I can not join the fervish and psychotic chorus of those who, stimulated by the apparent aim of governors to assure freedom, democracy and development to all people, considering war to terrorism as a fight of civilization against evil.

First because such a war would involve the action of good against evil. What is good? It is easy to answer. It is good what has a moral value, that is what is desired and craved for by man. And what is evil? It is easy to answer again. Evil is what is bad or wrong from a moral point of view, that is what damages causing pain and suffer.

And who are their representatives? Let’s start with evil, it is easier. Evil is represented by those who provoke the damage, pain, suffering, fear, hatred, death. And who represents the good? We should say those living honestly, telling the truth, loving, engaged for justice, freedom, equality, well-being and safety for everybody against injustice, inequality, poorness, and violence.

It seems all clear. But let’s see the subjects, the actors acting for good and evil. There is no doubt that the murder is evil and those carrying out and organizing a murder make something bad. Anybody is the victim. It is evil to deprive peoples of basic individual freedom, to abuse of power, to intend wealth to manufacturing of weapons to the detriment of health, houses, means of productions and culture. It is evil to concentrate wealth in very little hands.

And who’s acting for good? Without going much back in time it is sufficient to remember that today who declares to love the minority of humanity who consumes three forth of the whole wealth of the planet, that sustains authoritative political systems, that exploits for its own advantage the natural resources of poorest peoples, to whose are given alms which are subsequently counted in dictating functional developments conditions to their supremacy.

If we consider the conflict as one of the main methods of social interactions and as a situation of fight between two single or collective subjects in front of different aims and the impossibility to realize them at the same time. Such a situation depends on several factors such as poorness and unequal social distribution and it is then difficult to recognize good from evil between the fighting parties.

Just so, because it is real armed war. A situation of serious contrast between states, peoples and religions which is tried to be solved through employment of weapons. A fight made of battles, warfare and terrorism.

And terrorism, as war and warfare is a kind of armed fight using strength and violence. To be against terrorism means to be against war and to be against war means to be against terrorism.

It does not matter if the fighting parties are armies or irregular organizations, military of civil. What is important is the means they employ. If the employed means are power and violence, then is armed fight.

What are the differences of aims today, between states and peoples which can not be realized at the same time? The conflict is between political, economic, cultural and religious aims.

The political aim regards the planet’s supremacy, which has to be the dominating state, the pivot owing most powerful weapons, around which must move as satellites all other states.

The economic aim regards the control of natural resources, finance, currencies and markets. The cultural aim regards mainly the consent method. The religious aim regards the primacy of churches, doctrines and dogma.

If we consider all these aims, the current conflict does not seems like the first world wars, that did not have as aims all political, economic, cultural and religious contrasts that today are at the base of a fight which more or less openly involves all Countries and Nations.

We have to go back of nine centuries to find, even if in a smaller geographical context, a condition as the present one. We have to return to the first crusade to find a series of contrast reasons so complete and explosive to provoke such cruel human acts.

At that time it was the Pope, Urbano II, to push for the action with the following words: «… I induce you, or better is God himself to do it, to persuade you with incitements as preachers of Christ, all, of any order, horsemen and foot soldiers, rich and poor, so that you run to come to Christians to chase from our territories that evil race». And he added: «… I tell to the presents and I order it to the absents , but is God who wants it. For all who should leave, if they died along the road or during the journey, in battle against infidels, There will be an automatic remission of sins: and this I accord to those who will leave, for the authority God gives me. It would be such a shame if such perfidious, degenerate, demoniac people would win men strongly believing in God and made bright by the name of Christ! Thus all of you hurry to battle against unbelievers: a battle that should have been already started and win from those who before, against any right, were used to fight against other Christians and their personal wars! Thus that those who yesterday were brigands become knights of Chris! Fight for good right against barbarians those who before fought against brothers of blood! That they have in change an never-ending present those who were mercenaries for little money! Those who tired themselves corrupting their soul and body, fight finally for both. As all those who seem sad and poor, there will be glad and wealthy. Those who here are enemies of Christ, there will be his friends; do they not delay to star: but once the winter has passed, rent proprieties to get money for the journey and start walking».

An example of ferociousness shown in the first crusade was the murder carried out by crusaders during the conquest of Jerusalem, when once entered into the city, they massacred the whole population, composed by 40.000 to 70.000 peoples. A Christian chronicler of the time describes with these words what happened in Jerusalem in July 1099: «Our soldiers chased them closely, killing with cutting blows, till the temple of Salomon, where they did such a massacre to walk into blood up to ankles … Streets were covered with lots o cut heads, hands and feet and everywhere you had to open a space between dead horses and human corpses . Only (also then) the Governor of Jerusalem, Iftiqar ad-Daura was saved from the fury of crusaders».

