Here is the recording of our latest group discussion. In this session, the group peeled back the layers of the "America First" movement to expose an uncomfortable truth: hate can be charismatic. We often dismiss extremists as monsters or lunatics, but the conversation revealed why that is a dangerous underestimation. The group discussed how Nick Fuentes frames himself not as a hate-monger, but as a "cool," isolationist rebel fighting a corrupt system. He isn't just selling an ideology; he is selling a lifestyle. Zunair pushed back on this during the debate with clinical precision. He diagnosed this "charisma" not as intelligence, but as the high-functioning narcissism of a cult leader. He argued that the "anti-war" stance is often a bad-faith trojan horse: a soft exterior hiding a rigid, authoritarian core. Daijal and Sabra added crucial texture to the analysis by noting the schizophrenic nature of these movements where Jews are simultaneously weak "degenerates" and all-powerful "galaxy controllers." Reading the summary gives you the facts. Being in the room gives you the perspective. Don't let the next debate happen without you. Check the schedule to join the conversation: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar

I don't understand why European authorities have difficulty effectively addressing this issue. They could permit the use of lethal force if necessary to halt illegal immigration or prioritize mass arrests and deportations although these steps may be controversial. In recent years, many European countries have faced increasing pressure from public opinion regarding immigration, leading to a contentious debate about how to manage these flows. Some argue that allowing for stricter measures could deter illegal entry, while others advocate for more humane approaches. Alternatively, they might consider employing illegal migrants as cheap labor in regulated sectors where they can be monitored. This approach mirrors practices in Gulf states, where cheap laborers are kept separate from the main population in a highly controlled environment. Such a system allows these nations to meet labor demands without the complexities of integration. But, its extremely controversial. In Europe, acknowledging that human rights do not apply uniformly is controversial but brings to light the differing priorities of nations when it comes to immigration policies. Some argue that the rights of citizens should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, especially in contexts where public safety and social cohesion are perceived to be at risk. A more effective approach but extremely controversial for European states would be to distinguish between cheap laborers and unassimilated immigrants, separating them from the core population. This could involve placing these individuals in specific sectors, perhaps in industries that rely heavily on labor but are closely monitored, without granting the possibility of citizenship, as those in these categories may be less likely to assimilate. The focus should instead be on integrating educated and affluent immigrants, who are generally more likely to adapt to and embrace the culture of their new country. For instance, an immigrant engaged in academic or business pursuits often has the skills and background that align well with Western values and societal norms, making it easier for them to assimilate. This contrasts sharply with individuals performing manual labor, who may face barriers to integration due to language, education, or cultural differences.

I think for people who mistreat animals there should be imposed strict laws-I think they should go to jail and ousted