Las tragedias de los ricos

(NOTA: algunos amigos míos están viajando a tope este año, y aunque yo no lo haría, no les digo nada, es su vida y no dudo de que tengan motivos muy válidos; y si sus motivos no son válidos, tampoco me los venden como impepinables; esta bitácora va sobre otra cosa, y sobre una actitud repetida que, en este caso, se ha manifestado en el tema del viaje; y ya dejo de excusarme antes de empezar a escribir)

Estamos en 2020. Tenemos internet y acceso a la información. De hecho, nos bombardean con más de la que nos gustaría, y así, nos creamos esa información o no, es difícil que no hayamos oído hablar del covid-19, del cambio climático, de los incendios forestales generalizados por todo el planeta, de la inquietud social en EE.UU., de la guerra en Siria, del genocidio saudí en Yemen, de China alcanzando el puesto de primera potencia económica del mundo a costa de las libertades de millones de personas (entre otros adorables motivos), de que la crisis de inmigración no ha terminado y de que, en general, es un año que va a dar para muchas películas. Es un año en el que hay muchas personas sufriendo, bien sea por daños directos, bien por las paranoias que se crean y/o creen (aplíquese indicativo o subjuntivo a placer de quien me lea).

Entre todas las tragedias, la que más me ha tocado la fibra sensible ha sido una que me han contado hoy (atención: estamos en modo “sarcasmo”—por siaca). Me cuenta cierta persona que su hija y el novio de ésta están a la espera de un segundo test de covid-19 (no sé si hoy o mañana), que ya han dado negativo, pero que, si uno de ellos da positivo, no les dejan embarcar a un vuelo a las Azores, pasado mañana, y perderán 1.500 €.

El que no está mal es porque no quiere, francamente. Contesto con una versión edulcorada de “es que a quién se le ocurre”. “A ver, es que no se les podía haber ocurrido, porque” (atención) “compraron el billete en junio”.

Me dicen eso en septiembre de 2020.

—Bueno, francamente, no me da ni pizca de pena, es una imprudencia viajar en estas circunstancias.

Me rebate que, a veces, uno necesita (sí, ese fue el verbo, “necesitar”) viajar para desconectar (no por trabajo, ni por ayudar en una crisis humanitaria, ni por la ciencia, no: por placer). Me niego a dejar las cosas así.—Ha habido vuelos en los que, por un tarado, se han infectado todos los otros pasajeros. En un año como éste, es una irresponsabilidad.

—Si nos ponemos así, no podríamos hacer nada.

Digo algo así como:—No estoy de acuerdo— y me voy, dando por terminada la conversación. He intentado que su tontería se estrelle contra la pared de la realidad, aunque sé que no va a funcionar, va a ver mi falta de solidaridad con su victimismo como falta de empatía o de voluntad por hacer amigos. Me da igual.

Podría haberme puesto más beligerante: “Si te falta imaginación para hacer otras cosas, y conocimiento para saber lo que es un problema real; si te falta consciencia para ver que hay gente que no tiene 1.500 € al año para alimentar a su familia; si viajar tú o tu familia te parece una necesidad pero te parece que son todos los demás con cada uno de sus actos quienes están provocando esta crisis sanitaria con la que tanto disfrutas creando ese alarmismo del que me acusabas a mí en los primeros días de la pandemia; si no ves más allá de tu ombligo, sí, entonces entiendo que es una tragedia; y ahora que ya nos hemos puesto de acuerdo, si me disculpas, tengo más que hacer”. Pero preferí dejarle con la palabra en la boca y que se sintiera incomprendido en vez de atacado.

Ya comentaba en otra bitácora que nacer con estrella, a veces, es nacer estrellado en el campo del desarrollo de determinadas habilidades cognitivas. Hay que ser un poco más crítico con uno mismo. Y sí, hay que criticar al gobierno que a cada uno le toque; pero si no hacemos nosotros nada, si no cambiamos ni un ápice de nuestro comportamiento para adaptarnos al ideal que les exigimos a los demás, quizá no seamos más que unos hipocritillas y nos merezcamos la tragedia que estamos fomentando.

