Lamentele

Dopo il discorso alla Camera con relativo rap (per cui Romano, dall'alto del suo spiccato senso dell'umorismo e dell'autoironia, ha minacciato una denuncia per vilipendio), sono giunte al nostro blog numerose lamentele. Abbiamo deciso di pubblicarne una, la più accorata, speditaci da un lettore americano di origine italiana. Domani pubblicheremo quella di un lettore arabo, per non scontentare nessuno.

As a citizen of this country, which I believe in and which I have seen Prof. Romano Prodi tear apart, I must stop the Huns at the gate. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Prof. Prodi's parasitic indoctrination and is consequently believable. I have the following advice for him: If you can't manage to be grateful for all the things we've done for you, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you have a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of entitlement. I believe it was Hegel who said, "The more we give him, the more he wants". He refuses to come to terms with reality. Prof. Prodi prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. It's time to put up or shut up. Let me rephrase that: He pompously claims that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

It should come as no shock to anyone that we could opt to sit back and let Prof. Prodi corrupt our youth. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Even though supposedly distancing himself from the worst classes of power-drunk, hotheaded firebrands there are, he has really not changed his spots at all. He will fail if we unite. But there is a further-reaching implication: This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Prof. Prodi's coldhearted, quixotic calumnies. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Prof. Prodi plans to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. The result will be an amalgam of violent cannibalism and sex-crazed pessimism, if such a monster can be imagined.

I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones at the hands of Romano Prodi -- obviously an instructive warning for the future. Either he has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. In order to understand the motivation behind his sound bites, it is important first to pursue virtue and knowledge. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that if you think about it you'll see that Prof. Prodi's longiloquent tracts are merely a distraction. They're just something to generate more op-ed pieces, more news conferences for media talking heads, and more punditry from people like me. Meanwhile, Prof. Prodi's stooges are continuing their quiet work of advancing Prof. Prodi's real goal, which is to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. Prof. Prodi wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, insensitive malingerers are more susceptible to Prof. Prodi's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that if you think that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras -- then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Prof. Prodi wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that I, for one, strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but Prof. Prodi's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that he sometimes uses the word "intercrystallization" when describing his hastily mounted campaigns. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. Does Prof. Prodi think his arguments through, or does he just chug along on his computer writing about whatever trite conclusions happen to suit his needs that day? I ask, because if Prof. Prodi would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to lend support to the thesis that for all of Prof. Prodi's professed concern for human rights, he has yet to take a firm and unambiguous stand against those insolent wackos who remake the world to suit Prof. Prodi's own high-handed needs.

With Prof. Prodi's communications, simple credos like "check your sources" and "argue the other side of the question" have gone out the window, and every intellectually honest person knows it. Will I allow Prof. Prodi to test another formula for silencing serious opposition? As long as there is breath in my earthly body, I assure you I will not. What I will do, however, is inform as many people as possible that Prof. Prodi wants to help mephitic, vengeful oligarchs back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

While it is reasonable to expect that Prof. Prodi's reckless revenge fantasies disgust me, it remains that Prof. Prodi's misinformed, ungrateful principles are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of metagrobolism are blooming all around us. Will Prof. Prodi's intrusive apple-polishers perpetuate myths that glorify sensationalism? Only time will tell. A colleague recently informed me that a bunch of unrealistic crumbums and others in Prof. Prodi's amen corner are about to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. I have no reason to doubt that story because Prof. Prodi's apologues all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that he does the things he does "for the children". A trip to your local library would reveal that Prof. Prodi's ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, his core principle has remained the same: to discredit legitimate voices in the expansionism debate. If you don't believe me, then note that by refusing to act, by refusing to call for a return to the values that made this country great, we are giving Prof. Prodi the power to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus.

To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my threats, I offer the following. Many people respond to Prof. Prodi's corrupt remonstrations in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Prof. Prodi's grievances. Now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Prof. Prodi's flock quite adamantly feel that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt assail all that is holy". I find it rather astonishing that anyone could suspect such a thing, but then again, if Prof. Prodi truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't use paid informants and provocateurs to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. Prof. Prodi is like a broken record, using the same tired cliches about family and education and safer streets, yet his propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us" and, "The ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids". What they don't tell you, though, is that I like to speak of Prof. Prodi as "foul-mouthed". That's a reasonable term to use, I aver, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with vitriolic ranters?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that I plan to provide you with vital information which Prof. Prodi has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, Prof. Prodi contends that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash and that, therefore, his agendas epitomize wholesome family entertainment. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces bumptious anthropophagi (as distinct from the peevish malefactors who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Prof. Prodi should be even slightly inconvenienced. In reality, contrariwise, I need your help if I'm ever to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, it's easy for us to shake our heads at Prof. Prodi's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. It's easy for us to say, "Prof. Prodi often starts with a preconceived story and then plugs in supposed 'information' in order to create a somewhat believable tale." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

There's something fishy about Prof. Prodi's inveracities. I think he's up to something, something acrimonious and perhaps even self-absorbed. If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Prof. Prodi provides none.

Prof. Prodi's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified. Prof. Prodi ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. When he says that if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound.

Prof. Prodi's true goal is to bask in the narrow-minded shine of Maoism. All the statements that his patsies make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to defy Prof. Prodi. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the stratagems of Pecksniffian schmucks, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant notions. His fabulous success is not firmly connected with meritorious ability for a variety of reasons. For instance, if he has spurred us to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts, then Prof. Prodi may have accomplished a useful thing.

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! Rather, in asserting that the rules don't apply to him, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. So we're supposed to give Prof. Prodi permission to inaugurate an era of delusional pauperism and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! The pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to address the continued social injustice shown by merciless segregationists? Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from Prof. Romano Prodi.

Jack Spaldon