The Classical Liberal's Descent Into Fascism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm going to post this because it's something coming from the complete inverse of how I'd usually look at the current situation. This guy's clearly criticizing classical liberalism from the left, and his video title and a lot of the phrasing is click-baity as heck. Regardless I think he might be, to some extent, accurately describing what could happen if the economy were to crash and the ends of the political spectrums were to lose their capacity for clear thinking and the polarization really started eating the center.

My primary critique of his video - I think he's ignored how this is happening in the first place, ie. that you let one side or the other of the extremes have license to act out you'll create a vacuum at the opposite side to be filled, which it will eventually. Ridicule both the far left and alt-right because it would be everyone eventually siding with either the hard left or hard right based on which one represents their values the second-least.

It's interesting to think about what could happen if we faced a full resurgence of communism and fascism but I still think what's far more important is pushing the polarity back down.

That's your primary critique?

Mine is that the entire video is an unqualified slippery-slope fallacy that uses nebulous terminology to describe vastly diverse groups of people (not to mention conflating "alt-right" with "fascists") and has no purpose beyond being an ad hominem against classical liberals in the form of "you're just one step away from being a Nazi", whilst providing no actual examples of anything he's talking about (and no, the clips of Peterson and Benjamin don't count as exemplary). His argument is founded on the absurd notion that support for free speech makes you sympathetic to "fascists" because they value free speech too. It's as absurd as "Arsenal supporters also support Man Utd, because they play in red too".

Basically, he's dressing up an incredibly simple idea as revelation, whilst applying it uniquely to a specific ideology he disagrees with. We are all one step away from barbarism, but the length of the step differs from person to person.

The final nail in the coffin is around 10:50 where he claims "when we do look at history, this is just objectively what happens" with nary a citation to be found.

What he's failing to recognise is that opposition to antifa is opposition to people who have already opted-out of civilisation. I propose we deal with the barbarians at the gate before concerning ourselves with hypothetical barbarians who might be beyond the mountains, that defending myself against the barbarians is not a "slide to the right" but, in fact, very much in-line with the liberal principles I cleave to.

With all that said, I have to congratulate him for managing to draw out a Reductio ad Hitlerium for an entire 16 minutes. I anticipate a slight increase in his clicks, and an above average likelihood of video responses.

I think the only reason I was slightly charitable is that, under the most extreme economic circumstances, he may have had at least some piece correct in who might drift left and who might drift right if there was absolutely no other alternative. Other than that though I was really uncomfortable with just how much he was employing the 'I'm not saying all classical liberals' as his own opt-out but then doing things like (just looking at the video post frame) dropping the bit about all 'skeptics' being nazi's. He played a bit too close to the fire of acting as if this were what's coming down the pike for everyone. If he knows about some massive communist revolution that the governments of the west won't stop and that the police and military will cowe to - leaving only the Christian right and alt-right to respond to then sure, manufactured crises can make interesting things happen but again yeah, that's only if enough people really want to completely unravel society. That's the last thing a classic liberal would want to do.

"it's so beautifully framed"

Something else I was wondering about where what progressives and leftists here thought of this guy's presentation - ie. whether they agreed, disagreed, thought that this was a strawman of their own outlook, etc.. It seems like the site is drifting to center, at least on free speech issues, but we still do have all sorts around and I'm still trying to figure out how particular types of people's minds work.

I think I'll make it a point not to do this again in the future if the only purpose it serves is to annoy people I already agree with and no one else shows up. There really aren't a lot of good progressive anti-skeptic arguments on Youtube, at least I haven't seen many of them, and for as bad as this video was I did get the sense that he might have been describing with some accuracy what most things right of center might look like to a cultural Marxist.

I can't speak on behalf of traven, but I'm rarely annoyed by anything I read on this site (to my recollection there have been two occasions and neither involved posts on PPR).

The thread hasn't been up that long, and there seems to be something of a decline in traffic on at least this section of the site. You might get a few more bites from interested parties over the next day or two. That said, I doubt there are too many posters here who would make the mistake of claiming to not believe everyone right of Marx is a Nazi whilst simultaneously arguing that classical liberalism is a gateway drug to goose stepping.

Well right, I'm saying that 16 hours is enough to say its failed. I find that there are a few people on the left here who I can have a good conversation with and have principled disagreements with and even find areas of overlap as well as bake higher quality and gentler stances in the areas for which we disagree. I'd just like to find ways to get more people involved in actually clarifying how they see the world and what it is they're fighting for.

