Una testata in faccia alla fascinazione mediatica per casapound

O capitano! Mio capitano!...

Sta facendo il giro del web uno spezzone di un servizio di una trasmissione Rai in cui Roberto Spada tira una testata in faccia a un giornalista spaccandogli il setto nasale.

Una testata in faccia alla fascinazione mediatica per Casapound
Crolla il velo d’ipocrisia con cui i giornali hanno commentato le elezioni a Ostia: già dai giorni precedenti al voto illustri politologi avevano riempito le colonne dei quotidiani per declamare il “grande lavoro sociale” svolto dalla formazione neofascista. Un coro unanime di encomi per il sostegno alle categorie più deboli, per l’impegno a favore delle vittime della crisi, per i pacchi di pasta distribuiti alle famiglie italiane.

Dopo l’endorsment ricevuti da Mentana e Formigli i giornalisti nostrani hanno provato a propagandare l’idea che Casapund ha successo ad Ostia perché “fa il lavoro politico che la sinistra non fa più”.
La verità è sotto gli occhi di tutti (e non da…

View original post 151 altre parole

Annunci

Corriere della Sera, Nemo, ovvero: il supporto mediatico al neofascismo romano

O capitano! Mio capitano!...

Della normalizzazione, e della conseguente ri-legittimazione, del neofascismo abbiamo scritto varie volte. Superati i clamori dell’ennesima polemica ad usum media – stavolta è toccata ad Anna Frank – si tornerà a considerare normale la partecipazione neofascista alla spartizione mediatico-culturale del paese. Lo sdoganamento passa soprattutto attraverso l’attivazione di determinati frame narrativi falsamente obiettivi, in realtà volti alla costruzione di un ambito di legittimità sociale del neofascismo che ne rilancia il ruolo politico. In questi giorni sono andati in onda due “servizi” “giornalistici” sul neofascismo romano. Il primoapparso su Nemo – nessuno escluso del 12 ottobre, riguardante Forza nuova; il secondo pubblicato sul sito del Corriere della Sera il 25 ottobre, focalizzato su Casapound e le elezioni di Ostia del prossimo 5 novembre. Nonostante parlassero di territori ed organizzazioni differenti, i due servizi utilizzavano lo stesso linguaggio narrativo, il medesimo schema giornalistico.

View original post 1.314 altre parole

La Fantascienza è la vera letteratura Mainstream

miglieruolo

di Mauro Antonio Miglieruolo

Consideriamo che non la Fantascienza sia un genere della letteratura accademica, ma quest’ultima, almeno nella accezione assunta nel XX secolo, un aspetto parziale della grande corrente della narrativa universale. Il Novecento ha elevato una aspetto secondario della narrativa prodotta nel secolo, la rappresentazione tendenzialmente fotografica dell’esistente, a unica forma nobile e ammissibile di letteratura.

View original post 440 altre parole

Super Komrad Girl

Super Komrad Girlgeek-art:

Gerald Parel – Super Komrad Girl

French illustator Gerald Parel had the idea of Super Komrad Girl by reading the great Superman Red Son (a comic asking the question of what could have happened if Superman had fallen in the USSR instead of the USA). Gorgeous artworks served by Gerald Parel’s style, with a Soviet propaganda layer. Maybe the beginning of a great project ?

Lost in translation

Rebloggo da Tumblr:

“If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also”
(Matt 5:39)

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place – suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

Quindi, per oltre due millenni, miliardi di persone sono vissuti e sono morti credendo che il loro Messia gli avesse prescritto di subire senza reagire, quando in realtà gli aveva prescritto  esattamente il contrario.

Questo potrebbe essere definito il peggiore fail comunicativo della Storia.

