30 September 2006

Etiam si omnes, ego non! A critique of (della Porta 2001).

Etiam si omnes, ego non!
A critique of (della Porta 2001).

della Porta, D., A judges’ revolution? Political corruption and the judiciary in Italy, European Journal of Political Research, 39, 2001, 1-21.
(della Porta 2001).

Etiam si omnes, ego non!

In 1992/1993, the Centre of the Italian political system was substantially liquidated in a few months, since the action of some substitute-prosecutors and the detectives they used and/or used them. There were also some “judicial” warnings against the PCI/PDS, precisely against its “red” Cooperatives faction, politically headed from D’Alema, and against the League North.

“Centre” means Centre’s (or centrist) fractions of the DC, PSI, PRI, PSDI, PLI, the Milan reformist fraction of the PCI/PDS, and also the League North, although it was not “judicially” destroyed.

The League North is substantially a Centre’s movement. Its leader, Umberto Bossi, has a leftist culture. The central bureaucracy of the League North came largely from the socialist party’s and UIL’s [UIL, the Trade Union of the PSI, PSDI and PRI] area. However, its militants and its electors came mainly from the Centre of the DC and also from the Left. World propaganda, alias Oxbridge propaganda, firstly defined the League North as a leftist movement when it supported the 1994 coup d’Etat against the government Berlusconi. Later, the League North was defined an “extreme right’s” movement, when it strategically aligned with Berlusconi. However, its positions are not more “rightist” than the ones of the British Labours, of the German Social-Democrats or of the French socialists. We may not accept opportunist definitions of politically and/or institutionally aligned academicians. The same Berlusconi has a radical-socialist culture and the politico-social area he covered and covers is the area of the DC-PSI centre-left, but also with a meaningful presence of ex-Communist-Leftist political personnel and electors. Politically and/or institutionally aligned academicians generally prefer to tell or let to understand different and confused things. However, their obsessions have only opportunistic causes. What is scientifically testable: opportunistic lies versus reality. Anathemas’ method, as well as lies, is against scientific analysis.

Here, “judicial”, “judicially” and other eventual word with the same root are generally written between quotations marks because they have the same root of the word “judge”. Actually, “judges” there are rarely, just occasionally and accessorily, in this story and history. They there are nearly only in the academic and other tale telling. What opportunist academicians call “judges” have been just detectives, substitute-prosecutors, institutional centres as the Presidency of the Republic, the defamatory action of the press and other media of the “great” finance, parasitic financial speculators, monopolistic-speculative industrialists, certainly with the decisive support of the London and New York finance and, consequently, of the Oxbridgist propaganda. The large majority of the Italic media are under the control of the so-called leftist block and its supporters, of the Party of the Presidency of the Republic, not certainly of others. They, this obscurantist social and political block, have destroyed the Centre. “Judges” have not done it. “Judges” appear rarely and, generally, their sentences actually deny the theses of the substitute-prosecutors and of who/which used them for the 1992/1993 Great Purge. The 1992 and post-1992 Presidency of the Republic, profiteers, their detectives and bureaucrats, have destroyed the Italian politics’ Centre, Centre had won the 1992 general elections in conditions of already running coup d’État.

Formally, the position of Italian prosecutors and substitute-prosecutors is both of prosecutors and inquirers, detectives in some way in this latter function. Actually, their position is more that of “political commissars”, but not of the government or of the State. They are “political commissars” of a “Law” themselves [apparently] decide, each one of them decides, what it be. In practice, they are “political commissars” of interests’ blocks or powers. It is a feudal model, actually not at all rare. It is absolutely typical, in contemporary States. The Italic specificity is the destructiveness of this struggle and bargaining of everybody against everybody, with the Presidency of the Republic as supreme institutional guarantor. The Presidency of the Republic is the top. However, it is the top because expression of powerful internal obscurantist social blocks with international cover. In the history of the Italic State, there is the explanation of that. The specific personality or preferences of a specific President are not really determinant. Individuals can be easily removed or neutralised, when not consistent with the needs of these obscurantist social blocks, until these social blocks will not collapse or will be destroyed.

That just after the 1992 general elections, the Centre had won them was destroyed (while the most anti-modernising fractions of the DC Left, a PCI/PDS just “judicially” warned and the far right had been carefully saved), by the convergent subversive action of various coordinate forces, remains a point not to deal with in academic milieus. There are too strong internal and geopolitical interests because the tale of the “judges” redeemers, as well as other apparently sounding fables, be quietly accepted and diffused. There is even a ferocious censorship against everybody tries to deal with this question just reporting facts, which are different from the falsities insistently invented and suggested from the apparently leftist, but also rightist, actually just compradora and pro-compradora, political propaganda. In fact, all the propaganda around these events is neither leftist nor rightist. It is just one of the usual vulgates with the Oxbridge’s and other world orthodox-“thinking” centres’ licence/brand. Not casually, these events analysis is carefully avoided, apart from the tale telling of judicialist academicians. A-judicialist ones are not allowed. Independent scholars, researchers, intellectuals, may write, sometimes, but generally outside academic institutions and literature.
Judicialism is the systematic abusive use of law for private goals. Judicialist is the practice or support of that practice. Nothing to do with “justicialism”. In the Italian language, the used word is “justicialism” [giustizialismo], but only since linguistic reasons. It is of no interest here to discuss whether Italic “judicialism” had/have similarities with Argentinean “justicialism”. We are talking about different things. There is surely some “fascist” similarity, but it is of no interest here to discuss such a question.

How has such a “judicial” operation been technically possible? It has been very easy. Profiteers with international [London and New York] support have corrupted institutional and bureaucratic centres, which had already a direct interest in that operation of politics destruction. With these protections, and also thanks an odd and confused Constitution and to perverted laws no “modern” or “civilised” State and politico-institutional system have ever had, “detectives” have collected rubbish against everybody, against all political parties and fractions, and against all politicians. The ones ought to be liquidated have been [illegally, ...but the profiteers “made” and controlled “the law”] slandered using the support’s media. The ones ought to be only blackmailed had not been destroyed by media campaigning and “judicial” striking. They knew that whatever slander could destroy them but, generously, they have not been slandered neither judicially assaulted. The Presidency of the Republic, which, thanks to the running coup d’Etat, controlled tightly the Government and the Parliament, obliged the slandered Statesmen to the immediate resigning from their institutional position. Alias, if one [one could, not whoever] wanted to dismiss a Statesman, it was sufficient a media warning [sure, there were “qualified” newspapers for such a job..., what I call the support’s press] suggested from some judicialist centre, in practice an authorised Prosecution Office, one of the Prosecution Offices, or prosecutors or substitute-prosecutors were part of the game of the political purge or coup d’Etat. Judicial warnings, the so-called, in Italy, guarantee warrants [the information that an investigation was officially opened] were really delivered by media. Statesmen resigned, since Presidency of the Republic pressure, just they received a media warning, the media information that there was a guarantee warrant. There was even people committed suicide just they had news that an arrest warrant against them had been emitted. Such was the climate. It was a climate of Great Purge inside fractions of the ruling classes, with moral demolition by media defamation of the people ought to be liquidated.

Purge, coup d’Etat, coup d’Etat sui generis, coups d’Etat, revolution, counterrevolution: it is not important the used definition. Definitions are largely propagandistic. In history, coups d’Etat, revolutions, political and other purges, wars, terrorisms, are not really different among them, although these concepts have different propagandistic/”religious” meaning. The imposed sound is different, not the substance. Different “moral”/ethic values have been arbitrarily given to each one.

How has this “sudden” institutional corruption/subversion been possible? It was not sudden. Sudden was only the rapid massive purge realised in 1992/1993. The institutional corruption/subversion was a long process. Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge propaganda had sold the thesis of an Italy dominated by political parties: ...DC, PCI, etc. Nothing is more false. Italy, not differently from whatever other State, was dominated by bands/gangs, by power networks. “Parties”, the concept of “parties”, is a tale, opium, for the popular masses. Reality was and is different, in whatever State and country. ...for States which are also countries... ...Italy never was a country, just a weak State wanted from the British Empire around 1860 and from it created. The British international policies, in whatever areas of the world, are policies/action-against; in the Italic case there was an action, a politico-military-terrorist action, against Spain, Austria, Vatican, even France, in same way, although France had some immediate visible advantage. ...So Italy was invented as a State... The resultant is that it had and has not a ruling class but too many ruling classes without a real synthesis useful for some common advantage of the Italic populations. Antagonism prevailed and prevails over cooperation. There was and there is a permanent destructive struggle of everybody against everybody for the common damage. Such was and is Italy.

What the Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge propaganda had sold had the “excessive DC factionalist” and the “PCI diversity/difference” are other tales. DC and PCI were not decisively different between them and were both dominated by bands/gangs clashes inside them ...not differently from all the other political parties everywhere in the world. ...[Social] class and interest clashes, fights. For different reasons, the PCI [with its Trade Union, the CGIL] was, well more than the DC, the political party of the monopolistic capital, in Italy. As well as, during the war, the PCI was the party of the British and US intelligence services. Its first owner, USSR, was never a world puppet master but only a subordinate power. ...even more Maoism and People China, British-US creations. Since deception needs, Oxbridge propaganda confused everything about the world reality, and intellectuals are a category easily buyable and conditionable. “Enemies” and “friends” are media constructions operated for other purposes. If one is a fireman, he needs to invent fire: it is the basic of business.

If one wants to use the category of “interclassism”, the PCI was certainly not classist versus an interclassist DC. Both were interclassist, just inside different ideological frames. The PCI, as more organically the party of the monopolistic capitalism, was more backward than a DC where modernising forces could more easily find the way of emerging and imposing their needs. Even at level of working class, the PCI was the representative of conservative workers while the DC of more autonomous [from monopolistic-conservative capitalism] ones. Yes, oligarchies propaganda, not casually, tells opposite tales! However, if, in Italy, one compares the CGIL [the PCI trade union] and the CISL [the DC trade union], it is easily recognisable and universally accepted outside partisan propaganda that the CGIL is a conservative-obscurantist trade union convergent with parasitic “capitalism”, while the CISL a progressive [relatively modernising] one.

If one wants to use the categories of progressive/modernising and socially conservative, the DC was in some way progressive and modernising, while the PCI decisively conservative/obscurantist. Yes, I know, the Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge vulgata is different: it just reflects the domination needs of the inglés Empire... It is not science. The Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge vulgata is just propaganda, ideological opium. In this Italy, artificially created for foreign wills, genetically without a ruling class, but with the fight of everybody against everybody without any positive synthesis, one should look [for understanding it] at the band/gang/interests’ fights without any prejudice and idiosyncrasy induced from the Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge propaganda.

Realities are everywhere complex. However, they are decidedly more complex in States without a ruling class.

For instance, for understanding some basic politico-institutional dynamics, in the UK, it is sometimes sufficient to look at the fights of the Crown against the formal government. For understanding some basic politico-institutional dynamics, in the USA, it is sometimes sufficient to look at the US militarism’s and FBI’s fights between themselves and against formal government. For understanding some basic politico-institutional dynamics, in France, one have to follow the interests of national and compradore Masonic lodges: France, formally at least from the 1789 “revolution”, is a State with strong compradoro components, despite the French self-illusions of being a great power alias an independent country.

In Italy, there are well more paths one should need to follow. In Italy, there are the speculative-monopolistic-compradoro capitalisms. There are the small and medium companies and industries. There are the Carabinieri. There is the power of different inglés factions on Italic interests and institutions. There are French [on Anglo-American delegation] and German influences. There are the different security services and who controls them. For example, in Italy, in a certain epoch [around the 1970’s], the control of key security apparatuses passed from Moro to Andreotti, and that passage relevantly marked political and institutional dynamics, with Moro not casually killed but also with Andreotti, later, nearly purged in practice for one Legislature. See all the episodes of the so-called P2 and the connected fights of the international finance against the so-called Catholic finance, where “judicial truths” are only historical deceptions and practical frauds. Around 1991/1992, the control of key security services passed from Andreotti, who was using them for taking over the Presidency of the Republic [but he failed: it was a “military” failure], to local agents of inglés apparatuses and interests, who used them for taking over the Presidency of the Republic for their private interests. A relevant operational agent [of foreign interests, and of the Italic monopolistic capitalism and parasitic finance], not really the local puppet master, in some way took over and used some security apparatuses and the organised criminality at their service. He is the main public godfather of the so-called “left”, fundamentally a speculator with the passion of the political trafficking as complement of his personal speculations and on account of stronger internal and external powers. Stronger of him were surely Cuccia, the Mediobanca de facto absolute owner and the Agnelli dynasty, however they did not personally corrupted key bureaucrats and cops, and did not personally recruited future leftist Statesman and politicians. The “left” was openly imposed in and from 1992 as outcome of a long process of destruction of the DC and of the PCI [certainly also of the Craxi PSI!], which was the strategic program of the gang and interest block organised around the newspaper Repubblica [founded in 1976, and largely financed from the banking system which used it for the politics’ destruction]. Yes, yes, I know, the Oxbridge and para-Oxbridge propaganda tells that there was a fight of angels against evils, angels suddenly prevailed in 1992/1993, but not totally because that horrible entrepreneur, now again head of the government from 2001 to 2006, disrupted the irresistible angels’ action making it failing! It is so sounding, ...that only “peculiar” minds can really believe such tales. ...angels versus evils, as a key for “interpreting” social and historical dynamics! Prosecutors, deceptively renamed “judges”, as angels and immaculate executioners of the “new era”... Anyway, such are the XX and XXI century academicians, or some militant part of them.

