OK, it's funny 'cause in Italy and everywhere in the world, the less is understood about politics (sometimes I think that there's almost nobody left to understand politics) the more seems to be a necessary paradigm in life to judge the world around us politically.
I mean, it is less lame to discriminate for someone's zodiacal sign than for his or her political ideas, if only because the zodiacal sign is a scientific certainty (< - irony).
What happens in the end is that most of the people in my country need this paradigm to just go on with life. Take decisions, have sympathies. Delude themselves to hold the key to recognize between friends from foes. Value everything throughout the political sieve.

So, that's why in this post I will briefly go over what is my political position in life, what are my beliefs and positions and so forth: so that later I will be able to link to this post from the FAQ for all those who need to know in advance what political territory they are moving into when they start reading this blog.

I dislike politics. I am probably what in Italy is called a qualunquista, whose perfect translation would be "whateverist". I have inflections of anarchism, but also a vaguely progressive common sense. I admire conservative attitudes as well as the desire to change and undo. I am obsessed by politics only in the sense that I feel that I am surrounded and harassed by evil political ideas and wicked ideological behaviors, which I recognize everywhere around me. I had political convictions in the past, but they were wrong. I was ready to barter true with false to turn them right, to make right what didn't add up (just as I had seen my parents doing all the time) and this is enough to say that those convictions weren't for me.

My vision is that at the present moment there is but one great struggle going on, and this is not the struggle of the poor against the rich, or the struggle of order against chaos, democracy against anarchy and so forth (although all these oppositions and many more are always happening). At the center of things, I see nothing less than a struggle of the middle class against the elite. The "elite" being all those who consider themselves a sort of aristocracy, running the game behind the facade not necessarily knowingly or by conspiracy (although I do believe that conspiracy and propaganda are the way of the world), and also not by merit but for a form of heredity of power --which is pretty sick.
Anyway. Since forever the elite has wanted to rule out the middle class: they love the idea of having to face a large mass of illiterate slaves better than having to face an educated and ambitious middle class, which keeps the things fluid and which doesn't renounce to educate itself and to master things instead of being mastered by them (occasionally kicking kings and rulers out of business without the need of a "revolution".) There are many examples of how this can happen, but I'll live that for the comments if necessary.

Needless to say, to destroy the middle class it is not good for the oppressed classes as much as it is good for the elite (the distance to reach it becomes impassable). Thus the leftist dream as it is can be put aside. And to embrace the elite and its rule as the sole chance for civilization is equally wrong, because the world the elite imagine for us is one without freedom for most of us (to say the least).

So where am I? In the end I believe in a democratic republic with a good balance of powers, but not because it is the best thing or because it is anything decent, but only because it is a non-static system: because it can always change into something better if enough efforts are put into it and if its institutions are somewhat preserved. Because into it a middle class can thrive, helping the other classes from becoming rigid in their distant positions (slaves and masters).

Of course a democratic republic, if one does not put enough attention to it, can also turn also into a technocratic neo-fascist madness where terrorism is used as a fear-mongering tool against the people and newborn babies are implanted with forever tracking microchips (all my fantasies of course) and everything under the sun belongs to some brand, and this is why I do believe in participating, criticizing, protesting and fighting for new lifestyles or new values and etc.
Yet I am personally not very good at it: and this is because I am also a conservative and a pessimist, but chiefly because my political attention is not natural, but a mere defensive mechanism triggered by the fucking reality.

OK and this was it, if new political definitions of myself will come to my mind I'll update this post.
And yea, I hope that my next post will be more human --or personal.

