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.

“Il coraggio senza riti è temerarietà.
La prudenza senza riti è paura.”
Confucio, Dialoghi (Ed it Garzanti)

L’insussistenza dei riti è stata una possibilità dai tempi della cosiddetta “Fine della Storia” ipotizzata a seguito della caduta del sistema sovietico.
La realtà successiva appare molto più vicina alle tesi di Huntington, di separazione multicentrica.

Chi scrive è nato e vive nel conglomerato Occidentale, si è posto il problema di sopravvivenza e dominanza di una ritualità parareligiosa che ha preso il posto di una religione organizzata condivisa, nel senso di instrumentum regni.
Il fare che ne deriva è soggetto a una rete dogmatica tanto più rigida quanto meno organizzata e competente.

In altri tempi, l’organizzazione e la competenza si sarebbero basate su un sistema.
Esso si fondava in primo luogo su letture e conclusioni condivise (anche per imposizione), sia sacrali (le varianti statuali del cristianesimo), sia parasacrali (il ruolo di Suslov nella URSS di Breznev).

I riti condivisi nell’Occidente contemporaneo sono invece riferiti a un conglomerato di credenze, incurante delle aporie.

Tra le credenze principali:
1) l’ossessione ecologica (riscaldamento globale e conseguenti decisioni estemporanee quali l’automotive elettrico, decrescita felice, deindustrializzazione - carbone, siderurgia);
2) il relativismo culturale (qualsiasi altra cultura conquistata/assimilata/limitrofa assume pari importanza);
3) il tema gender elevato a sistema (nel privato chi scrive ha totale assenza di pregiudizio, ma l’appartenenza LGBT non sia criterio preferenziale, a cominciare dalle arti visive);
4) la revisione storica del ruolo occidentale nel mondo, vista come annullamento di ogni lettura favorevole all’Occidente, dalle Crociate a Gengis Khan; dal ruolo degli Imperi - austroungarico, inglese, turco - al colonialismo ottocentesco;
5) la rinuncia sistematica alla forza e al suo uso a fronte di qualsiasi minaccia;
6) la non-demarcazione di confini tra ciò che noi siamo e ciò che è altro da noi.

Tali credenze, inoltre, sono connesse a una generica modalità espiatoria paracristiana, cioè derivante da una lettura aneddotica parziale di temi vangelici.
Cioè, della colpa occidentale.
Esse hanno assunto il ruolo di Riti Dominanti.

Dogmi, la cui infrazione comporta l’espulsione dalla comunità.
Il prezzo è stato pagato da molti intellettuali, il primo nome a venire in mente è Éric Zemmour.

Questo ha influenza sia nelle modalità collettive (comportamento, convivenza), sia nelle decisioni propriamente politiche e strategiche.
L’intervento odierno se ne occupa per conseguenze politiche e strategiche.
In particolare, ai fini della sopravvivenza del sistema occidentale in termini di libertà culturale e di benessere condiviso.
Termini relativi, dinamici ma incontrovertibili.

Il paradigma proposto da Luttwak con La Grande Strategia dell’Impero Bizantino (il mantenimento plurisecolare di un impero diminuito mediante apprendimento e adattamento) nel tempo attuale rimanda all’epoca delle divisioni tra iconoclasti e iconoduli, disgregazione interna e disarmamento a fronte delle minacce esterne.
Questo paradigma regge sotto il profilo dell’economia delle forze e del bilanciamento sfavorevole contro competitori esterni.
Tuttavia il dato mancante è l’assenza attuale di una religione condivisa.

Noi siamo postumi di un Occidente de-religioso, interconnesso in superficie e sprovvisto di fondamento.
Dove ‘gli uomini sono diventati poveri diavoli che “sanno tutto e non credono a niente” ’.

A titolo di esempio: le posizioni/opposizioni/ non-posizioni sulle questioni relative all’ingombrante vicino conglomerato islamico.
Laddove opporsi validamente alle istanze dominanti di alcune parti non deve equivalere alla deprecazione delle stesse, piuttosto alla loro conoscenza, al loro riconoscimento.
Chi scrive ha competenze limitate sul tema, ma ritiene ridicolo semplificare civiltà teologiche di fascino e complessità.
Con invito alla lettura di Henry Corbin (es. Corpo Spirituale e Terra Celeste. Dall’Iran Mazdeo all’Iran Sciita, Adelphi).

Altrettanto per il Celeste Impero e ai suoi nuovi scopi, modi, punti di forza e criticità utilizzabili.

Per comprendere chi si sia, sapendo chi siano gli altri da se’.

La rimozione degli studi sulla Civiltà della Tecnica, cioè da ciò che siamo diventati, dai temi degli studi diffusi della politica, anch’essa di natura ideologica, limita grandemente la valutazione prospettica di ciò che siamo e possiamo divenire.
Senza rimpianti per un passato meno confortevole e molto meno libero.
Cioè come seppero fare due grandi, controversi intellettuali del ‘900. Ernst Jünger e Carl Schmitt.
Le loro prospettive, le loro analisi sono preludio essenziale per l’elaborazione di un paradigma alternativo ai Riti Dominanti di cui sopra.

