THE UNEDITED

Free space for free expression in english & italian

I predict Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee at the July 2020 DNC convention. However, Trump will ultimately win re-election in November.

            The most important thing to know when analyzing national elections in the United States is that there is an “establishment” wing of the Democratic Party and a “grassroots” wing. This dichotomy is true of the Republican Party as well. The generally successful strategy for candidates is to hold extreme policy positions during the primary season to generate grassroots support, then shift to a moderate policy platform in the general election to attract independent voters. Candidates have to appear credible to both constituencies (establishment and grassroots) while managing the policy shift from extreme-to-moderate.

The candidates

Elizabeth Warren had a dramatic surge in the polls during the Fall of 2019. She was drawing crowds of over 10,000 people to her campaign events. Warren’s main platform is economic populism, which she articulates very well and which resonates powerfully with the Democratic base. The problem? Elizabeth Warren’s brand of economic populism does not resonate with the Party’s donor class, the “establishment”. Even as her popularity surged among the party’s base, the large donors and corporate elite, who would not benefit under Warren’s policies, withheld support. Warren lost momentum and she has fallen in the polls ever since.

            Bernie Sanders has had a consistently popular democratic socialist platform and his poll numbers are challenging the frontrunner, Joe Biden. Bernie does not have the support of the donor class, but unlike Warren, he does not need it. In the last 3 months of 2019, Bernie Sanders raised $34 million from 1.8 million donations, with the average donation being $18. The donor class does not like his anti-capital positions and many in the Democratic Party do not believe (perhaps mistakenly) that he can win in the general election due to his democratic socialist platform. Most importantly, Sanders is 78 years old, and his health is an issue - he had a heart attack on October 1, 2019.

Joe Biden is often considered the perfect candidate. He is beloved by the grassroots for his “folksy” manner and by the donor class alike. He has a long political history and is therefore a predictable choice for the establishment. However, his cognitive abilities have severely deteriorated. He has clear neurological problems and is struggling. It really begs the question, why is the Democratic Party running a 77 year old man with clear cognitive impairments as its frontrunner? More on this later.

            The other candidates are interesting but not likely to gain meaningful traction. Bloomberg is notable for his business prowess and deep financial reserves and relationships. However, after spending $300 million on advertising, his poll numbers barely improved. He simply does not have the charisma to run a successful national campaign. Some analysts have surmised that he is running to insert Gun Control more prominently into the national debate. Regardless, for our purposes, he is not relevant. If he pre-announces a vice presidential running mate with charisma, he could possibly create a compelling candidacy.

Buttigieg is well-liked among the younger generation of the donor class (Silicon Valley) but he struggles with the base. He has a peculiar establishment background (Harvard, naval intelligence, Mckinsey, etc.) and his father founded the International Gramsci Society. It is an interesting plot line and could gain traction given his powerful allies, but probably not relevant to the final election outcome. Tulsi Gabbard is notable as a veteran and for her anti-war platform which resonates with the base, but the establishment is adamantly against her platform and independent streak. Andrew Yang is a highly intelligent and independent candidate, which is interesting in terms of what his candidacy says about the base, but he is most likely irrelevant for the 2020 final outcome.

“Super Delegates”

The Democratic Party has a primary system that includes “super delegates”. Voters in the Democratic primaries cast their vote at polling locations throughout their state. The state Democratic Party then awards state delegates to the candidates proportionally, according to how many votes they received. The state Party sends those delegates to the national Democratic Party convention where they are “pledged” to vote according to the state vote tallies for each candidate. Super delegates also represent the state at the national convention but they are unpledged delegates, i.e. not bound by the results of the state’s primary voting. Super delegates can vote for any candidate they choose at the national convention.

For instance, in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, 704 local delegates (representing primary voters at the state level) voted for Hillary Clinton while 700 local delegates voted for Bernie Sanders. This resulted in Clinton having 23 pledged state delegates from Iowa for the DNC national convention and Bernie Sanders having 21 pledged delegates. However, 6 “super delegates” sided with Clinton giving her a total of 29 delegates from Iowa for the national convention. In 2016, 85 percent of super delegates supported Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultzs, chair of the Democratic National Committee (the governing organization of the Democratic Party), actually stated in an interview, “Unpledged delegates exist to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” Due to broad anger in the Democratic Party’s base about what was perceived as a bias in the establishment’s favor, the Party changed the rules such that super delegates only come into play if the national convention becomes a “brokered convention”.

A “brokered convention”

A “brokered convention” simply means that if no candidate has a clear majority of votes after the first ballot at the DNC national convention in July, there is a second round of voting. For a candidate to win the Democratic Party nomination during the first round of voting, they have to receive 1,919 delegate votes. With at least three strong contenders (Biden, Sanders, Warren) and others rising, there is a real possibility of no candidate receiving that minimum number of delegates.

After heavy criticism over the role of super delegates in the 2016 election, the DNC changed its rules in 2018 such that super delegates can only play a role in a second round of voting at the national convention. So conceivably, no current candidate wins on the first round of voting. At that point, it becomes a brokered convention, and all delegates that were previously pledged to one candidate are “released” and can vote for whomever they choose. In the second round of voting, an entirely new candidate can enter the race.

Such an unstable scenario allows Hillary Clinton to enter the field as a “savior” from the chaos. Hillary still has a strong grip on the DNC and is actively participating in meetings, according to sources that have been on DNC conference calls. Tulsi Gabbard called this out in October, “From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it, and now we know… I challenge her [Clinton] to come out from behind her proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media, and face me directly.” Hillary Clinton went so far as to state that Russia is “grooming” Gabbard as a third party candidate and said, “She [Tulsi] is the favorite of the Russians.” More recently, Hillary Clinton has been attacking Bernie Sanders in the press. So Clinton has been shaping the race from the beginning.

