When Bruce Springsteen was a kid, there was a hole in his room.
What he does with this album, a deep path, is to repair the hole he has inside him.
In the soul of an artist.
You're a hero, Bruce!
With the winner of Golden Globe, Jeremy Allen White.
Springsteen, free me from nothing, from October 23rd to the cinema.
There are three facts in the last few days, but perhaps I would say better than the last seven weeks,
which have caused me a series of thoughts.
I'll tell you about the first facts and then those thoughts.
The first, the great demonstrations of last Monday that asked for the end of the massacres in Gaza.
The show, but above all the hundreds of thousands of people who went to the square in all of Italy,
have peacefully protested to ask for the end of the tragedy we have been witnessing for almost two years.
The second, the global smooth flotilla, but not only and not so much the humanitarian initiative,
the attempt to bring support to Gaza, also the political gesture of trying to force the Israeli naval block.
But all the support around this initiative, also a very large, very transversal support,
the crowd that has greeted the boats at the departure of the ports in Italy,
the feeling of participation of many people who see in this initiative a final attempt to do something,
an attempt to incite in reality.
The third fact that will seem very far from this, even if it is not,
is the viral video with Enzo Iacchetti, who breaks off live speaking with an interlocutor,
let's say characterized by an unhappy choice of words,
to use an euphemism, precisely of the massacres in Gaza and Iacchetti who at some point completely lose their heads,
a video that becomes viral not only, I believe, as an example of spectacular litre and circuses at the show,
but also as an example of a failure, of a frustration in front of one of the many things
of which the massacres in Gaza, for almost two years, have become an exemplary case, the sense of impotence.
Our sense of impotence, and from here also the participation in the talk of last month,
the sentimental participation, specific to the Global Smooth Flotilla,
there is a colossal crisis, bloody, with a very high number of civilians killed,
entire cities destroyed, razed to the ground, massacres indiscriminated by people in line for food.
There is, what can we say, a great attention of the media who have not dedicated these attention in the last two years
to any other story that is happening today in the world.
There is a capillarity, never seen before, that has been reached by the images that arrive from Gaza,
that have arrived on the phones of those who have touched, even those who normally do not follow international politics,
even those who have not been reached in the same period of time by images and testimonies of other crises in the course of these years,
of other massacres that have occurred in other places in the world,
even massacres with more people involved than those of the Gaza Strip.
However, the concrete political results obtained by these mobilizations in front of this colossal crisis,
in front of this attention of the media, in front of a capillarity never seen before,
obtained by the images and testimonies of these massacres,
are minimal, are non-existent, and from here, probably, the sense of frustration, the sense of impotence,
the idea that, but we here, what can we do in front of this sense of impotence and frustration?
We are obliged to do so in "Sbrocco Indiretta TV" by Enzo Ghiacchetti,
but I quote this example because it has been very recent, very discussed, very commented, very circulated,
but there would be thousands of examples, and precisely an example of a bigger thing that goes beyond it,
and that I think concerns many and many of us, of you.
Let's see in front of all this that the United Nations are paralyzed by the reciprocates,
let's see western governments that do little or very little,
they are discussing for some time European sanctions against Israel after two years,
I would have to say good morning,
but there is still only one discussion that will probably not lead to any result,
we are talking about sanctions that would be taxes,
and that would first of all pay the Italian companies and not the Israeli companies,
for a sum-up, ridiculous, let's talk about 200 million euros or a little more,
and that with any probability they will not even pass, they will not become real,
at least these very small measures.
This is not the order of the day, not even an accession of the fire, a temporary plot,
the last news on this story that was about a possible negotiation
is the one for which Israel bombed the delegations that were negotiating in Qatar.
And it is in this evident contrast between a significant global mobilization
and an unexistent political change that emerges, this sense of impotence,
which is what we are talking about today, to try first of all to recognize it and recognize it,
and not think that we are going through all this alone, that we are listening to all this alone,
and then also to try to understand it together.
Hello, welcome and welcome to a new episode of Wilson, podcast of the post that comes out every Thursday.
I am Francesco Costa, in addition to being the director of the post,
I am the driver and author of this podcast that can be heard on all platforms of the podcast,
free of charge, of course, also on the post app.
Wilson changes the topic every week, it is a podcast of depth that tries every Thursday
to sometimes add a little piece in understanding what is happening around us,
in understanding the news.
