You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2018.

Quaccheri@quaccheri.it We can speak English and French (Italian of course)

Mobile / Natel 0030 3515040158 or 0039 3921943729 (also whatsapp)


29.12.2018 IDN InDepthNews

Africa Poverty Clock Launched on UNECA’s 60th Anniversary
(Image by Photo credit: UN Economic Commission for Africa.)

By Devendra Kamarajan

ADDIS ABABA (IDN) – The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) at its 60th anniversary celebrations in Addis Ababa has launched the Africa Poverty Clock, a customized version of the world poverty clock developed by World Data Lab, aimed at monitoring progress against extreme poverty, an aspiration of the United Nations’ first Sustainable Development Goal – SDG1. The Clock provides real-time poverty estimates till 2030 for the majority of countries around the world.

Speaking at the launch, the ECA Executive Secretary, Vera Songwe said that many African countries have achieved remarkable progress over the last six decades.

“We have seen African economies labelled as some of the fastest growing in the world. Africa today is an Africa that has risen and one whose economic autonomy is underway, moving from political independence to economic independence,” she said.

She, however, indicated that African countries rank as some of the worst economic and social indicators. Inequality and poverty remain persistently high, with over 400 million people living in extreme poverty.

Africa is home to 70 percent of the world’s most poor people and current projections show that all countries of the region are off track to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of eliminating extreme poverty by 2030. The achievement of prosperity remains elusive and there is a demand to do better.

“There is a need for bigger and bolder actions to accelerate the pace of sustainable economic growth and development. We need better insights, knowledge and innovative partnerships,” she added.

The launch took place in the presence of Ethiopia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Demeke Mekonen, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator Achim Steiner and the African Union Commission Deputy Chairperson Kwesi Quartey and Ambassador Elsadig Omer Abdalla, Deputy Head of Mission and Charge d’Affaires, Republic of Sudan. Members of the Diplomatic Corps and key representatives from partner institutions, Think Tanks, Civil Society Organizations, University Students, High School Students and the Private Sector were in attendance.

ECA, also known as UNECA, has been playing a dual role as a regional arm of the UN and as a key component of the African institutional landscape. Comprising 54 member States, ECA has been promoting economic and social development, fostering intra-regional integration, and supporting international cooperation for Africa’s development.

Commemorating the 60th anniversary with an official event at its headquarters in Addis Ababa on December 17, Ethiopia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mekonen commended the ECA for its contributions to the Continent’s development. He said: “ECA has been the most important and effective institution in development of our knowledge across a range of issues relevant to Africa’s development.”

He emphasized ECA’s support to the process of the realization of the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA), the role it has played in Africa’s transformation agenda and the implementation of the SDGs and Agenda 2063.

“It is an anniversary that underlines the effective solidarity and real cooperation of the ECA and Africa,” Mekonen said and added that the commemoration was taking place at an exciting time of change and reform in the country, as well as the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

For her part, the ECA Executive Secretary Songwe congratulated all staff, past and present for their contributions and said: “We must continue to listen and engage with member States and other key stakeholders, including the private sector, academic institutions and civil society organizations to ensure that ECA’s activities respond to the new and emerging challenges of the continent and the aspirations of Africans.”

Looking ahead, she said, an estimated 40 million jobs will need to be created every month by 2020 to absorb the number of young people entering the workforce. As such, bigger and bolder actions to accelerate the pace of sustainable economic growth and development will be needed.

UNDP Administrator Steiner congratulated the ECA for its role in promoting economic and social development of Africa and fostering regional integration since its establishment by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1958 as one of the world body’s five regional commissions.

African Union Commission Deputy Chairperson Quartey provided a poignant historical overview of the ECA and the importance of its founding at a time when many African countries had not gained independence.

To mark the occasion, a series of events took place in the ECA Subregional Offices as well as in Addis Ababa. A football tournament resulted in a win by the African Union Commission.

A highlight of the celebrations was the innovation prize involving students from schools in Addis Ababa, which brought attention to the role of the youth in creating solutions to meet Africa’s development challenges in the coming decade.

Awards were presented along various categories, including art. ECA staff, having taken part in a separate innovation contest on institutional projects and initiatives were also acknowledged and awarded by the Executive Secretary. [IDN-InDepthNews – 22 December 2018]

Photo credit: UN Economic Commission for Africa.

IDN is flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate.

facebook.com/IDN.GoingDeeper – twitter.com/InDepthNews

Send your commentcomment@indepthnews.net

Subscribe to IDN Newsletternewsletter@indepthnews.net

The original article can be found on our partner’s website here

28.12.2018 – Pressenza London

Climate change: six positive news stories you probably missed this year
The Gansu Wind Farm in China is the largest wind farm in the world (Image by Popolon • CC BY-SA 3.0)

Rick GreenoughDe Montfort UniversityAnna PigottSwansea UniversityDaniele Malerba,University of ManchesterMike WoodUniversity of SalfordParakram PyakurelSouthampton Solent UniversityRory TelfordUniversity of Strathclyde , and Stuart GallowayUniversity of Strathclyde for The Conversation

Climate change news can be incredibly depressing. In 2018 alone, The Conversation covered the loss of three trillion tonnes of ice in Antarctica; Brazil’s new president and why he will be disastrous for the Amazon rainforest; a rise in global CO₂ emissions; and a major IPCC report which warned we are unlikely to avoid 1.5℃ of warming.

Then there were the rogue hurricanesintense heatwavesmassive wildfires and the possibility we are emitting our way towards a Hothouse Earth. Global warming has left some wintery animals with mismatched camouflage, and it may even cause a global beer shortage.

But things cannot be entirely bad, can they? We asked some climate researchers to peer through the smog and highlight a few more positive stories from 2018.

Renewable energy is being set up faster than ever

Rick Greenough, professor of energy systems, De Montfort University

2018 saw the largest annual increase in global renewable generation capacity ever, with new solar photovoltaic capacity outstripping additions in coal, natural gas and nuclear power combined.

This is one of several hopeful signs that the “cleantech” sector is rising to the challenge of climate change. The UK, for instance, set new records for wind generation. And now that subsidy-free solar generation has proven possible, there are plans for the UK’s largest solar farm to provide the cheapest electricity on the grid, thanks to battery backup (crucial for intermittent renewable technology). Tesla, meanwhile, installed the world’s largest lithium battery in Australia and it is set to pay back a third of its cost within one year.