That situation which repetes itself, enlarged by more powerful instruments compared to that time, must induce the human conscience to reflect on possible consequences. Not only because every armed battle has its victims but also because that we are fighting could be the last one.

We are facing a new suicide method which overpasses the egoistic one, the altruistic and anomic. The religious suicide of those believing in life after death and the present for having used his own death as killing instrument. This type of suicide makes completely different the situation we have experienced during the “ cold war”, when each of the two fighters feared that from one of its own action would have been brought about an immediate reaction having same intensity.

The kamikaze does not fear his own death, or at least he wins fear believing he will go to a paradise where just for his sacrifice he will get a award. It would be sufficient the idea of annihilation of all the others through personal suicide would enter into the mind of someone owing nuclear weapons to eliminate the whole human species from the Earth.

This is the situation we have to recognize. Without fear but with as much as possible reasonability and intelligence.

In making the effort to understand reality we are facing, we could also try to find inside ourselves another truth. Everyone may believe in what he wants unless he does not damages other people. All of us have the right to profess a faith and communicate it but the right to believe does not imply the right to make it believe and impose it.

Anyhow, in my opinion, we deceived ourselves.

All the species of Homo sapiens has deceived itself. We deceived ourselves when since the root of fear, fed by impotence towards death and will for love, we have been under the illusion of a creating power, ordering and preserving reality.

There is no divinity, independently from the name it was given. There is no Brahma, Jehovah, Uranus, Gee, God or Allah. The absolute principle pervading universe is not a supreme creator, ordering and preserving reality but energy without space nor time composed by elementary particles having an organization constantly changing.

Religions are dangers, deceptions, traps, false motivations that rise in the limbic system of our brain from the process of reactions to stimuli and environmental signs or as consequence of external stimuli, of inner processes started by memory, by an association of sense perception or by an introspection.

The so called «motivations» are processes which make the activities of an organism functional to the reach a goal. The main goal of human being is happiness, intended as never-ending satisfaction of primary needs. Death represents the extreme renunciation to the main goal. Instincts are the reactions to environmental stimuli though a systems of innate behavioral answers. The emotions are reactions of the organism due to inner processes. The main emotions are hanger, pleasure, fear, love and hate.

The origin of each religion, the original cause, is the reaction to death. The aversion to death provokes the instinctive idea to react to the environmental stimulus composed by the perception of others’ death. But it is not sufficient to rise the need to find a solution The solution comes from love. And here are the emotions, as reactions to an interior process.

The religious idea comes from death and is expressed through love. Love transforms the aversion to death in the idea of resurrection. Historical studies prove that, after having collected and hunted to eat, after living into caves, after discovering fire to heat himself and cook food, after covering himself to protect himself from cold, man has reacted to death conceiving positive powers (mana) to refer to in order to live longer and negative powers (taboo) to chase.

In pre-animistic cults the «mana» represented the primordial positive religious behavior while the «taboo» was the negative side. Such cultural system is indicated as the foundation from which all religions have developed and develop.

From 30.000 to 40.000 years ago, man has started to bury dead people with the first funeral rites. There is already the idea to react to death but not yet the overcoming of death. The practice to bury corpses and the concerned rite are known since most ancient times. Also the simple act of abandon of the corps to animals, in caves, towers, in water, on soil but even more the practice to bury which was affirmed by the more complex societies and especially in the sedentary ones and the practice to cremate had an hygienic function and a religious function. The removal from city or the destruction of the corps aimed at preventing the transmission of diseases but they were also dictated by the fear of man towards death and by the will to prevent the return of the dead among living people.

Almost 25.000 years ago love was born. A lightning transcending and overcoming sexual attraction was born between the two human sexes, which start to feel part of a same organism. When one of the two parties dies, the other one feels to have lost a part of itself. It does not accept it. It remembers the lost part, it dreams of it, it imagines it in front of itself, it makes it live again, it resuscitates it in its mind.

Just after the birth of love, starts the attention to old people, until that time considered only a burden. The hierarchic structures is formed, focused on the knowledge of old people. Who survives to the loved person tells to old people his sensations, memories, dreams, imagines of the loved person they have lost. To feel the presence of the loved dead means to feel the sensation that life continues after death. From this sensation the idea of eternity was born.

As man could only imagine eternity, he needed to conceive the eternal subject that could represent it. From this evidence the idea of a subject able to govern life and death was born. This entity should pre-exist to life and live after death, that is it has to exist independently from the thinking subject. A transcendent entity. An act of faith.

Faith is an attitude which involve human will and intelligence and is addressed to a person, and idea or a divine being. The divinity represents the protection of what man would like to be and could become if, instead of accepting the solution of a life after death, would engage himself with all his strength against death, feeding himself from the feeling of fault towards fathers, renouncing to the idea of a protecting entity from natural powers and difficulties of life, replacing faith in the transcending entity with faith in himself.

