Chdssdids

Liberal 2.0ers unintentionally helps right wing extremists and play right into their hands just like Liberals in Germany in the 1930s unintentionally helped the NDSAP and played right into their hands or worse 

Marxist theory says that fascism tends to follow the failings of the left to secure gains. Reformism and liberal 2.0 politics drag leftist politics to a screeching halt in times of pressure, and then chauvinistic movements come along to fill the gap.

This is exactly what is happening with Liberalism 2.0. We are entering a new era of economic insecurity where basic needs are becoming more and more inaccessible. 

In politics, as in physics, each action has an equal and opposite reaction. The Liberal 2.0ers do not know what type of monster they are creating. If this continues without resistance, 45 will prove to have been a foreshock for an unspeakable menace. Angela Nagle’s book Kill all Normies expands on this and I generally echo everything she wrote in that book, as does this and this here, here, here

I also touch on this above in talking about “The radlibs (wokies etc) are centrist/center left but they share features with the alt right” part, but you apply this logic to all factions on the more extreme end of the right . 

Seeing how much the "Liberal 2.0" discourse in the US aligns with ethno nationalists in Europe has constantly has been a point of weirdness to me. You get these people who are shouting calling themselves Liberal 2.0, and who talk way too similar to some European neo-naughtzies.

The populist hard right types love this small shell game because they can claim to be defending their culture instead of a concept of racial purity. Richard Spencer does this b.s. But so do more mainstream nativist sorts like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen.

There are some vile little right-wing trolls that are pushing for a return of biological race science but I believe they'll be marginal on the right long-term. The lame Liberal 2.0 essentialists of liberal 2.0 academia's sociology and humanities departments have already handed the right the intellectual tools it needs to rationalize the abuse of otherized populations.

Glenn Greenwald similarly says  : “The CIA and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left (i.e Liberal 2.0ers), the people who support the Democratic Party. 

They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. Maybe this post can give you a little hint why

That is the union of power, along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the Democratic Party, which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition, because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.”

and also by Glenn Greenwald:

"If you are opposed to Big Tech censorship of the Internet, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you're opposed to NATO and U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you think that, you know, corporate giants are too close with the government and get too many favors from it, is that a left- or right-wing idea? Sounds a lot like the swamp that Trump was vowing to drain. It also sounds like what former President Barack Obama in 2008 was swearing to combat… And so I think it's more about what's happened to the labels around me rather than any changes within me,"

Some liberal 1.0ers feel that the Democrats and liberal 2.0 in general have become a bit radicalized in the last couple of years. The Democrats and liberals used to be fighting against conservatives who were trying to censor video games and music in the 1990's because they believed it was bad. Maybe the parties have just switched.  See here for more

Over the past half decade,the Democrats and Liberals in this transition to Liberalism 2.0 have fused together Libertarianism, Liberal 2.0 economics, Wall Street style refinancialization, along with authority enforcement in addition to the propaganda organ of Big Media and Big Tech combined.

The Democrats and Liberal 2.0ers now embrace free markets, which they steer to provide huge amounts of capital, which in turn gives them the ability of  the borrowing required to keep Liberal 2.0 economics afloat and uses Red fascist-type insurgent/autonomous-totalitarian control techniques such as ostracism, deplatforming, gaslighting, all in a mob mentality way to control the population.

“The transformation of open borders into a “Left” position is a very new phenomenon and runs counter to the history of the organized Left in fundamental ways. Open borders has long been a rallying cry of the business and free market Right. Drawing from neoclassical economists, these groups have advocated for liberalizing migration on the grounds of market rationality and economic freedom. 

They oppose limits on migration for the same reasons that they oppose restrictions on the movement of capital. The Koch-funded Cato Institute, which also advocates lifting legal restrictions on child labor, has churned out radical open borders advocacy for decades, arguing that support for open borders is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism, and “Forget the wall already, it’s time for the U.S. to have open borders.”2 The Adam Smith Institute has done much the same, arguing that “Immigration restrictions make us poorer.”3

Following Ronald Reagan and figures like Milton Friedman, George W. Bush championed liberalizing migration before, during, and after his presidency. Grover Norquist, a zealous advocate of Trump’s (and Bush’s and Reagan’s) tax cuts, has for years railed against the illiberalism of the trade unions, reminding us, “Hostility to immigration has traditionally been a union cause.”4” Andrea Nagle A Left Case against open borders

This post says that voting for the Democrat Party is like voting for the New Republican Party.

The Democrats becoming the New Republican Party is happening, as the Democrat strategy is to 1) win REPUBLICAN voters, and 2) lose voters who have been loyal Democrats. Chuck Schumer said “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin”

There is a paradigmatic shift with Liberalism. Liberalism 2.0 is replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry and racial harmony with ideas that are so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, which ends up moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. This meme shows this in visual form sort of      

This new strain of Liberalism also includes vulgar individualist liberal ideology, increasingly bureaucratic governments, and big tech all morphing into a world that is at once tyrannical, full of chaos, and without value and morality systems that give human life richness and meaning. If we don’t stop Liberalism 2.0 we will end up in a top-down controlled state.

