In English Only In English Only In English Only In English Only

Carlo Federico's MANIFESTO



About Free Lunch and Filth.


Let me reluctantly come down to trivial things. They are not so trivial, perhaps, since they can shake somebody's deepest concern. Let's talk about injustice: that involves some consideration about wealth and wealth redistribution, which are arguments a true Rich naturally disdain. To Have is something so dully pedestrian that I feel embarrassed to talk about... The true Rich can actually HAVE some earthly gifts, but [conveniently] forget all about, being immersed in their inner journey. I feel so annoyed hearing people who censure and reprobate Those Who Have. Perhaps because I actually possess a downtown flat, a country house in the suburb hills and a cottage on the seaside? But I never think about these trifles: I got so used, familiar to them: I do not even remember them (except at the moment of paying the relevant taxes).

The ugliness of Owning. Shouldn't everybody neglect this frivolous, commonplace argument? Nobody should be burdened by the thought "I Have": and above all the true Rich who simply forgot anything about the verb "to have" should by no means be embarrassed by the idea of their own properties. Umberto Eco is doing egregiously his job of leftist entertainer of his readers about Roses and Pendulums, without feeling discomfit by his plush apartment in Paris and the millions he has honestly earned. So why should I feel ashamed because of my 16-valves Twin-spark AlfaRomeo? We ought to concentrate on the Joy that people can find through enlightment, and never to be reminded about - let alone reprehended for - our own material achievements. We are not concerned about our property, thus nobody should be entitled to trap us into any discourse of redistribution!

However, I hear a roaring consensus coming up: "Of course, we the rich, the fortunate, MUST do something to help the unfortunate. It is a shame, such an injustice. Any person of common sense and good will can have no doubt about where the inner stance of us the Rich must drive ourselves. We, who have been fortunate to be born among comfortable walls, where we even got the undeserved privilege of a humanistic education that gives us taste for inner richness in its best manifestation, altruism, we must take the leadership to curb all wrong..."
Let's fight against human selfishness, let's destroy the barriers which keep the unfortunate bound to their misery, let's build a new, more just world et coetera et coetera.
Really? Sure? Don't you feel a bit suspicious about words such as "Fight", "Destroy"... which so often recur in such generous appeals? Does anybody remember any historical example where fight and destruction did not bring about bad consequences as side effects? By the way: never forget that when people condemn selfishness, they often mean "others' selfishness": the burden of altruism is better brought by others, by the rich (by Countries richer than ours = America! = or by persons in our own Country who are supposed to be richer than we are). In this Country where tax evasion is a national sport, the rich taxpayers are a few unlucky persons who have to cough up till the last lira on their chokingly taxed "high" wages.

And here comes our big question: Is there any weak spot in so enthusiastic calls to generous action?

(14.To be continued)

Have you anything to say? Please, do on line in The Web Park Speaker's Corner