[rubecube]

This might be a lengthy post, so I don't expect everyone to read it. However, I think it's a very good example of why Pepsi, myself, and others see Cliff as a deeply unserious and dishonest actor on here.

Here is my OP:

Originally Posted by rubecube

We're also seeing the "enlightened centrists/liberals" of the world align with neofascists to defeat leftist ideas, which is also pretty consistent with the history of the 20th century.

The thesis of this post is to point out the continued movement to the right of "centrist/liberal" voters. When a sitting neoliberal government becomes unpopular, and the choice becomes shifting their votes/support to a leftist party/candidate or a populist/neofascist right-wing party, liberals will almost always move to the right.

We are seeing this in Canada with the collapse of the centrist vote from the LPC to one of of the most extremist versions of the CPC we have ever seen. This is also happening in the U.S., where you can see the Democrats continuing to shift to the right on a variety of policies (e.g. immigration), instead of campaigning on popular progressive policies such as expanded health care options.

It's interesting that Cliff brings up the rise of the far-right in Europe, because it's essentially the same thing happening there. Several countries are experiencing the fallout of decades of neoliberal policies, which has since resulted in the rise of far-right nationalists.

I then likened the current environment to similar instances in the 20th century. In the Weimar Republic, we saw the centrist elites side with the Nazis to defeat the more socialist elements of the Reichstag. The belief held by many of the centrists of the time was that Hitler would flame out quickly if he came to power, allowing the centrists to regain their position after the fact. This is not disimilar to many of the contemporary arguments you may have seen recently among Canadian centrists, who are more comfortable handing over power to the current version of the CPC as opposed to the NDP.

Here is Cliff's response

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, what have moderate liberals ever done to combat fascism? Besides fight and win World War 2.

This is a pretty baffling response because:

- It really doesn't address the point of my post

- It's a very good example of what's known as a "fallacy of composition," where Cliff is essentially reasoning that because liberal nations took up arms against the Nazis, it means that liberals do not line up behind fascists. Just very, very poor logic.

- It's incredibly ahistorical
- We know that up until 1939 the West had a policy of appeasement towards Hitler and to a lesser extent Mussolini

- Liberal societies becoming involved in the war had far less to do with Hitler being fascist, and far more to do with him being expansionist.

- We also know that there was a tremendous amount of fascist sympathizers among the elites in the UK, Canada, and U.S. The U.S. in particular had industry leaders such as Henry Ford supplying the Nazis up to and including WW2.

- Cliff also ignores the fact that the Red Army played an incredibly critical role in defeating the Nazis. I'm not sure if this is because Cliff is a product of the propaganda he grew up with, he doesn't think it's important, or he's intentionally leaving it because it undermines the point he's trying to make.

- We could also talk about Operation Paper Clip, in which the U.S., instead of trying prominent Nazis for war crimes, snuck them into the U.S. and gave them high-ranking roles within the military and government. I suppose we can just trust that a government/country that had already shown itself to be sympathetic to fascism ran a tight ship in terms of containing the ideological spread from these high-ranking officials

So when you compile all of this, you have to ask yourself why Cliff would post this as a response in the first place, especially when it really doesn't address the original point I was trying to make. There are only 3 options I can really think of:

1. Cliff didn't really comprehend my post very well.
and/or
2. Cliff is ignorant of most of this information.
or
3. He's dishonest and trying to hijack the argument into a direction that fits his narrative.

But you don’t have to go back that far. Who’s fighting* the authoritarian right in Poland today? Awful liberals like Donald Tusk.

* By fighting I mean winning elections and passing legislation - actual politics.

And here we have one of the more poisonous elements of liberalism; the delegitimization of any radical actions that do not confine themselves to the apparatus of the State. Protests, civil disobedience, etc., are not legitimate forms of affecting change, fighting fascism, etc.

Why do liberals engage this act of delegitimization? Well that would be because liberals are primarily concerned with preserving the status quo in terms of protecting capital and existing hierarchies. Liberals are perfectly happy to support social change that are largely aesthetic, but they will never support changes that disrupt this status quo.

By both implementing and guarding the apparatus of the State, they essentially get to set the rules of engagement and resist any radical changes to the structure of the society that they have set.

Liberals also see themselves as the heroes of the story, like this:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The good guys won the 20th century. There’s a reason Eastern Europe had to build walls to keep its people in and why South Korea is an infinitely better place to live today than North Korea.

Liberalism is under attack from both sides again, but let’s hope it holds out. There isn’t any other system proven to provide widespread prosperity and freedom.

Therefore, any system of government that is "founded on liberal" ideologies is automatically "good," and any movement that tries to circumvent these institutions is automatically bad. The idea that the failures of their policies and the structure of the State are almost directly tied to the rise of extremist ideologies and the necessity to circumvent the State is blasphemous. They are good because they are liberals.

Below is another example of the way in which the liberal narrative enables and at times elevates fascism.

But this relentless drumbeat against elites that the left indulges in feeds populism just as surely as the narratives of the far right. Undermining trust in our liberal institutions may help bring about a revolution, but it’s unlikely to be the kind you’ll like.

