Introduction to Liberal Universalism

Intro

In recent years I have noticed an increasing number of people who are looking for answers about the failures of Western civilization and its institutions.

People who suspect something is wrong, or are entirely disillusioned and hopeless. Trying to make sense of the chaos and articulate their frustrations, but with no clear direction.

Fascinatingly, it does not appear to be a partisan issue. Problems can be observed on both sides of the political spectrum, as long as one has an open mind and remains free of total ideological commitment.

Liberals say: “nationalism!”, “populism!”, “racism!”.

Conservatives say: “cultural Marxism!”, “globalism!”, “elites!”.

Both sides are partially correct about the symptoms, but remain blind to the underlying disease. What it likely means is that the current consistently deepening political divide is artificial, and driven by a lack of clarity - which I’m hoping to provide.

First, let’s establish what exactly is the subject of our analysis, and what it represents.

Theory

Liberal universalism is a philosophical notion that assumes the universality of Western liberal values, such as individual rights, democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law - ideals borrowing from the Enlightenment era.

It is, notably, distinct from liberalism, being just one specific interpretation of the broader liberal tradition.

Universalism’s uniqueness lies in the assertion that these values are not only applicable within Western societies, but should be promoted and implemented globally.

A goal so noble it became the justification for every international overreach since 1945, and the foundation of a number of international institutions, such as: the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Criminal Court.

And not without a reason - to fully understand its widespread adoption and influence we have to consider its historical context.

Historical Baggage

Liberal universalism emerged as a response to the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust.

Originating in Europe and North America, its conception reflected the scars left by totalitarian regimes and the desire to prevent future atrocities, as well as post-colonial shifts in global power dynamics.

Its inherent emotional appeal and moral framework made it an attractive ideology for post-war reconstruction and international cooperation - at the same time making it resistant to criticism.

During the Cold War, it was portrayed as a bulwark against the spread of communism, further solidifying its position in Western political thought and embedding itself within international institutions, which rapidly expanded their influence with the backing of emerging superpowers.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, liberal universalism had no more serious challengers and gained even more traction. It was seen as the triumphant ideology, as described in Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992), at which point it gained the status of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Modern Times

The 21st century brought mass migration on an unprecedented scale, terrorism, economic stagnation, and rising backlash from various groups — none of which fit the universalist script. Rather than adapt, the ideology doubled down, pathologizing dissent as “populism” and framing failures as crises or insufficient commitment.

Even though Fukuyama later acknowledged the “internal contradictions of liberal democracy”, he still views it as a system to be fixed, rather than abandoned. Many others cling onto the same belief, especially within academic and policy-making circles.

The opposition, however small, has been steadily growing. With a certain sense of urgency, now I join in questioning the prevailing orthodoxy.

Thesis

Throughout this post, I will argue why liberal universalism is fundamentally flawed, and why it should be viewed as extremist, rather than representative of any moderate, rational position.

I posit that both liberalism and conservatism can coexist and complement each other. What isn’t compatible is the ideological orthodoxy that refuses to acknowledge the validity of alternative perspectives, blinded by its insatiable ambition of world domination against all odds.

Our conflict is not between left and right, but between self-determined national sovereignty and global authoritarianism.

Seems crazy? Well, I’d love you to prove me wrong. But if you can’t… then perhaps it’s time to reconsider what we’ve been told all along. And wouldn’t that be something to behold?

Through a careful analysis of primary sources, and supported by secondary sources, I will show you how liberal universalism:

1. Self-imposes as a global governance model,
2. Persists while remaining largely unnoticed,
3. Encourages perception of its own superiority,
4. Remains immune to change or adaptation,
5. Corrupts academic foundations due to its assumptions,
6. Produces prescriptive research with predetermined outcomes,
7. Leads to imposition of Western values on other cultures,
8. Results in various pathologies we can observe in today’s world.

Personal Stakes

For reasons that will become clear later, I’d like to expose myself shamelessly to you.

I was born and raised in Poland, a post-Soviet country where the communist ambitions of the USSR left deep scars on the national psyche. These scars, well known to other Eastern European nations, manifest as a collective skepticism towards grand ideologies and utopian promises.

Communists weren’t the first to try. Our history is riddled with failed attempts at imposing various ideologies. Despite this - or perhaps because of it - our national identity remains resilient, shaped by centuries of struggle for sovereignty and self-determination.

