About regime, dictatorship and governance

Nothing would make a corrupt administration bleed as much as the inaction of a collective body.

The employer, the state or anyone, can go so far as to affect the subordinate's right to survival through the removal of the wage, which is a crystallized form of energy only because the society is committed, cohesive, to respect such an agreement between its constituent members.

In simpler terms, money is the source of life and society tacitly signs an imaginary agreement in which it undertakes to respect these requirements.

Although it is true in principle that it is possible to create money out of nothing, labor, which is also a form of energy, on the other hand, can neither be created nor exercised abstractly. Given the material nature of the area to which it is applied, only human sacrifice can properly bestow this energy to be channeled into the functioning of a certain practical activity.

By choosing to use money, the individual implicitly decrees the value of his work: working, or channeling his energies in a certain situation, increases the value of those who benefit from it.

From this it follows that the ruling class is mostly enriched because the individual decides to voluntarily accept submission to white-collar activity, uses the regent's currency and receives, in exchange and against his own honesty, an incongruous and unfavorable balance of power.

In these terms, money and work constitute two forms of control of the masses, or rather of the value of the work, and therefore of the intrinsic value of each individual who is part of a community.

The regent can therefore, at his discretion and through the expendable pecuniary value, add or remove value to the individual in a completely arbitrary way. Incidentally, it can determine the trend in the quality of life of each citizen.

If your beloved pharmacist, or any other respectable fellow citizen who has surplus financial resources, abruptly, bought all the resources of a limited territory: we are talking about houses, land, water sources, etc., it would be reasonable enough to expect that those resources return - for a factor of leveling of social wealth - to be equally divided among the local people. Therefore whoever gets rich must first of all redistribute economic forces, possessions and good deeds to his own community.

Before the industrial revolution the people were settled in rural areas with low population density: they lived mostly on agriculture, livestock and some exchange of goods and services at the local level.

The big cities, which arose out of the need to recruit masses of workers to be employed in the productive areas, were created with the aim of depriving those who had autonomy and to force the people to depend, in every respect, on the institutions. Inflation, wars and trampled rights did all the rest.

The supermarkets and everything that today can be considered "modernity" and a sign of well-being, are nothing more than the symbol of the forced dependence of the people on the system.

The people do not create much for themselves, in a certain sense it is only an imaginary extension of the plow and the fire: these in fact can only provide an advantage for others but never for themselves.

From the beginning, Nature has provided us with everything necessary to carry on a dignified and free life, although full of sacrifices.

The bear does not have to shop for food, it only kills from hunger, which is a natural instinct linked to its own will to survive.

The man, instead, he hinders a life to bring displeasure, reasoning and working hard on the success of such a deal.