But the personal idea of the transcending entity is not yet religion. Religion comes when a certain number of subjects recognize themselves in common practices and beliefs based on the relation of man with the divine. Religions were born in cultures where was affirmed a strong differentiation between human mind and natural environment, between subjective conscience and objective fact, between spirit and matter. This differentiation is in sedentary agricultural societies where the division of work implies that the people carry out different tasks in the community.

 By the cultures of hunters, each male member of community knows all necessary techniques to survive, but in agricultural communities, where a higher cooperation is required, between subjects having different tasks and skills, are necessary symbolic communication methods more precise thus conventional , especially concerning language and roles.

In the history of human civilizations the religious phenomenon is universal but not primordial. It was not born together with man but from a particular state of development, when, after perceiving death, man wanted to make love eternal with the idea of overcoming death in another life.

At the basis of religious conceptions and behavior seems to be present one or more superior beings which man perceives as belonging to a transcendent world compared to the human one. Towards these superior beings man feels dependent and at the same time wish to have a relation with them.

The human intelligence, with its own capacity to process experiences and external stimuli, may try to find a better solution to the simple illusion of life after death.

It doesn’t exist any revelation. Nor a freeing being. Everyone of us may say «I am the one who is». The mystical assumptions of all revelations are false.

Who wrote the Veda has never seen nor heard Brahma, the personification of the supreme Brahman, considered as creator of the universe and member, together with Shiva and Vishnu, of Trimurti Indy, divine triad if postvedic origin.

Who wrote the Bible has never seen nor heard Jehovah, considered as the creator of the universe and of man to his image and similarity. An omniscient being would never dictate the first statements of the Genesis : «First God created the sky and the earth. Now the Earth was shapeless and deserted and darkness covered the abyss and the spirit of God fluttered upon water. God said: Be the light!. And there was light.». What is true in this story? If it was true, all science would be a huge lie, unreal.

Who wrote the Gospels had never seen nor heard God but only a man, that Christ who should change history if its teaching was not mystified. A suggestive definition of faith in the New Testament considers it «certainty of things we hope and demonstration of the thing we do not see». In this passage the word «faith» translates the Greek term pístis, that indicates the act of giving its own faith. According to this concept has faith who believes and hopes in something which does not exist. It is the highest illusion and mortification. Except for every dialectic, having such a faith means believing in death rather than in life.

According to Agostino, men can free themselves from the power of sin only receiving the mystery of the Church. The elects of God, then, reach finally the salvation not for their merits or their good actions but for the winning divine grace. This means considering ourselves as puppets, the movements of who moves the threads. It is the negation of intelligence.

The fifth gospel says: «The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, what will be our end?" Jesus said, "You have thus found the principle, the end will be where is the principle. Blissful the one who starts from the principle: because he will know the end and he will not experience death." Jesus said, "If a blind leads a blind, both will fall in a hole.” Jesus said: “ Any one who has something in hand will receive more, and anyone who has nothing will be taken also the little he has” . Jesus said: “ If someone asks you “ where do you come from?”, tell him “ We come from light, from the place where the light has appeared by itself, and it has remained, and it has appeared in their image. Its disciples asked him: “When will the reign come?” “It will not come searching it. You will not say “Look at it, it’s here!” But , the reign of the Father is on earth and nobody sees it».

These phrases represent a more human dimension, more real. This is why, perhaps, they were not canonized.

Who wrote the Koran has never seen nor heard any angel. He has only studied the Bible texts calling the Jewish God and Christian God with the name of his father Abd Allah (a ashimit of the tribe of Quraysh, which dominated the Mecca, being a consistent part of it and keepers of Kaaba), reaffirming the origins of universe and human species reported in those ancient texts and that lately proved to be absolutely false.

Emulating Jesus, Maometto wanted to be king and priest, with the difference that while disciples of Christ preached with a civil ancient (centuries) right in Arabic countries there were no other rules besides the ones he wrote. It is the history of peoples and not the power of the idea that has allowed to affirm the Islamic theocracy. It is unconsidered that an economic systems based on shariah would have needed a redistribution of wealth and soil in order to create a more right and equal society.

Anyhow, any omniscient being would dictate, on behalf of Allah, the Pitiful, the Merciful, the XXXV Sura: «Allah be praised! Creator of the skies and the earth, who made of messengers angels endowed with two, three or four wings. He adds to creation what he wishes. In reality, Allah is almighty, No one can detain what Allah gives to men with pity and no one can give what He detains. He is the Highest, the Wise. O men, remember the favor Allah has made you.