We argued for the second time about that Billy Wilder's movie "One, Two, Three". I flatly stated that the movie was sheer propaganda of the cold war. Russian are represented with the usual demeaning stereotype of the illiterate, greedy, corrupt thug. Or as naive idealists easy to buy. Nothing very distant from the representation of Russian people in any other western Hollywoodian movie of the last sixty years at that.
"Let's imagine they're not russians, but jews, or black africans," I argued. "Wouldn't you be ashamed and disturbed by it?"
"No. It's a comedy," she defended, "and well done too."
"True. I am not saying you couldn't laugh with it. But There is a comedy which after all starts from the things as they are, even if it ends by overturning reality completely. And a comedy which just destroys reality from the start, without appeal, with commonplaces, burlesque, caricatures. That's even worse than a serious propaganda movie."
"I can appreciate any kind of movie for its artistic values regardless the politics or the propaganda involved in it."
"Me too, mostly", I said. "But at least let's take some points away from the valuation we make of it"
"But why?"
"Because it allowed politics into arts!" I said. "It tried to play tricks on us! That's not good art in my book!"
"Uff, I hate it when you talk politics!"

At the end of this conversation, which could easily apply to the movie 'Borat' too, I wondered a little about my relationship with politics.
I am very sensitive to politics. I am not saying I have a great understanding of it, but I know where it can be found, how it operates. I can recognize it even if it's very well hidden behind different means, pretenses and results.

So what basically happens with politics is that I start talking about it not because I enjoy to, or because I have my idea and I want to be in the arena. I start talking politics simply when I feel attacked by it. When I perceive propaganda hidden behind informations, arts, entertainments. When I perceive aggressive politics against my rights or others' rights. It's more a reflex than everything else, and in fact the results are not very brilliant, since I am the first one who gets bored of arguing about politics.

As with the movie "One, Two, Three", nothing bores me more than seeing a form of art I love prostituted by politics. But what really makes me snap, is to see folks persuaded by it as if the politics or the propaganda were completely absent.

That really puts me in a desperate mood. Because I think there's always a struggle between arts and politics or religion, and in that moment I see the arts losing the battle.
In fact, Ideas always want to enslave Arts, and Arts always have to find new means to disclose their intentions beyond Ideas. This is always a result obtained with Form, because Ideas are not the essence of Arts. The only essence is Form.

An example? Take any religious picture of a master of the renaissance. No matter what any Scholar of Arts will tell you, the most important thing into it are not the allegories, the subjects or the ideas it conveys. The most important thing instead are the colors, the light, the way surfaces juxtapose, the composition, the design, etc.

Another example? What Kundera said of George Orwell's novel 1984 (I paraphrase): 1984 is not a good piece of art, not a good novel, because politics dominate the novel and not the other way around. This is true even if you agree with Orwell's visions and ideas, because it's a formal problem.
The simple intention of seeing a political idea prevailing in a work of art makes the work of art tinkle, like a bad coin.

And by the way, what about Afghanistan? Our very self-satisfied Foreign minister stated that Italy's military presence in Afghanistan "must be maintained", because after all,"it's not a military mission" (whatever you say, minister).

So Prodi is pulling out of Iraq, but has no intentions to pull out of Afghanistan. They get away with such nonsense because -- like everywhere else -- people here consider the Iraq war the 'wrong' one, and the Afghan war the 'right' one, the one really motivated by terrorism and so on.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Afghanistan heroin production is soaring like hell, Talibans are on the rise, Osama is nowhere to be found (and by the way Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are much more involved in international terrorism schemes) and more importantly, conditions of democracy aren't anywhere in sight.
As with Iran, the main reasons for this war seem to be those meant to keep the Russian influence out of the area.

It seems to be that the great game is still on the table, or whatever else we should call it (shitty game?).
I suggest the captivating and exhaustive book by the same name (in Italian, "Il Grande Gioco") to those interested in understanding something of this very very old shitty matter.

So it comes down to finally, all the Italian soldiers coming back home from Iraq. 32 of them died in action since 2003, with 7 other Italian civilians (journalists and other agents).
39 is a little figure compared to what the Iraqi people suffered (in the order of half million people killed since 2003), so it's fair to say that we are, as a nation, coming out quite unscathed by this 'mission'.