As far as the author of the video - he's clear in the front thumbnail that he's speaking as a cultural marxist and there seems to be a fair amount of indication that the left of center component of the current conflict is his group. To that extent I don't think he's feigning objectivity in any particularly convincing manner. Still, it's an interesting head trip to watch someone try to make the claim that making free speech paramount is something that only people with extraordinary, racist, and just generally bad ideas would want to promote. To go that way strongly suggests that he has less than no faith in the public sphere to vet ideas. When it comes to the average person I get it, but to say that the talking heads, media, etc.. can't even handle it - that's just as authoritarian and cynical a claim as a monarchist or anti-democracy advocate on the far right might make.

I'm not going to watch the video because I'm not interested in what this person has to say and I think I've got the gist of it from reading the comments. The central thesis is obvious rubbish.

I think the idea that classic liberalism leads to fascism is nonsense. However, I think a lot of reactionaries and social conservatives like to brand themselves as "classic liberal" because that's more socially acceptable. They want lower taxes, and they have a few socially liberal views, so they think that this respectable, cerebral-sounding ideology will fit them. Oh, but they're against immigration (except highly-skilled white people), they think feminism has gone too far, they want to restrict freedom of religion, and they're sceptical of free trade.

The intellectual descendants of classic liberals rarely call ourselves "classic liberals" and we certainly don't shout that label from the rooftops. Some will identify as libertarians if they want a particularly small state. Some identify as neoliberals. Some may even call themselves social liberals, and quite justifiably - there was plenty of debate among classic liberals as to what functions the free market couldn't adequately provide. And particularly outside of America, most of us just call ourselves "liberals". The "classic" is rather redundant.

The upshot is that when you run across someone self-identifying as a "classic liberal", there's a reasonably good chance that they're going to say something dodgy about race, or women's rights, or immigration. So it's not entirely unreasonable for a leftist to conclude that classic liberals are proto-fascists. Neither the leftist nor the "classic liberal" has ever studied Mill or Hobbes or Smith or Hume or ever been presented with a defence of classic liberalism from a classic liberal.

America has an additional terminology problem that the rest of the west doesn't seem to have - ie. using liberal and progressive interchangeably for several decades, so saying 'classic liberal' is also appealing to people over here who are for liberal values but want to clarify that they aren't marxists, regressives, nor are they war hawks in the way a neoconservative would be.

Whilst I'm not excluding the possibility of such people existing, my experience has been that of people who are liberals distinguishing themselves from progressive or identitarian liberalism, rather than some sinister Trojan horse. If you have some examples, that would be useful.



Precisely. Liberal is an incredibly elastic word, and isn't especially effective at conveying one's broad political beliefs to a multinational audience (or within most of the online social circles I frequent) on its own.

Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin) is a prominent example. There are many like him on YouTube and Twitter. Rather than document them all, I cite this Tweet (found by Googling "classic liberals Twitter") as evidence that other people have noticed this phenomenon.

I spend a lot of time in internet circles where people talk about Robert Peel and John Locke (enough that I can fake a conversation about Locke as long as I end it quickly ). These people don't define themselves by ideologies which pre-date the Labour Party, but rather by whether they're more like Macron or Trudeau or Clegg. Rather than "I'm a classic liberal", they'll say "I'm a liberal, not a socialist". Particularly easy when the hard left are back to being politically relevant and smearing liberalism, centrism, and capitalism.

The term "Liberal" was coined in the 19th Century to mean laissez fare liberalism. The govt letting industry do its thing without regulation.

In the 20th century to now in the USA it means a progressive.

Outside of the US "Neoliberal" means someone who wants to revive laissez fare liberalism of the Victorian era (basically a conservative, if not reactionary). They stick the word "classic" between neo and liberal in case Americans are listening so that Americans know that "neo classical liberalism" is not "liberal" in the modern American sense of "liberal" but is "liberal" in the original "classic" 19th century sense.

Don't know of any Americans who describe themselves as "neoliberal" or as "neoclassical liberal". The Libertarian party would pretty much be that creed, but they don't use either term.

If the Vlog in the OP hurts the feelings of conservatives then maybe I can find that vlog I stumbled upon last night by a young American Conservative who claims to have "studied the Alt Right" and concluded "the Alt Right is more like the Left than like the Right [ie traditional American conservatives]". Apparently its possible to smear both the left and the right with the tar of "being like the Alt Right". Lol!

But therein lies the hope. The hope that trad conservatives and progressives can join forces against their common enemy: the heavily alt right influenced carnival barker in the white house.

Carl Benjamin's a terrible example. I'd no more label him a "social conservative" than I'd label you a Nazi.



What you cited was a strawman. But if "other people think so too" is your standard of evidence, I should have little difficulty convincing you of, well, just about anything. Did you know the Earth is actually flat?



So the people in the circles you frequent can be described as "liberals distancing themselves from progressive or identitarian liberalism, but using different terminology".