Il passaggio successivo attraverso l’elaborazione e il fondamento di un sistema culturale valido, complesso (mai univoco; dinamico) che abbia il ruolo di “Attrattore Strano” nel generare una cultura diffusa ri-generante che sia insieme intelligente, prospettica, mnesica e fondata.

Cioè, di un nuovo sistema fondato nella dinamicità.
Attraente - quanto lo fu la rete culturale statunitense nell’Europa dopo la guerra.
Un’opera di politica culturale di massa, che richiede sistematicità, lavoro e determinazione.
Perché ne va del nostro stesso sopravvivere.

Il richiamo e il suggerimento alla cultura visiva, sta nell’accesso più immediato (leggere richiede tempo e fatica...), nell’ambiguità intrinseca (evita collocazione facile e stigmatizzazione), nella trasmissibilità potenziale.

Quindi:
1) operare affascinando, via fondazioni culturali nelle arti visive (musica e cinema a seguire o in parallelo) con una regia finalizzata (strategica), ma mai immediatamente decifrabile e tantomeno classificabile;
2) elaborare e utilizzare un sistema culturale contemporaneo che abbia in se stesso le virtù di sistematicità, di fondatezza e di capacità di evolvere dissimulando.

Dediche e ringraziamenti
Il mio grazie alla prof. Luisa Bonesio, che mi ha donato gli atti del Convegno “Ernst Jünger e il pensiero del nichilismo”, da cui ho estratto verbatim la citazione della prof. Caterina Resta e indirettamente quella di Carl Schmitt.
A mia madre, che mi ha fatto leggere Confucio e la lirica cinese antica, anziché impormi di giocare a pallone.
A Umberto Galimberti che negli anni del liceo mi lasciò studiare la Politica Culturale del Nazismo (H. Brenner) e mi avvicinò - attraverso Heidegger - ai filosofi e scrittori della Rivoluzione Conservatrice.
Alla memoria di Karl Haushofer, di sua moglie Martha Mayer Doss e del loro figlio Albrecht, tragiche biografie paradosse tra due mondi in conflitto.
Ovviamente, a Gottfried Benn e alla sua musa Else Lasker-Schüler.
Agli Old Marburgers, Leo Strauss tra loro, da cui non smetto di imparare

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!

Quando pensiamo ad internet siamo portati a pensare a qualcosa di quasi astratto e, se non fosse per le bollette che paghiamo mensilmente, difficilmente ci ricorderemmo che si tratta di una rete comunque fisica, fatta di cavi, ponti radio e tutta una serie di infrastrutture; tutto il traffico generato dai diversi provider e che passa lungo le infrastrutture proprietarie, per poter comunicare tra di loro, si incontrano in nodi che vengono chiamati IXP (Internet Exchange Point). In Italia abbiamo circa 12 Internet Exchange Point, il principale dei quali è il MIX (Milan Internet eXchange) nato nel 2000 con soci 19 tra i principali operatori internet italiani.
Pochi giorni dopo l’entrata in vigore del decreto del 8 marzo 2020 riguardante le misure straordinarie ed urgenti per contrastare l'emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 e che, in pratica, faceva stare gli italiani a casa il MIX ha segnalato un aumento costante del traffico internet del 25% fino ad arrivare ai mille miliardi di bit al secondo.
Si potrebbe pensare che questo traffico fuori dalla norma sia dovuto all’aumento delle persone che lavorano da casa, il famoso smart working, tanto richiesto dal governo in questi giorni per chi ne ha le possibilità, o dall’aumento delle lezioni online di scuole e università, ma la realtà è diversa: la maggior parte del traffico è generato da video on demand e giochi online.
Nelle ore lavorative, infatti, l’aumento del traffico è stato solamente del 5-10% rispetto al normale traffico generato a dimostrazione che lo smart working non è un problema per la banda utilizzata, tanto più che gli strumenti che ne fanno uso hanno una codifica dei dati molto elevata e fanno poco uso di banda.
Se ancora vi fossero dei dubbi basta pensare che la piattaforma di gaming online Steam, con oltre 20 milioni di giocatori attivi contemporaneamente, ha superato ogni record, mentre un videogioco “vecchio” di ben 8 anni come Counter-Strike: Global Offensive ha superato il milione giocatori connessi contemporaneamente per la prima volta; mentre l’amministratore delegato di Telecom Italia, Luigi Gubitosi, ha parlato di un aumento di oltre il 70% del traffico generato dai videogiochi tra i quali Fortnite.

È chiaro che la rete internet italiana sia sotto stress, ma è altrettanto vero che fino ad ora ha retto bene alla prova e che probabilmente sarà in grado di reggere al traffico che si genererà in questi giorni, anche se vi saranno dei rallentamenti, ma questo non toglie che nel nostro paese è ancora grande il divario digitale tra tante zone del paese dove non esiste una copertura adeguata e che esclude molte persone dalla possibilità di usufruire dello smart working o di seguire lezioni online: secondo gli ultimi dati dell'Agcom, infatti, il 5% delle famiglie italiane non sono raggiunte dalla banda larga di rete fissa.
Quando l’emergenza Covid-19 sarà passata è auspicabile che molte famiglie valuteranno diversamente l’utilizzo della rete a casa, mentre molte aziende valuteranno come sia possibile affrontare alcune tipologie di lavoro in maniera differente.

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.