America First and Groypers thread

Sa6re

Sparrow
ADL and SPLC also stroke the fire of 'antisemitism' to stay in business. Majority of people are pissed at the tribes for their bad behavior of those two organization, but these same organization use it as proof for their continued existence.
It’s a ponzi scheme but with shame as it’s currency. Emotional tormenters, chaos spreaders. They’re saurons forces, GW’s Chaos legions and lovecrafts abyssal monsters, our modern culture is rife with these descriptions.
 

Tom Slick

Woodpecker
Orthodox
On Saturday, July 10, CPAC was in Dallas with President Trump. Nick crashed the hotel with some Groypers, then went to the Sheraton across the street and held a mini-rally. I was there (had to leave before the speech began since it got off so late; was time for vigil service) and with only a couple of hours notice, nearly 200 people showed up, including Jaden McNeil, John Doyle, and the young Infowars presenter that does American Journal whose name I don't know.

Elijah Schaffer caught up with Nick and the Groypers at CPAC literally asking questions to a Salon journo.


Here's Nick's speech from the Sheraton. It's good.

Also here from a lower res YT stream.

 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
N35dMw5i.jpeg
 
I can't take anybody seriously that calls Mr. Jenner 'she' in a serious manner. If Mr. Jenner cut off his penis, he is a male Eunuch that is pretending to be a woman. He is not a female. Eunuchs were not called females in China. They were males that had their penises cut off so they wouldn't seduce concubines. They dressed likes males and did not try to pretend they were females (maybe there were rare exceptions that I don't know about).

I don't hate Mr. Jenner for his mental problem. However, I am not going to celebrate this. He had no reason to cut off his penis (unless he was doing this to avoid sinning and even then, it is extreme). He needs counseling. I don't want him to be a leader though as he has serious mental issues.

 

Athanasius

Pelican
Turning Point US invited a lewd actress known as Brandi Love to an event as a VIP. The even had attendees from the ages of 15-24. After a backlash from Christian conservatives (who Newsweek says are "probably white supremacists" - no evidence resented) she was disinvited.

Ben "conservative businesswoman" Domenech is the co-founder of Redstate and founder of The Federalist. We're back to the old question: Exactly what are we "conserving?"

These coomers can't even get the simplest building blocks of a stable society right: Men, Women, chastity, marriage, family.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
By now, I hope more people are seeing the myth of "how X chooses to live doesn't harm me!" This Cato libertarian mentality is what surrendered the field to the marauding left without a shot being fired. Now our children are subject to relentless assault of this wickedness throughout the media, vulnerable minors are having their genitals mutilated, and people are at risk of getting fired from their job if they speak up.

Nothing to fight over here! Just live and let live! Except that the other side isn't going to let you do that.

Con Inc is all about disarming (and distracting) the real right.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
By now, I hope more people are seeing the myth of "how X chooses to live doesn't harm me!" This Cato libertarian mentality is what surrendered the field to the marauding left without a shot being fired. Now our children are subject to relentless assault of this wickedness throughout the media, vulnerable minors are having their genitals mutilated, and people are at risk of getting fired from their job if they speak up.
Counterpoint: Bringing into the public political square DOES cause harm.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
By now, I hope more people are seeing the myth of "how X chooses to live doesn't harm me!"
A lot of us are former libertarians because we did want to be "free" the same way our founding fathers did. Free to travel, free to say whatever we want, free to do anything that is not a crime to others.

The problem is that it's generally intelligent and generally peaceful people who are sucked into the libertarian movement. But the rest of society absolutely needs boundaries and rules and restrictions. I had a bunch of libertarian buddies who would illegally brew their own alcohol and have a monthly party. It was a lot of fun and no one got hurt.

But zero alcohol legislation is an unrealistic model for society. I live in a vibrant and multicultural city and I sure am glad there are liquor restrictions and laws restricting bar's opening hours and ages of their patrons. It creates nothing but nuicances and criminal behavior. It's the same with guns. A bunch of Montana boys owning tons of rifles is no problem but cities have found handguns to be an enormous problem leading to high murder rates, and therefore cities try to restrict handguns.