Chernobyl fights against climate change

Mike Wood, reader in applied ecology, University of Salford

Three decades ago, the world experienced its worst nuclear accident to date. The damaged Chernobyl nuclear power plant released large quantities of radioactive material into the environment, necessitating evacuation of an area now known as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ). But forget the popularised imagery of a nuclear wasteland; Chernobyl is now home to an amazing diversity of wildlife, its forests are expanding and the future of this region is looking positive.

Forests have reclaimed the ‘abandoned city’ of Pipyat near Chernobyl.

A new mobilising force for climate action

Anna Pigott, researcher in environmental humanities, Swansea University

The Extinction Rebellion direct action movement might not be the most obvious choice for positivity, what with its use of skull imagery and banners such as the one hung over Westminster Bridge in November reading: “Climate Change: We’re F****d”. But a closer look suggests that the movement’s acknowledgement of personal and collective despair in the face of environmental collapse might be a very positive move indeed.

Extinction Rebellion protesters, Twitter
As its co-founder Gail Bradbrook explains, “grief is welcome here – it is an emotional, physical, and spiritual necessity”. Poets and scholars alike have long spoken about how grief mobilises awareness and action, but rarely has this wisdom found its way into large environmental movements.

Pain usefully alerts us to problems that need our attention, and, in the case of climate change and species loss, our grief is a sign that we care deeply. Now is not the time to turn our back on such emotions. As the poet Mary Oliver has written: “You tell me your despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.” For many, the Extinction Rebellion movement has given them permission to grieve, and to share this grief with others. And this could be the most mobilising force for climate action yet.

Global economic growth may have peaked

Daniele Malerba, honorary research fellow, University of Manchester

Expansion in the global economy may have peaked, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The economic think-tank is worried by the slowdown, but it may actually be good news for the climate and possibly for society too. This is because less global economic growth means less production, less consumption – and lower emissions.

But any slowdown or eventual reversal in growth must happen in an equitable way to make sure that human well-being still increases. This is why an increasing number of researchers, politicians and citizens are advocating for degrowth.

Degrowth addresses the issue technological improvements are not enough to avoid climate change and an alternative to capitalism is urgently needed. The recent protests in France show that environmental and social issues need to go hand-in-hand. And this is critical in a situation when populist movements are spreading. Degrowth is the solution. As Ghandi once said, we have enough for everybody’s needs, but not everybody’s greed.

Glimmer of hope in emissions reduction

Parakram Pyakurel, researcher, Warsash School of Maritime Science and Engineering, Solent University

A lot still needs to be done to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions but not all is doom and gloom. For instance, the US, UK and Japan are among the countries whose total carbon emissions from energy fell in 2017 (the most recent year available), according to BP’s statistical review of world energy.

Interestingly, Ukraine showed the greatest reduction, with its 2017 energy emissions around 10% lower than in the previous year. This was thanks to a big fall in coal use, perhaps part of the country’s grand vision of a 2050 low emission development strategy, though it remains to be seen whether Kiev will take the strategy seriously in the long term.

Other nations that managed to reduce their energy emissions include South Africa, Argentina, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. We’ll need to carefully monitor the statistics in upcoming years to see whether they continue on this path.

Local community energy is doing well

Rory Telford and Stuart Galloway, Department of Engineering, University of Strathclyde

Renewable generation technologies such as wind turbines or solar photovoltaics are now a familiar sight, but many may not realise that communities themselves are accelerating the transition towards low carbon energy. In Scotland, the government’s programme to support local involvement in renewable energy has been a success. An initial target of having 500MW of community and local owned energy was achieved early and with policy stability and continued effort the new 1GW target by 2020 also looks achievable.

The Smart Fintry project based in Stirlingshire is an excellent example of a community approach to decentralised energy provision. The project balances local renewable electricity generation with community energy needs via dynamic energy management technology and an innovative tariff. This offers far greater flexibility to the network and cheaper energy for households.

Rick Greenough, Professor of Energy Systems, De Montfort UniversityAnna Pigott, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Geography Department, Swansea University, Swansea UniversityDaniele Malerba, Honorary Research Fellow, University of ManchesterMike Wood, Reader in Applied Ecology, University of SalfordParakram Pyakurel, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Warsash School of Maritime Science and Engineering, Southampton Solent UniversityRory Telford, Research Fellow, Electronic And Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde , and Stuart Galloway, Professor of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Con l’occasione della denuncia per hackeraggio su Facebook ho fatto denuncia contro la falsa banca svizzera che emette carte di credito denominate Amica rd, emessa dalla Swiss Banking Group (inesistente ma con codice Iban e sfwit) che chiede una quota di adesione di 29 euro ma poi non consegna PIN o modalità di utilizzo. Su Linkedin c’è un interessante analisi ricerca sulla truffa raggiro di questi sciacalli che rigirano in paradisi fiscali i soldi ricevuti come la mia quota di adesione. Gli approfondimenti della vicenda sono reperibili su Linkedin in un post pubblico di chi ha fatto una ricerca a tal propoposito in lingua inglese: https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoniodalbore/

img090

The enemy between us: how inequality erodes our mental health

27.12.2018 Pressenza London

This post is also available in: Spanish

The enemy between us: how inequality erodes our mental health
(Image by Flickr/mSeattle. CC BY 2.0.)

By KATE PICKETT and RICHARD WILKINSON for openDemocracy

Inequality creates the social and political divisions that isolate us from each other.

When people are asked what matters most for their happiness and wellbeing, they tend to talk about the importance of their relationships with family, friends and colleagues. It is their intimate world, their personal networks that mean the most to them, rather than material goods, income or wealth.

Most people probably don’t think that broader, structural issues to do with politics and the economy have anything to do with their emotional health and wellbeing, but they do. We’ve known for a long time that inequality causes a wide range of health and social problems, including everything from reduced life expectancy and higher infant mortality to poor educational attainment, lower social mobility and increased levels of violence. Differences in these areas between more and less equal societies are large, and everyone is affected by them.

In our 2009 book The Spirit Level, we hypothesised that this happens because inequality increases the grip of class and social status on us, making social comparisons more insidious and increasing the social and psychological distances between people.

In our new book, The Inner Level, we bring together a robust body of evidence that shows we were on the right track: inequality eats into the heart of our immediate, personal world, and the vast majority of the population are affected by the ways in which inequality becomes the enemy between us. What gets between us and other people are all the things that make us feel ill at ease with one another, worried about how others see us, and shy and awkward in company—in short, all our social anxieties.

