The peninsula is at a crossroads, swamped by a disinformation campaign that also hits every Western country. Its political unity is at stake. If it shatters, many other nations could follow.
The history of Italy as a political entity can be divided into two 80-year periods. The first starts with its unification. Italy was formed between 1861 (the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy) and 1870 (the capture of Rome from the Pope’s rule). It was born within an international framework: against the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal States, which had been pillars of the European balance for a thousand years.
In 1918, when Italy claimed it had reached its territorial unification, the three empires, heirs of the Roman Empire (the Holy Roman, the Russian, and the Turkish), collapsed. A new nation had started, but thousands of years of history—the Western civilization as it was conceived for centuries—ended.
In the second 80-year period, starting roughly from 1943, Italy remained united because it was meant to be the bulwark against the Soviet advance. Yugoslav or Albanian communists were at the border, across the Adriatic, and on the Karst plateau.
Europe and the world were for the first time split asunder along ideological lines that cut through nations: Korea, Germany, and Vietnam. Almost miraculously, while countries with much longer political unitarian history were divided, Italy stayed one, not because of national goals but because of ideological and geopolitical purposes.
Moreover, in the last 20 years of these two eight-decade blocks, first with Mussolini, then gradually after Berlusconi’s rule, Italy has each time lost its compass.
Today, Italy lacks a precise external dimension. What is its purpose? What does it want to be in the world? Italy is unsure how to respond, and it is not debating it. Since the debate on these existential themes is missing, discussion within all political parties has also been eliminated.
Parties are meant to be partial, to talk among themselves and internally; therefore, they must divide and reason about what to do. Instead, parties have become leader-centric organizations in the hands of a chief who structures the organization for his own power interests; thus, there should be no honest discussion—at most, selective and cautious advice to the prince.
The last bastion of Italian debate was the Democratic Party (PD), but even that has been eliminated, as noted Italian political heavyweight Luigi Zanda.
With no real opposition, the government has no substantial adversaries and thus no reason to argue or think about the future. In the absence of arguments, everything dissolves.
Italy continues to be a splendid country with an excellent quality of life: good weather, good pizza, good coffee, the best ice cream in the world, and the most beautiful monuments. Yet Italians are unsure about their country’s future. This is even more serious considering it is surrounded by two wars—in Ukraine and Gaza.
Where there is no debate, a kind of fanbase emerges: you support Israel, I support Palestine, or vice versa. But it cannot be like this.
This suggests a disintegration of the country. It does not mean that geographical Italy ceases to exist or that Rome disappears from the map. It means that Italy is no longer a political actor and instead simply tags along behind whoever is first, currently, behind America. While this is acceptable for now, it would be better for all if Italy were a contributor rather than just a follower.
If people tag along without conscience, they can follow any next person; today it is America, tomorrow it is Russia or China, all equally mindlessly. One needs conscience, and for this, there should be ideal contributions. Contributions require ideas and proposals, yet there is no debate on this.
Who benefits?
Then there’s the old question: cui prodest? Who benefits from Italy’s disintegration? And more broadly, from this “factionalist” culture?
If I were Russian President Vladimir Putin and looked around coldly today, I would find myself in a tough predicament. I would realize that I have failed to make progress in Ukraine. NATO is stronger than ever, my Middle Eastern allies are scattered, Central Asia has fallen into China’s sphere of influence, and my dependence on China has increased. I am even reliant on North Korea, which has sent 50,000 men, along with weapons and artillery. I am losing pieces from all sides.
Yet, Putin, advocate of a neo-czarist ideology, can be content because he is winning a disinformation campaign that progressively limits and eliminates critical thought. It promotes the idea that we must not debate, but rather take sides, such as on hair color or flag color.
Thus, Putin is gaining influence in people’s minds around the world, paradoxically, almost in parallel with his losses on the political and strategic ground.