There is relevant historical evidence that, in the post-Berlin Wall phase [after 1989], the Italic monopolistic capitalism had already understood that the Presidency of the Republic was the key institutional centre for such a subversive operation and it had already operated in various ways for “occupying” this position. With “relevant historical evidence” I mean both reserved intelligence reports (but in Italy everything becomes public, in fact there published sources), and specialists’ debates, plus what really happened from 1989 at politico-institutional level in Italy: a harsh fight having as object the conquest, the occupation, of the key position the Presidency of the Republic represented. The Quirinale, the Palace of the Kings, and later of the Presidents, of Italy, is, in Italy, the classic position for coups d’Ètat. It depends on the odd Constitutions, both formal and real ones, the Italic State had. It is evident why academicians never talk about that, overall now that the Quirinale assaulted the political system and centralised all the power in its hands, with international benediction.

Consequently, if one discussed seriously, scientifically, of what happened, it would not be serious to present the events as casual or self-propelling ones as in some avalanche effect. It would not be serious from a scientific point of view, although it is essential from a propagandistic point of view to tell mythological tales about reality dynamics. The assault was organised. However, nothing ever goes according plans, overall where the State corrupted bureaucracy and the parasitic para-State “private” economy are not at all efficient. Neither that went. Nevertheless, the assault was running since the Berlin wall collapse [9 November 1989] and the different geopolitical conditions that determined. Certainly, the Berlin wall collapse was not a sudden event. The retreat, or anyway the weak reply, of the USSR in front of the Polish uprising testified that the Russian freezing of half Europe wanted from the British was inexorably ending. The concrete meaning for Italy was that the party of the monopolistic-parasitic capital, the PCI, freed from USSR links was freely and openly usable from the same monopolistic-parasitic capital against the DC and for taking over the central government. Since the PCI had a limited and shrinking electoral consensus, the only possible option was to destroy the fractions of the other parties opposed it. Nobody of the different fractions of the ruling classes became “communist”. Simply, the Italic “communists” became more compradori and prostituted than before. What now was anyway universally acceptable, since the end of its soviet conditioning and prostitution.

After 9 November 1989, the Italic processes were rapidly and, very likely, inexorably running. The national forces (the Centre as before defined), which tried some open resistance, had already been weakened from decades of foreign and compradoro assaults to national components of the Italic financial system. In 1992, the key institutional position the President of the Republic represented was finally conquered from the monopolistic/parasitic capitalism and the big assault against politics [alias against incorruptible politicians] launched. Background ingredients have been the absence of a ruling class, the absence of an Italic or Italian nation [Italy was artificially created, around 1860, since British decision], strong inter-municipal rivalries, the Italic propensity to the struggle of everybody against everybody [there are historical reasons, decidedly more serious and materialistic than the squalid lies on incorruptible “judges” became pure executioners].

About the written “history”, the tale telling, on these events, do you know Orwell, 1984?! Languages create reality, how reality of perceived and believed. You call an incorruptible Statesman, “corrupt”. You call corrupt and corrupted politicians, “new and modern ruling class”. You call parasitic financiers, personages just destroying companies and industries, “innovative entrepreneurs”. You call new and competitive entrepreneurs “mafia men with an obscure past”. If you have London, New York and the Trade Unions from your side, you are “right” and who/which you slander are inevitably “wrong”. You call corrupt and from-you-corrupted detectives, magistrates, etc., “the public life moralisers”. And so on. If you produced “The Godfather” about the real mafia controlled and controls New York, and not only New York, you would be accused of “anti-Semitism” and jailed or killed before starting such a movie. You would not even be able to start to produce such a movie. However, if you produce it about and against who/which has no real power anywhere, not even in New York, you are a hero, a great fighter against crimes and criminals, a great artist, writer, film maker, you have money and honours, you have recognition. It is the same if you do “journalism”, “history”, “political “science””. It is the same! Rubbish but from the “right side” is diamonds. Honest reporting and analysis but from the “wrong side” are ignominious, not at all convenient. Real scientific analysis may not have any concern whether a side be “right”, “wrong” or whatever else.

Easy, really, very “easy Watson”, in such circumstances, a coup d’Etat, a very long coup d’Etat, under the cover of the tale of “corruption” and other slanders, for further weakening an already weak State and economy! Have you ever see winners, or anyway powers, to tell they were corrupted and the defeated were honest, to tell they were just inept profiteers and the defeated decidedly more effective and competent than them in ruling a State?!

Donatella della Porta is, or was, one of the most internationally known campaigners on “Italian” “corruption”. Her elaboration, or “elaboration”, is, or was, representative of the reassuring discourses, just squalid propaganda and deception, usually made/invented on the 1992/1993 political purge and on its continuation against the immediately reorganised Centre. I disagree totally form her, not only because she knows The Truth and where it is, but overall because, for me, she founds her Truth on falsities, and only on falsities, which are recurrent in those of her essays I have seen.

They are: della Porta, D., Lo scambio occulto, Il Mulino, Bologna, Italy, 1992; della Porta, D., Social movements, political violence, and the state. A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany, Cambridge University Press, 1995b; della Porta, D., Political parties and corruption: reflection on the Italian case, in Modern Italy, 1 (1), Autumn 1995, 97-114; della Porta, D., H. Kriesi, et al., Social movements in a globalizing world, MacMillan Press & St. Martin's Press, 1999a; della Porta, D. and Y. Mény, Democracy and corruption in Europe, Pinter, 1997; della Porta, D. and A. Vannucci, Corruzione politica e amministrazione pubblica. Risorse, meccanismi, attori, Il Mulino, Bologna, Italy, 1994; della Porta, D. and A. Vannucci, Un paese anormale. Come la classe politica ha perso l’occasione di Mani Pulite, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari, Italy, 1999; della Porta, D., A judges’ revolution? Political corruption and the judiciary in Italy, European Journal of Political Research, 39, 2001, 1-21.

I refer here specifically to the last I have seen: della Porta, D., A judges’ revolution? Political corruption and the judiciary in Italy, European Journal of Political Research, 39, 2001, 1-21. I present here, under form of synthetic notes, a short list of points and questions are part of the deception currently realised inside the academic networks on the 1990s and further Italy.

A conclusion, if there were anyone really interested in scientific analysis and intellectual honesty, should be that no sounding rewriting of what seems sounding, or one simulates to oneself be sounding, could be of any utility for the analysis of political and institutional dynamics and their comparison. ...Academicians frequently work just quoting each other. Convenient tales are repeated and repeated until they seem true and universally accepted. They are “universally” accepted, although they remain tale and lies, without any analytic utility. If interested in scientific analysis, one should go back to reality and without political and other interests’ frames obstructing from looking for it and seeing it. Certainly, reality is never univocal and “The Truth” never exists. However, tales, pure tales, exist. They are also easily recognisable, if one wants. It is a question of analytic method and of information, instead of using unfounded ideologies, abusively redenominated “theories”, just useful for covering the absence of information and for changing not liked information substituting it with lies. When the method is just to look for the “information” needed for reaching the “right” conclusions, information research and information analysis is certainly useless. In such circumstances, people just invent. To rewrite what already seems sounding is anyway easier and speedier: a sure gain for the academic productivity of the academician, his/her career, revenues, “social” recognition! Rubbish is convenient, although it remains rubbish, ...even if nearly everybody says, if the rubbish is orthodox and orthodoxly written rubbish: “oh, these are real diamonds!”

Etiam si omnes, ego non!

My short list of points and questions on deceptions currently realised inside the academic networks on the 1990s and further Italy:

1. Donatella della Porta insists in defining as “judges” (della Porta 2001, p. 1 and 2) those who actually are just simple prosecutors, actually substitute-prosecutors generally. She calls “judiciary” what is prosecution function: “Italy seems therefore to have the most committed judges in the struggle against corruption […]” (della Porta 2001, p. 1); “I will examine the role of the judiciary in the fight against corruption.” (della Porta 2001, p. 1); “the unusual degree of activism of the judges in the investigation against corruption […]” (della Porta 2001, p. 2). She creates her imaginary world. No judge investigates either fights, in the real word. A judge judges. It is true that, in Italy, the same prosecutors self-defines “judges”, what is certainly evidence of some relevant aberrant confusion there is in their role and institutionally. It is a sure piece of evidence of some very serious Constitutional aberration, where prosecutors tell they are “judges”. If one were [scientifically] rigorous and honest, this aspect should be denounced and explained, instead of used for deceiving ...those who want to be deceived and want to reproduce the deception.

2. Donatella della Porta confuses the “autonomy of the judiciary” (della Porta 2001, p. 2), “judiciary” which even in Montesquieu is not really a power and anyway not of the same level of the Legislative and Executive ones, with prosecutors and prosecution function, which, only in abusive contexts are [pseudo-]“autonomous”. It apparently sounds well to write: “all democratic countries grant formal autonomy to the judiciary.” (della Porta 2001, p. 2).
Prosecutors and the prosecution function are nor “judges”, so they are not “judiciary”. Either Della Porta is incompetent, or she is operating an intentional deception, or both. In fact, she constantly confuses judges and prosecutors. And she is a campaigner for the autonomy of prosecutors. “Autonomous” from whom or what?!
See some examples about the precise meaning of judiciary:
The branch of government invested with judicial power to interpret and apply the law; the court system; the body of judges; then bench.
Judiciary - The Courts that enforce laws and protect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This branch of government is independent from the legislature and the executive.
The Judges and the Court System.
S: (n) judiciary, bench (persons who administer justice)
S: (n) judiciary, judicature, judicatory, judicial system (the system of law courts that administer justice and constitute the judicial branch of government)
Actually, in Italy, judges were really “autonomous” [submitted only or overall to law], anyway considerably more that these last decades, during the so-called “fascism” (when the King of Italy named Mussolini as Head of the Government). However, when prosecutors are de facto part of an improperly called “judiciary”, not only the use of the word judiciary for all magistrates is an etymological error. “Judiciary” comes from “judges”. Dictionary definitions tell that it consists of all the judges in the country’s courts of law. On the contrary, prosecution is a police function. What must be evidenced is that where prosecutors and judges belong to the same order, judges are not any more autonomous. It is the Italian case, since the 1948 Constitution, and overall since the creation of the CSM [Magistracy Superior Board], prosecutors abuse judges.
In fact, if the same institution, the same bureaucracy, prosecutes and judges, with judges just as checkers of the prosecutors’ work, inevitably there is no formal independence of the judgment’s moment. Lawyers and barristers do not participate to the evidence formation in front of an independent court, but they are obliged to deal with the prosecution and police evidence’s creation.
Despite it is nearly two decades half Parliament is trying to introduce the so-called accusatory system (accusatory trial), that has been and is resisted in all possible way from Prosecutors. Even now, that it is formally working, it has not really taken off, it is not really fully implemented. The judge checker of the prosecutors work is not exactly the judge who judges: he/she is connected with the prosecutors and the prosecution, what is not exactly judges’ independence. If a judge shows independence from prosecutors, prosecutors can create evidence against independent judges, jail and prosecute them: it really happened in the Italy liked and promoted from judicialist scholars. When some of these falsely accused judges were finally declared innocent, they continued to be discriminated in all possible way and, in the most clamorous cases, it was de facto [illegally] denied to them to continue to be judges. On the contrary, the most squalid butchers and inept magistrates, but militant judicialist, continued to be “successful” prosecutors or judges [there was and there is, now they are called GIP, a category of judges in Italy very similar to prosecutors and generally to them totally subordinated], politicians, statesmen, public speakers, media opinionists, etc.
Even more: for what concerns the Prosecution Offices, and specifically substitute-prosecutors having had leading positions in the purges/coups, there is wide and public evidence that the judges immediately and directed checking the prosecutors’ work, the so called GIP [Giudici delle Indagini Preliminari, Judges of the Preliminary Investigations] were just servants of the prosecutors, even de facto selected from them. Such is the “judges independence” so appreciated from the Oxbridgist deception!
The Italic case shows that with prosecutors as formal part of the judiciary machine and, in addition, enjoying wide powers and de facto a status and privileges well superior to those of judges, judges are not independent but subordinated to prosecutors, overall to the untouchable judicialist ones. Overall in the Italic 1990s, there is a long list of cases of intimidations and purges realised from judicialist prosecutors against judges and even against Justice Ministry inspectors, in Italy a corps formed by magistrates temporarily assigned to this Justice Ministry’s inspective function. The more prosecutors are “independent” or “autonomous” [from government], whatever the structural and/or occasional reasons, and the more they are organically inside the “judiciary” machine without barriers separating them from judges, the more judges are dependent from prosecutors. Prosecutors uncontrolled from government are institutionally corrupted and exposed to the manipulation from other powerful interests and to the submission to them. Prosecutors become irresponsible. They become de facto responsible only to the clans can freely corrupt/condition them.
The citizen, not only politics and institutions, is without rights because in such contexts citizens cannot really summon State in front of an independent court, if they repute themselves damaged from a State (so also prosecutors) action or inaction. More banally than sounding tale telling, prosecutors initially [in the first phase of their degeneration, in republican Italy] corrupted and controlled from political networks passed later under the full and absolute corruption and control from parasitic finance: it paid and pays them more and, since 1992, it is organically part of the social base of the Presidency of the Republic. The President of the Republic is the President of the CSM, the board governing magistrates. It is possible to corrupt State functionaries, magistrates included, in a more relevant way than just giving them some occasional cash. Who showed self-respect and autonomy [autonomy relatively to the circuit Presidency of the Republic, corrupted bureaucracies, parasitic finance with its media] was intimidated, slandered and persecuted, so purged from the judiciary and prosecution machines.
Dalla Porta surely lived in another world, in a word of sounding tales. So, she knows nothing about reality.

