Translating Cazzari. Pardon, Cacciari.
I have often said that in Italy there is no humanistic culture, but only an anti-scientific culture, and I must say that somehow there is always some "intellectual" who hastens to agree with me.
One of these is Cacciari. Who decided to surprise us by writing an articulated piece in the Press, in which Cacciari discovers that Putin opens up another ditch that prevents us from looking east. Whatever it means.
And here comes the point: I have decided to translate Cacciari into understandable terms. In order to clarify what a ridiculous individual he is, capable of getting paid for not writing anything.
So fasten your seat belts, Cacciari's exegesis begins. The emergency exits are on the sides.
The article is:
“Hate Putin – for what he does to Ukraine and if possible even more for what he does to Russia and Europe. The aggression decreed the end, I fear irreversible, of what could have represented their only destination, their only destiny as great, autonomous cultural and political powers in today's world "
Trad: I have not yet understood that the problem lies in the fact that the Russians are behaving like Nazis, massacring, torturing, raping, with a sadism that has not been seen since Dirlenwanger. Instead, I prefer to masturbate with what the Russians are doing to "so" that it is not clear what they are, but the important thing is not to talk about children disemboweled under the tracks of the wagons, because I am Cacciari and the contact with reality is bad for my health.
From what source could the great Russia draw the energy to assume the global role that historically belongs to it after the collapse of the USSR? Perhaps repeating, in changed guise, the worst of that experience? Trying to recover, by different means, the previous imperial dimension, now with repression, see Chechnya, now through agreements between corrupt oligarchies and autocracies, and now even with invasions?
Before you get to even more foolish questions like "was the chicken or the egg born first?", I remind you that "egg" and "chicken" are two legitimate names for the same organism. The rest is obvious.
And let's be clear, although the answer is obvious, it is still a more interesting question than asking what could be the energy source of the observation of a historical phenomenon. Question that only makes sense if you take drugs.
No – only through foedera, agreements, peer pacts, and on the basis of those ideas, those traditions that had given voice to the great Russian culture aware, more than any other, of the imminent catastrophe at the end of the nineteenth century: the Russia that wanted to work so that the term "brotherhood" did not remain an empty addition to "freedom and equality", and in the spirit of his Christianity he found the strength to become a real factor in political action. Utopias, says the realism of the Stenterellis – and this is where realism and "technique" without ideas leads, reduced to short-sighted calculations of interests, to nationalistic selfishness.
Here must be an automatic random sentence generator. It cannot be possible for a waking human being to think about things that don't make sense. However, this text means nothing at all. It is not clear why Russian culture should be more aware of the end of the 19th century and its catastrophe, and that it should have operated because the values of the FRENCH revolution, due to Christianity, should guide it. Of Manzoniana Memoria. As if it were Antani.
And how could Russia, after the tragic failure (which perhaps we are not yet able to grasp in all its historical grandeur) of the USSR, have maintained its global role if not through a new relationship, based on peace agreements and not armistices, on strategic visions and not gas prices, with Western Europe? This too was the fate of the greatest Russian intelligentsia of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Here Cacciari speaks of himself in the plural, admitting that he is unable to grasp the magnitude of the collapse of the USSR. And he wonders how Russia could have done after the failure of the USSR to make peace and strategy? Only the greatest Russian intelligentsia know this (therefore, not Cacciari), whose fate has marked that of Russia. I mean, according to Cacciari, were the great Russian intelligences that made this mess? But he doesn't give us names. Boh.
And Europe? What a cruel God can deceive us to the point of not understanding that a politically united, truly sovereign Europe, truly capable of being a decisive part in resolving international conflicts, all global in the global world, could never have existed without that new relationship with the great Russia?
Okay, God is cruel. When you fabricate a species, you give it a single main source of energy in the form of a star, and the light from the star causes skin cancer, you are a bastard. I might as well agree on this. Then the abuse of the "really" starts, the trick of all the philosophers cazzari. Do you want to look like philosophers? Grab any object in your hand and say “this is a fork. But is it a real fork? And what is, really , a fork? ". You will look like philosophers to anyone. It is the same trick as Cacciari, by the way.
A European policy worthy of the name "politics" should have taken place entirely in the sense of an opening to the East, of an Ostpolitik, which certainly could not stop at the hasty, improvised integration within itself of countries finally freed from Soviet oppression and inevitably agitated by nationalistic pressures. This too was an implicit fate in so many prescient positions of the European intelligentsia; in particular, it concerns the innumerable, deep, historical ties between Germany and Russia (woe to think that everything is resolved in Nazi aggression). Germany could have played the role of leader of the European Union (and only Germany could) only if it had succeeded in having all the member countries share a large, strategic Ostpolitik.
In short, you should have done what you should have done, and what you hunt does not explain, since having never been done it should be his invention, or at least his imagination, but you certainly won't have to understand what it suggests. This piece is to make you think that Cacciari knows perfectly well what should have been done. He criticizes what they did for what they did, but he is careful not to explain what Ostpolitik is, which he did not invent, which he has in mind.
And the reason is that he doesn't have one in mind: he writes to let you think he has one.