Cuando oigo a un afortunado ponerse victimista en medio de la tragedia ajena, no puedo evitar pensar que lo que necesita no es desconectar con un viaje, sino despertar con una tragedia real en carnes propias. Ojalá se despierten todos los ricos victimistas antes de que sea inevitable.

Jerarquía moral para principiantes

 (copiado de mi cuenta de tuiter)

A todos esos que llenan sus muros (reales o reticulares) de críticas (razonables) a la violencia callejera, a la destrucción de estatuas, a la falta de respeto a la propiedad ajena... pero no hacen ni-un-solo-comentario-negativo hacia las muertes que desencadenaron esa violencia: creo que deberíais dejaros mirar esa falta de coherencia, o de información, suponiendo que sea eso—o esa falsa moral. ¿Cómo se puede quedar uno silencioso ante un asesinato y luego rasgarse las vestiduras porque la gente reacciona rompiendo cosas? Y ojo: no defiendo la reacción, sólo estoy hablando de poner primero las cosas más importantes. Los Diez Mandamientos vienen por orden jerárquico, y el respeto a la vida ajena viene antes que el respeto a la propiedad ajena. Por algo será, ¿no?

Evidentemente, si uno no es cristiano, lo que digan los Mandamientos le puede importar bien poco (o no), pero si uno presume de conducta lo suficientemente ética como para criticar al prójimo, que se plantee el ejercicio básico de decidir si prefiere que le roben o que lo maten. La Regla Dorada, el no hacer a los demás lo que no queremos que nos hagan, o tratar al prójimo como nos gustaría que nos trataran, es un buen punto de partida para estas cosas. Después, sin pensar quién es el que hace qué, quizá podamos ver con mayor lucidez qué acto es peor.

Como digo, aquí hablamos de dos actos que a ninguno le gustaría sufrir en carne propia. Criticar sólo uno que es, jerárquicamente, menos malo (y reparable) puede indicar demasiadas cosas y ninguna positiva: falta de empatía, de información, de coherencia, o... la existencia de algún interés personal.

Por qué me preocupo de la política de un país que no es el mío, pensará alguien. Pues entre otras cosas, porque ya no es lo que la gente ponga en sus muros, sino la moto que la gente me intenta vender cuando habla conmigo o cuando me mandan basura en mensajes privados. Que alguien no lo vea como basura no cambia el hecho de que *es* basura. Es desinformación. Es manipulación. Es "correo no deseado". Estoy hasta los cataplines y no voy a esperar a estar hasta algo más gordo, ya he empezado a silenciar a amistades y familiares. Porque estar expuesto a esta basura hace daño permanente a nuestra capacidad de discernir (hay abundantes estudios psicológicos que lo demuestran). Veo gente muy querida que cree resistir los embites, pero... es un autoengaño.  

Termino con dos pregunta abiertas, inspiradas por una cita de F. Nietsche: "Quien con monstruos lucha cuide de convertirse a su vez en monstruo. Cuando miras largo tiempo a un abismo, el abismo también mira dentro de ti". Y las preguntas:

1. ¿Hasta qué punto es posible dejar de luchar con un monstruo sin negarse uno a sí mismo?

2. ¿Hasta qué punto es posible y/o deseable adoptar una postura neutral?

Feliz comienzo de semana a las personas de buena voluntad.

Se visten como p...

