Letter
from Lhasa, number 308. Regime. Which one?
by
Roberto Abraham Scaruffi
Travaglio, M., and P.
Gomez, Regime. Biagi, Santoro, Massimo
Fini, Freccero, Luttazzi, Sabina Guzzanti, Paolo Rossi, tg, gr e giornali:
storie di censure e bugie nell’Italia di Berlusconi. Postfazione di Beppe
Grillo, BUR, Milan, Italy, 2004.
(Gomez 2004).
Peter Gomez
Marco Travaglio
For the authors of this
book, Berlusconi created a regime, a regime breaking the rules of
liberal-democracy, ...what actually there was not in Italy, not even before
Berlusconi. It is also doubtful there really be elsewhere, although there be
different rules relatively to Italy. Unfortunately, school definitions are
different from reality, and reality is different from school definitions. Real
States are strange entities, when they be known for what they really be,
despite whatever official rhetoric, alias
despite whatever official propaganda.
Anyway, for the authors
of this book, Berlusconi, following some P2 conspiracy (actually very
‘Leninist’, very PCI-style, if one follows the authors’ arguing and believes
them), sunk the splendid regime there was before, the one liquidated from the
1992-93 Great Purge (a financial powers’ comprador coup d’État). Of course,
this devilish regime hides itself because it controls all the TV chains, in the
authors’ point of view.
Actually a Berlusconi in
office never controlled the RAI, the State broadcasting company. As well as
owning Mediaset is different from ‘controlling information’. The information
diffused from TVs and other media is actually produced elsewhere.
Information production
and diffusion centres are totally outside the control of Italian entities. Media
can variously hide it (or underline it), but they may also lose audience, since
elsewhere produced information and disinformation cannot be censored, in Italy.
Italy is a comprador country.
For the authors of this
book, who controls, or those controlling, some TV chains can control people’s
mind. The main Italian newspapers have never been controlled from Berlusconi. Not
even the RAI, at least until when, in government, there was some inevitably
co-occupation from him and his [eventually temporary] ‘friends’ or allies.
Italian predatory
oligarchies could and can control intellectuals in various ways, what
Berlusconi could never do. This is more decisive than controlling some TV chains,
a newspaper and a publishing house.
For Berlusconi, property
never was ‘spiritual’ control. Intellectuals always remained aligned with the
Italic bureaucratic and private oligarchies. The authors, not understanding, or
simulating not understanding, the mechanisms governing intellectuals’ and
powers’ world, are just making regime propaganda. They are the regime.
Berlusconi was and is a fought outsider. His companies are under permanent
threat from the predatory oligarchies prospering stealing enormous amounts of
public funds.
The authors report some
Berlusconi rough attempts to marginalize some front-line personages, some
pawns, of the propaganda against him. While predatory oligarchies (of which the
PCI always was part) buy intellectuals with public funds and assuring them
brilliant careers (and also mobbing and liquidating them if some one of them ‘betrays’),
yes what Berlusconi could only do was trying marginalizing a few of the most
aggressive journalists against him from RAI. What is the image of his impotence
against a predatory regime opposing him.
For (Gomez 2004), in
Italy there is a mediatic regime, where Berlusconi censors everything and
everybody, brainwash people and, in this way imposes his agenda. For (Gomez 2004),
he could do it by the cooperation of the opposition which is, for it, a false
opposition.
For instance, the book
quotes the 2003 Massimo Fini case, whose RAI program was censored and
suppressed before starting. Finally the action against him was work of Antonio
Socci (from Siena), an ex leftist, later of Comunione
e Liberazione. He was jealous of Massimo Fini, decidedly more brilliant and
moral than him, and independent, what Antonio Socci never was, having him [Socci]
a mafia-style mentality always asking for power and political covers and
promotions. Since RAI positions are allocated on political basis, Socci was
sent to it, to RAI-2, as member of the Comunione
e Liberazione fraction aligned with the so-called centre-right. Without his
intervention, as a RAI manager, no politician or statesman had anything against
Massimo Fini.
It seems decidedly strained
to suggest that Socci convinced someone as Berlusconi. Socci, clearly with a
disturber personality, simply used his mafia power inside the RAI. He claimed
that the M.Fini was doing some information, not only entertainment, so it
should have been his bureaucratic competence and he did not like a free mind
and spirit as M.Fini was.
It was an
anthropological aversion, as it was told M.Fini. Claudio Petruccioli, the
‘communist’ President of the RAI Control Parliamentary Commission, assured full
support to the RAI censorship and discrimination again M.Fini. In a system of
political party mafia-style control of RAI, if the discriminations operated
from personnel of a certain political parties are respected, it is because
there is a reciprocal support for each party representative discriminations.
One supports other people-organised abuses because they support one’s
own-organized abuses.
What (Gomez 2004)
represents as a Berlusconi take over even of the RAI is only the perpetuation
of the traditional partitocratic and oligarchic powers’ share and co-management
of the RAI. When, occasionally, Berlusconi has some irritation since a
systematic campaigning against him, he was so impotent that he was obliged to
attack directly and even publicly the journalists he felt abused him. It was and
is the opposite of the Italic oligarchies mafia-style traditional practice,
which made and makes to liquidate disliked personages in an absolutely hidden and
radical way.