The benefit of a brokered convention for Hillary Clinton is that it looks organic and she can avoid the accusation of 2016 - that she rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders. Also, if nominated in July, her candidacy would be only 3 months long. Much of the negative press that plagued her public life would not have sufficient time to gather speed. Also, such a short period would be much easier on her health which was called into question during the 2016 race.

The fact that the Democratic Party and its media allies continue to push Biden as the frontrunner is conspicuous. It is an interesting question as to whether Biden was placed in the primaries intentionally to split the vote and allow for a brokered convention. Hillary understands how unpopular she is among American voters and by having Biden represent the establishment throughout the primaries, she keeps Bernie Sanders from getting the required 1,919 delegates at the convention and effectively bypasses all of the drama and close examination of the primary season.

The Clinton strategy

            Hillary Clinton will use the next 6 months to shape her image as someone who can act as a “savior” from the chaos and beat Donald Trump. The line will be, “you may not like me, but I’m effective”. Her DNC and media allies will be pushing a message of “anyone but Trump”.

        For her savior image to work, she will need a voting base that is (a) destabilized via the brokered convention and (b) desperate for a savior that can defeat Trump. Over the next months, she will try to avoid the appearance that she is preparing to enter the race at the convention, but it will be difficult. She will also try to balance support for the frontrunners (currently Biden, Sanders, Warren), using her corporate media allies, so that no candidate gets a majority at the convention in July. That will primarily entail her and her allies attacking Bernie Sanders who is the clear frontrunner for grassroots voters.

Then, if Hillary Clinton becomes the candidate in July, she will utilize her allies in the mainstream press to keep the attention on Trump. The mainstream media is already a massive echo chamber with 93% of news being negative toward Trump. Hillary will run on an “anything but Trump” platform and will limit the news flow about herself or her campaign. She will utilize her allies in Silicon Valley and the mainstream press to actively shape the news flow.

There is a new documentary coming out about Hillary Clinton in March, and the first look reveals an honest message of “yes, I am a divisive leader, and I know it’s hard to like me”. So in this first stage, she will acknowledge the problems of her past candidacy and public life. In the next stage, that vulnerability and honest assessment will be followed with a “So what? The Party is in disarray and it needs me.” The tone and presence of her “stealth” candidacy will become more strong and ruthless as we approach the July convention. Her strategic goal is for strength to be more important than likability at the convention.

The prediction

I predict that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic nominee, but Trump will win again in the November 2020 election. The support among his base has only increased since 2016. Tens of thousands of voters are still flocking to his rallies, sometimes waiting 20 hours in freezing temperatures to get inside.

The attacks on him so far have been unsuccessful. “Russia Gate” - accusations that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election - led nowhere. In the wake of the November impeachment hearings over dealings with Ukraine, Trump’s approval numbers actually increased. The public’s reaction to the impeachment was largely indifference, despite the mainstream press and Democratic leadership trumpeting that “the fate of our democracy hinges on this moment”. Currently, the Senate is holding a trial after receiving articles of impeachment from the House of Representatives. Trump’s approval rating rose 3 points during the trial’s first week.

            The US public is experiencing “Trump fatigue” and shrugs off every controversy the Democratic party tries to pin on Trump. The establishment wing/ Clinton team would like to believe that 2020 is different, but the public will simply see a Clinton versus Trump matchup in the exact same light as 2016. In addition, Bernie Sanders supporters will be even more enraged in 2020 and even less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton in November.

How Trump could lose

There is one main scenario where Trump loses and that is if the United States enters recession prior to the election in 2020. That currently appears unlikely, although there are signs that we are nearing the end of this business cycle. For instance, the unemployment rate is at a record low. We have a robust economy with no slack in the labor market. At the same time, consumer debt defaults are rising. Historically, there is a significant lead time from when consumer defaults start rising and the unemployment rate turns up again leading into a recession so it appears unlikely in 2020.

            The economic environment seems similar to the wage-push inflationary environment of the mid-1960s. Inflation was just starting to pick up, but no one knew it or felt it. Trump voters may be losing ground due to this burgeoning inflationary environment, but they don’t recognize it. Inflation starts out as a stealth problem. Ironically, that is helpful for Trump who only needs voters to feel good for the next 10 months.

            There will be other attempts to stop Trump - accusations of sexual misconduct, corrupt business dealings, abuse of executive power - but none of these have worked so far. If Trump’s actions in Ukraine and Iran are any indication, he has so far been effective at thwarting geopolitical sabotage efforts (i.e. Kerry back-channeling with Iran).

            There is one other outlier that has to be considered. Voter fraud and outright election fraud are very real problems. Consider the fact that some California counties reported more votes than there are registered voters. So Trump could be defeated with an orchestrated and targeted Election Fraud strategy - whether via the electronic voting machines or through actual physical voting. In several key swing states, he only won by several thousand votes so it is a real possibility. There is also the impact of Silicon Valley’s grip on social media. The prominent research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein has estimated that Google was able to shift between 3 and 10 million votes to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election via manipulating search results.

The fight for the American Empire

            There is a loose constellation of corporate and political interest groups that protect the American Empire’s structure, which allows for leveraging American financial and military power globally to establish advantageous trade regimes and political unions. This worked for awhile, but now the American public can no longer bear the burden of the Empire.

