Specifically, it's an attempt to fulfill the potential of its ideals (equality, "liberty," inclusion, rights, etc) which liberalism has failed to do, and offers itself as a solution to the liberal failures. Marxists, commies who oppose modern left and liberalism are pretty decent, even though I disagree with their solutions.

This is all wrong. Equality is only of value in how the state seeks to judge you via the law. Other than that, equality doesn't exist. Inequality is a natural state of being, the point of liberalism is to grant people liberty from tyranny so that they may advance themselves. Any sort of "Equality" outside of that is Leftist double speak for "outcomes the Jacobins determine to be just". Inclusion is a Leftist doctrine that means "give my slaves access to your privacy". Liberalism doesn't solve the cosmic injustices of life. It simply frees people from tyranny. Marxists and Commies are the modern Left, and there is nothing decent about them.

that's just liberal attempt to mystify reality.

No, again, this is just a Leftist attempt to create a problem that will require the only solution to be a bureaucratic make-work scheme. A liberal has nothing to say about the color of a paper-clip.

Everything is political. Including all actions, choices, art, games, movies, etc, as they all serve to reproduce values and beliefs, which necessarily influences people/society.

That is the argument of a totalitarian. Which is why I suspect you consider pinkos to be "decent". You have no right to claim a needed distribution of power in all things, because most things should be denied the grasp of a political activist at the point of a gun.

Liberalism tries to construct rootless individuals, on which most of liberalism is based on, that is liberal rights, democracy, social contract, free speech, etc.

Nonsense. Liberalism does not construct anything rootless. It denies the state the right to make the individual subservient through coercion. The Individual has plenty of roots: family, religion, neighborhood, social group, clan-group, tribe, etc. An individual need not be forced to dragged into any group with the violence of the state. The individual chooses his loyalties for himself, whether those decisions or good or bad, they are his to reap the consequence of.

Liberal Rights, the Social Contract, Free Speech, and Republicanism exist to help hold back the power of the state as coercive mechanism to enslave the individual to the demands of the state.

"Conservatives" in US are liberal themselves, and are largely antithetical to conservatism predating it, conservatism abroad, and right in general.

You are correct that American Conservatives are Liberals. The US is a Liberal country founded by a Liberal revolution. However, the word "Conservative" in American parlance exists to co-opt Leftism's attack on the hold-outs of Liberalism in the US during the mid 20th century.

Outside of that "Conservativism" is a meaningless term that exists at the behest of the Leftists to describe a political opponent in the same way that "Rightist" does. Leftism exists purely as a philosophy of War as a principal. As such, it has no ideological basis outside of the quest for power. By definition, this means that anything outside of those immediate demands for power is an opposition movement that can be labeled "Conservative" or "Right".

All you have said in your statement is that non-Leftist movements predate the American Liberal movement. Yes.

The reason modern left can get as far as it has - beyond the fact that it's coming from the top - is also because of liberalism and its ideals and values being present in society. It's why most liberals sympathize or share beliefs with it as well; why blm ended up growing as fast as it did.

You're misconstruing things. The rhetoric of Liberalism is attractive to damn-near every individual. No one approves of enslavement (particularly if their enslavement is a possibility). Everyone likes some amount of liberty. Self-ownership is probably the philosophical foundation of Liberalism that is most arguable, and it is antithetical to Leftism. The Left bastardizes the rhetoric of liberty to suit their needs. This is what happened to the French with "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Jefferson & Lafayette's definition of those words is nothing like Robespierre's. They're oppositional.

But this is always what the Left has done. Exploit a single tactic that is useful in a quest for power.

BLM is a National Socialist movement. There is nothing Liberal about it. It is anti-Liberal. It is the revolutionary socialization of a race into a homogeneous body politic. A Volksgemeinschaft. It's rhetoric is also anti-Liberal. It is explicitly Leftist. And it is explicitly a violent, revolutionary, collectivist, racialist, socialist, rhetoric. Even among Liberal Revolutionaries, you will not find this kind of rhetoric.

It's success comes at the expense of the Corporate Establishment Left weaponizing racialism to solidify Leftism behind their offers of power. It is a containment device.

US spent trillion in Afghanistan to create liberal democracy and failed spectacularly, because those people have different histories, beliefs, and traditions, and they aren't going to embrace it as easily, not without decades of social engineering and imperialism, or more force.

I've been there.

The issue is not really one of whether or not Liberalism means anything to the people, the issue is that it is a Tribal society. The government is effectively a tribe that is only beginning to become powerful enough to challenge other tribes. Liberalism, nice as it is, isn't really anywhere in the equation. In fact, the government identifies itself as an Islamic Republic. That's ... not even kind of Liberal. Liberalism is antithetical to Islam.

Securing Afghanistan relies mostly on creating loyalty and friendship between the government, villages, provincial leaders, and warlords. Other ideological arguments are simply irrelevant to the equation.

Words are malleable and general meaning is determined by its usage.

Then the communists won't mind me re-asserting the original definitions of the words they've raped.