Hi. Post-Liberal here. This is not correct. The actual Post-Liberal criticism of liberal principles is that they are: 1. Not universal 2. Corrosive to all non-chosen obligations, numerous of which are necessarily illiberal constraints for society to function at all. Non Universality The instinct since the aftermath of WW2 was to universalize humanity. It was differentiating between peoples and placing them upon a hierarchy of value that allowed the Nazis to justify their ultraviolence and therefore with this being the new foundational myth of our societies this differentiating was exemplary as the ultimate evil, with its opposite, naive universalism, upheld as the ultimate good. Liberal values were thus assumed to be universal. Everyone must want to live like Liberals because ours is obviously the "best" way to do things. We are the freest. The happiest. Everyone years equally to be free and happy. Our way produces the most freedom and happiness, therefore our way is best and everyone must want to live our way. To the extent they do not or cannot it is the consequence of tyranny being imposed upon them. Particularly after defeating the Soviets in the Cold War, Liberalism stood alone as the champion of the 20th century. Fascism and Communism were defeated. With no great ideology to offer a counterexample, Liberalism was the default, and it was natural that the rest of the world would want to follow suit and Liberalize. This lead to Fukuyama's "End of History" and many egregiously bad decisions born from a "Strategic Narcissism" which presumed a universal appetite for Liberalism and its ideals. We jump started China's economy with offshoring under the presumption that closer economic ties would liberalize them. Instead they became richer, more competent, and techno-fascist, and are now our number one global rival. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq with the deluded idea that we were going to "spread democracy" which is to say "spread Liberal values and systems," only to find that there was no genuine appetite for these things in these nations, and that the population would rather fight against Liberalism than for it. We imported obscene numbers of foreigners, in particular from those same regions which rejected the imposition of Liberalism, with the expectation that in living among us they would come to live like us, but this could not have been further from the truth. Far from embracing Liberalism or a Liberal life style, these imports are actively contemptuous of Liberalism, view us as naive morons, and actively seek to subjugate us and impose their values in Sharia. Far from being universal values, a Liberal lifestyle is the natural state of affairs for a small minority of North West European societies ("WEIRD" Nations). Liberal norms are well-suited to these populations for whom these norms are effectively a codified expression of their default ontology, while being as alien to foreign populations as Sharia is foreign to us. Post-Liberals therefore reject the universalist instinct of our current societies. It is so taboo to recognize material differences in cognition across populations, not merely in a general intelligence sense but with respect to societal norms and preferences, family structure, etc., that to do so is to risk serious reputational damage by a cult dogmatically committed to upholding the Universalist ideal in direct contrast to the deluge of evidence that suggests the contrary. However if Liberal ideals and norms are to survive anywhere they must be protected from external subversion; subversion only possible because Liberalism is incapable of rejecting its Universalism and safeguarding itself from peoples who are not willing or capable of adopting it earnestly. Corrosiveness to Unchosen Obligations The Liberal instinct is described in Post-Liberal circles as a "universal solvent" because the Liberal instinct is naturally one of permissiveness. There is no rule or boundary or taboo that Liberalism will not gradually chip away at because the Liberal instinct is fundamentally to say "why shouldn't I get to choose?" And this will eventually apply everywhere and anywhere. Much of the early success of the United States was not attributable to Liberalism. Rather the cultural legacy of Christianity did a ton of heavy lifting while early Liberalism did legitimately remove particular excesses of older Monarchical systems which combined genuinely yielded fantastic results. But Liberalism has no internal capability to determine when it has "gone too far." Liberalism cannot determine for itself why Chesterton's Fence is there, it can only determine that the fence is a restriction on its ability to choose to venture further for itself, and so it works to remove the fence. Sometimes post by post. Sometimes all at once. But in either case the other side of the fence was a fatal abyss. This means that Liberalism has in itself the architecture of its own annihilation. Because gradually over time those obligations to each other, to one's family, to one's nation, etc. are challenged and eroded until a coherent concept of the nation itself is eroded. Even the unchosen realities imposed upon us by nature itself are rejected in favor of the right of the individual to choose, which becomes the basis for the trans insanity. And on that note, naturalization of foreigners and proclaiming them to be "just as American as us" is no different, for nationhood is a pre-political reality of ones birth immutable in all ways, and certainly not by pen. Post-Liberalism therefore recognizes that the unconstrained Liberal instinct is self-destructive and will sacrifice any and all good that Liberalism was able to generate in favor of the dissolution of itself as the ultimate manifestation of its own telos. Like an expanding bubble gradually putting pressure upon the surface tension of the soap until it annihilates itself with the removal of all constraints. Preventing this thus necessitates the reimposition of some degree of boundedness on the Liberal instinct. We do have some unchosen obligations that are both necessary and desirable and Liberalism will actually do infinitely more harm than good if it cannot be contained within some kind of boundedness of higher principles that can veto Liberalism's singular maxim "I must be able to choose anything" with the implied "no matter how terrible." Far from being a threat to the basic Liberal norms expected by actual Americans, Post-Liberalism is a necessary safeguard to preserve the good about Liberalism (i.e. those norms and freedoms which are typical of the North West European WEIRD nations and their colonial offshoots, free speech, etc.) where those things will otherwise be lost in perpetuity if no boundaries can be redrawn (either to Race Communist Technocrats whose ideology cannot survive the free flow of information for its incongruity with reality, or to Islam and its explicit program of religious subjugation and the imposition of its Sharia norms). If you actually care about the norms and traditions of historically Liberal peoples, Post-Liberalism is virtually the only strand of contemporary thought that has a realistic possibility of conserving and sustaining those freedoms.

