the propaganda agencies of the World Health Power are continuing spreading on all their channels, well protected from the counter-information, is transforming itself from a mere lie for the general fear, into a nonsense with tones ever more grotesque and absurd.

Nevertheless, the majority of population still continues believing to the voice of the government; that, on its turn, assures that, without these restrictions of freedom, we would be in an epidemiological disaster and that the increase of 3.000 positives to COVID-19 every day would have been surely bigger. Terrifying! Terrifying! Terrifying everyone as much as possible!

Such an argumentation, indeed, is simply illogic: i.e., it is effective only on a sensibility at the mercy of the emotional chaos and martyrized by the terror of an imponderable aroused ad hoc. If we could appeal for a moment to that famous common sense, they are progressively taking away from us, all of us would be immediately able to realize its unreasonableness. Recalling the metaphor of the water and the tap, who of us, seeing the water overflowing from a pipe that flooded home, after hurrying to close the tap, and after noticing that the water, instead of decreasing, overflowed in gushes 2/3/4 times bigger than before, would calm down thinking how many water more would have been overflowed if that (useless) tap had not been closed? Nobody!!! Everyone, seeing the increase of the flood after the closing of the tap, would have considered as mistaken that closed tap, and would have been hurried to search for the right tap to close it at once and avoid the general flood.

If it is true that the contact between people provokes the spreading of the virus, removing it almost completely, the spreading should decrease. I.e. there should be less people that fall ill every day. If, on the contrary, the ill people continue increasing every day, it means that every day, although the contacts between humans have been eliminated, there are still thousands of individuals that feel bad, go to the emergency room, receive the tampon, and result positive. If the reason of the arising of that illness were the contact between people, this would not be possible in that degree; while, if the reason were the precarious conditions of health of those new positive people, everything would assume a full sense.

In fact, if we look at the data reported today by the Department of Civil Protection, and want to attribute to the COVID-19 tampon all the reliability that it has not, though, the percentage of positives remains limited to the Valley of the Po (70,47%)[38]: they are elderly people (their the mean age of positive patients is 62 years[39]) that continue breathing the air plagued by incinerators, industrial smokes, nano-dusts, and electrosmog circulating in that area: an unbreathable air not more inhaled by the escaped towards the South, and that, on the contrary, has remained to delight the lungs of the inhabitants of the Valley of the Po after the provisions of suspension of human contacts as well (actually, it is still more unbreathable if facemasks are used). Moreover, the inhabitants remained in the North are elderly people, and much of them underwent vaccinal practices last winter: i.e. their immune system was weakened by the inoculation of heavy metals (like mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde (forbidden in Medicine since 2004, but present in vaccines), and thus is organically weak in the absence of human contacts, too.

 It is the same with the people unfortunately dead. According to the last Report of the ITALIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH on April 20th[40], they are, too, mainly inhabitants of the Valley of the Po (83,2%), whose the mean age rises to 79 years, and that presented 3,3 serious and chronic previous pathologies. However, we are already starting knowing that a part of them would have been killed precisely by the therapies: for example, by an inopportune intubation; by the improper intake of antiviral drugs; perhaps by the implementation of aggressive and experimental therapeutic protocols. It is interesting, about this, the case denounced by Dr. Fabio Franchi, an Italian epidemiologist and expert in infectious diseases. An 85 years old woman, after feeling bad, with fever and sore throat, went to the local emergency room, received the tampon, and resulted positive to COVID-19. Immediately hospitalized, she was put under therapy. Her daughter, called by the physician of the hospital and arrived to visit her, was warned: “your mother’s conditions are very serious, there is nothing to do anymore: we can only accompany her to death sparing her any suffering”. To that point, the daughter, calling her mother’s family doctor to communicate the desperate situation, obtained from him the wise advice of bringing back home her in order to permit her to die among her kins, not in the isolation of the clinic. Following the advice, the little old woman was brought back home: the next week she healed[41].

