Among Facebook's "suggested content for you" suddenly pops up an infographic by ADNKronos news agency. The page, part of a series devoted to "debate terminology" (along with other Crusca-approved and strictly woke neologisms, such as "environmental doomism," "phyco-sexual," "booster lover," and, of course, "homotransphobia") invites reasoning about a neologism: "vegaphobia." Defined then as follows: "animosity toward vegans and/or vegetarians manifested by acts of stigmatization, ridicule, or devaluation especially regarding anti-speciesist ideologies" (bold in the original).
Needless to say, the reaction of the social audience is invariably one of sarcasm. But, being - as we shall see - a false flag, commentators are shelling the false purpose while completely ignoring the enemy offensive taking place behind their backs. Upon close scrutiny, this opening of debate - or rather, it would be better to say of Overton's Window - indicates that it has been decided somewhere to move the bar by creating a new category protected from that most annoying and dangerous human activity that is the right to free speech and expression (soon to be finally abolished).
The real goal: to suppress free speech
First of all, because when someone invents a new "phobia" it is because the ultimate goal is for it to be inscribed on the criminal code ("Yours is not an opinion, it is a crime"). And game over. Then, going inside the ADNKronos' definition of this new neologism, we see that the next future "hate crime" consists of " stigmatizing, ridiculing, or devaluing." In other words, any form of challenge to vegan ideology, the vegetarian lifestyle, or - in cauda venenum - even so-called "anti-specism," that is, the theory that all living beings should have equal rights with human beings, and the latter obviously cannot arrogate to themselves the "privilege" of breeding animals in order to butcher them, milk them, take away their eggs, or otherwise exploit them.
So, despite every attempt at self-delusion by those who do not want to see trees or forest, the day is not far off when making irony or even challenging, scientific data in hand, veganism may end up on criminal law. The mechanism of the Overton Window is - for those who do want to see it - crystal clear. After all, we have seen it put into practice dozens of other times. Anyone who superficially thinks that this is just yet another fluorescent-haired social justice warrior antics should remember that just a decade ago it was unthinkable for a social to block a profile just for sharing the very famous (in Italy at least) "greve" tirade to Lino Banfi in the movie Fracchia the Human Beast.
In the closing legislature, a bill, the Zan, has been under discussion, which in the meshes of its frame (deliberately and maliciously elastic so that arbitrariness is left to the sensibilities of the investigating judiciary) prefigures possible profiles of criminal relevance even in a social sharing of that kind. In many other countries - so-called "advanced countries" - there are already such norms in place and people risk their jobs or even jail time for a joke that can be considered "homophobic" or for "misgendering" some muddled brain who pretends to receive them against the world, against reality, against biology. To turn back and look at where one started from, one would be shown a situation not very different from that of "vegaphobia."
The "progressive" agenda acts according to a script that can easily be seen at work and studied in corpore vivi. The various moves, as in a chess game, are mechanistic and predictable. It should also be said that this game is usually played between a master - the liberal Leftists - and a rookie opponent, to be fair - the "conservative" fronts. In the very few cases when the player for the "progressive" agenda is faced with an equal opponent - for example, Viktor Orban's government in Hungary - he does not hesitate to throw the chessboard in the air showing... very little sportsmanship. Especially since experiences like the Hungarian one demonstrate two very important realities: the first is that the "progressive" agenda really does have the script written about above. The second is that this script, once read and studied, becomes predictable and can be struck back blow by blow with a strategy not only of containment but even of counterattack.
For a "reactionary" counteroffensive
In the medium term, none of the wishes of the "progressive" agenda seem to be able to find a real impediment. There are temporary setbacks, as we saw last spring for the Zan bill, but the woke strategy knows well how to circumvent unforeseen obstacles. Limiting one's opposition to this agenda by hatching a few glories such as the rejection of a bill is only postponing the inevitable. Thanks to the skill with which the liberal Left manages to manipulate the Overton Windows, it is only a matter of time for the temporarily blocked agenda item to succeed in being imposed on the people, either by hook or by crook.
Instead, it is imperative for a conservative front to develop a counter-strategy. And it would also be really easy, since the opponent's moves are an open book. "Conserving" and that's all, is not enough because the erosive ability of the woke front is frighteningly stronger than any attempt at conservation. If you do not counterattack, if you do not react, if you do not become "reactionary," the game is already lost.
What is the definition of one who succeeds in losing to an enemy whose every move he knows? Let's open the debate.
Emanuele Mastrangelo is editor-in-chief of "Storia in Rete" since 2006. Military-historical cartographer, he is author of several books (the last one, with Enrico Petrucci, is Iconoclastia. La pazzia contagiosa della cancel culture che sta distruggendo la nostra storia) and edited Eroi. 22 storie dalla Grande Guerra and Terra benedetta. Storie d'Italia e di italiani.