Besides Him there is maybe a creator who feeds you from sky and earth? He is the only God. How can you leave it? And if you are treated as liar , you must know that the previous messengers were treated like that. All comes from Allah. O men, the promise of Allah is truth. Do not be deceived by the earthly life and the Deceiver do not move you away from Allah. The Evil is your enemy and you have to treat it as such. He invites his disciples to be close to the Flame. The unbelievers will have a hard punishment while those who believe and do good actions will be forgiven and will be well rewarded. What will be done of the one whose bad action was sweetened so to make him consider it good? But Allah diverts and leads who he wants. Thus do not grieve for them : Allah well knows what they have done. Allah is the One who sends the winds: they move clouds we push towards a dead place. Thus give life again to earth after it was dead. In the same way, will come Resurrection! And who desires power must know that all power is in Allah: the good word goes to Him and He praises the faithful action. Those who instead weave bad actions, will be punished hardly. Their weave is destined to failure. Allah has created you from earth and then from a drop of sperm thus He has divided you in couples.».

The primitive cultures haven’t conceived a religious doctrine or a systems of notions in order to define the nature of a god but they have conceived the spirit as a perception rather that an idea in which the language is not made of concepts but of images. From this perception were born the myths, based on dreams and fancy that express practically unconscious psychological processes.

The myths are a group of oral narration, free from coordinated material elements in a ordered systems subject to rules, passed by generation to generation, that offer an important representation of the universe, as naive explanation of natural events.

Each religion is formed due to the conceit of having discovered the original principle, the utmost truth. And it is all false, The Eternity has not a name. There are no messengers. There are no revelations. The mysticism is only boasting of the closeness to God. Esotericism are just doctrines to name others. Mysticism are subjective fictions or convictions. The miracle is just a phenomenon not yet explained. There is no reincarnation. The only basic principle is energy without space and time. Good and Evil aren’t subject nor powers act against them but moral assessments of the effects of human behaviors and of other natural agents processed by conscience.

Fear is the ancestral root of our evolution process. From fear comes hate. Thus our evolution process is accompanied by hate, prevalence spirit, affirmation voluntary, ego. The object of hate is not the completely different, which may be avoided, used, loved, in some cases also destructed if we see it as a danger, without hating it. We have lived together with a collection of minerals, vegetables and animals very different from us, that we accept and use just thanks to their difference. If animals have been object of hate, it is only as far as we have humanized them.

For the paranoic ego of human being what awakens terror, reject and intolerability is to be «similar but different», someone could be at our place but it is not assimilable to our clan, tribe, nation, race, faith.

The new world order must be based on freedom, justice, equality, possibility of happiness of every human being. These must be principles ordering the Earth. In order to conquest the balance.

As everything exists and is always existed, also ourselves are composed by pure energy without space and time. The elementary particles are the agents producing gravity force and that have produced the first inflation from which the universe was born.

The banality of all religions is that they want to explain what has not been proved yet, almost to delay as long as possible their demonstration. In order to support this “not-proved” explanation every means is used: miracles, sacrifices, physical and psychological violence. Miracles are such until we discover their cause. They are only events which exploit ignorance. No god exists, no freeing being.

Every thing was obtained always and only with human blood. The martyrdom for a religious faith is stupidity and desire to be the center of attention. Any religious martyr has never given anything to another human being. Cultural mystification is not only the assertion of divinity of Jesus Christ and virginity of his mother but also the imposition of the word of a man who has consider himself the only prophet.

Religion gives preference to love for the divinity of love for nature. Each religious faith has caused victims, has had its own murders, human sacrifices. There is no Christ at all. There is no anti-Christ. Maieutics is used to generate transcendent myths rather than to promote research for truth. And stupid kill in order to affirm something they do not know with the only aim to convince themselves and impose to others that it exists. Hypocritical. All religions are false because they are constructed on false axioms at first. From the division of spirits at the talk with the divinity.

Unfortunately, the conscience of the divine overlaps to and absorbs the moral conscience. The faith is eagerness for power claiming to explain what is still unexplainable. We do not perceive any transcendent being but only immanent pulsions. Freedom of faith means freedom to imagine and profess what we want without trying to convince the others that we are right.

We will say: «How critical is him with everybody! Why doesn’t he turn to himself? I answer immediately. I have done it, I have done that. And I have discovered that my ego is not the only existing one, my Super-ego, my thought, my ideas, my fears, my labor, my illusions. There is a system consisting in several organized parts in different subsets, one of which is the human systems. And I belong to it too. There is no need of any revelation to understand it. Nor of any faith in eternity.»

In the name of the human being, of intelligence, of life and love, I speak to You, I speak to the peoples of every race, every age and every religion, in order to invite to reflect on our existence and that of our sons. I do not do it in the name of any family, any government, any law, any economic interest, any absolute truth, any god. I do it because I feel it, for what I believe and because I think you feel the same inside of you.

All reality is perceptible. There are no non-perceptible realities. There are no transcendent realities. Reality is only immanent. There is not any non-knowable reality. There are only known and still unknown realities. The ignored reality is only unknown. There is not any transcendent being. All revelations are false.

