Modern day liberalism is Fascism for minorities.

Watch
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
‘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.
2
reply
username3941996
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Davij038)
‘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.
4
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by ProRoadman)
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.
0
reply
FrankoJJameson
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Your ranting. There are many problems with liberalism, 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.
0
reply
FrankoJJameson
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Davij038)
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.
I agree with this
(Original post by ProRoadman)
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.
Populist authoritarianism is in my view a significant problem in the 21st century. It results in pseudo intellectual minoritizing.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Davij038)
‘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.
I don't think this is correct.

Nazism was an extension of fascism, where primacy went to the advancement of the volk.

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 / para-militaries, totalitarian authority and so on.

Nazism is a kind of fascism, but fascism does not necessarily include the things you're suggesting.

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.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by FrankoJJameson)
however, liberal pluralism can be described as anything other than fascism.
Why?

It would be useful if you were capable of grasping the basic tenets of liberalism and fascism or any political ideology for that matter.
Where have I failed to understand this?
I understand the political tenets just find, I’m merely observing how they work in practise.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Trinculo)
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...
So Antifa then?

Sure - the alt-left does bear many hallmarks of fascist thought - but critically, they do not believe minorities to be "the state".
Oh I think they do- eg examine their rhetoric/ ‘we are a nation of immigrants etc’ or ‘London Pride’ etc

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

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

It may as well be judean peoples front arguing against the people’s front of Judea 😂
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Davij038)
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.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Trinculo)
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
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
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
By definition, its not a fascist state until you are in power. Even if Momentum-Labour came in, I think it would be much more a reflection of Corbyn than some kind of minority-led agenda. The only party I can see doing this kind of thing would be some kind of Green-Liberal coalition.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
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.

That is such a fundamental difference to advocating for some a none-aryan version of nazi race "science". The fact you guys can only view this as a race war just shows stunted and Nazi like your thinking is. You cannot even adopt different positions in a thought experiment. It is based on conspiritorial veiw that everyone in politics is acting in bad faith all of the time. Black Lives matter do not wantequality, they want black domination.

I mean you can argue that trying to make everyone equal is going to have undesirable consequences. It is not as if history isn't littered with examples of this. 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 find the ideal of equality and multiculturalism repulsive, never mind the bad conseqences that undermine the stated ideal.

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


(Original post by Trinculo)

The issue is that it's a very hard sell to tell people that the former head of Liberty is a Nazi.
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. You are the guys that do not like this stuff as it makes it harder to defend your country from Muslim subversion etc.


(Original post by Davij038)
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
This is hegemony.

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.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
.
Sorry for the late reply got caught up with work😝

I’ve had to move your points around a bit so I can address them and you’re argument better, if you feel better be done this in bad faith or have misunderstood it let me know and I can only apologise


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.
If you want to call me a Nazi that’s fine I don’t really care (I agree with them about 90% of the time) so when I’m saying that the liberal left bear similarities to nazism it’s not as a Ben Shapiro Style attack, eg in using it as an observation not as a pejorative.

Now onto your actual points

None of these "Nazis&quot ; advocate the superiority of minority groups.
‘Gods chosen people’ do quite a bit actually, when they’re not playing the victim....


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.
Well, the alt right DO feel that they are an oppressed (soon to be) minority- and in a sense they do believe in equal rights, as each race deserves its own homeland. This is why they will work with say black nationalists.

Richard Spencer who is sort of the poster boy for the alt right makes a distinction between white supremacy (essentially the belief that whites should control the world) and white nationalism (that whites should have their own homelands run by whites)

The Alt right also believes in ethnopluralusm rather than multiculturalism or white supremacy. Sure you will get some white supremacists but you will also get say the Nation of Islam involved in BLM ( a group which is now being called anti Semitic 😂)

Saying the alt right doesn’t believe in equality is akin to saying that the far left doesn’t believe in freedom. The Alt right does believe in equality but a different conception of it- the same way Corbyn has a different idea of freedom to a liberal capitalist.

Eg- you are likely to have more equality In a racially homogenous society or/ and and each race or people should have access to a state / homeland.


. It is based on conspiritorial veiw that everyone in politics is acting in bad faith all of the time.
Not most, just a few from a certain tribe. Also to their credit some of them are pretty open about it now.


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.
I am pretty sure I have argued with you before about whether motivations matter (if not I apologise) where you have argued that the government is guilty of social cleansing for Grenfel tower even if it was not their intention for it to happen.

I think in some ways that’s the way the Alt right looks at things. Sure they may not be aiming at displacing the white race, but that’s what’s happening under they’re policies so they’re responsible.

I look forward. To your reply.
0
reply
Pantera Fan Club
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
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.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Pantera Fan Club)
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.
I think the ‘moderates’ are just as ‘extreme’ as the communists or Nazis just maybe less explicitly violent.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
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.
0
reply
username3941996
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by yudothis)
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)
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by ProRoadman)
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)
And anything they disagree with is "hate speech".
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
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.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by DanB1991)
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.
Economically maybe they’re centrist, socially they’re far left. Look at Emma Goldman and ayn rand- econocalky they couldn’t be further apart but in terms of social policy they both basically believed in the same thing.

Eg look at Trudeau- or Even Theresa May. Both can be seen as centre right despite having very radical social opinions eg on trans rights

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.
Most liberals throughout history have rightly separated people into groups from Locke up until comparatively recently.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (180)
14.52%
I'm not sure (57)
4.6%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (366)
29.52%
I have already dropped out (36)
2.9%
I'm not a current university student (601)
48.47%

Watched Threads

View All