Should we rush to deport Ilhan Nur Said Elmi from the country or allow her to stay in America after a prison term in exchange for insider testimony against Democrat crimes?

A full military takeover of Haiti by Bukele's El Salvador would be a fascinating case study. Haiti is one of the most perpetually dysfunctional nations on the planet. They are demonstrably incompetent because on their own island the Dominican Republic achieves markedly better outcomes from functionally an identical position. El Salvador, famous for reforming from one of the most dysfunctional and homicidal countries on the planet under the leadership of @nayibbukele , demonstrated a unique capacity to markedly improve the lives of its citizens by removing Leftist judges and arresting criminal gang members without exception. Simply removing that most destructive cohort transformed the country overnight into at a minimum a country where people can live their lives. Hait, in a state of total governmental collapse, has devolved into a kind of gangster warlordism. This is a condition not dissimilar to the gang-war ravaged El Salvador that Bukele inherited. If, in this state of governmental collapse, El Salvador imposed itself as a new government of Haiti, and then implemented the exact same measures it employed at home to round up gangsters without exception and incarcerate them, could Haiti be transformed into a functional state? It is unlikely that Haiti would ever be a truly wealthy country, but it could be a country where order is imposed upon it such that people can live their lives. And that alone would be a strict improvement to the lives of normal Haitians, while also creating conditions that allow for whatever wealth Haiti might be capable of generating to be generated. But furthermore, if El Salvador were allowed to do this and were successful it would demonstrate a replication of the effects of the policies Bukele applied after taking office. This would give a kind of scientific authority to Bukele's solutions versus the ones posed to us by the UN, ICC, WEF, etc. If demonstrated in this way it massively improves the case for simply adopting these policies. We can choose to not live like this. The only real question would be why would El Salvador want to do this? And that's really up to them. But if they should want it, I see no reason we should not let them have it.

In light of recent events @SimulatedLev is looking more and more prophetic.

> Netanyahu can't win election > Netanyahu starts war to stay in power > US election 1 week after Israeli election > War with Iran number 1 most unpopular thing in America > US roped into Israeli war again > GOP loses midterms in shock backlash to war > America destroyed

"You guys are all stupid they're going to be looking for complex numbers."

We should not have "translation services" available for anything related to participation in our electoral politics. If you are incapable of navigating a ballot in English you are very explicitly not part of our polity. Americans speak English. If you cannot vote in English you are not an American and you have no business whatsoever participating in our electoral process and determining who will have authority over the American people. Translation service for elections are utterly farcical and meaningfully delegitimize our elections.

Elon is magic soil posting and you're blackpilling?

If we can kill Disparate Impact it would be among the most significant improvements we could conceivably make to the country. Bonus points if we argue that biologically driven cognitive differences alternatively explain disparate outcomes and win on this reasoning.

Polling in the United States is basically going to be unreliable so long as the Democrats continue to suggest retributionist policies towards MAGA. These people spied on everyone who bought a MAGA hat, for which there is no legitimate purpose, but many many illegitimate purposes. Voluntarily offering up that you intend to vote for MAGA to Pollsters who are perceived as being biased towards the Dems seems like an actual potential liability as what's to say those poll responses don't end up being added to the "list" the Dems are evidently making?

