I don't know why, but it was decided to take Diego Fusaro (once a simple target of well-deserved jokes on all social networks) and elect him to the role of “TV intellectual” if not even “philosopher”. The reason why I decided to talk about it is simple: there is clearly a project of idiocracy, and the best way to build an idiocracy is not to eliminate the intellectuals leaving an empty library of authors: the best way is to fill the existing library of cazzari.

First of all, why is Fusaro called a Philosopher? The reasons are different.

• He quotes philosophers all the time. He looks like one of those classic high school students, who spend their lives telling each other how beautiful ancient Greek is, and the spirits and the metrics and the prematuron supercazzolai. But nobody notices that most of the time the quotation is out of the question (as Plato said when replying to Donald Trump and Pelomane from Siphon in the “Suppostium”.).

• He has a series of unsuccessful attempts to make a career in the academic world of philosophy. His biography is full of the career he was unable to make in the academic world of philosophy, and as usual it is studded with the usual "publications", of which no one has news outside the country. In his biography there are also pathetic details, like this:

You can immediately notice that this is not a seminar on Gramsci's life, but a presentation of his book in a faculty of languages. Have you noticed that the number of places is limited? Perhaps you are thinking of a small auditorium or a smaller classroom. No, Boylston Room 403 is this:

Which has a total of 24 theoretical seats, of which 14 around the central table. A "symposium". Did I already tell you about the Tigella World Congress which is held at my home at least twice every year?

Basically a meeting room. Moreover, it was not an academic event, but an event open to the public. He rented a meeting room at Harvard, you know.

But the problem is not the way (more pathetic than ridiculous) to inflate a non-existent academic career: out of pure pity, “ He is currently a lecturer at the Institute for Strategic and Political Studies in Milan. “, An institution that anyone of you can receive at home for only five euros, the price of a plate to hang on the door.

And the problem isn't even how a substantial unemployed tries to make Mom proud of him. This is fine, after all mom is always mom.

The problem is that to be a philosopher Fusaro has few ideas of his own . Dilemma: if you have few ideas, and you want to pass yourself off as a philosopher, what can you do? It's simple: just avoid anyone who has ever seriously studied political philosophy.

I once knew such an element. He spent his time in the cafeteria making everybody snaps on Sanskrit, of which (he said) he was a profound scholar. Very deep. And he had almost explained to everyone the influence of Sanskrit in Indian society, until the company took over a branch in Pune. At that precise moment there was a coming and going of Indians, the real ones, of high caste (usually those who studied computer science) and therefore average educated, and we all expected that he could speak at least Hindi, or one of the languages ​​he had spoken to us about. .

We discovered that he was forced to a strict diet that prevented him from attending the canteen with us, and from that moment we also discovered his diploma as a conservatory teacher (we never understood which instrument) and his love for dodecaphonic music. Music that, including him, listen to four. And the fourth doesn't feel so good. Music that I shit my cock in the office with for at least two years.

In practice, this character was a classic Palombella Rossa style Master, as long as the subject was almost unknown to most people, and that someone who had even a little smattering in the field did not show up in the canteen .

What is Maestro Fusaro about? He is the master of a thought that died in the 70s, called Nazi-Maoism , in the most widespread version in a group called the third position . His rehashing is almost identical to that of a character called Franco Freda , in particular that expressed in the book “The disintegration of the system”.

as you read on the wiki, they were all nice little people, with immaculate criminal records.

Fusaro does nothing but parrot Franco Freda's ideas. He cites philosophers in his support as Franco Freda did, in the same way as Franco Freda, and preaches the same theses. And if you read from Franco Freda's life, he aims to make ends meet in exactly the same way .

The real question is: why does no one recognize Franco Freda's thought in Fusaro's words?

Well, it's simple: the story I told earlier on the Dodecaphonic Sanskrit is valid. If you call yourself an expert on something that is unknown to most, you run little risk of being exposed. Furthermore, honestly, there are few who remember the details of Franco Freda and of the Italian political history of that period, and especially few who remember the ideas.

• first of all, third position and Franco Freda were known mainly in Rome, and even in Rome hardly anyone buggered them (except the victims). I crossed the book for a series of high school bad luck, along with Gargantua and Pantagruele (to tell you the level).

• second, only those of a certain age remember that period, because the rest of the Italian population has no memory of what happened. In practice, we remember it in three. Me, Fusaro and the third died yesterday.

• Fusaro, like Freda, has taken the supercazzolisticoniciano method that confuses journalists, assuming they have a brain to confuse.

in a world without memory, it is possible to pass off as new anything that is old enough.

This is the point. Fusaro doesn't say anything original, because he doesn't say anything of his own. He parrots the disintegration of the system and has adopted the same talk of the Nazi-Maoists of the 70s and 80s. That's all. And if anyone objected that after all The Disintegration of the System was a book given to the press, I remember that Ar published Freda's book because Freda was the owner of Edizioni Ar.

Returning to Fusaro, this is the reason why I don't define him as a “philosopher”. He has no ideas of his own, he has not invented any concept, he lacks originality and he does not say anything that has not been said (and rightly so: ignored) and his success is based on the fact that very few remember Franco Freda. Which is not surprising.

And here is boredom. Fusaro could add to his expertise dodecaphonic music, of which he will certainly be conservatory teacher, ancient Sanskrit, the Maya language, the carbonitriding of small metal parts, and any other branch of knowledge that is not very widespread, unusual or obsolete. Did I already tell you about Fusaro the taxidermist master known throughout the galaxy? No? Don't worry, he will do it.