Considered how unjust this war was in the first place, based on lies and motivated by greediness and imperialism; considered how the 'peaceful' mission of the Italian army consisted basically in garrisoning the prospect of two million barrels in Nassyriha in the name not of our democratic constitution but of ENI, the Italian energy agency, it really was about time to put an end to this shame.

But the shame does not end here, obviously. It never ends. Who will now defend the Italian interests there? What sort of deal ENI is striking and with whom? Mercenaries? Foreign armies? Local mafia? Terrorist groups?
And what about the Italian constitution which states at the Article 11:

Italy repudiates war as an instrument offending the liberty of the peoples and as a means for settling international disputes; it agrees to limitations of sovereignty where they are necessary to allow for a legal system of peace and justice between nations, provided the principle of reciprocity is guaranteed.

I mean, why are we getting out of Iraq now? Because our leaders said that the war was 'wrong', because we never managed or even tried to favor a 'legal system of peace and justice' there.
And who is going to pay for the mistake? Who bypassed our boring old constitution?

I bet the politicians who voted for this war are convinced that the price has been paid already, by those 39 fellow citizens and so they're even. I wish they were wrong -- although they are right of course.

About Abu Omar again. His story I already covered in this post, but there's another sickening part of it I wanted to go over.
It's the one told in this old article from corriere.it, and it is so incredibly insulting I don't know what to make of it.
Well, the article is one and a half years old, and the story is almost four years old already. So maybe it is just the stench all around it.
What you gonna do. I was busy with other shit back then so it's now or never.

The article considers the point of view of one of the CIA agents who directed and organized the unlawful kidnapping of Abu Omar on Italian soil and who is now investigated by the Italian justice.
What is more disturbing is the tone of this article. It is difficult to describe, but very common in the Italian media. It is a bit of childish, a bit of intimidating, and all superficial. A typical deceiving propaganda piece even unaware of being propaganda.

"Bob" is the CIA agent in question. He is described as "never arrogant, sincere, practical", he "comes from the streets, loves action". Guido Olimpio, the journalist writing this piece while standing on his knees, draws Bob's bio as he was the character in foreground of a novel. And not the criminal that he certainly is (keep reading).

...and what he learned on the streets he took with him inside the "Company", the CIA. Since he was born in Honduras... he speaks perfect Spanish, one more reason to send him over in Central America on a mission. A special theater of operations. He... moves among despotic regimes, corruption, guerrilla groups. He loves action... He infiltrates an opposition group managing to gain control of it: they yell 'death to gringos', but they don't know it is a real gringo who is assisting them.

And so the brown-nosing vomiting goes on. Then Mr. Olimpio comes to the actual Abu Omar case and Bob's role in it.

Many of the inquiries about radical terrorism succeed thanks to his technical help. Spying devices so small they can be hidden in a copy of the Koran... pictures, names, electronic traces left by satellites in Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Iran.
For the U.S. intelligence Milan is an outpost of Al-qaeda and Abu Omar is the emir. They follow him since his days in Albania, when he was involved in a plot to destroy the U.S. embassy in Tyrana [note: As a matter of fact, Abu Omar used to work for the CIA back then, as we explained, a detail Mr. Olimpio seems to ignore].
The CIA decided to get rid of Abu Omar on the eve of the Iraq war, worried he could organize a retaliation against U.S. targets [note: Abu Omar was under surveillance 24/7 from the Italian justice and the CIA. I firmly doubt he could organize an actual attack against sensitive targets without having himself and all the other supposed terrorists easily caught, with a lot more evidence of him being a terrorist than any form of torture could ever provide]. It is Bob who sets the trap up, with the help of the "cavemen", the removal-team sent by Langley...

Abu Omar ends up in an Egyptian prison and Bob goes with him because he has to take part to the first terrible interrogations, accompanied by torments and tortures [the italic is mine].

