Dear Vittorio Feltri, I don’t understand why all this controversy against Elon Musk. What would he have said that was so unacceptable? And what should Giorgia Meloni do, according to those on the left who were scandalized by the billionaire’s words? Maybe he should call him and scold him? But if we all know that Giorgia agrees with him… and we, millions of Italians, are in agreement with them, now fed up with welcoming and supporting so-called refugees. Now enough with these hypocrisies.
Your affectionate reader
Rosaria Pelle
Dear Rosaria,
Elon Musk cannot be considered guilty of having expressed an opinion, regardless of the fact that this opinion is shared by Giorgia Meloni and the vast majority of Italians, who see the judiciary’s rejection of the transfer of illegal immigrants to Albania as a sort of unbearable coercion, which forces them to confiscate everyone as well as to provide financially for those who have reached our country illegally. And this is what worries me: after the discontent, intolerance is mounting. The left and its apparatuses underestimate this aspect. I truly believe that the Italian people now feel violated by this policy, that is, by this practice, by this red approach to mass immigration, an approach that always sees us as helpless slaves, denied the right to oppose, to defend ourselves, to enforce the essential rule, the one which establishes that a State not only can but also must decide who can and cannot enter, reside and remain on its territory. Depriving the State of this legitimate faculty is an abuse. In fact, the State is stripped of one of its prerogatives.
Elon Musk, who is anything but an idiot and his wealth proves it, simply expressed an observation consisting of a few effective words. Which is lawful, legitimate, fair, does not constitute a crime or interference in our internal affairs. Colleagues on the left and even politicians in recent days have criticized American voters, the sovereign people, with harsh phrases for having voted for Trump. Not to mention what is said on a daily basis about the newly elected president of the USA using vulgar and abusive language, which goes beyond the limits of decency. Is this perhaps interference? No, it’s not. Freedom of thought annoys the left when it is exercised by those who do not conform to the dogmas of progressivism and political correctness. And this is what happened in this case: Musk is not guilty of having expressed a criticism and an opinion, but rather of not thinking in a radical-chic way. If he had maintained that the magistrates were right, the progressives would have reported his words with the same respect and faith with which a convinced and fervent Catholic approaches the Bible.
Suddenly the left becomes sovereignist and sees in Musk’s expression a sort of violated state sovereignty, so much so that the magistrates ask the government to intervene in defense of this violated sovereignty. And, in fact, I ask myself this too: what should Meloni do, call Musk and tell him to mind his own business? I would call him to tell him that I agree with him and I would thank him for his solidarity, because it is not nice to toil for over two years in order to develop a legitimate solution to a problem so difficult to solve and address, through a delicate diplomatic operation, the negotiation of an agreement, the involvement of another European state, the development of a plan that required an investment of energy and resources, only to then encounter the spurious motivations and ideological stakes set by the judiciary by witnessing the failure, by someone else’s decision, of a long, meticulous, complex and detailed work, which contains nothing illegal, illegitimate or inappropriate. Meloni did what the Italians asked, but what the Italians, a sovereign people, asked for cannot now be done since the judiciary has stood in Meloni’s way. Where is the violation of sovereignty? In Musk’s words or in the behavior of the magistrates?
Like any human being with common sense, Musk recognizes that the attitude of certain Italian robes is absolutely ideological, dictated by political hostility, and therefore contrary to the parameters of balance, impartiality and rationality that should inspire sentences and , in general, the conduct of justice workers. Do we have the right to stop him from saying this? No. Can we take it? No.
Can we consider our sovereignty mortified or wounded? Not even.
Musk is not wrong at all: making a ruling using an ideology as a beacon and lens makes the person making the ruling unbalanced, and therefore also unworthy of wearing the toga.