No, I don't mean what goes on behind the catwalks in Milan and Paris. I mean, politics that follow what is fashionable, the kind that's the opposite of principled politics.

Readers will have understood that I actually couldn't care less about what's fashionable; I'm a stubborn, boring, bigot-like, middle-aged, male dinosaur who prefers principles to whatever else there is as alternative.

To be frank, I can't say I respect much the opinion of those who disagree with me on matters concerning Life. It doesn't mean I insult them, but I don't respect their opinion either.

Non-respect is the contrary of respect for an opinion, whereas insult is the contrary of praise for an individual. You show no respect for an opinion without insulting its holder. In matters concerning Life, I'm rarely interested in the individual; I'm interested in their opinion, which I can respect or not respect.

I respect diverse opinions on public transport, say, and privatisation, and government subsidies. But on matters concerning Life, the nature of the issue precludes me from respecting the opinion of those who are not pro-Life. I have been privately called an "extremist" for embracing this principle. So be it! It means people don't understand the distinction between respect versus non-respect, and praise versus insult.

Risking being a voice in the desert? Risking the head on a platter? So be it! That's why they're called principles.

Young people want to leave

It's actually shocking to realise that a high percentage of the country's youth want to try their luck elsewhere. If these were still pre-Independence times, one could understand. But this should be a prosperous EU Member State. Why do young people aspire to leave?

Because... money isn't everything. In the perennial tug-of-war between the economy and the environment, young people root for the latter.

The truth is that the relentless "development" that has plagued these islands has made our motherland ugly beyond recognition. Studies by neuroscientists and psychologists show that ugly architecture has a strong negative psychological impact.

In 2017, BBC published an article – "The hidden ways that architecture affects how you feel" – stating that "buildings and cities can affect our mood and well-being, and that specialised cells in the hippocampal region of our brains are attuned to the geometry and arrangement of the spaces we inhabit." Furthermore, "people are strongly affected by building façades. If the façade is complex and interesting, it affects people in a positive way; negatively if it is simple and monotonous." Tellingly, a "number of studies have shown that growing up in a city doubles the chances of someone developing schizophrenia, and increases the risk for other mental disorders such as depression and chronic anxiety."

There's an entire branch of science called "Environmental Psychology". This isn't a new science - it's been around for quite some time now. Perhaps it's high time it's studied locally.

Liberal delusions

The liberals say, "Live and let live: let me do whatever I like as long as I don’t harm others."

This is not very realistic. In reality it's more of "Live and let die."

Consider the cannabis project. It will probably be a repeat of the alcohol-consumption situation. Because some people drink irresponsibly, all of us have to pay the price by undergoing breathalyser tests, enduring irresponsibility at work, putting up with domestic abuse, and so on. This will probably be replicated when cannabis-smoking ultimately becomes socially acceptable as a result of the State's relaxed attitude toward it.

Consider the abortion debate. If you happen not to be a woman, your right to have children may be easily trampled upon by the woman who happens to bear your child, because it’s her body, her choice, and all that. In other words, in the pro-choice worldview, your right as a non-woman to have a child is subservient to the right of the woman to decide whether to have your child.

But the normalisation of abortion has also brought in its wake the pressure piled on women by their husband and even other children to abort their babies. Since in certain countries this is a crime, what should that woman do? Report her husband and child(ren)? File for divorce? Stop talking to her children who want her to abort her newest child? Give in against her will, to save her family?

Consider the euthanasia debate. If you happen to be old and you’re a nuisance, they will be able to get rid of you relatively easy. Why? An analogy with abortion is enlightening. Abortion had to be “safe, legal, and rare” but, according to a 2015 article in The Independent, one in three women in the UK have had at least one abortion. If 33% is “rare”, then we need to re-define “rare”.

In other words, if abortion, that had to be “rare”, has become so rampant, what makes us believe that euthanasia would not become rampant too, and on-demand? The demand would not come from you (the old nuisance) but from your “loved” ones… Keep in mind that there are "philosophers", like the Swiss Barbara Bleisch, who argue that children have no obligation to take care of their parents (even though it would be nice if they did!). You can find these pearls of wisdom in her 2018 book, Warum wir unseren Eltern nichts schulden ("Why we owe nothing to our parents").

