1. “It’s a 3D view accompanied by personal experience, which gives us a much better interpretation than many images obtained by robotic probes”. I found it gratifying that a NASA administrator, Lori Glaze, recognized the human gaze, at a time when AI seems poised to overwhelm natural intelligence, risking domination over collective experience, ridiculing our condition. Victor Glover, one of the four astronauts who orbited the Moon, said during the eclipse: “It’s the strangest and most surreal sight we’ve had today, with the Earth’s glow illuminating the Moon”. And the spacecraft continues its adventure, which no one can explain better than the four people who have lived it. Without them, there would have been events but not an experience. That is, a lived reality transmitted by beings of flesh, bone, blood, and natural intelligence, who will be able to explain it to us (with the limitations imposed by the relevant authorities, it must be said, which is also a human condition) with the intensity of the lived experience. That is, a perception, from reason, accompanied by sensations, feelings, strengths, and weaknesses, that shape our species and that AI, capable of generating infinite accumulation and combination of data, will never be able to transmit with the singularity and sensitivity that, for better or worse, constitutes the human condition.

Uproar on the right and desolation on the left of the socialists, where the noisy leaderships of four days ago are getting lost in a general blurring. With canonical cases in both Catalan and Spanish politics, albeit with different forms and styles. Two examples of how stars that seemed to break barriers are fading: Pablo Iglesias, convinced that his presence was enough, did not want to understand that politics has a part of heavy and unsightly work behind the scenes, he was lazy about organic entanglements and got stuck when it came to moving from rhetoric to action. Result: he is a little more out of play every day. In the Catalan case, Ada Colau, who entered the mayorship with momentum, gradually blurred as if she couldn't find her place in the world of institutional politics and got lost in the transition from verbal illusions to practical concreteness. The drift of Podem and Comuns and the consequent fragmentation of their space, on a direct path to insolvency, force us to question the so-called far-left. And it's not just a problem for Catalonia or Spain.

Although some wish to save appearances and keep alive the border between the right and the far-right, the reality is that the right-wing parties are looking for each other, and increasingly shamelessly. The taboo of pacts with neo-fascists is falling across Europe as conservative or liberal right-wing parties fail to stop the leaks towards the far-right. Every day they incorporate more elements of reactionary thought: patriotic retreats are returning, a symptom of a moment of growing confusion, with an absence of reference authorities. A time of distrust.

The sadism of belief. Noelia Castillo had to wait 601 days to make effective the euthanasia she had requested and had been authorized. A torment imposed by her father, who turned to the ultra-religious association Christian Lawyers to prevent his daughter from dying. That is to say, he did it in the name of faith, which like all beliefs is founded on an unprovable truth – the existence of God and the authority that emanates from him – a figure of domination that accompanies and conditions the human species with the identification with a superior being of which we have no objective evidence. An idea that, in the cultural diversity of the world, has not materialized in a single figure, but has generated countless beliefs, often in fierce rivalry with each other. So much so that Christianity itself – of which Catholics consider themselves genuine representatives – has materialized in a wide array of proposals in subtle competition. The diversity of the world is so great that it makes it difficult to accredit the Catholic claim to be the only authentic and universal one.

1. French politics is gripped by the threat of the far right, a threat that is spreading throughout Europe in the form of fears of a widespread rise in neo-fascism. This anxiety is in keeping with the logic of times in which the right seems to accept the drift towards post-democratic authoritarianism, and neo-fascists capitalize on it with the classic game of copycats. For some time now, the names of Marine Le Pen—given her pending criminal case—and Jordan Bardella have been mentioned as potential presidential candidates. However, this weekend's municipal and regional elections, while not decisive, have highlighted the gap between rhetoric and reality, giving France signs that might suggest the reactionary movement is not as potent as it seems, provided the right doesn't lend it a hand.

Politics often has reasons that reason cannot comprehend. It seems that the PSC and ERC are in agreement to try to reach a budget that the country needs after so much frustration. There shouldn't be fundamental disagreements on the content, but Junqueras is setting a condition that depends on the Spanish government: the transfer of personal income tax management to the Catalan government. An old and reasonable aspiration that, in addition to its economic value, also has symbolic value, which the PSC seems to share, and which is generating irritation in the Spanish autonomous communities.

"We don't learn the lessons of history because we don't know what questions to ask." Lea Ypi was in Barcelona this week. I could introduce her as an Albanian intellectual with British citizenship, as a philosopher, as a professor at the London School of Economics, as the author of books such as Books and IndignityIn short, the things their CVs say. But I prefer to emphasize the reasons why her work captivates me: her way of being in the world, the need to give voice to ideas but also to life, to the human condition and its complexity.