It's like this on any number of issues, but the bottom line is libertarianism ignores morality and the fact that there are good societal ideas and destructive ones. It's foolish to say "every idea should be given equal voice in the public square". That's anarchist and animalistic. We developed civilization, religion, and law for a reason, and it is to make society more peaceful, harmonious, productive, and happy.
 

stugatz

Pelican
Turning Point US invited a lewd actress known as Brandi Love to an event as a VIP. The even had attendees from the ages of 15-24. After a backlash from Christian conservatives (who Newsweek says are "probably white supremacists" - no evidence resented) she was disinvited.

All I'll say is that I think I lived a secular lifestyle for too long - I feel guilty for immediately recognizing her in this tweet, LOL. :laughter:

I'm actually surprised Turning Point has social conservatives - good to hear.
 
A lot of us are former libertarians because we did want to be "free" the same way our founding fathers did. Free to travel, free to say whatever we want, free to do anything that is not a crime to others.

The problem is that it's generally intelligent and generally peaceful people who are sucked into the libertarian movement. But the rest of society absolutely needs boundaries and rules and restrictions. I had a bunch of libertarian buddies who would illegally brew their own alcohol and have a monthly party. It was a lot of fun and no one got hurt.

But zero alcohol legislation is an unrealistic model for society. I live in a vibrant and multicultural city and I sure am glad there are liquor restrictions and laws restricting bar's opening hours and ages of their patrons. It creates nothing but nuicances and criminal behavior. It's the same with guns. A bunch of Montana boys owning tons of rifles is no problem but cities have found handguns to be an enormous problem leading to high murder rates, and therefore cities try to restrict handguns.

It's like this on any number of issues, but the bottom line is libertarianism ignores morality and the fact that there are good societal ideas and destructive ones. It's foolish to say "every idea should be given equal voice in the public square". That's anarchist and animalistic. We developed civilization, religion, and law for a reason, and it is to make society more peaceful, harmonious, productive, and happy.
You point out some good issues. However, there are some problems heer:

1) Age restrictions for alcohol make some sense. However, the age limit being 21 instead of 18 (or even 16) makes 0 sense. If you can be charged as an adult for a crime or serve in the military, why can't you go to the tavern and enjoy a beer?

2) Gun laws don't really reduce crime. The penalty for having an illegal gun (or stealing a gun from someone) is much lighter than shooting someone or using a gun to rob a bank. However, murder and robbery laws fail to deter criminals. The issue is that gun laws mostly hurt law-abiding citizens.

3) Some laws are necessary BUT most laws are simply about control of others.

In a true libertarian society, people's rights end when they start to hurt others. Ex.---you can have a gun but you can't use this gun to threaten me or shoot me. To make a decent libertarian society is a challenge and would require having a set of easy to understand and fair laws with strict punishments for those that break the laws. It would also require unalienable rights that can't be voted away (sadly, we see the US Constitution made it too easy for idiots to choose representatives happy to vote away important rights).

I agree with your main point though even though it goes against my ideals. The bottom line is too many people are selfish children with a serious lack of common sense. I do still think that a lot of dumb laws can be taken away with no harm to society as long as common sense is applied. I think The Constitution Party seems to have the goal of a common sense government that is small but wants to put America First (like having strict immigration laws). The party is probably the closest the Founding fathers' ideal. It is guided by biblical principles but it respects freedom of religion.


This part of the platform is quite important I think:
• “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
 

Athanasius

Pelican
A lot of us are former libertarians because we did want to be "free" the same way our founding fathers did. Free to travel, free to say whatever we want, free to do anything that is not a crime to others.

The problem is that it's generally intelligent and generally peaceful people who are sucked into the libertarian movement. But the rest of society absolutely needs boundaries and rules and restrictions. I had a bunch of libertarian buddies who would illegally brew their own alcohol and have a monthly party. It was a lot of fun and no one got hurt.
Libertarianism is like agreeing to a formal boxing match in a field with the town bully. The bell rings, you step out in the ring, and the bully promptly punches you right in the testicles.

