Two questions, no answers
First question
Question: "Does the segmentation of the international payments system we are witnessing present risks to international financial stability and to the euro? Are you studying this issue?"
Answer: "Putin is so bad!"
Second question
Question: "Does pharmacovigilance in Italy respect all the prescriptions of the European regulations?"
Answer: "Vaccines are so good!"
A few considerations
The pattern is evident, in its repetitiveness: a general political answer is provided to a detailed technical question, a petition of coarse principle ("Tom is good, Tom is bad") and inconsistent with the question. In both cases this petition of principle is based on prejudice. For the kind Commissioner, the prejudice that the Northern League senator is a friend of the AfD "Nazis" and therefore (?) An enemy of the Nazis of the Azov battalion. For the Minister, the prejudice that the no-euro senator is no-vax, where in fact I believe I am the only one among many colleagues to have provided the correct figures in the classroom on the relative efficacy of vaccines, an efficacy that is not in doubt, but which leaves a whole series of questions completely open, starting from that of the constitutionality of obligations, to arrive at that of the effectiveness of pharmacovigilance.
Putting on record the actual consistency of certain interlocutors, that is, documenting in which hands we are, whether you understand it or not, is a political goal, but of course #sicceravate you sang them to him, not like me! You would have thrown yourself on the ground getting all dirty and shouting "Europe shit!" or similar poignant argument, except to be led out by the salesmen, with the obvious result of discrediting yourself and those whose thoughts you think you share.
Or maybe you wouldn't have done that either …
There must be a reason why this blog has been here for eleven years, and is ready to stay there for another twenty! Indeed, there are perhaps more than one reasons, but the main one is that many, as if to say, "willing" have long since been removed from this forum! The "gesture of patriotism" leads nowhere, and this, as I believe you know, I have not said from today, nor since I have held an elected office. We banned the "gesture of publicity" eight years ago ( here ), when we thought it was better for us, and it would have been possible, to remain a third voice. In the meantime, things have changed.
The theme of the need to be a third party, not to be deployed, or more precisely, not to be part of a political force in order not to be forced to "lie" (as I said at the time), or rather to censor myself for the benefit of a line (or of an arabesque) of the party was raised by me even on a private occasion, when in December 2017 comrade Borghi wanted to meet me to convince me to accept Matteo's proposal, about which I had heard from the newspapers. To my objection "But I would prefer to remain a third, transversal voice …" the good Claudio laughed, and countered: "But third thing, they have been accusing you of being a Northern League player for six years because you say what they don't have dare to admit? "
In fact, comrade Borghi was right: third parties had to be renounced, because there was none, even if renouncing it would have meant renouncing freedom. However, as time went on I realized one thing, which was not so clear to me some time ago. My jealousy of my freedom was jealousy of my image of myself. It was, in short, narcissism. Being the unconquered knight, the defender of the ideal, the one who sings clearly and therefore has the applause of a large group of siroccati (you)! Satisfaction, and like all satisfactions you pay for. The price is not to count for anything, to be a "folkloristic" guest (at least, in their intentions) in the "all against one" talks, not to access the places of power not even to rectify with a direct dialogue the image that of you and of the your ideas project the hired scoundrels.
Deciding to join a party meant putting aside this narcissism: a sacrifice that some of you would have thought impossible, but honestly cost me nothing! Collecting consent is pleasant, but for the purposes of change it is completely irrelevant if you do not associate it with a minimum of technical ability to exercise power. If you decide to pass from testimony to praxis, you must first come to terms with the fact that unfortunately this ability, like all skills, is acquired with exercise, to practice you have to be on the field, and when you practice it you are wrong. All things that deeply disappoint the most fervent supporters, those who with a passion as passionate as they are suspicious spend their days on social media asking for a good death. Ours, of course! Because they are addivanati, and they remain addivanati, while we every single fucking day that Our Lord puts on Earth we eat with a spoonful of an Olympic pool of manure, waiting for better times!
At first it occurred to me that those who asked us and continually ask us to "burn ourselves" by making striking gestures of various kinds were crafty ones who, relying on our narcissism, wanted to push us to enter the cemetery of the irrelevant, in the paradise of narcissists , in mixed fry! Then I realized that the thing is a little different: it was always narcissism, but not ours: theirs. Because in this assiduous and pounding request for a political action of mere testimony, of mere martyrdom (etymology is the queen of political science), the desire of the voter not to lose the esteem of himself was manifested, to be able to continue to believe that he has voted for the right person (obviously, right according to his crude and uninformed yardstick), that he has not been deceived (the pathological terror of being screwed on the rest of the shopping, archetypal matrix of the need for honest grillino …), and therefore not to be stupid: in short, to be able to continue to love each other. Paradoxically, this type of voter, who in the post-ideological world is largely a majority, a close relative of the one who "I listen to all the bells and then I decide with my head", is always destined to be defeated, because he turns his attention to that chosen one (or eligendo) who reassures him that he has done the right thing, who gives plastic evidence to the ideal, with stentorian declarations and the virile poses of a feathered and wattled orator.
Unfortunately, however, the fate of turkeys is to end up in the oven, their wheel is less beautiful than that of the peacock, their booty thinner than that of the eagle … As I have tried to make you understand in a thousand and one ways (and this point those who have not understood it is not important to be convinced …), one thing is to declare a goal in favor of the camera, to send el pueblo adorante into a swoon, one thing is to work to achieve it. None of you seem to have understood that if in Vietnam the marines did not wear the red jacket of the Anglo-Saxon tradition this did not depend on the fashion of the moment, but on slightly more compelling reasons.
You don't want to win. Besides, you don't even want to fight. You want to be narcissistically convinced that you have done the right thing. You don't care that we bring home the result. You are interested in being convinced that we are doing it, even if the attempt to convince you were to condemn us (and therefore you) to irrelevance. But this does not interest you, and in this, as I will tell you another day (I will talk about it on Monday at the Canova Club), el pueblo is a lot, but very similar to the elite! This is why it's so easy to put yourself in your pocket (both you and the elite), that's why orthoptera have 34%, that's why our road is uphill.
But this does not scare us: we know that it is the right one, and those who turn around our questions confirm it.
It is up to you to decide whether to support us in our effort, or to support the next gatekeepers .
The idiot who on social media (or in the classroom) thinks of meeting "er senatore da 'a Lega" and gives him down stereotypes has all my compassionate indulgence. If "I don't vote for you anymore" says an idiot who never voted for me and saw me for the first time on television last week, a simple "who cares!" closes the question. The others reflect.
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2022/04/due-domande-nessuna-risposta.html on Sat, 02 Apr 2022 18:06:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.