For some people, these anxieties become so severe that social contact becomes an ordeal and they withdraw from social life. Others continue to participate in social life but are beset by the constant worry that they have no small talk or come across as boring, stupid or unattractive. Sadly, we all tend to feel that these anxieties are our own personal psychological weaknesses and that we need to hide them from others or seek therapy or treatment to try to overcome them by ourselves.

But a recent Mental Health Foundation Survey found that 74 percent of adults in the UK were so stressed at times in the past year that they felt overwhelmed and unable to cope. One-third had suicidal thoughts and 16 percent had self-harmed sometime in their lives. The figures were much higher for young people. In the USA, mortality rates are rising, particularly for white middle-aged men and women, due to ‘despair’, meaning deaths due to drug and alcohol addictions, suicide, and vehicle accidents.  An epidemic of distress seems to be gripping some of the richest nations in the world.

Socioeconomic inequality matters because it strengthens the belief that some people are worth much more than others. Those at the top seem hugely important and those at the bottom are seen as almost worthless. In more unequal societies we come to judge each other more by status and worry more about how others judge us. Research on 28 European countries shows that inequality increases status anxiety in all income groups, from the poorest ten percent to the richest tenth. The poor are affected most but even the richest ten percent of the population are more worried about status in unequal societies.

Another study of how people experience low social status in both rich and poor countries found that, despite huge differences in their material living standards, across the world people living in relative poverty had a strong sense of shame and self-loathing and felt that they were failures: being at the bottom of the social ladder feels the same whether you live in the UK, Norway, Uganda or Pakistan. Therefore, simply raising material living standards is not enough to produce genuine wellbeing or quality of life in the face of inequality.

Although it appears that the vast majority of the population are affected by inequality, we respond in different ways to the worries it creates about how others see and judge us. As we show in The Inner Level, one way is to feel burdened and oppressed by lack of confidence, feelings of inferiority and low self-esteem, and that leads to high levels of depression and anxiety in more unequal societies.

A second is to try to flaunt your own worth and achievements, to ‘self enhance’ and become narcissistic.Psychotic symptoms such as delusions of grandeur are more common in more unequal countries, as is schizophrenia. As the graph below shows, narcissism increases as income inequality rises, as measured by ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory’ (NPI) scores from successive samples of the US population.

Sources: The Inner Level and Twenge et al 2008.

A third response is to find other ways to overcome what psychologists call the ‘social evaluative threat’ through drugs, alcohol or gambling, through comfort eating, or through status consumption and conspicuous consumerism. Those who live in more unequal places are more likely to spend money on expensive cars and shop for status goods; and they are more likely to have high levels of personal debt because they try to show that they are not ‘second-class people’ by owning ‘first-class things.’

In The Inner Level, the evidence we show of the impact of inequality on mental wellbeing is only part of the new picture. We also discuss two of the key myths that some commentators use to justify the perpetuation and tolerance of inequality.

First, by examining our evolutionary past and our history as egalitarian, cooperative, sharing hunter-gatherers, we dispel the false idea that humans are, in their very nature, competitive, aggressive and individualistic. Inequality is not inevitable and we humans have all the psychological and social aptitudes to live differently.

Second, we also tackle the idea that current levels of inequality reflect a justifiable ‘meritocracy’ where those of natural ability move up and the incapable languish at the bottom. In fact the reverse is true: inequalities of outcome limit equality of opportunity; differences in achievement and attainment are driven by inequality, rather than being a consequence of it.

Finally, we argue that inequality is a major roadblock to creating sustainable economies that serve to optimise the health and wellbeing of both people and planet.  Because consumerism is about self-enhancement and status competition, it is intensified by inequality. And as inequality leads to a societal breakdown in trust, solidarity and social cohesion, it reduces people’s willingness to act for the common good. This is shown in everything from the tendency for more unequal societies to do less recycling to surveys which show that business leaders in more unequal societies are less supportive of international environmental protection agreements.  By acting as an enemy between us, inequality prevents us from acting together to create the world that we want.

So what can we do? The first step is to recognise the problem and spread the word.  Empowering people to see the roots of their distress and unease not in their personal weaknesses but in the divisiveness of inequality and its emphasis on superiority and inferiority is a necessary step in releasing our collective capacity to fight for change.

The UK charity we founded, The Equality Trust, has resources for activists and a network of local groups. In the USA, check out inequality.org. Worldwide, the Fight Inequality Alliance works with more than 100 partners to work for a more equal world. And look out for the new global Wellbeing Economy Alliance this autumn.

Our own focus for change is to work for the increase of all kinds of economic democracy—everything from more cooperatives and employee-owned companies to stronger trade unions, more workers on company boards and the publication of pay-ratios. We believe that extending democratic rights to workers embeds greater equality more firmly into any culture.

Of course, we would also like to see more progressive taxation and action on tax evasion and tax havens. We’d like to see more citizens paid a Living Wage, and action taken on universal provision of high-quality lifelong education, universal health and social services. There are lots of ways to tackle inequality at the international, national and local levels, so we all need to work in ways that suit our capabilities and values.

Inequality creates the social and political divisions that isolate us from each other, so it’s time for us all to reach out, connect, communicate and act collectively. We really are all in this together.

Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson’s new book is The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Wellbeing. About the authors

Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson are professors of epidemiology, co-founders of The Equality Trust, and authors of The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Wellbeing, which is published by Allen Lane.

25.12.2018 Pressenza London

Gandhi is still relevant – and can inspire a new form of politics today
Gandhi spinning in the 1920s (Image by Unknown gandhiserve.org, Wikimedia Commons)

Tom Shillam, University of York for The Conversation

Seventy years after Gandhi’s assassination on the streets of New Delhi, Ramachandra Guha’s new book, Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914-48, reopens a familiar debate around his legacy. What was Gandhi’s message? What were his politics? What can we learn from him today? And is he still relevant?

Guha, presenting the second half of a biography that began with his 2013 book, Gandhi Before India, offers a straightforward but detailed narrative in which “the Mahatma” negotiates a principled path between the warring political trends of the age. Historian of empire, Bernard Porter, welcomed Guha’s work and its subtle defence of a “gentler, more tolerant and consensual forms of politics” that is now, in the age of Donald Trump, Brexit and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, on the decline in the West and elsewhere.

Others are more biting. Fellow Gandhi scholar Faisal Devji charges Guha with neutralising the Mahatma’s radicalism. Meanwhile, author Pankaj Mishra, reexamining Gandhi’s writings in a “post-truth age” of “furious revisionism”, uncovers a “relentlessly counter-intuitive thought” left untapped by Guha’s tales of a “bland do-gooder”.