Since Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004, I have observed the rapid transformation of my homeland under the influence of Western liberal values. Plenty of developments have been positive, but not all changes were welcomed by everyone.

One of these changes has been the increasing pressure to conform to the idealism of Western Europe, and the expectation to trust that this path leads to progress and prosperity - a worldview many of us see as deeply naive.

Let’s examine it more closely. 10 blade, please.

Diagnosis

If this is all so obvious and ever-present, why does nobody talk about it?

Hidden in Plain Sight

The name “liberal universalism” is little known outside of a limited number of academic circles.

There are similar terms, such as “liberal internationalism” or “liberal international order”, but they are not exactly the same. Nonetheless, they are largely absent from mainstream discourse, also being limited to certain fields of study.

There is “globalism”, but that term is so overused that its understanding varies greatly. It might be interpreted as anything from economic globalization to conspiracy theories, making it an unreliable reference point.

Therefore, the ideology remains largely invisible to the general public.

What is visible, are its underlying principles. These have been so deeply ingrained into the fabric of Western societies and international institutions over the past decades, that all people involved operate under the assumption that these are self-evident truths.

Since these principles are rarely questioned (because how dare you), their implications often go unnoticed, and universalism continues to evade public scrutiny.

Any criticism limited strictly to the insiders creates an echo chamber where dissenting voices are easily marginalized.

This is where my analysis comes in ;)

Unusual Suspects

If not some shadowy cabal of deep state actors, then who could be so deeply hypocritical, yet self-righteous?

There is no single answer to that question, but the most prominent proponents are often found within:

• academic institutions,
• international organizations,
• activist groups,
• and certain political leaders that advocate for global governance.

People who are supposedly educated, enlightened, and progressive.

How’s that possible? Once again, no single answer. People are complex, and their motivations can be multifaceted. But they’re still human, so we can identify a few common patterns known to drive human behavior thanks to basic understanding of psychology and social dynamics.

Not an exhaustive list, but I think it covers most bases:

However, due to in-group dynamics, their motivations often go unexamined. There are no incentives to question the status quo. Very little external scrutiny.

A Conspiracy That Isn’t

So I’ve just described this complex self-reinforcing belief system. There must be some ulterior motive behind it all, right? Some group (wink, wink) orchestrating this?

Well… no. At least, I have not found anything that would indicate such thing.

It is more of an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interactions of various actors within the system, each pursuing their own interests and agendas.

Complex - absolutely. Far-reaching - for sure. But it’s not hidden, nor driven by a single, uniform group.

It’s openly described in:

• academic papers from a number of disciplines,
• publicly available UN documents,
• various policy papers and reports from think tanks and NGOs,
• the international law.

It’s just that… few people even care about these, unless they already are a cog in the machine. And those who aren’t, usually don’t dare to question the supposedly humanitarian motives behind it all.

Once stripped of its sanctity, what remains is a power structure like any other. One that seeks to maintain its influence and control, often at the expense of those it claims to help.

Good vs Evil

For an ideology that prides itself on rationality and progress, it is deeply ironic how much it relies on a simplistic binary worldview.

My favorite example of this is the paper Liberal universalism in crisis: The nationalist populist challenge of transnational political standards (Kuhn, 2018).

The explanation of the right-wing populist attack on transnational standards of pluralism and cooperation as caused by unsolved problems of the economic structure is often disputed by regarding populism a “cultural backlash” supported by groups now deprived of their former predominant position by new universalist standards.

Right from the start, the author presents a false dichotomy: the good “transnational standards of pluralism and cooperation” vs the bad “right-wing populist attack”.

Bit reductive, innit? Well, this axiom permeates throughout the poli-sci literature that operates within this framework. Through this lens, they excuse their actions as necessary measures to uphold what they see as universal values:

While particularism is never absent in politics, the point of ideological reference is the appreciated value of “equal treatment,” which justifies policies going in the “right” direction and makes others “a necessary evil.”

With their perceived moral high ground, proponents of liberal universalism view themselves as participants in a grandiose struggle between good and evil (just ignore the “necessary” ones).

They are the good ones, of course - and this is where I digress.