3. The structural corruption of the Italian judiciary and prosecution machine derived from the CSM, its Constitutional position, its structure, its powers, from the constitution of the CSM/ANM in de facto the third Chamber of the Italian Parliament on “judicial” questions, in the growing bureaucratic autonomy of civil servants (as magistrates are) from systemic needs in name of their autonomous caste and personal interests, with subsequent total corruption and feudalisation of the State machine.
The CSM is the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (Magistracy Superior Board), which is formally a simple administrative board of magistracy self-government. However, in a context of odd and weak Constitution, it became something different. The ANM, the Associazione Nazionale Magistrati (Magistrates’ National Association), is a private association of magistrates, one of their Trade Unions. Actually, the ANM is the main one, representing the large majority of magistrates. Inside the ANM there are formally organised political factions. Through the mediation among the different factions, the political line of the ANM is elaborated and implemented. For a series of structural reasons, there is a certain parallelism between the ANM and the CSM: certainly both defend and try to extend magistrates’ bureaucratic corporatism.
The point of the structural corruption is well more serious and delicate, from the point of view of the institutional analysis, than the [in Italy] well protected personal corruption overall when magistrates belong to the judicialist’s untouchable clans or are functional to them.
Institutional corruption of a well paid and well privileged State corps combines with personal corruption, which even when discovered was and is systematically covered from the CSM and from magistracy, if the magistrate is functional to the judicialist and corporative networks. Actually, the Italian prosecutors intercept everybody in Italy. Illegally, they cover themselves and who do not need to be “politically” [systemically; “system” is the corrupted and parasitic order] targeted, included who need to be economically [for reasons connected to the preservation of the parasitic finance domination] targeted. For example, compare the different behaviour with Berlusconi [a privileged target of the President of the Republic party] and everybody else, or the behaviour with the Coop when they tried to buy a bank [not allowed from the parasitic finance, which wants the ex-PCI just a servant, not a puppet master] and with the case Telecom, now in these days, where the interests of the Corsera [the main Italian newspaper owned by a decisive fraction of the parasitic finance/capitalism] “soviet” do not tolerate magistracy interference they themselves do not eventually want. Who need to be targeted enjoys a broad and insistent defamation by media. Intercepted telephone calls or other private conversations, with other judicial material, even with any real criminal relevance, are diffused using in first instance friendly media. In the case of people needed to be protected, nothing arrives to media and enquiries are not even opened or if opened are forgotten. Outsiders are persecuted. Insiders to the corrupted parasitic order are protected. Again, a comparison between the Coop case and the Telecom case would be a recent very good example of partisan use of the prosecution function. Della Porta calls that “magistracy independence”?! ...academicians deliria...
Donatella della Porta prefers the ground of the historical and factual confusion (della Porta 2001, p. 3-6). She needs to deceive on the constitution of the Italian magistracy, previously a liberal one, in an “autonomous” and abusive corporation. The Italian magistracy case is a case of nearly irresistible bureaucratic corporatism. ...Or very difficultly resistible: the “crime” of Berlusconi is of having resisted, fought, and sometimes won against this corporation, the Presidency of the Republic and the whole corruption and parasitism party using judicialist magistracy.
Although for hiding this aspect, the entire literature on Italy repeats the well sounding slander of the pre-existent “fascist magistracy”, a “fascist magistracy” never existed in Italy. During the Mussolini governments, magistracy remained liberal. In fact, for the contingent repression’s reasons, special courts (not really very repressive according the international standards of those times) were created instead of using ordinary magistracy. It is true that leftists and conformists like to call “fascist” whatever they dislike (as rightists call “communist” part of what they dislike). Leftist magistrates justified their partial take-over of magistracy and their “class use of law” with the argument that they represented renewal relatively to “fascist magistrates”. Actually, “fascists” were very happy to cooperate with leftist judicialism: their anti-capitalist and obscurantist background was the same, as well as the background of extremist-centrist [catholic or not] judicialist magistrates. One should look through “political” labels. Labels are really of no importance. They are only ordinary deceptions.
Precisely, along what della Porta represents as a process towards magistracy independence [independence from what, if the politico-economic history of the last decades is history of soviet-style purges?!], magistracy progressively self-constituted, from the 1960s, in corporative networks of private feuds. It was not really what was called, “political delegation to magistracy”, “magistracy substitution function”, etc. It was a government technique. Magistracy corporative networks of private feuds were functional to a government technique where the personal fidelity to politico-institutional personages permitted to bypass Parliament. A key figure was Giulio Andreotti, with his police and intelligence apparatuses, before he was liquidated, in 1992/1993, from the Mediobanca clique [the monopolistic-comprador parasitic-speculative finance and economy], which took over real government. Temporarily destroyed the political parties in 1992/1993, real government passed to somebody/somewhat else, by the absolutely precisely targeted action of prosecutors’ and magistracy clans.
Despite the very serious damages and disasters (partial collapse of the already weak economy, wide-spreading bureaucratic corruption, increased institutional weakness), Italy was decidedly more resilient to judicialist assaults than other historical cases. One may think to another “mystery” of contemporary history, that other coup d’Etat sui generis called Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) in China. One may basically find the same structural elements and dynamics, and also the same Oxbridgist deception, in spite of the different contexts.
At the end of the processes started in the 1960s, the CSM acquired full autonomisation from government, while there was the growing, inside magistracy, of clans pursuing the “class” [de facto corporative and private] utilisation of “Justice” for destroying “capitalism”, or, better, the very little of market capitalism there was in Italy. The most anti-modernising Catholic Leftism and ultra-Leftism combined with the pro-Soviet anxieties expressed from the pro-PCI and pro-ultra-leftist groups’ sympathisers inside magistracy. It was the perfect humus needed from the Mediobanca clique. Sociological dynamics of bureaucratic autonomisation, as well as some trade-unionist logics, well explains the kind of pact realised between leftist extremism and the mass of magistrates surely not at all indifferent to the improvement of their salaries, benefits, status and untouchableness.
The mass of magistrates followed in some way the leftist minorities, certainly without any formal adhesion to them, in exchange of the material benefits everybody would have acquired and in exchange of the non-interference of [leftist and para-leftist] political magistrates in the eventual private business of the mass of magistrates. In addition, it was a leftism and ultra-leftism always at the service of the regime, of the economic “right”, not at all a dangerous subversive [relatively to well rooted powers] leftism. They were opportunist leftist, not idealistic, pure and honest ones. If somebody was really idealistic, pure and honest, he/she was purged from his/her “comrades”. Magistracy effectively acquired the promised material benefits: traditionally, the magistrates’ salaries were modest, what radically changed with this corporative self-constitution of magistracy, which imposed to governments and Parliaments incredible benefits and privileges. (Mellini, M., Il golpe dei giudici, Spirali/Vel, Milano, Italy, 1994), (Mellini, M., Toghe padrone. Mani pulite andata e ritorno, Spirali/Vel, Milano, Italy, 1996). Anyway, magistracy “imposed” all these things because there were different obscurantist forces anxious to use it for its own interests.
This kind of processes (but without the same material benefits for the mass of the civil servants) verified in all the Italian bureaucracies with parallel forms of State weakening and dissolution. The reasons of these processes (what we have previously called a government technique) are certainly rooted in the already pre-existent systemic weakness of the Italian space [Italy was a State but not really a Country with a ruling class]. Politics’ real “crimes” are at these levels, more than at those of illegal financing, a banal administrative violation where anyway corporate funds were more stolen from private managers than really given to political parties.
The politics’ formal “crimes”, used from the 1992/1993 purge and coup d’Etat, were create by the same political class, by the 1974 law on State financing of political parties and confirmed with other, even more ignominious and hypocritical, laws. However, the existing laws were never really implemented, neither prosecuted nor sanctioned by prosecutors and judges. Did they magically become “heroic” and “pure” executioners in 1992? Do supposes political scientists really reason in this way and do really believe in such tales?
The entrepreneurs refused to finance legally political parties. They were available only for “illegal financing”. There were certainly systemic specificities for explaining why these entrepreneurs pretended to finance political parties but only illegally and eventually through their illegal foreign accounts. In addition there were small entrepreneurs who worked for public boards, who were obliged to pay [actually reduced] percentages to political parties and/or to corrupted bureaucrats generally protected from the Trade Unions. The Oxbridgist agitation just falsely claims “politics corruption” without explaining nothing of the real complexity of the phenomena of illegal financing, which, by itself, is not corruption, and, eventually, where really corruption was and remained ...well protected from judicialist magistracy. I insist: judicial magistracy is the most corrupted part of the corrupted State bureaucracy, and it covers the State bureaucracy corruption. It is too easy, but absolutely false, to repeat the deception of the “pure” butchers, one day magically appeared. Supposed it be of any relevance, it better to continuously underline that the purge or purges, the coup or coups d’État, protected and diffused corruption. They did not fight against it. The della Porta “heroes” are only inventions and deceptions. The corruption protection and promotion was their function. Differently, the great fraud of the false “privatisations”, without any liberalisation, to the regimes supporters and friends would have been impossible, as well as the collapse of the Italian lira devaluated of 1/3 as consequence of the running coup d’État. In practice, Italy was devaluated of 1/3 plus further damaged in the structure of its already not flourishing economy. Why in 1992? Because euro was approaching and the parasitic monopolistic capitalism, with its corrupted State bureaucracies and its Trade Unions, plus its leftist and other valets in this way perpetuated of another decade the italic underdevelopmental model of currency devaluation drugged economy. Parasitic monopolistic capitalism tried even to remain outside euro and charged the Prime Minister Prodi of the operation but Prodi failed and so his puppet masters removed him from office in 1998. Then, there were also secondary questions, as some Prodi gift-privatisation to his other friends instead than to his main puppet masters. Certainly, they later created the legend of Prodi Euro hero, as well as the other tale of the conspiracy of D’Alema against Prodi. Just deception. Gianni Agnelli and Cuccia were professionals of State domination. Gianni Agnelli habitually convoked Ministers and Prime Minister, overall his own puppets but not only, in his private apartments in Rome, or elsewhere, and gave them orders. His own puppets ought to obey. There was a kind of mafia law. Such is “capitalism”, in Italy. Such is the Italic “left”... ...even more after 1992. This is why academicians prefer to tell the tales of the pure “judges”-heroes suddenly [and mysteriously] appeared!
Come back to illegal financing. This double regime, with a formal law whose violation everybody knew ought not to be pursued, was tutored from magistracy until other interests did not impose different course for a while and in a very selective way: just for firing the political Centre and only it. Already before 1992/1993, prosecutors were used, but in a more limited way, for firing political and bureaucratic fraction, liquidating section of the Italic economy antagonist to the international finance, changing governments and determining political courses. All the 1970s and 1980s financial fights between pro-international finance and pro-National-“Catholic” fractions were fought using magistracy. The same P2 (a Grand Orient covered Lodge) 1980s affair, and the consequent pro-De Mita DC-Lefts take-over of the DC Secretary Office, were political and power restructuring operations triggered pushing magistrates on initiative of international and internal factions. The Milan Prosecution Office and the then so-called Examining Office had a key role in them. Consequently, it had old link with the British and US police services. Some of the same magistrates participated later to the 1992/1993 pogrom against the government old majority and, immediately later, to the attempt of destroying a Berlusconi guilty of having reorganised the Centre, so contrasting the monopolistic and bureaucratic take-over of the Italian State. The milieus and the interests groups were basically the same ones of the previous decades. There was no hero-magistrate suddenly coming out from Mars, in 1992. There was not hero at all, but just interaction among interests, with the usual usage of butchers at payroll.
The sources there are, and abundant, if one were interested. Some titles are: Bonini, C., and F. Misiani, La toga rossa. Storia di un giudice, Marco Tropea Editore, Milan, Italy, 1998; Borrelli, F. S., [edited from Corrado De Cesare], Borrelli. Corruzione e giustizia, Kaos Edizioni, Milan, Italy, 1999; Colombo, G., Il vizio della memoria, Feltrinelli, Milano, Italy, 1996; Diaconale, A., Tecnica postmoderna del colpo di stato: magistrati e giornalisti, Spirali/Vel, 1995; Gargani, G. and C. Panella, In nome dei pubblici ministeri. Dalla Costituente a Tangentopoli: storia di leggi sbagliate, Mondadori, Milano, Italy, 1998; Geronimo, [Paolo Cirino Pomicino], Strettamente riservato. Le memorie di un superministro della Prima Repubblica, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 2000; Jannuzzi, L., Il processo del secolo. Come e perché è stato assolto Andreotti, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 2000; Lehner, G., La strategia del ragno. Scalfaro, Berlusconi e il Pool, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 1996; Lehner, G., Attentato al governo Berlusconi. Articolo 289 del Codice Penale, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 1997; Lehner, G., Toga! Toga! Toga!. Parole in libertà sulla giustizia italiana, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 1998; Mele, V., Procuratore a Roma, Tempo Lungo Edizioni, Naples, Italy, 2001; Mellini, M., Il golpe dei giudici, Spirali/Vel, Milano, Italy, 1994; Mellini, M., Toghe padrone. Mani pulite andata e ritorno, Spirali/Vel, Milano, Italy, 1996; Paciotti, E., Sui magistrati. La questione della giustizia in Italia, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari, Italy, 1999; Pizzorno, A., Il potere dei giudici. Stato democratico e controllo della virtù, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari, Italy, 1998.

