Thursday, May 16, 2024

Vogon Today

Selected News from the Galaxy

Goofynomics

The year-end speech

2 years ago babelfish

(… for the four (thousand) cats who have remained here, after my infamous betrayal – which is to remain faithful to myself that I perceive, not to what others perceive in their hallucinated cathar delirium – I resume a habit that we have carried out, with some exceptions, in previous years:

From 2018 onwards it was not possible for me, for one reason or another, to dedicate time to it at the end of the year, and after all, this year too I was hung up on certain things that I had to close until 17:35 two days ago, to the delight of the assistants of the Senate who had to keep the room open for me, I was the only senator present – but my chair is very cold, he asked me to warm it!

There would be many things to say, but as always I am interested in reasoning about the method, because democracy is above all a method : this is the premise from which we started. I am not going to tell you whether the direct experience of this method, the concretely becoming part of it, and above all the clash with the totally distorted perception – to their disadvantage – that many voters have of this method [I am referring specifically to the differently intelligent according to which in democracy decisions are made by a minority, so a party with 17% can bring down the government and rule alone: ​​yes, there are people who think like this!] I'm not going to tell you how much this direct experience makes it difficult to resist the temptation to consider this method very overrated! Every day, mainly on social media, I meet people who would reconcile me with the oligarchic and paternalistic attitude of Aristide, the character who opened my eyes to the radically undemocratic nature of the left, as you will remember . They would reconcile me if that were possible. But unfortunately it is not possible for me to bow to the logic of the optimates who claim or claim to lead the people towards a bright future without consulting the people themselves or perhaps acting against their express will. To be totally transparent: it is not possible for me not because I do not believe that a good piece of people does not deserve it, or because I do not believe that this method would not be efficient, but because the more I know the optimates, the more I am worried about their lack of consistency. In short, without pretending to be original, I am led to think that democracy is definitely not bad if you consider the alternative, more precisely if you consider who personifies this alternative. I have come to a kind of Lamarckian theory of the ruling class: a country whose paths are largely exogenously traced – and the PNRR is a piece of this discourse, as some discover a posteriori – does not develop the "ruling class" organ because it does not need it, given that the direction that the country must take is being dealt with by others, elsewhere. The local "tangerines" therefore wither, like those who hide in the far recess of the fridge drawer to escape the jaws of the Christmas consumer … where they are caught by mold – an inglorious and useless end! The atrophy to which I am referring is a non-trivial piece of the difficulties we face every day and that it is not necessary to detail too much: it will be enough, in fact, to have alluded to it, always bearing in mind that politics travels on people's legs, and it is for this reason that a true democracy, made up of exchange and contestability, gives me more confidence, in abstract terms, than a sclerotic oligarchy, made up of stagnation and position rents.

So let's try to think about how to increase our effectiveness, that that of others remains a problem, in fact, of others. Let's try to take stock of the things that I think I have told you in this decade and that can be useful to keep the debate going, or at least to avoid getting uselessly in trouble, in a period in which, more than in many others, the first political goal is and must be to bring the skin home … )

I believe that the strongest glue that gathers us in this community is the serene awareness of the fact that life is conflict, and that politics is to mediate, not deny, this conflict, because the denial of the conflict has the inevitable result of exacerbating it, as in the Rilke passage that I have quoted many times here (the first here ).

In short, we are here because it makes us smile with tenderness the left that rediscovers today, with virginal modesty, the class struggle (calling it "conflict of interests", here ):

of course with that minimum of green washing (climate justice !?) today essential to be able to say "left-wing".