The 14 March 2001 RAI
show of Daniele Luttazzi and Marco Travaglio was not scandalous because they
reported what they reported about the Sicilian organized criminality but for
the direct strike against Berlusconi and only him. Organized criminality
invests in whatever sector and also in the companies and interests of the
predatory oligarchies. In the Italy of the Quirinale dictatorship, journalist
and intellectuals are encouraged to inquiry (actually they do not enquiry but
they report judicial materials) and to talk only about the ‘obscure origins’ of
the early Berlusconi financing. However, if they did it about the main Italic
predatory oligarchs, they would be immediately liquidated.
Other rumours largely
diffused of Berlusconi responsibility in the Falcone and Borsellino massacres
are deceptions diffused from Carabinieri Secret Police corps responsible of
them on Quirinale-Mediobanca orders. The former was ordered from the temporary
President of the Republic Spadolini (a Mediobanca puppet) for blocking the
Andreotti run as President. The latter was ordered from Scalfaro for covering
the former, which sanctioned the Mediobanca takeover (a white coup d’État) of
the Quirinale and of Italy. Of course, that may not be told in Italy. What in
Italy may not be told is classified as ‘a mystery’. They are just work of
military-CC and/or other Secret Police corps at real government orders. Mafias
and terrorists are just Carabinieri parallel militias, used, in part covered, and
liquidated when they are not any more useful and for allowing the emerging of
other families or groups.
If the RAI allowed such
campaigning against Berlusconi, but not against real predatory oligarchies, it
is only because journalists and intellectuals campaigning against Berlusconi
are encouraged and covered from Carabinieri Secret Police corps. In no other
country, anybody would be allowed to such campaigning against politicians,
Statesmen/women etc. When such unilateral permanent aggressions happen, it is
because there a white civil war. In Italy, as in many comprador countries,
there is permanent white coup d’État, a permanent self-shitting destabilization
wanted from the Anglo-American owners of Italy.
Interesting the
interpretation of Luttazzi about the relationship Moro-Andreotti and
Andreotti-RedBrigades. He forgot anyway the Carabinieri Secret Police. A single
Carabinieri officer could not manage the whole Moro operation ordered from
Andreotti.
The stories narrated
from this book are certainly interesting and useful, although all the
discussions about censorship be decidedly surreal because the main Italic TV
networks, RAI and Mediaset are controlled, the former from the political
parties, all the political parties, and the latter from Mr. Berlusconi who in
politics since 1994.
Apart from some very
rare exceptions, the main censored journalists, or satirists, or actors, are
anti-Berlusconians censored from the same formal opposition to the Berlusconi
party and front. There were and there are long quarrelling only because the RAI
is not managed as a real company with precise editorial guidelines and with the
freedom to hire and to fire according to them.
In practice,
journalists, or satirists, or actors, pretend an independence there is nowhere
in the world. They simulate there be abroad, while there be not in Italy. They
simulated there were in Italy, while actually there never be. Political parties
and financial oligarchies controlled everything.
They’d want to be paid, de facto with public money (RAI is in permanent deficit despite all
TV owners must pay fees for it), for doing what they want. So, there are
journalists, or satirists, or actors, pretending total freedom of expression on
media be not their properties, and companies (RAI, specifically) organizing
mobbing according to political agreements, political agreements between
government parties and opposition parties.
The main accusation
moved from this book is: we are anti-Berlusconi and the same anti-Berlusconi
parties do not defend us. However, there are equally regime components supporting
this hysterical anti-Berlusconi network.
(Gomez 2004) is
interesting and useful for what it tells but even more for what it does not
tell, it censors. It basically is a propaganda book. Its leitmotif is:
“Berlusconi created a mediatic regime, a mediatic dictatorship. He and his
fellow partners are the worst evil, while those opposing him... No, actually
those opposing him in a weak way are a false opposition, so guilty as he and
his supporters, his accomplishes, are.”
Yes, there was and there
is centrist and rightist censorship too. Actually the culture has been occupied
and is going on being occupied from leftists and Catholics, since some
Anglo-American decision since when they were occupying Italy, since 1943.
Without forgetting the
even stronger mediatic occupation from the Agnelli family and the other
Mediobanca area families, the comprador predatory oligarchies. No one could
tell of an Agnelli what has been and is currently told about a Berlusconi. No
one of these claimed intellectual-against ever violated this mafia-style rule.
They would have been scientifically annihilated, not just roughly hit as from
this para-Berlusconi area.
In Italy, really
independent intellectuals are persecuted. They do not work, not as
intellectuals. They are not named, if not someone occasionally, in this book,
which is a mafia-style feud, using the usual vulgate made up and diffused with
the strong protection and instigation of the comprador oligarchies’-controlled
Presidency of the Republic, its Carabinieri Secret Police with annexed judiciary,
and the Anglo-American and other owners of Italy. Not casually the publisher is
the main publishing conglomerate of the Mediobanca area, owned from the main Italic
predatory oligarchies. For them, the main crime of Berlusconi is of being an
outsider, not very different from them although too rapidly successful in
fields where they failed.
Travaglio, M., and P.
Gomez, Regime. Biagi, Santoro, Massimo
Fini, Freccero, Luttazzi, Sabina Guzzanti, Paolo Rossi, tg, gr e giornali:
storie di censure e bugie nell’Italia di Berlusconi. Postfazione di Beppe
Grillo, BUR, Milan, Italy, 2004.