Resurrection

All these accounts, however, seek to resurrect Gandhi as a political mentor for today. Modern politics – and its new formula of Twitter hashtags, populist sloganeering and strongman dictators – may seem an unlikely place for the teachings of Gandhi to offer fresh inspiration. But just such a thing also happened during the Cold War, when politics faced some very similar problems.

Gandhi is sometimes imagined sitting beside a spinning wheel pouring scorn on science and modernity. Indeed, when asked by a reporter what he thought of “Western civilisation”, he famously replied: “I think it would be a good idea.”

But his politics were more complex than this. Gandhi read the works of Western political thinkers including John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. India was being sucked into a global economy based on the exploitation and automation of labour. Industrial capitalism – and its partner, imperialism – only cemented uneven power relations and alienated one Indian from the next. He believed what was needed, instead, was a social and economic life based around local production for local needs, something that would also foster greater cultural enjoyment.

But is the current post-truth age still able to make use of this simple, authentic message?

A look into early 1950s Indian history provides some clues. When India achieved independence in August 1947 – with Jawaharlal Nehru as its first prime minister – Gandhi, it is supposed, remained as a spiritual and moral, rather than political, guide. His vision of a “village India” died in 1948 with his assassin Nathuram Godse’s bullet. And as Cold War ideological competition ramped up between communism and capitalism, rapid and centralised economic growth seemed inevitable. Some intellectuals, however, returned to the Mahatma’s ideas in this new and hostile climate. In 1950, the CIA covertly funded the formation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an organisation which brought together liberal and leftist intellectuals from around the world to discuss the threat posed by Soviet collectivism to free cultural expression.

In sponsoring conferences and magazines in which these intellectuals could articulate their views, the CIA hoped it could channel their anti-authoritarianism to a useful Cold War end. But this did not work out. CCF branches often acted as repositories for radical aspirations which could find no other home.

The Indian Committee for Cultural Freedom (ICCF), formed in 1951, was a striking example. Freedom First, its maiden publication, eschewed cultural criticism for discussions of domestic politics. The CCF’s push for the formation of a new journal, Quest, which reversed this was in vain, with one writer taking the opportunity to rail against a Westernised Indian “ruling class” whose interest in state-led development was bound to create “a situation reminiscent of the looking-glass world” – in other words, to impose Western ideologies onto India.

A stateless society

These writers – often former freedom fighters who had gone to prison for their travails – wanted a new egalitarian politics they sometimes termed “direct democracy”. Views on how this should be approached varied, and as the decade wore on, some took to advocating for a pro-capitalist, if also welfare state-friendly, programme.

Others, though, found in Gandhi a source of optimism. In 1951, Vinoba Bhave and other social reformers committed to Gandhi’s “sarvodaya” – progress of all – concept, founded the “Bhoodan Movement”. This was aimed at encouraging landowners to redistribute land without violence and rapidly reduce inequality in agrarian India.

This fascinated the ICCF. Marathi trade unionist and columnist, Prabhakar Padhye, named Bhoodan one of several reform movements capable of constituting “a new social force in the life of the country”. The ICCF’s annual conference welcomed the movement, with speakers calling for a “Gandhian” politics which made “cooperation, rather than competition, the rule of life”.

Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.
Via Wikimedia Commons

Soon, key ICCF writer, Minoo Masani, reported on a tour undertaken around the Indian state of Bihar with fellow member Jayaprakash Narayan. Speaking with crowds of peasants and rural poor, Narayan bracketed together totalitarianism and the welfare state as inherently coercive. What the pair supported was “Gandhism” – or a more spontaneous and participatory politics which “like anarchism or communism, visualises ultimately a stateless society”.

The point is that these intellectuals were drawing on Gandhi in defiance of an oppressive global political climate and its relentless classification of different ideas and visions as good or bad, communist or anti-communist, modernist or traditional.

In its vacuous rhetoric and sleazy sloganeering, the early Cold War era was like today. And then, as now, Gandhi’s ideas were of renewed interest. As we now face a global dearth of alternative political ideas, perhaps it’s no wonder we are turning again to the Mahatma for inspiration.

Tom Shillam, PhD Candidate in History, University of York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

25.12.2018 Pressenza London

Gandhi is still relevant – and can inspire a new form of politics today
Gandhi spinning in the 1920s (Image by Unknown gandhiserve.org, Wikimedia Commons)

Tom Shillam, University of York for The Conversation

Seventy years after Gandhi’s assassination on the streets of New Delhi, Ramachandra Guha’s new book, Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, 1914-48, reopens a familiar debate around his legacy. What was Gandhi’s message? What were his politics? What can we learn from him today? And is he still relevant?

Guha, presenting the second half of a biography that began with his 2013 book, Gandhi Before India, offers a straightforward but detailed narrative in which “the Mahatma” negotiates a principled path between the warring political trends of the age. Historian of empire, Bernard Porter, welcomed Guha’s work and its subtle defence of a “gentler, more tolerant and consensual forms of politics” that is now, in the age of Donald Trump, Brexit and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, on the decline in the West and elsewhere.

Others are more biting. Fellow Gandhi scholar Faisal Devji charges Guha with neutralising the Mahatma’s radicalism. Meanwhile, author Pankaj Mishra, reexamining Gandhi’s writings in a “post-truth age” of “furious revisionism”, uncovers a “relentlessly counter-intuitive thought” left untapped by Guha’s tales of a “bland do-gooder”.

Resurrection

All these accounts, however, seek to resurrect Gandhi as a political mentor for today. Modern politics – and its new formula of Twitter hashtags, populist sloganeering and strongman dictators – may seem an unlikely place for the teachings of Gandhi to offer fresh inspiration. But just such a thing also happened during the Cold War, when politics faced some very similar problems.

Gandhi is sometimes imagined sitting beside a spinning wheel pouring scorn on science and modernity. Indeed, when asked by a reporter what he thought of “Western civilisation”, he famously replied: “I think it would be a good idea.”

But his politics were more complex than this. Gandhi read the works of Western political thinkers including John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. India was being sucked into a global economy based on the exploitation and automation of labour. Industrial capitalism – and its partner, imperialism – only cemented uneven power relations and alienated one Indian from the next. He believed what was needed, instead, was a social and economic life based around local production for local needs, something that would also foster greater cultural enjoyment.

But is the current post-truth age still able to make use of this simple, authentic message?

