America First and Groypers thread

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.
Spot on. You have a book recommendation on this?
Spot on. You have a book recommendation on this?

Most of that has come from a series of observations and broad reading, exposure to various sources.

I'd say the biggest sources I can think of would be:

- RooshVForum
- reading about MBTI personality traits (especially in relation to politics)
- the book Tragedy and Hope (Quigley)
Most of that has come from a series of observations and broad reading, exposure to various sources.

I'd say the biggest sources I can think of would be:

- RooshVForum
- reading about MBTI personality traits (especially in relation to politics)
- the book Tragedy and Hope (Quigley)
Appreciate it. I'm way too impulsive and lazy too consume as much as you obviously have, but it helps to have some direction.
I thank you lads for being cordial and wondering about this but, okay, I'll shoot my shot without trying to be a sperg lol:

Alright, here's why AF is pozzed, infiltrated, lacks the proper caliber in character, and is not really a "Christian" org or any org to be taken seriously as a vehicle for saving M'urica.

For starters, going by paleoconservative or "right-wing" already divides the country. A Third Position uniting the best of both parties is preferable and has worked in this country, or at least part of it. Read into Huey Long's movement in the past, where he went to war against the system within the system before being assassinated by a tribesman. Or for more up to date check out New Frontier's political platform with what they are trying to accomplish.

Secondly, you have CONFIRMED Feds in the ranks in America First, such as Milo. Whom this was brought to Nick's attention many times. This was confirmed in court documents that he is an informant, digging dirt on those around him. Which is typical and unsurprising as he is a gay Zionist Jew...

Sources of him being an informant:



Milo also refused to name the people who raped kids on a yacht at a party he was at, and covered for them when pressed by Joe Rogan.


Thirdly, you have the CHARACTER PROBLEM that infests the very core of America First, in the inner circle.

The people in Fuentes' America First are down right immature, and don't have the chops for politics I hate to say it. Although there are some honorable exceptions to that, but it is surrounded by the likes of Feds such as Milo (possibly Baked Alaska as well), and behavior that is not suitable for what AF is trying to accomplish, such as swallowing dildos for instance. And no, I am not referring to Catboy, Baked Alaska also did that on stream and we all know he is very close to Nick.

Here is the link as I am not posting a picture of Baked with a plastic c*ck in his mouth as to not get banned.

So much for optics, am I right? Not to mention, some other things the groypers do such as Latino Zoomer for example, who sent dick pics to an underaged girl around the age of 13 if not mistaken, and has a number of made anti-white statements.


I am not intending to disappoint y'all, but I find this alarming for any serious political movement. Nonetheless, however, I do think PAC's such as AFPAC are at least good enough to find some like-minded and serious people. Create IRL connections, and branch out from there, but for running many of the zoomer groypers as candidates, nah. Either they change by maturing and growing up, run as long as they don't have embarrassing baggage such as sucking dildos or hanging with Confidential Informants such as Milo, or just not run at all as to not embarrass America First.

But nonetheless, yes, AF is to an extent pozzed and is in bed with informants, unfortunately. But there is still hope, nonetheless.


- OP

I think these are all more than fair points. Nick is obviously a very smart guy, and quite entertaining, but the movement needs quite a bit of polish if they want to become a force. Guys like beardson and Baked, for as much as I used to enjoy watching him, need to go. I tend to lean more towards John Doyle and Scott Greer these days.
I used to like these guys' takes. However, they refuse to broach the really important questions.

I still respect Alex Jones, to be honest. At least he is sincere and has Skin in the Game.
After Alex exposed himself this week with his complete lies about WW2 and trashing Nick and Ye, I have 0 respect for him. He is certainly a gatekeeping shill.
He wasn't trashing Nick and Ye themselves, just expressing a firm disagreement with them. He even invited Nick back on for a debate. That's fine in my books.
He said Nick was a little Nazi and probably has a homosexual attraction to Hitler. It was pretty low. Not to mention his liable about WW2. He will never in 1,000,000 years have an honest debate with anyone about WW2. The way he treated David Duke was proof enough to me that he has no intention of doing anything but making a big paycheck to be an off ramp.

"The answer to 1984 is 1776". Well, what was 1776 Alex? It was an organized rebellion, and anytime young men today speak of the evils you cut them off and shut them out. He and his family live in luxury while the rest of us toil in filth and poverty, of course he wants to protect this standing order, he makes out like a king in this evil system.

I should explain why I bring up the David Duke interview with Alex Jones so much and why it changed my opinion of Alex Jones that day. If you guys don't know who David Duke is, I suggest you Google him. He is probably the most knowledgeable historian in the west when it comes to the history of the Bolshevik revolution. He went to Russia to get a P.H.D. on the subject and some of the stories he has about it are beyond fascinating. He did this right after the fall of the USSR, so he was able to interview many people who lived through it before they passed on. The work and knowledge he has to share is beyond value. We are so blessed to have this man bring this to the west.

If you do know who David Duke is but you have never seen him talk because of the censorship by the media, I highly recommend you go watch him talk. Not just because of his knowledge on race, or the Bolshevik movement, but just to see the last of a dying breed. He is an extremely polite southern gentleman who simply wants the best for everyone, not just White People. So if you have heard of him but don't know him, be ready to once again see the depths our media lies about this "evil man".

When Jones interviewed him, he steered him off his subject expertise and when Duke went ahead and started down the route he would continue to either cut him off or change the subject. Duke being a 70+ year old gentleman was too polite and didn't force it back. The time ran out, Jones said "I will love to have you back" and of course he never will. When Duke started in with his direct knowledge of the Bolshevik revolution Jones was terrified.

I don't listen to David Duke much, but what little I have heard from him has been very life inspiring. One thing he talked about was his time in Russia and interviewing old men who lived through the revolution about a new church that was across the street. The story the old men told him was that it was originally a church and the Bolsheviks burned it down. In its place they put in a swimming pool, but the pool collapsed three times and they gave up thinking the land was cursed. It was left a pile of rubble until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and it was rebuilt into a church again. You just can't get that kind of amazing information in the west about what happened over there.
Last edited: