Modern day liberalism is Fascism for minorities.

‘Protection’ by the state of one particular group of people eg/- the Volk, over others such as foreigners, lgbt and religious minorities. Hitler wanted essentially one big ‘safe space’ for whites.

It seems to me that modern day liberalism is actually the reverse if that , where minorities are suppressing the majority of western society.


(For instance we have pride marches and black history month but any equivalent for white natives would be stopped or/ and condemned . WWC people may have to wait years for council housing wheras refugees are given priority. A black rapper can get a record deal advocating killing white people but not the other way around- etc etc. )

Now.

Liberals point out the boringly obvious points about how white people are far better off now than minorities under fascism. Sure (for now)- but that’s for the blindingly obvious reason that if they were to do so they would be overwhelmed.



Still think my argument is bogus?



Consider how many right wing types support free speech. Sure some may genuinely support it but ultimately it’s their only weapon to gain leverage in a social climate hostile to them- and as many lefties are aware- may not be reciprocated if they get into power.



Put it another way, if the Nazis were to gain power in a country that was 95% non white, how do you think they would operate? Would they start a race war right away? Or would they slowly undermine the core society with propaganda aimed at their replacement.

Modern day liberalism is only part of the problem. Politics has gone off the edge. Now you either left or right. If you aren’t then your opinion doesn’t matter and you are seen as outcasts. You are shouted at and shamed by both left wingers and right wingers. Politics have literally become black and white.

The whole thing is a bit of a sham and is meant to focus us on purely economic matters. Eg Emma Goldman and Ayn Rand had polar opposite views on economics but identical (and very radical) views on society. The same is true if the Labour and Conservative parties, who other than economic matters of limited importance are virtually united- even today, with the exception on foreign policy (and the establishment threw the kitchen sink at Corbyn over that)

When I use the left/ right paradigms it refers to:

Left wing: social liberals
Right wing: social conservatives

Under this definition, virtually all ‘centrist’ types fall under the left wing category, even if only for pragmatic reasons.

Modern day liberalism is only part of the problem. Politics has gone off the edge. Now you either left or right. If you aren’t then your opinion doesn’t matter and you are seen as outcasts. You are shouted at and shamed by both left wingers and right wingers. Politics have literally become black and white.

‘Protection’ by the state of one particular group of people eg/- the Volk, over others such as foreigners, lgbt and religious minorities. Hitler wanted essentially one big ‘safe space’ for whites.

It seems to me that modern day liberalism is actually the reverse if that , where minorities are suppressing the majority of western society.


(For instance we have pride marches and black history month but any equivalent for white natives would be stopped or/ and condemned . WWC people may have to wait years for council housing wheras refugees are given priority. A black rapper can get a record deal advocating killing white people but not the other way around- etc etc. )

Now.

Liberals point out the boringly obvious points about how white people are far better off now than minorities under fascism. Sure (for now)- but that’s for the blindingly obvious reason that if they were to do so they would be overwhelmed.



Still think my argument is bogus?



Consider how many right wing types support free speech. Sure some may genuinely support it but ultimately it’s their only weapon to gain leverage in a social climate hostile to them- and as many lefties are aware- may not be reciprocated if they get into power.



Put it another way, if the Nazis were to gain power in a country that was 95% non white, how do you think they would operate? Would they start a race war right away? Or would they slowly undermine the core society with propaganda aimed at their replacement.

however, liberal pluralism can be described as anything other than fascism.

It would be useful if you were capable of grasping the basic tenets of liberalism and fascism or any political ideology for that matter.

Fascism is a system where primacy goes to the advancement of the state (above all other things). However, that would only be the strand of political thought - there are a whole load of affects of a fascist state in practice - like state-supporting mobs...

Sure - the alt-left does bear many hallmarks of fascist thought - but critically, they do not believe minorities to be "the state".

On the other hand, if you want to make the argument that these identity politics groups are a kind of Nazism - that's a far more compelling argument.

So Antifa then?



