The débâcle
tafazzi left a new comment on your post " QED99: uncomfortable senators and other stories ":
Alberto in the long run we will all be dead!
One must admit that he has lost, not that there has been no commitment, but it happens that the other is stronger or has more financial resources and knowledge.
I have to look reality in the face, then one can always carry the desire or dream in the heart.
Paraphrasing sporting anecdotes, it happens that Verona win the championship, but it happens more often that juve inter or milan win it.
And it's not lack of commitment!
Posted by tafazzi in Goofynomics on Jul 1, 2022, 10:36 pm
Tafazzi has been with us for a long time, at least since 2014 (note the gruff tone of his comment, and note that it was published: here you moderate, you don't censor, so if you're cojone don't blame me but yourself … ), and more than once we have had to say about his way of "arguing", for example here in 2017 . However, although I may have thought in the past (i.e. before February 2020) that his contribution was not decisive, now I must admit as a fact that at least tafazzi is not a pandemic, one of those who woke up when he touched. to them (i.e. late), and therefore probably I owe them an answer. If a flower can be born from manure, a post can be born from a comment from our long-time friend …
So: the defeat, or, to put it naturally, the débâcle …
An exciting topic, on which I would not, however, want any misunderstandings to arise. People more authoritative (or less authoritative) than tafazzi have already eloquently reminded us that "we" "lost" (where I put two pairs of distinct quotation marks: one for "we", because it has to be shown that there ever was a we , and one for the "lost").
Perhaps to unravel the problem we should all start with a question: how do we imagine the world after the "victory"? Clearly, the answer that many give themselves, without even realizing it, is: a world where it will no longer be necessary to fight. Here, perhaps it is better to clarify immediately that such a world does not exist, has never existed, will never exist. Obviously, since I can be wrong, I ask you to correct me: if ever the world in which we "had" "won" existed, it would be documented and you could draw my numb and distracted attention to it. I would be grateful: you would give me the sadistic pleasure of taking the toy apart …
( hint: if we had won but now we have to fight and lose again, it means that we hadn't really won …)
So, if you can never stop fighting, does it mean that since you can never win, you can never lose, and we haven't been defeated?
Well, no, that's not the case either, of course!
What I am saying is that the war will never end.
( proof: if there were definitive defeats the story would have ended in Genesis 4,8 … )
After that, I have no trouble telling you we lost a battle. The problem is that you didn't realize when we lost it, even though I had described to you at least six years in advance why and why we would lose it: we lost it in 2018, when the elections were won. by gatekeepers (and don't tell me I didn't tell you they were gatekeepers , and don't tell me I didn't tell you they would ally with PD , etc.).
So you may like it or displease it (me too), but unfortunately things have an annoying tendency to go as it is written and described here. The interception of dissent, the poisoning of the wells of democracy, had hit the mark.
One can think indefinitely, in hypothetical and abstract terms, about how we could have better defended the position of tactical inferiority in which we had come to find ourselves. One of the most frequent reproaches is that abandoning the majority in 2019 was a mistake: I have explained to you what I have seen , and, once again, I have no difficulty in telling you that, as far as I can understand, in fact, a mistake was done, but not in August, when you believe it has been done, but, once again, before you believe it has been done, that is, in May 2019, when I am not aware that what would have been a lot was asked natural to ask, given the evident re-composition of the political weights within the majority: a reshuffle. We could have reasoned about how to replace the three "Ts" (Trenta, Tria, Toninelli), which might have allowed the government to last a little longer (but Conte was in any case carrying out the negotiations on the MES against the opinion of his majority. , which you continue to ignore and underestimate …).
Why was this mistake made?
I think it is due to subordination to a Grillino mythologeme, that of the "armchair": "we cannot show the voters that we are interested in armchairs when the problems are quite different!" (Needless to say, when you think in this way, History is already preparing for you a new dimension of "something else" – in this case the pandemic – with respect to which the very different precedent becomes an infinitesimal of the third order …). I can't imagine any other reason why something so obvious hasn't been done (and that it hasn't been done I know, although I can't say why … or at least not to all of you!), I can't imagine, I said , another reason if not this devastating subordination to the fiercest grillism, which I see too often imbued with our communication.
After all, the mythologeme of the armchair is a cousin of another devastating mythologeme, that of the "sciura Maria": "we cannot say it that way because the sciura Maria does not understand this / we cannot say it because the sciura Maria does not care!" So after making the mistake of not asking for a reshuffle in May 2019 because "we can't talk about armchairs" we made the mistake of not explaining the non -mistake of August 2019 "because Maria doesn't understand it like this" (but the sciura Dagospia yes).
