I'm discounting the Peek Freens Trotsky assortment because Trotsky was, of course, Russian.

So, one. Which is still more than you might expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_Giuseppe_Garib...

I understand "rizz" as entirely a short form of "charisma" with all the same connotations -- in which case I wouldn't focus it to "romantic interests" or to the goal of "ultimately seduce[ing] them" -- but it's possible that younger people use "rizz" differently than I use "charisma".

The word "charisma" is a little gendered. You are more likely to hear a man described as "charismatic" than a woman. A woman is more likely to be -- well, honestly, the word would probably just be "hot" (or "sexy" -- as used here for Garibaldi), which would place a lot more emphasis on appearance; though to focus more on behavioral aspects, one might hear (I'm reaching here) "effervescent" or "fascinating". I suppose "magnetic" is also an option, though that seems pretty gender-neutral to me.

The slang "game" you mention seems intermediate in connotation to me. The meaning is closer to "ability to seduce", but the connotation is not quite so negative. The implication is that "the game" is simply part of life, neither good nor bad; it is what it is.

Of course, the connotations of "rizz" or "charisma" are less sexual overall. Possibly some amount of what I'm calling "positive connotations" or "negative connotations" simply reflects that, and our society's Judeo-Christian negativity towards sex (which in "conservative" places forces LGBT people at least a little into the closet; and in "liberal" places survives primarily for straight men, the bastards).

Put another way, "charisma" or "rizz" is work-safe, indeed desirable in a CEO (and will likely be rewarded in most employees); whereas "seduction' is not work-safe.

In most cases it has to do more with the fact that the South is primarily used as a way to steer/control the elections.

Garibaldi used local (criminal) lords, the "picciotti", to achieve what he needed. A bit like today they would use local criminals to subjugate the population. Those criminals stayed until Mussolini decided to deal with them. And again they got freed by the Allies to save the country from Fascism.

You could wipe out the mafia, make the land rich and use it, but there is not just enough interest to do so.

On the contrary, the only interest is to use that land to move to the next step, never to actually use whatever is there. This is what makes people nostalgic or sad.

I'm Italian and this is absolutely false.

While any political and historical event will have people saying that it wouldn't even better if X or Y stayed Z, the overwhelming majority of Italians want a united Italy.

Federalist parties never took huge political weight (and the major one, Lega, won most votes when it dropped that narrative entirely) and separatist ones get irrelevant number of negligible votes.