But where did they go "The capable and deserving"? There was even a trace of them in the Constitution, but I no longer see them anywhere. In appointments, in hiring, in public life, in the economic maneuver, in government and opposition programs, even in the prizes and criteria of judgment.
I read the beneficiaries of the Maneuver of the PeopleI see the exultation and I feel the motivations: there are the needy and the wicked, as is right, there are even the vilified immigrants, but there is no trace of support and recognition to those who deserve, to those who are capable. Then I see at every level the curriculum, the languages and behaviors of the nominated - ministers, presidents, magistrates, directors - and I do not find any relation between the merit, the ability, the competence and the role they cover. I see young people to support, col CBI, and I still find confirmation: who has sacrificed to earn meritly titles of studies, to acquire knowledge and experience, who is good, who has culture, who is intelligent is not expected, anywhere. If you're back, if you did not make it, if you do not have any merit or titles, then you're on schedule. If you're not good, go away. Then we ask where the best go: they go abroad or they go into paranoia, they get discouraged, they even have to disguise themselves to survive, like the researchers of that cute movie, "I stop when I want". They have to flee or make do because there is no place here, there is no room for them, no one considers them.
Believe me, this is not just a matter for grindini, who at the moment are the main impresarios of this wave and are the living testimonies of non-work and anti-terrorism. But it is a speech that comes from afar, comes from '68, from the legacies of communism, of communism and trade unionism, it comes from the radical and politically correct left, it also invested in a struggled and Christian Democratic Italy. And now touches the entire country, battered and deeply unjust, which at every level discourages those who deserve, ignore those who are good, wrong to those who are right, and is limited to preach in favor of those who are considered in many ways needy. Indeed, the grillini, in their childish irresponsibility, at least they are trying seriously, they were speaking.
A society is designed in which the merits must remain private because in public they do not count for anything, indeed they often count against. And the criterion applies everywhere. Here, in the name of women's odds and parity, a woman must be hired, regardless of whether she is more capable and deserving than the competitor. There, the task is entrusted to those on our side and not those who are good and deserve it. Then there is the sacrosanct quota for the disabled and the disadvantaged in general, there is humanitarian aid for immigrants, there is support for those who have made a mistake and must get back on track, there is funding for associations that protect diversity, for example homosexuals. And the rule is not only valid at the bottom, it also applies at the top: nominations in parliament, but also recognitions and public funding at an artistic and literary level, cinema and theater, are reserved not for the best but for those who tell the ideologically correct things and transmits compliant ideological messages: racism and migrants, Nazism and anti-fascism, homosexuality and feminism. Even the literary prizes fit that pre-requisite ...
But among so many protected categories, so many privileged themes, so many nominated, rewarded for pure political affiliation (the last is the renziano to the CSM) there will be by chance or by mistake a good one, someone capable and worthy? The method became so general that it eventually drew a poor and abusive ruling class, to university, to school, to hospitals, to newspapers, to places of power and under-power; a company led by inflated balloons or enslaved drones. A ruling class so then deserves to have parasitic, infidel, absenteeism, lazy employees. Some become alibis of others. Thus society precipitates, declines, becomes barbaric. Never to be told of someone; But he's good, but he's smart, but he's capable, but he deserves it. No, at the most you do the reverse speech, yes, it will be good however (how to say, do not care to know) is not compliant, does not fall into the quota, or simply its capacity is a requirement that is not valid, even not useful. In every sense.
With a huge effort I come to understand the good side of the pauperist wave: it is a distortion of the evangelical the last will be the first, and other similar precepts, how to deal with the lost sheep or clandestine, neglecting the others. I understand the rescue, but in a just and well done society, it should be the corrective, the parachute for those who do not make it; instead here it has become the norm, the canon, the law, the universal criterion of selection even of the ruling class. Who deserves and who is capable is not even contemplated.
I would understand that equal opportunities for starting conditions were invoked as before. But here we are beyond fairness, boring egalitarianism.
Then I return to the maneuver of the people and the maneuvers of the oligarchies, which converge precisely at that point: never reward the best, the capable, the deserving. I do not know what effect it will give to widen the deficit hole, which we will suffer from retaliationEuropean Union, from markets, from potentates, beyond the internal boycott. But I come to say that the worst damage, even more serious than the debt, is this: a society that tramples on that primary criterion of justice, which discourages the capable and deserving, ends badly. I say to the best: do well to leave, do well to hide, do well to nurture distrust. Here there is no place for you, with the grillini or with the left. You are the new illegal immigrants without the right to stay.
MV, The 29 Time September 2018