A Europe that ends with a Wall on the Polish and Ukrainian border (and which continues to see our Sea as another Wall) will always be only an Atlantic province politically, and geographically an Asian peninsula.
And here it takes on a prophetic tone for which it does not have the titles. Ok, ok. To make believe that he would have been able to do better if he had been in power, then he says these things. What he would have done is not known.
If this is what Putin and his people wanted, they have succeeded perfectly. The (potential) German leadership has been put out of action, the possibility of a Russian-European dialogue perhaps forever ruined, the European presence crushed by the very logic of war under the hegemony of NATO, that is, of America. It would be enough and it would be enough for the Russian patriots to work in every way for the defenestration of the Putins.
It is not clear why Cacciari wants Germany to take European leadership, when it is now clear that Germany does not want to have it. There are no traces of this attempt or trend throughout the postwar period. It is true, Cacciari is not the only one to ask someone else to do the job that his government does not know how to do, but I am constantly talking about a leadership that does not want to exist makes me think of a fetish.
Russian patriots exist, but they don't do what Cacciari says. A case? Coincidence? Cacciari didn't understand shit? I don't know why, but I'm leaning towards the latter.
A strange fate for many like myself, a common fate, not a private biography, which never counts for anything. It is a historic appeal: Russian foreign policy corner not only those positions which include, as we have seen, the need for European countries to strategically rethink their relations with Russia, but the very presence of critical positions within them. towards American imperial politics.
Here you hunt, even if for a moment, he realizes that he is nobody's shit, despite the title of full professor. I know: the Total Perspective Vortex is a terrifying experience ( https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex ). Cacciari should do it more often. All seasoned with American imperialism which for charity exists, but it is not the reason why Cacciari is not a shit about anyone: in this he is autonomous.
Budapest, Prague, Poland, Afghanistan – and every time in Europe left, or whatever you want to call it, on your knees. And not, mind you, "left" of government (like the current one in Italy, which admittedly no longer has anything on the "left"), and even less various Stalinists, but precisely the one that was absolutely against, yesterday, the Soviet model and today the Putinian one, but not in the name of that single non-thought that sees only ex America salus.
Here he fights with grammar (left, I think) and then squirts again disconnected phrases devoid of logical sense. I don't know if they paid him for it: if they paid him, I also know how much they paid him. Too much.
It is as if Russia were working to destroy every time the space of political viability of critical thinking, so that all of us are forced to swear by the pacifist virtues of NATO and to forget the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Chile and Iraq.
None of which, however, had NATO as a protagonist. Of course we don't see NATO. To say it all, NATO has intervened very few times with its own initials in recent history. But Cacciari hasn't hit any.
More: because it becomes completely superfluous to ask ourselves about the causes of injustice and inequality, about the power relations that govern globalization, about the political nature of the social and production relations that dominate the planet.
And pizza with kiwifruit. I'm sure Cacciari wanted to wear it, but then he decided it would be too colorful. And how the Russians prevented him from reflecting on all this is unclear. Or rather, it is clear: like all university professors, Cacciari is not used to being contradicted, and if someone stands up and says “Professor, he's saying bullshit”, for him it is an act of fascist censorship. But it is not our fault that Cacciari is a university professor: we can have pity for him, we can propose euthanasia for those who are university professors, but in the end, let's face it: the doctor did not order you, huh. In Venice, grappa was enough to say bullshit.
Every question, every doubt must be swallowed up by the decision: either you are in the pile, all together, against Russia, or you are the Enemy. And this is inevitable when war breaks out. In the end, there is no middle between peace and war. Well dug, great Russia – you dug once again the grave of a critical thought that is politically worthwhile, not bad – but why yourself?
Cacciari now speaks to Russia. Not with Putin, with the Duma or with the population. No, with Russia, which would have done something that forces people to contradict Cacciari. Which, for a university professor, must be terrible.
I begin to think that Giordano Bruno, after all, has been looking for it.
But it is no longer the repetition of previous situations. Now it is civil war, within Europe. The war between Ukraine and Russia is civil war in every sense.
Here we start again with the nonsense. An invasion is not a civil war. The Dombass revolt could be, but the war between Ukraine and Russia CANNOT be defined as civil war. Invasion, sure. War, of course. But "civil war" is a different thing. Civil wars are waged entirely within a population. Not with a hundred thousand foreign soldiers breaking through the border.
And it happens on the most dangerous seismic fault in Europe. There was also a civil war in the Balkans. But here Russia remained on the sidelines. Now the front is Russian-European. No man's land is missing. The civil war takes on an epochal significance and weight, since it affects the two dimensions, separate and indivisible, of our destiny: Western Europe and Russia. The world has changed because of this. Twice European civil wars have produced global catastrophes, and in both cases there was Russia, it was her presence that made the civil war world war. Where danger grows, there, within it, hope also grows, says a poet. We try to work to prove him right. The time left is short.
Here Cacciari must be convinced that he is talking to the psychiatrist, because he tells him everything he dreams of. When he says that the two world wars would have been civil wars, if only Russia hadn't got involved, I really suspect there is a hand of drugs.
Overall, he didn't write anything, he said even less, except (hidden between the lines), a “you have to stop contradicting me, understand? I am the prof! And now I take the register and go away! Here you are!"
What to say?