Esto va de política. Y de moral. De ver qué nos importan más, si las personas o los objetos físicos. De ver si tenemos valores o si los confundimos con sus símbolos.
Seguro que han oído esa burrada, que culpabiliza a la víctima, ¿no? "¡Cómo no va a haber violaciones, si algunas se visten que parece que van buscando jaleo!". A veces, se lo oímos decir a algunas mujeres. Nada de criticar al "pobre" violador, que no pudo hacer sino seguir sus instintos, en la situación en la que le habían puesto.
Y esa situación no era otra que ver pasar a una mujer guapa delante suyo. Pongamos que le pasaran muchas mujeres guapas por delante, y muchas vestidas de esa forma que algunos califican como "de buscar jaleo". Llevemos las cosas al extremo y pongamos que ese hombre sienta deseo sexual desde los 13 a los 83 años.
Son 70 años de sufrir provocación. Pobre hombre. Y algunas desconsideradas lo provocan, vistiendo como lobas. Claro, luego pasa lo que pasa, ¿no?
Estoy siendo sarcástico (por si acaso). Así que, no, la culpa no es de la mujer. Si pinto mi casa, no es una invitación al grafiti. Si aparco mi coche cerca de alguien con una llave en el bolsillo, no es una invitación a que me lo raye. Si alguien dice la sandez de que algunas se lo buscan, no es una provocación para que le respondan a la sandez dejándolo sin dientes (pero igual una bofetada no le vendría mal).
Estoy de acuerdo en que no viene mal ser consciente de que hay mucho descontrolado por ahí; pero ese descontrolado también puede rayar tu coche, robar tu bici, quemar tu casa, secuestrar a tus hijos mientras juegan en el parque, y en todos esos casos, está claro que el culpable es el descontrolado. El porqué está claro: ha atacado al sistema.
Sólo que, en este sistema nuestro, en el que todos somos iguales pero unos somos más iguales que otros (gracias, George Orwell), existen minorías con menos derechos. Y la mujer es una de esas minorías.
Resulta curioso (por llamarlo de alguna manera) que muchos de quienes culpan a la mujer también acusen a "los negros" (a todos y cada uno) por la destrucción de estatuas que estamos viendo en muchos países. Son malos, son de izquierdas, están organizados, luego vamos nosotros y blablablá. Yo estoy en desacuerdo con la destrucción de estatuas, pero cuando llega a su "destitución"... Mira, llevémoslas a los museos. Pero es que eso tampoco satisface a los que defienden los derechos las estatuas (y algunos, además, a los violadores). Poco importa (a ellos) que los motivos por los que se derriban las estatuas sigan existiendo. Habrá organización, no lo dudo, y elementos de izquierdas o de derechas (que también), y manipulación, pero el hecho es que el racismo lleva cientos de años existiendo. La esclavitud encubierta sigue existiendo en campos que darían, cada uno de ellos, para un reportaje exhaustivo. No son 70 años, ésos que veíamos más arriba, sino cientos de años.
No defiendo la destrucción de las estatuas, porque no estoy a favor de ella. Yo preferiría que se bajaran las estatuas y se colocaran en museos con explicaciones pertinentes, para que no se olvide la Historia, incluso los individuos y comportamientos denostables, e intentar, con ello, que se repita con menos frecuencia. Entiendo las protestas, porque hay una historia varias veces centenaria de opresión, de injusticia, de crímenes impunes. Que sí, que la ha habido también hacia los blancos, pero... primer, seguimos dominando, y segundo, no hablo de hacer justicia histórica, sino de solucionar un problema actual. No es lo mismo que un niño pegue con todas sus fuerzas a un adulto a que sea al revés. O que alguien cansado y malnutrido pegue a alguien fuerte y preparado. El acto en sí de pegar es malo; el nivel de maldad de cada actor es diferente.
Vamos a ver si me centro. ¿Qué quiero decir?
Lo que quiero es denunciar esa disonancia cognitiva (o hipocresía, quizá), por la que algunos quitan culpa a un hombre "provocado" (sic) pero se la aumentan a un colectivo oprimido y harto de estar oprimido, tan harto como lo estaríamos todos en su situación. ¿Qué es más importante, la integridad de las personas o la de las estatuas?

