An interesting discussion that I'm having leads me to talk about a concept, which is the difference between politics and consensus. The question I ask is: why do some political movements fail to gain consensus?
First of all we make a distinction: when I speak of consent I do not speak of votes. Votes can also be collected through exchange mechanisms with certain lobbies, therefore it is necessary to distinguish the two.
Let's take what is happening in the US. The population is split between those who are with the police and Trump, and those who are with BLM. The question at this point arises spontaneously: "why is it so complicated to convince people that if the police kill you for nothing it's wrong?". In itself, this is an obvious statement, and I would like to point out that the Alt-Right is so supportive of personal freedoms that the idea of a police who intervenes for $ 20 gives him the urticaria because it represents a tyrannical state.
So why is it so hard to convince people, that is, to bring consensus, to an obvious statement like "the police who kill random people is bad"?
Bringing the problem to Italy, with Montanelli's speech, we could ask ourselves why it is so difficult to convince everyone of an obvious idea such as "buying 13-year-old girls to make them sexual slaves is horrible?".
It is only the tip of the iceberg: The unions are losing consensus among the workers, and not even among the slaves of the gig economy are they able to pass a simple message like “it would be more beautiful for you if you had higher pay, holidays and assistance health ". The workers of the gig economy are apparently the least unionized in the country.
This failure must make us think, because we are asked if some factions would be able to convince the public that the sky is blue, or that the cat makes me miao. Tasks that are relatively simple, in parentheses.
The reason is very simple: messages arrive polluted, and become repellent. I can cook the most attractive of carbonara pasta, but if I serve it with a kilo of pork shit, nobody eats it.
Likewise, a polluted message doesn't get anywhere and doesn't produce any consensus. Let's take "the sky is blue" as an example. Finding consensus on this sentence is simple, but not if we pollute it: "because of the shit masters the sky is blue, death to the white male!" it's a polluted phrase. To agree it is not enough to agree with the fact that the sky is blue, but it is necessary to share other ideas, which instead find less consensus.
Take BLM for example. The police in the USA are violent and kill easily, but they don't kill niggers . It kills the poor . If you are black and rich you will live in the right place and the police will smile at you when they see you go by. The problem comes if you are poor. And because the Negroes are poorer, the police kill more Negroes than white or Hispanic or Chinese. But it's not that it doesn't happen. If you are "white trash" and make a wrong gesture, they kill you even if you are white. Except that poor whites are less than poor Negroes, but the division is not racial, it is economic.
So if we take the phrase "the police have to stop killing random people," we will likely find broad consensus. But if we start saying "the police have to stop killing niggers, " we are already in a controversy, because all the other minorities will agree that yes, it's wrong to kill a nigga, but eh, the police kill us too. Maybe we could write "the police must stop killing poor random people", and that would be fine, but you should already agree with my analysis.
If we add "the police have to stop killing niggers and the funds have to be taken away and looting shops is nice" we added TWO controversies. And we have lost consensus even among those who do not believe that taking funds is a good idea or have prejudices against looting.
This habit of polluting messages per se harbingers of almost universal consensus is the root cause for which consensus is lost.
Going in the Italian case, let's take Montanelli. If we say "Montanelli deserves contempt because he bought girls to use as sexual slaves", we will probably find total consensus. If we say " Montanelli deserves contempt because he bought girls to use as sexual slaves but the girl's mother does not deserve the same contempt because only Western whites deserve contempt but niggers are always right ", then we are polluting the first statement, and we have lost the consent of those who disagree.
Likewise, if we go to the cyclists of the gig economy to say that "you should have better wages, holidays, medical coverage and decent hours" the consent will be 100%. But if you say " you should have better wages, holidays, medical coverage and decent hours and Renzi is shit And live communism And let's make the revolution of the proletarians And death to the bosses and death to capitalism " we got a good song of May 1st , but everyone who does not agree with the additional sentences will disagree and we lose the consent of almost 100% of the population.
This is the way in which, after all, good ideas completely lose consensus : the "defenders" of these ideas take care to stick to those ideas (which alone would gain a lot of consensus) other ideological affirmations that DO NOT receive any consensus and do not have it NEVER collected.
This phenomenon has been happening for 50 good years now, and every "revolt", "revolution", "protest" always dies the same way: after all, good ideas are "attacked" by a whole series of ideological talk shops, which are literally repellent , and cause the loss of consent.
This is the way in which the left, despite cultural hegemony, have lost the battle of consensus for 50 years, and for 50 years DI FILA. And when a class of "intellectuals" is always defeated in the same way for fifty years in a row, and still does not understand where the point is, then it should not be surprising if people do not take to the streets with them.
Madness, Einstein said, is the ability to make and redo the same mistakes over and over, while seeing that wrong actions do not bring anything good.