Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the Commission of the European Union, will also love Italy (it is to be believed), but she shows, more and more clearly, that she has little consideration not only of intelligence but also of memory (even shortly) of the Italians.
The day before yesterday, at the opening of the plenary session of the European Parliament, the Belgian-German gentildonna said that the Union must present "apologies to Italy".
Later in the speech, he also gave the motivation, adding: "to ward off the populist anger of southern Europe (Italy, Spain and Portugal)".
In the adjective used to define our anger, borrowed from the Gauchists (who being "democratic", and ignoring the etymology, have a certain disgust for the "people") there is all the contempt of which the Germans can be capable.
The President did not keep in mind that there are two by now "historic" conditions that curb "anger" in Italy, deeply antithetical, but both particularly effective in keeping the Bel Paese in a state of permanent hypnotic decoction.
Ms Ursula cannot ignore, in fact, that in two thousand years, the Italians have never given a sign of wanting to promote heresy (like her Lutheran ancestors), a schism, a real rebellion or even just a determined protest; that in the course of their history starting from the years of the Empire have seen, without batting an eyelid, their elevated civilization and have changed, as is done for a pair of shoes, their "roots" from "Greco-Roman" in "Judeo-Christian", taking them on permanent loan from the mountainous and desert countries of the Middle East; they suffered the harassment of the most ferocious invaders from its parts of northern Europe and Germanic bloodlines (like his consort); they tolerated the crimes of the Borgia, of Spanish origin, continuing, undeterred, to see in Christianity, the destroyer of the pagans (and subsequently of many other civilian populations) a source of universal love; in our day they have accepted the Euro under crazy exchange conditions (Prodi government); have undergone shocking alterations of their Constitution (and not only in article 81) and repeated violations of the intangibility of their borders; finally, they accepted and suffered absurd limits to their sovereign perogatives in economic matters, also accepting the reproach of being apostrophe (some of them, not all) as "sovereignists"; and, as a consequence of this, they witnessed, impotent and taciturn, the debacle of their economic situation, precipitated by the enviable position of fourth industrial power in the world to that called "under-zero growth"!
What constitutes a question also for those born, raised and lived in Italy is whether all this happened because the Italians are naive and credulous or smart and in deep bad faith. The alternative is radical but tertium non datur (= a third possibility is not given) said the Romans.
Those who write in newspapers or say on television things (and they are the absolute majority) that appear completely improbable to citizens endowed with a simple and even minimal "common sense"; those who show no modesty, saying they believe (yet!) the statements of a Prime Minister who has shown he is capable of any possible "turnaround" while keeping himself afloat and the government of the country, all such lords, if you they do…. they either have an alarm clock around their neck or they think they are as clever as Pinocchio's cat and fox.
Is it inclement to support it?
Maybe not: can we really think, without a smile of pretense or a sly tease, painted on the face, that Giuseppe Conte may be able to put his feet up with the European Union and to refuse the MES loan at his own expense? Yet there is someone who wrote it.
And again: in this country there are individuals who are convinced in a rational way of living in a true democracy with the rigorous respect for institutional skills (those, to understand us, written on the "paper" and proclaimed stentoriously, at every foot pushed, on the high spot) ?
Anyone who tilts towards the solution of bad faith brings concrete examples that are difficult to attribute to mischief.
According to some "intimidated lay" writers, only in bad faith can the idea of a Vatican be "drunk" and continues to declare itself ready to do good works for humanity without saying that it is willing to touch the IOR and the real estate and movable properties of which is rich.
Even the two-thousand-year history of the Italians generates other doubts.
It is out of stupidity or cunning calculation that, by flocking sheepishly, the Italian squares, it was possible to share, first the imperial dreams of a crazy megalomenon (which led to the destruction of his "beloved Homeland") and then the imaginative promises of equality universal and planetary, made by a left-wing, Catholic and communist political class, with a clear and demonstrated vocation to corruption and peculation (for its own, exclusive and singular enrichment)?
Whatever the true nature of such a people, President Von Der Leyen hurts to ask herself the problem of the "anger" of the Italians.
Every citizen of this country, looking back, will be able to guarantee that there will be no gesture of anger, even after the imposed usury of the MES loan.
The reassuring prediction has an almost mathematical rigor.
If, in fact, in the attitude of the Italians, there is bad faith, it is not clear what can change because the Italian people think of ending it against their personal interests. If there is stupidity, the prospects for a proud and indignant response are even less.