In yesterday’s article, Alessandro Greco tried to give an interpretation of the present and to trace the outlines of the near future by analysing a wretched law approved by the European Parliament, propagated as “against gender violence”, but actually against all humanity. At the end of the article, Greco takes note of how those who today do not see the dangers of the drift will be convinced (but too late) when they will be victims, and finally advises to save the children by sending them out of the EU and UN area of influence. To many, these two remarks appeared excessive, over-dramatised or catastrophic. It is understandable: every person, nowadays, needs some concrete evidence to believe in a prediction, so it is appropriate to try to broaden the reasoning, taking a cue from a reflection that can shed a different light on three current and well-known facts of the Italian news, to see if any of the candid souls who still have faith in the current system does not wake up to the horrible reality of things. The starting point is the valuable insight of journalist Freya India Ager, who in the French magazine “Express” challenged the concept of “toxic masculinity” by bringing the two genders back to their deepest nature. This is what clearly emerges when a man or a woman loses his or her mind and, in that condition, manifests his or her antisociality: the male psychiatric patient in the vast majority of cases becomes aggressive or violent; the female psychiatric patient takes his or her inclination to empathy to extremes, adopting behaviour that Ager intelligently compares to the typical conduct of the ‘Social Justice Warrior’.
Ager cites evolutionary studies, but even a superficial observation suffices: since the dawn of humanity and even today, men have settled their disputes and eliminated competitors through direct conflict, while women rely on indirect conflict and low-risk competition. In the former case, one’s physical integrity and life itself are at stake, in the latter the instrument of struggle is centred on reputation. To put it simply: the man punches his enemy, the woman destroys her rival’s reputation, aims to assert widespread contempt in order to achieve the most serious damage for a woman: social exclusion. Described in this way, it is quite evident that a female culture and approach have long been predominant. Ager says: “Our current mindset – which trivialises ostracism, exalts emotional reasoning and overestimates safety – is strongly aligned with character traits that, in general, are more predominant among women than men. In the current context of social justice, those who commit a moral transgression often find themselves at the mercy of ‘cancel culture’, a form of social exclusion in which the alleged transgressor is ostracised by society, with loss of reputation and even career’. The reasoning is enlightening: the evolution of political correctness, fed in its spread also and above all by feminism and queer ideology, has feminised in an extreme way relationships and social dynamics, as well as the law: today, even if we talk about a non-existent “patriarchy”, we are in fact under the constant influence of a “feminarchy” that determines choices and shapes relationships. A law such as the one we spoke about yesterday serves to crystallise this state of affairs, to make it structural by carving its rules in marble. But with what results? What is the project of humanity that is planned at the end of the realisation of that culture sanctioned by that kind of law? The chronicle suggests its features.
No one is safe in this state of affairs.
What happened recently to Barbara Palombelli is a first proof. We are talking about a public figure, a journalist, a pundit who has never hidden her feminist inclinations, so much so that she gave her conformist lecture in the most conformist of Italian television programmes: the Sanremo Festival. And it has never been a lukewarm feminism, but one of the most ardent, placing Palombelli on the left of the political spectrum. Yet it was enough for her to give in for a second to the professional correctness of the journalist, as well as to mere common sense, and to wish to take into consideration all the sides of a phenomenon (the ‘feminicide’) in their complexity, to end up in a ferocious meat grinder. Torn apart by everyone, men but above all women, she who probably believed herself to be ‘pure’ in terms of conformity to feminist paradigms, saw herself put out of her context by the inevitable ‘purer ones who purge you’, according to the mechanism well described by Ager. Despite subsequent explanations and apologies, it seems that Mediaset is considering firing the journalist, following a wave of indignation expressed mainly on informal platforms such as social media. The people’s tribunal, which judges on purely feminine codes, trivialises ostracism and exalts emotional reasoning, to use Ager’s words, has ruled that Barbara Palombelli, although a woman, leftist and avowedly feminist, is a heretic, has broken the law of “sisterhood”, has vilified the orthodoxy of one-sided lying, and should therefore be burnt out. The European law commented yesterday has, incidentally, articles specifically dedicated to the merciless repression of those who question the feminist dictate. Can you put the three things together, feminist-driven female Weltanshauung, binding laws and Barbara Palombelli? It seems to us a rather concrete concatenation, with a not irrelevant element: the target is a woman (and it is not even the first time this has happened), demonstrating that it is not a matter of genders. No one is safe in this state of affairs, which now is an instinctive urge, tomorrow it will be a crime by European law implemented at national level.