After all, putting in apparently new bottles ( green , gender , whatever it is …)   a wine that is only apparently old (the distributive conflict) serves to justify one's unjustified absence from the debate, it serves to induce in the gonzo on duty the idea that it was excusable not to have spoken anymore and not to talk about certain themes anymore because they would not be in step with the times (yet, even that between Cain and Abel was a distributive conflict …), that is, it serves to shed the responsibility of having contributed to impoverishing the intellectual and political dialectic of this country by creating a climate in which any attempt to analyze the dynamics of class was classified as "conspiracy", precisely because, as Barbera says in a flash of lucidity above, the "left" had decided to embrace the neoclassical paradigm (in the sense of economic theory: others would say liberal, liberal, etc.), that according to which individual behaviors are spontaneously guided by an invisible hand to compose themselves into a collective well-being in which all interests conv stand up. Any cheap orthodox economic policy textbook, for the simple fact of not being able to talk about market failures, was thus instantly more to the left than the most sinister of left-wing intellectuals!

I remember how amazed me was the comment, no longer to be found today, of a poor fool who called me a conspiracy theorist simply because I was illustrating the trivial consequences in terms of income distribution of the choice to join a monetary union. From that observation I understood that the battle would be very long, that a piece of the country was by now useless, lobotomized, that nothing would have served to involve him in a path of awareness. Reduce to "conspiracy" (the last refuge of scoundrels, as we have seen in other circumstances) the objective consideration that economic choices, being guided by the motive of profit, in the overwhelming majority of cases benefit some more (or to the detriment) of others : it was clear to me in 2011 (and I suppose to many others even before!) what is clear to the various Barbera today: this attitude was the death of the left, more precisely: the death of the possibility of being able to make any political speech on the left . Now they're getting there too. But it's a little late now.

I believe that this is why, net of some individual sclera, my choice to take sides in a conservative party did not remove many sincerely progressive readers from this blog, probably also because I had proved their ultra vires that there was no left and there could have been no possibility for many years to come to build a path of redemption (the famous zero table …).

Now, it is somehow physiological that the awareness that life is conflict is associated, in political discourse, with a certain bellicist rhetoric: "We are at war! Enemy! Traitor! Deserter! …" and so on. So far, if you don't go beyond good taste, there is basically nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I have the gonads full of those who, flaunting a bon ton worthy of a better cause, point out that they have no "enemies" but political "adversaries", when it is quite obvious in their arguments and in their modus operandi that their personal translation of the phrase erroneously attributed to Voltaire (one of the many fakes in history) is: "I do not agree with what you say and consequently I will kill you if you insist on saying it"! Let us be wary of these mellifluous and Pharisaic heralds of good manners! There is nothing wrong with recognizing that the purpose of any conflict is the annihilation of the adversary: ​​it works like this, nothing personal (we can believe one who understood ). Only starting from this awareness, provided it is profound and sincere, can political activity be restored to its nobility, which consists precisely in creating the infrastructure so that this clash is not merely destructive, because it is thesis and antithesis, rather than annihilating itself as a particle and antiparticle. , come to synthesis.

It all seems very abstract, but nothing like a budget law brings you closer to the concreteness of these considerations …

However, when the (physiological) bellicose rhetoric detaches itself from the real and lived awareness of the conflict, when it becomes a bubble of narcissistic vociferations unable to bring political praxis back to a rational design, here, or even susceptible to spinning into a self-injurious and self-destructive delusion, when this happens I believe that it is necessary to intervene to avoid misunderstandings and problems. In my opinion, drinking is never the best of means, and certainly always the worst of ends, if only because it contravenes an elementary tactical requirement.

I would like to talk to you about this, after noting (and my friend Giacinto – sed magis amica veritas – is the paradigm of this attitude, but I could mention other less sympathetic ones) that in the social media bubble many have presented themselves and still present themselves with a martial attitude of the 300 , only to demonstrate, in practice, greater affinity with the 3ciento . Perhaps at this point a review is urgent (I dedicate a minute of meditation to the moved thought that today such a film could not be conceived), to align this beautiful community of herbs and animals to an apparently tautological fact: if you are at war, one is at war, and therefore to bring something home – starting from one's own skin – it is better to behave as in war.

And how does one behave in war?

