[ad_1]
Victor hugoIn his “Les Misérables”, he devotes an entire chapter to describing the subtle difference that, according to him, exists between “mutiny” and “insurrection.” In both cases it is a street revolt: they are two similar anger, says the author, and both involve the uprising of the people, the guerrillas and violence. However, “one is wrong and the other is right.” Why? The revolt is negative because it is the war of a minority against what the author considers “justice.” The insurrection, on the other hand, takes up arms to claim a right: it is the defense of the masses against those who want to usurp power. Therefore, it is legitimate. In practice, Hugo attacking the government building is allowed if the King is to be expelled, but it is sacrilege if the revolt undermines a democratic government. Similarly, shooting into the crowd is justified if done to defend “progress”, whereas it is a crime if the weapons of a sovereign open fire.
You will say: what does all this do with me? radical elegance? It has something to do with it. Because Hugo’s way of thinking about insurrections is similar to that used by the Italian, European and global left to defend the cause of their own moral and political superiority. Let’s be clear: we are not saying that the French author was a radical elegance. May it never be. We just need it as an example. Hugo relativizes violence and justifies it based on his own reading of history: therefore, he labels everything he likes with the stamp of “good” and what he does not appreciate with the stamp of “bad”. The protagonists of certain progressive thought tend to do the same, but with much less intelligence, radical in content and Elegant in movements. The summary can be the following: if you think like me, you are right, otherwise you are demonized. And it does not matter if the intellectuality sometimes to defend the equations progressive = correct and populist = incorrect radical he uses “two weights and two measures” with such audacity that it seems embarrassing.
It must be said that the radical elegance it does not have a well-defined character. And the meaning of the finished It has evolved over time: he once painted the portrait of those who, by fashion or convention, embraced nonconformist ideas while belonging to a high social class. Today the term encompasses other meanings. For example, identify the attitude of those who believe they have some cultural superiority and exhibit this “elevated” culture as soon as possible. Translated into other words, as in the case of Hugo, it is that way of doing in which what pleases a certain part (the left) is fine and everything else (the right) is thrown away. In Italy, the protagonists of this “movement” now embody the one and now the other meaning of the term.
So radical elegance Italians are the ones who fight against environmental pollution by dressing up, buying iPhones and eating McDonald’s. Or those who preach hospitality but do not want migrants in Capalbio. But they are also those who are outraged if before the manifestation of center right the masks are missing and then they shut up if I Black lives matter they meet in squares all over the world. In short, they are the ones that the popular vote is good, but only if the left wins. Radical chic their sardine, that grant freedom of expression to “populists” but deny them “the right to be heard” (which would then be the same). Radical chic it is the way in which the street confrontations of the antagonists are described (it is always the police who “charge” and never the protesters “attack” the agents). In short, they are what the title “Hot Potato” of Free no, but the “partisans with the team” against Meloni also do. Two weights and two measures, in fact. And these are just a few examples.
Observing the evolution of this thought serves to show theipiocrisia of a whole political and cultural world. For this we will dedicate ourselves to radical elegance and a weekly column about his problems. Is. It will be a way of mocking and exposing the contradictions of those who always feel on the right side of history. And of those who claim a certain moral superiority. Without having it.