This is why I asked for examples rather than a vague false flag conspiracy theory. I'll go a step further and suggest you provide examples who have a sizeable body of work from which we can draw reasonable conclusions (e.g. hundreds of youtube videos or articles).

But I am a Nazi, I support freedom of speech which is exactly what the Nazis did so I must be one!

I'm happy to label anyone who endorses a neonazi like Marine Le Pen ahead of a liberal like Emmanuel Macron was "socially conservative". Throw in his left-wing economic views and it's clear that the guy isn't a classic liberal.

Paul Joseph Watson is another one. I don't think he has Sargon's left-wing views but he is more conservative. He rages against feminism, multiculturalism, "cultural Marxism", and BLM, and supports right-wing conspiracy theories and MGTOW. If you wouldn't call them social conservatives because they don't seem to be fussed about Christian wedge issues then fine, I'm not interested in semantics. Call them culturally conservative if you prefer. Either way, they're at odds with classical liberalism.

For an even more clear cut example, check out this guy. Calls himself a classic liberal (according to his /r/UKpolitics flair), but is an ethnic nationalist, anti-refugee, and pro-Crusade (no, I'm not exaggerating).


What you cited was a strawman.[/quote]
No it isn't. A strawman is an attempt to undermine a position by posting a ridiculous version of it. The linked Tweet is mocking self-proclaimed "classic liberals" who hold authoritarian beliefs which are utterly contrary to classic liberal positions.
"Other people have stated that someone has raised this in conversation" is my standard of evidence for "has this ever happened in conversation?"
It is not my standard of evidence for claims which can be falsified by examining evidence.
In the same way, I don't need a scientific study to verify if a Michael McIntyre joke about the way some people behave in car parks is true. People laugh because they recognise it. It's a fairly uncontroversial clam where a low barrier of proof is needed.
The reactionary self-describing as a classic liberal is common enough to be a running joke. They're on every political forum. There was a user on here a few years ago - arch Eurosceptic, against the smoking ban, self-described classic liberal. Fine. But he really, really hated Muslims and wanted a very strict immigration system. I won't name him but hopefully people remember who I am talking about


No. Actually, most liberals have positive views of progressive politics, just as classic liberals like Mill did. They distance themselves from left-wing economics. They're no less progressive than social liberals, but more fond of markets.


Nothing I have said remotely constitutes a vague false-flag conspiracy theory. I am not theorising a conspiracy. I am noting a pattern of behaviour which I believe to be emergent and not co-ordinated. I also don't think the reactionaries are trying to discredit classic liberalism as in a false flag attack. Rather, they are trying to benefit from its credibility.

Paul Joseph Watson started out as a crackpot conspiracy theorist iirc, then toned it down in what I can only describe as a cynical bid to gain clicks/views/etc. He's mildly entertaining (if coarse), but not someone I'd even attempt to label politically. Well, aside from "crackpot conspiracy theorist", of course.

Naturally, it'd be remiss of me not to argue that, sans opposition to same-sex marriage, traditional family values and roots in Christianity, there's very little left to identify someone as a "social conservative". I suspect the part you're stuck on is the opposition to radical social change, to which I suggest that everyone is socially conservative when it comes to wholesale social changes that are fundamentally at odds with their core values.



So we have Carl Benjamin, whom I am content to call a classical liberal, Paul Joseph Watson, who I'm convinced is a dishonest grifter, and this dude on reddit. I'm not seeing much that supports there being a "lot" of false flag reactionaries, but we can definitely give you the reddit dude.



Even were I to accept your inclusion of "ridiculous version" as accurate (which I don't), it still qualifies as a strawman. The scare quotes around the "Classical liberals" of "today" constitute an ad hominem, whilst the absurdist reduction of the "Classical liberals" of "today" to people who "fight against women being in nerd movies" matches your definition all the better for your insistence on "ridiculous version".



But you're using it as evidence of "a lot of reactionaries and social conservatives" flying a false flag, which it isn't. It's evidence of the perceptions of the tweeter, and yourself, not of the legitimacy or otherwise of the claims of those who identify as classical liberals.

I reject the comparison between observational comedy and an implication of dishonest motives.



Hypothetically, If said user perceived widespread Muslim immigration to be a threat to individual liberty, which way should his principles bend?



I was, of course, being hyperbolic, but you've only really provided one example in support of what you're calling a "pattern", and a cursory glance over his posts reveals a wet-around-the-ears, 25 year old, middle class(self-described) lackwit whose political views seem to blow with the wind. But I remain content to allow for the possibility of there being a widespread phenomenon as you describe.

Oh, and there's a difference between flying a false flag and a false flag attack, but I suspect you already know that.