4. Lots of legends have been created on the magistracy action in the South of Italy. Since the same Oxbridgist propaganda is continuing to represent the South as always [a land of criminals, actually the whole Italy, for los ingleses is only a land of criminals; what they do not tell is that decisive fractions of the Southern “organised criminality” are “organised” from the English and the Americans], evidently the merits of the acclaimed “judges” are others. Perhaps they are praised for having contributed to keep the South underdeveloped, for having eliminated non-comprador politicians, for having fought the “organised criminality” non subordinated to the London-New York world masonry and finance.
Donatella della Porta, from her Tuscan university, naturally subscribes all the Oxbridgist stereotypes diffused for defaming the South of Italy and for obstructing the development of capitalism there (della Porta 2001, p. 5/6). For historical truth, we have to underline that, whatever the Oxbridgist deceptions, capitalism develops everywhere “organised criminality” becomes State (see Flanders, UK, USA), while it is obstructed everywhere “heroes”, Robin Hoods, fight the becoming State of this capitalist “organised criminality”. Yes, Oxbridge and its Hollywood movies tell other things, their weel sounding tales. Novels and movies are always used for operating the people brainwashing (or brain-dirtying) with the “right” angels and evils.
The fighting against the formation and/or consolidation of a Southern bourgeoisie is what was and is actually done from the large majority of the self-claiming anti-Clans “fighters”. Who did not do that was carefully purged or physically eliminated during the 1992/1993 coups. Ms. Della Porta always pretends to know where not only the Truth is, but also where absolute Goodness and absolute Evil are. However, when real anti-Clans magistrates operated in the South, they were obstructed, defamed and harshly fought from the Lefts, exactly from the judicialist Left fractions were part of the political take-over of the 1990s. There were also liberal fractions of the Left, included fractions which in the South worked against the usual defaming and self-defaming propaganda and for forms of real modernisation. All these fractions were purged during the process of total subordination of antimodernising Catholic and Stalinist Lefts to the judicialist and parasitic high finance needs. If MPs of the 1992-1994 Legislature resisted to the line of judicialist purge of the political enemies, they were not any more candidates in the PDS and in the PPI (the party very partially replaced, in the 1994 general elections, a “judicially” annihilated DC) lists.
The defamation work against real anti-Clans magistrates and politicians was, for instance, what was systematically done from the Catholic-leftist-judicialist politicians and movements, and from the judicialist fractions of the PCI/PDS and bushes around it. It would be very interesting an objective historical reconstruction (what in Italy would be evidently impossible since the persisting terrorism of judicialist cliques) of the role, in Sicily, of the Palermo Catholic-leftist-judicialist intellectual and politician Leoluca Orlando Cascio, and his La Rete, an extremist political movement launched in cooperation with a Jesuit fraction had a relevant role in the 1990s events. It would be certainly useful also a careful examination of the role of Centrist and Rightist personages as Falcone and Borsellino [two State functionaries: Sicilian magistrates in Sicily], become “heroes” [for the judicialist left] only because killed and only after they have been killed [perhaps from someone of the same acclaimed them just killed]. Anyway a scientific analysis, out from media propaganda, should carefully discriminate between personal anxieties and honesties, and the objective role played from relevant historical actors. State functionaries, when they do honestly their job, may be great relatively to what is requested to them. However, what is requested to them may be miserable, or just contradictory and confused, and eventually destructive of common/“national” interests. Propaganda simply confuses everything and claims the “hero” or condemns the “demon”. For propaganda, everything is a fight to be exalted or condemned, everybody is either hero or demon. Reality is different.
This defamation work against real anti-Clans magistrates and politicians was realised in explicit links with Prosecution Offices or their fractions, and internal and international investigative apparatuses which provided decisive help in the defamation work. This defamation and demolition work operated from the judicialist clans against real anti-Clans magistrates and politicians found meaningful convergence with Clans, which never operate and kill without power connections. “Organised criminality” is such because protected from governments/States, firstly British and US in South Italy, and in cooperation with them: see history... Judicialist magistrates in the South operated not at all against Clans friends of their interests’ block. They acted only against enemies of their clique: when a Family/Clan is targeted, it is only a way for promoting other ones. It was what the Palermo magistrate Falcone seemed to have finally understood. His 1980s action against certain Sicilian Clans had been de facto at service of the FBI-DEA, which was well present and operational active in Sicily, in the South and in the whole Italic peninsula. In the 1980, the FBI-DEA liquidated any influence of the already always weak traditional Sicilian and other Southerner Italic Clans [in New York, for example, the strongest Mafia, even in the “golden” years, was not an Italic one; it was the Eastern European-Yiddish one; clearly movies don’t talk about that: their function is deception] on the US territory. The illegal businesses of the US government, and protected from it, followed other roads, so other Clans, of other areas of the world, needed to be promoted. Made the job, with the cooperation of compradoro fractions of the Italic State, these same compradoro fractions of the Italic State wanted to used the same magistrates had collaborated, from Italy, with the FBI-DEA assaults, for assaulting now the whole Italic politics and institutions.
It was the end of the 1980s. Falcone refused. He was immediately under the fire of the so-called “antimafia” movement and associations of Leoluca Orlando Cascio with his La Rete (a Catholic-leftist extremist group) and of the judicialist Lefts become the anti-capitalist new Clans of the South. This leftist, but also rightist, “anti-mafia” movement represented de facto the Clans of the speculation on the State funds to waste in consumption expenditure, against the economic and social take off of the South by the formation and consolidation of entrepreneurial classes. Authors as Sciascia [a writer and an intellectual] and members of liberal fractions of the PCI had already denounced that. However, they were submerged firstly by the judicialist ideological violence and later from the deception built on the military violence of Clans operated in parallel with the judicialist waves and de facto in the same direction.
A lot of deception has been created, in Italy and internationally, on the two massacres and some single homicides realised from Clans in Sicily in 1992. On 12 March 1992, the killing of the European MP Salvo Lima had already represented a judicialist warning to Andreotti and the National Prosecution Office his government was creating. That killing was also something subtler: the removal of the only person, of the few ones having direct access to Andreotti, could be fruitful advisor on what was happening in Sicily and in the world of the Sicilian Clans. Falcone was then impressed from the absolute oddness, from the point of view of a strict Clans’ logic, of that sudden homicide. The judicialist deception slandered in all possible way the dead Lima: judicialists needed to protect themselves and their Clans, and the Sicilian side of the running coup d’Etat operation. They invented that he was killed because he and Andreotti had promised the acquittal of all the defendants of the so-called maxi-trial against Sicilian families. On 10 December 1991, the Cassation Court had confirmed the trial’s sentences of a previous maxi-trial against Palermo and Sicilian Clans. The European MP Lima was so “worried” that he actually had no protection. He had no bodyguard and he moved without any kind precaution. He was even so “corrupted” that neither him nor the members of his family had any wealth. On the contrary, “honest” and “moral” people slandered him and wanted his death were very wealthy, in addition of being untouchable because they were the real organised criminality with FBI and other protections. Inside the Sicilian and Palermo’s DC, who was traditionally furiously against him [it is a public information] was Orlando Cascio. Since this irreducible hate against Lima, Orlando split from the DC and created, with the support of a Palermo Jesuits’ faction [another one was with Lima and Andreotti], his personal political movement, La Rete. Killed Lima, the Lima case was managed from the judicialist factions. The trial, theoretically against the Lima killers, was transformed in a trial against the “criminal” Lima. Actually, the first trial, from October 1994 to the summer 1998, started before his physical killers were discovered. Real defendants were not necessary. The real defendant was Lima and an imaginary “mafia” he ought to be betrayed. It was an apodictic trial: he ought to have been a mafia-man; he ought to have betrayed; so, he ought to have been executed. The “clamorous” and continuous Palermo trials were frequently mere theatrical shows with the same imaginary Cupola [the supposed, but in reality absolutely improbable as evidence shows, central and hyper-centralised direction of the Sicilian “organised criminality”] tried and sentenced for whatever crime. ...typical usual tale telling for the popular masses, sounding crusades, instead of pursuing criminals. Instead of discovering, chasing, trying and sentencing criminal, the some supposed bosses were repeatedly sentenced for whatever crime. The Lima direct killers, when finally [apparently] discovered, were nearly immediately freed because “justice collaborators”, without any interest for discovering who actually hired them and why. They were well happy to go free to their same trial for defaming Lima according the Palermo Prosecutors’ and the defamatory theorems of the Parliament’s Antimafia Commission Presided from Violante (PCI/PDS). Differently they would have been rearrested as false and unreliable “justice collaborators”. Who was a real “justice collaborators” was decided according pre-defined “truths”. The Lima family was even without the money for paying a barrister for following the trial and trying contrasting the defamation against Lima. Andreotti was too busy with his own trials, all very long [years and years] and very expensive. When a then reliable justice collaborator and Clans’ real top-level boss, Giovanni Brusca, recounted that Lima was killed as a first strike against Andreotti and the so-called First Republic, strikes asked from the real powers were in direct touch with the bosses’ boss Riina, the Brusca confessions were listen with deep anxiety and irritation, and refused as lies from who was interested only in the defamation of Lima and Andreotti. When Brusca told things not consistent with pre-determined official [judicialist] “truths”, he was now threatened from prosecutors, and interrogated for days and days, until he told what judicialist prosecutors wanted to listen and only that, now simply ignored.
[See: Caltanisetta Prosecution Office,
http://www.itdf.pa.cnr.it/web/PRAESIDIUM/PROCESSO/PROCURA/proc3.html; Biagi, E., Il fatto, Nuova ERI-Rizzoli, Italy, 1995, p. 21, Bufacchi, V. and S. Burgess, Italy since 1989. Events and interpretations, MacMillan Press Ltd, London, UK, 1998, p. 35; Buscetta, T., [interviewed from Saverio Lodato], La Mafia ha vinto, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 1999; Ingargiola, F., S. Barresi, and A. Balsamo, [Motivations of the] Sentenza [of the Palermo process against Andreotti, concluded on 23 October 1999], 2000. [Integral version:
http://www-5.radioradicale.it/Sentenza_andreotti/Sommario.htm ; Jannuzzi, L., Il processo del secolo. Come e perché è stato assolto Andreotti, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 2000; Vincenzo Vasile in Tranfaglia, N., Cirillo, Ligato e Lima. Tre storie di mafia e politica, Laterza, Rome-Bari, Italy, 1994, p. 259, Violante, L., Il patto scellerato. Potere e politica di un regime mafioso, Crescenzi Allendorf Editori, Rome, Italy, 1993, p. 94); Panorama, 2 May 1993, (Biagi 1995, p. 302); Saverio Lodato, Caso Andreotti. Indagato regista Rai, l’Unità, 28 January 1995; Buscetta, uomo leale anche con se stesso, Corsera, 30 September 1999; Lino Jannuzzi, Falcone ha cominciato a morire con Salvo Lima, Giornale, 1 November 1999; Lino Jannuzzi, Brusca svela i misteri dell’omicidio Lima ma i Pm lo ignorano, Giornale, 10 January 2000; «Quelle stragi di mafia sono state ordinate da chi sta molto in alto», Stampa, 8 June 2000].
Since the for him mephitic environment was created in Sicily under the mounting terrorism of the judicialist clans with FBI-DEA support, and for working creating a National Anti-Mafia Super-Prosecution Office [a kind if Italic FBI], in March 1991 Falcone moved to Rome to the Justice Ministry. Formally, he was appointed Director of an Office. Actually, in Rome, by the Justice Ministry, in collaboration with the Andreotti (DC) government and the Justice Minister Martelli (PSI), he operated for creating, with the furious opposition of the judicialist Lefts, a National Super-Prosecution Office and its special Police, the DIA. From an institutional point of view, that was something absolutely innovative in a weak Constitutional context which led to a further feudalisation of the already weak and feudalised pre-republican State. It might be either something odd and dangerous, or the first step [such was the point of view of Falcone] for overcoming the Constitutional oddness of the feudalised system of irresponsible prosecutors [falsely] submitted the fiction of the “compulsory prosecution” of all crimes. Actually, all the anti-“mafia” legislation, action and rhetoric are institutionally and socially devastating, in fact Falcone easily overcame the first objection simply telling to the government that he had thought of the National Super-Prosecution Office and of the DIA for himself and that he was the guarantor that they would have not been used against the Italian institutions. Falcone had already expressed the point of view that Prosecutors should be put under government control overcoming the current arbitrariness of the Prosecution work. In practice, until now, each Prosecutor and substitute prosecutor decides which crimes to prosecute and who actually to prosecute. It is impossible prosecute all the crimes. Only a tiny fraction can be really prosecuted. It is possible to favour a person, or a category of crimes, simply leaving the dossiers sleeping on the desk or in shelves. It is what actually the Italic Prosecutors do. The Government, the Justice Ministry, cannot decide criminal policies. De facto, spying politicians and the business world is more career rewarding, or career destructing if “evidence” is used against the regime-protected ones, than prosecuting thieves. For instance, from time to time, in some places, prostitutes and their clients are persecuted, even if, in Italy, all that is not a crime; however it is possible to invent traffic obstructions or just occasional police controls. On the contrary, really serious crimes are not investigated and prosecuted. The government is accountable in front of Parliament and electors, but not for criminal policies, which are decided from each single substitute-Prosecutor and Prosecution Office. Government has the direction of the polices forces, which actually are many [another italic oddness] partially making the some things and frequently obstructing each other, however Prosecutors and substitute-Prosecutors have the direction of the judiciary police [asking detectives and other police forces to the different police corps]. Naturally, Prosecutors fiercely opposed all Government control. They fiercely preserved their right to do whatever they want. What opens the door to all abuse. Supported from the regime of the Presidency of the Republic, of the corrupted bureaucracies and of the parasitic finance, Parliament could do nothing, until now, for resolving such institutionally devastating oddness.
The laws for creating the Super-Prosecution Office and the DIA were approved from Parliament at end 1991/early 1992. Killed Falcone (23 May 1992), and immediately later Borsellino, the two structures were born as decapitated entities, which lived as empty objects at judicialist service, letting, exactly as before, the total arbitrariness of each local Prosecution Office. They were only additional bureaucracies. It was what the judicialist clans pretended. Without a real National Super-Prosecution Office, also to the Italian Carabinieri could preserve their traditional independence and there were harsh fights between Palermo judicialist Prosecutors and Carabinieri for reasons of hegemony and control of the Sicilian territory. Without Falcone, and also without Borsellino, killed when the government had intention to appoint him as National Super-Prosecutor, the FBI-DEA could continue to be freely connected with each single Italic Prosecution Office and the relative police and Intelligence structures without any Italian government control. Carabinieri are, in Italy, now, formally, the fourth Armed Force of the Armed Forces (since a law finally voted at end-March 2000, on initiative of a D’Alema government was then trying to buy everybody, even Carabinieri). They already were law and order police, judiciary police, military police, present in different military and civil Intelligence services, present, by its officers, in the DIA: an authentic military order superposed to State, a State both inside State and above State. Not differently from the judicialist clans, the Carabinieri had no interest in the Falcone Super-Prosecution Office. Also they had, on the contrary, interest in obstructing it removing Falcone, who would have become one of the most powerful Italian men. Nevertheless, differently and in opposition to judicialists, Falcone had already decidedly obstructed all attempts to use the Palermo magistracy for political trials or other subversive operations. Falcone alive represented an irreducible obstacle for the judicialist clans’ plans of using also the Southern magistracy for political subversion, as well as he, as National Super-Prosecutor, would have objectively reduced the Carabinieri power overall in the South of Italy. The Falcone planned successor to the same position, Borsellino, was immediately perceived as equally dangerous. Both were removed by very noisy bomb-blasts, even internationally audible, immediately before they became National Super-Prosecutors. Borsellino was also inquiring on the reasons of the Falcone killing and he seemed to have discovered powers’ connections, not certainly the later invented ones, as judicialist deception. The judicialist deception always tried to invent pseudo-power connections which the Sicilian events which occupied years and years of fake inquiries of the judicialist prosecutors and their police and intelligence forces, wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money for politico-institutional persecutions and deceptions. In these, way they protected the Northern finance and the international connections of the Palermo and other Clans. There is some evidence about them, but no judicial inquiries, or, if there are, they have been practically fruitless. Anyway, there was a net difference between judicialists and Carabinieri. Carabinieri arrested, in the very early 1993, who had materially organised the Palermo the killing of Falcone, while judicialists, who then controlled the Presidency of the Republic, its government and Police, tried to avoid that arrest. They tried to organize police operations only for alarming the preys the Carabinieri were chasing. Prosecutions and trials, wanted from judicialist against those Carabinieri had arrested the organiser of the Falcone killing, have been running for more than a dozen years. The formal excuse was the terror there was that they could have found secret papers without giving them to the Prosecution Offices. Certainly, there are legal procedures to which everybody must be submitted. However, in the Sicilian context, and with the events there happened for assaulting the Italic institutions, there were institutional and power networks had something to fear and interest to have all Clans’ found materials in their hands instead of, hypothetically, in the hands of Carabinieri officers.
Three months after the final confirmation of the sentences of the maxi-trial against Sicilian families, the Lima killing could not have any symbolic meaning. Anyway, he had no role in that event, neither in any hypothetical attempt to got a different outcome. The 12 March 1992 killing of the European MP Salvo Lima was a decisive episode in the preparation, from the Sicilian side, of the final assault of the judicialist clans for taking over central government in Italy. It is known who in Palermo considered him as his mortal enemy: the same person and network considered Falcone as such, after that Falcone had refused to be enrolled for political trials against Palermo and Rome politicians. It is everything public and uncontested, even if dissimulated from tons of judicialist literature, which carefully deceive on everything.
On 23 May 1992, the killing of Falcone, during a difficult Presidential election [from Parliament] had two meanings. It was the killing of the man the Andreotti government wanted as National Super-Prosecutor and was the decisive stop for the run of Andreotti as president of the Republic. Who/Which ordered to the Palermo clans to liquidate Falcone wanted to fire the election of Andreotti as new President. The immediate consequence of the Falcone killing was that, on 25 May 1992, the Catholic rightist and obscurantist Scalfaro was imposed to Parliament as new President of the Republic from the judicialist fraction of the PDS [the centrist faction of the ex-PCI] and the monopolistic-financial block backed it. When President of the Commission on the after-Earthquake Reconstruction in Campania, he had hidden the PCI enterprises frauds while he had evidenced the frauds of his own party, the DC. From that day, Scalfaro became, for the media of the Mediobanca clique, synonym of honesty, reputation he fed by an insistent and auto-exalting rhetoric. From time to time, relevant lies about his “crystalline” autobiography were discovered. It never was a mystery that during 1943-1945, he had been a Judge of the RSI, the Mussolini Republic, so with a member of the Fascist Party. In the moment of the Allied occupation also of the North, with the Fascist Party not anymore legal, he became a fervent DC militant. Now, he is President of the Istituto Nazionale per la Storia del Movimento di Liberazione in Italia [National Institute for the History of the Liberation Movement in Italy].
As consequence of the other mega-bomb blast, the 19 July 1992 one, which killed the Palermo deputy-Chief Prosecutor Borsellino, the same Palermo judicialist-leftist Prosecutors had fought Falcone imposed the resignation of the Palermo Chief Prosecutor Giammanco, a Falcone friend. [(Giuseppe Di Federico, Io, Falcone e la sua esperienza romana, Messaggero, 29 May 2002)]. Borsellino, not differently from Falcone, was considered a mortal enemy from judicialists because too clever and not corruptible from them.
It was a kind of de facto convergent purge: killings and massacres from one side, intimidation from the other side. The victims were whoever opposed the judicialist clans and networks.
When Falcone was killed, it was his last trip [even he had not been killed] from Rome to Palermo because later he would have been too occupied with the National Prosecution Office. He flied to Palermo by an aeroplane of the SISMI, the military Intelligence [(Vespa, B., Dieci anni che hanno sconvolto l’Italia. 1989-2000, RAI-ERI and Mondadori, Rome and Milan, Italy, 1999, p. 106)], what means that the details of the flight were known from Carabinieri but also from the Police who assured his security after he landed. It is not easy to mine a railway, and even with an enormous quantity of explosive that time, for destroying three cars would have passed over it in a few hours. One of the men of the commando realized the operation against Falcone, his wife and his bodyguard (only one policeman of it saved, the driver of the car where Falcone was) had called the Palermo office of an Italic intelligence service a few minutes before the railway where Falcone passed was made to explode. No serious investigation was ever made from the Sicily’s Prosecutors, for what is known, on these aspects. Even the Carabinieri did not show, at least publicly, any great interest in the inquiries on the killings of Falcone and Borsellino. Anyway, the formal responsibility was of Prosecutors, who liked some “evidence” and did not [it is public!] some other one. The FBI tightly followed the running inquiries on the Falcone killing as everything else happened in Sicily. There were news, impossible to know how reliable, that, from 1990, UK and USA agents had operated for a “Sicilian” killing of Falcone. [(Il Velino, 7 November 2000)]. Some witnesses, or supposed such, referred to have been approached, when inmates from English speaking officers for such a purpose. There is also evidence of strange traffics made of false evidence build with US help, and US justice collaborators suddenly appeared in Sicily: the same Falcone operated against some of these “strange” episodes. Nevertheless, his killing was realised when Italic powerful interests needed it for taking over the Presidency of the Republic, for demolishing the just created National Prosecution Office and for removing all obstacles to political persecutions and trials.
Following a usual pattern, Giammanco had been abusively defamed referring false circumstances (it is the formal point of view of the Cassation Court) from Leoluca Orlando Cascio. [(Il Velino, 14 April 2001)]. The judicialist fraction of the PDS (Violante), evidently with Presidency and other powers cover, manoeuvred for getting that the new Palermo Chief-Prosecutor became Caselli, a Turin Catholic magistrate who had the merit of having always acted as a PCI militant and leader. He had already been a judicialist magistrate used against leftist terrorism from various governments, included Andreotti ones, in coordination with a PCI then acting as Interior Minister informer and parallel militia.
Formally, magistrates were and are not allowed to be member of political parties. Caselli regularly participated to the meetings of the PCI leading structures. The PCI, and later the PDS, always promoted him to high appointments. His main sponsor was the head of the PCI/PDS networks inside magistracy, Violante, equally a Turin ex-magistrate. In the 14th Legislature, Violante was the Head of the DS Deputies. Caselli, more a propagandist than a real magistrate [certainly formally, he was and is a magistrate!] also in the “fight” against past internal terrorism, has no experience and no attitude on Southerner questions. It is my point of view, naturally. For other people, he is an expert on everything. His main activities seemed and seem to be conferences, interviews, writing newspaper comments and articles, and trafficking in the Rome of power’s Palaces. [(Aria nuova a Palermo, il procuratore capo non fa parlare di sé e stralavora, Il Foglio, 14 September 1999, p. 1)]. The Palermo Chief-Prosecutor Caselli acted de facto under the supervision of the Palermo and Sicilian politician Orlando Cascio with his La Rete and its Palermo prosecutors. In August 1999, in a Freudian lapsus, during the ceremony when Caselli was made honorary citizen of Palermo, Caselli publicly declared that the Palermo Prosecution Office had become a dependency of the Palermo Commune. Leoluca Orlando Cascio was the Palermo Commune Mayor. Caselli tried later to rectify what he had told. When Caselli left the Palermo Prosecution Office, Orlando Cascio was not present to the official ceremony of the new Chief Prosecutor’s appointment. [(Il procuratore Grasso e quelle piccole differenze con Caselli, Il Foglio, 5 August 1999, p. 3)].
Clans/Mafias/Lodges, wherever in the world, never act without power connections. Without power connections, they could not even exist as mafias. In a certain way, it is power (governments and real powers) to create mafias. There is a qualitative difference between the so-called micro-criminality and the so-called [and not called when it is too powerful!] organised criminality. Organised criminality is intertwined with formal and real powers. Make a list of the world powers and you’ll have a list of the puppet masters of the different mafias. Each one inevitably prefers its ethnic mafias. The more you see an ethnic mafia in movies the less it has power or it is even just a movie invention. Real mafias avoid publicity. Real mafias enjoy government protection from people eyes.
Certainly, after Falcone and Borsellino had been killed, Orlando Cascio and the PCI judicialist fractions claimed they were their models. Only after they were killed. However, the Sicilian Prosecution Offices were occupied from partisan and opportunist prosecutors promoted institutional destabilisation and political trials for obstructing the Southerner and Italic development. Surely, they were not new Falcones and Borsellinos [we have not any adoration for the two magistrates: where a single magistrate is too “important”, it is because the institutional system is weak and rotten]. On the contrary, the Prosecution Offices purged the judicial system from potential new Falcones and Borsellinos (alias serious no partisan and no subversive magistrates), if they could obstruct the judicialist action. The Prosecution Offices could do that because the decisive forces of Italian corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic finance and economy, with their media, wanted that and because international finance had strong interests in these strikes against Italy: by the judicialist take over they could seriously damage the Italic economy and to have substantive and immediate rents from that damage. Relatively to the South, there was a combination of fight and defamation against the South from Northerner prosecutors, politicians and intellectuals, and of the factional fight of the most anti-capitalist Southerner prosecutors, bureaucracies, politicians and intellectuals against the emergence and consolidation of market capitalism there. Not only the magistrates Falcone and Borsellino were killed from Clans triggered from financial and bureaucratic powers. Their political and institutional supporters were object of judicialist persecution by leftist and other prosecutors. In Sicily, Orlando Cascio and the PCI judicialist fractions, who/which had previously obstructed, defamed and fought them and their supporters, profited from their killing and from the “judicial” persecution of their supporters. It was the “judicial” way to political power of minorities actually always remained minorities in polls. There was and there is even the attempt to write history by prosecutions, whose results (the formal acts of accusations against defendants) are currently published in books presented as the Italy’s new and real history. The academic judicialist circles call that “judicial evidence”. It is not judicial evidence. They are just accusation materials frequently judged irrelevant from Judges, when there are trials. Judicial evidence would not be anyway historical evidence, if not evidence on the trial produced it. Even less, accusation material is not historical evidence either judicial evidence: it is only evidence on how prosecutors worked. All different news and analyses were and are stricken by denunciations and lawsuits (with connected large amount of money pretended as compensation, frequently accorded in court) against independent journalists, real historians and whoever else. For this reason, independent academicians have fear and avoid dealing with the acts, abuses and interpretations of judicialist prosecutors and milieus, be they of the South networks or of the North ones.

