We have been exposed lately to a spate of unwelcome events, too many and too bad. There’s something strange in the air - we are being subjected to psychological abuse by individuals who, for reasons not altogether acceptable, resort to principles that should be at the basis of civil coexistence. For example, from a logical viewpoint the philosophy and strategy of non-violence should be applied in conflicts between two differing civil societies, and yet Marco Pannella, with his hunger and thirst strike, has transformed a non-violent act into an act of violence, towards his own body first of all, but also and chiefly towards those on whom he would impose decisions and actions, threatening to make them responsible for any partial or even irreversible harm to his health and safety. We might call this pressure a sort of “blackmail”, presented as non-violent but actually applied in the even more violent form of physical reaction. Even the sufferings of the sick (nowadays effectively supported by pain therapy) are being used, in the name of philosophical principles, for that other form of violence applied to the bodies of some persons and to the minds of others that goes by the name of euthanasia, while it would be more correct to impose limitations on therapeutic obstinacy, which is definitely non-violent. And what to say about the web of philosophical, social and strategic principles that entangle the Middle East, emphasized by the Israelo-Palestinian conflict? The contradiction between the sacredness of principles and the aberrations of some of their applications is stressed by religious fundamentalism that is emerging with increasing virulence in every part of the world. Among this series of contradictions, we have, in our own neighbourhood, the questionable behaviour of certain figures who are particularly skilled in riding the tiger, and who, invoking the relevant principles every time, transform themselves from the assailants into the assailed, proclaiming themselves champions of liberty while at the same time attacking Oriana Fallaci for freely expressing her opinions. Champions of democratic liberty? Non, much more than that! Much more prosaically protecting their own interests, the money involved, the jobs that must be saved. These are only a few examples of the inconsistencies between principles and behaviour that defile society. And to conclude, we recommend an interview with Alessandro Duce, MP. No anticipations – it would be like revealing the plot of an unread book.

Translated by Interpres sas