      In the course of setting up and defending this structure, many “globalist” agents set up what are essentially toll booths along the frontier of the empire. If foreign partners want into the imperial core, or internal actors want outside, they have to pay the toll to these globalist operatives. Over time, the loyalty of these operatives to the United States has come into question. Trump is part of a group that is loyal to the United States and trying to rebalance the American Empire. These “toll keepers” are not happy about it.

         For instance, he boasts of Saudi Arabia paying $1 Billion for more troops. He wants countries to pay to host American troops and bases. He wants NATO members to pay more. He wants to renegotiate trade agreements. He wants Europe to buy American energy. Every foreign policy initiative by Trump can be reduced to this rebalancing effort.

The American public doesn’t fully understand this strategic shift, but they intuitively grasp that Trump is trying to do something different than the “globalist” status quo and so they vote for him, even if they don’t like him as a person. There are many different “deep states” and “globalists” in the US. Trump represents a nationalist brand with its own military, intelligence, corporate and financial assets. The group working with Trump has no choice but to exercise all available resources to ensure he wins the 2020 election.

In January 2016, I predicted that Trump would win because he presented the most compelling case for rebalancing the American Empire. I predict he will win again.

Saturday April 24th 2021 On a train from Geneva to Zurich

I express my deepest sympathy to the members of the central committee who, after more than 100 years, are still struggling to establish the victory of socialism over capitalism. I am well renown as Lenin, a charismatic figure who lead the revolution to the triumph over the reactionary forces. I actually lead a putsch, supported by a foreigner power, but I prefer to freely interpret history in order to sustain my ideas. Quite awkwardly, after my death, I was well preserved in a mausoleum in the center of Moscow, just to wake up in a Soviet Union I was not able to recognize anymore. Russian aristocrats adopted English, instead of French, as the most favorite language and the current leader of the Russian people looks like much more to an Italian socialist heretics called Mussolini. Those socialist heretics are now called fascists and they are apparently the fiercest enemy of the people and the ideals of the revolution. Although also socialism is more popular among the financial capitalist elite of the United States than in the Soviet Union itself. I should admit to be confused. I reputed myself a master creator of plots and lies, to manipulate my own people and cope with foreign reactions to the regime I mostly contributed to establish. I now see that my method has been more widely applied, in such a way that I cannot recognize anymore liberals, libertarians, Roman Catholics, comrades who call themselves socialists and comrades who call themselves fascists. I however managed to take a train to Zurich, to exile myself in the Swiss town once again, waiting for better times. Once again it was Germany, now a federal republic, although not a soviet republic, to sponsor my travel. At first from Moscow to Berlin, recognizing me as ethnically German. I should thank some friends in the immigration office. Once acquired the passport of the European Union, that is nowadays the closest organization to the Soviet Union I created, I also obtained a work permit to establish myself in Switzerland, that, despite the general chaos, has never proclaimed itself a Soviet Confederacy. When local immigration office asked me what I am surviving with, I told them I am an alpine guide and book illustrator. They compared me to a certain Wymper, who was the first to ascend the Matterhorn, but when they asked me to show my drawings as a proof of my activity they mentioned a certain Hitler. Apparently a fellow socialist, also a heretic one, who linked socialism with nationalism. I think that Marx theorized something like that, but I need to read again all of his works, just a double check. After one hundred years my memory has faded and I anyway have to admit that I never read all of Marx´works. He was too prolific and I was also too busy to setup my show and catch the attention of my admirers. I however managed to obtain a five years work permit B. On the building I was living in, during my previous exile, someone put a commemorative plaque. I tried to find an apartment in the very same place, but it has become apparently too expensive. The Kaiser is not sponsoring me anymore and, waiting for better times, I had to content myself with a small studio nearby the main railway station. They say it is a new fashionable area, surrounded by fashionable restaurants, art galleries and design shops. It could be a good and reasonable start. I will perhaps meet a pleasant and adventurous lady who could help me with the expenses. Meanwhile I will keep an eye on some romantic locations, at least to pose myself as a talented and romantic artist and explorer. Luckily I also quickly found a job for some newspaper published on something called the Internet. It should be reachable from everywhere around the world, and it should help me to connect with my comrades of the Central Committee. Wherever they are and whatever ideology are they now working on.

Saturday April 24th 2021 A train from Geneva to Zurich

I will come back to Zurich today. My house on the mountains has been transformed into a fashionable resort and I cannot afford to live there permanently anymore. Just the time to greet a couple of friends and to take a further train to Frankfurt. I have grown up, I am not anymore the inexperienced country girl I used to be. I trade contemporary art and travel constantly in the whole of the DACH area, plus London and the United States. The market is expanding and I am acquiring more and more rich Chinese and Russian clients. Perhaps I shall be able to set up my own company, but I need to exploit the brand of the auction house I am working for and establish my image on the social networks. Everybody call me an ambitious girl, but who would not be with my conditions and background. I have grown up on the Swiss alps, in an exclusive area, got acquainted, already as I was a child, to everlasting celebrity. A Japanese reshaped my image around fifty years ago, providing me with eternal youth. I do not need to get married, nor to bear children, I shall live forever, as those leaders from North Korea. I am not a true expert of the Juche, but beside the hammer and the sickle, North Korean iconography has added a brush. That gives me a good feeling, and sustain my idea that art is a powerful tool to become influential and make money. If I shall have success I will buy a huge mansion on the Taunus, or perhaps I shall move to Munich, or on the Starnbergensee. Despite the low taxation, the center of my business network lies in Germany and I need to stay here till to my next career step. Bonuses are however provided to me through a subsidiary based in Lichtenstein and, since they constitute the main component of my incomes, my overall tax bill is not higher than 20% of my revenues. I am feeling tired, I travelled the whole day. I really need a stop. Just the time to get on a taxi and reach the Dolder Grand. I cannot wait to have a bigger splash in the spa, I just hope to be there before the closing time. Or, in the worst case, that I shall obtain a free upgrade of my room. I need at least a bath and I am not in the mood of a plebeian shower. Let‘s take a nap and wake up in a better world.

