I'm aware, as noted it's pure fiction.

It's not. Unless you think all if history is "pure fiction." I'm referring to Will Durant's "The Story of Civilization" (specifically vol. VII, and vol IX), HG Wells' "The Outline of History", John Hirst's "Shortest History of Europe", William H. McNeill's, "The Rise of the West: t: A History of the Human Community", and "Clio's Battles: Historiographyin Practice", by Jeremy Black.

("Clio's Battles" about how history is used to redesign reality and/or shore up support for various current day political causes, you might like, assuming you haven't already read it.)

This along with picking things up here and there from various wikis and articles. :-)

Refer to previous posts.

I already did. You prove nothing and just label things and say it's bad or associated with things you, apparently, dislike without offering evidence for why anyone else should dislike the first thing.

You claim equality is inhuman, violent and on and on, "a meme" (because you apparently don't know the definition of that word either), etc, without offering proof.

You just call names.

Then type, "lmao" like you've actually made a good point or really any point at all.

Certainly, it serves the ruling class to manipulate society into embracing exploitative politics, but it amounts to a larp in reality.

ruling class

manipulating

exploitative

You're putting too much cream on your taco. A bit redundant dont you think? If they're the ruling class... manipulating and...using politics... then of course its "exploitative". That word isn't needed to make what passes for a point with you.

The sentence both obvious and completely unrelated to actual equality. Because...

As I already said:

People claim to be all sorts of things they aren't in order to justify their greed. That's not news to me.

It's also not reason to abandon my principles, even if they are claiming to represent my principles when they don't.

No matter how much you attempt to distance radical liberalism from liberalism, or "humanist liberalism,"

You still don't even know the definition if the word, "liberalism" even though I called this out three posts ago and the answer is a few swift keystrokes away.

You're using term you dont understand and cannot define.

So you differentiate "liberalism" into two new things, neither of which matches the definition of the word.

Stop posting.

Pick up a basic political encyclopedia and start reading.

call it what you will,

I'm calling liberalism what liberalism is generally acknowledged to be defined as. This is how words and language work.

will you succeed

I've never stated a goal. You're assuming and strawmanning some spook that doesn't exist. Or someone that you talked to before me. Or maybe imagined in a fever dream of tangled, sweaty sheets.

because your own beliefs in reality demonstrate they are barely different from most of theirs,

Total jibberish and and a juvenile political worldview of "you're all the same (strawman) that I'm easily defeating because (straw)"

they just take them further.

Goofy. Now I'm not just "one of THEM" ...I'm worse than THEM.

"Individualism," which underlies both, is no different than "gender spectrum" or other fictional identities built on liberal ideals.

Simple minds simplify the world. You, sir, are simple-minded.

"Identities" insofar that they are a poor, commodified replacement for a real thing,

Which is what?

generated through social engineering -

Again, what the fuck are you even taking about? Give examples otherwise you're spouting a string of catchphrases.

hence liberalism itself being a form of identity politics.

So now you've established that toy don't know the definition of oh let's see...

• liberalism

• identity politics

• equality

I'm sure there will be more.

It's "diversity" without diversity,

Didn't have to wait long there did I?

because diversity is heretical to both; it's an -ism, a phobia, an inequality; what both in reality aspire for is society of sexless, raceless, etc, clones, because that's the only way "human individuals" can exist. They want to separate all that makes people in the first place, and create an even more dystopian society built on their values and ideals. And you see that and go "It's not real [insert ideology]:"

Total nonsense.

Aka, utopianism/"simulation" of liberalism, serving to justify reality of it.

Word salad. Pick up a political encyclopedia.

It's trite; it's boring.

All you do is call things derogatory names. Somehow you think this constitutes an actual argument.

Or to cite Aimee Terese, "The ambiguity is the point."

Nothing I says is a ambiguous. Pure projection.

You yourself are rehashing rad lib greatest hits re: CRT/Feminism/etc;

I'm not.

it's not that your ideology is wrong,

Well thanks, I guess.

it's that people criticizing it don't really understand what it's about,

Lol, you don't say?

and the ones who've applied it in society aren't really people who believe in it to begin with, but are merely using it. Lmao.

Nothing you're saying makes sense. Then you make my point for me. But I said that three posts up, old son. So... what are you in about?

You don't think equality is good.

Get back to why... not just explaining redundantly that people lie and use the term to mask anti-White ideology and replacement.

:-)