I love what Dave describes here, but I think male Malfoy would have his day of vindication. It just lies in the future. The Wizarding World has just fought this unfathomable evil. Voldemort is this figure of ultimate evil. An evil that has now emerged, faded, then returned once already. There is immense fear that the Spirit of Voldemort might somehow return. Might somehow repeat the calamity they all suffered. Society is gradually reordered around making sure Voldemort can never happen again. The reforms start more gradually. Half-breed Wizards are granted additional protections. Calling someone a "Mudblood" will now see a student expelled from Hogwarts. It is insisted that there is absolutely no difference between Half-Wizards and Purebloods, and while exceptional Half-Wizards like Hermione most certainly exist, this messaging does run contrary to documented measurable potency of magical capability in elite bloodlines. But no one be allowed to acknowledge that because valuing blood is seen as the first step towards Voldemort. It is decided that not enough Half-Wizards are appearing in prominent positions. It is a political statement when Hufflepuff decides to field the first ever all Half-Wizard quidditch team. They come in last for the season. Hogwarts decides that to ensure fair representation each house must now field a minimum number of Half-Wizards. The Slytherin team objects. They had fair tryouts and the selected players were Full-Wizards, but they were selected for their talent. The school administration insists that two players be removed and replaced with the most elite Half-Wizards the house has to offer. They are "okay" at best. One of them makes a blunder at a critical moment which results in the Slytherin Seeker (and well liked team captain) being struck in the head by a bludger, sending him to the hospital and costing them the match. When he wakes up he calls the Half-Wizard a mudblood under his breath. But a nurse hears it and reports it. He is expelled. The Half-Wizard is made team captain to compensate. Slytherin is declared to have a "Purebloodism Problem." It is decided that Half-Wizards are going to be deliberately added into the house to fix it. The Sorting Hat tradition is done away with because it does not allocate sufficient Half-Wizards to Slytherin organically. As more and more Half-Wizards are added to Slytherin it is emphasized how this is what Slytherin always really stood for. Ambition gives way to "Celebrating All Magic," no matter how small. A radical proposal is then introduced by the House Master of Slytherin (a Hufflepuff Alumni). The world of magic has so much to offer. Even those of us with no magical blood at all. The Wizarding World already tolerates squibs and finds places for them in society. And there is so much even a muggle could learn. A muggle can brew a potion, or at least drink one, right? Why shouldn't we invite some muggles into Hogwarts. It could enrich them. The old Slytherin bloodlines explode. This is surely a step too far. It makes a mockery of the whole enterprise. Muggles in Hogwarts not only violates the separateness of the Wizarding World from from the Muggle world, but to actually bring them here to a school of magic is completely self-defeating. This is labeled unacceptably Wizard-Blood Supremacist and the most vocal students are expelled. It is made clear that anyone who speaks up about this will meet the same fate. Some of the Old Bloodlines lay low. They want to get their education and so they hold their tongue. But they are forced to watch as the first non-magical students in Hogwarts' history are admitted into the school. Some are placed into Slytherin. The non-magical students quickly pose a problem for the majority of classes. Potions kind of goes okay, so does Herbology and Magical Beasts. But Enchantments? Divination? Defense Against the Dark Arts? It is impossible for the Professors to teach these people. Their capabilities prohibit them from getting much of anything out of this class. The students quickly become disruptive lacking any reason to be here. But they must be included. The Wizard-Blood students aren't learning anything because the classroom environment is now chaotic. The Muggle students don't like how they feel when they watch the Wizards use magic. They are envious that they lack these capabilities. They start to bully some of the Wizard-Blood students. The Wizards have magic but you still need to have your wand at the ready. They make a habit of sucker-punching unsuspecting students. The administration scolds them but insists that they have a moral imperative to share the Wizarding World with the Muggles because it has so much to offer. As news of the Wizarding World reaches a wider audience in the Muggle world and more and more people start to understand the implications of its existence and the wonderful delights magic could give them more and more Muggles fight to get access to Hogwarts. You start to see a lot of them in Diagon Alley. They don't have anything to offer the Wizards, but they would very much like the Wizards to perform magical favors for them or to use magic to give them material comforts. Magical artifacts and magical beasts become valuable items in the Muggle world. Demand exceeds supply. There is an increase in thefts of magically imbued items. One day a few days before Christmas while students are drinking Butterbeer at Hogsmeade the unthinkable happens. A Muggle supremacist group detonates a massive bomb inside the Hog's Head Tavern, killing 45 people. The investigation finds "Expeliarmus This" written on a piece of the shrapnel. The group announced its intentions to eliminate magic from the world because it is too much power concentrated in a few people. In other words, magic is too great a threat to continue to tolerate. The Aurors insist this was an isolated incident and that these views are not shared by the majority of Muggles, but a few Muggle students seemed to approve of the attack. There is naturally outrage in much of the Wizarding Community. Some families start to say enough is enough. They start to organize and contest that this has gone too far, that we had separation for a reason, and that it is completely reasonable to return back to that position. This is labeled "Extremist Purebloodism" and state Aurors are sent to round up dissenters. Pureblood Wizarding families are treated with suspicion by the State even when there is no evidence of personal Pureblood sympathies. It starts to become socially acceptable to ostracize Purebloods. Hogwarts announces that all new faculty positions will be Half-Bloods or Muggles until social parity with Pureblood Wizards is achieved. The persecution of Pureblood Wizard families gets worse and worse. They start to be targeted. They are old families with much accumulated wealth. It is insisted that this be shared with the Muggles. Anyone who stands up is arrested by an Auror. A Dementor kills a man in Azkaban. He was there because he said "We need to have a Wizarding World that actually practices magic." This is the final straw. One man rises to overthrow this tyranny. He unites the Wizards to take back control of the Wizarding World and to restore it to its rightful purpose, which is as a society for themselves, the people who have magic in their blood. He is that Seeker Captain who was expelled from school. He is Draco Malfoy III. And history may never say "Voldemort was right," but history will say "Malfoy was right."

The nightclubs are still operating in Kyiv. Some degree of "normal" life will continue even in a country at war. The destruction is just background noise until it isn't.