Oliviero Beha

They say that in the third millennium we are plenty of information and furthermore that we are overcome by information, that in the Internet era the problem regards only the choice, not surely the possibility to access information. That is technically true and substantially false. Indeed I'm sure that more than information it could be talk about of a "smoke curtain", that more than information quality it can be talk about and it must be talk about its amount. I would bet my bottom dollar over the fact the most the limits of the well-known widen the most it narrows the limits of the known. And that if instead it is wanted to make things clear, it's enough to pull the thread and the world unravels. Let's call it the tangle theory...

Let's take a title at random. Under the little masthead "Gowns and policy", a whole page, without an even excessive highlight, we find: "Cossiga: it is strange that the Cavaliere is the usual bad industrialist". There's not a lot in the article, the thread is not pulled, just to give you an idea, the tangle keeps as it is: beautiful and rolled up, the matter is the usual one: misunderstanding, tensions, quarrels in the politicians-magistrates relationship etc.

But let's suppose that Cossiga and reporters would want to unravel the tangle. And that means that on his own will or driven by questions the ex-president of the republic formulated an interpretation of his about the Italian last years, running it from the title I've just mentioned. Cossiga could express nearly this way: "Does it seem possible to you that Berlusconi is a sort of first enemy of this Italy, for the Left and that cumbersome and shaped part of the magistracy having in the political and cultural Left, hegemonic according to Gramsci's  parameters, his "referring shareholder"? And the other industrialists? Do you think that Agnelli, Romiti, De Benedetti etc. did not do anything as regard to shady deals with the State, tax evasion or elusions, crime of several kinds and numbers, penal remarkable and/or politically determining?

Berlusconi is so angry with judges and with their notifications of investigation or time committal for trial not because he's innocent, but because he is innocent (or guilty) as almost all the high level entrepreneurs of this Italy. He would like to make a good speech in parliament, spread by all networks, like this: yes, it is true, as the others I've made one, ten, a hundred mistakes or crimes.

Do you know why Berlusconi cannot express himself this way"? And he could because as the other industrialists know about him he knows about them. He cannot say anything because he does not want to end as Craxi. Yes, you have well understood. As Craxi. That is another that did all sorts as it results in the acts. But that said at the chamber: raise the hand who has never dealt with slush funds, with the crime of party illicit financing (and of their own pockets, we could add, ndr.). Naturally and it is not required a Cossiga's acumen to understand it, it's evident for everybody that Craxi said that wanting to mean "all guilty, all innocent", but you know how it ended and where he is now. Exactly where Berlusconi does not want to end. So it is going on waving formulas not explained in their real meaning, and all us are paying, as a country-system, the drafts of this last famous speech of Craxi".

This would be the manifestation of Cossiga, summarily and with some development if he would, if we would, pull the thread of the tangle, in order to real understand something, but the tangles keep on unravel, we do not know, we do not understand almost anything, while someone on the opposite says that we are rich of information as never before.