We can talk about school, or about education, or about foreign policy, or about internal policy,
about a matter of time, in this case we are talking about ourselves, about how we feel about ourselves,
but not only in a sentimental sense, we are talking about how to manage, how to interpret,
how to understand the origins, the causes of this sense of impotence,
and also how to identify the possible remedies, once maybe we have found the causes.
I said that the origin of Gaza in its enormity is similar to this feeling,
but this feeling is so strong, we perceive it, we perceive it at least in many, many, so strong,
also because it does not only concern Gaza, but in general concerns our historical moment,
the perception of a world, but sometimes also of a country, of a city,
if our city is full of things that do not go, and of an incapacity more or less total,
of inciting, of trying to change things, of having an impact.
Let's start, as always, with some data, precisely to broaden our view
and allow all this in a more broad, concrete, factual context.
There is a research by Erika Cenowet, who is a very important studious politologist
precisely in the field of protest movements and civil resistance, working at Harvard,
which has shown how, from 1900 to 2006, the non-violent protest movements
had a success, clearly a definition to take with thousands of kautele,
because it is not talked about mathematics, it is not an exact science,
but there are some scrupulous criteria with which these protest demonstrations were catalogued,
and here, from 1900 to 2006, the success of these movements was measured in the 53% of cases.
The reaching of a certain form of objective, which was, among other things, pre-fixed,
the movements, instead violent, had a certain success in a much smaller percentage of cases,
the 26% less than half, but this is not the interesting data.
The interesting fact is that the same measurement done on protest movements
that occurred at an international level, from 2010 onwards,
see the percentage of success, of reaching goals, of concrete impact,
go down to 34%, from 53% to 34%.
In front of, by the way, of a complex number of protest movements every year,
which has grown, has grown enormously.
These data are consistent with those proposed by another research of 2022
by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
which is a non-profit and non-partisan studies center that deals with the resolution of conflicts.
And this research has counted the great mass protests that took place in the world
on a time-paragonal arc, and it has found out that from 2006 to 2020,
the great mass protests at a global level are tripled,
but their success, the results achieved, are at the lowest levels ever, at the least historic.
The conclusion, in which the researchers themselves have told the result of these findings,
is that we live at the time with more demonstrations,
with more great mass protests of the square, global protests,
and also with less concrete results obtained from those protests.
Why is this happening?
Do you understand well that these data already allow us
to encore the discourse in the sense of impotence
to something very concrete, and not only to a collective or individual feeling?
It makes sense, however, to ask yourself why things have changed in this way.
In the case of international crises, for example,
it happens that the countries are besieged by these protests,
those that the square demonstrations would like to induce a change,
to affirm a certain behavior, a certain action,
to affirm violence, to affirm military occupation,
to affirm bombings and massacres,
are authoritarian or semi-authoritarian countries.
They are protected countries, in some way,
from the threat exerted by the dissent,
by the power of masses.
They are countries in which they are not voted,
they are countries in which violence, propaganda, internal divisions
have raised the population and institutions.
This kind of pressure is impermeable.
Without counting, obviously, the difficulty is still greater
to protest, to manifest, to try to put pressure on a country
that is not the one of the protesters,
and therefore on another nation,
on a government that does not have to pay attention to those people,
who therefore can also decide to get rid of those protests,
who become at most, in that case, and it is not that it is worth little,
a tool of pressure in the face of the government itself,
to say who protests in Italy in the face of the Italian government,
because the Italian government is doing it,
bringing pressure on the international level,
on the government of the country that intends to contest,
of which intends to contest, the actions.
And the discourse that is made a lot, for example,
just talking about Israel, criticizing the Italian government,
but in general the European governments,
for the fact that after two years there have not been sanctions,
there have not been measures more serious than,
possibly, a verbal condemnation,
but I also pay attention here to understand what we are talking about.
And obviously, more than legitimate, and if you want my point of view,
even more than foundation, that pressure is made on the Italian government,
on the European governments,
because they do more in putting pressure on the government of Israel,
in isolating the government of Israel,
but look at what happened with Russia, right?
Russia has been subject to, for more than three and a half years,
of the campaign of sanctions, pressure, isolation,
political, banking, financial, an embargo, practically, on energy,
and not only that, the hardest part of this part,
the most participated part of this part,
is still there, you can't see it,
until there is no real concrete consequence.