It obviously depends on the circumstances, as we have explained at length here when talking about Azincourt and other European stories. If we reproach our enemies (sorry, adversaries …) for rejecting the reality, a refusal that is revealed in their modus operandi , all based on the compulsion to repeat ("[nonsense at will] does not work, therefore: it takes more [nonsense at will] "), a compulsion that is the recognized quintessence (they say by Einstein, but it's another fake ) of the refusal of reality data, so as a first strategic axis I suggest we deal with reality, to how unpleasant that can be. In this spirit, I would like to point out that very unfortunately (I'm sorry more than you) a series of awarenesses that we have reached here through an in-depth and scientifically incontrovertible analytical path, well: these awarenesses are largely minority, which means, since you like to play to war, that we are in a condition of numerical inferiority (if it was not understood),

Unfortunately, it is essential to start from this fact in its various aspects, which condition what is possible and what is not possible. I have tried a thousand and one ways to explain to you that for those in a condition of numerical inferiority it is appropriate:

  1. do not report your position;
  2. do not accept the battleground chosen by the opponent;
  3. take advantage of the opponent's strength.

I would start from not reporting one's position, from camouflaging, from not making oneself the target.

I don't know how to tell you anymore. Social is a dangerous place. Shouting for some likes, ruining your life, doesn't seem like an advantageous exchange. I am not saying to deny your own ideas. I'm saying what I've always said in words not mine : be careful. I see around a certain aspiration to witness, understood as martyrdom. Avoid. The others don't play. A dead soldier is of no use to anyone: he is of no use to his army, of no use to his family. Have you seen the air in the "hate" Commission? Here: keep in mind the psychology of the good guys . Against you any abuse and any discrimination will be acceptable, because you are not the good ones, you are the bad ones. Unfortunately for you you are leaving at a disadvantage numerically and morally. Be smart. Protect your anonymity and never ever use inappropriate tones. You would not be forgiven. Do not report your location.

I would add, but I understand that for many it will be difficult to accept it, that I continue to find it stupid, conceptually and communicatively, to stick with labels such as "sovereignist" , undoubtedly beneficial to the self-esteem of those who created them, but absolutely harmful for a orderly and balanced dialectic. Even apart from the fact that 70% of our fellow citizens will associate the idea of ​​"sovereignty" with that of monarchy (try to believe!), Which opens up obvious communication failures, the fact remains that those who refer to art. 1 of the Republican Constitution can simply declare itself democratic, leaving to others the burden of proving that they are not fascists when they refute the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Here's the difference between making yourself a target (what not to do) and choosing your battlefield (what to do).

Let's explore the topic of choosing the battlefield. We have already talked about it here: I know very well that we all have a certain urgency to find our freedom, but it is essential to get out of the perimeter . And leaving the perimeter does not only mean continuing to keep a light on what they do not want you to talk about, which is not, believe me, the aggendah, but, as always, the European question, which today takes the form of the ESM and of the PNRR. It also and above all means being different from them. If you oppose a dogmatism with another dogmatism, a "truth" with another "truth", you have already lost, because those who have the strength (media, politics, physics) to impose their own truth are not you: it is they. It is not possible to oppose the scoundrel and totalitarian use that some institutions make of the concept of "science" exchanging themselves as a holy Grail paper carrying an alternative truth, more "scientific", more "true". It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Here almost all of us were able to get an idea, using appropriate channels, of what was going on and how it was going to end. Optimal. I believe I have already told you that "truth" has no political value if you do not have the means to impose it. You see it in the only field that interests you, but you see it in other fields as well. Regardless of the merits, on which I have some opinions that I will say in the competent institutional forums, you understand well that if an accident of this magnitude had happened, mutatis mutandis , to a politician from an unwelcome area (essentially, of the League) it would have led to his immediate resignation ( it happened). Those who approach you with their eyes fixed, focused on the latest dazzling truth by which they were struck, who cling to you whispering: "Look at this paper, it's de-fi-ni-ti-vo, look at this graph, but Don't you understand? Can't you see? ", waving at you the latest issue of the Chattanooga Journal of Fuzzy Epidemiology , of which neither they nor you are able to understand anything … here they are: but you are sure you have never seen them, visiting these pages? Don't you remember those Auritiiiiiiii, don't you remember the engineers that "the currency in debtoooooh", don't you remember the journalists that "the paper of Mossleeeeeeer" …

No?