It is unclear if Putin is the mastermind behind this absurd situation in Italy. In any case, Putin has reasons to rejoice, especially because similar processes—though to a lesser extent—are happening in many Western countries.
The primary victim of this trend is US President Donald Trump, who is the target of a relentless campaign of vilification. Trump is portrayed as foolish and incapable, suggesting that “I, Putin, am a genius while Trump is not,” and implying that democracy doesn’t work because it elected Trump—who is depicted as the “foolish” choice—while dictatorships, like Putin’s, are where true power and intelligence reside.
This disinformation campaign is not being challenged seriously. Instead, it serves as a terrain where Hamas and Putin make progress by polluting, limiting, and distorting the image of Western democracy. The elimination of debate is its foundation. The result is a polarization that feeds on the victim narrative, which is strategically used to control the ‘narrative’ and put others on the defensive. The first coherent claimant sets up the narrative that is difficult to challenge.
Hamas presents itself as a victim—Palestinians were in Palestine before the Jews, who were driven out of Europe. Similarly, in Ukraine, who is the victim? The aggressor is the American Goliath attacking the poor Russians. When asked whether to support Trump or Putin, many might instinctively choose Putin, perceiving him as the master strategist, unlike Trump, who “can’t even add two plus two.”
It is a profound cultural challenge rooted in Putin’s Russia, which is distrustful of the critical thought characteristic of modernity. Many Western big-tech companies seem captivated by neo-Czarist ideology, which attempts to infantilize and control the world rather than foster autonomous critical thought. A fundamental concept, introduced decades ago by Girard, about cohesive group dynamics has been applied here: individuals identify with a group, which forms through agreement or dissent—by taking sides, “like” or “dislike”. In such a group, one individual equals one; the ‘like’ of a hundred illiterate people on vaccines can outweigh the ‘dislike’ of a respected scientist. Rushing headlong into this trend without restraint destroys democracy and undermines the very foundations of modernity—values that made possible the birth and growth of big tech.
In the 1950s, democracies taught people to read and write, fostering critical thought and cultural development—objectives shared by both sides of the Iron Curtain. Now, it appears that the opposite is happening: people are being discouraged from critical thinking.
The case of China provides an intriguing counterexample. It maintains an internal TikTok—focused on education—while adhering to Western standards of social media for an external TikTok. The tens of millions of students fighting to enter Chinese universities and the spread of classical education suggest that the West might be getting some things wrong.
Beijing seems intent on making its citizens both controlled and intelligent. In the West, apparently we want our citizens to be stupid and secretly controlled, too. What a great deal! – for Putin.
In this context, the Church emerges as a potential bastion of cultural and moral sanity. If a stop is not put to this trend, even figures like Trump—products of democratic processes—risk being cast out. Truly, if America were to slide into authoritarianism, it would require a dictator—someone obsessively meticulous—something Trump evidently lacks.
In this landscape, Italy could reclaim its central role. Historically, it has been a laboratory of global politics. Fascism, Berlusconi, populism of the M5S, and localist extremism of the League—all stem from Italy. The process of disintegrating the Italian Peninsula may be the first step toward the moral and ideological conquest of the West.
About 160 years ago, Russia favored a divided Italy, supporting conservative thinking aligned with the Holy Roman Empire. Today, the neo-Czarist dream seems to re-emerge through Italy’s political fragmentation.
Italy’s problems come from here. The Kingdom of Italy was formed by leveraging the Carbonari, part of a global Masonic movement. The Republic was built on the involvement of the Church and Catholics in national and European politics.
Today, it remains unclear what could serve as a leverage point for a new reunification. Without leverage, Putin’s and others’ plans to divide Italy and the West could succeed.
In this context, the roles of big tech companies and the Church could be crucial. Big tech has enormous influence over public discourse and opening a discourse with moral and spiritual authority—such as the Church—could help anchor societal values and critical thinking. Engaging these institutions in dialogue and cooperation may be vital for restoring a balanced cultural and political landscape in Italy and beyond.