The Day of the Doctor: a Case of Canon vs. Canon (Part 5/5)

inhonoredglory

I’ve spent five essays on the important issue of how the 50th anniversary episode doesn’t gel with the objective logic or moral conclusion of previous years of canon material. Such as,

  1. DotD contradicts established fact that the Doctor actually witnessed Gallifrey falling (read here)
  2. DotD contradicts the Doctor’s morality on Daleks and his abhorrence of killing en masse other life forms without proper consideration of the life he’s taken. (read here)
  3. DotD contradicts the Doctor’s moral stand on saving Gallifrey: how saving just Gallifrey does nothing to eliminate the Daleks or other evil forces in the Time War, since in End of Time, bringing just Gallifrey back brought back a host of other bad creatures. DotD does not address this. (read here)
  4. DotD contradicts the established fact that the Time Lords had become corrupt and were in fact worse than all villains in creation, and that their…

View original post 687 altre parole

The Day of the Doctor: a Case of Canon vs. Canon (Part 4/5)

inhonoredglory

I know it’s been a while since I posted my analyses on how the ending of the 50th counters major canon points of previous years. It took a back burner for a couple weeks. XD Anyway! The previous sections showed how

  1. DotD contradicts established fact that the Doctor actually witnessed Gallifrey falling
  2. DotD contradicts the Doctor’s morality on Daleks and his abhorrence of killing en masse other life forms without proper consideration of the life he’s taken.
  3. DotD contradicts the Doctor’s moral stand on saving Gallifrey: how saving just Gallifrey does nothing to eliminate the Daleks or other evil forces in the Time War, since in End of Time, bringing just Gallifrey back brought back a hat of other bad creatures. DotD does not address this.

This segment proves how the end of the Time War World differs morally between the RTD era and the 50th, with War II imagery paralleling…

View original post 1.233 altre parole

The Day of the Doctor: a Case of Canon vs. Canon (Part 3/5)

inhonoredglory

The 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who troubled me for several reasons, and in the previous two parts of this analysis, I outlined how the 50th jars with canon in (1) how it contradicts the established fact that the Doctor was eyewitness to his planet being burned, and (2) how the 50th counters the Doctor’s morality on Daleks and his abhorrence at killing other life forms without a consideration of the life he’s taken.

This section outlines one of the major contradictions between the 50th and previous canon, namely, the moral question that lies at the heart of the rebooted series.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
read/reblog on Tumblr

On the moral integrity of destroying Gallifrey/using the Moment

PARTISAN: (a woman) But we know his intention. He still possesses the Moment, and he’ll use it to destroy Daleks and Time Lords…

View original post 2.129 altre parole

The Day of the Doctor: a Case of Canon vs. Canon (Part 2/5)

inhonoredglory

I embarked on this analysis to comfort myself after considering the implications of the 50th. Somehow “The Day of the Doctor” doesn’t gel with years of previous canon material, and here I’ll try to explain how. In the previous segment, I outlined how the Doctor did watch his planet destroyed, and how the 50th should have implied how the Doctor found it impossible to sense that he was not alone if a whole planet of Time Lords were still alive. This update presents a characterization argument.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
read/reblog on Tumblr

The Doctor’s mercy towards Daleks/hatred of genocide

DOCTOR: But you were destroyed. In the very first year of the Time War, at the Gates of Elysium. I saw your command ship fly into the jaws of the Nightmare Child. I tried to save you.
DAVROS: But it took…

View original post 952 altre parole

The Day of the Doctor: a Case of Canon vs. Canon (Part 1/5)

inhonoredglory

The 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who really put my head in a spin. I love Doctor Who, ever since getting really involved almost two months ago. I was very excited over the pretty epic plot line that the Doctor hadn’t in fact destroyed his whole planet and people, but then came sadness, actual tears, over what I thought was the loss of the integrity of the emotion that had defined the Doctor for seven series. The Doctor’s memory loss of not using the Moment is hardly a comforting backbone on which to build such tremendous sincerity of emotions that previously characterized the Doctor and his actions in the Time War. I hated to see the canon of almost a decade undermined in one night. It took me a while to get used to the conclusion of the 50th, and I’m still working on it now, but doing an exercise like…

View original post 1.287 altre parole