I have, and I have already given.

It does not work like this.

Get yourself a little smarter.

For example, begin to take into consideration the fact that not being masters of speech has obvious but not negligible consequences. The first is that if someone arrives (and stays) on television it is because they let us get there (few are able to work their way up on their own), and if they do get there in the vast majority of cases it is because getting it to us is functional to them, not your speech. So it's great that there is pluralism of opinions, but watch out for alternative opinions certified by the mainstream (you should understand what's wrong, but since I don't see much awareness of this elementary fact, I highlight it). I know someone who has broken them all (starting from when he made himself available to the orthoptera, and I stop there) and he is always there, still there, because he serves as a sparring partner for the squads on duty. Sclerating directly against those who provoke you is not a sign of intelligence or strength: it is a sign of weakness. Getting stuck in citing scientific data outside one's own disciplinary sector is not a sign of authority or dialectical cunning: it is a favor done to the opponent. If you choose a herald, because you really need to take sides in the open field, ten against ten thousand, at least choose him that he doesn't do this nonsense. I will say more: beware of those who do this nonsense, because they will not take you anywhere, because they will damage a just cause with wrong behavior and this cannot be afforded by anyone. Does it console you to make a òla on Twitter? I'd rather win instead of you. And to win for you, it's best to be transparent and patient.

If it is essential that you are aware of your inferiority (because you are not a majority in the country), it would also be useful for you to realize the consequences of our (elected) numerical inferiority. As I had to explain to one of you today, assuming that bringing down the Government, this Government, was the right thing to do here and now (which I obviously doubt), a party that has 20% cannot bring down a Government. which has a majority of 79% because leaving would take it to 59%, which is six points above the majority of the yellow-green government (which was 53%).

Please don't insult your intelligence renewed by asking for things that don't make arithmetic sense.

But, above all, do not insult your common sense by ignoring a simple fact of history: in war whoever leaves the field loses.

Here, perhaps this is the thing that you must understand, the most obvious, but perhaps for this very reason what seems to escape you with inexorable and desperate regularity.

Those who with pathetic accents, with a somewhat repetitive and stereotyped eloquence to tell the truth, continue to exhort us to leave (as a party) or to resign (as individuals), then if they are asked precisely what would be the advantage they would obtain from our individual or collective abandonment of the field do not know what to say. Sure! Because there would be no advantage, except perhaps the purely narcissistic satisfaction of being able to tell yourself that you have voted for the right person, assuming that the right person is the one who picks up and leaves at the first difficulty. A wrong idea of ​​the right person, but that's okay. You believe, because they make you believe, that doing politics is going from grandiloquent gesture to grandiloquent gesture, from demonstrative action (preferably striking, like the nice friend from the red Lacoste ) into demonstrative action. Instead it is not like that. Instead it is learning a trade, creating a network, ensuring a presence, earning a small piece of land every day, learning something every day, and keeping it in store until it comes in handy, remembering it at the right time, earning respect with respect and loyalty with loyalty. Work and create the conditions to work better every day, take on a role and create the conditions every day to support a more demanding one.

I send a big hug to those who see our future in the narcissist graveyard, the mixed group. Maximum respect for those who love themselves so well, thinking they deserve it. I don't have to defend my image, much less in front of you: I have to fight my battle, for you. I can easily deprive myself of the pleasure of showing off eloquence (the time will come) and replace it with an exercise in responsible humility.

Because, since you are so warlike and martial, maybe you should remember how military life works (or imagine it, if you haven't been lucky enough to get through it): there is a chain of command, there is a hierarchy, and there are aims.

