In the grossest contradiction in his book, he claims on the one hand that nothing follows from accepting his argument, and asserts on the other that the same argument releases his desire to win from the constraint of seeming to be neutral. One would want to know how the freedom to win is made compatible with government by consent of the governed, but that little matter is not raised. So, anticipating our gratitude, he feels free to despise our constitutional limits on tyranny. It means that human beings are always, and only, in a context of contingent and changing circumstances. Hence we are always politically situated, having friends who help us and enemies who are in the way.
Nobody is disinterested or neutral.
No occupation or way of thinking is nonpolitical. Just as his naughtiness falls pathetically short of tyranny, so does his skepticism fail to sustain its doubt of abstraction. He bravely denies that anything is good or right beyond the given moment when you feel it so, but then he turns submissive and cravenly swallows terms and concepts he should object to. When he criticizes liberal principles, he says they lack substance or content. If what we want changes from moment to moment, then there is no enduring self which means no self-interest, no preferences, only momentary whims.