Who would’ve thought that somebody with an account on an anarchist instance has problems with other people telling them what they can and can’t do?

Sure sounds like you’re against moderation. Or are you just a liar who only cares because it’s about shunning Zionism.

So all moderation is wrong? Also you seem to very clearly not understand what anarchism is beyond the infantile “tyranny of bedtime” surface.

The linked definition doesn’t match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.

Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society

Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.

Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but “people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.

Not to be mean, but I think you’re approaching this from a place of pretty immense privilege, where it’s possible to sidestep the fact that the “stability” and social care you’re talking about are materially predicated on the largest, most advanced, and most comprehensive immiseration machine in human history, currently headed by the US and enforced by its hunting dogs.

I understand what you’re saying about intent, but I think you’re putting far too much weight on intent and far too little on material outcomes. From the perspective of people in the periphery, whether harm is done out of malice, fear, or ignorance doesn’t change the harm itself. The status quo imposed by the imperial core is anything but neutral; it is actively sustained through extraction, coercion, and violence, regardless of how polite or well-meaning its defenders may be.

The claim that Liberal voters “aren’t thinking about” neocolonialism doesn’t really mitigate anything. Apathy and ignorance aren’t accidental flaws of the system, they’re systematically reinforced. Liberal politics trains people to narrow their moral horizon to national borders and to treat global suffering as unfortunate but external. Wanting stability at home while refusing to interrogate how that stability is financed is still a political choice, even if it feels passive or unavoidable.

I’m about to make an inflammatory comparison, and before it’s taken the wrong way I want to be clear that I’m not calling you, or Liberal voters, Nazis of any kind.

What I’m pointing to is a similar moral logic to the “clean Wehrmacht,” but applied to liberalism: the idea that all the real harm belongs to the obvious villains, while those who uphold the same system in a more moderate, respectable way are merely ignorant, apolitical, or trying their best. That framing launders responsibility. It treats liberal participation as an unfortunate accident rather than a core function.

From the standpoint of those who live with the consequences of your stability, calling it “misguided but not bad” reads as a refusal to take structural violence seriously.

I am talking about how the status quo of the entirety of the imperial core is built on and sustained by the pillaging and superxploitation of the periphery through imperialism and neocolonialism.

The status quo is bad if you view us of the periphery as equal humans whose suffering matters the same as you.