Saturday April 24th 2021 A train from Geneva to Zurich

I am really tired. I spent the whole day by a client in Geneva. I wished to become a naval architect, but for some strange destiny I found myself as an interior architect living in Milan. Just a stop in Zurich, I shall need to spend the whole night there. Due to the pest, it has become quite difficult to travel and the last train from Geneva to Italy has been cancelled. Between sleeping in Brig, Domodossola or Zurich, I prefer the biggest of the Swiss cities. I can take advantage of the stop to pay a visit to the local design museum, there are a couple of objects I should buy there for one of my most obnoxious clients and perhaps have also enough time to take a coffee with a potential customer. I have not already booked the hotel, but I hope that the Baur au Lac will make me a good offer. I need a spacious room, I feel the need for a Jacuzzi, after a terrible week in that IBIS in Geneva. It will be the last time that I shall allow my client to book a hotel room for me. I understand they have to pay for my expenses, but do they not recognize that I have become an archistar? Anybody know my name, especially after I set up the museum house of the most renown fashion designers in the world. Perhaps I should work through an assistant, not to introduce myself as an independent consultant anymore. However I am still enjoying my job and I would not like to delegate even the slightest inconvenience. I even like to fill the forms, perhaps it is due to the fact that I have grown up in the former so called DDR and moved to the west only just after the Wende, when I was 14 years old. If the regime had not fallen, I would have perhaps ended up to fill the walls with the Egyptian profile of workers and soldiers, with those modern hieroglyphs expression of the socialist realism. Luckily my parents chose to move to Düsseldorf and as the child of a poor Ossie plumber I got easily admitted to the local Kunstakademie. Perhaps also thanks to the success obtained by Gerhard Richter, now one of the most affluent Germans, who also moved from the DDR to the decadent west, replacing socialist realism with capitalist realism. Indeed I love capitalism and despite everybody suggested me to overnight at the 25 Hours, a design boutique hotel in the modern designers area, I still prefer the luxury of the Baur au Lac. I really need to take a nap. I will better enjoy the evening in less than half an hour in the jacuzzi of my junior suite. That I shall bill on the expenses of my stingy clients in Geneva.

Tempo di rivoluzioni sovrapposte:
nuovi mezzi/nuove modalità di comunicazione - sociologia e prospettive;
evoluzione micro/macro e geo-economica tra innovazione tecnica settoriale, aree di telelavoro, impatto delle macrocapacita’ di calcolo nelle transazioni e nelle previsioni;
pandemia Covid 19 (male prevista, gestione ed esiti non prevedibili).

Parto da una personale fallacia narrativa: oggi e cento anni fa (Weimar/adesso).
In breve:
disgregazione degli Imperi Centrali,
deflagrazione degli Stati Ipernazionali,
finestra ipercreativa (in realtà, spesso prosecuzione del prima - fisica, arte, letteratura e pensiero),
implosione tragica.

Focalizzo sulla politica culturale di massa, opportunità concesse, prospettive e antidoti.

Dato empirico: sovraesposizione ai dati pandemici.
I media tradizionali inondano da mesi la nostra percezione con dati numerici, ipotesi di contenimento, prospettive.
Da alcune settimane ciò si incrocia con previsioni economiche e altre ipotesi di correzione.

Iniziate prima e su questo scenario, alcune modalità innovative di creazione di consenso e tentativo di governo basate su psicologia di massa e new media.
Esempi: campagne elettorali USA (crowd funding e new media, dai media nazionali letti progressivi - Obama, e regressivi - Trump, Brexit), europee (Ungheria, Polonia), nazionali (Berlusconi, Renzi, Salvini in modalità ibrida; M5S in modalità integrale).

Scenario nazionale italiano:
dal tempo della crisi dello Spread, nascita e successo di un movimento a modalità iniziale interamente basata sui new media, M5S.
Ovvero - per semplificare - Casaleggio e Associati (C&A).

Bias favorevoli:
1) iniziale limitazione dei diritti individuali di allora (riforme Monti/Fornero 2012), conseguenti probabili disordini di massa a fronte di restrizioni;
2) per chi scrive, concezione elitista (straussiana) delle decisioni politiche.

Premessa
C&A ha dimostrato grande innovativa competenza nel creare una entità politica M5S e generare un consenso imponente (30% dei votanti).
La straordinaria concentrazione di fattori per una politica culturale di massa negli ultimi mesi ha offerto possibilità ancora più straordinarie a C&A.

Come C&A si intendono generalizzando le sue emanazioni politiche (M5S, singoli ministri, cariche in enti pubblici, primo ministro).

Fattori
1) un evento negativo eccezionale rinsalda intorno al potere simbolico (premier, bandiera, nazione);
2) il governo a due attori principali (M5S già dimezzato poi stabile e ancora potenzialmente gestibile; PD in crisi implosiva sebbene più abile nelle manovre), comprimari inutili o renitenti a squilibrare le forze in campo;
2) l’antitesi al potere (Lega, in seconda FdI) ha dimostrato gravi limiti di coerenza politica basandosi più sull’indicazione di nemici esterni (immigrati, UE) che su una strategia comunicabile credibile politica (alleanze transnazionali contraddittorie) ed economica;
3) tale antitesi Lega-FdI, Lega soprattutto, è persistentemente stigmatizzata dai grandi media tradizionali (grandi testate giornalistiche, RAI) o non appoggiata da altri (Mediaset, legata a para-opposizione consensuale dei resti del partito di Berlusconi);
4) per 6 settimane si è comunicato esclusivamente sulla pandemia. Dopo, le prospettive di crisi economica hanno trovato un po’ di spazio.