Implicit Assumptions

Above I have described the explicit assumptions of liberal universalism. On their own, they might seem benign. However, there are also derivative implicit assumptions, which have more significant consequences.

First, let’s reiterate the explicit ones:

• E1 → The belief in the universality of liberal values.
• E2 → The assumption that liberal universalism will prevent conflicts and promote peace.
• E3 → The conviction that these values would benefit everyone, regardless of cultural or historical background.
• E4 → The unquestionable sanctity of human rights as defined by Western standards.

Stemming from these, we can identify several implicit ones, which might feel more familiar to you:

These implicit assumptions are often the root cause of various pathologies observed in societies influenced by liberal universalism. Understanding the underlying, um… logic (being a bit generous here) allows us to realize how these pathologies are justified and understand why they’re so fiercely defended.

Pathologies

Moral Superiority

Ah, morality. It lets us feel nice about ourselves, and gives us a sense of purpose. Makes sense for our ideology of choice to be moral, right?

Well, a significant problem arises when this perceived morality is understood as universal and used as a justification for achieving political goals.

Not necessarily deliberately - usually through naivete or ignorance - but the end result is the same: a group of followers perceiving their worldview as superior. One that dismisses any opposing viewpoints as inherently immoral or evil.

Have you ever criticized certain policies or actions of Western governments, only to be met with accusations of being “anti-democratic”, “illiberal” or “against human rights”? Did somebody ever invoke “liberal values” or “international law” as if those were absolute, unquestionable truths?

Yep, this is the echo of universalist moral superiority, usually accompanied by contempt or even outright hostility.

Pseudoscience

Perceived marginalization of certain groups, amplified by biased academic research, leads to distorted understanding of what constitutes as “rational” or even “scientific”. Rather than objective pursuit of knowledge, science becomes a tool for validating preconceived notions and justifying ideological agendas.

As a result, papers like Towards black methods in research with refugees (Rashid, 2025) emerge.

The what methods? Ok, fine, let’s not judge the book by its cover. What is it about?

Abstract

[…] Thinking with empirical material from a research study engaging with forcibly displaced interlocutors from East and Central Africa and refugee resettlement personnel, the article illuminates critical methods of interpreting the experiences of refugees and forms of resettlement through the lenses of black studies and black feminist thought.

Trying to present itself as empirical research, the article relies heavily on qualitative interviews. Interviews with people who have clear incentives to perpetuate the asylum system.

Fine, maybe such information could be useful in some limited scope for understanding personal experiences.

But… not far down in the “Introduction” section we can find an outright dismissal of actual empirical research:

Moreover, in relation to experiences of black, brown, Indigenous, and people of colour, Patterson et al. (2016) discuss how approaches identified as ‘rigorous’ and ‘evidence-based’ are limited in their ability to consider intersecting identities such as gender, age, sexuality, class, race, ethnicity, and dis/ability among others.

Another prominent example is De-Bordering Solidarity: Civil Society Actors Assisting Refused Asylum Seekers in Small Cities (Dimitriadis & Ambrosini, 2022) which openly encourages the subversion of state policies:

Introduction

[…] We use the concept of ‘de-bordering solidarity’ (Ambrosini 2021, 2022), which indicates the various actions of help towards immigrants undertaken by actors in civil society in contesting asylum policies and borders in practice, through support activities which challenge borders’ closure and exclusion of irregular immigrants from social services (Dimitriadis et al. 2021). This concept emphasizes that these deeds can have a political meaning, although the people involved often do not (apparently) aim to achieve political transformations, or do not declare this openly (Fleischmann 2020).

Despite being well aware of the political implications of their actions, the authors apparently see no issue with pursuing them anyway, all while instrumentalizing activists seemingly unaware of the broader consequences.

Who allowed these to be published? Why, it was the Journal of Refugee Studies, from Oxford University Press.

Contrary to what one might expect from a journal published by such a prestigious institution, its content rarely presents itself as objective or balanced, now even rejecting empirical rigor in favor of ideological alignment.

Ideological Capture of Institutions

Rhetoric-heavy research with predetermined outcomes is one thing, but what happens when such research is used to inform policy decisions?

EU agencies, UN bodies, and various NGOs often rely on academic studies to justify their actions. When these studies are biased or flawed, it leads to policies that may not be in the best interest of the populations they aim to serve.

