Plain speaking is just what the doctor ordered for this sick society

Published: January 8, 2017 at 7:53pm

“After voting for Joseph Muscat, I realised I had been swindled by a crook.”

– Salvu Mallia, Nationalist Party electoral candidate, in an interview with Jacob Borg of The Sunday Times, today.

9 Comments Comment

  1. Jozef says:

    I find Salvu Mallia’s pre-nuptial conditions to what he considers ‘his’ candidacy a tad shrill and utilitarian. We have been through divorce lately in the Nationalist Party, both a ludicrous spectacle.

    No-one in the Nationalist Party is silenced, and if he must ‘walk away’ at the first sign of the challenge he most evidently predicts, elegance is not yet his forte.

    The Nationalist Party is not exclusive domain of proletarian indigestion turned voyeuristic TV. It is beyond self-imposed limits.

    He should acknowledge how Franco Debono could not experience the linguistic and mental diversity that is this nation and in turn, its party.

  2. And because he uses plain language, doesn’t beat about that bloody bush, and isn’t a dead ringer for Tal-Muzew.

  3. H.P. Baxxter says:

    The Nationalists are hoist by their own petard. Their idea of “taghti kontribut” is getting a “tessera” (Italian, jaqq) and eventually standing for election. Or if you’re an academic or diplomat you can become a “kummentatur” (I know a couple) and work hard to kiss arse as a neutral.

    Otherwise, you get locked out of political debate. Mallia had to get in somehow, and he did.

    • Jozef says:

      Salvu Mallia’s candidature was approved by a certain Simon Busuttil.

      What shock? Here I am trying to figure out whether the agenda is to beat Labour or assimilate the Nationalist Party into the diaspora.

      To think there’s this affinity for dinosaurs and then again by the cool crowd lately. Consume or be damned it is.

  4. Jozef says:

    So wait, let’s do a DNC and go after Labour’s core vote dressed up as Labour. Just look at where that got them. And they still have the gall to virtue signal at some Globe award thingy. So it’s Trump’s fault if thugs have now resorted to kidnapping and torturing his supporters. Deluded.

    My response was to Earthworm’s tactic of what he calls simple mathematics, a bit of populism, a pinch of pepe’, don’t forget a smattering of faux liberal indulgence and we…..will get bulldozed again by the ones who are much better at fake, utility and power grabbing to eradicate differences and distinction.

    Earthworm would be great at marketing. If this were the 90’s.

    If this is the max we can cone up with, we will be here again; u ghax the PN should have decency and principles as its qualities bla bla….

    Content is attitude is style. Style today is meaning.

    Meaning, if I may, is not calling anyone not a vehement abortionist a dinosaur. Still, there are many who think they’re so tolerant, liberal and fair by adopting this slut shaming tactic.

    And no, don’t give me Hope, Change, Humanity, they’ve been snatched from you by the Evarists and Obamas.

    Millenials though, have noticed and are seeing to it, they’ve had enough of 68ers infesting every faculty with LSD riddled nihilism.

    Someone said Trump was a cynical exercise in demographics, as was Brexit.

    It’s the exact opposite, both votes are uniform down both age and education, no real spike or low anywhere in these, the real split being geography.

    Just don’t mind the fake MSM, they’re done for as are their polling methods.

    And that, historically, describes the vote of the right. Not capitalistic, economically gauged or welfare ensconced realpolitik, but plainly speaking, spiritually identitarian. The best response to whimsical identity gobbledygook.

    (Utter shrieks of every ism possible thrown at me in no particular order)

    Make it a liberal right. Yes, blasphemy.

    • H.P. Baxxter says:

      You would make my job so much easier if you would explain yourself clearly, as you did here. Some of your one-line comments are quite obscure.

      I agree with you, see. I don’t claim to know what should be the bedrock of politics, if ever there was one, but I think conviction comes pretty damn close. Salvu Mallia appears to have plenty of conviction of the good sort, and that’s good enough for me.

      On abortion, we’ve been down this road so many times it’s embarrassing. We’re Daphne’s guests after all, and she must be tired of the endless reruns of The Great Debate.

      But I for one would never presume to call anyone not pushing for the legalisation of abortion a dinosaur. Nor will I call their opponents vehement abortionists. An ethical dilemma is what it is. Very often, it is also a harrowing choice. And it concerns the most intimate spaces of human existence.

      Many of us are mere onlookers, and we just chatter. Until it is our turn to make that choice. It’s the moralising that bothers me. I see very little human kindness in these debates.

      Abortion, and euthanasia too, used to be a private affair before they were turned into a cause celebre. They should never have been.

      • Jozef says:

        You cannot exclude morality from debate without moralising. You just did, and on moral grievance itself. No, I will not concede one more inch of space. I do not see what respect that carries.

        So they did, as soon as the sublime and human predicament were removed from the public’s view. We worship at the altar of government.

        You will clarify where I say those who have a dilemma are the same ones who shame others as dinosaurs.

        There is no debate when a harrowing experience is normalised into nothing or worse, collective compassion.

        Speech must remain free. Assault on the inner senses essential. And isn’t telling why no-one’s allowed to go there?


      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        Why are you angry at me? What have I done?

  5. H.P. Baxxter says:

    Yes, really. In Malta, you’re either a card-carrying politician or party member, a permanent fixture like Peter Serracino Inglott, Oliver Friggieri, or Andrew Azzopardi, or you are a nobody. In fact it is the availability of household-name minor celebs that define the topics of political debate, not the other way round.

    When Gordon Cordina stopped being a fixture, for instance, we stopped talking about the economy. There are no TV or radio celebs who know anything about Russian politics, so we never tackle the subject of Malta’s position with regards to Putin’s Russia.

    None of the political people or the fixtures know anything about art, so there has never been a discussion on the national collection: what to sell off and what to buy, and how to finance the whole thing.

    The people who knew anything about energy technology, back when the power station lie was being sold to the public, were neither fixtures nor politicians. So the facts never made it into the public debate. And so on.

Leave a Comment