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.

This man calls you a "mongrel" from his library while expecting you to be vaporized on stream to some Europop montage 2,000 miles from home while back home he lets Mohammed shatter glass in your daughter's vagina.

"I grew up when the public had demographic security and the few obvious foreigners could be humored with good nature, and I mistook this for membership to something I do not actually belong to." Times have changed Ben. We no longer have the luxury of infinite naive tolerance.

This whole saga is genuinely some of the best citizen journalism I've ever seen. The active importation of the invasion by the British State is as clear as day. @RealDannyTommo is doing fantastic work. That he can also summon a mob at will is likewise exceptional.

Remember that when Enoch Powell gave his Birmingham Speech in 1968, 74% of the British public agreed with what he had said. 93% said they wanted a drastic reduction in further immigration, while 64% - rising to 74% that November - were in favour of voluntary repatriation. Look at how the British establishment responded to the will of the people. Britain is in no meaningful sense a democracy.

Live and direct in Calais right now. We have tracked migrants back to a camp on the outskirts of Calais and Dunkirk. We came across empty shells from a 12 gauge and other concerning things. These monsters are armed and are on the way to the uk!!! Stay tuned for more uploads as the day progresses.

If the EPA finds sufficient evidence of female hormones in the water supply as a consequence of widespread use of birth control, should we ban the pill?

When has the government betrayed its purpose, Shane? In order to answer this question we must first ask what is the purpose of the government? All governments are a collective decision making apparatus for a people. A people that are necessarily bounded from the moment of the State's creation, for in the establishment of the State the question of "who is and is not subject to this state" is necessarily answered. The State then has a fiduciary duty to those particular people. The State's charter is singularly to act in their collective interests. Good governance is synonymous with how faithfully the State is able to make good on that raison d'être. For the government to betray its purpose then would be to demonstrate a sustained incapability to uphold the legitimate interests of the people for whom it was constructed. A one off blunder does not suffice as the State is not infallible, but certain structural indicators or persistent behaviors that run antithetical to the raison d'être of the State can indicate that it is no longer fit for function at which point the people have no duty or obligations to the degraded State's illegitimate authority. So now we must ask these questions of America in particular. Who are the American people? The founding of our nation and the documents that codified the State into being are very explicit about this. We are the nation of the early European settlers who materialized America into being. We are the posterity of those men. We are the rightful inheritors of American civilization. The State then, if legitimate, would be working to advance the particular interests of this population who are the American people. However we see clear signs of severe drift from the State's raison d'être in its behavior. It's perhaps beyond the scope of this post, but after WW2 the American State transcended its function into a globally ambitious pseudo-empire that ultimately came to see itself as the end state of governance not for the American people, but for the world. And having adopted this kind of stance on the global macrocosm, we see this disposition mirrored in the national microcosm, where the State has fundamentally alienated itself from governance in the interests of the particular American people in favor of a universalist conception that, being globally ambitious, views itself as responsible not for the American people in particular, but for everyone everywhere. We can see this disposition exemplified in behavior like the Democrats at the State of the Union overtly rejecting the notion that they have a primary responsibility to Americans and their well-being, demonstrating that the Democrats increasingly view their constituency as explicitly foreign. As in the Democrats view their responsibility as protecting the interests of explicitly non-Americans from conflicting American interests. This renders the entire Democrat party unfit to serve as leaders for the American people. Their allegiances and self-perceived responsibilities lie very explicitly outside the domain of legitimacy for American governance. Further, the atrocious ruling on Birthright Citizenship by the Supreme Court likewise indicates a literal constitutional prohibition on the State accurately recognizing the people for whose interests it exists. By being incapable of discriminating between the legitimate progeny of the American people, and the illegitimate progeny of foreigners with no meaningful relation to the bounded demos for whom the State was constructed, the State has de facto rendered itself incapable of accurately identifying the individuals to whom it maintains a legitimate responsibility. Instead, the Supreme Court says the State is compelled to recognize unauthorized foreigners as its charges, which is to say the State in its current incarnation is strictly incapable of discerning to whom it actually owes allegiance. The obvious consequence of these kinds of failures is that the State increasingly cannot represent the interests of the American people, nor can it meaningfully advance those interests because the State simultaneously believes itself to be responsible for the adversarial interests of foreigners. The question as to whether the current incarnation of the State is therefore illegitimate as a governing body for the American nation is therefore completely justified. The State's behavior routinely suggests it has, in fact, BETRAYED its purpose by routinely elevating the interests of foreigners OVER Americans. And if that is the case, then there is no reason whatsoever for the American people to continue to subject themselves to what operates as a de facto imperial ruler that utterly disregards their interests and its fiduciary responsibilities. We do not need to maintain allegiance to a system that has become overtly alien in its disposition and increasingly its construction. Globally ambitious "America-Last" imperial governance is not some noble pursuit that we must tolerate ad infinitum when it comes at the direct expense of our nation. We are well within our rights to adopt a new form of government that actually advances our interests as asserting national sovereignty is the right of all peoples everywhere.

