“THEY”: the mark of obsession.
Someone wrote that fascism arrives the first time as a tragedy, and the second time as a farce. I don't feel like contradicting him, because now (if seen from the outside) the Italian trend is ridiculous. It feels like reading Alan Ford, complete with unlikely mottos (he who flies is worth it, he who is worth it flies, he who doesn't fly is a coward". That is, a mockery of fascist arditism.
But what is the "characteristic feature" of this farce? The characteristic feature is “they”. “THEY” (or in English) “THEY”, they don't want you to know. “A piece of Italy – says Meloni today – helps illegal arrivals”. “The left”, “the communists”, “Germany”, “Europe”, are all OBSESSIONS that are characteristic of the politics of the period.
These are "non-people", with a fairly nuanced identity (I won't say "fluid" otherwise monsters will awaken), who are a typical symptom of obsession.
The characteristic feature of today's politics is that militancy has been replaced by OBSESSION. The person who is active in politics today does not "believe", does not "militate", does not "profess" absolutely anything: he has OBSESSIONS.
And all this obviously comes with hallucinatory obsessions, which are not very different over time: the Church kills you with the wave, is a clear example.
This is the modern "militant": an individual convinced that he has enemies, who are depersonalized rather than anonymous, to whom he attributes conspiracies (name of paranoia), which are at the basis of all the evils in the world, and who obviously they must be fought continuously, assiduously, for which everyone must certainly be informed. Even at the cost of breaking the wheels of some train passengers, for the entire Munich-Bologna route. “The WORLD needs to know that the clergy have wave implants. NEEDS TO".
I can clarify what I think using a simple table.
| Modern Name (or “social” name) | Mental disorder | Drug associated |
| Conspiracy Theory (Qanon, Chemtrails, Gabidalism, Kalergi Plan, etc) | Paranoia. | Cocaine |
| Imaginary enemies (THEY, THEY, Deep State, “pieces of state”, Europe, The clergy, the organic West, gender, etc) | Obsession | Cocaine |
| Imaginary solutions (let's invade Mexico, let's do a naval blockade, let's get out of the euro, three thousand years of civilization, I'll solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, let's abolish poverty, let's not eat steak to save the world, etc) | Delirium | Cocaine |
| Violent activism (burning bins is anti-fascism, spreading slander is information, hatred is the red pill, private violence such as cancel culture, throwing tomato sauce on works of art, etc.) | Mood disorders | Cocaine |
| Imaginary battles (I defeated a dragon, let's fist bump in Europe, America First, let's fight Nazism in Ukraine, against seigniorage, "they are invading us", etc) | Delusions of grandeur. | Cocaine |
Now, the "associated drug" column alone could explain why a specific drug can change the politics of a country, but the point is that today active politics is, in practice, a mass of mental illnesses .
I repeat.
Active politics today is nothing more than a collection of mental illnesses.
If you want a compendium of these mental illnesses, all you have to do is buy this book. (To overcome the copyright problem, I regenerated the cover with AI.)
The progressive replacement of politics with what are real mental disorders is, moreover, nothing new. It is described very well here:
under the name of “mass psychosis”.
Now we need to move on to the causes. Why does politics suddenly choose to use obsessions and mental illnesses instead of political programs? We may talk about populism, or shortcuts, but if real political programs existed we wouldn't have mental illnesses used as political programs.
Mental illnesses ascend to political agendas under some conditions:
- that are widespread enough to guarantee victory in the elections
- that are violent enough to take over the streets
- there are mass media willing to make them epidemic
- that there are no real political programs out there
since mass psychoses are in any case intellectually poor phenomena, to survive they must find a complete absence of political ideals. After the fall of ideologies, that is, we find ourselves in a situation of complete absence of coherent and organized political programs.
Some people think that things like "liberalism", i.e. economic ideologies, can fill the empty space, so we talk about nothing but economics, but the economy itself is just a sector of government. It doesn't answer many questions, for example it doesn't allow you to design a school: even while attending school for the world of work, you have taken training courses, which do not provide education but only skills. It will then be necessary for psychoses to fill the difference, and then crucified in the classrooms and fight against "gender", whatever it is. And banquets on wheels during a pandemic, as a top priority.
And here we are at the farce. What happens at this point? It happens that when faced with the actual problems of the state of affairs that is nicknamed "permacrisis", the answers are all linked to mass psychosis.
All.
And then the highest exponent of the state understood as executive power complains about the behavior of "parts of the state" that she herself directs. It complains about the failure to apply the Dublin Treaty, after violating it and sending 300,000 migrants to the EU without documents, due to organizational inability, identifying random enemies such as "Germany" and "international cross-breeding".