You see, both sides are equally bad because they undermine the "good" and "just" institutions of liberalism. The intent and context of these movements are never weighed. Once they oppose liberalism, they are equally bad under the eyes of liberals.

That said, liberals will still generally prefer to back the far-right movements over the far-left movements because they share more common ground with fascists.

Anyways, here's my response to Cliff:

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is sad, even by your standards. Who did the centrist elites side with in the Weimar Republic, Cliff? Who did the U.S. back every time there was a socialist uprising anywhere in the world? Why did the FBI go after black leaders during the Civil rights movement? Who was the Turman doctrine aimed at, Cliff? McCartyhism? Any of these ringing bells, champ?

Also, are just pretending the Red Army played a minor role in WW2?

I try to redirect Cliff back to the point I was originally trying to make. These are all examples of "liberal" regimes engaging in largely fascist actions and backing fascist actors and regimes.

Pepsi actually understands the point of my OP and also tries to reel Cliff back on track

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t mean to interrupt your favourite patronizing schtick, but when the comment is specifically about centrist “liberals” cozying up to populists spouting fascist rhetoric to defeat liberal ideas, you saying that “liberalism is under attack” from “both sides” means you’ve completely missed the point so hard it has to be on purpose.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And rube’s posting history shows he genuinely opposes centrist liberals, full-stop. He’s a leftist, not a liberal. There’s a difference. I’m team Macron/Tusk/Biden. Rube isn’t. And fair play to him. I just happen to think moderate liberalism is preferable to kind of leftism rube champions.

Cliff is clearly a proponent of incrementalism and, as previously mentioned, really only supports change achieved through the apparatus of the State. The problem with this is that it is one of the biggest obstacles to real change when it comes to any movement and actually lends itself to collapsing back under oppression.

But don't just take that from me, let's see what the most prominent civil rights leader of the 20th century had to say on this topic:

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Article...irmingham.html

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King Jr.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

This brings us to another tool of liberal rhetoric that they will deploy - historical revisionism and the co-opting of leftist movements. Most of the major political, liberation and civil rights movements of the last two century, and their subsequent gains began on the far-left and came from far-left actors engaging in extra-State activity (e.g. protest, civil disobedience, etc.).

Liberals will claim, post-hoc, that they always supported these movements and claim their leaders as their own, but those of us who actually follow history know this isn't the case. Let's use MLK as an example of this. During his life, MLK's favourability was 25%. You can actually go back and find news articles from white liberals who regarded MLK's actions as too radical and instead promoted an incrementalist approach to black liberation. These articles are almost word-for-word similar to the same criticisms of the BLM movement.

Post-death, MLK was co-opted by liberals. This is why you will constantly see liberals refer to his "I have a dream speech," instead of his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" or MLK's socialist beliefs. The former is perfect for liberalism. They can implement the aesthetic changes of "equality" and ignore the calls for systemic changes, justice, and liberation.

We also saw in the immediate aftermath of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, a collapsing of the white vote to Richard Nixon. Radical change to the just and good liberal institutions must be defended

And here we have the classic Cliff straight up lying, and the constant attempts to redirect, misrepresent and move the goalpost are really tentpoles of Cliff's debating style. Another example of why he should not be taken seriously by anyone.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

* Though you did thank his post pretending that WW2 didn’t happen. Which is pretty funny.

Pepsi once again tries to get Cliff back on track...

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Rube brought up centrist elites in specific reference to their actions in the Weimar Republic.

Are you meaning to tell me that your post was taking issue with criticism of people that enabled the rise of Nazism by supporting authoritarian policies?

Because nobody, outside of people who support Nazism or people completely ignorant about the time period, would look at criticism of centrist elites in that specific situation and time period and use it as a jumping off point to criticize leftists for their “constant drumbeat” against elites. It’s literally contrary to the point you were trying to make.

I’m going to guess you just don’t know the history, saw the word “elites” and reflexively went off on an anti-leftist tangent you already had loaded. But just to confirm, you do think there is a valid issue with the centrist elites that enabled the rise of Nazism in post-WWI Germany… right?

There’s no reason to lie and pretend he was performing WW2 erasure, Cliff.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So in the 20th century, centrist liberals consistently sided with fascists against the left… except for the biggest war in history.

Cliff, again, falls back on this logically absurd argument and follows it with this lie.

A war which began with the Soviets allied to Nazi Germany.

A non-aggression pact is not the same as an alliance. Cliff knows this, but he'd rather muddy the waters than try to have an honest debate.

And then one final delusional take:

The two pivotal events of the 20th century were WW2 and the end of Cold War. Liberal societies won both - one against the far right, one against the far left.

Liberals never defeated the far-right. They happily looked the other way and/or aided the far-right in the destruction of the left, all the while allowing the far-right to consolidate power and legitimacy under their rule. The far-right is now more powerful than it has been in decades because liberals decided that the destruction of the left because that's what served their interests best.