Letters
letters to the editor •
The Ranucci method? Pretend nothing’s happened. Heart-warming and bombastic
Who wrote to the editor, Claudio Cerasa
13 AUG 26
Translated by AI
Photo: ANSA
To the editor – But we should focus on those who have experienced real bombs, not ‘love bombs’.
Giuseppe De Filippi
The day after the attack on 10 October, Ranucci denounced “the climate of isolation and delegitimisation directed at me”, alluding – not all that subtly – to the political establishment which, in his view, did not favour “Report”. Now that it appears clear who was behind the attack on Ranucci – Lavitola confessed yesterday – he seems keen to show greater impatience towards those who want to suspend “Report” than towards those who sought to carry out the attack on him. We do not know whether Ranucci knew anything about what Lavitola was plotting to give him a bit of explosive notoriety and cause him further inconvenience. We do, however, know how the ‘Ranucci method’ works: construct a story, pay no heed to the evidence, make insinuations, and if reality then takes a different turn, change your target and pretend nothing happened. Charming and bombastic.
To the Editor – For the past few days, the Honourable Roberto Vannacci and his colleagues in Futuro Nazionale have decided to bestow upon me an unexpected amount of public attention. The trigger? An explanation of vote in which I merely set out concepts that I considered downright trivial, based on ordinary empirical evidence: things to be found in the sociology textbooks their children study from, but also in the Budget Laws they themselves have voted for, in the analytical reports of the INPS or in the Confindustria reports they usually applaud with feigned contrition. Essentially, I pointed out that migration is a phenomenon as old as the human race, inevitable and structurally positive if properly managed. I emphasised the pragmatic merits of the most far-reaching immigration decree in recent history and the political rationale for investing in international cooperation (3 billion for priority countries alone): creating opportunities in people’s countries of origin, whilst training workers before their arrival and channelling migration into genuine employment. I also added – and perhaps that is where something clicked – that ‘remigration’ is a concept devoid of any scientific basis and therefore unsuitable as a political programme. Another matter altogether, if anything, is the repatriation of undocumented migrants, an area on which this government has worked diligently through decrees that those very same MPs approved in the Chamber without uttering a word. This – sober – reminder of reality was enough to earn me the accusation of ‘speaking like the Left’, an attempt to demonise me live on TV that actually backfired rather badly, compounded – according to them – by the discovery (as if that matters!) that my father was a local councillor for the Italian Communist Party, and peppered with a few remarks of dubious taste, such as that, ‘since my surname is Russo, I must necessarily be a “Putin supporter”’ (quote), as if it were a subject to joke about, almost as if it were laughable. Given that we’re being lectured on language by someone who invokes ‘round-ups’ and apes the ‘Iron Sergeant’ – with the comic verve of the film "Soldatessa alle grandi manovre" starring Alvaro Vitali – I wonder: aren’t we making a mistake by taking him so seriously? The programme broadcast just yesterday proves it: he’s more like an Italian ‘Count Binface’ than a prospective Prime Minister of a major European country. Even the idea of trolling by-elections and local elections, after all, is nothing new – he copied it straight from the ‘Trash Man’. After all, if there had been a genuine desire to engage in real political work, he would not have lacked opportunities: as deputy secretary of a major governing party, the path to responsibility was laid out for him, yet ‘the General’ preferred to found his own party and immediately take refuge in the opposition, where all it takes is a couple of plagiarised slogans rewritten in military jargon and a few well-crafted prompts fed into artificial intelligence. Will he win votes? Certainly. But the challenge posed by anti-establishment populism is one that can be tackled – as, it seems to me, everyone or almost everyone is doing – without descending into mudslinging: it’s more important not to lose one’s clarity of thought than to gain a few votes. In conclusion, Editor, since I’ve been singled out, I’d like to come clean voluntarily, in the hope of sparing myself another instalment: I haven’t even done my military service. Kind regards, and happy holidays to your readers.
Paolo Emilio Russo, Member of Parliament for Forza Italia