How Postlogue Selects Its Voices: A Glimpse Into the Process
At Postlogue, we don’t just ask, “What would a great writer of the past say about today?” We ask, “Which of history’s sharpest minds would say it best?”
Every day, the world delivers a new set of challenges—wars, scandals, breakthroughs, power struggles. The news cycle moves at a relentless pace, but wisdom is timeless. That’s where Postlogue comes in.
We curate the most pressing topics of the day and ask:
• Who in history understood this problem best?
• Who had the most piercing insights into human nature, politics, war, or progress?
• Who would challenge conventional wisdom, who would defend it, and who would shred it apart?
From there, we select a handful of voices—thinkers, statesmen, satirists, revolutionaries—and let them weigh in. But not all perspectives make the cut.
How We Decide What Gets Published
1. The Best Takes Win – We don’t publish everything we generate. We curate the most insightful, compelling, and thought-provoking pieces. If it doesn’t challenge assumptions or elevate the conversation, it doesn’t make it to print.
2. The Right Voice for the Right Moment – Some events call for the fire and thunder of Churchill, others for the acid wit of Mencken, and others for the merciless clarity of Orwell or de Tocqueville. The key is matching the moment with the mind best equipped to dissect it.
3. Debates That Transcend Time – When history’s greatest minds disagree, we let them. At Postlogue, debates are not limited by era or geography. Adam Smith and Karl Marx may spar over capitalism. George Orwell and Niccolò Machiavelli might face off on power and propaganda. Frederick Douglass and Teddy Roosevelt could argue about the role of America on the world stage. The past does not just speak—it debates, collides, and evolves.
4. A Touch of Secret Sauce – Not everything about our process is set in stone. We are evolving. We are learning from you, the reader. What grabs attention? What sparks debate? What challenges your thinking in ways modern commentary does not?
Over time, Postlogue will refine how we pair topics with thinkers, how we structure debates, and how we surface the voices that need to be heard most. In short, this isn’t just a publication—it’s an experiment in intellectual time travel that gets smarter as it goes.
Who Would Debate What?
On Democracy:
• Pericles (Ancient Greece) vs. James Madison (American Founding Father) – Can democracy truly survive in large nations, or does it inevitably decay into factionalism and mob rule?
On Capitalism:
• Adam Smith (1723–1790) vs. Karl Marx (1818–1883) – Is capitalism the ultimate driver of progress, or an engine of inequality that must be dismantled?
On Morality and Power:
• Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) vs. Ayn Rand (1905–1982) – Is morality about self-sacrifice and faith, or self-interest and reason?
On the Role of the State:
• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) vs. Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) – Do people need strong rulers to keep them in check, or is government itself the root of all oppression?
Why This Matters
Today’s news cycle is a whirlwind of opinions, but few truly rise above the noise.
Postlogue is different. It brings perspective from those who have already seen how history unfolds.
Because, while the past is prologue, Postlogue harnesses history as an engine of discovery—where time is a frontier, not a boundary.
At Postlogue, we don’t just ask, “What would a great writer of the past say about today?” We ask, “Which of history’s sharpest minds would say it best?”
Every day, the world delivers a new set of challenges—wars, scandals, breakthroughs, power struggles. The news cycle moves at a relentless pace, but wisdom is timeless. That’s where Postlogue comes in.
We curate the most pressing topics of the day and ask:
• Who in history understood this problem best?
• Who had the most piercing insights into human nature, politics, war, or progress?
• Who would challenge conventional wisdom, who would defend it, and who would shred it apart?
From there, we select a handful of voices—thinkers, statesmen, satirists, revolutionaries—and let them weigh in. But not all perspectives make the cut.
How We Decide What Gets Published
1. The Best Takes Win – We don’t publish everything we generate. We curate the most insightful, compelling, and thought-provoking pieces. If it doesn’t challenge assumptions or elevate the conversation, it doesn’t make it to print.
2. The Right Voice for the Right Moment – Some events call for the fire and thunder of Churchill, others for the acid wit of Mencken, and others for the merciless clarity of Orwell or de Tocqueville. The key is matching the moment with the mind best equipped to dissect it.
3. Debates That Transcend Time – When history’s greatest minds disagree, we let them. At Postlogue, debates are not limited by era or geography. Adam Smith and Karl Marx may spar over capitalism. George Orwell and Niccolò Machiavelli might face off on power and propaganda. Frederick Douglass and Teddy Roosevelt could argue about the role of America on the world stage. The past does not just speak—it debates, collides, and evolves.
4. A Touch of Secret Sauce – Not everything about our process is set in stone. We are evolving. We are learning from you, the reader. What grabs attention? What sparks debate? What challenges your thinking in ways modern commentary does not?
Over time, Postlogue will refine how we pair topics with thinkers, how we structure debates, and how we surface the voices that need to be heard most. In short, this isn’t just a publication—it’s an experiment in intellectual time travel that gets smarter as it goes.
Who Would Debate What?
On Democracy:
• Pericles (Ancient Greece) vs. James Madison (American Founding Father) – Can democracy truly survive in large nations, or does it inevitably decay into factionalism and mob rule?
On Capitalism:
• Adam Smith (1723–1790) vs. Karl Marx (1818–1883) – Is capitalism the ultimate driver of progress, or an engine of inequality that must be dismantled?
On Morality and Power:
• Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) vs. Ayn Rand (1905–1982) – Is morality about self-sacrifice and faith, or self-interest and reason?
On the Role of the State:
• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) vs. Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) – Do people need strong rulers to keep them in check, or is government itself the root of all oppression?
Why This Matters
Today’s news cycle is a whirlwind of opinions, but few truly rise above the noise.
Postlogue is different. It brings perspective from those who have already seen how history unfolds.
Because, while the past is prologue, Postlogue harnesses history as an engine of discovery—where time is a frontier, not a boundary.