The 20th century world wars taught two lessons at once: do not sleepwalk into a general war, and do not assume an expansionist power will stop if left unopposed. Perversely, neither of those lessons apply today to Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia shrank and NATO - a military organisation - expanded to its borders. Ergo, the EU/NATO is the expansionist power, not Russia. In reality, Russia lost its empire even as the EU became an Empire, allied with militarist, expansionist NATO. Europe is not sleepwalking into a war with Russia, it is charging into it with blazing eyes stretched wide open. The sheer insanity of this is incomprehensible - unless one believes the EU wants war purely in order to halt the "far-right" from coming to power in Germany and France, which would mean an end to the tyranny of the Von Der Leyen Imperialist Commission. Imagine the wicked, murderous, anti-democratic implications of that. A war which will kill millions of Europeans is deliberately engineered by the EU and NATO in order to thwart the democratic process..... Insane as this sounds, it DOES appear to be their monstrously evil ambition, and our unfortunate reality.

This propaganda is so funny. Here we have a TV program clearly manufactured by the British establishment to psychically prime the public for a needless war with Russia. But who are the protagonists? Not the men fighting and dying for their country. The carnage is almost abstract, displaying strikes against infrastructure as though the process is entirely mechanical. The real human cost for any such conflict is obfuscated. Those sacrifices won't be aired because they don't want to advertise the reality of what the public are in for if this does materialize. No the protagonists are the mostly female longhoused government bureaucrats, sitting in their war room playing a grand strategy game. It is all just a game to them. It's even called "Wargame." And what do these bureaucrats do? They sit in their war room and weigh their military options against "British Values" as defined by the Pakistani woman. They dramatize the need to show "strong leadership." It's like parody. You can take this as a kind of self-representation of the Westminster class. This is how they see themselves. Utterly pathetic and incompetent women and their pet eunuchs larping as "very serious" people cut out to make tough decisions, but even in their own propaganda they are effeminate weaklings with a tenuous grip on their circumstances at best. If these pussies actually move to conscript the public I hope the public gives them their war, just not the war these feckless retards wanted.

Recent rhetoric out of Britain has me very concerned that the British state intends to false flag its people. The state is in no position to wage war with Russia. @DavidBe31099196 has detailed extensively the modern failings of the British military’s readiness and the general strategic shortsightedness of Britain’s leadership class. But the leadership class wants a war regardless because their domestic legitimacy is shattered and the British permanent state, their version of the Uniparty, is at risk of being removed from power entirely, both electorally and by way of ordinary citizens increasingly resisting the state’s claimed monopoly on force. A war then is a pretense to take furious White British men and remove them from the equation by feeding them to Russian drone swarms, or alternatively arresting them for “dereliction of duty,” a charge that is rich coming from this crop of “leaders.” But Russia is imo very unlikely to actually attack the UK. There is no strategic upside to doing so. The Brits could just order their troops into the war regardless, but without some pretense for the NEED to do so I find the prospect an almost impossible sell. No one is buying this war when the domestic situation is so untenable. And so if the state wants to manipulate people into artificial support for their needless war, they may attack their own people/infrastructure in some way and blame Russia. Should this come to pass, and should the United States be aware of any such chicanery, I would urge our intelligence agencies to publicly reveal any information about the origins of such an attack so as to make the British people aware of what their government is trying to manipulate them into. The “special relationship” is to the British people, not the traitor state systematically replacing them and now seeking to finish off the last true Brits. If they are going to engage in tactics like this they should be exposed so no Brit has any doubt in his mind about who his enemies really are.

