Incubo numero zero

Da un calcolatore universale con sede nottetempo nei cervelli di tutti
ammassati in una valle di Silicone
sono stato condannato a scegliere in quale incubo vivere.

Incubo numero uno: un sole che non accarezza mai,
andirivieni di ombre scure i cui gesti fanaticamente mondani suggeriscono
abissi negli occhi,
sguardi che non sono vuoti,
ma piuttosto semplicemente assenti,
e se anche fossero presenti non sarebbero umani.

Incubo numero due: la nuova normalità non si è ancora affermata,
ma ci ha promesso di essere peggiore delle precedenti.
Come farò, disarmato, ad affrontare città irriconoscibili?
Città dell’incubo numero due,
private di fiumi, storie e baci, città diventate invisibili,
tramutate in quelle dell’incubo uno: gusci assimilati alla mondanità minimalista e iper-pragmatista dell’incubo numero uno.

(Un sogno al cubo può diventare un incubo).

Da una realtà calcolatrice sono state condannato a scegliere in quale di questi due incubi vivere.
Che scelga il primo o che scelga il secondo,
il ruggito della natura non mi darà scampo,
come raggiunge tutti, raggiungerà anche me,
in una terra di mezzo dove l’ospedale psichiatrico in cui sarò rinchiuso nel 2050 sarà travolto da un meteorite o un’inondazione e sarò salvato per un pelo da un mio pronipote che avrà viaggiato
in visita da un futuro in cui ci sarà
sete di saggezza, lingue, conoscenze, storie e filosofie
e allora sarò tra i pochi a ricordare a memoria
questa
e altre poesie.

Matteo Iammarrone.

Beings who never settle down

When I came across the diary of our preliminaries
I got fascinated by our attempts to connect us as if we were space devices and the NASA had to prepare every attempt with apophatic computer calculators.

If you also believe in time
you know that the double-edged picture of this reality is disintegrating every single instant.
A mountain dies,
a star perishes,
an idea is thrown away to garbage,
two loves are born
and four end.
And every ending is the opposite of carpe diem.
Not to sound nihilist,
but I challenge you to convince me that one or two night stands
are not equal to one or one hundred years of marriage
which are not equal to loneliness.
If they were equal to loneliness I would be a sophist-populist or a solipsistic polish mr. Dabrowski.

Now I speak from the shadows of a future from the drink not yet drunk
from the saliva that the earthquake has not yet dropped
from the inside of the hurricane of the verses I won’t write for you
but for someone else.
and it is gonna work anyway.
Because someone else is connected to you anyway.
because someone else is gonna be you anyway.
Touching your same buses, playing your same carnivals, dirtying your same hotel rooms, dropping the same keys.
It is gonna work anyway, if  by ”work” we meant the acceptance of the condition of the above-mentioned temporal contingent desperate tender melancholia growing from the defeated undone beds…
the unwritten atmospheric conditions we all go through
we all wanderers who believe or claim or believe and claim to be different
as if one could be someone else than different.
as if one could be non-nomadic! That would be insane for us.
That would be a curse of the Church.
We want to keep God death.
Being faithful to earth,
being beings who never settle down.
And suffer from that.

Matteo Iammarrone.

Sweden is where the modern idea of social control was born

The concept of “biopower” (the power exerted by modern biopolitics) entails, as rightly observed by Gomes Pereira, an “ambiguous movement: a juncture in a life that must be protected at all costs, the invention of others that threaten life, and the emergence of lives that do not deserve to be lived. Thus, we live in a time when there is overvaluation and protection of life, while at the same time there are areas where people are left to die” (Gomes Pereira, Pedro Paulo. “In and Around Life: Biopolitics in the Tropics”, in Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 10(2), pp. 13-37, 2013).
What does this remind you of?
Here is a hint: Although many of us believe that “biopolitics” is a pejorative term invented by Foucault, the word was originally coined seventy years before the French thinker, in 1905, by the Swedish radical conservative Rudolf Kjellén. Biopolitics (biopolitik), in Kjellen’s Weltanschauung, indicated his vitalistic conception of the State: “the political is nothing else but the continuation of nature at another level and therefore destined to incorporate and reproduce nature’s original characteristics” (Gunneflo, Markus. “Rudolf Kjellén: Nordic Biopolitics Before the Welfare State”, in Retfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 35(3), 2015. ). It is worth noticing that the socialdemocratic notion of Folkhemmet was influenced by Kjellén’s thought.