A look into early 1950s Indian history provides some clues. When India achieved independence in August 1947 – with Jawaharlal Nehru as its first prime minister – Gandhi, it is supposed, remained as a spiritual and moral, rather than political, guide. His vision of a “village India” died in 1948 with his assassin Nathuram Godse’s bullet. And as Cold War ideological competition ramped up between communism and capitalism, rapid and centralised economic growth seemed inevitable. Some intellectuals, however, returned to the Mahatma’s ideas in this new and hostile climate. In 1950, the CIA covertly funded the formation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an organisation which brought together liberal and leftist intellectuals from around the world to discuss the threat posed by Soviet collectivism to free cultural expression.

In sponsoring conferences and magazines in which these intellectuals could articulate their views, the CIA hoped it could channel their anti-authoritarianism to a useful Cold War end. But this did not work out. CCF branches often acted as repositories for radical aspirations which could find no other home.

The Indian Committee for Cultural Freedom (ICCF), formed in 1951, was a striking example. Freedom First, its maiden publication, eschewed cultural criticism for discussions of domestic politics. The CCF’s push for the formation of a new journal, Quest, which reversed this was in vain, with one writer taking the opportunity to rail against a Westernised Indian “ruling class” whose interest in state-led development was bound to create “a situation reminiscent of the looking-glass world” – in other words, to impose Western ideologies onto India.

A stateless society

These writers – often former freedom fighters who had gone to prison for their travails – wanted a new egalitarian politics they sometimes termed “direct democracy”. Views on how this should be approached varied, and as the decade wore on, some took to advocating for a pro-capitalist, if also welfare state-friendly, programme.

Others, though, found in Gandhi a source of optimism. In 1951, Vinoba Bhave and other social reformers committed to Gandhi’s “sarvodaya” – progress of all – concept, founded the “Bhoodan Movement”. This was aimed at encouraging landowners to redistribute land without violence and rapidly reduce inequality in agrarian India.

This fascinated the ICCF. Marathi trade unionist and columnist, Prabhakar Padhye, named Bhoodan one of several reform movements capable of constituting “a new social force in the life of the country”. The ICCF’s annual conference welcomed the movement, with speakers calling for a “Gandhian” politics which made “cooperation, rather than competition, the rule of life”.

Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.
Via Wikimedia Commons

Soon, key ICCF writer, Minoo Masani, reported on a tour undertaken around the Indian state of Bihar with fellow member Jayaprakash Narayan. Speaking with crowds of peasants and rural poor, Narayan bracketed together totalitarianism and the welfare state as inherently coercive. What the pair supported was “Gandhism” – or a more spontaneous and participatory politics which “like anarchism or communism, visualises ultimately a stateless society”.

The point is that these intellectuals were drawing on Gandhi in defiance of an oppressive global political climate and its relentless classification of different ideas and visions as good or bad, communist or anti-communist, modernist or traditional.

In its vacuous rhetoric and sleazy sloganeering, the early Cold War era was like today. And then, as now, Gandhi’s ideas were of renewed interest. As we now face a global dearth of alternative political ideas, perhaps it’s no wonder we are turning again to the Mahatma for inspiration.

Tom Shillam, PhD Candidate in History, University of York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The need for a Eur

22.12.2018 – Madrid, Spain – Ángel Bravo

This post is also available in: Spanish

The need for a European Citizens’ Initiative on Universal and Unconditional Basic Income
The biggest question in the world asked during the UBI referendum in Switzerland (Image by Generation Grundeinkommen en Flickr)

In 2013, a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on Universal and Unconditional Basic Income (UBI)[1] was carried out, but the one million signatures required were not collected and for some activists the action was a failure. The truth is that, back then UBI was not as well-known as it is now, and so the support it could get was much smaller.  After that attempt, two significant events occurred that brought UBI to the forefront: the inclusion of UBI by the new Spanish political party Podemos in its programme for the European elections in 2014, and the Swiss referendum on UBI in June 2016.  After these two milestones, UBI started to appear in the media with unusual frequency and is now an issue that is beginning to provoke much debate.

However the kind of UBI we’re talking about must be made very clear, because nowadays there is a lot of confusion about it.  In many places, conditioned benefits for the poor, i.e. minimum incomes, are designated as basic income.  This is a trap that prevents people from getting out of poverty, because when someone finds a job, which is often temporary and precarious, they prefer to continue receiving benefits rather than accept the new job.  On the other hand, in order to protect the socio-economic system from the chaos that will result from the massive loss of jobs due to the advance of automation, neoliberal circles increasingly talk about the need to adopt a UBI.  For example, Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, better known as the Davos Forum, in an interview with a German newspaper in early 2017[2].  In the same vein are other top managers of technology companies, almost all linked to the Silicon Valley complex: for example, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Sam Altman, Richard Branson, Ray Kurzweil or Elon Musk[3].  Even the IMF has been sent out to speak on the subject to support the measure[4].

But let’s not fool ourselves, the purpose of the neoliberal elite is in no way altruistic. A well-known Spanish economist, Niño Becerra, at the last symposium of the Spanish Basic Income Network, privately pointed out that global governance plans for the future will be based on three factors: a UBI, legal marijuana and large doses of entertainment. Their goal is to silence discontent and protests thanks to the charity of the UBI and to numb people through marijuana and entertainment.  The echoes of Huxley’s “Brave New World” are obvious.

In the face of growing inequality, both between people in the same country and between different countries; in the face of the tide of irrationalism, expressed in the rise of racism, xenophobia and the emergence of right-wing populist movements, which appear as an unwarranted reaction to the growing exclusion suffered by millions of people; and in order to alleviate the massive unemployment that all studies predict in the short term, a Universal Basic Income is increasingly necessary, conceived of as the satisfaction of the fundamental human right to material subsistence and that, therefore, is granted to every human being by the mere fact of having been born.  This UBI should have four characteristics, all of which are essential for it to be valid:

  • universal, given to everyone, regardless of age, race, place of residence or income;
  • unconditional, there are no pre-conditions to be fulfilled, not even the fact of not having a job or the obligation to seek one;
  • individual, it is given to each person, even if they live with others in the same family unit;
  • sufficient, it must be equal, as a minimum, to the poverty threshold of each region or country, in order to guarantee decent living conditions.

