The thesis analyzes the liberal criticism of antimodernism, motivated by the interdisciplinary conceptualization of the subdisciplines of literary theory and intellectual history, and starting from the terminological and definitional definition of antimodernism, which was framed by theorists Zoran Kravar and Antoine Compagnon. By analyzing the works of eminent liberal intellectuals active in the middle of the 20th century (Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek and Karl Popper), an attempt is made to reconstruct a clear, well-argued and coherent liberal critique of anti-modernism, that is, a critique of opposition to liberal democracy and capitalist economy. Starting from the interpretation of Isaiah Berlin, who considers Joseph de Maistre to be the original reactionary and inspirer of fascism, the paper deals Hayek's conception of scientism, or counter-revolutionary science, and his claim that the idea of applying the methods of natural sciences to human society has reactionary roots. On the other hand, Mises' position on the theocratic roots of the teleological view of historical dynamics and Popper's theses on Hegel as a common source of the radical right and Marxism are also problematized. Using abundant multi-perspective professional literature, the paper critically analyzes striking controversies of liberalism, such as its relationship with Nietzsche as a leading intellectual figure in the late 19th century, pointing out that he is their great rival even though he is rarely mentioned by the liberals. Also, Hayek's claim on the collaboration and similarity of fascism with the form of a specific revision of Marxism is contextualized.