Fake newsFake news: throughout history, whether due to ignorance or manipulation, two recurring attributes among humans. In fact, power systems have often been built on fake news transformed into undeniable truths, which have generated various mechanisms of submission and domination. The entry into the world of digital communication, with its immense capacity for propagation, has led us to a moment in which the use of... fake news It's so overwhelming that it operates like a kind of parallel reality, leading to great confusion. To the point that those who have made it their way of being in the world risk being caught in the contradiction, which is what's happening to Trump with his back-and-forth statements, which are increasingly exposing him. So much so that sectors of the Republican Party that until now had lived in his shadow are asking him to end the war because they realize that the presidential fabrications are rapidly losing credibility.

1. Now I attack, now I back down. Trump says the war is ending; the Iranians say they'll decide that. Pathetic spectacle. Timothy Snyder See two reasons Credible justifications for attacking Iran: "Destroy American democracy or enrich oneself." This is the level at which the world is being shaken. How can it be explained that in the world's leading power, no one is putting a stop to these delusions? Paul Ricoeur said that reflecting on politics means being able to operate in two dimensions: "the inexhaustible intertwining of evil and rationality." Is Trump's evil rational? Or is it the expression of a disquiet: is the acceleration of war a way of being in the world? The list includes Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, Cuba, and a web of intrigue that only strengthens. Is there no limit?

Timothy Snyder has stated it bluntly: "All Trump has to offer is militarism, authoritarianism, and corruption." And indeed, his entire administration is an escalation in that direction, culminating in the Iran war. A further stage in his cruelty that challenges the entire world. And which, for the moment, has left Europe bewildered, while Russia and China avoid raising their voices (probably because they believe—and hope—that Trump has gone too far). In this context, Pedro Sánchez has seen a window of opportunity, anticipating the discomfort of the European right, who know that wars are unpopular with most citizens but, at the same time, don't dare to rebel against Trump, even though he has always belittled them.

Each new delusion from Trump leads back to the same twofold question: how could a character made of insolence, excess, and a complete lack of awareness of the ridiculous have been led to the presidency of the—until now—world's leading power? He was nominated by the Republican Party, voted for by a majority for the second time—that is, with full knowledge of the man—and has been supported by a large part of the economic and technological elites who, through the digital sphere, shape American society. From day one, Trump has displayed his conviction that he is above national and international laws, and that he has only one guiding principle: to do whatever he pleases. This is not an interpretation; it is how he repeatedly expresses it. And no one has considered a potential impeachmentThe United States, dragged along by the whims of a figure with no sense of limits, convinced that freedom—his own—and democracy are incompatible.

The declassification of the February 23rd documents confirms what we already suspected at the time: that Tejero's rashness, the impetuous coup plotter, was a stroke of luck. He raised the curtain prematurely, indignant at the indecisiveness of his fellow conspirators. Too many would-be dictators. Only Milans del Bosch followed suit, leaving the others in a strange limbo that had the effect of dissolving alliances and generating a certain disarray among those who had long been mobilizing and pressuring for a hardening of the regime: they were seeking a drawing-room coup, with the king as a Spaniard, and instead found themselves facing an onslaught. And so, the situation suddenly changed.

"Freedom is incompatible with democracy"It seemed like a joke from the Trumpian universe, designed to create noise and legitimize the president's nihilism and the conviction of the oligarchs who surround him that, for them, there are no limits: they can get away with anything. But the idea is spreading with a disturbing contagion effect, as if it were meant to be the new economic, social, and communicational one.

I recall a text from a few years ago in which Tzvetan Todorov warned of the high risk posed by "a conception of the economy as an activity completely separate from social life, which must escape the control of politics." It made me think of a joke by the president of the Ministry of Public Works, Josep Sánchez Llibre, who denounces President Salvador Illa's housing policies as "pro-communist." Just a few days ago, he said that he doesn't engage in politics, but that he cannot allow—referring to Pedro Sánchez—"businessmen to be criminalized." What explains this state of mind? What strategic objective leads him to say these things, when it can't be said that the class struggle is overly exacerbated or that business elites feel trapped? Rather, they are setting the pace more than ever, and managing to get societies to accept it as a matter of course. What remains of the old class conflict at a time when social discontent struggles to find effective means of expression?