Opposition to this much-needed measure is based, above all, on the assumption that it cannot be financed. But today there are detailed studies on how to do it, such as that of the Catalans Daniel Raventós, Lluís Torrens, Jordi Arcarons and Antoni Domènech[5]. While this study is based on increasing taxation for all, through which the rich would actually pay for the UBI, there are many other ways to make it economically possible, such as taxing shares in public limited companies or increasing indirect taxes on those who consume the most, or levying taxes on financial transactions (Tobin tax) and polluting emissions, or fighting tax fraud and tax havens, or through a mix of all of them.

The concept behind all this is that today the generation of wealth has multiplied exponentially and that this wealth has been produced thanks to the efforts of all past generations and all of today’s society, being, therefore, the patrimony of all, without exclusion, not only those who are considered “legal owners”.

Guy Standing, in his book “The precariat, a new social class”, expresses it very correctly:

“Philosophically, a basic income may be thought of as a ‘social dividend’, a return on past investment. Those who attack it as giving something for nothing tend to be people who have been given a lot of something for nothing, often having inherited wealth, small or vast. This leads to the point elegantly made by Tom Paine in his Agrarian Justice of 1795. Every affluent person in every society owes their good fortune largely to the efforts of their forebears and the efforts of the forebears of less affluent people. If everybody were granted a basic income with which to develop their capabilities, it would amount to a dividend from the endeavours and good luck of those who came before. The precariat has as much right to such a dividend as anybody else”[6].

But, although it may not seem so, the greatest opposition to UBI comes from the prejudices installed in our heads. UBI questions head-on several deep-rooted beliefs: the first is that work (or rather, employment) dignifies human beings; the second is that it comes from the Bible and condemns us to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow; the third is that the meaning of people’s lives is work; the fourth is that it equates employment with survival; and the fifth is that today’s wealth belongs only to its “legal” owners, the big multinational companies and the global financial lobbies.

That is why, in order to introduce it, a change in our minds is going to be necessary. Perhaps this is due to the imperative of our own circumstances, for example, as we have mentioned before, due to the urgency of responding to the widespread unemployment that is coming, due to the progress of artificial intelligence. Hopefully, this mental change will result in a worldwide extension of the feeling of solidarity towards other human beings, but for this it would be necessary to take into account the whole of our species that we are all part of, in reality.

For all these reasons, now seems to me to be a very appropriate moment to launch an ECI on UBI, that proposes UBI in its correct expression, that is to say, with those four characteristics that we indicated before.

There are those who say that an ECI proposing such a UBI will be impossible for the European Union (EU) to implement, since the EU does not have the competence to oblige member states to adopt it, so the EU limits itself to recommending its establishment to the nations that are part of the region.  However, an ECI gives us the opportunity to talk to many people, both because of the dynamics of signature collection, both on paper and online, and because it is going to be news in the media.

We need to detach ourselves from the results and focus on the possibility of raising awareness in the grassroots offered by this ECI, a bit like the referendum held in Switzerland, where at first it was thought that practically no one would support a measure like the UBI and, in the end, 22% of people were in favour, which was a great success for the organisers and meant a significant popularisation of the subject throughout Europe.

On the contrary, using a campaign of such a calibre as an ECI to talk about any kind of measures that wouldn’t even reach half the minimum income of a country as unequal as Spain, arguing that it would have a better chance of being adopted by the EU and would introduce the concept of unconditionality, seems to be a waste of activists’ effort dedicated to a gradualist measure which, as several scholars have already indicated, is doubtful that it could lead to a full UBI.

Images with brightness and strength, even if they are considered utopian, move people much more than those without. We need big projects and big dreams to advance towards a fairer world and in keeping with the human being we long for.  As Constantine P. Cavafy said:

Ithaca gave you the marvellous journey.
Without her you wouldn’t have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.


[1] “One Million Signatures Against Inequalities and for Dignity”, Público, 18/09/2013:  https://www.publico.es/actualidad/millon-firmas-desigualdades-y-dignidad.html

“285,042 European citizens want the EC to consider basic income”, P2P Foundation, March 11, 2014: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/285042-european-citizens-want-the-ec-to-consider-basic-income-ubi-press-release-after-the-eci-ubi-campaign/2014/03/11

[2] SWITZERLAND: World Economic Forum founder considers basic income “basically plausible”, BIEN Basic Income News, January 12, 2017: https://basicincome.org/news/2017/01/germany-world-economic-forum-founder-assents-basic-income-basically-plausible/

“This is how a universal basic income can end financial exclusion”, World Economic Forum, July 6, 2017: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/can-universal-basic-income-boost-financial-inclusion-and-transparency/

[3] “Richard Branson just endorsed basic income — here are 10 other tech moguls who support the radical idea”, Business Insider, August 21, 2017: https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurs-endorsing-universal-basic-income-2017-3

[4] “IMF Proposes Tax Increases for the Rich and Universal Basic Income to Address Social Gap”, The Economist, 11/10/2017: https://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/8668618/10/17/El-FMI-recomienda-subidas-de-impuestos-a-los-ricos-y-un-salario-basico-universal-para-atajar-la-brecha-social.html

“The IMF Gives A Cautious Welcome To Universal Basic Income”, Forbes, Oct. 15, 2017: https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/10/15/the-imf-gives-a-cautious-welcome-to-universal-basic-income/

[5] “A Basic Income financing model for the whole of the Kingdom of Spain: yes, it can be done and it is rational.”, Red Renta Básica, 23/04/2015: http://www.redrentabasica.org/rb/rrbantigua_1184/

[6] Guy Standing: “The precariat. The new dangerous class”, Bloomsbury, London 2011, page 173

22.12.2018 – Madrid, Spain Ángel Bravo

This post is also available in: Spanish

The need for a European Citizens’ Initiative on Universal and Unconditional Basic Income
The biggest question in the world asked during the UBI referendum in Switzerland (Image by Generation Grundeinkommen en Flickr)

In 2013, a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on Universal and Unconditional Basic Income (UBI)[1] was carried out, but the one million signatures required were not collected and for some activists the action was a failure. The truth is that, back then UBI was not as well-known as it is now, and so the support it could get was much smaller.  After that attempt, two significant events occurred that brought UBI to the forefront: the inclusion of UBI by the new Spanish political party Podemos in its programme for the European elections in 2014, and the Swiss referendum on UBI in June 2016.  After these two milestones, UBI started to appear in the media with unusual frequency and is now an issue that is beginning to provoke much debate.

