Re: You aren't liberal and liberalism isn't dying; it's thriving (finally).Watch
Absolute nonsense. If you knew the first thing about politics, you'd realise it.
Liberalism isn't dying; liberalism hasn't existed in this country. Classical Liberalism, of a variety you've never been exposed to, advocates individual rights; progressivism, the ideology you subscribe to, advocates collective rights, technocracy, statism, the erosion of social power (in favour of state power) and what it nefariously deems 'the common good.'
It was the progressives who advocated, in the 1920s, in favour of pro-white eugenics. They were the same people - feminists, academics, legal professionals, journalists, etc. - who claim to be 'progressive' in the modern age; they deemed certain people (non-white) were too 'unfit', 'uneducated' and 'imbecilic' to participate in the democratic process. They sterilised them.
How did they justify this? They invoked Darwinism and natural selection. Their policies served as a direct blueprint for National Socialist policies on eugenics during WW2.
This was in America, against a 'progressive' backdrop in the UK where men like H.G. Wells, of the progressive variety people like you subscribe to, advocating, I quote, 'liberal fascism.'
The same dynamic exists today, except the 'scientific' progressives deem it's the white man who is 'genetically inferior' and should be 'diversified' owed to his predisposition to warfare.
Progressivism doesn't believe in anything (except cultural and moral relativism); you're just too politically naive to see it, largely because you, like many of your in-group, deem the political process exists merely to signal your virtue and advance your social status ('look how right-on I am').
Progressivism's opposition to sexism stops at the border of female perpetrators and male victims, its opposition to racism stops at the border of white victims or non-white perpetrators, its opposition to homophobia stops at the border of its political objectives (particularly communist tyrants), its opposition to xenophobia stops at the border of hating western nation-states and its advocacy of women's rights stops at the border of Islam.
It's why women like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a regular on the BBC's political programming, can get away with making the following comment about white men: 'I dislike them. I hope they're a lost species in one hundred years.'
It's why the Independent can get away with publishing posts entitled 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again.' It's why the BBC can get away with writing articles entitled 'do we need men?'
It's why Lena Dunham, a woman who was prominent on Hillary Clinton's campaign trail, can get away with tweets calling for the extinction of white men. It's why Harvard professors can get away with calling to, I quote, 'abolish the white race.'
Of course, shift the identity in any of this and it would be met by their own calls of a 'return to fascism.'
It has NOTHING to do with liberalism, a simple glance at their rhetoric and their history (they always re-brand, eg, if they aren't progressive they are communist, if they aren't communist they are 'liberal', if they aren't liberal they are 'social democrats'; they just screw everything up and re-brand for the next generation) would tell you that; it has everything to do with exploiting identity as a proxy for class warfare.
It started predominantly around the time of second-wave feminism, where the women who were fighting for what they deemed to be 'women's rights' determined women were the new proletariat and men were the new bourgeoisie.
Of course, the woman who spearheaded the transition of feminism to a second-wave (Betty Friedan), and pioneered the notion of the 'personal is political', was a communist. From this, identity, not individuality, was prioritised. You aren't an individual who happens to be a woman, you are a woman. We don't talk about human rights, we talk about 'minority rights'; we don't talk about equality, we talk about 'equality for women.'
The 'new proletariat' (non-white, non-British/American, non-heterosexual, women, non-Christian, etc.) was born, and it would be employed to divide classical liberals along identity lines (by pitting them against the 'new bourgeoisie', eg, white men). Why? The same reason communists do anything - power, internationalism and global government. A communist will always have far more in common with a communist on the other side of the world than they do with their own citizens.
In this framework, all in-group unity (eg, the nation-state) is deemed 'oppressive' and all weakness is deemed a virtue. It defies any biological imperative to protect one's own group, and will eventually result in societal deconstruction. The worst part is, you deem it 'liberal.'
The distinction between these perspectives (eg, human rights vs. minority rights) is the distinction between liberalism and anti-liberalism. 90% of Trump voters are classical liberals who are sick to death of the accentuation and repetition of social misdemeanours when perpetrated by 'white men', but the complete omission, or contextualisation or rationalisation of the precise equivalent or worse behaviours perpetrated by the 'new proletariat.'
All of it is one giant proxy for usurpation of power, and those who ape the progressive rhetoric know very little about what they do, particularly the ramification of a culturally relativist approach. As far as the progressives are concerned, it's 'racist' or 'ethnocentric' to judge another's culture; this same framework is one which, when extended, would refuse to interfere with a National Socialist's right to perpetrate the holocaust.
Is that the moral framework you want to live by?