I would like to start this note of mine, making a premise and then asking a question; the latter, very abstract, will appear to many of my readers, certainly far-fetched and extravagant.
The introduction. For long decades, now distant in time (it was in the thirties), the brothers Guido (aka Bebè) and Giorgio (aka Ciccio) De Rege (more properly, according to their family tree: Conti De Rege di Donato and di San Raffaele, scions of a noble Piedmontese family but born and raised in Caserta) have reaped extraordinary successes in the avanspectacle field, forming a comic duo much loved by the public also for an intelligent and acute use of absurdity and nonsense.
The question. If, by mere hypothesis, you were, in life, a theatrical comedian like Bebè De Rege, you would give up, after obtaining optimal results of audiences on repeat, your brother Ciccio, to take you into the "duo" one of his substitutes, over the years , proud of his failures (as Ennio Flaiano probably would have said) and stubbornly obstinate in making jokes about your "minor political age", always remembering the years when you were perhaps a little bricconcelli and certainly less wise?
My answer (like, I have reason to believe, of many common sense people) would be: no!
Out of metaphor, another question: why, then, so many political notists of the Bel Paese insist on suggesting to the head of the League, Matteo Salvini, to change government partner and to replace, for the four years that are missing at the end of the legislature, Luigi Di Maio, unparalleled "supplier" of political ideas useful to make him "look good" (at least, compared to the "travel companions" of the government of the country) with the leader of a political formation that according to Giovanni Toti, a leading exponent of that same party, would it be "on the brink of consumption"?
Probably, because, as in the well-known joke about the hunter persecuted by bad luck, they are more friends of the Jaguar than Matteo Salvini. If they were not, they would warn the leader of the League of other, very different and more dangerous, risks that he can take.
If Luigi Di Maio, in fact, is a real guarantee, for him, of growing success, instead, the "friendly fire" of his ministerial patrol that "shoots" retrograde broadside (fortunately blank, so far) against the conquests does not help him " civilians "and" advanced "which the most wise and modern Italian society does not intend, in any way, to renounce; nor consider them the heritage of the communists. Those achievements, in fact, are neither of the right, nor of the center and of the left: they only represent the positive development of a thought that no longer wants to be inextricably anchored to the hypocritical and mystifying "Values" of our, sometimes too celebrated, grandparents.
An even more useful work by non-sectarian political notists would be to convince the inhabitants of the boot that "right", "center" and "left" have become, not thanks to political scientists, but due to the objective "change" both of times, both of men and of things, denomination completely meaningless. And that political leaders must be valued, approved or rejected, for their pragmatic and concrete proposals, without mental and pseudo-cultural contrivances tending to their arbitrary "classification" and "placement" in the hemicycle of parliaments.
On the other hand, at the level of civilization and of good social cohesion, the problems to be solved, both of the individual, of the family, and of the society of our contemporaneity, are well identifiable, because they have their rough and burning evidence.
The problem, reduced in a nutshell and by way of maximum synthesis, is only that of making a careful examination and saying what the connotations of the "freedom" of peoples and individuals should be in the third millennium. That of the European (and therefore Italian) communities is to make the best choices for the economic development of their countries without undergoing the indications or tugs of the reins ended up in the hands of the scoundrels of the scoundrels of Finance; and this, due to the subjection of the Brussels bankers to the bankers of the New York Wall Street and the City of London. The first objective is, therefore, to aim at the constitution of "political-led" United States of Europe that have the same powers of choice, especially economic, as the United States of America (which have been able to free themselves, like the United Kingdom of Great Britain, from the constricting and asphyxiating yoke of the financial powers established in their own countries).
The freedom of the individual, especially if he has reached a certain evolutionary level, is to make his own political and social choices according to a free conviction, inspired above all by his own convenience and the need for peaceful coexistence with his fellow citizens; not influenced, therefore, neither by the fairytale (and often ultronea, for politics) religious precepts nor by the imaginative (and always unachievable) political utopia. And, above all, able to discern the task of political leaders, which is to take care of the material and concrete interests of the members of the polis, from that of the self-styled saviors of humanity, who proclaim themselves capable of realizing, by virtue induced by "Intermediaries" of the divinity or by teaching "great masters", happiness of ecumenical and universal significance.
This is not to deny that fable, fairy tale, legend, myth (synonyms that distinguish the narration of consciously invented fantastic facts and fruits of the imagination or the story, often of popular origin and handed down orally, of implausible events believed to be real) have a their usefulness. They represent the "condiment" necessary to create the illusion, the dream, the enchantment, the suggestion, the wonderful: all things useful, on a psychological level, for the human being to facilitate his survival embittered by adverse events.
It is important, however, that irrationality does not generate, towards those who do not believe in dreams, intolerances and tendencies to ridicule opponents, bearers of ideas opposed to their own.
Platonic Philosophers, in past times, in addition to a required conformism, necessary to make a career (it was necessary to swear and believe in verba magistri) used the weapons of derision and ridicule, describing Diogenes with a constantly lit light in the spasmodic search of man, Zeno, the stoic, imagining him embraced by the cold and icy marble to verify his theories and Epicurus dripping and lewd; Catholics followed them, acting as a sounding board.
In recent times, current enthusiasts of totalizing and absolutist ideologies use the weapon of spiritual superiority (religious and right-wing fanatics) or intellectual (gauchist) to corner, according to their Manichean vision, the followers and followers of a free thinking, not conditioned by fole, autonomous and independent. This is the state of the acts: the hope is that it is about to end!