It is not true that is absolutely impossible to understand the essence of pure energy without space and time. Certainly, to prove it, we do not tell that the stone doesn’t know man but that man doesn’t know well the stone yet. Nothing belongs to us forever. We have only the use of instruments to live and develop ourselves. No one may sacrifice others but only himself.

There is a paradoxical contradiction between the interdependence relationship of the parts which compose ourselves and the reject of interdependency between us. The union of the parts of a set wins the end (dead) of every part because in the time the power of the union overcomes that of the sum of all obstacles. Immortality is the result of the fight against ignorance in order to conquest the necessary knowledge to make unuseful the death. Of dead people remains only remembrance and the things they have done during life. There isn’t any being out of existing reality. What was before the start of reality is still in the reality and has become existing reality.

Before the start existed pure energy. The pure energy is composed by indipendent particles without space and time and at the state of maximum simplicity. The energy formed by independent particles was in unstable balance. The balance of particles was due to their absolute independence. The instability came from their potential charge. The potential charge has divided one particle in interdependent parts. The power of the set of new particles was superior to the power of the original particle and has provoked an unbalance in the state of pure energy.

First the being was without space and time. The being is power in itself. The act is manifestation of the power of the being. The power depends on the form of being. The aim of the act is a higher power. The act in itself frees power. Each act provokes as reaction other acts. Also each reaction act frees power. The act may be addressed to the outside or the inside the being. The act addressed to the inside divides the being which carries it out. The act addressed to the outside provokes a break-up or an aggregation.

If the being is unique, and thus there is anything out of it, its first act is certainly addressed to itself. The first act that the unique being addresses to itself can only give origin to its own break-up, otherwise there would not be manifestation of any power. From the break-up of the only being take origin at least two parts. Even if every act frees power, the subsequent acts increase the power of the set of all parts of being. This apparent paradox can be explained with the fact that the act, that is the manifestation of freed power, modifies the shape of the set. It is the new shape of the set which increases its power, according to the following chain: starting shape of the only being = minimum power; starting act ® before break-up = temporary shape = increase in power; subsequent act ® new break-up = temporary shape = increase in power; final act ® last break-up = final shape = maximum power.

In this way, in the process of temporary phases, the act is means to show power and increase it modifying the shape, while the highest power becomes means of the subsequent act, until it reaches the maximum power, corresponding to the final shape, when no other acts are needed to show power.

Unfortunately, this process may happen both in function of the strengthening of the set and in function of the strengthening of the part which carries out the act. So, the acts addressed outside may cause the decay of the parts carrying out reaction acts, while acts addressed inside may only strengthen acting people.

In order to avoid that an average power, becoming instrument to produce the act, provokes its own or someone else’s decay, we should have the possibility to show power without carrying out the act or to carry out the act without modifying its shape, so to leave unchanged the power. The first solution is impossible, as it would have been impossible for the only being to show power without carrying out the first act. Also the second solution is impossible because until the set has not reached the maximum power, each act will be means to show power and every power will be means to produce the act. The only solution seems to be to address the act towards its actor., so to provoke a strengthening of its own, without any decay of itself or others.

The power of the set of all parts is always superior to the sum of the powers of each of its parts and to the power of the only original being. Thus the maximum power takes place with the set of the maximum number of parts and not with the fusion of different parts. To the maximum power of the set of all parts corresponds the maximum power of each part respect to the whole set. If since the first act have originated two parts having the same power, it is identical also the maximum power of each part of a set.

Each part tends to its own maximum power respect to the set until it hasn’t reached it. Each part then carries out the necessary acts to reach its maximum power compared to the set. In this way the power difference is reduced for each part compared to the set of all parts and of each part compared to every other and compared to the set of all other parts , until every part has reached an identical maximum power, corresponding to the maximum power of the set of all parts.

Before the beginning it was only energy. There is power without strength. Then, the energy breaks up into different parts. It is the first act. Breaking up, the different parts of energy produce waves. Waves form the space. In the space the matter is formed. The matter changes. The change of matter provokes the break-up and the subsequent re-composition of particles of energy. It is the evolution process.

With the evolution, the particles get higher power, which show itself with further acts. If there is manifestation of power, that is action, the energy undergoes a decay thus tends to develop itself. If the energy is so powerful to be able to inhibit every act to manifest power outside, there is a heap of power. The heap of power of an organism does not produce any benefit compared to the whole. Instead, if the heap of power is addressed towards the space, leaving out of consideration the energy which produces it, there is a modification of waves produced by energy, thus a modification of the effect without modifying its original cause.

The perception is the act though which we take conscience of reality through a sensation. It is a psychic function, which processes what senses – that is external and external receptors – transmit to conscience. The character of the sensation comes from the way is perceived, that is the process starting with the transmission of data by the senses to recent memory through the cerebellum and by their comparison with those in the three levels of memory: recent, remote and genetic.