Certainly, the Russian economy has suffered serious blows,
certainly the war would fight it in Ukraine
with much more means, much more resources,
if all these interventions were not given to us.
But if we talk about the sense of frustration,
the sense of impotence,
the fact that we can't exactly incite on something,
the case of Russia tells us that this sense remains,
even when Italian, European and international governments
put concrete actions in the field
that they didn't want to adopt so far on Israel.
And I say all this, I repeat, to be clear,
not to say that they would then be useless or superfluous in the case of Israel,
but to say that the problem we deal with is greater than that.
As far as international crises are concerned,
you have the attempts to incite on what it does or doesn't do
a government that is not ours.
But if we look at the protests and mobilizations
that occur, for example, in our country,
with goals that are also internal,
so to push the parliament, the government,
to take into consideration a certain cause,
to not do a certain thing,
to defend the rights of certain people,
to intervene on this or that subject,
and therefore we overcome the question
of the fact that a country different from ours
are Italian citizens, for example,
who ask for something from the Italian government,
but keep in mind that those who were looking at protests
were also of this type,
they counted the great mass protests,
so we are involved in all this.
Let's see the same sense of frustration and impotence.
So, let's assume that there is
something more to understand.
And that something more probably depends
on the same nature of the protests
in the contemporary world of our involvement,
in the difference between mobilization and organization.
Those research that I mentioned a little while ago
show us a great difference
between a past that is less so distant
and the present compared to the efficiency
of the protests and mobilizations.
And this also suggests the lived experience
of many and many of us.
It suggests the history,
the history of a past not so distant
in which it was more simple,
more common to see great mobilizations
obtain a certain form of concrete result.
Those mobilizations happened in a time
in which the square, the protest,
were the conclusion of a very hard work
that had happened before.
There is no nostalgia here,
those who know me and follow my podcasts,
the things I do know are the less nostalgic person in the world.
But there is the observation of something that has changed.
Let me give you an example.
The march on Washington in 1963,
the march of the African Americans,
led by Martin Luther King,
who then makes the speech "I Have a Dream",
one of the most famous and famous square protests
of all time.
250,000 people on the street
march until the congress
and get, because then,
the history on this is rather unanimous,
they get that the US government
finally takes the initiative on civil rights,
they create the moment, the conditions
that will take, in the course of a few months,
to the approval of the law on civil rights,
to the approval of the law on the right of vote,
in short, to the achievement of the results
that was put on that protest.
Here, why that march was so effective?
Why marches like today are not?
Because in 1963,
bringing 250,000 people
from every part of the United States
to march in a city
was an organizational effort,
colossal.
You have to imagine a world where
TV channels are two or three
and certainly do not give voice
to the activists and the protesters,
in which there are no e-mails,
social media, there is no way
to make the information circulate
if not through an organization
that was built from the bottom in a spontaneous way
that represented the precondition
because you could even just think
of bringing 250,000 people on the road.
And this was done so,
that why a movement was able to get
that result?
The march was like the point of the iceberg,
but there was a very strong,
very radical movement behind,
in the schools, in the classrooms,
in the university, in the workplaces.
So the march became not only a test
of that strength, but it became
very difficult to bring 250,000 people
on the road,
and not the only strength of a movement
that, as it was able to do this
very difficult thing,
to bring 250,000 people on the road,
was able to do many other things.
Many other initiatives were organized.
The same speech is valid for many other
organized movements of the 60s and 70s
of which maybe we remember
the demonstrations on the road,
I don't know, I'm talking about
movements against the war in Vietnam,
but also if you want to go
a little further in time,
of the years of clandestine organization,
of civic networks, of involvement
of church, syndicates, parties
that then carried and then contributed
to the so-called end
of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall,
the liberation of Europe,
of the East, from the oppressive
tyranny of the Soviet Union.
Of similar examples, many could be made.
What we know about today
is that today,
to bring hundreds of thousands
of people to the square,
simply it is not necessary
to do all that work, it is not necessary.
Today it can be enough, a viral post.
Today it is possible to reach and mobilize
a potentially confined number
of people from their little room
as the common place wants.
And I'm not saying that this is a negative thing
or that that demonstration in itself
is not heavy, but that today
that result can be obtained
without having behind that kind
of demonstration so strong.
