What lies beneath SPAK's hatred of inheritance and charity?

Alfred Lela

The undeniable truth about forms of abuse throughout human history is that they have to run their course. They cannot be stopped or given a solution without reaching the extreme.

We are now with the Special Prosecutor's Office-SPAK and its indictment of Sali Berisha. 

Here, we have to stop a little and note with alarm that the conflict is no longer only political, as Mr. Berisha presents it, but cultural and social. In these two fragments of citizen-citizen and citizen-institution relations, the conflict affects everyone, even those who do not know that it affects them.

Why?

First, because SPAK blows up—either that it does not understand them or that it understands them well but hates them—two important, fundamental institutions of social and cultural relations: property/inheritance and charity/philanthropy.

I don't think explanations are needed for the first one because everyone has their property, modest or luxurious, and they intend to leave this property to someone. This is how generations relate to each other, and memory, so important to society, is established and serves both as a self-declaration and a social bond.

The second, charity/philanthropy, is a little more subtle and difficult to explain, but perhaps saying that the right, for a classic meaning and philosophical definition, chooses these two forms to distribute wealth. The left takes an opposite course, seeking either the use of abusive force - I take it if I can - or a milder form, but still a force, using the instrument of the state to take from whoever works the most and creates the most. much and past other social groups, which she calls impossible, unlucky, etc.

The right leaves it up to the individual to do charity and philanthropy or serve as a patron (guardian) of the arts, etc.; the left demands this from the group (the state).

Our very special SPAK throws both of these concepts into the bin of its lawsuits, not as such but as foundations of societies. By setting out to 'kill' Berisha and Malltez, this institution, which was established under the principle of serving the foundations of the state/society, does the opposite and commits an assassination against the state and the meaning of society.

Property and inheritance, in the case of the Berisha/Malltezi file, have already been exhausted in public treatment, but I think philanthropy/charity, so abused in the SPAK lawsuit, should be treated.

At first glance—or what SPAK aims at least, which is exactly the first impression—because the public in general only judges the first impression—the famous expression that the first impression counts—Berisha and Malltezi have circulated favors and money in exchange for theirs, disguised as donations to a foundation that helps autistic children or hospital bills for family members.

The first view is dangerous because it provides the public with a passtempo and a distortion, an opportunity to redeem all the shortcomings that the members of the public have, and for which they want to blame someone else, not themselves.

SPAK is satisfied with the first view. Whether he does it out of incompetence or malice is another matter.

What is or can be behind the first appearance? As always, the truth. Is the "Albanian Children" Foundation a front organization, i.e., a cover for other activities, or a vibrant organism that works, has a mission, a team, a board, and has bills, expenses, successes, and failures? SPAK does not care to tell us this, leaving us only with the first view. So, Mr. Berisha and Mr. Malltezi exchanged favors and took their money to "Albanian Children"!!!

Why has SPAK not made the transition beyond the first view? If they did, they could not formulate the accusation, and apparently, formulating the accusation was their goal, not the search for the truth. Thus, today, the public has in their eyes and ears the pseudo-fact served by the Special Prosecutor's Office that the Berishajs have "laundered money" through a foundation that "pretends to help" autistic children.

The same methodology was used for Mrs. Berisha's hospital bills. X amounts have been poured for this purpose. No data on whether these bills were generated as coverage or if the patient underwent a surgical procedure or whatever.

Again, the avoidance has to do with the fact that, if it went deeper, the accusation could not be formulated.

SPAK needs a second pseudofolder to cover the first pseudofolder. So, after the assassination of the concept of property/inheritance, let the other concept of philanthropy/charity be killed as well. In the political sense, that is, if the Socialist Party or the government did this through a strategy or tactic of the relevant PR (public relations) offices to harm the political opponent, Berisha, I would accept it as part of the war political, in a way fair game in the game of power. When the Special Prosecutor's Office does them, they are unacceptable and dangerous because they create institutional monstrosities, ignore ethical, moral, and legal boundaries, and abstract the institution from its role.

Psychologically, I think this behavior has another substrate. It is the panic that legitimate forms of property create - and the ongoing opportunity they allow one to, through legitimate inheritance profits, also enter into charity/philanthropy - individuals whose ownership/inheritance is suspect and therefore cannot play the philanthropist or the charity with the financial instruments that such ownership/inheritance allows.

Ultimately, it is both a premise and a consequence of psychology.

In the case of SPAK, political service and service to the oppressed self become a 20-point Jacobin Molotov.