I want to immediately reassure those who read, I have no intention of making a review of the book of General Vannacci of which so much has been spoken these days. There is an aspect that I think should be taken seriously and it is that this book, which in other times would have passed absolutely under silence, actually had a wide echo and is at the top of the sales charts. Some say that Italy has never fully liberated itself from fascism, and that it has remained a right-wing country. Maybe, but I wouldn’t be so sure.
I read these days an interesting article by Conchita De Gregorio, “Parlare semplice” (“Talk simple”) published a few days ago in La Repubblica, in which she highlighted the difference in language between the right and the left wings:
“… there is a simplicity of outward and return. If you have a lexicon of three hundred words you are simple, but you are poor. If you have one of thirty thousand and you use three hundred you are rich, sometimes wise. Equality levelled down is a great deception that power uses towards the people. Flattering, we are all equal, demagogic and dangerous. The danger is subservience: if you don’t know, you don’t have any weapons to oppose it, never. You live in prison. It’s easy to be all equal without anything…
Simplicity is complexity solved, instead. It’s finding the essential in the maze of thought, of doubts. Wisdom, experience, culture help you to be simple. You don’t have to be simple from the poverty of tools, you go back to being it because you choose it…
Then of course: if you do politics you must make yourself understood. You have to choose the simplicity, that of the circle of return, to cultivate and make the complexity flourish everywhere. That’s the landing place: to be all equal, yes, but all richer. Of tools and words.”
I like to think that the simplicity of the return is the line that has always characterized this blog. And that the simplicity of outward is stupidity and violence.
But there is something else that is particularly close to my heart. De Gregorio says that the problem is simplification, but she also says that in order to simplify we need to have clear ideas. Well, here’s the thing: are we sure the left wing has a clear idea? Is there not a risk that simplification is deliberately avoided because otherwise there would be a lack of thought or at least a great confusion?
I believe that if the left wing does not find the courage to do research on the human nature, it will never reach that simplicity of return that would allow it to have a truly alternative vision to the right wing. It seems to me that at the bottom, right and left share the same thought about human reality. Only difference is that the right is harder, more determined while the left is more tolerant, sensible. I try to explain myself better.
Can we understand, for example, that continuing to say that inside every human being there is the irrational villain, the little devil, means legitimizing a repressive instance, internal or external it might be? Yet I hear it, repeated over and over again, by leftists: “We must be rational, not let ourselves think with our bellies like the right”. No, we must be human, as demonstrated by the many Lampedusans who these days welcome migrants with their guts into their homes.
But then do you mean there’s no violence in human beings? Of course it does exist, but to put it as a natural condition means to close one’s eyes to those psychological, social, cultural and political conditions that create it because they make people sick. And people who are sick “become” violent, let alone the little devil! These days I’m watching my one-month-old granddaughter carefully and so far I haven’t seen any trace of her nastiness. However I will continue monitoring and keep you updated!
I was struck by the immediacy and ferocity with which this government lashed out against raves, in the first decree it made. I asked myself: isn’t it that these guys trigger the right wing because they propose (evil, very bad, doing illicit) an idea, again confused and clumsy, of a being together that is not afraid of ethnic substitution, of the melting pot, of the “invasion” and think instead that you can be together to play, sing, dance, make love? With Minniti, instead, sending migrants back to the Libyan concentration camps, the basic thought is the same but the right wing is clearer, more decisive and proposes the naval blockade and the sinking of NGO ships. Like, always better the original than the copy.
The relationship with the different. But don’t we want to stop calling heterosexual those who rape and kill women? These people hate women, and the word hate comes up against the word sexuality, can we understand that? Ah no, but today we talk about sex, not sexuality, the usual silly games to say a body that goes on its own, separated from the mind, which responds to the discharge of their instincts. Then we wonder if someone proposes chemical castration! But do we want to do research on these things? Also, how can the left think of solving the gigantic problem of gender identity with an asterisk? Are we kidding? This is simplicity of outward and not return!
And then immigration and war. Here, too, the maximum that the left manages to oppose to this ill-concealed wave of racism is always the same thought, the search for profit, for personal gain: we should welcome and integrate them because we need them. If we regularise them then they pay taxes and if they are integrated they work better. On war: it is not worth sending weapons, this war weighs on our bills, it makes us poorer… while hundreds of thousands of kids who nobody cares about die!
But do we really believe that we human beings suck that much?
This tolerant and feel-good left wing sees the human being exactly as the right sees it and let’s remember that the good ones need the bad ones to legitimize their identity. They are afraid to talk to people because they believe people are all like Vannacci and therefore they do not even suspect that they have become like this and that it would be politics’ responsibility to ask itself what to do to change a society that violates human reality.
Let’s invite young immigrants to tell their stories at school and then see what the students’ gut response is! If I see a migrant drowning and I do everything to save him, it is not because I am good but because I am simply and instinctively human and I cannot do anything else. If I think that even those who look like Egonu are human beings like me, it is not because I have studied and therefore I am tolerant. If I can’t even get past the antechamber of my brain to rape a woman, it’s not because my mom told me I had to be good and I had to control myself.
I hope I was clear and simple.
Marco Michelini
Thanks to Chiara Fanasca for the translation of this article
Leave a Reply