Today in Liberal Fascism

[Authors note: this and probably many future posts on subjects in this vein will use the terms “conservative” and “liberal” to delineate two kinds of American cultural and political thought. I find these words unsatisfactory, but I haven’t been able to think of any better ones to use. For example, “sphincter” is perfect… for many aspects of both sides of this socio-political seesaw. “Maw of the Underworld” and “the Crawling Chaos Nyarlathotep” also have nice rings to them, but they could both be applied to both sides. It is truly a frustrating dilemma, so until I settle on some more perfect terms I will just use the bland and basically meaningless “conservative” and “liberal.”]

I suppose it’s no secret that I have lost my patience with conservatives. But that doesn’t mean I want to snuggle up to liberals just yet. They’re just so… icky. (Icky seems to be my word of the week. I don’t know, I’ve been feeling sort of nauseous and feverish lately. Anyway.) Also, they’re kind of haters of freedom in their own way. Just like conservatives! However, while conservatives are mostly hung up on keeping women, non-whites, gays, and Muslims under control, liberals seem to want to grind fucking everybody under the heels of their giant (sustainable, fair-trade, cruelty-free organic leather) jackboots. But gently. In a caring, eco-friendly manner.

Anyway, when I point out in the comment thread of a liberal blog that I will read no longer that wanting stronger hate-speech laws is not wise because such laws can and will be used against anyone, not just nasssty conservatives, and the blog owner tells me I made a “straw man” argument and also used the tone argument against me (because goddess forbid I not be nice when faced with rank stupidity like “we need stronger hate speech laws”), I know that liberals are still the idiots they always have been, and all is right with the world.

11 thoughts on “Today in Liberal Fascism

  1. It’s been my experience that liberals are far quicker to draw racial lines in the sand than conservatives, to include what it takes to be an “authentic” black person, or an “authentic” woman than conservatives. When I look at the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Whoopi Goldberg or any other of the panolpy of trademark “liberal” women, I guess I’ll take the conservative definition of a “successful woman” any day. And “non-whites?” Really? Having a problem with the way our immigration system fails to work, or the institutional turning of a blind eye to illegal immigration doesn’t have to equate to keeping non-whites under control.

    It’s heartening to see that you see the threats posed by militant liberals under the guise of eco-fascism, but I guess as a self-proclaimed conservatives, it’s disturbing to see such a large swath of Americans painted with such a broad and inaccurate brush.

    • Broad and inaccurate brushes are what it’s all about here in twisted spinster land.

      Be that as it may… I don’t believe I said anything about definitions of “successful” women. I don’t really care about success and fitting into someone else’s ideal of womanhood. What I was referring to was the current wave of conservatives attacking women who use preventative birth control, calling them sluts, etc. Many conservative women are on the pill or some other form of birth control. I can’t see this as anything but counterproductive to conservative causes. And think about it: the more women on the pill, the less abortions. But why think logically when you can just react in horror at the idea that women want to control their own fertility? That’s what I saw — not a simple discussion of whether or not insurance companies should pay for birth control, but a revelation of a basic desire to turn back the clock to a past when women lived under the continual fear of unwanted pregnancy. Great going, conservatives who joined in on the fun.

      I also didn’t say anything about immigration. I was thinking about the way many white conservatives have lately been sticking their toes (and sometimes jumping in with their entire bodies) in the waters of racist thought. Look, you can be against affirmative action and the exploitation of black thug culture by Hollywood without resorting to making fun of black people’s names, Twitter habits, clothing styles, and so on. I can understand being irritated by the media using Trayvon’s class picture when he was a cute 14-year-old instead of more current pictures that show him trying out the thug-lite look, but that’s an endemic problem in the way American culture handles people in general: we somehow feel that no one will have sympathy for a murder victim unless his or her character is “shined up” and they are made to look like a paragon of niceness. They do this to everyone. Still, there’s a special component of how Trayvon Martin is being treated: the constant showings of his “badass” Twitter photos and tattoos and gold teeth seem to imply that he was working up to become a career criminal (like no seventeen-year-old of any race ever acts tough and then goes on to a perfectly normal life) and that somehow that means it’s a good thing he was killed. Maybe there’s no racism behind this, but intent does not matter when what results is something that looks just like racism.

      • current wave of conservatives attacking women who use preventative birth control, calling them sluts” = A one person wave: Rush Limbaugh, who by no means speaks for most conservatives. As I understand his point, it was NOT that Ms. Fluke was a slut for using birth control, but rather, that someone who needs $3,000WORTH of B/C (as she stated in her testimony) probably qualified for the definition. Not defending his comments, merely clarifying. But, the media are quick to equate this one radio blowhard with “those conservatives” because it fits their narrative, and so here we are. He used hyperbole to combat hyperbole.
        There’s all sorts of things wrong w/her testimony. A law degree takes around three years. She said $3,000 “during law school” not in one year, so that’s $1,000 a year or $83 a week. On B/C? Really? You can get a three month supply for $45 online. That’s $5 a week. A law student seriously can’t afford that? She stated that $3,000 was “practically an entire summer’s salary.” ‘Cept that, you don’t pay it all at once, deary, you pay it over the course of your entire degree. So while it SOUNDS dramatic, it’s a non sequitor.
        The crux comes as your read through her testimony and find that she is equating anything related to female reproductive health care as “contraceptive services.” So, we aren’t really talking about B/C pills, but about funding medical care/procedures for women. And, “reproductive health care” is often used as a euphemism for abortion. An “ah hah!” moment. So Ms. Fluke was being used to engender sympathy in support of mandating federal funding for women’s “reporductive health,” and all that it entails. Not just B/C pills. And Rush Limbaugh called her/them on it. So, while I agree that Rush was an ass, he does have a point: Not about someone being a slut, but about the disingenuous and misleading nature of her testimony.
        But, trying to point this out means “we” want to chain women to the stove, barefoot and pregnant?

      • FWIW, I just listened to the Rush snippets (only heard bits & pieces before). Very cringeworthy and indefensible. A very bad way to make a potentially valid point, thus completely losing any credibility for his position.

      • Yeah, see, this is the problem — you have to be careful with the mockery because while it might be fun to see your opponents shriek and bellow, your fun might be costing you support for causes you think are important.

      • “And think about it: the more women on the pill, the less abortions.”

        This wouldn’t matter to, for example, a Catholic.

      • That’s nice, but I’m not Catholic, so what people of a religion I don’t belong to think is the right way to live isn’t my problem.

  2. “. . . giant (sustainable, fair-trade, cruelty-free organic leather) jackboots” made me laugh. Thanks, I needed that.

  3. I tend to align with the group that is in the main more civilised.

    That pretty much excludes the progressive/liberal/left.

    • It is pretty difficult to instill a tolerant, progressive paradise when you’re promoting methods that have always led to societies that were crueler, more restricted, less accepting of any deviance from the norm. Case in point: in the USSR not only was political dissent treated like a psychiatric illness and anyone suspected of it could find themselves shut away in a mental institution and stuffed full of drugs, but homosexuality was prohibited and gays were severely mistreated. When I was a young liberal this was well known; no liberal in those days would have dared promote laws restricting any kind of speech. Didn’t the ACLU stand behind the Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie? (Googles.) Yes, yes they did. Ah, those were the days. The ACLU later went on to endorse hate crime laws, though more recently they backtracked just a teeny bit when the inevitable realization that you can’t have your cake and eat it too happened.

      • Well, Nazi does stand for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. So it’s not like the ACLU was standing behind its ideological opposites.

Comments are closed.