All parties in government lack political programs. This is why they are exploiting obsessions and psychosis to fill the hole. The result is to have a farce government that causes very serious damage, and justifies itself using the psychoses themselves.
How do you recognize that the country is in this state? It's simple, because two gentlemen arrive in the public debate. “Everyone” and “Them”.
Tutti is the representation of an imaginary public authority, capable of justifying itself, of making Ipse Dixit. Let's be clear, the IPSE DIXIT is already a logical fallacy in itself, but it becomes even worse when the authority becomes “Everyone”.
When we say "everyone says it" we mean "I say it, in my solitude", or "I have the sensation of hearing it said to everyone I know". In reality the person knows about 10 other people: for example, Vannoni says he wrote what "everyone" thinks, but apart from the fact that his acquaintances and his environment are, let's say, "peculiar", I could contrast MY "everyone", and say to Vannoni "everyone says you're a shitty general, so much so that they put you to make the maps". Does everyone say it? Yes. Even quoting "what they say in bars" is bizarre to say the least. It depends on the bar. In the bars I frequent, perhaps Vannoni would be defined as "a bottom slave who needs a master": what do you know?
In any case, this absolute authority that is "everyone" or the "normal" becomes the entity that justifies everything, "THEY" arrives.
“THEY” is an enemy idealized enough to be anonymous, or a person unattainable enough to be a name without a person (Bill Gates), but it usually refers to consolidated organizations with a political agenda (e.g. making Europe a mongrel crush nationalism). Clearly a failed program, given that one of the most nationalist people in England, the Home Secretary who proposes "effective" solutions against immigrants, is this:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman
If the intent was to crush nationalism with a less white England, I think the Jews of the Conspiracy have failed.
But for everything there is a “THEY”. And here you enter the conspiracy, where sometimes there are leaders, or names, but otherwise the vast majority of these organizations are completely secret.
But why do I indicate “THEY” rather than “ALL”?
Because a call to common sense, or even common feeling, is quite frequent. And the fact that we refer to "Tutti" or the "bar" is a consequence of provincialism, which is not a phenomenon limited to mass psychosis.
On the contrary, the existence of a widespread but mainly anonymous imaginary enemy (at most the leaders are identified, but taking care not to reach the point of ridiculousness: Elly Schlein at the helm of a planetary conspiracy seems like a joke rather than science fiction) or in any case collective .
This “THEY” is the collective name of nations, organizations and conspiracies, all with the same characteristic:
- I'm a beehive. Whether it is a vast conspiracy or a nation as large as Germany, or a political party or a political area ("the fascists", the "communists", etc) everyone thinks the same, and blindly follows the boss, without objection.
- they show an incredible unity of purpose: they have a project. One. And they follow that. A large group usually does many things. “THEY” normally have only one thing in mind, perfect training that makes them act in a specific way.
- I am diabolically intelligent. As in the case of witches, they manage to deploy highly sophisticated means and strategies on a global scale, which work with geometric precision.
- they have almost unlimited means. They never seem to suffer from budget problems, whether building space stations on the dark side of the moon or transoceanic tunnels, they never suffer from financial problems.
- I'm everywhere. The ubiquity of these conspiracies is truly incredible, because any entity that is not with "US" is with "THEM", which adds up to a good number of people enlisted.
- they do not suffer from any organizational problems: we never hear of schisms or divisions. “THEY” are compact, faithful, loyal, they make decisions in a crystal clear manner, and then everyone follows them. No human organization is known to function like this, from 10 people onwards.
If this “THEY” arrives, and becomes part of the political discourse (whatever the name of “them”), we are certainly in the situation of mass psychosis.
How is mass psychosis treated?
In reality, the only times that something has erased mass psychosis have been these:
- the arrival of a new political ideology (e.g. socialism in Europe)
- the arrival of a new religion (e.g. Christianity in Rome)
- the arrival of a new philosophy (e.g. the Enlightenment in France)
- a catastrophic war (e.g., the IIWW in Germany)
in short, this phenomenon behaves like a hole. If something fills the space, then it regresses (but does not disappear). If something is missing to fill the space, the phenomenon expands and fills all the available space.
And then nothing works, the government isn't together, but "THEM" is to blame.
And this is why fascism returns twice: once as a tragedy, when it really manages to convince the masses to do bullshit. The second comes as a farce, because there is always a moment in which the memory of the past disaster takes over the mass, and stops the process.