Ne sono derivati i seguenti vantaggi per il governo:
a) coesione da sindrome di accerchiamento;
b) assenza di contraddittorio;
c) totale libertà di decisione;
d) annichilazione virtuale e stigmatizzazione dei competitori;
e) possibilità di trattare la maggioranza degli elettori come plebe romana nel tardo Impero (consenso elargitorio);
f) potere affabulatorio su questa plebe (Casalino dal GF alla direzione comunicativa del premier).

Perché non ne è scaturito un vantaggio a medio termine?

C&A non ha saputo raggruppare una élite dirigente.
Tra errori palesi ed errori strategici.

Prima delle elezioni ha selezionato candidati nativi digitali inesperti della complessità della politica senza stabilire una catena di comando effettiva dietro la cd democrazia digitale.

Insieme a questi, ha cooptato per pseudoassemblee (digitali a numero chiuso) un grande numero di mediocri pseudocompetenti limitandosi a un approccio anticulturale da blog.

Consapevole di mancare di élite (così come l’Armata Rossa con gli ufficiali zaristi meno motivati), vinte le elezioni ha arruolato un certo numero di intellettuali.
Alcuni hanno disertato dai gruppi di appartenenza per vantaggio personale (cd effetto valanga),
Altri sono stati recuperati da posizioni universitarie secondarie e/o ambigue.

Non sono state considerate le posizioni dei singoli.
a) sindrome “Bar del lunedì” - ciascun incompetente (specie con attributi di potere) sente di poter sentenziare su tutto;
b) indisponibilità a recedere da una posizione vantaggiosa occupata (dai vertici ai consiglieri comunali) per persone senza cursus honorum.
c) soprattutto, la forma più diffusa attuale di disturbo della personalità. Il narcisismo.
Sopra tutti, Conte.

Nei fatti, dopo la ipersemplificazione originaria, la maggiore fragilità deriva da altro.
Alla eccezionale valutazione delle novità comunicative ha corrisposto la sottovalutazione della complessità della politica.

Conclusione
C&A avrebbe potuto realizzare un progetto di assoluto impatto... se ne avesse avuto uno.
Nonostante la compiacenza degli “Imprenditori della Disponibilità” (D. Kahneman).

"La politica è come la Sfinge della leggenda. Divora chiunque non riesca a risolvere i suoi enigmi."
Antoine de Rivarol (in Ernst Jünger , "Massime di un cinservatore", Guanda).

Italy remains the least governable and most unstable member of Nato, not to mention the UE. Despite being one of the original six Founding Members and one of the principal financial supporters of the UE, Italy does not carry the political weight one would expect of the EU’s second major manufacturing Power. A question of leaders and leadership?

Fourteen months ago, despite an electoral law hastily redesigned to encourage multi-party politics as opposed to the bi-party politics of the Berlusconi “era," Italian voters, clearly sending a message to their leaders side-stepped the traditional parties and voted resoundingly for two up-starts known as the M5S and Lega parties. These two parties subsequently formed the first two-party coalition government in the history of the Republic. Known as the “Government for Change," that government was put into sudden-death overtime by Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega on August 8, 2019. 

After a little more than one year, Italians stand aghast as Italy’s leaders once again seem intent on playing “craps” with the lives of their fellow citizens. Naturally, for the good of all Italians, but most of all for the good of the Country’s numerous and highly paid bureaucrats and, of course, for the thousands of MPs and politicians required to represent a shrinking Italian electorate now down to about 50 million people.

No one on the right or left of the political spectrum can deny Italy needs “a better mouse trap”. In the age of real-time communications, smart phones, computers and broad-band internet connections, Italy needs a political machinery that    is democratic, quick to decide and cost effective.

The present Constitution and Institutions do not seem to guarantee any of the above. What to do?

1. Reduce the number of MPs. It makes little sense for Italians to pay for 1000 legislators when half would be more than enough to adequately represent Italy’s decreasing eligible voter population of some 50 million. An example? Italian Representatives represent 80,000 people each compared with 733,000 people each by their American counterparts. Italian Senators, which are less than half in number, represent 200,000 people each. However, in the US Senators represent the individual States and no comparisons are possible.
2. Cut the outrageously high cost of Italian politics. Italian MPs earn more than € 190,000.00 per year. They are the highest paid politicians in Europe or the Americas. The cost of running Italy’s Quirinal Palace (where Pres. Mattarella and retinue live and work) is five times that of Buckingham Palace and twice that of the White House! For most Italians, politicians are not worth the money they get, especially in these times of diminishing returns. Something must be done to stop the gouging of taxpayers.
3. Encourage the formation of a manageable two / three party system by rethinking voter districts, raising thresholds for winning seats in parliament and adopting a first-past the-post majority electoral system. The error is believing that more parties in Parliament equals more democracy. In the Italian case the proliferation of parties has brought nothing but confusion and hegemony often by parties representing but a majority only marginally superior to their own.
4. Neutralize the Italian Magistrature’s bid for political power by constitutional amendment where possible and/or by making the Magistratura accessible to lawyers and Notaries in private practice; the present closed system does nobody any good; civil servants and bureaucrats become more responsive to the needs of society when challenged by competition from the private sector.  

All systems are self-preserving and naturally Italian politicians believe the answer lies not in the above suggestions but in going even more proportional (in efforts to stop the “populist right” from spoiling their well-remunerated fun). For the good of Italy and to make sure it is “never again” for the likes of Salvini.