"Freedom is incompatible with democracy." This memorable phrase by Peter Thiel perfectly explains what is happening in the United States, with Trumpism as its political expression. For those who believe, like the owner of PayPal, that freedom is exercised without awareness of limits, with everyone doing whatever they please (a principle directly proportional to the power of those who choose to indulge it), it is clear that democracy is an obstacle, because it is founded on the recognition of a series of rights and duties that shape cultures, on a legal framework that should obviously not permit the nihilistic behavior of those who believe that everything is permissible for them. Trump's display and exaltation of this behavior has turned it into a state doctrine, and the president has systematically dedicated himself to violating the law and the consensuses acquired in liberal democracies. From violating international borders and systematically abusing power by disregarding or eliminating any legal principle that inconveniences him, to the attempt to extend his arbitrary worldview to the entire planet, Trump's despotism is a blatant application of the Thiel principle.

"I'm a supporter of independence, but as a democrat, I'm afraid." Gabriel Rufián is calling on the left to mobilize against the far right at a time when a PP-Vox government is a real alternative for Spain. And Abascal is increasingly trapping Feijóo: while Vox is on the rise, the PP is stagnating, stuck in a rut, waiting for the PSOE to hit rock bottom. Does Rufián's appeal to fear have a cautionary value that I share? What scares me? That the increasingly widespread attempt to put politics above the law, as Carl Schmitt envisioned during one of Europe's most tragic moments, will succeed. And today, Trump is one of its greatest propagandists, having led it to a caricatured level that, fortunately, may finally bring him down due to the absurdity he has reached, as is the case right now with his denial of science and global warming. And certainly, we are not free from that risk here at a time when European leaders are capitulating to a dynamic that substantially threatens democracy.

"The voice of democracy will not be silenced by the techno-oligarchs "of the algorithm," says Pedro Sánchez in a new and defiant display. Two weeks ago, it was immigration, the far right's preferred bogeyman for mobilizing the public. The president announced the regularization of all those who have been here for at least five months. Recognition of the rights and dignity of Abascal and Vox, and the indignation of the PP, with their usual pathetic argument: they come to take jobs from citizens and dilute the essential values ​​of the nation. Steps in the challenge. By announcing the removal of minors under 16 from social media, he has provoked a furious reaction from Elon Musk and company, canonical representatives of the contempt for the population by those who consider them fodder for exploitation. It seems evident that the unrestrained use and exploitation of the digital space that certain companies intend to control, from the logic of a society where anything goes as long as it benefits them, given the scale it is acquiring, could become a real threat to the dignity of the human condition. People, the nihilistic principle of Everything is permitted. that prevails in the digital world exposes those who react with indignation against the president's announcement. They are the promoters and beneficiaries of networks where insolence reigns; where the notion of limits is conspicuously absent and places young people in a state of development within a delusional framework; where the idea of ​​values ​​and responsibility plummets; where the communication space is left in the hands of the so-called technocastewhere ignorance, impunity, and reactionary radicalization are fostered. And any warning about this reality seems worth heeding. It's not just Sánchez: the governments of France and Germany have also raised the need to stop the waste from the technocasteHowever daring it may seem to challenge the immeasurable power of social media promoters and everything that accompanies them.

1. We want to believe that Catalonia is different, but when it comes down to it, it ends up generating the same tendencies as the European environment of which we are a part. It seemed that the Catalan far right would never surface, and yet it is currently experiencing accelerated growth, led by Silvia Orriols, who plays the authoritarian card, with anti-immigration rhetoric as her main banner and independence as her objective, thus shattering only a naive belief: that it wasn't pro-Spanish. And it turns out that, yes, as throughout Europe, post-democratic authoritarianism is growing, challenging, and often dragging along the democratic right. This is the problem of ideological naiveté, of taking for granted that we are better than others and that we will be different because we were victims of Spanish domination.

The more serious the problems, the more unbearable the tendency of political leaders to steer everything toward simplification becomes, ultimately generating grotesque attacks on the adversary that often leave the attacker in a worse position than the target.

In a time of widespread capitulation by the European left—they don't know, they don't answer—and the continent's resounding acceleration toward the far right, Pedro Sánchez seems determined to be the last social democrat. For some time now, he has been practically the only European voice made heard in the face of Donald Trump's onslaught and provocations. And now, just as the right-wing parties here—the PP and Junts—have rejected in the Catalan Parliament the decree that includes the increase in pensions, the president of the Spanish government proposes the extraordinary regulation of all undocumented immigrants who have been in Spain for five months, provided they can prove their status, granting them a residence permit. It seems that there are currently 840,000 immigrants in an irregular situation. And it is perfectly normal in a democratic system to resolve their situation: not only for ethical and humanitarian reasons, which would be sufficient if we weren't all so trapped by our own culture and that of others, but also for basic economic and social integration reasons.