So, since we have always said everything here, let me tell you something that Maria knows very well (I talk to her every day), and maybe you too. I will tell you in a somewhat gross way , so that it will remain well impressed on you: the problem is not the armchairs, the problem is the asses (inelegant synecdoche that indicates the whole – the person – with a part of his – the rear part).
I elaborate.
What orthoptera don't want to be clear (because they don't want it to happen, because they were designed to structurally prevent it from happening) is that sovereignty, which belongs to the people, is exercised by choosing people. Ideas walk on people's legs, they struggle with people's arms. And I am not referring to the elections of your representatives (that is, us), but to the fact that they must then choose (or ratify the choice of) people who carry out a specific political direction, the one that is believed to derive from (the majority of) you.
I'll put it another way.
Since you are all grillini (by now I have resigned myself, but I forgive you: it is difficult, living in Italy, not to drink water from an Italian aqueduct, and here all the aqueducts have been poisoned) I suppose to get you an immediate orgasm if I propose the following modification of the art. 67 of the Constitution. "Immediately after the proclamation, every parliamentarian is stripped naked, must wear a habit, tie a sackcloth, put on sandals and go to a hermitage in the Apennines where they can live in absolute chastity and poverty for five years, after which they are disposed of in an anaerobic composting station ". Nice is not it? We constitutionalize the non -exercise of power by your representatives: only in this way will you have the only certainty that you seem to care about, or at least those of you who are grillini (all) care about: that power does not come exercised by the politicians you sent to exercise it!
But, of course, also in this pure world, but what do I say pure? Uncorrupted! But what do I say uncorrupted? Absolutely sterile! In this depoliticized world (because politics is shit), where no one elected could have any influence on his address, the state machine would continue to exist! Consequently, the "chair" of the Director General of the Treasury, the "chair" of the Director of Finance, the "chair" of the State General Accountant, the "chair" of the Director of the Revenue Agency, the chair of the Director of the State property, etc., would continue to exist, as would that of Minister of Economy and Finance or that of Undersecretary of Health.
Then?
So the total depoliticization, indeed: anti-politicization, the total annihilation of the political direction capacity by your representatives would not be a "depoltronization". The problem would remain, but it would not be, as I said, a problem of "armchairs" (the gears of the state machine), but of "asses", that is, who and how he would be sent to occupy them. In the absence of political decisions, mediated by your representatives in the ways permitted by the legal system (ranging from election, to government appointment, to the opinion of the competent parliamentary commissions, etc.), the decisions would not be mediated by your representatives.
Those who demonize the "armchairs", in a nutshell, want to help you believe that a world in which you count less is better for you.
Now: I think you understand this.
The problem is that according to some you are not "sciure Marie": you are "my bubble", that is, an unrepresentative sample of siroccati keyboard lions. I, who have learned to know you over many years, know that you are magistrates, entrepreneurs, public officials, teachers, policemen, etc. (to fans of the genre I suggest this , even if I prefer Eugenio Coccia or Amedeo Balbi for sleeping). So what you think (and what I refer to) does not count for anything (except that what I predict always occurs, but no one is able to explain to me later why what I announced earlier has occurred: perhaps because you are not a bubble but many sciure Marie, and perhaps not even – too much – grilline?).
The fact is that I have already described two of them in length and breadth of defeats, and therefore I think it is difficult to accuse myself of triumphalism or intellectual dishonesty.
But if I do my part by admitting defeats and mistakes, and above all by avoiding making a drama of them despite the setbacks of fortune and continuing to fight in the direction that you have indicated to me because I have provided you with the compass, however you should do your part. avoiding defeatism, which is nothing more than the dialectical antithesis of what sounds truer in the story of our enemies: the irenic myth, the idea that Lapace exists (which according to them was given by Leuropa, perhaps because they were not in Serbia at the wrong time, and in your opinion it would be given by Lavittoria).
Lapace, Leuropa and Lavittoria do not exist.
There is the polemos.
Sorry.
And at this point, those who need Lapace know who to turn to (the PD), and those who need freedom know who to turn to: themselves.
So much I owed you, in the sense that I owed it to tafazzi, but I had some suspicion that it could have been useful to you too …
( ps: the football metaphor is always the marker of a certain weakness of thought … )
( pp.ss .: Coccia and Balbi make me sleep for the same reason that children fall asleep listening to fairy tales: because their story captivates me and detaches me from myself, and at that point the body takes over the soul and asserts his reasons, those of the need to rest. Because if there is only polemos, we must also sleep on it every now and then … )
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/2022/07/la-debacle.html on Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:35:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.