He’s not mad at me when he talks about ethnicity
The Minister for Food Sovereignty, who had recently spoken several times about “ethnic substitution” and “protection of the Italian community”, did not want to answer the words of the President of the Republic and denied that he was referring to him.
The President MattarellaWhen he said that we must stop talking about ethnic groups and protect all people, he was certainly not referring to that Minister Lollobrigida and what he has said over the last few months. Anyone who has read the words of the head of state must inevitably think of the wording of the Minister for Food Sovereignty on ethnic substitution. Then corrected several times: Lollobrigida first said he wanted to protect Italian ethnicity, then he wanted to remove the word “race” from the constitution. Giorgia Meloni’s right-hand man now takes up the issue at every public appearance, defending the ideals of the Italian brothers while stirring up new controversies.
“But no, I think the President, if he wanted to refer to me, would have made sure I knew firstLollobrigida told Repubblica, denying that the head of state could invoke him, saying: “It is the non-ethnic person who is the recipient of universal rights, guardianship and protection“. Considering that the minister said a few days ago that Italian ethnicity must be protected, it is difficult to believe that Mattarella was not referring to him.
In his interview, the minister says that we must not listen to or interpret President Mattarella. Although we don’t know exactly what that means. But as “one would risk exploiting it“. Then Lollobrigida tried to shuffle the cards further, quoting Manzoni: “Was there an Italian author, like the author of the Promessi Sposi, who best conveyed the concept of marriage and therefore the family?“. In short, every opportunity is good to defend the famous traditional family.
“There are authors who have affirmed and defended Italian identity – Lollobrigida Castle – Do you also want to talk about identity protection? But when I engage with these issues now, there is always an attack“. In conclusion, it can be said that the only thing missing in the appeal was a piece of healthy victimhood.