Much like paper money, paper citizenship always gets debased.

Woke right can be defined as anyone that speaks out against the fourth republic. The first being the confederation, the second the constitution, the third post-civil war, and the fourth post-civil rights.

"You don’t fix yesterday’s immigration policy by making today’s citizens foreigners again..." And why should we accept this arbitrary limitation when these "citizenships" are completely erroneous? Why should I continue to recognize people entirely alien to my ancestry, my historical continuity, my culture, my religious tradition, my language, or my values? Why should I continue to recognize people who openly have allegiances to another nation and/or to their co-ethnics imported into my country at the direct expense of the actual American people as my countrymen? Why should I recognize people who actively clamor for the dismantling of my nation and all its legacies as "just as much a part of this national project" as myself? If our government has spent the past 60 years or so with a completely wrongheaded understanding of the word "citizen," erroneously issuing documents nominally conferring citizenship but in no way meaningfully making Americans of the people handed such papers, why should we continue to recognize that egregious error in perpetuity? Why are we not allowed to correct the mistakes of the previous generation, particularly when those mistakes continue to impose intolerable costs on us as a people? The only justification for it is that it will suck for the people who are on the wrong side of this correction. But that isn't a reason to persist in an untenable policy that fundamentally fails to treat with the human animal as he is. Multiculturalism is an abject failure and I categorically refuse to accept that we just have to live with the intolerable "diversity" this civilizational catastrophe has imposed on us anymore than the Post-Soviet Russians have to endure a centrally planned economy in the present. Diversity is our Berlin Wall. We're not doing this anymore.

The Schmidtian "friend / enemy distinction" is massively misunderstood - it's a distinction between groups that share a moral framework and implicit within that share a dispute resolution mechanism (friends) and groups that do not (enemies) At this point in our society many engaged, aware people no longer view our dispute resolution mechanism as something that produces results that should be morally respected; many groups have grown that have conflicting and mutually exclusive moral beliefs. The associated lack of moral respect for any larger societal framework and that people increasingly recognize this implies that the constraint on group conflict is merely pragmatism Massive conflict is brewing

The modern justice system has gone the way of corporate customer service. The normal route inevitably finds you in front of some foreigner who will categorically not deliver any resolution, but if you make a big enough stink on social media someone might notice and fix it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has been talking about duty and upset people, quite rightly. If war comes, he says, people must join up. Some may have to die. That is how countries last. Rome fell when citizens paid others to fight. The line would be ordinary if it came from a man of the nation. It is damaging because it comes from a man who once seemed to stand with the nation against something else. A few years ago Michael Rainsborough and I argued that Western government had ceased to be national in the ordinary sense and become imperial: a system of management over peoples, not a home belonging to a people. Empires do not need citizens. They need subjects, communities, and a priesthood of progress. The nation state asks for loyalty among equals. The new arrangement asks for deference to a civilising mission aimed, more and more, at the historic population itself. Brexit was a sovereign native revolt against that. It was not a tantrum about trade. It was a people saying they would not be administered as a province of a postnational order. In 2016–19 Rees-Mogg looked as if he understood the distinction. He treated the referendum as a valid instruction. That put him on the national side of the only argument that mattered. The slouch in the Commons in September 2019 was easy to misread as mere insult. At the time it could be taken as something colder and, in its way, political: magisterial unconcern toward the people who thought the vote was an outrage to be managed away. He would not sit up for them. Many of us forgave the manners because the target of the manners seemed right. Turley was correct that the pose was ugly. She was wrong about what the fight was. The new interview wrecks the alibi. The same loucheness is still there. The object has changed. He is no longer declining to perform anxiety for the postnational court. He is reciting its war liturgy and calling it duty. The men who are to kill and die are not being asked to defend a bordered people. They are being invited to service an imperium that still cannot hold a coast, still treats national self-assertion as a public-order problem, and still speaks the language of progress when it means rule. That is why the sofa now looks different. In 2019 the sprawl could pass for aristocratic refusal. In 2026 it reads as arrogance, detachment, dishonesty and stupidity: the ease of a man who will not live the risk he names. On Russia the sermon moralises what does not need moral theatre. States act from interest. Russia has a historically intelligible one in its near abroad. Kennan and others said that driving a victorious alliance onto the ruins of Russian power would produce a collision. The collision came. One may dislike Moscow’s answer. Ascribing ‘brutality’ as if it were the point is a progressive habit: turn strategy into sin so that the only virtuous pose is imperial supervision of the sinner. As wars are fought, this one has not been the cartoon of indiscriminate slaughter the commentary requires. Whether one grants that or not is secondary. The primary fact is simpler. Russia is behaving like a nation. Britain’s elite is not. That is the disgrace in what Rees-Mogg said. He had the chance to remain what Brexit briefly suggested he was: a spokesman for a country that still existed as a country. Instead he talks now like a provincial officer of the progressive imperium, surprised that the natives might object to dying for a project that has spent a generation dissolving them. Duty, from that perspective, doesn’t come across honestly. It feels like the Union flag being draped deceitfully over the progressive imperial agenda. The slouch in 2019 was a tell. Then it said: I will not be hustled by the managerial elite. Now it says: I am comfortable among them. A foolish man, which I now think he is, can be right only sometimes. The blithe pose now grates heavily. I wouldn’t trust the lives of my son and daughter to this project and its exponents. Just back TF off.