To describe in an exemplifying way this so-called “coronavirus pandemic”, Dr. Stefano Scoglio, nominee for Medicine Nobel Prize in 2018, called it: “a cold turned into the plague of the century”[42]. Professor John P.A. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist of world-wide renown and expert in biomedical data science at Stanford University, valuing also the extreme harmfulness of the therapeutic war opposed to it by Medicine, preferred the reference to a metaphor: “It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”[43].

Science, either official or alternative, mistakes, and can provoke irremediable damages, to people’s health as well. Medicine, that is a science, mistakes and kills in the same way! The problem is that it won’t ever admit it, much less now, when its power results strengthened by the servile quietism of the subjugated populations. Instead of rebelling to the oppression, we are accepting all that is being imposed to us with an apparently endless, and anyway inhuman, patience. We are transforming gradually in living dead or, as a Bolognese friend of mine, very sensitive to the decline of people’s responsive ability, says: we are transforming into “an inept and dominated people with only one aim in life: not feeling anything anymore and settling for a superficial and automatic existence”.

The Megamachine that directs and determines our live and consumes daily our vitality at the price of the inaction that ourselves reclaim (we call it comfort), is transforming all of us into machines: cold, insensitive, operative, subordinate as the machines. Actually, the machines do not think, do not feel, do not enjoy, do not protest; they only execute!

Dehumanized executors of the orders of the World Health Power, we are ever more reduced to the role of guinea pigs in the scientific and political labs. In only ten thousand years of civilization, we have passed from the position of assumed dominators of the Universe to the one of dominated, by the same process of civilization that took us away from the Nature’s maternal arms to subjugate us to the brutal yoke of Culture. And it won’t be a “new” science, thus, what will rejoin us with the living organism dismembered, disunited, broken, separated precisely by Science.

As far as I am concerned, the adjective “scientific”, as a cultural expression of this intimate dissociation from Mother Earth, far from being able to be considered qualificative of something, does not qualify absolutely anything; on the contrary, it discredits it. Such as the “scientific” socialism did not ennoble the socialism making it better (and the history has dramatically demonstrated it), this adjective does not heighten nor improve anything. Instead it defames all what it touches, such as the adjective “technological” or “economical”. Saying that a certain phenomenon is scientific means that it is an object of manipulation, of estrangement, of subjection. What qualifies positively a certain phenomenon or relationship is not its being “scientific”, but its being “natural”. Natural is the exact opposite of scientific, and all what tends to scientize Nature, in reality bridles, reduces, voids of life, and oppresses it. If we won’t be able to go out from the paradigm of the dominion imposed by civilization, we won’t ever can aspire to a free and wild life, but only to a civilized one, i.e. mystified, shaped by the power of the moment, and marked by the oppression of any vital impulse, however it calls: Freedom, Love or, more generally, Joy of Life.

We must free ourselves from civilization, not rehabilitate its categories! We must free ourselves from the complex of the cultural burqas that civilization has put on us through its ten thousand years of development, not preserve some of them in order to reinforce and perpetuate it against our life. What is necessary to start is tending to the natural, not to the “scientific” (i.e. to the unnatural manipulated by Culture); and the question that we should start asking to ourselves, above all now, in front of the totalitarian invasion of Science and its dystopic government, is not how to scientize Nature or to naturize Science, but if it is possible a not-ideological knowledge of the world, i.e. a knowledge saved from the imperative of symbolic superstructures that make it believe to be free while they reify it, isolate it from the “I” investigating it (besides of the rest of the living), cage it in fixed formulas, and return it us civilized and well packaged, ready for everyone’s consumption.

Actually, a not-ideological way of knowing reality exists: it is a way based on the union with the Nature, not on its separation; on the direct experience, not on the memorization of abstract concepts; on the sensible relationship with all what lives, not inspired to the isolation and the sterilization of living beings. It is a way that grasps the differences and the uniqueness of Nature and of its phenomena, not aimed to the homologation and the uniformity. And it is the way we have always practiced through the millions of years of human life with the Earth, before the advent of civilization, and still practice all the primitive hunter-gatherer populations that exist today. There is an extremely ample anthropologic, ethnological, and even philosophical literature about this theme that has tried to bring it back to our attention.

