Gelli: an Italian anomaly
Question: Eminent Brother:... I have read the article (*)
and, considered your personal experience of the matter, I thought of asking
you to comment Licio Gelli’s words ...
Answer: The interview with the accountant. Gelli
has been published by many newspapers with an extensive view over the principles
of the para-masonic group called Propaganda 2 (P2) whose projects, as he says,
are in the process of being accomplished together with the present government.
I had already written about this suspicion and in the interview, Gelli has reasserted
and confirmed the details.
But all this is not a big surprise because, as Gelli let us understand, the
Prime Minister and many of the members of his team are “unrepentant”
piduisti (members of P2)
But the figure of Gelli is more worthy than he looks, even if we look at him
in a negative way.
In fact, if Gelli was only a “Masonic anomaly” he wouldn’t
be the only one.
Next to his anomaly we may recall prof. Salvatore Spinello (still detained,
if I’m not mistaken) and his (ex?) partner Anita Garibaldi. The Dome connection.
The lawyer Muscolo. Prince Alliata, who died while he was detained for election
rigging. And, for par condicio (level plain field), those of the ex-members
Di Bernardo (GOI) and Canova (GLd’I)
Not to mention the paramasonic underworld of the south, that swarms with alien
and vaunted grand masters. And other “Italian whims” like the one
of Bruni, become “regular” thanks to a sentence in a civil court.
Gelli, though, is not a (another) Masonic anomaly. He is also the most notorious
representative of the Italian anomaly, which is why Italians are generally misjudged
all over the world. He is judged with obvious distrustfulness and disbelief.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the main guilt that Gelli has.
Not for being a dreadful mason (there’s lots of them), but an unworthy
representative of his country. He contributed in giving another alibi for the
intolerance and the attitude of superiority that the world often shows toward
From this point of view his case is emblematic.
The Gelli case shouldn’t be considered only from a political and judicial
point of view but also under a psychological profile. This helps in understanding
the spirit of disesteem and arrogance we are victim of.
Doubtlessly Gelli has been the icon of underhand dealing and illegality become
systematic. He’s been the symbol of mingling between (deviant) masonry,
(deviant) political power, (deviant) military apparatus and (deviant) church.
And apparently this mingling benefited from many sympathies, complicities and
protections. And this is the data that we need to analyze.
Gelli, gold medal of the francoist war, wants to keep his hero’s aureole
even at a high price. He takes every responsibility on him only to keep the
glory of the leader, of the hidden director.
I think, though, that Gelli is not the real “puppeteer” but a bigger
“puppet” operated by the people who financed him and vouched for
him to the economical and political power, criminality and Vatican finance.
Operated by those who provided him with the pass for big international connections
which lead to his diplomatic credentials and his immunity.
Operated by those who have always kept him “out of trouble”.
He didn’t get all this “help” because of complicity or sympathy
for the fraud, but because he has been the visible (useable) element of a bigger
project than just a Lodge of profiteers and social climbers.
Gelli is clever, I know, but not so bright. He has a natural charisma, I know,
but not enough to move big events. His court, I know, is made of loyal climbers,
social and political profiteers; not heroes, unless by chance.
The Italian anomaly is the indigenous one, sort of weathercock which has always
marked large interests of national powers. The rhetorical definition of Italians
as a people of saints, poets, heroes and sailors can’t hide the numerous
subservient about-face of those who are, as Flaiano wrote:…”always
ready to run in help of the winners”.
Disloyalty and servility are the most common accusation made by our detractors,
and rightly so. It isn’t hard for them to ditch our national credibility
remembering our historical disloyalty to pacts and to given word and our tendency
to defection, except for rare cases.
A brave self-criticism would do us good. As well as a less self-satisfactory
historical evaluation. Only then, looking at ourselves with others’ eyes,
we would discover the many reasons on which the mistrust towards us is based.
We wouldn’t need, then, to highlight the puppets’ or puppeteers’
misdeeds to exorcize our national faults.
Esonet Editorial Staff