However the kind of UBI we’re talking about must be made very clear, because nowadays there is a lot of confusion about it.  In many places, conditioned benefits for the poor, i.e. minimum incomes, are designated as basic income.  This is a trap that prevents people from getting out of poverty, because when someone finds a job, which is often temporary and precarious, they prefer to continue receiving benefits rather than accept the new job.  On the other hand, in order to protect the socio-economic system from the chaos that will result from the massive loss of jobs due to the advance of automation, neoliberal circles increasingly talk about the need to adopt a UBI.  For example, Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, better known as the Davos Forum, in an interview with a German newspaper in early 2017[2].  In the same vein are other top managers of technology companies, almost all linked to the Silicon Valley complex: for example, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Sam Altman, Richard Branson, Ray Kurzweil or Elon Musk[3].  Even the IMF has been sent out to speak on the subject to support the measure[4].

But let’s not fool ourselves, the purpose of the neoliberal elite is in no way altruistic. A well-known Spanish economist, Niño Becerra, at the last symposium of the Spanish Basic Income Network, privately pointed out that global governance plans for the future will be based on three factors: a UBI, legal marijuana and large doses of entertainment. Their goal is to silence discontent and protests thanks to the charity of the UBI and to numb people through marijuana and entertainment.  The echoes of Huxley’s “Brave New World” are obvious.

In the face of growing inequality, both between people in the same country and between different countries; in the face of the tide of irrationalism, expressed in the rise of racism, xenophobia and the emergence of right-wing populist movements, which appear as an unwarranted reaction to the growing exclusion suffered by millions of people; and in order to alleviate the massive unemployment that all studies predict in the short term, a Universal Basic Income is increasingly necessary, conceived of as the satisfaction of the fundamental human right to material subsistence and that, therefore, is granted to every human being by the mere fact of having been born.  This UBI should have four characteristics, all of which are essential for it to be valid:

  • universal, given to everyone, regardless of age, race, place of residence or income;
  • unconditional, there are no pre-conditions to be fulfilled, not even the fact of not having a job or the obligation to seek one;
  • individual, it is given to each person, even if they live with others in the same family unit;
  • sufficient, it must be equal, as a minimum, to the poverty threshold of each region or country, in order to guarantee decent living conditions.

Opposition to this much-needed measure is based, above all, on the assumption that it cannot be financed. But today there are detailed studies on how to do it, such as that of the Catalans Daniel Raventós, Lluís Torrens, Jordi Arcarons and Antoni Domènech[5]. While this study is based on increasing taxation for all, through which the rich would actually pay for the UBI, there are many other ways to make it economically possible, such as taxing shares in public limited companies or increasing indirect taxes on those who consume the most, or levying taxes on financial transactions (Tobin tax) and polluting emissions, or fighting tax fraud and tax havens, or through a mix of all of them.

The concept behind all this is that today the generation of wealth has multiplied exponentially and that this wealth has been produced thanks to the efforts of all past generations and all of today’s society, being, therefore, the patrimony of all, without exclusion, not only those who are considered “legal owners”.

Guy Standing, in his book “The precariat, a new social class”, expresses it very correctly:

“Philosophically, a basic income may be thought of as a ‘social dividend’, a return on past investment. Those who attack it as giving something for nothing tend to be people who have been given a lot of something for nothing, often having inherited wealth, small or vast. This leads to the point elegantly made by Tom Paine in his Agrarian Justice of 1795. Every affluent person in every society owes their good fortune largely to the efforts of their forebears and the efforts of the forebears of less affluent people. If everybody were granted a basic income with which to develop their capabilities, it would amount to a dividend from the endeavours and good luck of those who came before. The precariat has as much right to such a dividend as anybody else”[6].

But, although it may not seem so, the greatest opposition to UBI comes from the prejudices installed in our heads. UBI questions head-on several deep-rooted beliefs: the first is that work (or rather, employment) dignifies human beings; the second is that it comes from the Bible and condemns us to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow; the third is that the meaning of people’s lives is work; the fourth is that it equates employment with survival; and the fifth is that today’s wealth belongs only to its “legal” owners, the big multinational companies and the global financial lobbies.

That is why, in order to introduce it, a change in our minds is going to be necessary. Perhaps this is due to the imperative of our own circumstances, for example, as we have mentioned before, due to the urgency of responding to the widespread unemployment that is coming, due to the progress of artificial intelligence. Hopefully, this mental change will result in a worldwide extension of the feeling of solidarity towards other human beings, but for this it would be necessary to take into account the whole of our species that we are all part of, in reality.

For all these reasons, now seems to me to be a very appropriate moment to launch an ECI on UBI, that proposes UBI in its correct expression, that is to say, with those four characteristics that we indicated before.

There are those who say that an ECI proposing such a UBI will be impossible for the European Union (EU) to implement, since the EU does not have the competence to oblige member states to adopt it, so the EU limits itself to recommending its establishment to the nations that are part of the region.  However, an ECI gives us the opportunity to talk to many people, both because of the dynamics of signature collection, both on paper and online, and because it is going to be news in the media.

We need to detach ourselves from the results and focus on the possibility of raising awareness in the grassroots offered by this ECI, a bit like the referendum held in Switzerland, where at first it was thought that practically no one would support a measure like the UBI and, in the end, 22% of people were in favour, which was a great success for the organisers and meant a significant popularisation of the subject throughout Europe.

On the contrary, using a campaign of such a calibre as an ECI to talk about any kind of measures that wouldn’t even reach half the minimum income of a country as unequal as Spain, arguing that it would have a better chance of being adopted by the EU and would introduce the concept of unconditionality, seems to be a waste of activists’ effort dedicated to a gradualist measure which, as several scholars have already indicated, is doubtful that it could lead to a full UBI.

Images with brightness and strength, even if they are considered utopian, move people much more than those without. We need big projects and big dreams to advance towards a fairer world and in keeping with the human being we long for.  As Constantine P. Cavafy said:

Ithaca gave you the marvellous journey.
Without her you wouldn’t have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.


