One must always return to “Submission,” the splendid novel by Michel Houellebecq, reflecting that it was published more than 10 years ago and on how French intellectuals manage to produce an extraordinary degree of independence, incredible when compared to the disheartening and very dangerous conformism of Italian and American intellectuals. These things must be considered before reading and judging today’s article by Mario Giordano, the interviews with Silvia Sardone and Stefano Candiani of the League, and the Remigration Summit organized for tomorrow in Piazza del Duomo by the group of European Patriots, which the League also adheres to.
Predictable are the chaos and polarization that the demonstration and comments will continue to provoke, and it is wise to keep a distance from both. The topic of remigration, in fact, is as simple in theory as it is extremely complicated in practice. Human beings distribute themselves across territories based on income possibilities, well-being, development, and wealth. They therefore tend to concentrate where these seem greater, forming very populous aggregates in which wide disparities and strongly disadvantaged groups emerge. This has always happened, everywhere, and in particular has been occurring for some decades with massive migratory processes from the former third world to the West, from Africa, Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe towards Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain, etc.
The response of the recipient nations is very varied and does not depend on their level of democracy; stricter control and containment rules are applied, for example, in Australia and Scandinavia, which are not criticized by antifa for this reason. The European Union has also been tending in this direction of restriction for some time, and in this process, Italy is credited or blamed with a leading role. In this case, we witness a strong ideological polarization of favorable and opposing positions: Vannacci and Salvini on one side, Fratoianni and Bonelli on the other, to make it clear.
If migratory movements had been managed in time in a rational way, combining a spirit of humanitarian reception and expected benefit for the host nations, this opposition would have made no sense, but now it is too late. On Start we have just argued that in politics, news, and history it makes no sense to talk about climate, air, wind, as if things proceeded meteorologically: we do not take back our words but highlight that the absorption capacity for foreigners in Italy and Europe has been drastically reduced; this is an epochal turning point. The Western economic crisis, changed political positions, and crime cases involving foreigners are an epiphenomenon; however, the change is deeper and resembles the parallel ongoing shift in green policies, in the sense of their drastic downsizing.
To delude ourselves that the left reflects on such depth, which today and tomorrow will rend their garments with empty invocations of good feelings, is obviously useless. Yet, they would do well to do so, to question their identity crisis, which has led them to replace egalitarianism and post-Marxist progressivism with a makeshift environmentalism and migrationism that have caused very serious damage. Primarily to the socio-economic groups less well-off, whom they should have championed.
