On self-censorship.
There are some strange historical anniversaries, events that tend to repeat themselves because the conditions that bring people to a certain point are repeated. The difference between now and 2015 is that I'm older, and therefore my reaction won't be the same. Although, bizarrely, the pressures towards self-censorship are quite similar.
This time I won't react by closing the blog. I will simply react by excluding some topics, and then talk about them later. This is still a form of self-censorship, but it is a very different form of self-censorship. When you continue to live, except for a small piece, the result is very different from before.
Last night I wrote a long post on past reforms that have changed relations between the sexes in this country, to the point of creating "spurious" effects that have raged for about ten years, giving the example of the so-called "School Ships" of Fellinian (and Romagna) memory, of the Merlin law which caused the phenomenon 20, 30 years earlier, and I had closed with some considerations on the useless rituals of today's press, and on what some men should have the courage to admit and say.
The reaction was, let's say, not too satisfactory. I will never make videos like "Uriel responds to the haters" like they do on YouTube, because the logic of YouTube is that the haters will then respond and all this increases the number of impressions. I don't care, this blog doesn't monetize anything.
The wave of hatred that this article caused was directed, then, at the last part, when I say that instead of acting like radishes and saying what feminists expect, it would be time for many men to admit that they are afraid of the end of the relationship . And why. It seems that this struck a chord, and not with men, but with women.
So I decided to remove the article from the internet, for several reasons.
The first is that getting into a fight, no matter how right you are or whether you are on the right side, only increases the size of the fight . And explaining one's reasons while the cagnara project is taking place only increases the cagnara.
You are noticed more if you speak or if you are silent, Nanni Moretti would ask.
Well, in a world of chaos you are noticed more if you are silent.
Keeping quiet, you might think, has no power to change things. That's not entirely true. Indifference has exterminated entire populations. And the lesson is that indifference can exterminate a people, so it is a tool that if used consciously is tremendously powerful.
I have been remaining silent for years regarding certain issues, precisely because I aspire that my indifference contributes to the violent disappearance of some people. Historical example: before and during Nazism, the Germans pretended not to see, they were indifferent. We know how it ended. Moral: indifference is a terrible weapon.
My strategy is working: if you stop listening to someone, that someone stops existing.
It is, I admit, a slow method. But if I consider how long it's been since I no longer take some themes, and many imitate me, it's working very well. Certain characters are being hit one by one.
I therefore decided to use indifference as a weapon, well aware of its effect, and I believe I will continue. Helped, paradoxically, by the group I decided to attack with indifference.
The second reason is that Italians seem intent on living the past as myth, but not as history.
I wrote something true and verifiable: before the Merlin law, practically every male went to gain experience in brothels. The Broken Houses were enormously more available and cheaper than the post-Merlin prostitutes. To go to a prostitute on the street you needed a decent car, to go to a prostitute at home you needed a lot of money. In the Case Chiuse, however, you could go by bicycle or on foot, and the "marchetta" cost a few lire. Only it lasted exactly fifteen minutes.
Now, this is the country's past. And obviously he sculpted sex, both in brothels and in the marital bed. It's history, the Merlin law has improved the lives of both men and women, with a generational leap.
But awakening in Italians the awareness of having been a backward and terribly violent country towards women is not an operation that works. Italians like to think that their great-grandfather was perfect, and woe betide you if you explain something like that to him.
I won't often talk about the so-called tradition, because beyond being a myth I want it to be swept away as an idea. The society that preceded the Merlin law, the abolition of honor killings and shotgun marriages, was shit, pure shit, without forgiveness and without extenuating circumstances, and to kill a myth there is nothing better than to ignore it.
And yes, Fellini's tobacconist received a barrage of slaps at least every evening. I don't know why, but she knew it. Yes.
Obviously, the “radishes”. For those who weren't there, the "radish" was the name that the feminists of your mother's generation gave to those who pretended to be "red", that is, left-wing, that is, modern, but if you opened them they were "white", that is, Catholics, that is, bigots and obscurantists.
These characters existed, they had learned that in the FGCI people fucked because sexuality was freer, and therefore they engaged in sexual tourism in left-wing environments. But if you dug a little, inside they were shitty Christian Democrats, that is, people of very little human value.
Today perhaps you would call them “SIMP”. When they came up with speeches apparently inspired by left-wing values, but we had recognized a radish, we told him "let me know if it works, bro", meaning that it was a fiction that they put on stage in the hope of being noticed by the younger girls. free.
You see in every newspaper these SIMPs, that is, radishes, who are writing article after article that they don't even believe (and you just need to read how they write it to understand it: it's as if someone said that "patriarchy is bad because it doesn't respect those whores.” ) pushed me to denounce them in the article, but from what I see it didn't please many.
And here again: I want the SIMPs to disappear, and maybe if I show indifference some kind of regime will exterminate them. I don't know if you're aspiring dictators, but my message is this: kill all the simps you want, I'll pretend not to see anything.
Ultimately, I chose self-censorship precisely to punish the ferocity of the new feminists (who are not feminists, your mothers were much more serious, and mind you, no less fanatical than you), because if I have to be honest, I don't you can ask males for deep reflection while mocking and insulting them, or worse, when you come with a theory that you have made at home, and expect the males' reflection to follow your theory.
What happens to many males is not that they don't know how to receive no, but some specific ones don't. Among femicides we always include women who said "no, I'm not with you", there are no femicides born from "no, I'm not cooking mascarpone this Sunday".
It's not a problem of "they can't handle no, mothers should get used to them", the problem is that they can't handle a specific "no", and mothers can do little about this, fathers can do the same, because it doesn't exist in the family, and not even at school, a "no" similar to the one that triggers the attacks. Nobody can get used to them.
I have no intention of opposing, with one voice, this gigantic group of ideological bullshit born on some American campus, when I can simply remain silent and wait for them to figure it out on their own. Or be killed in the meantime.
But there is the last reason for self-censorship.
I only fight if we win something. If there's anything at stake. Because fighting only makes sense if the victory compensates for the cost of the fight.
But what I smell when I smell the air is the smell of hate. Fighting against hatred is useless, expensive and completely unproductive. The Allies fought the Nazis to control Europe, and Japan to control the Pacific. Yes, then there was the hatred of Nazism. It's nice to say that.
But here, fighting against this hatred, what exactly do we win?
Nothing.
So no, I think of things and write them, but if it costs me a fight, either you put something up for grabs for the winner, or it just doesn't cross my mind to fight you.
Do you want to spew hatred towards the male gender? Go ahead and do it. It doesn't bother me. But if you dream of letting me enter the arena, you must put something up for grabs for the winner.
Otherwise you have fun with each other.
Self-censorship also serves this purpose: to establish that a certain struggle has no priority.