Classic Liberal just had his entire worldview shattered. His belief is that all of Americas moral principles derive from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He then calls the author of the Declaration's beliefs vile, unprincipled pagan malevolence and hatred, while trying the most feeble attempt at deflecting it by lying and saying "Thomas Jefferson slowly changed his mind on this!" He didn't. Thomas Jefferson wrote the quote in that screenshot when he was 78 years old. He didn't change his beliefs after this either. When he was 83 years old, just months before his death, he wrote in a letter to William Short saying, "on the subject of emancipation I have ceased to think because not to be a work of my day. the plan of converting the blacks into Serfs would certainly be better than keeping them in their present condition; but I consider that of expatriation to the governments of the W. I. of their own colour as entirely practicable, and greatly preferable to the mixture of colour here."- Thomas Jefferson So the only change he said was Serfdom would be better than slavery, but it would be greatly preferable to remove them all to governments in the West Indies than to allow the colors to mix here. When he was very young he said this. When he was very old he said this. He held these beliefs till he died. Classic Liberal believes these are the most vile, evil things imaginable, and to believe them is to be unAmerican, thus to him, Thomas Jefferson was unAmerican, but also the man who laid down the foundation of all American principles and morality. He cannot make sense of it, and he will not, because he will lie and double down on believing absolute lies, and accusing anyone who tells him the truth of being evil, because he loves the lie.

The James Lindsays of the world are ironically just nostalgic for the world of their early adulthood, when their minds ossified and lost plasticity. James is 47 years old. He turned 25 in 2004, notable because this is when the brain "fully develops." And what he advocates for in practice is a perpetual 2004. We weren't doing "trans" in 2004, so that was too ridiculous, he couldn't accept that, his mind had already ossified. So he's willing to fight against that particular insanity. But he can't see any of the other problems we're identifying because he's not interested in our novel conception of the future either. He wants very specifically the exact world that he felt accustomed to when he came of age, which is 2004 forever. People like this like to claim Fascism is this nostalgia for a false past, the cast us as Fascist, but the Post-Liberal right isn't trying to rehash either the Fascism of the 20th century or to literally reconstruct the America of the 1950s. Rather, it seeks to understand the meta-conditions which allowed for the prosperity of earlier America and reimpose though. It is the effort to actually secure the best things the Liberal system of government afforded us by securing it against its own unboundedness and self-destructive tendencies. In this regard the Post-Liberals are not harkening back to some imagined past but are actively trying to build a new future, merely securing the the essence of the past if not its precise form. But that's not good enough for James Lindsay's of the world. Their aim is to cement the zeitgeist of their coming of age in perpetuity because that's the environment that registers as normalcy to them. It's just psychological ossification manifesting as an increasingly embarrassing political schtick.

People think Rupert Lowe is bad My policy would be shoot the boats