Recently, I’ve looked into some of that research.

This is not an exhaustive list of flaws within cited sources.

We can’t be sure of the data — not just from unavailability (NDAs gate 40-50% of key datasets, per PLOS 2024), but from skews like BKA’s misattributions (understating crime costs by 10-20%, per ifo 2025), which then ripple into economic models.

Optimistic long-term positives lure governments into over-openness, ignoring drags that hit welfare states hardest (Sweden’s net negative persisting 10+ years). Result? Budget overruns (e.g., Germany’s €29.7B 2023 asylum spend ballooned 20% from projections) and public backlash (60-70% Swedish concern per Novus 2025), eroding trust in institutions. Wrongful attributions amplify this - if crime costs are understated, policies budgets are misallocated and mismanaged, worsening cycles (e.g. more gray-market reliance).

Positives get policy greenlights, while negatives hide in footnotes, leading to “surprise” crises like Sweden’s gang surges or Denmark’s DKK 27B welfare hole. In aging Europe (worker ratios halving by 2040), betting on biased economic research could deepen inflation or inequality, with low-skill natives hit hardest.

Manifest Destiny v2.0

Conquest. Colonization. Imperialism. Call it what you will, but the purpose remains the same: imposing one’s values and systems onto others.

While universalists explicitly reject these ideas, their actions often mirror them in practice. As liberal values turned out to not be as universally accepted as initially thought, the proponents were increasingly resorting to more coercive methods of spreading their ideology.

For the greater good, of course - as they describe in the paper The politics of civil society narratives in authoritarian Vietnam (Vu & Le, 2022):

This article offers a nuanced and updated account on ideological struggles between state and civil society. The emphasis on the divergence and convergence of narratives by both the state and civil society is important, and forms part of the article’s claim to originality, since this point is often missed in the literature which tends to place the emphasis on civil society resistance or NGO-led activism

So the authoritarian states get to learn their lessons through artificial activism, inshallah. Uh, I mean… if universalism wills it.

What about democracies that are not receptive to universalist ideas? Sadly, even Japan gets trashed in the article Still a Negative Case? Japan’s Changing Refugee Policy (Rehm, 2024):

In conclusion, given Japan’s very limited history of granting humanitarian protection, the recent efforts to provide swift support to displaced peoples from Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Ukraine are commendable. At the same time, Japan has granted such protection through case-by-case responses that were tailor-made to the specific circumstances of each country, oftentimes bypassing the formal asylum process. This does not serve to quell questions about Japan’s commitment to international refugee law. […] As Japan continues to navigate global crises and geopolitical challenges by doubling down on values-based language that increasingly and explicitly underscores the principles of international law, the country must back its words with more action to truly become a positive case for people seeking refuge within its borders.

Through political pressure they impose international law, allowing them to override national legal frameworks. The humanitarian framing convinces the academics and politicians that this is “the right thing to do”, and the media are then reinforcing this belief among regular citizens.

Treatment

I hope you have not found this analysis too disheartening. While the problems are indeed complex and deeply rooted, there are ways to address them.

Instead of treating the symptoms, we would have to address the root causes. This means challenging the very foundations of the current system. In the following subsections, I will outline a bottom-up approach to reforming key areas affected by liberal universalism.

Disclaimer

This post is NOT meant to be a comprehensive blueprint for change. Its main purpose is the diagnosis of the problem, presented in a way that is accessible to a broad audience.

In every country the situation is different, and the specific strategies would have to be tailored to local contexts. The “Treatment” section is meant to show that change is possible, and can be achieved through cooperative action.

Crazy to think research doesn’t have to present a prescriptive one-size-fits-all solution all the time, huh?

Transparency of the Academia

First and foremost, the ones whom I perceive as the main perpetrators are academics. They produce the research that shapes public discourse, influences policy decisions, and legitimizes the actions of governments, judicial bodies, and international organizations.

Therefore, addressing the issues within academia is crucial and likely to have a ripple effect on all other areas. If not addressed, other reforms would be likely superficial and short-lived.

As I was digging through various academic papers, I have noticed many recurring patterns, and their examination led me to think that most glaring issues can be solved through a combination of transparency and accountability. Without having to resort to direct state oversight or censorship - assuming the willingness to change exists, of course.