What may be the objectives now, I think I would offend your intelligence if I explained it to you: aren't you the ones who came to give me lessons in politics? I won't be so rude as to reciprocate, and then just open the newspaper: they talk about it every day, they talk about it now … As hard as it may be to resist, in a little over a month we will know what scenario we will be in, and we will be able to evaluate the objectives achieved. I know I can't ask you, but unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, speaking to you with the utmost transparency and frankness, up to that moment tearing one's clothes has no meaning and serves no purpose other than to make the opponents happy.

Wouldn't it be better to take advantage of the adversary's immense strength? Since we've been here how many have we seen speeding up against a wall? Distracting them doesn't make much sense. This too is harnessing the opponent's strength.

Of course, this is rationality.

Then there are the infinite painful events of single individuals, the subjective frustrations, the objective difficulties in which the current situation forces us (because the limitations, if anything were not clear, also concern us). We have always gathered here also to share, to seek mutual comfort. This is now more complex, I can't always keep this space open, I often have other things to do. But in fact it is striking to see how many who came here to share and participate have converted to the full-time denigration of the work that has been and still is done here. The "black followers", as Nat baptized them , have always been here: do you remember Peter Yanez, with his cachectic little blog , now replaced by the half- grown logorrhea of Sderenippo grillino ? People who are not well, but also people we have not met. We know nothing about their petty envy, their little frustrations, or perhaps the lack of money they make to come and break the eggs. Conversely, that people we have known, welcomed, to whom we have opened ourselves, behave like any other Serendipus, devoting themselves full time to shoveling dung on who, according to them, would have betrayed them (betrayed what? How? When?), Well, this is something that I understand can be annoying . But always remember Princess Maria: all understanding is all forgiving. Try to welcome others, or at least ignore them. Even harder moments await us: we will need that much abused and misunderstood word which is compassion, the ability to suffer with others, to share their pain, which would then be, etymologically, sympathy.

And then there is another thing to take into account, an optical illusion from which to escape. I realize (I repeat) that it can be hard for those who have participated in this blog from the beginning, for those who have felt at home, for the people with whom I have shared so much of my existence, to suddenly find themselves cut off from a dialogue that inevitably had to be interrupted: on the one hand, time is not enough for me to live a life and tell it; on the other hand, not everything I do can and should not be told. Here, it is above all this that I believe you must (with difficulty) accept. With whom he was here, and deserved to be there, we made a pact. I too did not have, and do not have, behind my back "any authority: if not that which paradoxically comes to me from not having it or not having wanted it; from having put myself in a position to have nothing to lose, and therefore not to to be faithful to any pact other than the one with a reader whom I, moreover, consider worthy of every most scandalous research ". This covenant now requires you to trust me. Politics takes its time. Social media have the time of immediacy. The claim to control their representatives day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute is foolish and foolish. You will judge us by our results, you will judge us in 2023. Just as it is your good right to vote for whoever you like, including anyone, nor will I do anything to convince you otherwise that it is not behaving consistently with our agreement, at the same time it is mine right to ignore the impromptu solicitations of the newspaper, formulated with the hysteria of those who build claims on the sand of partial and distorted information from the media. I have shown sufficient transparency, even during my parliamentary term (I do not believe that there is a single parliamentarian of the eighteen legislatures of the Italian Republic who has spent a hundredth of the time I have spent explaining the dynamics of parliamentary life ), and I therefore believe that also have the right not to motivate every single step of a path that inevitably (I don't think I have to explain it to you) is complex and tortuous.

You can not accept it: I will make a reason. But the fact is that I have no obligation to make you aware of my choices on a daily basis, just as I will have no right to contest the choice you make when the time comes to make it. This is how it works, it is healthy that it is. Grillismo, the philosophy of envy and suspicion, was born to poison this trusting relationship with the miasma of a prejudicial and paralyzing mistrust. You are naturally free to indulge in this degradation but maybe, first, lift your eyelids and take a look around.

And now let's dedicate ourselves to our families and our loved ones, and to welcome the coming year. A year that begins with an uphill battle, in all respects.

May it keep us healthy and restore our freedom.

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/2021/12/il-discorso-di-fine-anno.html on Fri, 31 Dec 2021 21:31:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.