[1] “One Million Signatures Against Inequalities and for Dignity”, Público, 18/09/2013:  https://www.publico.es/actualidad/millon-firmas-desigualdades-y-dignidad.html

“285,042 European citizens want the EC to consider basic income”, P2P Foundation, March 11, 2014: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/285042-european-citizens-want-the-ec-to-consider-basic-income-ubi-press-release-after-the-eci-ubi-campaign/2014/03/11

[2] SWITZERLAND: World Economic Forum founder considers basic income “basically plausible”, BIEN Basic Income News, January 12, 2017: https://basicincome.org/news/2017/01/germany-world-economic-forum-founder-assents-basic-income-basically-plausible/

“This is how a universal basic income can end financial exclusion”, World Economic Forum, July 6, 2017: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/can-universal-basic-income-boost-financial-inclusion-and-transparency/

[3] “Richard Branson just endorsed basic income — here are 10 other tech moguls who support the radical idea”, Business Insider, August 21, 2017: https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurs-endorsing-universal-basic-income-2017-3

[4] “IMF Proposes Tax Increases for the Rich and Universal Basic Income to Address Social Gap”, The Economist, 11/10/2017: https://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/8668618/10/17/El-FMI-recomienda-subidas-de-impuestos-a-los-ricos-y-un-salario-basico-universal-para-atajar-la-brecha-social.html

“The IMF Gives A Cautious Welcome To Universal Basic Income”, Forbes, Oct. 15, 2017: https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/10/15/the-imf-gives-a-cautious-welcome-to-universal-basic-income/

[5] “A Basic Income financing model for the whole of the Kingdom of Spain: yes, it can be done and it is rational.”, Red Renta Básica, 23/04/2015: http://www.redrentabasica.org/rb/rrbantigua_1184/

[6] Guy Standing: “The precariat. The new dangerous class”, Bloomsbury, London 2011, page 173

Vane le mie due denuncie da agosto alla stazione dei Carabinieri di Castellanza VA: il ladro continua ad operare con gli strumenti modermi della comunicazione whatsapp; perso invece il suo contatto originario nella chat di Badoo.

i CARABINIERI NON USANO GLI STRUMENTI MODERNI DI COMUNICAZIONE?

La cronologia chat è allegata a questa email come file “Chat WhatsApp con nycolas”.maurizio benazzi 3921943729 

27/08/18, 16:29 – I messaggi inviati a questa chat e le chiamate sono ora protetti con la crittografia end-to-end. Tocca per maggiori info.
27/08/18, 16:29 – nycolas: Ciao
27/08/18, 16:32 – Maurizio: ciao
27/08/18, 16:33 – Maurizio: maurizio benazzi
via luigi tovo 3
Olgiate  olona (varese)
27/08/18, 16:39 – nycolas: Ok
28/08/18, 15:34 – nycolas: Ciao
28/08/18, 15:35 – Maurizio: ciao
28/08/18, 15:35 – Maurizio: sono libero
28/08/18, 15:35 – nycolas: Cosa fai
28/08/18, 15:36 – Maurizio: guardo un film
28/08/18, 15:36 – nycolas: Ok
28/08/18, 15:36 – Maurizio: te?
28/08/18, 15:36 – nycolas: A leto
28/08/18, 15:36 – nycolas: A la sera vengo da te
28/08/18, 15:37 – Maurizio: vieni a trovarmi
28/08/18, 15:37 – nycolas: Si
28/08/18, 15:37 – Maurizio: va bene
28/08/18, 15:37 – nycolas: A la sera si voi
28/08/18, 15:37 – Maurizio: si
28/08/18, 15:38 – Maurizio: ci sono
28/08/18, 15:38 – nycolas: Mandami foto tua cosi ti vedo y yo meglio
28/08/18, 15:39 – Maurizio: ‎IMG-20180828-WA0000.jpg (file allegato)
28/08/18, 15:39 – nycolas: Ok
28/08/18, 18:30 – Maurizio: a che ora vieni?
28/08/18, 20:20 – nycolas: No lo so tesoro
28/08/18, 20:20 – nycolas: Tu non poi venire
28/08/18, 20:27 – Maurizio: Non ho auto
28/08/18, 20:29 – nycolas: Ok tesoro
28/08/18, 22:14 – Maurizio: ci vediamo domani
28/08/18, 22:31 – nycolas: Ok tesoro
29/08/18, 12:46 – nycolas: Chiamata vocale persa
29/08/18, 12:47 – nycolas: Ciao
29/08/18, 12:49 – nycolas: Ci sei
29/08/18, 12:50 – Maurizio: si
29/08/18, 14:17 – Maurizio: ti denuncio alla polizia
29/08/18, 14:44 – Maurizio: ti troveranno
09/11/18, 13:53 – Maurizio: swcapp.uk/ws/mauriziobenazzi733446
09/11/18, 13:56 – Maurizio: E una app gratuita che ti paga in crediti su pay pal i passi e gli amici che inviti.  Io la ho scaricata su tablet e smartphone.  Provala
15/11/18, 18:37 – Maurizio: Ho rotto il tablet.  Caduto dalle mani si e graffiato lo schermo
23/12/18, 16:36 – Maurizio: La tua foto di whatsapp e’ in mano ai carabinieri. Ho fatto doppia denuncia col testo di whatsapp
23/12/18, 17:07 – nycolas: Ma chi cosa dici ooo cosa ti o fato i io
23/12/18, 17:08 – Maurizio: Hai rubato l’oro fra cui la fede di mia madre. Vai in galers
23/12/18, 17:08 – nycolas: Si mi molesti piu vado i io dai carabinieri
23/12/18, 17:09 – Maurizio: Ti aspettano. Hanno foto pseudo nycolas e numero di telefono. Tutto depositato a Castellanza VA
23/12/18, 17:10 – nycolas: I io o rubato da te ma tu sei pazo io non o rubato niente da te
23/12/18, 17:10 – Maurizio: Sei un ladro con la complice della donna che hai portato in cada
23/12/18, 17:11 – Maurizio: Casa
23/12/18, 17:12 – nycolas: I io non o rubato niente non disturbami vado da le carabinieri i io
23/12/18, 17:15 – Maurizio: Ti aspettano falso. Sei l’unica persona stata in cucina dove mi hsi appoggiato oro fede e catenine sul frigor per la presunta allergia ai metalli. Meriti la galera. Ho detto ai CC che usi questo whatsapp oltre a Badoio dove hanno anche quella  foto

Blog Stats

  • 11,578 hits
December 2018
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Support 2007, 2008 and 2009

More Light Presbyterians

Visite recenti

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

We must act and dare the appropiateness and not whatever comes to our mind not floating in the likelihood but grasp the reality as brave as we can be freedom lies in action not in the absence of mind obedience knows the essence of good and satisfies it, freedom dares to act and returns God the ultimate judgment of what is right and what is wrong, Obedience performs blindly but Freedom is wide awake Freedom wants to know why, Obedience has its hands tied, Freedom is inventive obedient man respects God’s commands and by virtu of his Freedom, he creats new commands. Both Obedience and Freedom come true in responsability (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Blog Stats

  • 11,578 hits
Follow Ecumenics and Quakers on WordPress.com