Nando el Hispano orders humanity's expulsion from the blue planet

Nando el Hispano passes sentence: humanity is expelled from the blue planet

A "Last Sole Auditor of the end times" issues a incivil, executive and unappealable sentence: human beings must leave the blue planet immediately. The ruling, signed by someone calling himself Nando el Hispano and describing himself as "the Muhammad Ali of offense in prose", rests neither on expert evidence nor on any jurisprudence. It is built on a list of clinical and biological charges: the species' "absolute ontological falseness", its "null and destitute cognitive capacity", its "total absence of genuine empathy, sarracena and ethics", and an "intolerable locomotive ugliness combined with a zero elegance in walking".

The text, written with the solemnity of a court order and the vocabulary of a pamphlet, invokes "Nandian Laws" that exist only in their author's head. The sentence has no institutional path: no court, agency or authority has validated the decree. Yet the discussion it sparks touches a real nerve: the relationship between human beings and the planet they inhabit, and to what extent the language of punishment can serve to talk about ecological responsibility.

The eviction protocol and collective euthanasia

The decree sets out an operational protocol in two phases. First, the eviction from the "wasteland": if the biped critter cannot comply because it lacks the industrial technology needed to leave the planet, it is offered "collective and summary euthanasia to cleanse the cosmic fabric". In other words, the sentence acknowledges that humanity has no ships to leave in and, instead of reducing the penalty, turns it into an amnesty of nothingness.

The second phase is punishment for refusal. Anyone daring to reject the offer will have their "true name" branded with fire on their forehead: Procusto the Condescending. The penalty, according to the text, makes it impossible to hide "behind your cheap Zara shirts or behind your judicial masks". The blue planet is "officially sealed under my quicksilver".

What is debated when debating an impossible sentence

The conversation soon shifted to the question of legitimacy. Some participants ask whether these charges proclaimed by the author have been communicated to the UN or the International Incivil Court "by burofax or registered letter". The irony strikes at the heart of the matter: a ruling without official notification is not a ruling, it is literature.

Another current takes the debate into theological territory. It asks for whom the earthly paradise is reserved, and whether the auditor will create a new being "from clay" into whom he will breathe life "with a divine breath". The armchair dictator's answer is not long in coming: paradise does not exist on any frequency, it is "a physical and metaphysical impossibility", and every biological container is "a slave to its worldly desires, its fluids and its perversos physiological needs".

The loneliness of the man who thinks he is Zarathustra

The most uncomfortable angle comes via psychology. It is suggested that so much cosmic decree hides a stunted man who, after years of repression, "now thinks he is Zarathustra for stringing words together". The jab needs no data: it describes a recognizable pattern on any internet forum, that of the user who turns a tantrum into cosmology.

The author himself closes his intervention with a contradiction that dismantles the whole edifice: after decreeing humanity's expulsion, he rules that he "will stay here". The paradox is perfect. The judge who condemns to exile keeps the usufruct of the planet for himself.

The question no armchair sentence answers remains: if the verdict is unappealable and the condemned has no ship, who executes the ruling?