For instance, when Laurens Van der Post, South African journalist, writer, and explorer, had the chance to live with the !Kung San Bushmen hunters and gatherers, in the African desert of Kalahari, during the fiftieth of Twentieth century, could ascertain personally the fullness of a system of sensible relationships with what exists. «Today – he wrote in The lost world of the Kalahari – we tend to know statistically and in the abstract. We classify, catalogue and sub-divide the flame-like variety of animal and plant according to species, sub-species, physical property and use. But in the Bushman’s knowing, no matter how practical, there was a dimension that I miss in the life of my own time. He knew these things in the full context and commitment of his life»[44].

As Ernst Cassirer explained, in the primitives’ mentality «Life is not divided in classes or subclasses; on the contrary, it is felt as an entirety and a continuity that does not admit sharp separations»[45]. What is more: people that live on gathering and hunting, as the British anthropologist Tim Ingold evidenced, «do not see the not human environment as a world of things alien from themselves and opposed to people’s world. Instead, they consider the entire world where they live as soaked with personal powers, intentionality, and feelings»[46]. Therefore, «The rigid division that Western thought and science draws between the worlds of society and nature, of persons and things, does not exist for hunters and gatherers. For them there are not two worlds but one, embracing all the manifold beings that dwell therein […]. Far from seeking control over nature, there aim is to maintain proper relationships with these beings»[47]. The result? What the primitives know perfectly is precisely their real world, not Science with its ignorant, abstract, and written theories. «They could tell very quickly how long it was since the buck, lion, leopard, bird, reptile or insect had signed his time-sheet in the sand – Van der Post remembered furthermore –. No two hoof-prints were alike to them for all spoor, like finger-prints to a Scotland Yard sleuth, were distinct and individual. They would pick out one from fifty, and deduce accurately the size, sex, build and mood of the great antelope that had just made it»[48]. Besides, «They were always centred. […] Once indeed, more than a hundred and fifty miles from home, when asked where it lay they had instantly turned and pointed out the direction. I had taken a compass bearing of our course and checked it. Nxou’s pointing arm might have been the magnetic needle of the instrument itself so truly did it register»[49]. Just as the Hadza: these hunters and gatherers, noted Michael Finkel, reporter of National Geographic that in 2009 lived during a time with them, often hunt by night and «orientation seems impossible; there are no tracks and landmarks lack. To go around in the dark savannah without a torch you need that familiarity that you have, let’s say, in your bedroom. Only that this “bedroom” is 2,500 square kilometres wide»[50].

One day, Van der Post asked his Bushmen friends: «But how d’you know which zone is which? […] [Here in the desert there are] thousands of square miles of identical sand, dune and bush»[51]. The natives laughed amused at this question, believing that the explorer was mocking them; when they understood that their white friend was not joking, and asked them seriously that question, remained amazed: «[Don’t you really know] that] there was not a tree, expanse of sand or bush that were alike? They knew the frontier tree by tree, and grass by grass»[52].

We know the nuclear fusion, the relativity theory, the chemical formula of the nitrogen and cannot distinguish anymore an edible plant from one that is not, or a puddle of potable water from a polluted one.

We do not need Science to live; quite the contrary. We need consciousness: namely the awareness that Science (official or alternative as it may be) is always a problem. And we need also respect, an egalitarian relationship between people and with all what exists (and that we call Nature). Only our ability to question the ignoble system of ideological superstructures that hides Nature from us and subjugates it to Culture can put us again on the path aimed to become part of that Living One from which we separated ten thousand years ago.

A not-ideological way of knowing reality exists, and we can try to fill our heart again of it; but we have to change radically our point of view, our mentality: stop believing in Science and try again, gradually, to immerse ourselves into Mother Earth, in order to understand again its endless messages and loving suggestions.