Everyone knows the absolute threat of the Right wing but much less knows the threat of the Liberal 2.0 which is its own brand of badness

Of course unlike Glenn, I agree more with these SLS posters said in this post on that topic than I do with Glenn above

The soy-left represents a strata of the non-productive PMC. It is the same mileu that made up the temprence and womens suffrage movement in the 1920's; the social reformers; woman's liberation etc. They later made up the church ladies of the 1980's. They are essentially a feminine strata of moralistic busy bodies, who love 'fixing' and regulating working class people, imposing their morobund social views on them and correcting their grammar and language.

The uptight spinster school teacher of the 1920's, who would berate proletarian kids for their poor grammar, is now the pink haired, obese feminist grad student who corrects blue collar workers on their uncouthness and improper gender pronouns. (well at least traditionalism like that can stay alive just with pmc soy left paint /s)

I have seen every alt right tropes that leftists discredited unironically used by neoliberals by simply twisting it for woke purposes. Alt right used "West is best"? Neolibs do this.

Alt right laughs at "We should improve society somewhat"? Neolibs do this.

The Liberal 2.0 were already wrongly framing the anti war protesters as right wing before it was happening. I mean they have been framing all protests negatively since the early 2020s, then Ukraine and they're building on top of that: "the upcoming protesters this winter will be the same people who protested against fill in the blank etc" ... It is really dystopian how divided our society is at this point, there is the obedient government sheep and if you're not one of them you must be one of the extremist terrorist dissidents. All parties pretty much align (except for the ring wing which consistently sits at 10% even throughout the early 2020s) as do all MSM

Even Left Wing MSM are framing all dissent as right wing even on clear leftist issues. Then there's all this twisting of reality, so much double speech/inversion. It's getting reeeealy ugly in the neoliberal NWO in the EU. And Germany is especially self hurting, with politicians who report to the US on a weekly basis (their foreign minister), while the population is kept in check with a completely corrupt press and their idpol narratives.

But instead they blame non-existent, far-right Naughtzies as usual.

ZDF made an incredibly cringe video out of it that had 1984 vibes like nothing else. Started with a hard time coming and basically ended with "and we will have an eye of YOU, not that you become a discreditor or straight away a Russian spy"

“the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit." Vladimir Lenin

"The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.”- The Communist Manifesto

Liberal 2.0ers weaken the Democratic Party with unpopular cultural attitudes

Since some leftist, progressive and liberal trans rights activists regressively promote the gendered nomenclature practice, which fulfills a conservative function in that it bolsters the oppressive, inegalitarian gender construct, such trans rights activists are indeed right-wing, regardless of whether they identify as such. Like all fauxgressives, they unwittingly advocate right-wing ideas under the false impression that they're actually progressive.

Keep in mind that the term "right-wing" (which is synonymous with political conservatism) is ambiguous. Most broadly, conservatism seeks to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. Since the first class societies formed some 10,000 years ago and generated widespread economic and general social inequality, conservatism has been characteristically anti-egalitarian; it has thenceforth functioned to preserve this highly unequal state of affairs.

Here, I am using the term in this latter, more narrow sense of anti-egalitarianism.

"you're arguing over something you've invented yourself"

False. The term "right-wing" (conservatism) is variously defined as "the view that certain . . . hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable," "a political and social philosophy [whose] central tenets . . . include tradition, hierarchy, and authority," "the intellectual justification of inequality and privilege, and the political justification of the authoritative relationships such inequalities and privileges demand," etc. This is in line with my definition and application of the term, which is evidently not some idiosyncratic take on the topic, as you seem to imply.

"You have far too much time on your hands. All you're doing here is wanking, you're not achieving anything other than giving yourself a reason use terms like vis-a-vis, nomenclature, fauxgressive etc and waffle on."

I really don't get the point of these kinds of useless comments in debate. They do not strengthen your argument; if anything, they detract from it.

As I stated above, these tactics are all you people rely on, because actually addressing criticisms of your view would force you to accept its untenability. Ya'll are fanatics, not genuine truth-seekers.

"All I've said is respect trans people's wishes, that's it."

And that's all you can do: Offer simplistic takes.

"Please don't reply, it's tedious."

This is quite the candid remark, one that I did not expect. What you're basically saying is that fauxgressives like yourself are averse to defending their views because they feel that doing so is tedious. I concur; the mental gymnastics required by adherence to fauxgressive ideas must be tiresome indeed, as they are all untenable.

If nothing else, at least you're honest.