The problems of liberalism are innumerable, because liberty brings in its wake such a vast range of choices that it becomes extremely difficult to foresee consequences as we lack both the time and the knowledge needed to take truly informed decisions.

Liberals assume that individuals are fully rational beings. But this is not so. You can be fully rational only when you have the time to think things through from all angles and when you have the knowledge necessary to make extrapolations. Only a god-like creature has all that time and all that breadth of vision. The Liberals think that Wo/Man can become "God".

But Humanity cannot become "God", because "God" transcends matter. The Liberals embrace fancy theories on humans being rational beings, and, ironically, end up unable to see reason.

In our hypersexed liberal culture, reason is like a lonely sax playing away at sunset.

The Rabat Church ceiling painting…

... is obviously exactly what Christianity is about. It seems that the unfortunate Ivorian man who appears in the painting was shot because of the colour of his skin. If the Church is saying that irrespective of skin colour, we are all children of God, then the Church is not only right but it is doing its pastoral duty. That it has hit a raw nerve – expressed through the indignation at the painting – shows that there is a lot of work still to be done.

But it also shows that the State by itself is unable to educate the people to ignore skin colour when dealing with others. It is clear that society needs an entity that can teach what is right and what is wrong. Instead of undermining the Church, the Government should send out a message that the Church has an important role to play in society: the Church can teach those who need teaching about the practical manifestations of love.

The Church did the right thing to commission a lasting image of that victim of racism. The artist who carried it out – Manuel Farrugia – is a true master. I'm impressed by the skill shown in the execution and the simplicity and strength conveyed in the message. Mr Farrugia is one of our better artists. Kudos!

Magic Realism Exhibition in Milan

If you happen to be in Milan, do visit the Magic Realism Exhibition in the museum next to the Cathedral. You'll find some excellent paintings to admire.

"Magic Realism" is the oxymoron used as self-definition by an Italian art movement of the 1920s and 1930s. The movement believed in paintings that had to be simultaneously realistic and far removed from reality. They had to show the world as we see it while superimposing new, dreamlike layers on it. The movement interwove realism, classicist modernism, and a haunting reference to medieval paintings.

The best artist at the exhibition is, to my mind, Cagnaccio di San Pietro. I particularly like his After the Orgy, of 1928. It's a painting that's both controversial and intriguing. The grey carpet and the green curtain almost touch at its centre, creating four asymmetrical quadrants, three of which are occupied by the model(s) resting after the orgy. White objects are scattered here and there on the red carpet, circumventing the possibility of an excessive, monochrome intensity.

The women's marble-like bodies look like white stains – symbolising sexual greed and yearning – on the red carpet that evokes passion and desire. They sleep, though their forms reveal strong yet graceful muscles, finely described. Looking at them, you have to conclude they were like godesses for a night, having dominated their surroundings with their activity. The room they're in is luxurious, but probably doesn't belong to them, as there are no personal belongings. On their faces you can see both satisfaction and exhaustion – it's almost like seeing a still from a movie.

But this almost hyperrealistic painting is permeated by a magical coldness. There is, on the one hand,  almost-film-like detail in the anatomy of the models, and, on the other hand, the coldness of the artist's description of the scene.

But there's something more: a white shirt cuff on the carpet. On that cuff there's a cuff link, that originally had a Fascist symbol on it (the artist later removed it). Because of that symbol, the Venice Biennale committee rejected the painting when the artist applied to exhibit it, as the Regime found its message unacceptable. Already in 1928, just six years after the Fascist revolution, the artist could accuse the Fascists of being hypocritical. They were publicly pro-family and all that, while privately they behaved with debauchery.

My Personal Video Library ()

Totò, Peppino and the Hussy (original title, Totò, Peppino e la Malafemmina, 1956) has one of the most iconic scenes of Italian cinema. The especially ignorant Totò and Peppino (de Filippo) are looking for their naughty nephew's even naughtier love interest who lives in Milan, but not having her address, they go to the city's main square where they hope to spot her. Right in front of the Cathedral, they approach a local warden to ask for directions. After trying to express himself in a mumbo-jumbo of what he thinks is English, French and German, Totò finally asks the warden: "So: we want to know, to go where we have to go, from where do we have to go? You know, it's only a little information." The warden offers to accompany them to the madhouse.