5. A legal frame, from Cassation Court and Constitutional Court norms to CSM statements and to the “justice collaborators” law was built for permitting all kinds of “judicial”-judicialist abuses in the South as everywhere in Italy. The “justice collaborators” law was reinterpreted, de facto rewritten, from the Cassation Court, which, in practice, permitted the free utilisation, without any limit and guarantee of truthfulness, of the justice collaborators declarations. Everything was submitted only to the prosecutors’ agreement. Of a justice collaborator declarations, what a prosecutor decided was truthful, was truthful. What a prosecutor decided was irrelevant or untruthful was irrelevant or untruthful without, naturally, that this had any influence on what a prosecutor decided was truthful from the same justice collaborator. In practice prosecutors, or they detectives, said to the justice collaborators what they should say and to the judges what they had to assume as truth. Even more, prosecutors decided how to interpret what said from a justice collaborator. Prosecutors decided, generally without any evidence, “judicial” and historical truth. Prosecutors became source of Truth. The standard procedure was easy: a prosecutor made known which kind of accusations he/she needed and against whom; the justice collaborators were benefited according the support they gave to the prosecutor necessities of political and other prosecutions. Justice collaborators meetings were de facto organised for permitting they agreed and harmonised the asked declarations. It was illegal, however prosecutors controlled the law, despite the judicialist opportunist declarations that in Italy “prosecution was compulsory”: no illegality covered by prosecutors was ever denounced and prosecuted, as it would have been the prosecutors legal duty. They committed crimes. They might not denounce and prosecute themselves. Judicialist prosecutors and they detectives were the system. The system could not prosecute and allow it and its servants were sentenced. (Mellini 1994); (Mellini 1996, p. 75-77); (news agency Il Velino); (MP Tiziana Maiolo, Stenographic Report from the Deputies’ Chamber Hall, n. 341, 15 April 1998; Balduccio e i pentiti viaggiatori creano imbarazzi a Palermo, Il Foglio, 3 March 1999, p. 3; Felice Cavallaro, Andreotti, la sfida della difesa ai pm, Corsera, 19 May 1999; Torna a crescere l'esercito dei pentiti di mafia, Avvenire, 28 July 1999; Dino Martirano, Intesa Polo-Ulivo: stop alle dichiarazioni a rate dei pentiti, Corsera, 29 September 1999; Andrea Cangini, Andreotti contro l'Antimafia di Violante, Il Giorno, 26 October 1999; Giancarlo Perna, «Un trucco in Cassazione stravolse la legge sui pentiti», Il Giornale, 31 October 1999; Carmine Spadafora, Un collaboratore accusa in aula «Voi Pm mi suggerivate le risposte», Il Giornale, 19 December 1999, p. 6; Lino Jannuzzi, Deposizioni concordate secondo il teorema, Il Giornale, 20 March 2000; Lino Jannuzzi, Violante e l’ode alla teste bugiarda, Panorama, 8 March 2001).
Donatella della Porta prefers to deceive also on this point, about the “truth” building, also in the South, from comprador prosecutors at the service of corrupted bureaucracies and of the parasitic economy, as well as of international interests. The tale telling on Mafia comes from who controls Hollywood on ideological matters... ...the brainwashing by movies has not excluded academicians. How could it?! She limits to enrich her tales quoting unproved accusations against politicians. In Italy, a judicialist-protected mechanism of defamation was created. The judicialist prosecutors freely defame their target by media and by intellectual networks, while all legal pursuits of that behaviour is impossible because the same judicialist prosecutors control the judiciary machine. Even legally pursuing the judicialist prosecutors’ attempts, coups, subversions, against institutions (government, Parliament) revealed impossible since the absolute protection and promotion they had found in the Presidency of the Republic from 1992, which had abusively transformed itself in key point of the “judicial” and institutional subversive networks.
From an institutional point of view, under the President Scalfaro rule, and under whom he designed as General Director of the Presidency of the Republic [the same designation was renewed under President Ciampi; a 14 year General Director of the Presidency of the Republic!] the Presidency could enormously expand its powers, at Government and Parliament expenses, precisely thanks to the Centre fractions destruction by the judicialist prosecutors’ action, political Centre destruction wanted, from an institutional point of view from the same Presidency of the Republic: it was, in practice, the destruction of Government, Parliament and of the electors will. At the same time, the Presidency, as the saved and promoted political fractions, became strongly conditioned from the judicialist networks had, before intimidated, later advantaged and saved, the same Scalfaro in 1992/1993.
The reason is easy if one analyses reality instead of producing propaganda. The 1948 Constitution, verbose and inapplicable, was centred on political parties with the President of the Republic just as a grey notary. However, it was a notary with some relevant power, if he wanted to use it. Finally, even formally destroyed the political parties in 1992, the 1948 Constitution de facto ceased to exist. In a State without a free Parliament and a Government, both intimidated and determined, apparently, by some substitute prosecutor action, the only institutional charge elected [from Parliament plus Regions representatives] for 7 years, and enjoying at the same time the Presidency of the CSM, became the formal centre of everything.
After the “judicial” erasing of the old political Centre during the 1992/1993 pogrom, Berlusconi was specifically and intensively targeted from judicialist prosecutors. It happened just he became a political leader in January 1994 and because he represented a chance for the capitalist development and modernisation of Italy, development and modernisation decidedly opposed from monopolist-parasitic capitalism, finance, bureaucracies, trade unions and their political representations. The corrupted bureaucracies, the parasitic economy and its Presidency had just created their unique party, a galaxy of small parties and fraction they have saved and promoted, consequently blackmailed, and suddenly the devil appeared: a successful entrepreneur outside the galaxy of the parasitic finance and economy saying “No!”.
His enterprises were the only ones in Italy without “Mafia” connections. They were the only ones not needing them. As they were the only ones outside the mechanisms of bureaucratic corruption. They did not really need it. They had only, as whatever Italic company, the necessity of some protection against corrupted officers of the fiscal police and against obscurantist forces wanted to preserve the State monopoly in the media sector: the extremist Catholic populism, and the Stalinists and post-Stalinists left. Sometimes, for a company, it is cheaper to pay corrupted fiscal police officers. Some other time, for a company, it is better to have political protections. Sometimes for a company, it is better to enter inside the networks of the corrupted and parasitic economy. However, for an innovative sector developing at expenses of the State monopoly on national TV, it is inevitable to have political protections from modernising political fractions against those who only want to destroy enterprise and competition. Berlusconi was friend of Craxi, the modern and modernising liberal-socialism, in Italy the core of the modernising Centre, which was the target of the 1992-1993 Great Purge wanted from the obscurantist forces.
Prevailed the extremist Catholic populism, and the Stalinists and post-Stalinists left, since the action of some substitute-prosecutors at corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic economy objective service, Berlusconi remained without decisive political protections from the modernising side. He could ask protection to the Stalinists and post-Stalinists left against the extremist Catholic populism at payroll of some parasitic financier considered Berlusconi as his personal enemy. It was less expensive to become himself a politician in the name of market competition against whom Berlusconi called “the Communists” …wanted really to expropriate him at benefit of their puppet masters of the parasitic finance and to transform the Berlusconi profitable companies in para-State companies depending on State subsides.
For what emerged from the Milan Prosecution Office investigation, wide active and passive corruption seemed to actually involve all the other Italic companies and corporation, with their owners and managers with secret foreign accounts filled of funds stolen to their same companies. The same majority of the money apparently should be given to political parties as “illegal financing” was actually stolen from the managers should give it to political parties. From the company came out 100; the political party received less than 50. To focalise the persecution against Berlusconi was also a way, for prosecutors, for not inquiring their “friends”. When crimes of the prosecutors’ “friends” were discovered, they were covered. In [public] judicial acts, in court transcripts, there is for example evidence of money paid from the judicialist prosecutors’ “friends” [companies of the “Fiat” area, for example] to Sicilian “Mafia”: no inquiry was ever opened contrarily to what imposed from law. Since Berlusconi was outside the parasitic capitalism gangs, he should be destroyed using [suppose and inventing] against him what were actually the crimes of the parasitic capitalism. It is sufficient, for example, to see which media in Italy and abroad support whom, and slander and ridicule whom, to see who their owners, supporters and financers are, and the map of interests can be easily reconstructed. Berlusconi, as whatever other moderniser, could not be and cannot not to be under the fire of the parasitic italic capitalism and of the international power have interest Italy remains under their dictatorship. As well as the persecution against Berlusconi and his enterprises is the easiest thing to verify. There have been hundreds of searches and inquiries against his enterprises, while no search and no inquiry against enterprises and entrepreneurs having really committed crimes and with public evidence they had committed all kind of crime, from the management of “Mafia” funds, from the stealing of funds of their same companies, to the corruption of bureaucrats, to the institutional subversion. When there were judicial actions apparently against Fiat, it was only because the Agnelli family needed to settle accounts with somebody imposed to them from the outside. The head of the Agnelli family was never arrested, never inquired. Berlusconi ought to know everything about his companies. The Head of the Agnelli family, who convoked Ministers and Prime Ministers in his private house and villas, for giving them now orders, now intimidations, ought to know nothing about “corruption”. As a Great Purge puppet master, he was untouchable. It is now that the laws of the Great Purges are variable and adaptable “laws”. There were searches and inquiries against the Berlusconi companies not because there was any news of any crime but because there was the news of no crime. Consequently, crimes ought to be desperately found and even invented. Managers and employees of the Berlusconi companies were arrested for trying having forced confessions. Pre-electoral cases where mounted. The local administrations controlled from his front are under permanent “judicial” “checking”, while the other ones are “judicially” protected even where corruption and misgovernment happily flourishes. See the case of that disgraced and decaying Naples and Campania [the Region of which Naples is capital], sometimes represented from the international media deception as Naples Renaissance. Parasitic capitalism ought to be protected. Modernisers ought to be destroyed. Is not so everywhere the world powers want to preserve backwardness and submission?! There is really nothing new under the sky. (Andriola, F., and M. Arcidiacono, L’anno dei complotti, Baldini&Castoldi, Milano, Italy, 1995); (Diaconale 1995;); (Lehner 1996); (Lehner 1997); (Lehner 1998); (Mellini 1996); (Vespa 1999).