Algunas personas argumentan que una estatua representa "unos valores, no es sólo un objeto físico". Y yo estoy de acuerdo. Hay estatuas y monumentos que nos recuerdan valores morales, hazañas, ideales. En ese sentido, cada ser humano sobre la Tierra es un recuerdo de valores morales, de hazañas y de ideales que se nos escapan. Es cierto que un monumento, de forma ideal, debería mostrar esos valores de un modo universal; pero existe el peligro de que esos valores se identifiquen con el objeto que los representa, que el objeto se deifique, cayendo en la idolatría, y que se sieguen vidas por defender un objeto material. La Estatua de la Libertad no es la Libertad.
No es lo mismo estar reprimido que ser oprimido. Según algunos “popletas”, o confundidos, el reprimido tiene derecho a atentar contra personas y los oprimidos no tienen derecho a atentar contra objetos. Es la confusión moral a la que lleva adorar a becerros de oro.
Protejamos a la mujer, protejamos a las minorías, y después ya hablaremos de las estatuas. Que igual estamos adorando a las efigies de personas equivocadas olvidándonos de lo que es realmente importante—y luego (ahora sí que sí) pasa lo que pasa.

Opening churches

Opening churches amidst the covid-19 pandemic can provoke an increase in the number of cases, and in fact that has been the case already in countries, states and regions that have decided to open their churches. It would be the same in any country opening them: in Spain, in the US, wherever. Now let's imagine there was somewhere a president who, despite plenty of evidence proving otherwise, would present himself as a defender of Christian values. However, this imaginary person would insist in opening the churches because his voters, maybe, want it. At first sight, this would look as a backfiring statement: wouldn't his voters and those more likely to listen to him be the main affected ones by the disease and die at a higher rate? Wouldn't that lead him to lose the elections?
That is only one possibility, as there are other maquiavelic ways of thinking. Let's review some facts.

1. As we know, the disease has a higher mortality rate among the elderly and those with pre-condictions, i.e. those that are being paid by the Government or by insurance companies. Spreading the disease as much as possible means that there are higher probabilities of getting rid of a big number of rentiers. In other words, less money spent on them, more money for those in charge and for our imaginary president.
2. Apparently, the disease is affecting ratial minorities at a higher rate. If our imaginary president was a racist (no matter how much he would deny it, we would probably find plenty of tweets and statements on video proving he is), this would lead to a reduction in the proportion of members of other races than his own. In this "imaginary" environment, the whites have better access to medical services, among other useful measures to survive.
3. The poor are also more affected, which means that the wealthy close friends of our imaginary president would not be affected, because they would be able to pay for medical care. And if they couldn't afford it, there is their friend, making sure he would get the medical attention for them with a word only (he wouldn't pay for it even if it were for his closest relatives).
4. In the country of our imagination, the unemployment rate would have rocketed, with tens of millions newly unemployed people. However, those dying because of being unemployed and therefore being unable to pay for health care would not apply for a job afterwards. They wouldn't get any unemployment aid, they wouldn't make unemployment figures bigger, someone may get a job and our imaginary president would be able to sell that as his big success.
5. If our imaginary president would go against the recommendations of anybody else (doctors, scientists, European teenagers and other well-informed people) regarding the opening of places of worship, that would create disunity between those reasonable and those swallowing every BS coming from our imaginary idiot's mug. Together with the fear in the country, in the end that would make the population much more manipulable.
6. God is omnipresent and therefore you don't need to go to a place of worship. Even though there are reasonable people that know this and would stay home, having a number of non-sensical ones getting infected and spreading the disease would ensure that both sides of the political spectrum would get infected at the same rate, which would eventually balance the "casualties" on our imaginary president's side while boosting the other "advantages".
7. Our imaginary president has the Napoleonic syndrom of willing to see his subjects dying because of loyalty to him, especially when that proves that they have bigger faith in him than they have in God.
8. It is said that Nero, the Roman emperor, burnt down Rome, his own capital city, pretty much out of fancy. Whether a true story or just a necessary myth that our civilization created over the real Great Fire of Rome, this our imaginary president would share a lot with the mythical Nero: he would be a destroyer out of fancy. On top of that, having destruction around would always help him find somebody else to blame for both his actions and insufficiencies—and people would be willing to act on those blamed by their "leader"!

There are many other reasons for opening places of worship amidst a pandemic if you are a hedonistic psycho in power of any country. Let's hope there is no such in the world nowadays. Right?

