QED99: uncomfortable senators and other stories
Faithful to our principle of not dealing with current affairs, which is the only way to anticipate it (as I am about to show you), I leave out the comment on the fact of the day (the outcome of the administrative vote), which as far as I'm concerned can be summarized by this tweet :
(obviously on this anthropology there would be a lot to discuss and equally obviously in this blog it has been widely discussed) to return to our last post, the one in which we wondered about the mysteries of accounting faith .
Three days ago, that is four days after our post, ANSA informs us that :
the senators feel "uneasy" (see the dictionary ).
There would be many considerations to make, for those who followed the Debate. For example, we might wonder why colleagues who applauded austerity when here, faithful to our task of being out of date, we announced how it would end , now disassociate themselves in disorder and hopelessly from the method of governance they have claimed with such proud confidence. We could also remember that the application of these careful controls has not prevented the debt from exploding right from the approval of the law that in 2012 which introduced the so-called "balanced budget" in the Constitution (and if a law does not work, perhaps should be changed – I say maybe, eh!).
To help you anticipate, however, I would like to make two perhaps less obvious considerations with you, discussing briefly with you about Lamarckian theory of the elite, and about hustling. These are considerations that I was able to expose over the last weekend to various entrepreneurs and professionals of my territorial college, testing their dialectical resistance, and here I offer them to you, who are my digital college.
Let's start with the elite.
Given the argument, you could legitimately assume that the adjective "Lamarckian" refers to Robert IV de La Marck, duke of Bouillon, count of Braine, lord of Sedan and various other places, as well as marshal of France and captain of the hundred Swiss. of the royal guard (this and other details about his family here ). More elite than him! Chosen to command a chosen corps: if elite comes from eligere, that is, to be chosen, we could not find a better example!
It has only one flaw: it has nothing to do with what I wanted to tell you. My personal theory of the elites is not Lamarckian in the sense of Robert but in that of Jean-Baptiste, the Lamarck of the neck of the giraffes , to understand, what: "use develops the organ".
Here, in fact: if use develops the organ, a country that is fatally colonized will have elites of poor quality, for the simple reason that as its decision-making spaces shrink, compressed by conditions and conditioning (those you call "conditionality") of the most varied nature, that is, as the choices to be made decrease (because they are made elsewhere), the organ that must make them, that is the elite, atrophies. The Italian elites are largely atrophied. Episodes like the one stigmatized by Liturri on Yesterday's Truth:
(the late notification to DG COMP of the "Southern decontribution" measure) are on the agenda and are symptomatic of this atrophy (one could think about the MPS case, for example …).
We are told that if we are unable to defend our interests in "Europe" it is our fault, because we do not go there to defend our interests. But one always forgets to say that those who should defend these interests for work have no incentive, not even economic or career, to do so, because they belong to a power block that derives its legitimacy from pleasing the wishes of the foreign podestà.
You understand well that the intellectual, cultural, anthropological challenge that this state of affairs poses is located at a level sidereally distant from the understandable dullness of those who "vote PD because the sting" (see the first figure of this post). I would just like to remind you, to make the petulants understand what we are talking about, that the contracts on the well-known serum of discord are European contracts, made and secreted in Europe. Now that the petulants have understood that we are also talking about the only thing that interests them, in their belated awareness, we can resume our journey, letting the children continue to kick the leg of the table on whose corner they hit the test because they were distracted (for thirty years, but that's okay).