In December of 2004, when an enormous tsunami hit the coasts of the countries turned towards the Indian Ocean, provoking 250.000 dead among the inhabitants of Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Republic of Maldives, none of the hunters and gatherers living in the wildest islands of the Archipelago of Andamane (in the middle of Indian Ocean) remained even only injured. Still, even the civilized part of those islands had been decimated after the arrival of the freak wave (9.571 dead and 5.801 missing[53]). Why? As Francesca Casella, of the Italian branch of Survival International, explained well, what rescued the Andamanians was «their sophisticated and intimate knowledge of the Ocean and its movements, gained through millennia of life on the islands and handed down since generations. For example, we know that the Onges escaped on some uplands as soon as saw the water of the sea retreat, because they were aware of the danger of flood. It seems that the wind, the flight of the birds, and the movements of the animals, too, alarmed some groups»[54]. In addition, in the wild part of the Andamane Islands, the coasts were, and still are, luxuriant with mangroves, that is, those plants that live in the sand and contributed to act as a barrier against the wave. Once upon the mangroves filled also the coasts of India and Thailand, before the civilization le deforested all of them to build tourist accommodations and resorts: thus, those accommodations and resorts were the buildings crushed by the wave.

Geologist Mario Tozzi, well-known television presenter (Gaia – Il pianeta che vive, RaiTre; La Gaia Scienza, La7 [Gaia – The living planet, RaiTre; Gaia Science, La7]), wrote in his book Catastrofi [Disasters] that in the tsunami of 2004 «none “savage” fortunately became extinct. Why? They are tribes that live at a very close contact with nature […], do not practice agriculture and have a life very similar to the one of our ancestors ten thousand years ago. They do not have available technologies […] they acted simply according to nature, keeping in mind the memory of the Earth more than the experts and commentators could do […]. Much of the indigenous that were on the beaches escaped immediately into the bushes as soon as understood that those tide was out of sync. […] Is not possible that these “primitives” are right and somebody else is doing something wrong […]?»[55].

Mario Tozzi’s question results very pertinent: while these primitives simply catched the premonitory signals that nature always displays before a cataclysm, and saved themselves, the civilized individuals could not do it. Nevertheless, the latter had the most sophisticated technologies in the world and a worldwide and instantaneous telecommunications system available: an amazing mega-computer, realized exclusively for the national prevention of catastrophes, created by Americans, was allocated on the island of Hawaii. On the occasion of the tsunami, the supercomputer registered the seismic phenomenon, but without understanding its reach and circulating to all the world the absence of danger.

When the human life depends on the machines and they get wrong (because machines, too, get wrong or break or deteriorate), the consequences are dramatic: always! While who has preserved his/her own ability to live with the Earth and not on the Earth, has not anything more to fear neither from Life nor from the Earth.

Also in the Nicobar Islands, at the South of the Andamane Archipelago, the 380 natives of the Shompèn community, that live of gathering and hunting in an isolated area of the island of Big Nicobar, remained completely uninjured in the tsunami of 2004, while the other Nicobarians, that «are not hunters and gatherers, but small-scale farmers […] many of them converted to Christianism […], were crushed by the water and the dead were numerous»[56]. Having become deaf to the warnings of their environment made them unable to understand what was happening and the tragedy was unavoidable.

Civilization, even through Science and Technology makes us deaf, blind, insensitive, and totally ignorant in front of the Mother Eart; and, in this condition of disability, the tragedy always threatens; except for when, in our hubris given by the self-proclamation of civilization to a superior lifestyle, we tell ourselves that the guilt is of the evil Nature and not of our scientific, medical or technological stupidity. In front of the tsunami, not even the homeopath doctors, anthroposophists, naturopaths or hygienists could have done better than the civilized inhabitants of the Andamanians and Nicobars Islands. The Human Beings, on the contrary, could.

We have to become again Human Beings, not alternative specialists.

Certainly, the route that can take us towards a recuperation of our original abilities to live autonomously in our natural environment cannot be done from today to tomorrow. But we need to take this route: to start going in the right direction, not running in the wrong one doing it in an alternative way. If we do not start to change direction immediately, taking the opposite direction to the one followed by civilization, and which is heading us towards the precipice, we will continue to run towards the precipice; and it won’t help at all reassure us telling ourselves that we will be doing it at a reduced speed, with an homeopathic protocol or by a solar-powered car.

