Presidential Elections.
And so the next President of the Republic in Italy is Mattarella again. Considering that he said he did not want to do this and that he changed his mind in a few tens of minutes, in the future you will have to believe everything he says.
That said, let's go in order and start with the good news.
The first is the following:
IT WAS NOT THE RUSSIANS.
To interfere in a political process, two conditions are required:
- that the political process exists.
- that the attacker understands the political process.
Even assuming that Mattarella's election was the result of some political process, which honestly does not seem (unless you call any kind of fermentation a "political process"), it would have been so absurd that no one could interfere. It can be ruled out that it was the Russians.
The second good news is this:
It is not a woman.
You will say: and why is it "good" news? The problem with the authorities who come from some WWF reserve (the black president, the female president, the mayor Gay, the lesbian princess, etc) is that the political content disappears behind their identity.
Can you tell me what Obama's most revolutionary decision was? Can you tell me what his foreign policy was? The answer is simple: no. You can tell me that Obama was important because he was the first black president. Interesting.
As Mayor Gay becomes Mayor Gay, his political content is irrelevant to the press. This is why you all know that Vendola has adopted a child, but if I ask you what he has ever done in his political life, you are either from Puglia or you just know that he is gay.
What would have happened if the president had become a woman? Well, the reporters would have changed questions. They always do.
Would you have gone from "do you see elections in the near future?" , to "how many pairs of shoes do you have?".
Because journalism says this about a female president. If she's engaged. If she's married. How she manages the children. If it's hard to be a woman. If being a woman among cuirassiers is the same thing. If a female president is different. How does the president dress? How was she dressed?
Seven years of arguing about shoes. Of clothes. And how the president was dressed. And the president's new haircut, and the president's style. And the president's jewels. And the report card to the president's dress. And the president's manicure. And the presidential make-up. And should we say president or president or president? And what we expect the presidency to do for women. And the photos of the presidentoika on the beach.
Too bad that the president of the republic is not a wearer of clothes. And not even a testimonial of ovaries. He also happens to be an institution, and to say things that go beyond the costume fitting.
And let's be clear, looking at how it happened to Bellanova, or to Boschi, let's not delude ourselves that the president would have got away with it. This is the figure of Italian journalism, which perfectly reflects the figure of the Italian audience: a country that shouldn't have a female president. That's it. An entire print made of Bild.
I'm sorry, but until some foreign power exports journalism to Italy, it's better not to have a female president. Otherwise we end up like Obama, the Negro President who was a beautiful thing because he was a Negro Negro who when he spoke he was Negro and when he acted he was Negro and no one remembers what the fuck he ever did besides being a Negro. And you were lucky no one mentioned the BBC. No, not English TV.
Yes, but how did we get to Mattarella in the end?
Let's put it this way: in game theory we talk about cooperative games with complete information, or Nash games with incomplete information.
What happened was, on a mathematical level, "a bimbiminkia game with leccaculo information".
I know, many in the math world ignore this new type of game. After all, by now on average 150,000 theorems are proved a year, so no mathematician can follow everything.
- Definition: say "Bimbiminkia game" (from the name of the famous Burmese mathematician) a game in which the payoff is to tweet that you have been able to vandalize something that was previously viewed with some respect. So "I pissed on the tower of Pisa", "I managed to scare the pigeons in Piazza San Marco" and "I burned the candidate of those bastards" are legitimate payoffs. Sometimes there is also the payoff of people intoning “figurademmerdaaaahhhh” in chorus from the stands.
- Definition: we are talking about an ass-licking information game when all those who inform about the progress of the game, instead of saying "the teams are playing shit and they all look like bimbiminkia dedicated to petty political vandalism", behave as if everything were normal and what happens was tolerable.
- Theorem: a bimbiminkia game with leccaculo information has a fixed point, the fixed point is unique , and it always makes people shit. I leave the demonstration as an exercise at home. (It proves absurd: if the parliament had worked well, it would have elected an imaginary president.).
Ultimately, that is, all the parties behaved like bimbiminkia who vandalize the new benches in the public gardens, as long as they are the ones where the bimbiminkia of the opposing group sit. When the benches ran out, they said "where the fuck are we going to sit now?" and to avoid the shit on the grass they were persuaded to use the usual low wall.
What happened could be described as a "lose-lose" situation, were it not that the right definition should be "minkia-minkia".
All the parties, for different reasons, have only thought about causing as much damage as possible to the opposing factions, to divide them and make them fight, in order to make alliances less likely in the next elections. The only one who tried to seek consensus for himself was Silvio Berlusconi: paradoxically the concept was right, in the sense that it is perfectly fine for a politician to seek consensus on his own name . The execution, however, was a little clumsy, in the sense that sending Vittorio Sgarbi around to promise (more or less covertly) money & pussy is not exactly the idea of "high" politics. However, the concept was there, let's say that the boy understood at least the fundamental: “seek consensus”.
For a fourteen year old it is not bad: now the kid just has to understand the difference between "seeking" and "buying" consent.
All the other politicians have never sought consensus, indeed they have tried to do something that I would call "political vandalism". They didn't "burn" each other's candidates, they simply vandalized them.