The genetic memory is the base of the cerebral system where the hereditary traits are recorded. It characterizes the evolution of a certain species. It is located in the brain and contains the data which provokes stimuli and instincts. The remote memory is a superstructure of the cerebral basis which contains the formerly processed data. It is located in the two lobes, under the cortex, and it is the most complex and important part of the cerebral capacity.

In the remote memory are recorded the schemes of experimented behaviors and are developed the deductive strategies and the inductive inputs. The deductive strategies analyze logically what is results from its own processing system. The inductive inputs imagine – perceive – what might be: we could say that they create reality.

The recent memory stays in the cerebral cortex and contains the perceived data from the sensor organs and also the decisions transmitted after the process of the data themselves. The perception derives not from a complex of sensations produced by several stimuli but from facts, objects and shapes. Our psychic activity, due to the nature and the structure of sensorial organs, mainly registers effects, overlapping and dominating the causes which have produced them.

This depends also on the limited speed of transmission of data thus on the necessity to use the time in a certain way. From perception you rapidly pass to reaction, instead of adapting itself to look for causes responsible for the way we perceive and to logically foreseen the effects of solutions with which we react. Consequently, the perception of what is really fades away together with its explanation, while it is affirmed the perception of what appears, what is seen and heard.

The way of perception is thus more closely linked to the relationship between present and past rather than to that between present and future. In this way, the future is effect of stimuli – reactions- already adopted and considered efficient by experience and not by the removal of present causes, just because it would need too long time to adopt the strategy of their research and analysis.

In order to modify this state, this process, it would be necessary to give a longer time for processing but, to have longer time, it is necessary to have more power and to have more power is necessary to inhibit at least partially the stimulus through which the power manifest itself through the act.

How can we inhibit such a stimulus? Only with the awareness that we can allow that, otherwise the effect would be a kind of repression which would then tend to explode. The awareness to be able to allow the partial inhibition of a stimulus derives from the knowledge of the cause of it.

Let’s consider the stimulus of fear. It originates from genetic memory and its cause is uncertainty dictated by the information recorded in the remote memory and in the recent memory. Modifying the cause, overcoming uncertainty, the stimulus is gradually modified, until it is inhibited in the genetic memory and reconsidered in the recent memory, that records, in its turn, a different deduction and communicates it to the remote memory, in a constant circular process from which a new path take origin. Although, if the uncertainty is overcome due to higher power, the cause results definitely modified, while if it is overcome through the action of other subjects, the cause is generally destined to re-present itself when this action – unless the action itself is nor repeated for the necessary time to “reaccustom” the process it influences.

The organism always suffers from influencing actions coming from outside but the effects of such a result are different also compared to the aim of the subject carrying them out and to the duration of the actions themselves. As a consequence, the removal of the original cause of a process is carried out in a certain way is effect of the increase in power and in a different way if it is effect of external actions.

In a certain way, this removal process takes place in a non-proportional way to the strength is used on the cause. At equal importance and acceleration conditions, we feel stronger the action on ourselves compared to that suffered from outside.

As a consequence, in order to overcome the valence of endogenous forces of another organism is necessary a strength – a power manifestation – more important and accelerated than the one generally expressed towards itself by the organism from which we want to remove the cause. In any case, to provoke a radical change of the process we have to know the original cause, although the actions result only tries almost irrelevant.

Once perceived and recognized the cause why a complex organism perceives in a certain way, we have to make the effort to emulate the features, imagining - or realizing – the same sensations that such organism feel. In practice, we have to double the process we want to modify, in order to feel the same stimuli, paying much attention to distinguish his proper natural sensations from the intuitions deriving from wearing someone else’s cloths.

 Although having an experimental character and not pathological, there is always a difference between being another and looking like him, also because our own organism is compelled to manage two different states in the same time. This double management composes the so called fourth level of perception. The first level is reached with the starting perception of the evident. The second with its memorization. The third with the sensation is felt. The set of the three levels determines the way of perception.

Although it has experimental character and not pathological, there is always a difference between being another and looking like him, also because the organism is compelled to manage two different situations at he same time. This double management represents the so called fourth level of perception. The first level is reached with the starting perception of evidence. The second with its memorization. The third with the felt sensation. The set of the three levels determine the way of perception. The fourth level – obtained with the repetition – is in short a comparison between our own and another person’s way of perception.

It is a difficult exercise. Let’s suppose that a person denies the evident. What can be the origin and the cause of it? What has happened in a hypothetical initial moment? And what has happened before the denial? Answering to the second question – what is the cause – is quite easy, if you know the state of the subject at present time. But the same cause of denial is effect of an original cause, and it is that of the origin of denial.

What can we do? We have to trace back to the data regarding that subject and memorized in his remote memory, repeat them as the same data would refer to himself and not to another subject, thus deduce the original cause and realize the way to modify it, wondering: «How would I do?»