6. Certainly, judicialist prosecutors and magistracy did not operate in a vacuum. They were actually very privileged puppets, but just puppets, not at all masters. It is more appropriate to journalistic impressionism, than to scientific analysis, to reduce the 1990s Italian events to a media-judiciary coup d’État. In Italy, media are not even formally independent. In the Italic context, “judiciary” means what we have seen and we are seeing. If it was a long and sui generis coup d’État, an intra-institutional subversion, it was not such since the diabolic supposedly plot of prosecutors and journalists. Judicialist prosecutors had the decisive support, push and direction of parasitic finance, para-State monopolies and bureaucracies. Parasitic finance, para-State monopolies and bureaucracies had the control of the Presidency of the Republic. It Italy, the President of the Republic is the President of the CSM. Without its control, there is no control of magistracy. Without the control of the Presidency, there is no real and total control of the CSM.
For the then Minister Cirino Pomicino, the financier Carlo De Benedetti, traditionally a political organiser and intriguer, in the early 1990’s was working to a political and institutional transformation running plan; in fact he tried to recruit the same Minister Cirino Pomicino proposing him to became “one of his men” (Geronimo 2000). If he put in practice “his” plan, he was just the operational agent of the interest block organised from Mediobanca, and what Mediobanca meant and means in the post-WW2 Italy as organiser of the families of the italic “private” [but de facto, since the State financing] para-State “capitalism”.
For Craxi, Carlo De Benedetti had the custom to buy State bureaucrats. Craxi had defined him, in a Deputies’ Chamber speech, as “Prince of public corruption” (Craxi, B., Bettino Craxi. Il capitolo finale, Giornalisti Editori, Milano, Italy, 1994, p. 187-196). The Latin-Italic meaning the word “prince” is “main”, “principal”. The De Benedetti press became bulletins of the judicialist Prosecution Offices, naturally only when they acted against the “right” targets. Already in 1991, he was trying to buy politicians. One of them was the Minister Cirino Pomicino, who astonished and paralysed for such a proposal de facto refused. Later he reported his direct experience. For Cirino Pomicino, at least one other key Minister, responsible of internal security apparatuses, very probably accepted to be recruited (Geronimo 2000).
In 1991, the main Italian industrialist and financiers had assumed, for the first time, a position of open and formal opposition to the government majority and the decision of firing the Italian traditional government majority (Geronimo 2000). Carlo De Benedetti was just the operational agent, the organiser, at certain operational levels, of what the whole italic monopolist capitalism, organised from Mediobanca and its de facto owner and absolute dictator Enrico Cuccia [formally Mediobanca was a State bank], had decided: to destroy the political order formalised by the 1948 Constitution. The Milan General Prosecutor [a General Prosecution Office is different from the Prosecution Office; it is in some way superposed to it] was Catelani, when the operation (initially, likely, only for weakening Craxi, for the 1992 Presidential elections [the President of the Republic is elected from Parliament members plus regions’ representatives], since his opposition to Andreotti) started in February 1992. Catelani was considered an Andreotti man: extraordinarily, the Prime Minister Andreotti was present when he assumed the charge of General Prosecutor of Milan (Andriola 1995, p. 134). When this limited strikes, only for weakening Craxi, were running, thanks to the 23 May 1992 Palermo bomb, which killed the magistrate Falcone, the Catholic rightist and obscurantist Scalfaro became President of the Republic. The factual details of this casual relation are sufficiently known. Immediately after received the news of the Falcone killing, the Prime Minister Andreotti, formally not a candidate (even if in the Italian presidential election there are not formally formal candidates, however there are substantially “formal” candidacies), sent his emissaries to the Parliament key political leaders for announcing his absolute renunciation to become a President. When Andreotti received the telephone call on the Capaci (Palermo) massacre, he was asking his Justice Minister Martelli the PSI votes for becoming President. For Andeotti, the Capaci (Palermo) massacre was a strike to him and he, evidently, thought that if he had insisted becoming President of the Republic, he would have been physically liquidated. Naturally, later Andreotti told that he did not remember anything. (Lino Jannuzzi, Falcone venne sacrificato nella guerra dell’Antimafia, Il Giornale, 9 November 1999; Lino Jannuzzi, Quelle stragi per sbarrare la strada ad Andreotti, Il Giornale, 14 November 1999; Ciancimino: la Mafia è finita, Il Messaggero, 9 June 2000; (Vespa 1999, p. 103-105)). On 12 March 1992, the killing of the European MP Salvo Lima had already been a direct warning to Andreotti. The 23 May 1992 massacre, during a long and difficult Presidential election, was an unequivocal and direct signal to Andreotti that he did not controlled anymore key points of the security services networks. Andreotti immediately understood that final signal, which he evidently interpreted that if he had insisted in its candidacy, and if he had been eventually really elected President, he would have been killed. So, he renounced for saving himself. He already had plaid that kind of games. See the Moro case. Then, he was the cat and Moro the mouse. Now, he was under fire. He had started a police-“judicial” operation in Milan against Craxi, and he found under fire from Sicily from more powerful forces wanted to liquidate Craxi but also him and well more, the whole Italic politics.
For arguing about this kind of things, as about everything else in reality’s analysis, it is necessary to have at least some idea on how States work, on how power works, on the concrete histories of what one is arguing on, on the role of the different security apparatuses and their fractions, on the connections and intertwining between security apparatuses and politics, economic powers, foreign powers and apparatuses. In the Italic case, it is necessary, in addition, to have understood the role of the Carabinieri and their different fractions in Italy, as in its different areas, South and Sicily included.
Judicialist propagandists, on the contrary, only know the art of telling supposed believable and believed tales. For della Porta, the outcome of the 1992 elections magically generated a “‘virtuous’ cycle” (della Porta 2001, p. 14): for her the judiciary destruction of a just victorious government majority is a “‘virtuous’ cycle” magically coming out from Nothing. The 1992 general elections saw the usual victory of the government majority, even if reduced from the League North success. Unsatisfied of the outcome, the decisive forces of the Italian [para-State and parasitic] “capitalism”, which already in 1991 had announced for the first time their opposition to the government majority, used Prosecutors and Presidency for the collapse of the political Centre. For collapsing the Italian lira, speculating on privatisation, predating State economy and avoiding markets’ real liberalisation, weak and variously conditionable politicians were necessary, instead of the old experimented, and also with some State’s sense, ones. Incorruptible politicians ought to be purged. Corrupted politicians ought to be protected, blackmailed and pushed to office.