At one point the scenario was so absurd that no candidate wanted to be vandalized anymore, even Casini "the stoic Christian Democrat" fought for fear of being hammered in and filled with spray before ending up on Salvini's Twitter , and the political scenario looked like this:
Obviously, in the ass-lickers press no one had anything to object . Everyone talked about how close a woman president was to the next vote, which at the time of Cossiga needed seventeen votes and two fascist massacres to elect a president, fantastic animals and where to find them. And it is under the comfortable blanket of the ass-lick press (after all, they were all so disgusting that to criticize one they would also criticize their masters), the vandal disaster happened.
When they realized that the remaining "candidates" were a moment reluctant to be vandalized. Without anyone in the press saying “what the fuck are these bimbiminkia doing? Are we joking?"
By now even Draghi had already booked a flight to North Korea with the fifth element Multipass, after talking with Salvini.
Why did everyone suddenly point to Mattarella?
Because the disaster was such that there was a risk: that someone would write "Rocco Siffredi" on the card, and many thought that being a joke, just to laugh, they could mention that name.
And you would have caught Rocco.
Not that he's worse than Mattarella by definition: the problem is that it probably wouldn't have been Siffredi. Neither does Nappi (she is not of age). The problem was that the parliamentary groups were dysfunctional and did not talk to each other, the parties had become dysfunctional and only cared about getting their piss water balloons, so the parliamentarians were in disarray: what if you ever had a meeting with 10 disorganized people for make a decision, you can imagine a meeting with 900.
And there were not even possible moderators, since the president who presided over the vote had the good idea of running for office, vandalizing her function when her name was vandalized.
In that situation, it was URGENT to elect a decent president, before someone started chanting “Forza Siffredi” in the courtroom, and (if only in protest) Siffredi accidentally passed the quorum. And it REALLY could happen.
In a situation of disarray, anything could happen. But absolutely everything. When there is CHAOS, it can really happen that a group starts making a stadium choir a la bouvette, and the name remains in everyone's mind. The plastic of Ukraine on TV.
And to avoid "everything", in the end everyone began to vote for Mattarella, and progressively all those who feared that CHAOS could lead Ivo Balboni (retired from Cesena, owner of the Internet and Director of Dark Matter, Dean of the School di Nanto, etc etc) have begun to vote for Mattarella.
More and more, more and more, and the more chaos was frightening (Ivo Balboni is not an easy character), and more MPs tried to save what could be saved by seeking refuge in the past.
Until Mattarella took everything he could.
Those who voted Mattarella observed the chaos and shit under it. Anything could happen. Really everything.
This is what happened. If a Nash game with incomplete information NEVER converges in the best possible balance, you can be sure that a bimbiminkia game with ass-lick information will ALWAYS converge on the WORST of possible balances.
The second term Mattarella is.
It is NOT AT ALL "the good of Italy". For a shit.
I know you will wonder who I would have wanted as president. Besides the fact that Ivo Balboni is a god of tresette, which would help him a lot with Putin (who has the black belt of tresette of the sixth dan. Certainly in Judo he never went beyond the orange belt), I would have indicated a woman.
And you will say: a woman? But you just said you don't want her because seven years of talking about clothes and lalalala. Certain. But this woman is special. That would NOT happen to her. Believe me. She is a woman who has been involved in politics in parliament, all the time she only said sensible and intelligent things, she got out of Mani Pulite unscathed, and she always supported herself with her job.
And I want to see the press making controversy about her dress. (which I find quite elegant, by the way).
That said, why is Mattarella the WORST choice for the country?
First of all because it wasn't a choice, it was a refuge from chaos. But taking refuge in a bunker is not a free choice, it is not a political choice, and it is not even a political message to the markets: it is the only sensible thing to do during a bombing.
The problem is, a lot of things are going to happen in the next seven years. Things for which it would be best to be prepared. And no, I'm not quoting the Torchwood theme song. You don't have to go hunting for alien artifacts. You have to hope that the markets have mercy, as rates rise and inflation rises (which has about the same effect on public debt).
To begin with, the next elections will be held with a new electoral system never tested before, and rooms with reduced numbers will be elected, disrupting the daily functioning of parliament. By giving enormous power to party secretariats.
There will be no Draghi.
And you put a man from the past in the presidency. It would take someone much more "revolutionary", perhaps "young", but certainly "new". Woman or not.
So the stability that the town was looking for in Mattarella went to get fucked up. Mattarella, with such a political landscape, is not "stability": it is "immobility".
Mattarella will be only the immobile top of a collapsing pyramid. With the next government there will be no more Draghi, as if that were not enough. Can you find me only one "papabile" in today's panorama? And do you think that using that method you saw with the election of the president (because Salvini is Salvini and Salvini remains) it will be possible to elect a government that governs?
In the small parliament, the parties and their secretariats will always have the last word, and you have well seen what a hell of a bimbiminkia they are.
The journalist surprised to write that by electing Mattarella, continuity has been made has an idea of continuity of such a short term that seven months (assuming that the vandalized Draghi remains) must seem like an eternity. His wife confirms: we just don't stay there for the duration.
That Draghi will remain with Mattarella is an illusion that will last (perhaps) seven months. And then?
But the ass-licking press, too prostituted to say "what the fuck are you doing" to its owners, continues to talk about a "choice for continuity". What continuity? This is inaction.
And I still have a question for you:
"What the hell are you gonna do when the old Christian Democrats are all dead?"
I ask because at that moment even Cicciolina will be too old, ditto for Rocco, and Luce Caponegro was a wooden pussy ™.
Soon regret not having elected Cicciolina.