"fascistic disposition" paragraph paraphrase

[jbor]

Fascists and fascist-alikes will argue that criticism of one's govt, such as
that made by Orwell in the late '30s, is OK in peacetime, but when one's
homeland comes under attack it becomes irrelevant, subversive, unseemly.
They argue that the general public is likely to ignore such criticisms at
times like this. But (says Pynchon) just because a criticism/prophecy seems
inappropriate during a war crisis does not make it wrong. Orwell's concern
about the way the British Labour party was heading towards fascism was
confirmed (or so "it could be argued") by the civil restrictions which
Churchill's govt (a Conservative/Labour coalition) introduced during WW II.

best

       Now, those of fascistic disposition - or merely
    those among us who remain all too ready to justify any
    government action, whether right or wrong - will
    immediately point out that this is prewar thinking,
    and that the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's
    homeland, altering the landscape and producing
    casualties among friends and neighbors, all this sort
    of thing, really, becomes irrelevant, if not indeed
    subversive. With the homeland in danger, strong
    leadership and effective measures become of the
    essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very
    well, call it whatever you please, no one is likely to
    be listening, unless it's for the air raids to be over
    and the all clear to sound. But the unseemliness of
    an argument - let alone a prophecy - in the heat of some
    later emergency does not necessarily make it wrong.
    One could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet
    had behaved no differently than a fascist regime,
    censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
    restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to
    self-defined wartime necessity. (ix-x)