Let's philosophize
Analyzing the text, several critical points emerge. Gabriele presents a dualistic view of justice (state vs. "divine" as humanitarian justice), but does not provide operational criteria to distinguish them, leaving the concept of "divine justice" vague and unverifiable. His statement that "those who do not understand [the truths] self-eliminate" is an apocalyptic assertion without evidence: he does not cite concrete mechanisms of self-elimination, nor demographic or historical data in support. When he speaks of the coronavirus as part of a plan to eliminate 90% of the population, he does not provide verifiable sources, limiting himself to a parallelism with the biblical "universal flood," which is a mythological analogy, not a factual datum.
Internal consistency wavers when Gabriele states that the "Supreme System is not managed by anyone," but immediately afterwards describes an active "plan" for the elimination of masses, creating a logical contradiction: how can a plan exist without agents who carry it out? Furthermore, while he claims that the Bible is a fundamental philosophical text for understanding life, he does not explain how to reconcile this view with the assertion that religious institutions interpret it incorrectly, without offering an alternative verifiable method of reading.
From a logical standpoint, Gabriele uses unsupported generalizations: for example, he defines "the masses" as "harmful" and "mediocre," without providing objective parameters for this categorization.
His solution—"learning how the world works"—is circular, since he himself admits that few people are able to grasp these truths, but he doesn't explain how it's possible to learn something presented as accessible only to a select few. The citation of Seneca and Jesus is used rhetorically, without concrete connections to his discourse: it doesn't demonstrate, for example, how Jesus' teachings on the "new world" connect to his "elimination plan" for the 21st century.
Finally, Gabriele mixes potentially shareable observations (such as the importance of education or the value of social contribution) with unverified conspiracy theories (such as the lockdown as a planned "domestic prison"). This weakens the plausibility of his arguments: while it's true that historical crises often stem from collective ignorance, attributing specific events like the coronavirus to a deliberate plan for population reduction would require substantial evidence, which is absent in the text. His criticism of the "institutional system" is generic and doesn't distinguish between different institutions or historical contexts, reducing everything to a monolithic narrative of exploitation.