1. The concept of conflict of interests is quite narrow in its scope. It usually focuses on financial incentives, but there are other types of influences that can affect research outcomes.

• These influences do not have to be regarded as a bad thing per se. The point is twofold: to be able to evaluate whether the author remains objective despite their personal beliefs, and to provide a motivation for the author for self-reflection.
• If the academia operated under the assumption that all research is inherently biased, it would be easier to identify potential issues and address them accordingly.
• This is the reason why I’ve included the “Personal Stakes” subsection earlier - to demonstrate what it could look like. Decide for yourself whether such anchoring of reasoning in personal experience invalidates it or makes it more credible.

2. A similar issue arises with limited access to data used to back claims being made.

• One area where this is extremely prevalent is criminology. Usually citing “privacy concerns”, authors ignore the fact that anonymized datasets could be shared without compromising individual identities.
• Usually the raw data is available only upon request, and even then only to select individuals or institutions. In worst cases, access to data is guarded by NDA agreements.
• We all know why that is. If the reasoning behind the claims was sound, there would be no need to hide the data. This kind of unverifiable research should be rejected outright.

3. Finally, there is the issue of methodological transparency.

• As of now, there are no standardized guidelines for stating the hypotheses (when dealing with empirical research) and underlying assumptions (in philosophy-adjacent fields) of the research. Instead, these are often buried deep within the text, or worse - left unstated altogether.
• If these were explicitly stated upfront, it would be easier to evaluate the validity of the research and its conclusions, and to differentiate between objective findings and subjective interpretations.
• Similar to the “Thesis” section of my post, a clear articulation of these elements would enhance the overall rigor of academic work.

If these three points were implemented, it would eliminate a significant portion of manipulative research.

I don’t even dream of suggesting transparency regarding funding sources. Unlike my other points, this would be virtually unverifiable without a centralized oversight body.

Debate on Human Rights

Once the perceived sanctity of human rights is challenged and its universality no longer taken for granted, it opens the door for a much-needed debate on their actual definition and scope.

It needs to be acknowledged that these rights are not enforced equally across all societies. Different cultures and legal systems interpret and prioritize these rights in various ways.

One aspect I find particularly troubling is the ever-evolving definition of what constitutes a “human right”. For example: what started as the right to equal treatment has now expanded to include direct calls for preferential treatment based on group identity.

In the report Agenda towards transformative change for racial justice and equality we can read:

Furthermore, the High Commissioner calls for renewed leadership and vision, through creative, effective and comprehensive reparatory justice responses, as a critical component of dismantling systemic racism.

In this single sentence we have calls for:

• a political change (“renewed leadership and vision”),
• to offer preferential treatment (“reparatory justice responses”),
• maintaining deliberate vagueness (“creative”),
• for the sake of universalist assumptions (“dismantling systemic racism”),
• while the academic community still doesn’t define “racism” in a clear and consistent manner.

Digging further, we can learn what “reparatory justice responses” actually are:

The UN Human Rights Office today published a report calling on States and others to double down on delivering reparatory justice for Africans and people of African descent, including through formal apologies, truth-seeking, memorialisation, medical and psychosocial support and compensation

Um… no, thank you? Call me back when you’re democratically elected, ciao.

This is a significant overreach, and an example of how the concept of human rights has been weaponized to justify actions of unproven effectiveness, the results of which are in no way quantifiable. As you have probably guessed by now, it is not explained at what point the “systemic racism” is considered “dismantled”.

Even worse - such measures often lead to further division and resentment among different groups, as the suggested measures are perceived as unfair or unjust by those who do not benefit from them.

Instead of arguing on a case-by-case basis, it is assumed that discrimination exists everywhere. Then, when nothing is done in response to perceived injustices, it encourages victimhood mentality and incites social unrest.

Without the universalist assumptions, these rights could be reduced to their more fundamental form, in which they could - ironically - be applied more universally. A defensible framework for human rights would focus on equalization of rights (freedom from oppression) rather than attempts at equalization of outcomes (entitlement to resources).

These are not novel ideas. Philosophers have debated the nature of rights for centuries. What is new, is the context in which these debates are taking place, and the implications they have for global governance.

Audit of NGOs

Here, instead of recommendations or calls for a reform, I’d like to present you with a set of operational guidelines for identifying and countering misinformation.