We will discover that the cause is a mistake, a false thing, bad and unjust: a fact, a thought, or a belief. Anything it is, it is rooted, it has developed effects and processes which, although the trials to modify them, they are not under self-control of those experiencing them.

Once it is identified the other person’s original cause, we have to compare with our own similar original causes, to personal similar mistakes that have provoked a determinate way of perception, isolating those which had been modified. We remember then what we did to modify our own way of perception and we will use the same way to remove the original cause of the reiterated organism.

At that point, if I were the other, I would be already different. But I am not the other one, thus we have to find the way to communicate him the way and to make him adopt it. To do so, we can use the analogical method or the dissociated method. Let’s suppose that an subject denies the evidence because he doesn’t want to take responsibility and compare himself with another subject and that this cause originates from the fact the first reason why the relationship with the other is born, was declared differently from the real one and he is sure the other subject has believed to the given version. And let’s suppose that if I had done something similar, I would try to remove that original fact admitting and declaring the process of effects risen from that fact, stating finally that the admission does not imply that I still have that original reason.

With the analogical method we communicate the messages which have as object similar processes to the one to adopt in order to overcome the negation of evidence. An analogical message could be the following one. A man is thirsty and sees the sun reflected by the water. The man has especially thirst. Anyhow, to a friend handling him a perfectly clean glass, says that he wants to try to fill it up in order to see the reflection of the sun in the glass. Who gives the glass insists to see the sun reflected in the water of the glass. At a certain time the man who’s thirsty drinks and the other asks him how he can do now that the glass is empty to see the sun reflection. The man who has drank will thus say that the glass was not so clean and the water had become cloudy. The other will react asking why if the glass was dirty and the water cloudy, that same water was drunk. Then the man who has drunk fills up the glass again and try to show that now the water is clean because the formerly collected water has cleaned the glass. Although, he will not succeed in explaining because he has drunk the cloudy water, unless he confesses that he especially was thirsty and he admits that the glass was clean from the start, pointing out that now he is not thirsty any more thus he wants just to see the sun reflected in the glass.

With the dissociated method we communicate messages that have nothing to do with the necessary process to overcome the evidence denial, underlying the increase in power of the subject in order to induce him to adopt spontaneously that process. A dissociated message could be the following one. A man is thirsty and asks for a glass of water to another person. The other give it to him and asks: «What do you think I would have done if you asked me to drink from this glass for another person and then I would have discovered that you were thirsty?». The thirsty man answers: «You would have told me I am hypocritical and false.». And the other adds: «No, I would have wondered why you did not tell me to be thirsty and I would have maybe thought the water disgusted you so to deny to yourself that you would drink it. I know the reason why could be completely different, but as I know it, I am compelled to give me a possible explanation. Unless you pretend I ask you why you did not tell me the truth, with the risk to hear a version which would be false. Between the risk to hear a false thing and to think if it was it for real, or to give an explanation even if I did not asked for it, I have preferred the second choice. So, at least, I have certainly avoided the disturb to tell another lie».

The match between wealth, brotherhood and democracy was rightly compared to the squaring of the circle. In fact, not only it doesn’t exist a context in which economic success, social state and popular sovereignty are together. Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist neither the theoretical solution to realize it. The reason of this lack is not due to a sort of impossible solution, but rather to a precise limit: the sectionalism. The solution is no more inside us. The solution is in the set.

The economist who knows each feature of production relationships has not the time to think of moral and political processes. The philosopher follows a logical process that deduces partial information and uncompleted information compared to production relationships and participation relationships. The politician, in his turn, also when he knows the economical processes and feels the moral side of what he thinks is right, can only adjust his action to the research of consent, just because this is one of the peculiar features of democracy.

Nowadays, the only entity able to include in itself enough knowledge to modify processes is the scientific-technologic complex as a whole, whose target is however its own development rather then the matching of richness, solidarity and democracy within itself. And we can not even think that the solution could be pointed out by an artificial intelligence to be provided with the information and criteria necessary to make deductions. In fact, it would be itself the result of that same scientific-technologic complex, that would affect its perceptions and therefore deductions according to its own criteria. The solution lays in the whole; all together. Together you can.

However, this whole must be able to emulate those knowing the production processes, it has to know what is right, being aware that everyone’s participation is necessary to make, to create what’s right. And what is emulated must be an organized part of the whole, without appearing as a subject, so as to avoid being regarded as a myth and, therefore, being basically admired, envied and imitated. Not only has the example to be repeatable. It must also feature enough potentials to appropriate the knowledge of the prevailing parts and to carry out actions proving to be effective on the whole. Just like energy produces waves without being a wave itself, the emulated thing must be able to produce effects without being mixed up with the effects produced.

