All this discussion reprehends some to condemnation, pushing others to eternal glory. I think it’s not worth anything, also because it is not entirely clear who both groups are. Fortunately, human reality is so receptive that it can accommodate everyone, and the world will continue to develop in its way what I would rather call ageing.
I am here concerned with the parkerian dispute against modernists and please forgive my terminology. Well, if we look well at parkerians with their rush to globalise tastes and at modernists with almost ideological adoration for terroir and with hostility to the global world conceived in the American way, then, in the end, it will come out that the same Janus drinks from two glasses.
As a product of the mass revolution and the post-communist reality, and therefore a beggar on horseback among the statues, I find that both of these trends take real wine off the ground and make it soar somewhere around one per cent of the population. Well, because Pingus promoted by Parker , or Roumier fondly mentioned by Nossiter, are equally unattainable to me, and how to polish taste perfection here, if the peak of my accomplishments remains some Tannat from Montevideo?
I see more and more how anachronistic such disputes become and how barren is the desire to return to the lost paradise, in which Parker and Nossiter would, together, meet with the cunning of ordinary exploitation. All sublime and elite sympathies end under the trash in discussion with Jesse Pinkman. One per cent of the population has no intention of sharing their prosperity with sovereign mulch in all countries of the world. On the contrary, the logic of humanity rushing nowhere closes the door to a one per cent palace, throwing the leftover scraps to remaining per cents within an egalitarian offer, just for all poor consumers.