7. The conceptual and factual deception is really immanent in Ms. della Porta. In all her writings, not only Prosecutors become “Judges”. Prosecuted supposed crimes, as well as claimed and only sometimes prosecuted supposed crimes, become or are presented as they were really committed crimes (della Porta 2001, p. 12). Actually, it is by this kind of deception that what was only a purge of incorruptible political parties and politicians was and is presented as a fight against “corrupted politicians”.
The reasons of this deception are as insidious as easy to understand, ...if one had the custom to think about things, to question things, how they are presented, why they are presented and showed in a certain way. Certainly, it is more convenient the conformist and opportunist, as well as anti-scientific, custom of repeating sounding lies and banalities, and founding on that an academic and “intellectual” career.
The Oxbridgist academia has imposed to the world the conformism/orthodoxy that “judicial” “evidence” is historical/scientific/politological evidence ...surely only when the Oxbridgist propagandistic machine likes it! Actually, “judicial “evidence””, alias sentences, is evidence only of itself, not of actual reality. It is not historical evidence. Anyway, imposed the stereotype, the banality, the deception, that “judicial “evidence” is reality evidence”, when “judicial “evidence”” there is not it must be invented. Consequently, relatively to the Italian purges, it was and it is indispensable, for the Oxbridgist propagandist machine, to present Prosecutors as they were Judges, and their defamations [‘truth” there is never in purges] as they were court sentences.
It is the same mechanism used in Italy, ...and everywhere in the world for this kind of operations, be them led from subversive power centres or from Presidents and governments or other source of intra-institutional subversion. Collaborationist “detectives” build the necessary calumnies. They are submitted to either idiotic or collaborationist magistrates. Collaborationist journalists write articles and books using, or just copying, these ““judicial” evidence”. Either idiotic or collaborationist intellectuals and academicians write “brilliant” and “cultivated” essays using that “irrefutably proved historical reality”.
Actually, the persecuted politicians were finally prosecuted nearly essentially for illegal financing, common to nearly 100% of Italian politicians. Only a tiny minority of the initially slandered and persecuted politicians was really prosecuted. Of the formally prosecuted politicians, about 15% was finally slightly condemned, if one calculates also the judicial bargaining, which in Italy were/are [the field of judicial bargaining evolved in this period; before it did not exist] not considered court condemnations for these kind of crimes. Without these judicial bargaining, only 5% of the prosecuted politicians was, apart from some exemplary cases (as the DC and PSI General Secretaries), generally very slight condemned and nearly essentially for illegal financing. (LDA, Giovanardi: Mani pulite fu una persecuzione, Il Giornale, 4 September 1999; Luca D’Alessandro, Tangentopoli dc: degli 88 inquisiti condannati solo 4, Il Giornale, 4 September 1999).
Although judicialist Prosecutors, and the whole purge machine, conditioned Judges, the purge machine was not so strong for getting an effective control of Judges. The same legal cases of the political purge were really badly built and founded on nearly nothing. On the other side, the goal of the purge was to liquidate the incorruptible and not-blackmailable political parties and factions. The goal was achieved, even if other incorruptible politician appeared. ...and the judicialist fight against them immediately began.
So, finally, from an historical point of view, there is broad and unequivocal evidence of the persecutions and of the purges. Only the continuation of the work of the purge machine, the international protection of it, the intimidation of the intellectuals, permit to give international voice only to the judicialist propaganda. The judicialist machine is not however so strong, in Italy, for liquidating the incorruptible politicians who appeared after the 1992/93 purging of the old ones. The “Berlusconi case”, the “Berlusconi problem” is only this. The case of incorruptible politicians could not be liquidated by the judicialist machine, although they could be and ought to be internationally slandered exactly because not comprador or servile politicians. If subversive and comprador power centres cannot not only not buy politicians but not even build cases of passive corruption, what easier, if the incorruptible politician is an entrepreneur, than building case of active corruption. Berlusconi was consequently accused in different occasions of having corrupted other people. Even if there was no evidence, it is easy, for the judicialist machine, to use the [illegal] claim that “he couldn’t not to know”. When, overall abroad, people read “XY charged for corruption”, they understand that “XY is corrupted”. Berlusconi was actually accused of having bought, paid, other people. One of the aspects of a judicialist machine is the need to build false images in the people minds. Legally, it may be sometimes even worse to have corrupted than to have been corrupted, although in the people mind only to have been and to be corrupted is really abominable, relatively to a politician: in this case a deceptive image was imposed to the people minds for slandering incorruptible politicians and for slandering Italy. The judicialist machine [controlled from the interest block of the gangs of “entrepreneurs” and bureaucracies currently stole and steal the Italian State’s and savers’ money, with international agreement and protection] took the relatively more honest Italian entrepreneur and transformed it, in the mind of people, in the only one to be corrupted. However, in Italy the deception was not so decisive, because people know that reality was actually different. Consequently, the fight between the comprador-backward interest block [politically, “the Left”] controlling the judicialist machine, and other political and interest factions is continuing without any decisive defeats of the modernising [not “the Left”, which is anti-modernising and comprador, in contemporary Italy] groups.
Even in occasion of the 2006 general elections, when the Lefts [the so-called “centre-left”, even if inside it there is a decisive presence of the radical Left in addition to considerable more fascist presence than in the Berlusconi block] had the obsessive support of the powerful propaganda machine of the Italic oligarchy, the disputed and weak victory of a not really triumphant Prodi coalition realized with less votes that the Centrist block of Berlusconi. ...and it was an absolute maximum for “the Lefts” [the oligarchy “Lefts”: the real Left is, in Italy, in the Berlusconi coalition], which now can only contract (what already began), in a general context that will result rapidly in the creative disappearing of the two artificial blocks/coalitions came out from the long destabilisation began from the Italic oligarchy in 1991. A political phase closed with the 2006 general elections, thank to the Berlusconi 5 year government and the reforms it realised although constantly weakened, and in many things paralyses, from the other parties of his coalition. The 75% uninominal constituency electoral system [which is not majoritarian contrarily to the interested but false propagandistic claims], imposed from the oligarchy during the 1992/93“judicial” strikes against the Centre of the political system, was just a coup d’État contingent electoral system incapable to assure strong ed efficient governments what the oligarchy certainly opposed ...while claiming it wanted “strong” governments. It is the Constitutional system, not the electoral one, which creates, or does not, strong and efficient governments. Long destabilisation wanted from oligarchies for depredating States have not certainly the goal to create strong and efficient governments!

