This is where we differ I believe. If I'm reading you correctly, I assume you ascribe to white nationalism, and a superiority caste of races and other groups based on some to be defined criteria, and only then are you not a liberal.

The goal of the 3 things I laid out is not to have a purity spiral. Not a liberal can be a big umbrella, it's not meant to only weed out everyone except the "most based of the most based"

As a Christian I fundamentally reject many of the beliefs I assume you hold, based on my understanding that we all come from Noah and his 3 sons, I do not believe meritocracy is liberal or bad. The Bible in Proverbs talks about what happens to the diligent wise worker vs the lazy foolish worker....that is meritocracy.

I don't believe in dividing by classes. In fact, the Bible says if a rich man enters your church, don't give him preferential treatment, treat him exactly the same as anyone else in the church. God is not a discriminator of persons. Someone's class is utterly meaningless.

You with your beliefs would fall into the not a liberal category, however, you'd turn just about everyone else into a liberal who doesn't ascribe to the specific beliefs you've laid out.

If you look at my 3 beliefs, they're very wide and encompassing.

That women voting was retarded should be obvious to anyone who studies the issue and thinks critically.

That the civil rights act was an unjust law should be evident to anyone who thinks about what humans should be allowed to do, studies history, and looks at the fruits of the civil rights act.

That there is a problem with the black community, most specifically for the purposes of this list, in America, is so obvious a blind man could see it.

These are all three things that are fairly evident truths that many many people could rationally fall under even though they may differ in many other ways. They're picked because the refusal to let these beliefs go is purely pavlovian, but keeping the beliefs still ties people to a liberal overton window for as long as they keep hold of them.

I as a Christian, and an atheist would differ on many other things, but we could agree on these core issues. In that case, neither of us would be liberals.

Liberal values are the values, generally speaken that were accepted practically as gospel starting in the 1960s or so.

The goal isn't to make a very narrow category of who is and isn't "not a liberal", it's to recogonize that this generally speaking, 1960s starting worldview is incorrect, and those who still ascribe to it, need to not ascribe to it or at the very least, search for themselves to at least justify why these accepted beliefs are correct beyond "society says it's this way and it feels bad to think differently" because if you are to move society continually in a disasterous direction, you better have a darn good reason for doing so.

If you want to posit a specific worldview you want people to ascribe to, that's your perogative, but I think your definition is far too narrow for the baseline of "not a liberal".

Your criteria is more like the foundation for a specific ideology or political party, rather than what I'm doing which is just establishihing what base level ideology that has seeped into most modern thought is incorrect.

This is where we differ I believe. If I'm reading you correctly, I assume you ascribe to white nationalism, and a superiority caste of races and other groups based on some to be defined criteria, and only then are you not a liberal.

The goal of the 3 things I laid out is not to have a purity spiral. Not a liberal can be a big umbrella, it's not meant to only weed out everyone except the "most based of the most based"

As a Christian I fundamentally reject many of the beliefs I assume you hold, based on my understanding that we all come from Noah and his 3 sons, I do not believe meritocracy is liberal or bad. The Bible in Proverbs talks about what happens to the diligent wise worker vs the lazy foolish worker....that is meritocracy.

I don't believe in dividing by classes. In fact, the Bible says if a rich man enters your church, don't give him preferential treatment, treat him exactly the same as anyone else in the church. God is not a discriminator of persons. Someone's class is utterly meaningless.

You with your beliefs would fall into the not a liberal category, however, you'd turn just about everyone else into a liberal who doesn't ascribe to the specific beliefs you've laid out.

If you look at my 3 beliefs, they're vary wide and encompassing.

That women voting was retarded should be obvious to anyone who studies the issue and thinks critically.

That the civil rights act was an unjust law should be evident to anyone who thinks about what humans should be allowed to do, studies history, and looks at the fruits of the civil rights act.

That there is a problem with the black community, most specifically for the purposes of this list, in America, is so obvious a blind man could see it.

These are all three things that are fairly evident truths that many many people could rationally fall under even though they may differ in many other ways.

I as a Christian, and an atheist would differ on many other things, but we could agree on these core issues. In that case, neither of us would be liberals.

Liberal values are the values, generally speaken that were accepted practically as gospel starting in the 1960s or so.

The goal isn't to make a very narrow category of who is and isn't "not a liberal", it's to recogonize that this generally speaking, 1960s starting worldview is incorrect, and those who still ascribe to it, need to not ascribe to it or at the very least, search for themselves to at least justify why these accepted beliefs are correct beyond "society says it's this way and it feels bad to think differently" because if you are to move society continually in a disasterous direction, you better have a darn good reason for doing so.

If you want to posit a specific worldview you want people to ascribe to, that's your perogative, but I think your definition is far too narrow for the baseline of "not a liberal".

Your criteria is more like the foundation for a specific ideology or political party, rather than what I'm doing which is just establishihing what base level ideology that has seeped into most modern thought is incorrect.

This is where we differ I believe. If I'm reading you correctly, I assume you ascribe to white nationalism, and a superiority caste of races and other groups based on some to be defined criteria, and only then are you not a liberal.

The goal of the 3 things I laid out is not to have a purity spiral. Not a liberal can be a big umbrella, it's not meant to only weed out everyone except the "most based of the most based"

As a Christian I fundamentally reject many of the beliefs I assume you hold, based on my understanding that we all come from Noah and his 3 sons, I do not believe meritocracy is liberal or bad. The Bible in Proverbs talks about what happens to the diligent wise worker vs the lazy foolish worker....that is meritocracy.

I don't believe in dividing by classes. In fact, the Bible says if a rich man enters your church, don't give him preferential treatment, treat him exactly the same as anyone else in the church. God is not a discriminator of persons. Someone's class is utterly meaningless.

You with your beliefs would fall into the not a liberal category, however, you'd turn just about everyone else into a liberal who doesn't ascribe to the specific beliefs you've laid out.

If you look at my 3 beliefs, they're vary wide and encompassing.

That women voting was retarded should be obvious to anyone who studies the issue and thinks critically.

That the civil rights act was an injustce law should be evident to anyone who thinks about what humans should be allowed to do, studies history, and looks at the fruit of the civil rights act.

That there is a problem with the black community, most specifically for the purposes of this list, in America, is so obvious a blind man could see it.

These are all three things that are fairly evident truths that many many people could rationally fall under even though they may differ in many other ways.

I as a Christian, and an atheist would differ on many other things, but we could agree on these core issues. In that case, neither of us would be liberals.

Liberal values are the values, generally taken as gospel starting in the 1960s and later.

The goal isn't to make a very narrow category of who is and isn't not a liberal, it's to recogonize that this generally speaking, 1960s starting worldview is incorrect, and those who still ascribe to it, need to not ascribe to it or at the very least, search for themselves to at least justify why these accepted beliefs are correct beyond "society says it's this way and it feels bad to think differently".

If you want to posit a specific worldview you want people to ascribe to, that's your perogative, but I think your definition is far too narrow for what is "not a liberal".

Your criteria is more like the foundation for a specific ideology or political party, rather than what I'm doing which is just establishihing what base level ideology that has seeped into most modern thought is incorrect.