I considered myself a libertarian until I discovered a fatal flaw: all sides have to abide by it. The non-aggression principle is one thing if it's you and like-minded neighbors. It's quite another when you attempt to apply it to the multicultural economic zone, Globalist American Empire, or whatever it is you prefer to call today's United States. If other parties act in consistently bad faith to undermine you, then all you are doing is foolishly disarming yourself by adhering to a philsophy that no one else is following.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I considered myself a libertarian until I discovered a fatal flaw: all sides have to abide by it.

Libertarianism is essentially just the original form of liberalism that emerged in from about 1650-1900. Sometimes now called classical liberalism.

Another issue is that liberalism by its very nature cannot assert itself, as it is against its own ideology. At the center is the belief in the individual as an agent for progress. If only everyone is left alone, we are better off. Some people speak of muscular liberalism, but there is no such thing. You can't believe both that and rigidly enforcing your ideas. Liberals also tend to be flounderers who couldn't enforce it if they tried.

I think the reason liberalism worked (from a materialist perspective) during past centuries is because it was wielded by wealthy, high IQ elites who remained considerably tethered into traditional family and social life. That was derailed considerably in the period about 1715-1815, when things became very liberal, leading to the mess of the early 19th century and the latter Victorian period. They were also were not hampered by the constraints of democracy.

When liberalism is given to the masses, they don't create an 8th symphony, romanticist art or write a book that will be remembered for centuries. They splodge around listening to Skrillex, buy prints of modernist art and half-read a book on polyamory. And it is not just the plebs that are descending into below-low-culture, the elites are joining them and increasingly living in debased manner; see Malia Obama on pot on Bill de Blasio's demonic antifa-child; not to mention crackhead Hunter.

What began in a movement elites found uplifting, has descended into sacrificing the foundations that upliftment was built on. It's not possible to create materially uplifting works when you are living in a materialist society. In a materialist society, the primary aim of men is ejaculation. You can see such venerated by the university sexologists. The end result of liberalism is becoming an animal, controlled by material pulls, which will increasingly elude you.

My observation is that in good times 90% of people will act liberally, which is ultimately to destroy your surroundings in pursuit of a declining yield of material goodies. It is literally the same as drug addiction.

There are also very few people of genuine liberal temperament. In a democracy, there is no chance for liberalism. Liberalism could only be imposed, as rigidly enforced as the tax code. As soon as society stopped enforcing those rules, liberalism would end promptly.

Liberalism is also the precursor of the left. A left was not going to form against King Henry VIII or Louis IX. It weakens the foundations of society. As society opens up and looses its traditions. The new liberal classes become wealthy and use that to take control of society. With a materialist mindset and greater freedom in organisation and thought, it is only a matter of time before politics involved millions with differing ideas, and almost all ultimately tethered to material concerns.

Further on the above, it seems that liberals shift left in times of progress and right in times of decline. I think of this as apologetic (left-leaning) and unapologetic (right-leaning).

An apologetic is someone who generally believes in freedom, science, materialism and "progress". Yet they see the disparities between themselves and others and want to lift others up. I believe this is a genuine impulse of theirs. Enter people more of the ilk of Sam Harris and the Weinstein bros.

An unapologetic is someone who generally believes in freedom, science, materialism and "progress" and doesn't feel the need to appologise for wielding and benefiting from them. Much of the grifter, astroturf "right" are just unapologetic liberals. Enter Denis Prager, Ben Shapiro and others.

Liberals are a powerful group of people as they posses a number of traits in high quantity - raw intelligence, logical thinking, the ability to see the world as it is more than as they would like it, empiricism, observation, clarity and so on. This is a few percent of people and they are responsible for most of the material upliftment in all of history. Thus I don't know if it is possible for them to really work within a traditional framework that is the foundation of society and their very existence. They will always become more powerful than traditional rulers who they see as a constraint.
 
Top