Fascism: Heritage head says their revolution will be bloodless 'if the left allows it to be'

Heritage Foundation head Kevin Roberts took to right-wing media to celebrate the Supreme Court's invention of sweeping new presidential immunities—a decision tailored to undercut the prosecution of Donald Trump for organizing an attempted insurrection and for pressuring his vice president to nullify the 2020 U.S. presidential election in which Trump lost handily.

After blustering about his "love" for the Constitution and the "vital" need for these new immunities, Roberts took special care to explain the moment he believes we are in.

[L]et me speak about the radical left. You and I have both been parts of faculties and faculty senates and understand that the left has taken over our institutions. The reason that they are apoplectic right now, the reason that so many anchors on MSNBC, for example, are losing their minds daily is because our side is winning.

And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.

The good news is that Roberts appears to believe violence will only be needed if his movement's enemies, which appear to consist of most of the country, resist his "revolution" and therefore require killing. The bad news is that a man who already imagines himself in a "revolution" against his own country, a revolution needed to free it from the conspiratorial grasp of university faculty groups and MSNBC anchors, seems a particularly unstable judge of when his revolution should move from "bloodless" to something worse.

We see this often enough that it's already its own meme, of course: I didn't want to become a Nazi, but you made me sad and so here we are.

In closely related news, we see a great number of other figures pooh-poohing the notion that immunizing a president's attempted autoglop is no big deal. See if you can spot the problem with this one:

Well all right then, what are we worried about? If a deranged autocratic president sends military teams to arrest and imprison his perceived political enemies, then those prisoners could simply have a court tell him to stop doing that! Super!

Fallon is evidentially a member of the far-right Federalist Society, by the way. You may treat that as coincidence or as evidence, whichever you prefer.

There seems no point in pretending groups like the Heritage Foundation are "conservative" when they are boasting of being in active revolution, one that will only require violence if their perceived political enemies do something that would require the "revolutionaries" to start killing them. The Supreme Court just released its own endorsement of an autocratic presidency that can be granted immunity for even the most egregious crimes, so long as the crimes are carried out under the color of official duties. We already know that in June of 2020 Donald Trump personally prodded his Secretary of the Army to start shooting Black Lives Protesters in the Washington, D.C. streets, which demonstrates the line—public protest—that the pseudoconservative "revolutionaries" already believe is grounds for violence. (See also: Sen. Tom Cotton.)

The Roberts Court's decision in Trump v. United States will undoubtably go down in history as one of the worst acts a Supreme Court has ever committed—a pre-endorsement of authoritarian violence doled out as the Court's most direct response yet to a violent attempted coup. That is at least how history books in other countries will describe it; whether our own nation's history books do the same will likely hinge whether our new revolutionaries gain the power they seek—either "bloodlessly" or otherwise.