And so, however, the fundamental ingredient
that made those demonstrations
not recognizable because they were
demonstrations of a strong,
popular, radical, solid,
with very solid foundations
and therefore harmful for politics,
today it simply does not exist.
And so, for this reason,
we see so many protest demonstrations
much more than at any other time
with so few results.
It is not because of the protesters
and that before the demonstration
was the final point
of a very long journey.
Today the demonstration is
perhaps the initial point of something
but in reality very often
remains at the moment in which it happens.
An important,
participated,
even extemporary,
goes to the square spontaneously
not because it is part of a group,
of a party, of a union, of an association.
It has been so for many months
as a personal title
and therefore a big square
does not mean a big organization anymore.
The same protest for Gaza
has been said by the basic syndicates
which are among the less representative syndicates
in circulation
and certainly many of the people
who participated in that protest,
that opera, are not
or are not written
belonging to that syndicate there.
They went because they believed
in the cause of that demonstration.
At home, of course,
certainly comforted
by being so many,
but having participated in something
that has its extemporarity
and this extemporarity
must coexist in today's world
with the very fragile attention
and the cycles of the news
and the rapid priorities
that are of the logic
of contemporary communication,
the cycle of social media,
the cycle of continuous indignation
is always a new crisis
that moves from the center
of the previous scene,
even from here a piece
of this sense of impotence
of frustration
that then produces other effects.
When you look at contemporary society
and you talk about polarization
or radicalization,
all this is not only
in the insensual society,
but also in the movements
that then go to the square,
the discussions on social media
that then generate protests
and mobilizations.
Movements that may have the same objective,
the same cause,
and that still often end
to quickly rush
to accuse Cyprus
that reproduce within them
the logic and mechanisms
of decission,
of accusation of indignation,
of rhetoric instruments
that are used outside
and seen in thousands of contexts,
Italians and international,
environmentalist, feminist,
non-profit organizations,
for this or that cause
that goes through as cycles
of implosion, of internal conflict,
of decision in more sigil,
in more different manifestations,
in more different movements,
thus producing something that is
both cause and consequence of the phenomenon,
the frustration,
the desire to take it with someone
in front of the results that do not arrive.
The perception that what we do,
what we think,
what we say does not need anything,
it is not the only consequence.
There is precisely the radicalization,
the idea that if
then we do not achieve something like this,
if we do not be able to feel like this,
we should use a language
always harder, we should say
always stronger things,
we should be always more aggressive
with consequences that are often
opposite in reality,
that is, if the mobilization
aims to incite, must reach
no, for statute,
groups of large people, and indeed
always bigger, always larger,
while ideas, languages,
always more aggressive,
that is, they raise a lot
the stakes of what is being requested,
let's say, for being comrades of war,
that enlarge a lot the kind of
arguments that need to be sustained
to not be considered enemies,
that ask to adhere not only
to one cause, but also
to always more radical and aggressive methods,
to a language always more aggressive and aggressive,
here they risk, and it is a logical banal,
to bring exactly the opposite result,
that is, not to mobilize
and reach always more people,
therefore always more different people,
but to tighten more and more
the right range of action.
Another consequence, then, of this frustration,
of this radicalization
is the search
of espiators, that is,
to take it with someone, however
it is, and from here the
accusations are born that are within the movements,
against those who protest, but not in the right way,
against those who protest,
but you only arrive now,
against those who protest on that,
but then you do not protest on that,
with all the conflict, then,
and the poison that is able to
throw into these conversations
the famigerated algorithm, that is,
that then, on our phones,
on social media, on the tools
that we often use to know
the things we want to know,
the causes that are in our hearts,
the greater visibility, the greater circulation
given to the accusations, to the elites,
to the flames, to the aggressiveness,
to those who shoot the biggest, and so on.
Then there are other espiators,
those, let's say, classics,
the accusations against the media, against journalists,
do not tell the truth,
but you should only tell
the things that perfectly fight
with my cause.
This story is not talking to anyone
in front of a story that, maybe,
is on every newspaper, from months or years.
The accusations against the politicians,
other espiators, all together,
the politicians, who are all the same
indistinguable, one from the other,
the search for an enemy,
whether it is as an element
that is addicting,
all those who hate that, shoot from this side,
but disaggregating, together,
leads to cut off the bridges,
to fight battles, always more
of a retort, in smaller contexts,
always more of a minority,
therefore always less effective
in having an impact on reality.