Come Tuesday, August 27, should Mattarella not send everybody to the polls sometime this fall, Italians risk falling back into the hands of the old cold-war leadership that nearly bankrupted the Country. If that were allowed to happen, self-determination could become the North’s only option. Caveat emptor!

Quest’estate l’azienda di Cupertino ha annunciato che passerà dai processori Intel a processori ARM e che quindi passerà dalla tecnologia CISC a quella RISC. A novembre 2020 Apple ha poi presentato M1, il primo processore ARM di Apple per MacBook Air, MacBook Pro e Mac Mini. Ma cosa implica tutto questo?

La sigla CISC sta per “Complex Instruction Set Computer” (computer con istruzioni complesse), mentre RISC per “Reduced Instruction Set Computer” ( computer con numero di istruzioni ridotto) e rappresentano due modi diversi di affrontare uno stesso problema.
Supponiamo di voler trovare il prodotto di due numeri: uno memorizzato nella posizione 2:3 e un altro nella posizione 5:2 della memoria e di voler poi scrivere il risultato nuovamente nella posizione 2:3.
In un processore CISC vi è un’istruzione apposita (che a titolo esemplificativo chiameremo MOLTIPLICA) che permette di effettuare l’operazione; quando viene eseguita, questa istruzione carica i due valori in registri separati, moltiplica gli operandi nell'unità di esecuzione e quindi memorizza il prodotto nel registro appropriato (MOLTIPLICA 2:3, 5:2). MOLTIPLICA è quindi la nostra funzione complessa che agisce direttamente sui banchi di memoria del computer e non obbliga chi scrive il programma a chiamare esplicitamente alcuna funzione di caricamento o memorizzazione dei dati nei registri o nella memoria. Poiché la lunghezza del codice è molto breve questo ha come principale conseguenza che viene utilizzata pochissima RAM per memorizzare le istruzioni.
In un processore RISC, invece, vengono utilizzate solo semplici istruzioni che possono essere eseguite all'interno di un ciclo di clock. La stessa operazione di moltiplicazione che in un processore CISC veniva eseguita in un unico comando, viene suddivisa in quattro differenti operazioni che possono essere, ad esempio CARICO nel registro A il valore della cella di memoria 2:3, CARICO nel registro B il valore della cella di memoria 5:2, MOLTIPLICO A e B, SCRIVO il risultato in 2:3 e che vengono eseguite ognuna in un differente ciclo di Clock.
Anche se il sistema RISC sembra più macchinoso porta anche alcuni vantaggi molto importanti: queste "istruzioni ridotte" richiedono meno transistor di spazio hardware rispetto alle istruzioni complesse, lasciando più spazio per i registri di uso generale e di conseguenza hanno meno bisogno di energia e producono meno calore. Poiché tutte le istruzioni vengono eseguite in un periodo di tempo uniforme (CLOCK), è possibile il pipelining (una tecnica che consiste nel suddividere il lavoro svolto da un processore in passi, che richiedono una frazione del tempo necessario all’esecuzione dell’intera istruzione) il che rende le operazioni eseguite su processori RISC veloci quanto quelle su processori CISC.
Il fatto che poi i processori RISC utilizzino meno energia per eseguire le operazioni e scaldino di conseguenza meno li ha resi i processori ideali per i computer portatili e per i dispositivi mobili.
Ad onor del vero è da segnalare che negli ultimi anni nei processori CISC sono state introdotte alcune funzioni tipiche dei processori RISC e AMD (maggior produttore i processori RISC per computer desktop e notebook) così che nei sistemi desktop e server le differenze non sono più così marcate.
I processori CISC, che sono utilizzati principalmente sui computer e sui server, sono prodotti da una sola azienda, l’Intel, ed utilizzano un proprio set di istruzioni X86 (a 32 bit) e X86-64 (a 64 bit), mentre i processori che fanno uso di della tecnologia RISC sono utilizzati principalmente sui dispositivi mobili quali smartphone o tablet, e si basano su architettura ARM e sono prodotti da diverse aziende. ARM, è un’azienda fondata a Cambridge nel 1990 nata da una collaborazione tra Apple e Acorn Computers che non produce direttamente i suoi processori e, nella maggior parte dei casi, non li progetta, ma concede in licenza la proprietà intellettuale che serve ad altre aziende come Samsung, Qualcomm, Apple, eccetera per progettare e costruire microchip con la sua architettura.
La differenza tra RISC e CISC meriterebbe da sola una trattazione a parte e non essendo lo scopo di questo articolo possiamo fermarci qua una volta chiarite le principali differenze.
Abbiamo detto che Apple quest’estate ha annunciato che passerà a produrre computer non più con processori Intel ma con ARM che produrrà lei stessa, ma non è la prima volta che l’azienda di Cupertino fa un cambiamento così radicale: a parte i computer basati sul leggendario MOS 6502 che utilizzava un set di istruzioni proprio, i primi processori importanti utilizzati da Apple appartenevano alla famiglia del Motorola 68000, che andavano a caratterizzare la famiglia di Macintosh dal 1984 (chi si ricorda il famoso spot ispirato a Orwell?) e che erano bassati su tecnologia CISC. Nel 1994 Apple decide di utilizzare i processori IBM Power PC, che utilizzano la tecnologia RISC ed un set di istruzioni proprietarie e questa sinergia tra Apple e IBM proseguì fino al 2006 quando con l’introduzione sul mercato del iMac oltre che presentare un look nuovo ai suoi prodotti l’azienda di Cupertino inizia ad utilizzare i processori CISC di Intel.
Vista la differenza di programmazione utilizzata a livello macchina tra processori CISC e RISC il passaggio tra PowerPc e iMac non fu completamente indolore e nel sistema operativo Mac Os 10 che accompagnava le nuove macchine venne inserito un emulatore che permetteva di utilizzare i software precedenti.
Il problema del software disponibile infatti, oggi giorno, è uno dei fattori determinanti per il buon successo di un computer o di un sistema operativo come nel caso dell’azienda canadese BlackBerry o del sistema operativo per dispositivi mobili Windows Phone.
Per ovviare a questo, anche questa volta, Apple ha predisposto una sorta di macchina virtuale chiamata Rosetta2 che permetterà di far funzionare i software precedentemente sviluppati, mentre per i programmatori mette a disposizione un kit di sviluppo che consiste in un Mac mini speciale, dotato dello stesso processore A12Z degli ultimi iPad e 16GB di RAM.
Tuttavia è da sottolineare che l’utilizzo di Rosetta2 è solamente una “pezza virtuale” in quanto non permetterà mai di sfruttare al massimo le caratteristiche del nuovo processore di Apple anzi, molto probabilmente, i software che gireranno tramite Rosetta2 saranno meno performanti che non se lavorassero su di un vecchio computer. Rimane poi il problema di tutti quei software specifici che non hanno un grande mercato e che non conviene convertire.
La transizione, secondo Apple, per i suoi prodotti da processori Intel a processori ARM durerà circa due anni e nel frattempo Intel (per la quale Apple rappresenta il 10% del mercato) ha assicurato di continuare a fornire i suoi prodotti; ma questo lasso di tempo indica probabilmente il periodo che passerà tra il lancio del primo Mac con processore ARM e il pensionamento commerciale dell’ultimo Mac ancora dotato di processore Intel, mentre la sua transizione completa che si concluderà con la dichiarazione di obsolescenza dell’ultimo Mac Intel disponibile si prevede possa durare fino al 2030.
Ma cosa spinge Apple a voler fare un passaggio così radicale?
I motivi sono molti. Per prima cosa è interessante osservare che mentre i dispositivi mobili apple come Ipad o Iphone utilizzano processori ARM i suoi computer utilizzano invece processori Intel; come abbiamo visto all’inizio non vi è compatibilità tra software creati per un Iphone ad esempio e un iMac. Utilizzare un unico processore per tutti i dispositivi permetterà di creare una ecosistema virtuale dove un’utente Apple avrà la stessa applicazione sia sul telefono che sul computer con gli stessi dati e lo stesso utilizzo.
Per gli sviluppatori di software sarà possibile sviluppare un’ App che funzionerà sia su smartphone che su computer senza dover apportare alcuna modifica.
Ma le migliorie non si fermano qua, i processori ARM di Apple avranno delle customizzazioni specifiche che ne migliorano sensibilmente le performace e poter scrivere un software specifico per un sistema che integra sia l’hardware che il software a livello così profondo non è certo da trascurare.
Un altro motivo che ha portato l’azienda di Cupertino a passare a processori che lei stessa sviluppa è quella di affrancarsi da Intel e potrà così riprendere il totale controllo dei piani di sviluppo e aggiornamento dei suoi computer, mentre l’aver sviluppato un proprio processore ha permesso a Apple di integrare in un unico chip di 5nm (come nel caso del M1) 16 miliardi di transistor che comprendono: una CPU a 8 core, motore neurale (leggi I.A.) a 16 core, GPU a 8 core, controller I/O, controller Thunderbolt e USB, nonché la memoria RAM. Per finire l’utilizzo della tecnologia RISC abbiamo visto necessita meno energia e porta quindi a poter creare computer che consumano molto meno e che non necessitano di grandi dissipatori o ventole di raffreddamento.