Jake Tapper and Alex Azar

Jake Tapper asked Alex Azar a few questions. It was disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhEu-jTTQmQ

There is an interesting question (tracking time 4:00). Why is the virus affecting more the US than other countries in the world?

I found that question unfair. Looking at the data, one may realize that there are developing countries, and even developed countries, where the number of tests per million people is a fraction of what the US has (which is still less than 1 person tested every 20). So maybe those countries are doing far worse than the US and nobody is aware of it. Maybe they're not doing that bad (out of testing, there are other explanations as of why the covid is spreading more slowly in Africa, e.g. the population movements are not comparable in size, frequency or distance to those in the developed countries). The fact is there is not enough data to tell and one can use that lack of information in either direction—for example, to make an unfair question.

However, I am not saying it is unfair to ask an unfair question. You look stressed, Mr. Azar. What about getting rid of that burden? Tell the truth: you were late. Or you had a plan to kill the elderly and the minorities (see note (1) below). Or whatever the truth is. Or a well constructed lie.

(1) Azar said "Unfortunately, the American population is a very diverse and, ehr..." (tracking 6'30''). Was that a Freudian slip? Then he mentions how African American and minority communities are more affected. Is that why the slow response? The elderly getting a pension, the sick, the racial minorities...

Yet Secretary Azar chose to say something easy to demonstrate wrong. "We are testing more than other countries or than other major countries [...]". In absolute numbers, yes (although it is not and it never was "more than the other countries combined", like the president once said). But let's have a look at the numbers:

The data are from the day before the talk, which should be the most current information they both had related to the matter. And it seems out of the big countries, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia (you can't get bigger than Russia) and the UK have all more tests per capita than the US.

Spain, Russia, the UK, Italy, France and Germany, combined, had 1,369,078 cases, which is 138,695 less cases than the US. When it comes to testing, the six European countries combined had 19,661,006 tests, which is 8,135,381 above the US (more than 70% above, or if you prefer, more than 170% of the US figure)

In other words, as if Secretary Azar's body language wasn't giving enough hints, the table proves he was lying. Like master, like dog.

"Other countries are not testing asymptomatic individuals in any way like we are doing". Partially true there. South Korea was testing asymptomatic. Now they don't need to, because they've flattened the curve. Iceland tested the asymptomatic too (1,802 positives out of 56,742 tests may give you an idea of their rate of testing). On the other hand, it is true that there are many countries doing a bad job and, under certain criteria, doing a poorer job even within the developed world. Yes, there are countries that are doing a bad job. The question is why the US Government is not doing a better job when it easily could.

Because testing is not the responsibility of the Federal Government, according to the president. It is for the Governors to accomplish such task, isn't it, crazy Ald? But the merit, yeah, that one goes to his shoulders:

I had heard better things from Azar and I was expecting a more direct response from Tapper. However, it almost seemed the latter was playing for the Government in this video. Really, a double disappointment.

Presspaganda

There was this point in which I got fed up of getting bits, whether it was the Fox videos or the CNN or the MSNBC or all those that, whether I agreed with them or not, were pre-filtering the information for me, including the tweets of the actor.

And I'm trying to be understanding because some people very dear to me defend him. So I played the press conference that some media were presenting as propaganda, a personal rally, rather than an informative press conference on COVID-19. And, yes, it was propaganda. In all fairness, some reporters were asking questions that were not related to the current progress of the fight against COVID-19—but also in all fairness, it was the speakers who started talking about other issues. It is true that some reporters were not the most polite and interrupted the speaker. But, mind, the one that interrupted most, and first, was the main speaker. Some reporters indeed spoke as if taking things personally; but hey, the conference started with a video attacking the media and the reporters, and polite or not, taking it personally or not, the worst behaviour I saw was either by the speaker or following his lead. He is their leader, after all, so he, in my eyes, is the only one to blame for his subjects' misled behaviour. And the only insults I heard were from the main speaker.

