Sidling Up To Liberal Fascism

11
884

When your government is stuffed with tyrants, liberal fascists and their dupes, you can expect an acceleration of tyrannical and authoritarian rulemaking – that’s a given.

But of course they don’t just openly write tyrannical rules – when they want your support for a law that would enable them to persecute their political opponents and YOU, the rules tend to be couched in careful language, and named very deceptively indeed.

Here’s the process they might follow.

Let’s imagine their goal was to ban straight white men from being able to go to the theatre.

The first step is to identify some group in society that most people would agree should not be allowed to go the theatre, say, those infected with a deadly disease?

The next step is to propose that law, and name it as clearly and sympathetically and positively as possible, so that everyone is in no doubt about the apparent goal and obvious nobility of it.

“The Performing Arts Protection Act”

So far, so good.

The next step is to recruit a salesman – a few friendly progressive actors who are willing to sell your new law to the masses in exchange for a publicity leg up for their latest project. Robert de Niro, Emma Thompson. Benedict Cumbertwat.

Ask Mr. Cumbertwat to do a few interviews with some friendly journalists at the BBC or The Grauniad who owe you a favour, and soon PAPA is in the public eye and every backbencher is being encouraged to support it. Your friendly journalists start winding on the pressure with a few human interest stories about some promising young BAME actor who contracted tuberculosis from an audience member.

Pretty soon, the Actors Union are involved – demanding protection for their members in order to justify their existence.

And so the law gets drafted, and in the excitement few people notice just how vaguely-written it looks.

Anyone who points out that this law would enable the government to ban anyone from ANY venue on even the suspicion that they might be infectious, with any public official able to decide that such suspicion exists, on no basis at all, is derided publicly for their lack of concern for the brave acting community and their disrespect towards the noble BAME actor who barely survived his tuberculoid adventure. Racism may be implied.

Into law it sails.

And now, the fun and games can begin.

The operation is shut down, the journalists move onto the next story and Mr. Cumbertwat goes back to warmly describing the humping techniques of emu. The masses forget all about the young BAME actor and PAPA.

But in the bowels of the civil service, a department of eager young liberal fascists is gearing up for action. Under the guidance of a Sir Humphrey, it is explained to them that with their new powers, they will be asked to “protect performers and audiences from risk”.

Any of them that wonder whether that is rather a broad interpretation of the intention of the new law either read the room and keep quiet, or clumsily flag their concerns and find themselves sidelined or reassigned to a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. The rest quickly get the message.

And so these liberal fascists go out into the world, looking to cast suspicion.

Where do they start?

Well, those that are already fully-inculcated into the progressive cult steer well clear of any BAME, disabled, gay, trans or female victims – no-one wants to risk their career by being called a bigot.

So they naturally start with straight white men.

And by start with, I mean finish with. Any of them foolish enough to target anyone else quickly finds themselves in hot transwater.

When they encounter objectors, they consult their official Civil Service Objection-Handling Script and cycle gleefully through the Three Stages Of Cultural Marxist Denunciation…

Stage One – Your views are “interesting”
Stage Two – Your views are “problematic”
Stage Three – You are a sexist/racist/homophobe/Islamaphobe/transphobe (by which they mean, Enemy Of The People) and must be cancelled.

And that’s how it’s increasingly done – the hideous strength of liberal fascism brought to bear exclusively (in this case) on theatre-going straight white men. By the end, heterosexual white men struggle to get tickets to any major event, because PAPA knows best.

This is just the beginning of course. The March Through The Institutions has succeeded, and the goal of liberal fascists is no longer tolerance, or even approval.

Their goal is universal acclaim and celebration, and woe to those who stop clapping first.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
11 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
JannerjghThomas KnappAlex NobleQuentin Vole Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
anon
Guest
anon

That is an excellent description of what the CCP is doing in Hong Kong right now with the National Insecurity Law.

Spike
Guest
Spike

And elsewhere! Pick off the opinion leaders, and then the followers will, well, follow! Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson’s scriptwriter. Sometimes a bishop and sometimes just a pawn. The charge of “phobia” is name-calling masquerading as diagnosis.

Thomas Knapp
Guest

“Liberal fascist” is an oxymoron (“liberal” is a synonym for “libertarian”). This piece seems to be about “progressive fascists.”

Spike
Guest
Spike

No, fascists (and anti-fascists, and racists and “anti-racists”) are illiberal. But they are not “progressive” either. Everyone please stop using that other euphemism that they devised, which suggests that they are the future.

Thomas Knapp
Guest

“Progressive” has an historical meaning, as does “liberal.”

“Progress” implies movement toward a destination. What destination? It could be just about any destination, but politically the destination in question has always boiled down to, more or less, technocratic dystopia.

Spike
Guest
Spike

Yes, both have historical meanings, but neither has textual meaning. “Progress” implies FORWARD movement, and lets “Progressives” imply that their opponents want movement in reverse. This was in evidence during McCain’s 2008 campaign, in which Obama successfully tagged him as wanting to “turn back the clock.” It was a weapon no one should have allowed them.

Yes, the destination is dystopia. But voters are never sure of what the effects of a given policy will be, and the media don’t do decent analysis. Voters are more likely to gauge “whether he cares about people like me.”

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

The term ‘Liberal’ has a proud history. But today’s soi-disant Liberal* Democratic party has no place for old, white men, such as J S Mill (it has little time for democracy, either, when it produces a result of which its members do not approve).

* that’s the UK version, other countries may differ

jgh
Guest
jgh

Back in the 1920s in British municipal politics, “Progressive” alliances were anti-Socialist electoral groupings. The Sheffield Progressive Party was a coalition of Conservatives, Liberals and anybody-but-Labour lead by Liberal group leader William Clegg, which crashed and burned as Labour took over the city. Hmmm…. there’s a name to juggle the future with. 😉

Janner
Guest
Janner

There’s always more to what’s written on the tin. The state engineers never rest from their legislative building works.