It is necessary mobilizing in order to rehabilitate ourselves. It is necessary starting walking step by step in the new direction. And it is necessary doing it in a common, joyful way, founding this route on the will to free ourselves really from mental schemes and preconceptions. We cannot make this route alone (we are social animals), but neither in family-like pairs (the culture of the pair and the family are cultural inventions functional to the control of populations). Much less can this path be done in the indiscriminate crowding of those who aggregate just to be alternative (Aggregare: from the Latin aggregàre, derived from grex gregis: “to unite with the flock”). After all, we are social animals, but very selective and destined to be surrounded by loved ones, not by anyone (Burioni[57] with me I do not want it!!!).

In short, we need to mobilize in a conscious way together with those who perceive our own desire to find ourselves and who are willing to get involved in order to become part of a gigantic practical project that aspires to bring us back active subjects and lovers of an alive life. In Emilia-Romagna [a region of Italy], there is already a small reality of people who have started moving in this direction, much before this last attack by the Scientocracy on our freedom: nothing resolutive, perhaps; but the urge to set aside everything that is annihilating us is natural and unstoppable. Because living is a pleasure, a wonder! It’s not a heartache to endure or a harassing interlude to pass over quickly; it’s not a TV show to watch passively or an app to download on your smartphone. And neither is it a paid service or a gift that governments, lobbies and the strong powers of the world grant without compensation. As anarchists have always said: “Freedom has to be conquered, not begged”. We must return to fight to take back our lives in own hands!

Enrico Manicardi

Translated by Irene Starace

 Edited by Aleksandra K. Rega

________________

[1] J. RIFKIN, Ecocidio. Ascesa e caduta della cultura della carne [Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture] (1992), Mondadori, Milano 2005, page 286.

[2] S. LATOUCHE, Il mondo ridotto a mercato [The world reduced to market] (1992-97), Edizioni Lavoro, Roma 1998, page 104.

[3] C. MERCHANT, La morte della natura [The death of nature] (1980), Garzanti, Milano 1988, page 222.

[4] J. RIFKIN, Ecocidio [Beyond Beef], quoted., page 287.

[5] E. MANICARDI, Free From Civilization. Notes Toward a Radical Critique of Civilization’s Foundations: Domination, Culture, Fear, Economics, Technology [Liberi dalla civiltà. Spunti per una critica radicale ai fondamenti della civilizzazione: dominio, cultura, paura, economia, tecnologia], Green Anarchy Press, Berkeley CA 2012, pages 76-77.

[6] G. GALILEI, Il saggiatore [The Assayer] (1623), in: G. GALILEI, Opere, Utet, Torino 1964, page 631ss.

[7] R.D. LAING, The voice of experience (1982). Reported in: F. CAPRA, Il punto di svolta. Scienza, società e cultura emergente [The turning point. Science, society and emerging culture] (1982), Feltrinelli, Milano 1987, page 49.

[8] GREEN ANARCHY, Introduzione al pensiero e alla pratica anarchica di anticivilizzazione [Green Anarchist Collective «What is green anarchy? An introduction to anti-civilization anarchist thought and practice» (2004), Nautilus, Torino 2004, page 19. (The use of italics is mine).

* Fantozzi, the Accountant Ugo Fantozzi, is the tragicomic character in a famous Italian comedy that bears his name, which has become a film saga.

[9] Reported in: https://aforismi.meglio.it/aforisma.htm?id=28a2

[10] M. FUKUOKA, La fattoria biologica [The organic farm] (1985), Edizioni Mediterranee, Roma 2001, page 56.

[11] Ibidem, page 81.

[12] E. MANICARDI, Free From Civilization, quoted, page 80.

[13] Ibidem, page 138.

[14] M. FUKUOKA, La fattoria biologica [The organic farm], quoted, page 72.

[15] J.G. FRAZER, The golden bough, The Macmillan Company, New York 1926, page 49.

[16] Ibidem, page 49.