Now, there were some good moments in which I thought the answers given were reasonable for the circumstances. There was enough of them to think that, if the speaker wanted and had the data in his favour, he really could give a reasonable press conference. Even with all the mistakes and flaws in the actions taken (or not taken), he has the possibility of behaving reasonably. Probably he chooses not to. I prefer to think he chooses that than thinking he feels like a trapped rat.

However, there were too many misleading and manipulative statements. When he said, "When you look at Europe as a whole, they are doing much worse than we do"... Come on: when you look at any single administration, no one has as many cases and as fast growth. If you look at the number of cases in Europe, and you want to put it as a whole, then don't forget to see Europe as a whole when it comes to other facts. You said you have done more tests than any other country in the world? Let's see Europe as a whole, then: Europe has more tests than the USA (see the table below). With 616,168, the US has more cases than the next four countries combined (Spain, Italy, France and Germany, adding up to 616,016 cases—we would need to add Brunei, with 136, and Nepal, with 16, to reach the number of the US). The four mentioned European countries alone combine 3,325,383 tests—by contrast, the US has had 3,128,088 (impressive, yes, but not more than Europe as a whole). So to sum up, it may be that Europe as a whole is doing worse than you are, but the fact is that Europe as a whole is doing more tests than you do.

(source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

There are incompetent politicians everywhere, but if we use your criteria to judge reality, it comes out no single leader of any country is doing as bad as you. By far. No fake news: just using your methods of manipulation and falsehood.

Let's not compare with Europe, let's see it globally. We've said the USA has the largest number of cases of any single Government in the world. We could say it is simply more detected since they have more tests than anybody else in the world. But can we? The US has 30.39% of the world's cases (as of April 15th 2020). Counting only the countries with 70,000 tests or above, the US has less than 26% of the world's tests (this is a very conservative figure and it is probably much less than 26% since I couldn't find the number of tests that China has taken and I was counting as such just the confirmed cases, plus I left out many other countries):

In terms of cases per capita, or per million people, the US is way behind. Mind—there are 23 European countries (in the EU or not) and at least 6 European territories that are ahead of the US (feel free to check & count, but give or take a couple, I'm still safe). Oh, yes, it felt glorious to see Greenland in the list: now they must feel relieved that they were not purchased by the US:

I am going to show the first table again. Let's have a look at the total recovered. True, the pandemic was uncovered later in the US, so we need to give them time to recover. Considering the high figure of total cases, I really hope that the US gets also the highest number of total recovered. I sincerely do. Otherwise, they are going to have the largest number of deaths, and the American people deserve better. Please, everybody, stay safe.

BTW this is only one example of little research anybody can do to find all the manipulation that happened yesterday. Things like the previous administration destroying the COVID testing (or breaking them, or whatever he said)... He has been in Office for more than three years now, there was no COVID-19 one year ago so such testing did not exist under the previous administration—that is, no COVID-19 test could be broken or destroyed by anybody. Maybe he wanted to say something different and said it wrong, but, if they can't prepare his speech properly, why should anybody attend or watch these things? Why should we believe anything we hear?

There were many more traceable lies and misinformation, but enough for now. It was painful to watch (actually, I didn't watch most of it, I just listened to it while looking in a different direction). But you know what? Afterwards, I felt a huge peace of mind. Also, I was able to see positive things in both the incompetent speakers (there was more than one), in the competent ones (Steve something and Dr Fauci) and in the reporters. I was able to see negative things on both sides. I managed to read between some lines that I doubt the main speaker could identify when some of his people spoke—and I won't betray them here.

All in all, I got the impression there are quite a few reasons the US Government is seen as less and less reliable in other countries. While I still believe many among the media are manipulating the info for their interest, they are just a shadow of the manipulation displayed by the speakers. Not to talk about the lies and the lack of respect of those presenting this Press Propaganda briefing. After watching it, really, more than ever, I have reasons to believe what certain media show us on a daily basis. They may be manipulating a bit, but mainly, they are doing the dirty work of filtering the BS for us. They are saving our time from Presspaganda.

