The other day I argued that, in substance, Marxism and fascism largely converge.
The outward manifestations of the two cults may diverge slightly, but then so do those of different exponents of the same cult. For example, for all their substantive kinship, Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy behaved differently, as did Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China.
One of the features that all Marxist and fascist states share is that they are all glossocracies. They control bodies by violence and minds by keeping a tight rein on the word.
Ideologies live or die not only by coercion but also by imposing their verbal content on everyone. That’s why they tend to punish seditious words more severely and surely than crimes against person or property.
That’s how one can recognise a Marxist or a fascist state. If people are thrown in prison for something they say, not something they do, the state is either Marxist or fascist.
There exist exceptions to this observation. For example, inciting murder is a crime in itself, even if no one gets killed. But then there are exceptions to everything. By and large, if a state punishes words, it’s either fascist or Marxist.
That brings me to Britain, specifically the case of Lucy Connolly who walked free yesterday after 10 months in prison.
Mrs Connolly, the wife of a Northampton Tory councillor, is living proof of my statement. His Majesty’s Government is definitely Marxist, and it isn’t averse to acting in the spirit of its ideology, where it converges with fascism.
To take matters in turn, last summer three little girls were stabbed to death at a dance party in Stockport. The media falsely reported that their teenaged murder, Axel Rudakubana, was an illegal migrant. That led to an outbreak of anti-immigrant riots, and tempers were running high.
In fact, Rudakubana was merely a cultural alien, not an illegal one. He was born in Wales to Rwandan parents and grew up enamoured of Al Qaida and everything it stood for. One way or the other, riots did ensue, crowds attacked a mosque and some hotels occupied by migrants, clashing with the police.
So did Mrs Connolly go along for the ride? Did she throw bricks at that mosque or at police officers? She didn’t. Had she done so, she could have got away with a mere slap on the wrist.
He crime was worse: she attacked the Marxist glossocracy, not any particular person or building. Specifically, Mrs Connolly posted this tweet:
“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all that I care. While you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist then so be it.”
You’ll agree that the language is rather intemperate, and even some people – well, me – who share her sentiments may deplore the way they were expressed. This mode of self-expression would exclude Mrs Connolly from the list of the privileged few rating the honour of being invited to my house for dinner.
Still, should Mrs Connolly be considered for such an invitation, I’d have to take into account the mitigating circumstances: she was reacting emotionally on the spur of the moment to a vile, horrific crime.
Moreover, blunders committed by another state institution, the NHS, had recently taken the life of her son. She projected her own bereavement on the grief felt by the victims’ parents, which added a few degrees to the temperature of her remarks.
However, the court didn’t accept any mitigating circumstances. Mrs Connolly was arrested, charged and denied bail – this in spite of her being a first-time offender who presented no flight risk.
Sorry, did I say ‘offender’? This woke contagion must have rubbed off even on me. What exactly was her offence? Hard as I look, I can’t find any corpus delicti in that tweet.
Mrs Connolly didn’t incite violence. She didn’t write, you are cordially invited to such and such place at such and such time, Molotov cocktails will be served, we’ll have some fun. She only wrote that she wouldn’t shed any tears if those hotels were burned to the ground, not that she’d happily do so herself.
Then she expressed a rather uncomplimentary view of illegal immigrants, but, uncomplimentary or not, it’s shared so widely as to be practically universal. And even if the authorities find such opinions ill-advised, since when are Britons arrested for objectionable opinions?
Since Britain became a Marxist country, is the answer to that one.
A trial ensued, Mrs Connolly was convicted and received a draconian sentence of 31 months in prison. An article in today’s Mail helpfully provides a long list of real, heinous crimes that have recently been punished with shorter sentences or none at all.
However, the author seems to proceed from the assumption that Britain is still a civilised parliamentary democracy ruled by law. That assumption is way out of date: the country is governed by a Marxist cabal using glossocracy to bend the historically free people to its will.
It’s led by Keir Starmer who has promised Parliament he’ll “always support” the courts in such cases. What he means by ‘such cases’ is gross miscarriages of justice, where people suffer horrendous punishments for saying something Starmer et al. don’t like and expressing views they don’t condone.
Those scoundrels accuse Mrs Connolly of being a racist, than which it’s to them impossible to be anything worse. Since our Marxist lot actively foment racial strife as one line in their frontal attack on what’s left of Christendom, they demonise as a racist anyone daring to resist.
Mrs Connolly may or may not be a racist, someone who hates other races, but nothing she wrote in that tweet is prima facie proof one way or the other.
She clearly dislikes the fact that swarms of legal and illegal aliens are inundating Britain, but such sentiments are both valid and widespread. Ditto her statement about our “treacherous government and politicians”. This is neither racist nor wrong. Our governing cabal are indeed treacherous, in that they betray the fundamental tenets of our civilisation – such as the right to free speech.
It’s also clear that Mrs Connolly doesn’t regard herself as a racist: “If that makes me racist then so be it.” What this says to me, though obviously not to Starmer’s courts, is that she is only racist within the warped ideology our government preaches with criminal abandon and enforces with singular cruelty.
In the end, this victim of glossocratic injustice served a third of her sentence, one that no civilised country would have imposed. So what does it make Britain then? You tell me.