Ma alla fine Apple ha veramente sviluppato un nuovo processore per personal computer che surclasserà tutti i precedenti?
La risposta non è facile. In realtà quello che ha fatto Apple è di sviluppare un processore che a parità di consumi è più performante e veloce di processori per PC esistenti. Se noi prendessimo, ad esempio, un processore Intel I7 di nona generazione a 8 Core e 16 Thread (processi che vengono eseguiti contemporaneamente) ma che arriva a picchi di 235 - 255 Watt e lo abbiniamo ad una buona scheda madre e video, questo non ha nulla da invidiare alle performance di un computer basato su di un unico processore M1; la vera novità sta nel fatto che Apple ha integrato le stesse caratteristiche in un unico processore di minor consumo.
Sembra di tornare un po’ agli albori dei PC, quando ogni computer aveva un suo processore specifico (o famiglia di processori) e un suo hardware specifico che si programmava e permetteva di sfruttare al massimo ogni singolo Hz del clock e bit di memoria.

Conviene quindi comprare il nuovo Mac con processore ARM?
La risposta non è anche qua facile. Certo per un amante dei prodotti Apple il lancio di un nuovo computer è come il lancio di un nuovo Iphone o Ipad e, indipendentemente dal fatto che serva o meno, lo si compra. Diverso per chi lo utilizza per lavoro. Fino a che non vi sarà un parco software appositamente scritto per queste macchine non conviene, anzi meglio tenersi il proprio vecchio computer e aspettare nel caso si voglia acquistare un Apple.
Per chi invece è appassionato di Gaming non è certo uno degli acquisti consigliati (ad oggi) visto che normalmente su Mac i giochi non sono mai stati uno dei motori di sviluppo del computer e che oggi esiste la possibilità di noleggiare in remoto un computer da Gaming.