So, this adventurous agent, this noble figure is actually one who not only helped to kidnap but also to torture Abu Omar.
It is all admitted, all natural. Everything is fine under the sky. "Bob" and the other thugs. Funny how all the evil is admitted but they won't give you the names.

What those tortures are about you can read it in the other article I already linked twice. It's all material for one of the many hypocritical tribunals, if they weren't just the lousy show-tribunals they are. I don't feel like commenting with anything else.

Right after the elections, in the spring of 2006, italyisfalling.com stated clearly that the supposed defeat of Berlusconi (who was losing with an incredibly slight minority at the senate and in fact coming out very powerful when everyone thought he was done for) could in fact be considered a positive outcome for him, in a very difficult moment for the country.

During the astonishing night and day after the vote, with Berlusconi calling for a recount and even for the invalidation of the elections before the results were out, we, with many others hinted at possible electoral frauds, although not in the sense Berlusconi was tactically and hypocritically suggesting.
The results were not coming out, with unexplainable delay: and when they did come out, they had numbers completely different from the exit polls, which is always a sign of rigged elections (Cf. Diebold/Sequoia U.S. elections 2000-2006).
That night Berlusconi was still nominally Prime Minister, and his faithful minister for Home affairs, Pisanu, was in complete control of the vote count. Twice he left the control room during the night to go to report to Mr. Berlusconi at his mansion, with a highly irregular if not illegal procedure. Nobody ever explained why he did that, or what the long delay was for.

But, do you know what happens, right? If you cheat not to win when everyone is expecting you to loose, but you cheat to loose the less possible, you make it very hard for your opponents, the winners, to call you on your responsibilities. Just like for the 2006 midterm elections in the U.S.: The winners cannot be too harsh on the losers, something the citizens wouldn't understand. And also, calling for a fraud with the risk of not being able to prove it, could actually turn out to be the worst possible way to win, and, in the Italian case, to start a new government with a hard way to go.
This is probably why, during the night of the elections, the Italian winning leaders declared their victory with the most harried, stiffen expression on their faces, apparently with the intention to never publicly discuss again what really happened during that night.

But why am I going over this today, months and months after the vote?
As it happens, far from home this Sunday afternoon I was watching for the n^th time in my life a rerun of Stagecoach (with its beautifully translated Italian title Ombre rosse, "Red shadows") on channel 7. During the commercial break I switched on the third channel were a journalist, Enrico Deaglio, was telling about his new documentary, Uccidete la Democrazia!, "Kill Democracy!" about the supposed electoral fraud of the 2006 Italian elections.
Wow. For a while I forgot about the Ringo Kid and Dallas and the rest of the bunch, doctor included, and listened to him, amazed.

This journalist was explaining how, for the first time in our history, the 2006 political vote counted one million and a half "white" vote less than the projections. The "white" vote are all the voting papers where the voter didn't mark anything, no name or symbol. Those votes don't count and no one can claim them for its party or coalition.
The journalist argued that, because the drop in the number of white votes was considerable and homogeneous all over the country, no matter if coming from a "red" or "blue" region, this could play as fair evidence that something strange happened at a superior level, in Rome, at the ministry of Home Affairs where all the local results converged to be counted.
Small cities have been counted where, said the journalists, the Home Affairs reported an absurd, unsound zero "white" papers. This in a disillusioned country were the "white" vote is always on a rise.

So, while Berlusconi was calling for a fraud perpetrated by "communists" on a local level, supposedly it was him, in Rome, perpetrating a fraud using the "white" papers for his own party and this way reducing his loss considerably, later finding himself in the perfect position to undermine the new weak government.

All yet to be proved, of course. But asking questions seeming the only logical way to approach the truth.