8. Actually, the intellectuals and academicians of the Italic and international predatory oligarchies gave no contribution to the understanding of the interesting and original phase opened with the 1990s’ oligarchic “judicial” long destabilisation in Italy. They had been just tools of the “judicial” deceptions and gossiping, essential in oligarchic-predatory destabilisation.
In an oligarchic-predatory destabilisation, the oligarchy controls key police and “judicial” apparatuses, so essential pieces of the organised criminality. By that, it liquidates the [falsely slandered as] “corrupted” politicians, Statesmen, state functionaries. Actually, corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic oligarchies slandered the incorruptible and relatively efficient politicians, Statesmen and state functionaries [falsily] accusing them of being corrupted. While it protected and promoted its corrupted politicians, Statesmen and state functionaries, praising them as “incorruptible” and “valuable”.
Periodically, “detectives” discover wide conspiracies always with the modernising fraction in the supposed role of criminals. The political commissars transform gossiping and irrelevant “evidence” in judicial cases. The media defame “the people’s enemies”. Later, de facto intimidated judges sometimes condemn somebody even if de facto denying the core of the judicially built “great” conspiracies. In other cases, judges finally acquit or declare prescribed the supposed crime. In the meanwhile, “the people’s enemies” have been generally liquidated from their power positions. So, the judicial acquittal do not really give to them and to their electors any retribution for the destructive action of the whole judicialist machine against them.
Exemplar was a case mounted, just before the 1996 general elections, in practice during the electoral campaign, against Previti [Rome layer, Statesman, politician] and “the corruption of the Rome judicial offices”. After an obsessive long defamation from the judicialist machine, Previti was finally [not really too heavily] condemned. He was a close collaborator of Berlusconi. He ought to be condemned. He was represented as “the corruptor of the Rome judicial offices”. Actually who he should have corrupted and for what there are not. Clearly, for the judicialist propaganda machine, there were also “the bought sentences” favourable to his clients ...but the judges [judges emit court sentences] he ought to have corrupted there were not. Even a key magistrate, a head of a judicial office, Previti “had surely corrupted”, was not linked with any sentence favourable to his clients, there was no evidence about his influence in favour of Previti, and he was finally acquitted. The sentences tell that he [the Head of judicial office in Rome, before the prosecution against him] took the money but that was not corruption. There was the sentenced “corruptor”. The corrupted and for what and how there were not. This is the “judicial evidence”. The so-called, from judicialists, “judicial evidence” is not surely historical evidence. However, also the historical evidence against Previti there is not, apart from tons of media defamation ...which is evidence only of a judicialist operation. (della Porta 2001, p. 10) contributed to introduce in the academic networks also these media defamations. It is a self-sustaining cycle: detectives => prosecutors => media => academic networks. Each one “trusts” the other ones ...but only if it is for the “right” cause, the cause of the corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic finance and economy are sinking Italy.
It was not evident, since the beginning, for supposedly experienced academicians and intellectuals inside the power networks, that all the “judicial” cases against politicians were only pretext for liquidating who had the people consensus? Even if Andreotti had not been acquitted, it was not evident that the whole Sicilian operations against him came from institutional centres in Rome? (Jannuzzi, L., Il processo del secolo. Come e perché è stato assolto Andreotti, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, 2000). Academicians really know nothing about the real working of institutions, judicial offices, power centres?! (Bonini 1998); (Mele 2001). It is not evident that Berlusconi has been worldwide slandered as the “Italian anomaly” because the real Italian anomaly is the Presidency of the Italian Republic, its real working and the corrupted and parasitic social bloc backing it since 1992?!

9. “Compulsory prosecution” (della Porta 2001, p. 13) of all crimes, so exalted from all judicialist networks and academicians, is clearly Prosecutors arbitrariness, when it is impossible to prosecute all the crimes as it is in Italy where just a very small fraction is really inquired and prosecuted. In practice, government has no control on the prosecution machine, and each prosecutor does what he/she and his/her clan wants. So, it is false that “compulsory prosecution” is a citizen guarantee. De facto, crimes really concerning citizens are not pursued, privileging instead inquiries and prosecutions are well exalted on the finance-controlled press, alias are at financial and industrial interests’ de facto service. Only these latter cases guarantee magistrates careers and their personal successes also outside magistracy, for political, professional and academic careers. The citizen’s guarantee is prosecutors at Police orders, in practice as Police lawyers and barristers, and a well functioning judiciary [of judges] machine where each citizen can act even against government, exactly as in the USA and UK, with advantages in case of victory and costs in case of legal defeat. This is “the defence of citizens”, not the systematic judicialist abuses against the electors will as implicitly della Porta suggests as her judicialist interpretation of “the logic of the separation of powers” (della Porta 2001, p. 16). Prosecutors as a “State power” represent a very serious pathology, ...from the point of view of an efficient institutional system, while they are certainly a very good business from the point of view of the profiteers control them. Prosecutors pretending selecting political and State personnel on financial power suggestion is not at all “the logic of the separation of powers”, but politics at service of financial and other speculators who, I insist, in Italy control the press, the same press has supported the assaults against the non-submittable political fractions, the Centre fractions. Electors should formally choose the destiny of a State. “Judiciary”, with their pseudo-ethical crusades, do id only in coup d’État contexts. Ms. della Porta is evidently a follower of the vision of ethic State, in Italy present in the more Statist and more radical sectors of Fascism, even if prosecutors and media defamation are not at all ethic. They use only ethical claims for cover other interests. Those who know the Italic history know that the most radical Italian leftism and ultra-leftism come directly from the most radical Fascist fractions and their ethic State, which, however, in the Italic Fascism, as well in their epigones, was anyway only propaganda. In a Liberal frame, judiciary is a functional bureaucracy and prosecution a Police-government function. Nowhere judiciary, even less prosecutors, is a State power. It is an Italic judicialism’s invention. A delirium.

10. That only when discussing of Italian institutions and politics, and sometimes of the continental European ones, but not of the US and British ones, one is obliged to discuss of prosecutors and of their de facto political campaigning, certainly means something is outside the judicialist academicians comprehension. Certainly, also strong States use frequently judicial ways for systemic purposes or for protecting their oligarchies. However, the normal ways of settling disputes inside the ruling class are there occult. Even when they erupt in open confrontations with the use of force, the real power conflicts remain invisible to the masses, which eventually see some shooting gun, but not really what is happening. The coup d’État against Kennedy and the 11 September 2001 events are good US examples. On the contrary, in weak systems the use of judiciary, and the connected media circuses, for open and public political confrontation are essential. See the people’s democracies cases, as well as the Italic case. Weak regimes need to compensate their internal weaknesses, their absence of strong ruling classes, by some ephemeral media consensus, a useless proxy of a real consensus anti-modernising as well as slavery a or para-slavery based regimes cannot have. Masses are in some way influenced and temporarily paralysed, not really convinced, neither conquered. Modernisation and economic democracy, not “Great” Purges for settling power confrontations, are the way to consensus.

11. A banal meat mincer has been transformed, using prostituted intellectuals and terrorising and silencing the other ones, in a great ethical revolution ...finally, without any result, apart from the absolute judicial protection of bureaucratic corruption and parasitic oligarchies, as well as considerable economic and systemic damages.
Everything has been easier than as represented by these squalid “ethical” mystifications.
Since an odd Constitution, and the Savoy House tradition, the Presidency of the Italian Republic has relevant and undemocratic powers. Its social bases are corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic oligarchies. The President of the Republic is the President of the CSM, by which he can control magistracy, overall the Prosecution Offices and their Prosecutors and substitute-Prosecutors.
The only obstacle to the absolute power of the Presidency of the Republic, in practice a dictatorship [for using a current, imprecise but very popular, word], was the political system came out from the dissolution of the so-called Fascism.
By this institutional position, and since a more obscurantist turn of its social base linked with some international events [collapse of the Berlin Wall and opening of the process for the creation of the Euro], in 1992 the direct assault to the political system was realised. The Presidency and its social base used Prosecutors, modern political commissars, for their coup d’État. Liquidated the traditional political parties, and specifically the Centre of the political system, Parliaments and Governs ceased to exist as the two State powers and were intimidated and submitted to the Presidency of the Republic and its social base. Elections have no real value. Nobody already controlled the bureaucratic machine, if not thousand of strong micro-interest groups. Even less after 1992 and the Presidency take over of Parliament and Government.
The counter-reactions to that obscurantist coup d’État course certainly there have been. See those who are promoted from the Presidency of the Republic and its corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic oligarchies and you can see who are their soldiers. See those who are obstructed and worldwide defamed from the Presidency of the Republic and its corrupted bureaucracies and parasitic oligarchies and you can see who are their enemies, the modernisers.

The interest and relevance of this field and subfield of study is that these are universal techniques of subversion and destruction, or attempted destruction, of States from the inside of their institutions.

For instance, China will be very likely destroyed in this way, just it will not be any more necessary to the war China-Japan los ingleses seem to be currently working on (using Taiwan and other pretexts). Weak Constitutional system, static and archaic imperial/domination system, strong inter-local rivalries: these, as told before, are the key ingredients of this kind of operations. Italy, even if strongly damaged, was finally more resilient than a case as the Chinese one will actually be, in my opinion.

Academicians, in Italy as abroad, seems totally subordinated to power conformism and without theoretical instruments for an independent and scientific works on these questions. They seem not to know as institutions really work. Or they have interest not to know such things. They seem not to be provided of methodological instruments for reading and analysing reality. Certainly, they frequently know everything about “he/she say”, “he/she said”; however this is not theory or methodology; this is just reporting and quoting. Academicians, about these questions, seem generally victims and part of media stereotypes and idiosyncrasies. The consequences, the disasters, are clearly visible about State collapsing, State building, State modernising, etc. Evidently, disasters are a profitable activity, also for academicians, not only for other profiteers. See the academicians lately operatively cooperating with the inglés redesigning of the world and you’ll se a long list of failures since ideologies without any foundation in reality.

della Porta, D., A judges’ revolution? Political corruption and the judiciary in Italy, European Journal of Political Research, 39, 2001, 1-21.