With the Liberalist movement making a righteous ass of itself within only the first month of operation - plagued by autism, pretentiousness, the increasing egotism of its founder Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad) and the simple fact that nothing of substance from the movement seems to be happening - and the liberal center of politics showing no signs of recovery from its decline in relevance within contemporary politics, I believe we are at a point when even liberals like myself (albeit myself being more decidedly nationalist than most liberals) are going to have to admit one thing: modern liberalism is dying.
If the last decade has shown us anything it's that liberalism has entered a decadent phase in its history, having embraced wholesale the following vices: bourgeois globalization and "internationalism", progressivism, intellectual vacuity, and Francis Fukuyama's end of history prattle. We have also seen that modern liberal democracy is, largely, a farce. The Marxian left knows it, the libertarians know it, the fascists know it, the far-right knows it, the anarchists know it, even some liberals will concede it at some point. Our democratic system tells us that we have a say in the way we are governed, and that our politicians will according to what we desire of them, but in reality the people hold very little substantive power over our governments, and our politicians are largely ruled by subversive monetary interests. The "left" and the "right" wings of the political establishment have, until recently, been facets of the same basic ideological family: the "left" consists of nothing but the progressive and social democratic flavor of neoliberalism, the "right" consists of conservatives who draw their ideological current from neoliberalism and, for conservatives, are appallingly willing to concede to social democracy.
I suspect that, on some level, we all know this once we get into politics, we all know that not all is well with the system we have, and it seems as though everyone is ready to address with their own radical solutions, except the liberals.
Marxists, understanding the emptiness of our current democratic system, believe that the solution is to enact a kind of economic democracy through joint ownership of the means of production. Libertarians are split on what to do, divided by whether they should simply focus on ending corporatism, or pursue populist nationalism as the way forward. The alt-right see democracy as being corrupted by racial classes: not just the Jews who are at the top of the system per their reasoning, but the ability of non-whites to corrupt the system by supporting political actions against the ethnic majority of the country. The fascists think democracy as a whole needs to be abolished and replaced with a strongman state. The anarchists also want to abolish democracy, and replace it with whatever strange vision for society they think might be able to replace it. But the liberals? They honestly think that continuing to preach the values of the current system and fighting against radicalism will save us, when in reality the radicals are all driven by the economic and structural realities of the current system. They might point out flaws with their respective visions, but don't have much of a substantive answer to their concerns.
And this in my view is a good opportunity to segue into the Liberalist movement, and the "skeptics" that preceded them. The Liberalist movement is largely radical only in the context that they are opposed to political correctness and hate speech laws, which as they will point out are poisoning the liberty of my country, Britain. But outside of that, they are liberals who still earnestly believe that they are reforming the left, even though their actual position is arguably either an anti-authoritarian of social democracy or the conservative position judged within the context of the current political climate, or they are just centrists. Much of this was true with the skeptics, who were only ever good for debunking feminism, social justice and "cultural Marxism", all of which, it's time to just admit, are simply products of the decadent, bourgeois phase of liberalism as both the Marxian left and the conservative or reactionary right have identified.
I am increasingly convinced that their failures as movements can at least partly be attributed to their failure to understand the underlying realities of the modern world. All they know is what's happening on the surface level, and all they're good at is pointing and laughing at it. Every other movement offers a kind of political ontology that attempts to explain the world around them, and the skeptics and the liberals reject them, while offering none of their own except for John Locke (who, by the way, have you even read hurr durr?). All they have is largely talking points.
What we need now, more than ever, is a way forward from what we have. I understand the preciousness of many of the values liberals wish to protect, I believe them myself, but to me the current system. I still do not know which way forward is the best path for our politics to take, but what I do know is that we cannot stay in our current paradigm forever.