I switched back to "Red Shadows": The doctor was smiling: He had just managed to assist the successful birth of Mrs. Mallory's newborn baby girl, and in silence was getting back to his bottle. Around him admiration and gratitude were expressed with the same silence. He was obviously in need to get back to his usual condition of dealing with the world: getting stoned. Nobody could patronize him about that anymore, because he had done dutifully right.

I always sympathized with the doctor, like I think every decent person who ever watched this legendary film did. I wished my country was a little like him: always stoned (as it is), but capable of getting out of it when necessary.

Yes, struggling for once to make right what is wrong before getting back to the usual lovely state of drunken stupor: That would be a chance for the falling country.

This post follows part I of my comment and translation of the testimony Mr. Abu Omar, kidnapped by CIA and italian agents, wrote from his prison in Egypt. Please read part I first.

They gave me only stale bread to eat, the one with sand in it that rottens your teeth. You cannot wet it and you cannot refuse it, because they have to keep a skeleton alive... They used to interrogate me in the office near the cells, so that the other detainees could hear the screams and cries caused by torture... my hair and beard turned all white...

At the beginning the guards undressed me, threatening to rape me, shocking me with cattle prods: one grasped my genitalia and mashed them when I would not talk... then they stretch me down on an iron door that they call 'the wife': there I got kicked, shocked with electric wires while they showered me with cold water.

They never gave me the Koran: it was always dark in the cell, but I just wanted to kiss it, to hold it tight.

Because of the beatings I completely lost my hearing from one ear... I also suffered a torture called 'the mattress'. In the torture chamber they put a soaked mattress on the floor attached to the electric current. Then they tied my hands and feet behind my back. One sat on my back with a wooden chair and the other one turned the electricity on. I was always scared and often I fainted. Now I cannot go on describing the tortures I suffered.

I forgot to say that the first times they tortured me they cursed Italy, because it gave me political asylum. They told me: Italy handed you over to Egypt. Nobody came from Italy to liberate you from torture.

That's right, my country handed this guy over to the torturers. And then tried to cover it all.

I know many will argue that, because this guy is jihadist and a terrorist he is exaggerating his conditions to obtain a political point against his enemy.
Unfortunately, the experience since this whole madness of torturing began is that Muslim victims tend to underplay what they went trough. They often omit all the sexual humiliations, the rapes, the religious offenses, the use of menstruating women or bleeding pigs during the tortures and so on.
If you want detailed examples of what torture means today, and why many details in the movie "Road to Guantanamo" were therefore certainly underplayed by the victims, check this incredible collection of news items about the matter. Remember, everything has been authorized by the American Attorney General already so you cannot impeach anyone for this.

Aside of the fact that Abu Omar was a CIA informer and thus he's no regular jihadist or terrorist, what if in fact what he says is just all true or underplayed? Can you go to sleep with that? What if the 'wife' and the soaked mattress are actually there, and others are now undergoing the same treatments, right now as you read these lines?
And what if all this underworld of torture fueled by the CIA is there only to create an enemy which isn't real? Does anybody remembers George Orwell?

And so, what is more sickening with this story? The fact that the war on terror is basically a fraud, staged by governments, and therefore all these crimes are inexcusable?
No, they would be inexcusable anyway.
What is more sickening, that those who elect themselves as paladins of security, freedom and democracy are in fact spreading fear, totalitarianism and arrogance? It probably always was like this.
Maybe the fact that 'someone' offered Abu Omar two million dollars not to testify about his kidnapping and therefore discharge the Italian secret service?
Or, finally, the fact that this whole story is used here in Italy -- as we write -- for the political struggle against the old establishment of the secret service, now that the newly installed political elite pledged a reform in a more 'modern' 'anti-terrorism' declination? Because we all know what that modern declination is, right?
The Orwellian technological control of the population that is taking place everywhere in the very lucky western nations? You must have noticed that.

No, I don't know what is more sickening. Maybe the joyful phony bliss of the Italians, who are still so mysteriously convinced to be "good" and "tolerant" and "different".
The inventors of fascism.