The most useful thing that normal people on the right can do with regard to the Postliberals at the moment is to challenge their arguments directly and draw them out into the open. Postliberalism emerged as an entryist movement comprised of a tiny, fanatical fringe minority trying to attach itself to mainstream conservatism. This was by necessity because their core ideas are deeply unpopular: economic nationalism based on 19th century tariff ideology, reactionary anti-capitalism based on aesthetic disdain for consumption, theocracy-infused social conservatism that wishes to bring back blasphemy laws and official state religions, trashing the American founding and tearing down the US constitution and bill of rights, eccentric nods toward monarchism, and a political philosophy built around the weaponization of concentrated executive power. Since Postliberals know these ideas are politically toxic, they dwell in a world of esotericism and speaking code to each other. They hide their intentions behind vacuous ill-defined phrases like "the common good" and "virtuous" "statesmanship." And they shift their messages based on the audience. If they think they are among fellow Postliberals, then it is okay to trash the Declaration of Independence as an exercise in irreparable Lockean liberalism. If they think the public is watching, then they pretend that they are just trying to "recover" the "true" intentions of the founders from 20th century libertarian distortions. And if they think they are back among Postliberals again, they admit to each other that this exercise in rebranding the founders as proto-postliberals is a ruse. And yes, I have directly seen them do all three. But esoteric decoder ring messaging is extremely difficult for a movement to maintain - and especially so for a movement that attracts a disproportionate share of oddballs and fanatics. Poke them about their strangest ideas, and at least a few of them will be unable to maintain the ruse. It'll trigger a Colonel Jessep-style outburst that breaks the code and announces why blasphemy laws are a good thing, ackshually, or why Francisco Franco's dictatorship was "based," or why they think Madisonian checks and balances are an obstacle from a bygone era that needs to be discarded. They'll announce that the thinkers they previously touted to the public such as Edmund Burke were "weak" and simply a palatable cover. If you want the "real" message you need to read Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, or Thomas Carlyle. And their abstract rants against "globalism" will attain specificity that reveals it is really just an expression of their disdain for people of certain races or religions or places of origin. When they eventually realize that they've shown too many of their cards and done so too early, the Postliberal will usually retreat into denialism. They'll bombard you with word games about how the grotesque thing they (or one of their own) just said really doesn't mean what it obviously meant. They'll try to convince you that you're in the wrong, having misread it or misrepresented them even as they snicker about it in the company of other Postliberals. They'll even feign ignorance, claiming not to know what "Postliberalism" is or means, and suggest you are the crazy one for asking them to defend their position when in fact they've spoken at Postliberal conferences and written Postliberal political manifestos for Postliberal blogs and magazines. But by then, it's already too late for them. Normal people have already seen what they believe, and normal people will see more to come. There are too many loose cannons in the Postliberal world to exercise the message control that their esoteric agenda requires. And our job is to coax that out of them to the point that they blurt it out in a fit of rage. Our job is to make them go full Colonel Jessep.