It’s a fairly boring vid, predictable but nonetheless true, about the Swedish socialist experiment and how it ends:
That’s a cut and dried case about overt extremism but there’s another form of extremism too, far more virulent, far more dangerous in its seeming moderation.
There could be said to be two forms of deliberate change – changing society for the sake of it … and trying to change it back to a position of sanity. Naturally, the former is done by people thinking of themselves as “progressive” and agents of change, the latter by those thinking of themselves as “sane”.
The smoking ban is a case in point. The “progressive” wants all smoking banned because he, personally, does not like it. He sees no intolerance in that – in fact he’d be offended if called a fascist or nazi.
The “sane” would say well OK, you have a right to be free of smoke so in a pub, you’ll go to a non-smoking area if you choose and the smokers can be in the other part. It needs no legislation, it worked fine before.
But now it’s become a reality, those trying to get back to a position of sanity are, by definition, reactionary, i.e. they are reacting against the intolerant insanity. “Reactionary” is not a dirty word in itself – it just implies the desire to return to sanity and moderation.
The intolerant, who characterize themselves as compassionate and wanting the best for all [in their judgement], now get shrill that someone wants to overturn their cozy bansturbation, abetted by govt and they start flinging epithets at the sane, e.g. fascist, racist, misogynist, homophobic- they really should look at a video of themselves carrying on – and they like to organize and form pressure groups to get govt to ban things, e.g. playing with conkers.
Someone like me then says “bloody leftists” and of course, the instant the left-right divide is mentioned, the intolerant have it won because they can then claim all sorts of -isms against anyone who dares to criticize or reverse a ban. We reactionaries are sometimes our own worst enemies in terms of winning this because we’re fed up by the whole effing narrative, the whole insanity and we sometimes use intemperate language.
The bansturbators smile and tell the public – there, you see, a real fascist. They, of course, are still speaking in quiet, smug tones of utter intolerance. Frigging leftists, we explode and they purr – there you are, a violent right wingnut.
These people – the so-called compassionate socialists – are the biggest problem in society. Forget those Swedish fascists and anti-fascists [same thing] – they are a small percentage of the population but these bansturbators and dispossessors, e.g. parachutees who dispossess others of their jobs – they’re many, they’re legion and they’re everywhere.
Politics therefore comes down to one simple divide. One one side are those who believe in the freedom to choose, speak, walk, believe, think, who wish to be able to start up a little business without being taxed to oblivion or ripped off by greedy councils, who wish to conduct their own negotiations without having to consult the instruction manual, who wish to associate with those whom they want, who believe that what you earn is yours and what I earn is mine and keep your thieving hands off mine, who believe in live and let live, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.
On the other side are all the Statists, “progressives” who want to change other people, bansturbators, those who can’t leave well enough alone, those who insist that you do things the way they want it done, the insane who put double yellow lines on 13 inches of roadway, the parachutees and those who let them in who happily dispossess people who weren’t committing any crime and were doing a good job but are not part of a favoured demographic, e.g. all-women shortlists, the champagne socialists who are the ultimate hypocrites, the greedy – in fact anyone who wishes to come onto your patch and tell you what to do.
That’s the real political divide today.