[17] T. DANTZIG, Il numero. Linguaggio della scienza [Number: The Language of Science] (1930), La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1973, page 241.

[18] Reported in: C. BENATTI, Sanità obbligata [Compulsory Healthcare], Macro Edizioni, Diegaro di Cesena 2004, page 13.

[19] E. MANICARDI, Io voto, tu voti, egli comanda! La Politica non è neutrale, in: J. ZERZAN – E. MANICARDI, Nostra nemica civiltà. Frammenti di resistenza anarchica alla civilizzazione [I vote, you vote, he commands! Politics is not neutral, in: J. ZERZAN – E. MANICARDI, Our enemy civilization. Fragments of anarchist resistance to civilization], Mimesis, Milano – Udine 2018, page 286.

[20] Ibidem, page 286.

[21] S. RIDOLFI, Pandemia dichiarata, soggiogamento delle popolazioni, soppressione della libertà di parola: intervista a Francesco Benozzo [Declared pandemic, subjugation of populations, suppression of speech freedom: interview with Francesco Benozzo], in «Libri e parole» del 31st March 2020. In: https://librieparole.it/zibaldone/1569/francesco-benozzo-intervista-pandemia-covid-19/

[22] Ibidem.

[23] AGCOM, Delibera N. 129/20/CONS: Atto di richiamo sul rispetto dei principi vigenti a tutela della correttezza dell’informazione con riferimento al tema “coronavirus COVID-19” [Resolution No. 129/20/CONS: Act of recall on the respect of the principles in force to protect the correctness of information with reference to the theme “COVID-19 coronavirus”], 18th March 2020, in: https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/17914778/Delibera+129-20-CONS/2d750507-644c-44f4-8abf-1a93322daef4?version=1.0

[24] FNOMCeO, Comunicazione n.37. Indicazioni messaggi sui social. Prot. N.3638/2020 del 11 marzo 2020 [Communication No 37. Message indications on social media. Prot. N.3638/2020 of 11th March 2020], in: https://portale.fnomceo.it/comunicati_ordini/com-n-37-indicazioni-messaggi-sui-social-prot-n-3638-2020-del-11-03-2020/

[25] URCOFER, Comunicazione del 31 marzo 2020 [Communication of 31st March 2020].

[26] Cfr. A. ZINITI, Multe crudeli, casi limite ed errori: ecco lo Stato sceriffo [Cruel fines, borderline cases and errors: here is the sheriff’s state], in «La Repubblica» [Italian daily newspaper] 18th April 2020, in: https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/04/19/news/multe_crudeli-254404997/?refresh_ce

[27] Ibidem.

[28] Ibidem.

[29] Ibidem.

[30] IL RESTO DEL CARLINO [Italian daily newspaper], “Compravo il giornale, mi hanno multato” [I was buying the paper, I got fined], on «Il Resto del Carlino», Reggio Emilia, 17th April 2020, in: https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/reggio-emilia/cronaca/giornale-multa-1.5112320

[31] S. RIDOLFI, Pandemia dichiarata, soggiogamento delle popolazioni, soppressione della libertà di parola: intervista a Francesco Benozzo[Declared pandemic, subjugation of populations, suppression of speech freedom: interview with Francesco Benozzo], quoted

[32] BYOBLU [Italian independent TV station], Da questo stato di eccezione non si torna indietro. Intervista a Ugo Mattei [From this state of exception there is no turning back. Interview with Ugo Mattei], 10th March 2020, in: https://www.byoblu.com/2020/03/10/da-questo-stato-di-eccezione-non-si-torna-indietro-ugo-mattei-byoblu24/

[33] RADIO 11.11 [Italian independent Radio station], Virus 2020. Cittadini reclusi, allarme mediatico. Una gran parte della medicina ufficiale cerca di imbavagliare scienziati onesti e liberi [Virus 2020. Citizens in custody, media alert. A large part of official medicine tries to gag honest, free scientists], broadcast on 14th April 2020. Reported in: https://www.spreaker.com/user/webradio11-11/virus-2020-cittadini-reclusi-allarme-med

[34] DIPARTIMENTO DELLA PROTEZIONE CIVILE [Italian Civil Protection Department], COVID-19 Italia – Monitoraggio della situazione [COVID-19 Italy – Monitoring the situation], in:           http://opendatadpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/b0c68bce2cce478eaac82fe38d4138b1

[35] Ibidem.