Nowadays, the scientific-technologic complex enables an individual to act in a certain way on his/her own, without appearing and without participants. The incident actions may regard procreation, production, information and other still relatively unknown sciences, by affecting respectively the genetic mechanisms, the monetary system, the communication process, the brain hyper-energies. Nevertheless, it could do so only for creating unbalance and not for restoring balance too.

This is the current state of affairs, the reality. An individual alone could only prove his/her power, without developing that of other people. Perhaps, the reaction towards one showing his/her own power could modify the perception way, thus leading to the creation of the means required for such development. However, we should not forget the risk of a different reaction, that may annihilate even those souls aiming already at an overall improvement of the whole.

Furthermore, some would react by aggressively showing their power, without worrying about the possible impact of such actions on the whole. Therefore, acting alone is possible but not recommended. We should resort to others to do things, by sharing the emulative references among a considerable number of individuals, so that the observer understands the new processes without thinking that he/she won’t be able to adopt them. By using effective examples by and encouraging the participants to think and be involved, we can prove that one can be and should be the way he/she wants, not any different.

No armed revolt, civil disobedience, popular election, secession or scission, unification or merger, federation or confederation will ever equal the emulation power of those proving to be able to implement - not only in the internal relationships – an actual social refunding, intended as contextual change in the relations and behaviors.

Predicting the future consists in the logical deduction originating from the actual reality – not from the historical one – of the facts we know. The future will be the way we all can rationally imagine it. Truly said that it is always indeterminate, as it always reveals itself in a different way than we expected and we tried to shape it; but it is also true that some fundamental elements have always revealed themselves on a regular basis, except for those cases in which relations and rules among the system’s parts were not willing or could not adapt to the increase in the complexity level.

In such cases, when the relations among the parts did not adapt to the complexity level, the system, basing on the old rules, was not able to keep all its parts together, the relations among the latter rapidly changed, by undergoing some sort of acceleration. These very changes led to the introduction of new rules and, therefore, to the creation of new relations among the parts. In those cases, the behavior of some parts changed, in spite of the existing relations. What does behavior consist in? What is it caused by?

The behavior is the action and its cause is the relation between the individual’s power level and the maximum reachable power. Until a part is endowed with a power level that does not coincide with its maximum power, it makes endogenous actions designed to modify its structure, regardless from the exogenous links. Now, we find ourselves in such a complex situation that the rules as well as the relations among the parts need to be changed, renewed. The assumption according to which all human beings can be ensured need freedom since several years – this not having been achieved yet – proves that the system’s rules are no longer fit for its development level and, therefore, for its complexity level. Thus, it is obvious, historically logical, repetitive and likely that some parts avoid the rules, by adopting behaviors that are in contrast with such rules; the latter will then evolve as a consequence of such atypical behaviors.

Let’s go back to the future. We could have an increase in richness, solidarity and democracy, both as a whole or just for one part of humanity, but we are not going to have these conditions enjoyed by all the parts. On the contrary, the reality proves that, over the last one hundred years, the number of poor, emarginated and powerless people has increased. And this trend will not change until we keep assuming that at least one, or maybe two, of these conditions can be turned into reality, and not the three of them together.

The problem is approached in a twisted, unreal way. But things are actually different. The problem does not lay in the fact that these three conditions can not be combined with one another, but rather in the fact that none of these conditions is and will ever be referred to a group if they are not achieved all three together. Without richness, neither solidarity nor democracy exist. Without solidarity, neither richness nor democracy exist. Without democracy, neither richness nor solidarity exist. Just like you can not have something true, beautiful and right if you don’t have these three conditions all together.

Therefore, the problem can not be solved because … this is not the problem. And you can not find any solution for a non-existing problem. The real problem is how to achieve the three conditions all together. And the key is the will to achieve them together. To do so, we must understand that the maximum individual development is obtained within the maximum overall development. But how should we let people understand that? Through what means? Basing on what strategy?

Means, in terms of knowledge and action ability, are available and consist in the scientific-technological complex proper. In order to arrange them in view of the target we are aiming at (i.e.: changing the perception way), a proto-strategy can be adopted, to be regarded as emulation of the original unique individual: energy scission first, creation of waves and space, creation and transformation of matter, with the following re-composition of energy, of all the energy, in a far more complex state. In this way, man is split and everything is newly created.

Here we are, I have come to the end of my ideas. I have nothing to add at the moment. Now, what I need is you. Everyone is necessary. Everyone’s culture, work, thought and will are necessary. What I think may even be wrong. Certainly, while reflecting on ones’ selves, over six billion human beings could find truer, better and even righter truths. In any case, stop letting your freedom and your own dignity depend on other people. The solutions against fear do not lay in war, drug, hatred, revenge, chips, speeches that are pre-formulated by some unknown people, who perhaps trigger evil just to preserve and increase their power on you.

Thank you.

October, 16th 2001.

Rodolfo Marusi Guareschi