The search for the espiators
is a perfect example of
doing something, however,
which is another result of this frustration,
looking for activity,
perhaps with a high emotional impact,
but with a low cost and low political impact,
like signing online petitions,
posting or reposting something on social media,
using a certain hashtag,
blurring the anger with someone on social media,
leaving a bad comment,
or something, under that or the other
that made me angry,
accusing a single newspaper,
a single person,
all things that give us the impression
of doing our part,
but which is, in fact,
low cost, low impact,
no result,
it is a further fragmentation.
But it is not just a discourse
that concerns the others,
it is a discourse that also concerns
ourselves in the time we spend alone,
another consequence of all this
is the compulsive consumption
of information,
the passing of time in that activity
that is called "doom-scrolling",
that is, running,
consuming one after the other,
news, online, dramatic,
depressing, sad news,
that is on the smartphone, on the computer,
because at the end of the day
it reinforces the disillusionment,
the idea that things cannot change,
the loss of confidence,
in general, in the idea that
we can resolve things,
or make them change,
or have a collective impact,
much more than individually,
maybe this is the big question of our time,
but even if you want the fatigue
of those who want to do their part,
they would like to tell something,
to have an impact,
in a movement, in a cause,
and find yourself involved in
differences, personal attacks,
discontent of all types.
Now, I am sure that many of the things
I have told you, by doing some examples,
have made other examples in your mind,
things that you know
at a very small level of your life,
of your experience, things that you have seen
at a larger level,
I do not have solutions to this problem.
I do not have the pretext, of course,
to come here, take one of the most
gigantic, unresolvable
and complicated of our time,
this sense of impotence,
and tell you how to do it, I am not ashamed.
I wanted to try, first of all,
to make everyone feel a little more
seen in this situation,
a little more recognized,
to think that, in this case,
we are not alone, and we are not alone,
but we are collectively in the middle
of this situation. And then, yes,
maybe even try to suggest
something, some possible
way out of here,
to surely add yours.
I would start with the idea that maybe it
will seem trivial and ridiculous,
but it seems to me the most important,
that there are no obstacles,
that the only short road is that long,
and therefore, the things that cost little
get little, inevitably,
always. The things that have
great goals require great efforts.
Then everyone knows and decides
how much he can do,
even if he has a sense of what he
has to do inside a certain thought.
For example, insist
on his own participation
to collective organizations,
more than on individual initiatives,
more than on temporary things,
try to deal with continuity,
for some reason,
in a way that leads us
to be in relation to others,
which leads us, therefore,
to build lasting organizations,
and not temporary
manifestations,
of the way in which we think
or hear about a certain story,
lasting organizations
that have concrete,
measurable goals,
that certainly have the goal,
the final goal, the change
that you would like,
but that also have
all the intermediate goals
that you need to reach
to reach the goal,
so reaching those becomes easier,
so taking a step towards the goal,
and then, with a strategic,
strategic, this word
"political" comes to mind
about what to do,
how to do it, with whom to do it,
with whom to relate to which conditions.
And not with the simple legitimate purpose,
obviously, but which doesn't get much
to get rid of, to say how I think about it.
People organizations,
who act collectively,
can also have very diversified instruments,
beyond the square demonstration,
the legal causes,
the economic and depression campaigns,
the communication initiatives,
they can be done a lot.
And they can be done a lot, not only collectively,
which seems to me the most important plan,
but also at an individual level,
even here I will start with something trivial,
out of the boomer, out of the boomer,
I am not a boomer for the chronicle,
but studying seems to me
the premise of any kind of mobilization.
To know, to educate yourself
to politics, to awareness,
to know, to ask yourself
what are the obstacles that are between me
and the change I would like to see in society.
To be curious,
and I repeat the word curious,
to know, to take seriously
the reasons of who doesn't think like me,
because that person obviously
represents for me an obstacle,
compared to the achievement of my objective.
But the objective is the solution,
it can't be to eliminate that person,
because that person exists,
they will always exist, they will continue to exist,
there will be no final obstacle between good and bad,
and therefore that person
who doesn't think like me, and who exists,
because he thinks in another way.
What can I do to convince her,
first of all to defeat her,
and then, a question that is always very healthy
to take into consideration.