1. If an organization lies, it needs to be condemned.

2. If multiple organizations lie in the same way, they need to be investigated, and their funding sources audited (assuming independence of relevant authorities).

3. Misinformation - as orchestrated by universalist NGOs - can be spotted quite easily. Look out for:

• moral hysteria,
• emotional appeals over factual arguments,
• citing dubious sources like reports from think tanks or studies that lack empirical backing,
• invoking vague sets of “values” without defining them (quite common recently, as I’ve noticed),
• buzzwords mirroring academic jargon, e.g. “transnational standards”, “climate justice”, “pluralism”, etc.,
• when they’re in offence: reframing of criticized claims, e.g. “Asylum needs reform” → “Attack on human rights”,
• when they’re in defence: reframing of questions asked, e.g. “Why do you support open borders?” → “Do you want people to suffer?”.

4. Counters to deploy:

• asking for specific definitions of terms used,
• requesting empirical evidence for claims made,
• pointing out logical fallacies in their arguments,
• highlighting inconsistencies in their narratives over time,
• maintaining emotional detachment to lower their guard and avoid making mistakes yourself,
• mirroring to gain rapport and make them more candid.

5. Common actors whose narratives are worth scrutinizing and comparing:

• Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights,
• Amnesty International,
• Human Rights Watch,
• UN and its various agencies (UNHCR, OHCHR, etc.),
• Climate-centric NGOs (Greenpeace, WWF, etc.),
• Individuals who self-brand themselves under some hashtag (e.g. #FBPE, #IStandWithUkraine, etc.).

Given some practice, patterns will become more apparent, and spotting misinformation will become your second nature.

Conclusions

1. The fact that you’re reading this means you’re already ahead of most people. This puts you in a privileged position, and with privilege comes responsibility. Share what you’ve learned with the fatigued masses.
2. Change is inevitable. The universalist framework is already showing cracks in all its facets. It is up to us to shape the direction of this change, rather than being passive observers.
3. I believe that dragging liberal universalism into the public view is the best way to start dismantling it through peaceful means. Only through open discussion and critical examination can we hope to understand its flaws and not repeat the same mistakes.
4. For this change to be permanent, a significant change within the academia is necessary. We need to ensure greater transparency and accountability in research practices, especially in state-sponsored studies used for policy-making.
5. A significant problem is the suppression of counter-narratives in mass media. Regardless of what you think of Elon Musk, X remains one of the few platforms where free speech is still somewhat tolerated.

Oh, and I’d like to apologize for lying to you at the beginning. This is not an “introduction” - it’s a full-blown vivisection.

Now it’s your turn to take the scalpel.

I remain available on X shall you feel the need to discuss anything in private. Otherwise, the comment section below awaits your thoughts.

Europe’s Near Future

Fellow Europeans,

As we are witnessing a growing discontent with the established order and increasing social tensions, the very universalist foundations of the European project are being questioned.

Not long ago, an open letter signed by 9 EU state leaders called for a re-evaluation of the ECHR. First of its kind coordinated effort to push back against the unquestionable doctrine of universal human rights.

Soon after, Donald Tusk - former President of the European Council and current PM of Poland - gave an interview in which he explicitly praised pragmatism over idealism:

“In some countries it’s [deportation of criminals] still impossible because of these very traditional verdicts from the courts that human rights are much more important than security. I’ve been very blunt and even brutal with my colleagues. We cannot wait for these changes. We have to act now.”

“My role in Europe is rather to encourage prime ministers and presidents to do something more than the conventions allow us,” Tusk explained. “I know it sounds a little strange coming from me, the veteran of the fight for human rights. But we have to respect reality. Politics must be about reality, not about dreams only.”

I can’t tell you if this is a genuine shift of his beliefs or just electoral desperation, but one thing is clear: It is a direct challenge to ECHR’s legitimacy and authority.

Previous Polish government that dared to question ECHR was promptly punished with financial sanctions and political isolation. Now, a fleeting outcry of the mainstream media and NGOs is all we’ve gotten in response.

I’ve done my best to show you the actual political landscape of Europe, free from the usual euphemisms and platitudes. I hope this knowledge serves you well.

Go now. Take care of yourselves, and of each other.

Wir schaffen das.