[36] IL FATTO QUOTIDIANO [[Italian daily online newspaper], Coronavirus – In Svezia limiti ai farmaci e stop a visite negli ospizi, ma bar e scuole restano aperti. I medici: “Ci portano alla catastrofe” [Coronavirus – In Sweden limits to medication and stops visits to hospices, but bars and schools remain open. Doctors: “They lead us to catastrophe”], in «Ilfattoquotidiano.it» 2nd April 2020. Reported in: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-svezia-limiti-ai-farmaci-e-stop-a-visite-negli-ospizi-ma-bar-e-scuole-restano-aperti-i-medici-ci-portano-alla-catastrofe/5757754/

[37] REDAZIONE DI 5GNEWS, Tim estende la copertura 5G in Lombardia: ecco le città coinvolte [Tim extends 5G coverage in Lombardy: here are the cities involved], in «5GNEWS» 8th December 2019. Reported in: https://www.5gnews.it/2019/12/08/tim-copertura-5g-lombardia-milano-brescia-monza/

[38] DIPARTIMENTO DELLA PROTEZIONE CIVILE [Italian Civil Protection Department], COVID-19 Italia – Monitoraggio della situazione: ultimo aggiornamento al 22/04/2020, ore 17:00 [Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 patients dying in Italy Report based on available data on April 22th, 2020], quoted

[39] ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ [Italian National Institute of Health], Epidemia COVID-19, aggiornamento nazionale del 16 aprile 2020, ore 16:00 [Pandemic COVID-19, national update of 16 April 2020, 4:00 p.m.], in: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bollettino-sorveglianza-integrata-COVID-19_16-aprile-2020.pdf

[40] ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ [Italian National Institute of Health], Caratteristiche dei pazienti deceduti positivi all’infezione da SARS-CoV-2 in Italia. Dati al 20 aprile 2020 [Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 patients dying in Italy Report based on available data on April 20th, 2020], in:  https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_20_aprile.pdf

[41] Case reported during: RADIO 11.11, Virus 2020, quoted

[42] Ibidem.

[43] J.P.A. IOANNIDIS, A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. In: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

[44] L. VAN DER POST, The lost world of the Kalahari, The Hogarth Press, London 1958, page 19.

[45] E. CASSIRER, Saggio sull’uomo. Una introduzione alla filosofia della cultura umana [Essay on man. An introduction to the philosophy of human culture] (1968), Armando, Roma 1996, page 162.

[46] T. INGOLD, Ecologia della cultura [Cultural ecology] (s.d.), Meltemi, Roma 2001, page 164.

[47] T. INGOLD, On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band, in. R.B. LEE – R. DALY (edited by), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999, page 409.

[48] L. VAN DER POST, The lost world of the Kalahari, quoted, page 231.

[49] Ibidem, pages 238-239.

[50] M. FINKEL, Gli Hadza, in: «National Geographic Italia», Dicembre 2009, pag. 26.

[51] L. VAN DER POST, The lost world of the Kalahari, quoted, page 224.

[52] Ibidem, page 224.

[53] G. CASTIGLIA, Lo tsunami e la globalizzazione [Tsunami and globalization], in: http://www.girodivite.it/article.php3?id_article=1550

[54] Interview edited by Franco “il Daddo” Scarpino reported in: http://www.daddo.it./survival.htm

[55] M. TOZZI, Catastrofi [Disasters], Rizzoli, Milano 2005, pages 27-28.

[56] S. BUSSANI, Popoli Sconosciuti. Le tribù che vivono nelle Andamane e Nicobare, travolte dallo tsunami [Unknown People. Tribes living in the Andaman and Nicobare Islands, swept away by Tsunami], in: http://www.peacereporter.net.

[57] Burioni is a virologist and a vaccines promoter in Italy.