>>38710
>You think modern liberal victim politics is somehow the opposite of classical liberal "we're all equal because I say God says so" politics
That's not even close. Majority of the Founding Fathers WERE NOT EVEN CHRISTIANS. And began from the position that every person is born equal, as in every single person is just as "broken" as the next guy (If not worse), and from there that no person is fit to rule over anyone else. And evolved the American government's operation from there, where they tried to decentralize as much of the powers as they could without making the government incapable of operation.
>Boogeymen like systematic are invented to explain why the egalitarian prophecy failed
What "prophecy"?
>The only real difference between the liberalism of Locke and Mill and what's called progressivism today is what identities are seen as valid and brought into the egalitarian big tent
Yep, you fell for the trap that it's "indoctrination but by another name". When Locke was concerned with private property, and Mill pretty much make it a point that there's almost "never" a good justification for intruding upon another person's rights and beliefs. Something which is completely OPPOSED the to Progressives of today, who want to abolish private property and see it as their duty to intrude upon people's rights and beliefs.
>You're lying to yourself if you seriously believe that revolutionary Masonic liberals like Jefferson wouldn't be talking about oppression politics today
You example is Jefferson lamenting to William Short about how the Jacobins hijacked the French Revolution and turned it into a bloody dictatorship that is completely at odds with the ideals of the United States, instead of what it's initial leaders wanted which was to replicate the American Revolution in France?
>Telling me that I'm like the other authoritarian collectivists isn't an argument
Yes, it is, because the same arguments used to discredit them apply just as much to you.
>I would rather live under white communism
There it is.
Also, your "White Communism" does include niggers because the way Communism works is that anyone who rejects the idea needs to be eliminated and replaced. You see this with how Russia first introduced DEI (Korenizatsiia) to delegitmize public figures and replace them with more "ethnicly diverse" Russians who would repeat Communist dogma, and then pulled the same stunt in reverse with their "Russification" to delegitmize their DEI hires and replace them with figures who were even more loyal to the party. One such example of Russification was the Holodomor to replace the "divisive Ukrainians" with "Russians". MaoMao played upon China's diverse ethnic background to rile the minorities over the "fear" that they were going to be replaced with the dominant "Han Chinese" and ran the KMT to Taiwan, and then destroyed all that traditional ethnically diverse culture with his "Destruction Of The Four Olds" campaign that now made "everyone" Han Chinese. You even see this with Islamic countries. Where they destroy the native culture and murder all the natives who reject their religion, and them import their more diverse and devoted followers from other nations. Hell, you even see this with Iran, as the IRGC has immigrated African Muslims to replace the traditional Persians living in the country.
>also progressivism is a very accurate description of "classical liberalism" because all forms of liberalism (and communism) are teleological, they believe that history progresses towards an ideal end state
I believe the word you're looking for is "Eschatology". And, no, that's not Liberalism at all. There is no "end" in Liberalism. There is no "end of history". It's just a state of mankind existing. A political thought that stems from the fact that man is an independent being with his own desires, goals, and ambitions. There is nothing about reaching some "end" of everything. In fact, Liberalism could be argued as being opposed to such a concept as eschatology because and "end" to everything is opposed in some degree to the nature of "free will".
>>38712
>not ideas like god given rights that are seen a farce to mollify people or weapons for the wealthy
Except that's exactly what Marx says. That the creation of "god given rights" like "private property" exist entirely for the purposes OF further estranging man from the "Truth" that he is suppose to be a Communist.
>organized religion is seen as a way for the aristocracy or bourgeoisie to control the masses by creating theology to justify their rule
Marx doesn't say that at all. He explains that man needs to rid himself of religion because it's an abstraction toward the reality that "God doesn't exist" (Become an Athiests). And then goes on to say that once you do that, you then need to abstraction yourself AGAIN to the truth that you were "god" all along, and that God is Communist. That "you" are your own "sun" that reality "orbits", to paraphrase him. And it even doesn't end there, as while you can have this "revelation", it still goes another step further because you then need to "seize the means of production" to change ALL of humanity into believing this shit.
>Stalin had no problem using religion to control Russia
Same with Hitler in Germany with his "Positive Christianity". Because 20th century Socialists realized that it's much easier to subvert people's religious beliefs rather than make them Anti-religious like Marx advocated.
>and practically every commie state in south America supported liberation theology
Yes, a heretical teaching of the Bible championed by outright Socialists like Dom Helder Camara because it was the "only" way to get normally religious people to agree with a Socialist ideology that is quite opposed to their beliefs.
<This was even a joke in films like Fiddler On the Roof, with how Socialists take passages from the Bible out of context, and in complete opposition to other parts of the Bible, for the purposes of making people agree with them. Because after all, you would "agree" with their assessment, "if you interpret it correctly."
But this also highlights the problem that you're being angry with psychopathic control freaks who are using whatever means possibly to be psychopathic control freaks. And this becomes the bigger issue. Rather than attacking people for who they are and what they do, you're attacking them for what they attach themselves to. It's the classic joke we throw at Progressives about how "Hitler drank water, too".
All you're doing is attacking the label rather than their actions and ideas.