It will not be that maybe for some reason,
it will not be that there is
a certain field of meeting
for which we can unite,
and maybe only reach an intermediate goal.
But to take this step forward,
which pieces are missing from this story,
which seems to me to be so obvious,
so self-evident,
that even for other people it is not.
But because this doesn't seem to you
of the whole smoke and extract,
there are also concrete things
that can be done on an individual level.
If you are tired of social persecutions
in our country,
and you want to win a bit
this sense of impotence,
in addition to the great campaigns,
the great indignations and mobilizations
against the government,
you can volunteer,
you can go and help people directly
directly in difficulty,
you can work hours in an activity
that will make better those people,
will make better you,
and will make you understand better
the cause in general,
the problem in general that is in your heart.
If you care about immigrants,
their tremendous life,
their welcoming, integration,
you can volunteer with refugees
if you have the skills,
you can make money,
for this or any other reason.
Then think that there is a deficit
of knowledge, of sensibilization,
of understanding of what is happening around us.
You can sustain
journalistic operations
that think they do a job of quality,
that is, those that teach you something,
that help you understand
why things happen in the world,
not those that comfort you on everything
or that only make you rich and emotional,
they teach you nothing that you didn't know,
that they don't bring under your gaze
points of view that you didn't know,
so they don't enrich you.
Then participate, therefore,
always in the aim of going beyond yourself,
associations, network of quarters,
community initiatives,
even political parties.
And look for this fatigue
of the collective dimension of this effort,
which is the only possible
if you want to get results.
Then we can finally take care of ourselves,
that is, reduce the time
that we go through the tremendous news
on social media and maybe
read something longer.
Talk to people
outside of social media,
cultivate real relationships,
avoid finding ourselves in the experience,
I'm here alone, at home,
in the dark, in front of the phone,
in total silence, and I'm in black shit.
Here, avoid that spiral
of impotence and anger
and put that energy
at the service of something else.
To do all this, you also need,
every now and then,
to take a breath
and think about the context.
These are days I receive on Instagram
messages of people, alarmed,
sincerely concerned,
who have ever asked me
the statements of the ex-secretary of NATO.
Have you seen what he said?
At the beginning I was even rather angry
and unprepared, because I didn't
see it. Then I found out
that there are a series of posts
that have had viral circulations on social media
that contain statements of an ex-secretary
of NATO, one of the many,
but one reads ex-secretary
of NATO, who says
the day X, with a precise day,
will start the Third World War.
And therefore, fear,
panic, concern, at the point that
someone wrote to me, someone wrote to other journalists,
surely, but what do you tell us?
But it's true, but there is a reason
to be concerned, because this person
says this thing. Now, this person
is a celtron, a celtron of NATO,
and someone who has said more times
that the day X will start the Third World War,
who wrote to us like a novel,
a dystopian story, it's not the first
in the last person who, especially
in these years, has tried to obtain
some visibility, saying the most
catastrophic and apocalyptic things
that exist. The disillusionment
of which we spoke before is a direct
consequence of the apocalyptic look
on the present, because if there is
the Third World War vocalist,
what do you want me to be able to do?
How can you think to get something?
It cannot be disillusioned
compared to the future of the change.
Instead, we have to try
to have a historical,
realistic look, which always holds
that it is false, that there is
the catastrophe behind the corner, the
apocalysis, things have never been so
disastrously bad, and it is in the same
false that nothing is missing,
but because you regret it, everything is normal.
And instead, every historical moment
is placed there in the middle
between these two poles.
Of course, we are going through today
gigantic crises, but every time
there was a gigantic crisis,
those of the past seem to be
manageable only because we look at them
in the back, they do not look at us,
we were not inside and we know
how they ended. Italy in the 50s
and 60s was a very poor country
with a very high infant mortality,
without fundamental rights
for the people.
In the 70s, Italy was
the territory of terrorism, in which
it was shooting on the streets,
bombing the stations.
In the 80s, Italy and Europe were
the regions of the real fear
of a global nuclear war.
In the 90s, it was the years
in which, in 100 days,
in 3 months, in Rwanda
massacred and killed
at least 500,000 people,
maybe up to 1 million.
I repeat, to make sense of the proportions,
1 million people were killed
in 3 months, in the 90s in Rwanda.