Oh I think they do- eg examine their rhetoric/ ‘we are a nation of immigrants etc’ or ‘London Pride’ etc



Sure. That basically is my argument if you want to read it as such.

Sure there are divergences of thought the fascism but especially In today’s discourse they may as well be non- existent.

The thing is - currently, the alt-left does not have much in the way of state power. The route into it in the UK (from the left) seems to be via Corbyn. The thing is - in the balance of power on the left between Marxism and Identity Politics, Corbyn is clearly much more a Marxist. He can see alliances with the identity politics people, but his endgame is Marxist revolution, not supremacy of minorities. He likes minorities because he thinks they'll vote for what he likes - not because he particularly loves minorities.

It's similar in the US. You have crazies on the fringes of the Democratic Party, and the "Tea Party of the Left" - the Democrat Socialists - who are all in for a fascistic rule by minority groups, and advocate very police state type activity - but their route in to power would seem to be via Bernie, who is also much more a Marxist than an identity politician.

Simply put - these people like Shami Chakrabarti and Maxine Waters are in a sense moving toward a Nazism by projecting this mythical concept of the volk onto minorities (rather than Aryans). But they're not fascists as such. Nazis, maybe. The issue is that it's a very hard sell to tell people that the former head of Liberty is a Nazi.

Hmm

I would argue they have quite a bit of state power - especially in institutions like education which they have a monopoly on.

Plus a huge deal of state support in terms of business, NGOs and the Media

The issue is that it's a very hard sell to tell people that the former head of Liberty is a Nazi.

Hmm

I would argue they have quite a bit of state power - especially in institutions like education which they have a monopoly on.

Plus a huge deal of state support in terms of business, NGOs and the Media

.

The fact you guys need to bring Nazism into it just looks like massive projection, considering what you guys want has clear paralels with Nazism.

You are the ****ing Nazis and the sooner you realise this the better.

None of these "Nazis" advocate the superiority of minority groups.

It's based on the view the none whites are opressed in some way and there needs to be change to make them of equal status and/or to eventually irradicate the differences....

You find the ideal of equality and multiculturalism repulsive, never mind the bad conseqences that undermine the stated ideal.

. It is based on conspiritorial veiw that everyone in politics is acting in bad faith all of the time.

Yes because it is a dumb take. Someone who has spent most of their adult life advocating for stuff such as universal human rights is very much not a Nazi.

The ideal of anti racism from an individulist position is very much entrenched in our society, so it becomes the mission statement of organisations to appose it.

The media has become so desperate for views and attention that its digging into everyone's desire for gossip, scapegoats, echo chambers and privacy invasions and in the process has polarised everyone. Corbyn is a communist agent of the Russians, May is a complete failure and literally anyone else could do a hundred times better in her (admittedly bad) situation. People love reading disses and being proved right themselves. So everyone has arranged themselves on right or left, no moderates. Everyone laughs at the anarchists, but the two sides proportionately hate each other in a massive nationwide circlejerk.

If you don't agree with me you are a bigot, a phobe and an ist. You are a literal Nazi and we need to shout over you and no-platform you, better yet punch you, coz you know, you deserve it.

Yeah. You are repeating the politics of the far left. Left wing is more tolerant of your opinions no matter who you are (unless you are comitting hate speech)

Looking at your origional post. You're not really looking at liberalism. Despite the rights usage. The association of Liberals being on the left of the political spectrum is pretty much an American thing, universally Liberalism is generally more centrist. Look at when socialist societies become more "liberal", they start going away from collectivism and go closer to the centre.

Liberalism would generally give individual rights, individual protections etc.

By separating people into groups, you either have the right who place minorities into groups but refuse to do so with the majority (aka white Americans vs all the other minority groups) or you have the left who place people into groups in a collectivist manner, aka we're all in our own groups and it's each groups responsibility to either fight for rights or readdress wrongs to other groups (white upper class, white working class, black working class, black working class females etc etc).

What the OP is describing is Collectivism, not liberalism. Liberalism would refuse to separate people into those groups.