“They” and the fools
The case of the greatest Italian intellectual does not concern the greatest Italian intellectual. The fact that the greatest Italian intellectual considers it scandalous to be sued for having offended, but perfectly logical and right to sue for having been offended, is not an offense to coherence. It is the coherent reaction of those who belong to a certain cultural area that is very cultured, very progressive, very Europeanist, very Western, very Atlantic, very secular, very leftist, very forward, very above, very much everything that is "very", " more”, “beyond” the average of the average man. Therefore, it is a short-sighted and superficial operation to point out the living contradiction of the greatest Italian intellectual, thereby losing the opportunity to deal with the populous family from which the greatest Italian intellectual is greatly exalted. Because that's where the raison d'être of a certain surprising demeanor lurks.
Like those who imagine they have license to insult and immunity from prosecution for the mere fact of being an intellectual, indeed the greatest Italian intellectual. Yet he, in his own way, is as innocent as he is inconsistent. And the wrong target is for those who take it out on him instead of exploring the bugs, flaws, vices of the political-cultural milieu to which the greatest intellectual belongs. Therefore, it is not "him" but "them" that should be studied. It is not "he" that is the theme, but "they". If we shift the focus to "they" we will realize how many and which sesquipedal contradictions distinguish them. Even though, in the sight of "they", from the point of view of "they", according to the criteria of "they", all the others are fools.
For example, they think they are leftists, but they are shunned (if not repulsed) by the working, low-income, down-and-out poor. They believe they represent the marginalized, but they lead, or support, or vote for the party of the rich, the bosses (of the world) and the LTZs. They are obsessed with fascism in Italy, but fervent champions abroad of openly Nazi militias. They divide the world into aggressors (bad) and aggressors (good) after decades of backing the aggressors (good) against the aggressors (bad).
They say they are "natural" pacifists, but they demand an increase in military spending. They are marching for peace after having voted for the massive and continuous shipment of weapons of war. They claim to be bearers of the new rights (non-natural and non-universal), but willingly forget the old ones (natural, universal and constitutional). Every two by three they evoke the specter of political dictatorship after two years of (welcome) health dictatorship. They flaunt ultra-European convictions and boast socialist and progressive traditions, but they don't know (they don't see) that the European Union is built on a ruthlessly ordoliberal and hyper-competitive model. They accuse the Italian government of inhumanity for its (too severe) policy on migrants and they adore the French government that "caresses" migrants and then expels them.
They hate hate, but then they pour hatred against those who love an idea different from theirs. They fight against all limitations on the use and abuse of one's own body, but then they tolerate them (indeed they invoke them) against those who refuse compulsory medical treatment on their bodies. They defend to death the freedom (of all) to get stoned, to get punctured, to circulate with impunity on other people's property, after having denied the freedom (of some) to walk, to refuse to get punctured, and to circulate on public land. They "believe" in science, ignoring that science is not believed. They glorify the achievements of the age of science, but live in an era in which the only cure for the terrible disease found by "official" science (in two years of the pandemic) was watchful waiting (for death).
They minimize, and ridicule, the danger of an epidemic, when the epidemic is in its infancy and could be dealt with. But then they minimize, and ridicule, anyone who proposes a cure for the epidemic when it is full-blown. They knew, with granite certainty that the dead with Covid "must" have died of Covid and, with just as unshakable certainty, they know that the dead after the vaccine "cannot" have died from the vaccine. They chased herd immunity when they knew it couldn't be achieved and stopped talking about it when it wasn't achieved. They got the vaccine to not get Covid and then they all got Covid despite the vaccine.
They deprived thousands of Italian no-vax health workers of salary and dignity, and replaced them with largely no-vax Ukrainian health workers. They abhor the black shirt, but revere the green card. And, with it, they have discriminated against millions of Italians on the basis of the assumption that those who are vaccinated do not infect when it was already known that those who are vaccinated infect. And they always – now that the producer confessedly admits that he never said that (nor knew if) the vaccine protected against contagion – say they always knew it. But they fail to grasp the inconsistency. And don't even apologize.
They glorify “expertise” and then have the line dictated by a semi-schooled girl (on environmental matters), by a multi-billionaire chip and vaccine fanatic nerd (on global health), and by a former city planning commissioner. (in health matters). At the same time they (forgetting the expertise they remind us to remember) scoff at the denunciations of the artificial origin of the virus launched by the Nobel Prize for medicine (leading virus expert) and the alarms on mRNA vaccines sounded by the inventor of vaccines mRNA.
In conclusion, they do not see reality as it is; they build it as they would like it to be. And if reality does not adapt, they do not resign, but expect reality to adapt and resign. They "create" the world and inhabit it. And they always decide who is worthy to inhabit that recreated world. It goes without saying that – on the basis of this singular, and creative, vision of the world – when they are sued for having insulted, their constitutional right to express their thoughts is put at risk; but when they insult, they are only exercising their constitutional right to speak. Only the suckers could deny this peculiar privilege of "they". Therefore, they do not realize that the position of the greatest Italian intellectual is indefensible, while the greatest Italian intellectual does not realize it also because he is applauded and pampered by "they". One last semantic caveat: know that – although the above things may sometimes appear insane – when they are called "dem", they mean "democratic".
Francis Carraro
www.francescocarraro.com
Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles from Economic Scenarios.
The article “Essi” ei fessi comes from Scenari Economici .
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/essi-e-i-fessi/ on Sat, 19 Nov 2022 10:58:45 +0000.