E’ tempo per il capitale di valutare investimenti sulla biocibernetica o non ancora, in particolare su endo-protesi di potenziamento del cervello? L’avvento di un’Età della “biocibernazione” – nome creato da chi scrive negli anni ’80 - è stato profetizzato già da tempo. Nel 2000 Bill Joe, direttore scientifico di Sun Microsystems, scrisse: nel 2030 le tecnologie dell’informazione, bio e nano si fonderanno generando una speciazione post-umana. Ancor prima Kurzweil lanciò programmi di potenziamento tecnologico delle facoltà umane e di discontinuità evoluzionistica: la “singolarità”. Ma le aziende pronte a mettere sul mercato biochip cerebrali rinunciarono per timore di dissensi che avrebbero compromesso la capitalizzazione iniziale in Borsa. Così come Google interruppe, per problemi di vulnerabilità legale in materia di privacy, la vendita di occhiali costruiti come protesi di potenziamento delle funzioni visive-informative del cervello. L’intento dichiarato da Musk di costruire chip da impiantare nel cervello segnala che ora i tempi sono maturi?
Il potenziale tecnologico c’è. Nei sistemi autoritari la ricerca è più avanzata per l’assenza di problemi di consenso, ma è scarsa la vera libertà di impresa. L’innovazione, infatti, richiede o la guerra o una relazione amplificante tra libertà, tecnologia e capitale e in questi la prima non c’è. Nelle democrazie c’è, ma manca il consenso a causa del conflitto tra tecnica e morale. Chi scrive invocò un gizmo nella testa quando quattordicenne nel 1965 giocava a scacchi ad occhi bendati nel Caffè San Marco di Trieste, all’ombra della più grande sinagoga d’Europa. I limiti del cervello umano, forzati, erano evidenti e frustranti. Nell’evoluzione, infatti, ha avuto successo, finora, la cooperazione tra individui e non il supercervello illimitato. Tuttavia, la complessità crescente dei compiti cognitivi ha bisogno di un secondo cervello ausiliario, un “metagolem”. Ma ciò genera orrore nei più. A meno che non sia capace di salvare, disse allo scrivente un vecchio rabbi di passaggio. Tale battuta mostra la via: trasformazioni della configurazione umana naturale sono accettabili solo se chiaramente salvatrici. Per esempio, controllo di Alzheimer e Parkinson, ripristino di vista e udito, autoriparazioni in generale. In sintesi, si può ipotizzare che i biochip cerebrali possano ottenere consenso solo se chiaramente finalizzati a salvazioni mediche. A tale condizione l’investimento è valutabile in un orizzonte di 10-15 anni. Aperta questa porta poi, come accade da secoli, la morale si adeguerà alla tecnica.

To the early and less enduring snow of late autumn, that year followed abundant precipitations that soon covered with a white mantle the mountains around Munich. It could have been the landscape printed on a Christmas card or the atmosphere depicted by Thomas Mann in many of his novels. Perhaps even Hitler would have taken inspiration for a watercolour. It could have for sure promoted the sale of the frame, although soon to be replaced with some work of better quality. I was getting stressed on the workplace, because of the requests I received by the far too many stakeholders I had interaction with. By the tone and the feasibility of the targets, they also reminded me of Hitler, while shouting unintelligible orders to his generals. They also had the tune of a DDR hymn, so deeply impregnated by optimistic propaganda. We will complete the plan within the next five days, employing a team of four people, two of which on vacation and the other two new hires who have not already received their laptops. Of course I had to be stressed, but I had also to consider that I was paid because of my well renown soft skills, i.e. negotiation and stress management. I actually felt quite unprepared with both of them, but that was not what I wrote on my resumée under the direct supervision of my career advisor. On a wednesday night, after having got home at 1 a.m. because of an extenuating meeting with the whole management of my area, I decided to break the piggy bank and take part to a guided tour on the snowshoes. The local section of the DAV, the German Alpine Club, organized many excursions during the week ends. Unfortunately most of trips were often cancelled due to the most disparate reasons. It was so frustrating that I had already abandoned the idea to become a proficient mountaineer. I had however to try. My good friend Cristoph was away for a long mission related to his job and I also had enough to spend most of my time reading on the web edition of the local newspapers alarming reports about the presence of radical Islam in Bavaria. If I had been a young Pioneer in the DDR times, my supervisors would have for sure approved
such a proof of bravery defying the decadent entertainment of the Western countries. Actually, without a good income, I would have ever hardly been available to buy the necessary equipment and the efficiency of the Warsaw Pact would have made the roads to the mountains quite impracticable if not for an highly sophisticated military vehicle. Perhaps available only to the NATO. I did not want to take care of the opinion of high paid professionals, but just to stay away from the town for a short while. I prepared my backpack carefully, not to be stuck in an unknown place without the essential equipment. Relying on technology, it was not necessary to carry a voluminous luggage. The iPad is good enough to contain all the entertainment I need for several years. While selecting the food and handling a pocket of dried fruit, I realised how such a tendency to condense all the necessary resources for survival has started centuries ago. A long road to innovation, should add the commentary of a boring video on the human evolution. I also felt that my thought lack of ingenuousness. Perhaps I was not reading intensively enough and I was looking for new ideas. Like those you easily pick up from the best renowned magazines and, by quoting, you can easily assert to belong to a restricted elite of intellectuals. I also doubted whether I should acquire my information from alternative resources. The only conclusion was to adhere to any plot theory available on the web. I then realized how honest intellectuals should have felt under the DDR. The choice to believe to the carefully manipulated scientific publications of the University of Lipsia or the option to nourish your brain with not verified notions, partially developed by the mind of an uneducated political prisoner. For the following two days, in the comfort of a wooden building, immersed in a white world, I made a truce with my troubles.