In the saga of the catastrophic failure of Italian healthcare, and especially Lombardy, a note of disappointment had been inserted by some " intellectuals ", a note concerning the fact that the government had "abdicated the doctors", as if following the advice from doctors in the event of a pandemic was a senseless action.
Obviously those who write this have a conception of politics as a "magical" dimension, which transcends reality: and therefore who cares if there is an epidemic in progress and decisions must be made that are effective . Details such as reality evidently must be too insignificant for the priests of this magical knowledge (moreover, an occult knowledge since it is not immediate to see wisdom in the Italian political class. Let's say they are axes when it comes to keeping it hidden, here. )
And so now you are satisfied. Here comes phase two , managed politically
Now, let's take Germany for example. We were told not to form gatherings larger than two people, unless we are a family that already lives in the same house. It makes sense, because in the end the virus spreads with contacts.
But now let's take the concept of relative as a comparison. Now, there is a small problem: the virus propagates regardless of whether a person is a relative or not. The virus distinguishes between homo sapiens and non homo sapiens, which I know is a gardenia.
The distinction "you can go out but ONLY to go to the relatives" does not make sense, unless the relatives are, as I know, dogs, horses, cows, etc. It does not correspond to the reality, in any way, that contact with a relative is less risky than contact with anyone else.
Regardless of the definition of "joint", the restriction simply does not make sense. It is clearly a political work, that is to say aesthetic, and therefore we are in the full realm of that ineffable, humanistic (therefore, in Italy, anti-scientific) knowledge that many hoped for.
And it is precisely in the illogical disaster of its manifestation that its blatant failure manifests itself. Because if the motivation for a political hunger was justified by the idea that politics can manage the human complexity of the population, well, that 's exactly where it failed.
Take for example the case of the relative. It is a concept that comes straight from "human complexity". So it is assumed that politics is able to define and manage it very well, as opposed to the cold numbers of heartless technicians . Well.
How did they define it? They defined a list of kinships, but entered into crisis with the concept of engagement. Let me be clear, once upon a time there was a real "engagement contract" (which is still foreseen by the Italian law), so it would be possible to show that two people are engaged. It would be enough to show the contract.
But today it is no longer possible, because no one does the contract anymore. So how do we know if A and B are engaged? And how do we distinguish a boyfriend from a trumpet? If someone goes to find a trombamic, and someone else goes to find a boyfriend, with what evidence do you decide to be in the presence of a relative or not?
Then there are the border sets: if I am going to a boyfriend to give him up, what happens? Ah, right, the whole frontier is a mathematical concept. But then we can continue wondering how many boyfriends the law allows. If the law allows only one spouse, theoretically (unless there is an engagement contract) there is no limit on the number of engaged couples. So a prostitute could work, simply by deciding that all clients are "engaged". And all customers could call her girlfriend, which she would confirm, since GFE (Girlfriend experience) is now an obligation for any apartment prostitute.
I could come up with many reasons, but the problem is simple: Italian politics has proved so obsolete that it cannot even define the same terms it uses . And when you can't define the dictionary of symbols you use, in fact YOU HAVE NO CONTENT.
Personally, this does not surprise me: I have been saying for years that political thought is only a category of aesthetic thought, and therefore it has no content and cannot have it.
But this experimental test should make those who believe in politics think. Re-read your ideologies well . Does the dictionary still make sense? Do all words make sense? "Proletarian", "Compatriot", "Aryan", "Revolutionary", still have a meaning ? Can you still distinguish a proletarian from anyone else, at first glance? And are they really the poorest, even if today those who can have children are among the lucky ones, and the unfortunate do not risk having offspring?
The truth is that political thought is only an aesthetic thought, and every time asked to deal with material reality, it fails, precisely because reality, in itself, is the only possible content .