(P.S: if you want to give it a try, go ahead—just be warned, your feelings will be inclined in favour of the speaker due to the angle of recording. You may check how your feelings change by not looking at the video, just listen. However, it would be even more effective if you compare with your feelings when, instead of the speakers, one of the reporters is in the center of the screen: I feel it then stops being bad to become outrageous. Have fun).

Power has us

We don't have power. It is power the one that controls us, that transforms us, that guides us to do whatever low instincts dwell in us. Unless you are an exceptional being.

One of the marvels of reading good books is that they help you realising things. It doesn't prevent you from making mistakes (we wish), but sometimes it can reduce the probability of us making them. If we know that doing our free will hides the possibility of us becoming spoiled children regardless of our age, we may want to put some control measures on ourselves and exercise some self-discipline. This can be useful, for example, when it comes to not spending all our money on payday on our favourite fancies.

Of course, we don't need to read any of the best novels in the world to know that, but it is also because we will be faced with reality, sooner or later, and reality will tame what our free will would not. We are lucky: we don't have such a huge power that would get out of control and devour us. Otherwise, we would benefit from the example of Bastian in Ende's The Neverending Story, whose wishes, no matter how big or small or likely to happen, would become true. Bastian is like most of us: he had some traumas, some lack of self-confidence, some inferiority complex; he felt powerless for too long, and suddenly he is given the power of making his wishes, every single one, come true. And so he does. I don't want to be a spoiler, so allow me to be a bit cryptical: with every single wish that became true, he lost something—until, towards the end of the book, he seems to be about to lose everything without noticing... What is he losing with every wish? Does it have a happy ending? Read the book. Is it realistic? It is a beautiful image of what happens in real life, IMHO.

At least in literature, there are examples of individuals that are immune to the temptation of infinite power. In Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, when Samfast takes the Ring from Frodo and puts it on his hand, the Ring offers him a vision of Power, of Control on everything on Earth, on wills, on entire nations. Sam is not affected by it and the Ring, the Offer of Absolute Power, goes silent for many pages, and will not tempt Sam again. Sam had the Power and carried Power in his pocket for many pages because he had to, he humbly accepted his role. There are politicians like that, even if we don't see them often; but they do exist, and you, dear reader, probably have two or three in your mind from recent history.

We are not Samfast (well, maybe you are, but allow me to continue as if you weren't). If we could, we would be more like Bastian, most of us. And if we cannot be Samfast, being Bastian is the best option of those we have left—as weird as it may sound.

We could also be Warlords.

Power wants to grow and it uses us as its tool. It used Napoleon, it used many others, it keeps using and always will use anyone available.

There is a certain admiration for Napoleon. I always heard my history teachers talk about him as a great strategist. Today, I see him with less praising eyes: I just see a man who sent tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of his own people to death, just because he wanted more power. He had enemies to defeat, you know. With enemies to defeat, territories to conquer and a lust for power that could never get satisfied, the lives of those devoted to him were as worth as the potential of lentils to become plants one day: zero when you want a plate of stew.

Put a spoiled child with some hidden inferiority complex at the top of society and you will see what happens. It could be that, in order to destroy his enemies, the spoiled child infects his devoted ones with a lethal disease in the hope they will get in contact with his (probably imaginary) enemies and bring them to death. That's the role of his devoted ones. The role of lentils in my stew is to keep me on my feet, and the role of the King's subjects is to keep him on his throne. Being destroyed for their King is an honour, after all. Their King calls them out, politely suggesting how wonderful it would be if His Lands were packed with people getting infected from each other, ready to spread His Majesty's Justice among His foes.

Yes, I believe we are in a global war right now. Yet I don't think it is a war of Humanity against a virus. The virus, and part of Humanity, os just a tool, fulfilling the conquering and defeating plans of some Kings who are nothing but spoiled children with a lust for power that will never be satisfied. They believe they are in charge, that they are in power; but it is Power who owns them.

Today, we are losing our beloved ones, we lose our health, we lose our hope, many lose their lives. We feel powerless. Yet the paradox is that, to a certain extent, the most powerful can be the most powerless.

Because they can't feel loved and their loss is Bastian's.