I had the misfortune of reading Freda's book in high school. This is a dark story, linked to the creation of a high school magazine , because at that time it was fashionable to have a high school magazine, in an attempt to resemble a high school that had been fashionable about 20 years earlier .

It was a pile of absurd bullshit, which I could summarize as follows: “Since Maoism and Nazism are both modern totalitarian regimes and have a charismatic leader, they have many things in common. It can be deduced that they can mix without problems ”. After all, why can't the mystical tradition (Nazi fetish) coexist with Mao's cultural revolution (if we exclude that Mao killed the keepers of tradition, that is, the mandarins?). In the end, that is, it is enough to leave out inconvenient details and the theory stands. EVERY theory stands, as long as you leave out a sufficient amount of detail. By the same method you could build the Satanist Order of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, simply by noting how much Satanists and Catholics have in common. After all, they both believe in the existence of Satan, don't they?

In 1986, we finally used the same logical fallacy of Freda to shape the thoughts of a "humorous philosopher" in our "magazine", which was called "Pelomane da Ibiza". (It has taken on the name of other places over time, because his exodus was complex) To be clear on the level, he was exiled from Greece to be the only Hellenic heterosexual philosopher, he refused to Ibiza all the time, passing through other seaside places, but then he fled for the noise discos and we had given him political asylum in the toilets of our high school, from which he observed the world through the window. From which you could see the sign of a hardware store, so (using the same method as Freda) we showed that everything in the world derives from the eight millimeter iron rod, since everything in the world has something in common with the iron rod (protons and electrons).

We mixed it up with Gargantua's prose and (if you hadn't committed suicide before the end) it worked. We distributed it for free in nearby bars, together with the Carlino, and there were people who exchanged it for an insert from the Carlino itself. (Fortunately, no one signed with name and surname: a shame.).

The argumentative method (ie the logical fallacy) of Franco Freda, which is the same as that of Fusaro, is that if two complex (political) phenomena have at least two things in common, it is possible to merge them into a single phenomenon. Do Nazism and Maoism kill a lot and have charismatic leaders? Then we can do Nazimaoism. Are your mother and dog mammals and do they breathe oxygen? then we can… wait no. Mom doesn't.

In a certain sense, Franco Freda was the creator of the so-called "reddish-brown shirts", but when I speak of the creator I mean that the reddish-brown shirts never existed when "colored shirts were in fashion", and if anything they existed in a period when nobody buggered them. It's like the Jedi Knights are in the next Harry Potter book.

Franco Freda goes so far as to say that the Mao regime was, as a communist, a social state with strong welfare. And since Hitler's Germany was (according to him) a social fascism, then between the two regimes there are two things in common, and for two things in common there is always an ideology. The theory stands as long as we forget that Mao's China had a welfare lower than that of Charlemagne (practically none) and that Hitler's Germany was a welfare state as long as we forget that it exterminated millions of its citizens. (for those who have forgotten, German Jews were German citizens of the Jewish religion. The Third Reich has massacred its own citizens. Call it "welfare" if you like.).

You will say: but does Fusaro really believe in this bullshit? He believes as much as a shopkeeper has to believe that his product is good. And how come you can't see him saying these horrible things?

Because after the founding of the Digos, given its capacity for infiltration, extremist movements of all kinds have developed a mimetic capacity. In practice, instead of saying "we are fascists" they say "we are radical right".

Fusaro, therefore, goes on TV to recycle a thought that is not his, exploiting the short memory of the population, and as if that were not enough he did not choose an unknown but acute thinker: he chose one of the many cazzari who managed to make ends meet in the undergrowth Italian politician and journalist.

How did it get on TV? He arrived on TV because he knows very well that the Italian television format does NOT allow you to go into anything in depth.You can easily go on TV today and do parnacchie with the armpit, but the conversations are so disaggregated and discontinuous, interrupted and inconsistent, that you could easily cite Henri Désiré Landru in favor of feminism, and after being interrupted 60 times, when the talk is about the lesbian giraffes of Andromeda, also be applauded by Asia Argento, on behalf of all women.

If you want to pretend to be an expert in Sanskrit, or twelve-tone music, or philosophy, or anything else, you just have to go to TV: the quality of the debate is so poor that no one will ever notice the fact that you do not understand anything. Thus Adinolfi (a well-known frequenter of temples of Christianity which are the casinos of Las Vegas, where he practices the Christian spiritual exercise of Poker) can pass himself off as a fervent Catholic and defender of the family, the Black Adulteress known as Giorgia can say to be super-Christian, and Fusaro can be said to be a philosopher.

But another feature of Italian TV is that of inviting people by letting them choose who to appear with . There is no such thing as Italian TV that Fusaro is dealing with a debate in the presence of three or four political philosophers: he would be annihilated.

On the contrary, like the Sanskrit expert I spoke of, Fusaro is perfectly happy to talk about political philosophy, provided that there are no political philosophers in the studio . And even if one day he will accept a similar confrontation, he will accept it only in a broadcast with such a disaggregating format that anyone, absolutely anyone, could go and introduce himself as a political philosopher.

And this is why when I hear about Fusaro I always reply in the same way: “I'm too old to read Franco Freda again. He was shitting at the time, and he had no potential to improve over time ”.

If I were to get upset, I would scream like my high school math teacher did.

“Fusaro !! But not even to copy from Franco Freda, are you good? ".