To change this state of affairs requires slow and patient work. If the timing of this work is not compatible with the mood of the electorate, this work will not come to fruition. It is not my problem: for years we have been describing the most varied political, sociological, anthropological, even neurological facets of the phenomenon! And consequently for years we have resigned ourselves to a given here: if an unsustainable state of affairs is also irreversible (so we have been told), the transition to a sustainable state will necessarily be traumatic. We have also told ourselves several times that to mitigate the consequences of that trauma it would have been better if it had arrived with (i) a greater awareness possible and (ii) a minimum presence of sentient beings (i.e. people able to understand the deep dynamics in place and therefore to anticipate events) in institutions. However, from the balance sheet of the last two years we draw two relatively new considerations: in the meantime, however wide the awareness may be, it can never be enough in a context in which the control of the media is of the counterpart and social media are increasingly subject to various types of censorship and pollution (a good piece of "nonvivotopiuuuh", as I have shown you over and over again on Twitter, are part of this pollution, being mostly people who have never voted for us – I also omit the fact that having never wanted the consent I don't even have more "and sti great cocks !?" to offer them in response …). I would add, on the subject of "awareness", that authentic awareness is that promoted by solidarity: I insist on the fact that whoever wakes up because they have come to put their hands on him in this respect is and remains totally useless. On the subject of "minimum content of sentient beings", the experience made inside the machine has lights and shadows. Aware people are almost everywhere and in the most varied roles, but putting them online is a difficult if not impossible task, first of all because an alternative vision of the country, that of a non-colonized country, is subject everywhere to a social stigma. in front of which what so many newcomers complain about is little (and here you should know something, and perhaps you should have finally understood that downgrading patriotism to sovereignism was not a brilliant idea, as explained at the time ). I add that it is difficult even to quantify the minimum content of organized sentient beings necessary to do work that goes beyond the testimonial dimension, which can affect crucial choices. Of course, in some situations even a single man can make a difference, in small as well as in big things (recent example: if it hadn't occurred to me to let you read the draft of the final report of the Love Commission, with all the things I have from to do so, a document would be passed urging to subject European funds to the "fight against hate" and advocated the establishment of an authority "against hate"). The fact remains that the efficient transmission of a political direction requires the involvement of an endless number of people, which brings us back to a consideration that has been carried out several times here: with all due respect to the moralizing and irenic tale of those who boast of having won a war that the country had lost, Italy was rebuilt with the and therefore (also) by the fascists, and thus the construction of a new strategic autonomy cannot be separated from the contribution of those who were doing so well in a country with reduced autonomy. I see that the Sillano-Grillino attitude of the "ban list" continues to prevail on social media. In Silla it did not go well and in Grillo it is not going better, but we know that history teaches us, etc. Here, however, we have learned something, and therefore, in addition to continuing to amalgamate the scattered network of those who are aware, we learn to relate to the unaware, waiting to have to involve them.
Always hoping that at that point their neck will stretch, that is, out of metaphor (otherwise the Nurembergists misunderstand), that having to finally make decisions, they quickly mature pride and the ability to do so.
We continue (quickly) with the hustler.
Nobody can suspect me of anti-politics: the whole (lost) cultural battle of this blog was aimed at warning you against an obvious thing: in a parliamentary democracy, those who discredit Parliament do so to deprive the people of the ability to influence the political direction of the country. At the end of this degradation we found ourselves with a government that explicitly directs Parliament and explicitly refuses to accept parliamentary guidelines. The game of anti-politics, in addition to being obvious, is also completely uncovered: it opens up every day in front of your eyes, but there are few, very few who do not allow themselves to be distracted, and I would be tempted, if I had not imposed myself by method. not to, to think that we are past the point of no return. Having said this, I would like to say that the outcry against the Accounting Office once the electoral campaign has begun (but how? Is it not over? No, it has begun! Since you are always late? …) in fact lends itself to be interpreted as an instrumental defense of the "hustler", and perhaps, to be totally honest, it is. If Parliament were actually in favor of one (or more) measures to which the Government opposes the lack of resources, it could also decide to vote against the Government's opinion, as it has done several times. After all, the graph of the previous post clarifies the mystery that in the absence of a budget variance worthy of the name, however, several billions have been found "in the folds of the budget" to meet the most varied needs (in particular, the increase of energy costs). Resources can be found if you want. But then, why does Parliament not impose itself?
In part I believe it depends on the exaggeratedly hybrid nature of this majority, which makes it essentially impossible to find a common theme strong enough to justify a cross-cutting opposition, or in any case the creation of an alternative majority, so much so that when one has managed to send the Government has been done on issues that had their own geographical transversality … The idea of being given the cross by all the newspapers for an act of rebellion that is not sufficiently "resistant" is displeasing to the groups, and therefore instead of taking in hand the situation we complain. The fact is that when these criticisms were expressed more than two years ago by our group leader, it was not possible to find a great consensus, on the contrary!
There would then be other considerations to be made on party discipline and on the PNRR. But we'll do them later: now the meetings begin …
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/2022/06/qed99-senatori-disagio-e-altre-storie.html on Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:04:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.