Thread by @RodericDay

Liberalism was born out of the capitalist need to somehow justify 1) rebellion against the monarchy while simultaneously 2) putting down slave rebellions.

This reveals how the anti-state "both sides can be bad at the same time" tradition of anarchism really is pure liberalism.

Liberalism fundamentally *is* that equivocation, that incessant demand for "nuance," that fear of "going too far," that ability to claim you uphold a certain ideal while your material reality blatantly undermines it at every step.

China may objectively, provably, unquestionably have world-historic achievements in freedom-enhancing poverty eradication and peaceful development, but liberalism allows Westerners to disregard this reality and insist that they stand for freedom and the rest for authority.

Some say that there's an ongoing battle for the soul of liberalism, of "Progressives" versus "Classical Liberals" (and a few other categories), all claiming to be true heirs of the ideals of the "founding fathers."

In my view they're all worthless, and it all has to go.

Rejecting liberalism does not imply a turn towards hare-brained extremism, either.

It's simply the ideological counterpart to anti-imperialism, and so it takes many varied forms.

It's basically a rejection of opportunistic and phony "European values."

One last thought: Contrary to endless liberal propaganda about "totalitarianism," Nazism and other forms of fascism are not a rejection of liberalism. They are its metastasis.

Per Fanon, "What is fascism but colonialism at the very heart of traditionally colonialist countries?"