Then there are the Bianchi brothers, found guilty of the death of Willy Monteiro and back in the news for their complaints about the treatment they receive in prison from other inmates. The latter are, albeit in their own way, the last custodians of a modernised form of chivalry, so they do not appreciate those who pick on a weaker man and it seems they are therefore making the two murderers pay. Along with their complaints, the newspapers report excerpts of intercepted conversations between one of them and his mother, Simonetta Di Tullio. She has no doubts: her two sons have been imprisoned as innocent or at most guilty of a trifle. Referring to the death of poor Willy, the mother blurts out: “as if the queen had died”. It is not surprising that Marco and Gabriele, the two culprits, grew up as they did and did what they did, if the educational source is a mother like that, most likely associated with a fragile father figure. In one of the interceptions, Di Tullio says, speaking of her husband to one of their two sons, ‘That one, I mean your father, doesn’t have the courage to come either here or to you… or else he’ll have a heart attack’. The picture is clear: the two hooligans are the result not only of ignorance, but also of the absence of a male and paternal regulator who has left the field open to an incisive maternal education based on an ethic well represented by that “as if the queen had died”. Di Tullio’s embrace of her children is maternal, loving and asphyxiating. An embrace that denies the seriousness of the facts in order to protect the chicks and take them away from their responsibility, whereas a father, a man, with all his execrated sense of honour and responsibility, therefore with all his “toxic masculinity”, would coldly hand over his unspeakable offspring to justice and to the law so that they would pay for their idiocy and their faults to the end, then painfully questioning himself on his own failure as a parent. Marco and Gabriele Bianchi are the result of the maternal rampant, with all its inclination to obtuseness and impunity. The recent European law we spoke about yesterday imposes, incidentally, every possible action to ensure that the care of children is always, under any conditions, entrusted to the maternal side, prefiguring a totally unbalanced future, where the decline of the father, already under way for years, finally becomes a fait accompli. No one is safe in this state of affairs, starting with the children.
Opporci assieme al degrado.
Last but not least is the story of the mathematician and researcher at the University of Palermo, Professor Francesco Tulone. He held the chair of “Analysis 2”, taught engineering, physics and biology, and boasted a curriculum with significant experience abroad (in Moscow and Texas) and collaborations with Nobel Prize winners. He was one of those brains who courageously did not flee abroad, but stayed in Italy, trying to improve things, even more so in such difficult places as southern academia. But that’s not all: last August, Tulone, in collaboration with a Russian and an American colleague, succeeded in solving a complex mathematical problem that had been open about twenty years ago. An equation, they say. For those of us who find it difficult to solve a simple proportion, it makes an impression to think of a mathematical dilemma that has been unsolved for twenty years and whose solution is celebrated with publication in major scientific journals, just as Tulone did. In a normal, competitive and meritocratic environment, the professor would have been rewarded. Instead, he was relieved of his duties and replaced with a female lecturer who lacked his experience, skills and research achievements. An ‘academic spite’, Tulone defines it, who now prefers an understandable understatement, perhaps so as not to have worse consequences than those already reaped. And yet there is a dark side to the story: an open vote by the University Council which entrusted him with the chair of “Analysis 2”, followed by a subsequent secret vote, which took it away and entrusted it to the inexperienced female colleague. What happened? It’s quite easy to guess, despite the secrecy: someone “of weight” at the top of the university must have suffered Tulone’s exploit and, following the ministerial directives and practices on “gender equality” (let’s not forget the case of Prof. Alessandro Strumia), imposed a female competitor in the second vote, making sure that she prevailed, in spite of merit and logic. In the above-mentioned European law there is, incidentally, an obligation to enhance the value of women in education, not to boost research by carefully selecting the best, but to ‘bridge the professional gap’. No one is safe in this state of affairs, it must be reiterated. And the first to fall are obviously men.
Those who wrote to us observing that perhaps we had been too catastrophic in commenting on the European law on ‘gender violence’ have food for thought. The general approach to events and their interpretation in public opinion, with the consequent influence on social balances, is to all intents and purposes the one observed by Aber: an extreme psychiatric form of female nature. There is much less physical violence, it is true: the process of feminisation and infantilisation of men has been successfully accomplished. On the other hand, the communities are pervaded by a soft violence declined to the feminine/maternal, hinged on social and professional exclusion or on a distorted sense of justice, interpreted as impunity for oneself, all well amplified by that deadly thing that is social media. The evidence is clear, and we have limited ourselves to just three, taking them from recent events that have caused a stir, but the list would be endless. It must be reiterated: as long as we were dealing with cultural trends, social or political conformism, we were dealing with an annoying, polluting phenomenon, but all in all manageable, insofar as we could exercise our right to criticism. Now, however, all the distortions described have taken the path of sanctification per legem, and it is this above all that makes us ‘catastrophists’. The position expressed by Alessandro Greco should therefore be confirmed and strongly affirmed, with two additional elements that perhaps did not emerge sufficiently in yesterday’s article. The first is that we are not dealing with random trends, but with a clear and well-defined project for society, which is being built piece by piece, forcing the processes, with the transversal complicity of many. The second is that, although men are the most exposed to attack, that project of humanity spares no one, neither children nor women. For the latter, who have grown up in the myth of feminism and overprotection, are those who more than others can run the risk of a rude awakening: the crazy feminist orthodoxy, like any totalitarianism, takes no prisoners, even at the cost of contradicting itself. Isn’t this a good reason for all of us to exercise a little bit of critical sense and start opposing degradation together?