The two mirror-image nonsense that brightened Sunday converge. In the name of the polarization we will have to get used to in the coming months, being already in an election campaign and without the World Cup as a distraction tool and topic of conversation. So we have to cheer for the remigrationists or the antifa who, however, play as badly as the Azzurri but on separate fields, which are therefore always free to shoot the ball into the stands. The second convergence is that both highlight the Italian normative passion for superfluous rules, redundant compared to pre-existing law.
In both cases, the outbursts start from reasonable intentions, glimmers of sense nullified by the lack of technique and the goal of throwing the ball as far away as possible, in chaos. General Vannacci for his inaugural day begins with the expected remigration, just one word but with a clear meaning, an intuitive neologism that for the listening belly means “there are too many, let’s send them home.” So easy that the demonstration held against him could only add to the ethical-solidarity-anti-racist repertoire, on which the Church has an unassailable monopoly, the sensible reasoning of the unions: foreigners are needed to keep things running.
Vannacci’s dramatic twist was on femicide, snubbed as a useless crime since there is already homicide and reversed as a gender gap that values a woman’s life more than a man’s. The head-heart-belly axis finds the sensible joke and here too the progressives have blunt weapons, since for years they have complained about government pan-penalism, the proliferation of aggravating circumstances and new crimes that are often trivial renamings. Certain embarrassing convergences are inevitable after all: deep down, the left supports the general to undermine Meloni’s success. Almost no one scratches beneath the surface to observe that, then, we should also reconsider laws against the mafia or associative aggravations, a penal trend that has been ongoing for decades.
The antifa on the other hand celebrate the institution of the constitutionalism license to participate in Più Libri Più Liberi, speaking to the guts of their fans by opening up the prospect of purging, the dream of legally banning the opponent: many reasonable progressives criticize it but it’s too easy and nice to give up. Here too, in the end, we are always at normativism, the very Italian dream that a rule is enough to solve what we don’t like.
And here too we remain at a superficial level. Meanwhile, it is worth noting yet another paradoxical convergence: many readers of the neo-fascist nonsense targeted by the measure might like a world where not everyone can say everything, except to disagree on who and what to ban. But, less philosophically, the paradox is of common and commercial sense: the Roman fair of small and medium publishing contrasts with the Turin Salon aiming at a market where, with the aforementioned nonsense, poor reprints, so-called vanity publishers, printers of masturbatory poetry, manuals for panaceas to eternal problems, books written entirely with AI (which has only perfected other copy-paste) proliferate.
The license could inaugurate a suicidal quality expertise for the AIE, the Italian Publishers Association that organizes PLPL. And which, after the case of Passaggio al Bosco from last edition, had supported the inadmissibility of censorial selection among its members and participants. In fact, the Association now admits that a “further investigation is necessary.” Meanwhile, the fair’s president explains: “Our regulation already required adherence to the values of the Constitution.” But what does that mean?! It reminds us, with all due respect for the Charter, of the Roman traffic wardens who, after the explosion of firecrackers with which the horses went wild during the June 2 rehearsals, specified that the practice was prohibited by regulation. Rules that only serve to protect those who should ensure compliance.