In 2000, in the 2000s,
in the years of international terrorism,
never seen before in New York,
in Madrid, in London, in Mumbai,
I repeat, every time there was
a gigantic crisis,
here it is not about saying that everything
will be fine or that everything will be fine,
things will never go all right
or all bad, they are
things that are contemporary,
we accept this reality.
The first thing is real,
undoubtable, we live in a world
full of horrible things,
of injustice, of violence,
of abuse, of impunity,
of problems, in short,
to solve. The second truth
that is real in the same way
is real contemporary,
we live in a world that has made
huge progress on fundamental fronts,
it tells us the fact that
there are countless times, things that are not,
the life expectancy that in the 1950s
was 47 years old, today over 70,
divorce, abortion, civil union,
the legal parity between men and women,
things that today we say "well, of course,
well, it wasn't, of course,
until a very short time ago and it cost
a lot to get those results,
the alphabetization, very few decades ago,
half of the people knew how to read
and write, billions of people
came out of poverty
only from the 90s to today,
the people who live in extreme poverty conditions,
they have never been
as few as today.
And so, first truth, we live
in a world full of horrible things,
the second truth, we live
in a world that has made huge
progress on fundamental fronts,
the third truth, then,
we can act collectively,
not to solve everything tomorrow,
but to do our part that
what they have done with all their limits
and with all their mistakes,
the generations that preceded us
and that have done the same thing
with the huge crises that they
have found themselves facing,
everyone has faced
unbearable disasters,
these, those that hurt us,
these very serious,
they are the ones that touch us.
The meaning of impotence is understandable,
motivated, human,
but rather than taking it as the rain
that there is and we can't do anything about it,
we have to know it,
to fight for the causes,
to fight for the causes,
even when it means to fight
our tendencies, to fight for ourselves
to overcome the cynicism
that produces parallels,
to overcome the atomisation
that responds to the divisions of the world
with other divisions.
Those, of course, do not change anything.
A good news, as always,
the Senate, a few days ago,
has approved a bill
that, let's say, in its formal definition
said to be available
for the Italian participation
to banks and multilateral funds for development,
to put it in a more simple way.
You have seen what Trump
did to the White House
when he arrived in January,
that is, to displace the United States
from all international entities
for development, for cooperation,
for support to the countries
that need it more.
This is a law that does the opposite.
That is, it reinforces,
in economic terms,
establishes increases in budget,
increases in participation,
rules that prevent a greater commitment,
the role of Italy in institutions
such as the World Bank,
the International Monetary Fund,
the BIRS, the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development,
the BERS, the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development,
the BIRS, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
so it ratifies a series of commitments
that Italy has already taken
within these organizations,
a reason why the law passed to the Senate
with a very large and very transversal majority
will now go to the camera
and should not give up.
The camera should also be approved
in a rather fast time
to achieve the same goal.
Things that we might have considered
to be miscountable,
but that what happened in the United States
for nothing, things that are
even more precious and important
right in front of the international
implementation of the Trump administration,
things that go in the opposite direction
and which therefore seem to me to be
fully entitled within our weekly rubric
of good news.
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
I usually conclude the points of Wilson
inviting you to share
this point with someone you know
that, in your opinion,
may be interested. In this case
I am sure that many of you,
maybe all of you, have made
in the past months, in the past years
some reflection, some chat
with someone
on this sense of frustration,
on this sense of impotence
that characterizes this time,
that characterizes perhaps even intergenerations.
So you already know
who you should turn this point to,
you already know how
you can share it with someone.
If you think that you have given you
a point to think, that you can
make some further discussion,
I never see the points of Wilson
as the way to put a point
on a question, but as a way
to make it start, and each of you,
each of you, then the door
where he wants, does what he wants,
and then the Thursday comes back here.
It takes in hand another little
complicated thing in our times,
to make it better, and thus reduce
at least a bit the sense of anxiety,
the sense of uncertainty, the sense
that things are completely out
of our control.
If you want to write to me, use the address
[email protected]
I can't answer you because you are
hundreds every week and not
physically the time, but I have found
the time and I always find the time
to read you, so this is
also a good moment to thank you,
I read you, I read you all,
the comments, the criticism, the
integrations, the proposals, the stories.
We always find ourselves here Thursday
next week, see you soon, bye!
[BLANK_AUDIO]
PodcastTranscript AI