Hodgepodge posted:

I don't think WWII would have gotten off the ground if Hitler had photoshopped himself as a Magic card.

Abner Cadaver II posted:

Hodgepodge posted:

Those are closer to baseball cards. None give him special abilities that 12-year-old Hilter would have given himself.

Guavanaut posted:

Bonus to charisma, bonus against other races, reduction on tactics, resistance against poison, weakness against small arms?

Wanderer posted:

I just read an article by Richard Spencer discussing the definition of the term "cuckservative," which felt a little like high-diving into a septic tank.

quote:

Lewis et al have attributed a racist element to the term "Cuckservative". Cuckservative as a slur does indeed have racial implications, but you really need to look in a mirror if you want to call it racist.

A Cuckservative is someone who votes for policies that will ultimately ensure that:

Liberals get their way on nearly every issue. Cuckservatives lose on Immigration or even openly advocate for more. They lose on Healthcare. They lose on abortion. They lose on every issue they care about.

That white people will become a minority in the United States in this century.

and, ultimately,

That conservatism, and the GOP itself will completely lose all political relevancy within our lifetimes, possibly within the next ten years, due to 1) and 2) above.

Now I know there is going to be a lot of hand-wringing about number 2, but lets look at the facts here:

White people vote more conservatively. They are the base. The very ideals of this country and the idea of liberty as we know it is a categorically anglo-saxon ideology shared, actually, by very few other groups. Without the white people, and without the white majority, there is no more Western Civilization. There is no more liberty. As we've seen, had only white people voted in the 2012 Election, Romney would have won in the biggest landslide since Nixon-McGovern. Why is it "Racist" and evil to advocate for a group of people and the ideas that they hold on to and created?

White people, as a group, are shrinking. They're being replaced by immigrants. Mexican immigrants. Mexican immigrants who, their entire lives, have been under the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) party government, which 

katlington posted:

Please link it, all i found was a podcast and this: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/cuckservatives-trump-and-the-future-of-the-west/

Wanderer posted:

Sure.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/what-is-a-cuckservative/

I hesitate to call someone crazy because of ideological differences, but I have a hard time coming up with a better word.

katlington posted:

Please link it, all i found was a podcast and this: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/cuckservatives-trump-and-the-future-of-the-west/

Guavanaut posted:

Guavanaut posted:

The NRx Overton window:


e: Also at the fact that they don't have anything left of the SPLC.

Dmitri-9 posted:

according to Captain Planet his hate aura can nauseate elementals

Wanderer posted:

Sure.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/what-is-a-cuckservative/

I hesitate to call someone crazy because of ideological differences, but I have a hard time coming up with a better word.

Race Realists posted:

ever come across something so bizarre reading other commenters followers?

quote:

What happened to this little girl IS vile and any normal adult knows it. It's not something that we have to be taught, it's something we are born knowing, like how to breathe. At least for White people. Who knows what the others are born knowing. Just protect ourselves and keep our children safe from them at all costs. This means being SEPARATE. (Ideally on different continents.)

quote:

... That is to say, being a “white supremacist” is worse than being a mere “racist” (a term that patriots are finally learning to just laugh at and not try to defend themselves against), for it indicates the pinnacle of racist thought: Nazism!. I.e., being labeled a “white supremacist” is synonymous with being labeled a “Neo-Nazi”, which is the equivalent of saying that a “race realist” invariably thinks that [Northern European] whites are the master race and therefore every other race must be killed in the most horrific fashion possible.


... For, to them, to be a “race realist” is to be a “white supremacist.” Never mind that such “race realists” recognize that East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites (on the whole). Never mind that Ashkenazi Jews—the traditional arch enemy of real “white supremacists”—are recognized as the cream of the crop, IQ-wise. Never mind that no race realist ever advocates prejudice against any individual based upon his race or ethnicity, both out of ethical/moral concerns and out of respect for the elementary rules of statistics. Never mind all these facts (and others), because to a liberal, any contradiction of Political Correct orthodoxy is to be treated as the cardinal sin against the Holy Politically Correct Church of the Liberal Establishment.

quote:

Way back when, I did a little series called “Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube“, with a controversial post on contra-dysgenics. The idea (and no, it’s certainly not a novel nor untested idea) was to implement sterilization of convicted felons (and maybe even welfare recipients). I called this “contra-dysgenics” in an effort to do two things: one, emphasize that it’s designed to combat active dysgenic policies of our current government, and, two, to given some distance from the word “eugenics”, which conjures up all sorts of Nazi analogies.

I still would advocate the idea that we should be looking to do something to stem the tide of rampantly reproducing ne’er-do-wells, and given that I find abortion (after anything more than a few weeks) to be morally reprehensible, sterilization seems much more humane. And if we can take away a criminal’s rights and lock them away, why can’t we also take away their reproductive rights?

But anyway, the only thing I’d change now would be the term used to describe the practice. It’s not “contra-dysgenics”, it’s not “sterilization”, and it’s certainly not “eugenics.” What is it, then? Why, it’s preemptive abortion!

Libtards love to euphemize their nefarious agendas—to use agreeable language to describe something which the masses would find inherently disagreeable (see, e.g., “women’s health“). Why not join in on the fun? I mean, libtards absolutely love them some abortion. It’s drat near literally a sacrament for them! So if we take the position that we’re performing abortions, just preemptively, on all these cisgendered-privileged cretins, surely the libtards couldn’t object, right?

Read more at http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/07/preemptive-abortion/

quote:

Yes, Hitler ruined the brand. Get over it. The fact is we’ve been on a dysgenic trend for some time (over a hundred years? Hundreds of years?), and, as we all know, that’s taken a precipitous turn for the worse since the start of our immigration nightmare in 1965—so it’s high time we revive the lost-art of culling the herd.

(For anyone not sure about claims of “dysgenics” in the Western World, I invite you to watch the movie “Idiocracy” by Mike Judge [of Beavis and Butthead fame] and join the legions of fans who can’t help but say, “It’s scary because it’s absolutely happening right now.”)

But how would one go about implementing a modern-era eugenics movement humanely and in accordance with Constitutional guarantees to our unalienable rights?

Sanger’s brainchild, Planned Parenthood, via their abortion mills, has done a gangbusters job of keeping the population of undesirables much further down than it might otherwise be. However—and call me crazy—I find advocating to the indigent and irresponsible that they simply kill their offspring rather than step up to the plate and take ownership of their—and their unborn children’s—lives rather…how shall one say…off-putting?

So instead of pushing for a society that embraces such perverse “morality”—a sort of “destroying the village in order to save it” approach to our demographic-induced civilizational disaster—certainly there are other means to achieve the same end that are a bit more ethical, no?

Here’s an old idea whose time, I believe, has once again come: Forced sterilization of convicted felons. I.e., get them out of the gene pool.

The irony is that this approach would be both anathema to libtards and also the only conceivably effective means (beyond outright genetic re-engineering) of achieving what they all claim to be in favor of: genuine racial equality [of outcomes].

Imagine: Such sterilization practices would have a wildly “disparate impact” upon blacks and Hispanics (by virtue of their committing an overwhelming proportion of violent [and property] crimes in the US [and everywhere else, for that matter]). By removing those who commit such crimes from the gene pool, you leave the “quality”—and there are obviously blacks and Hispanics of exceeding quality—to fill the vacuum left in the racial population. Within only a few generations, the racial animosity most of us here feel due to the disproportionate amount of violence and social pathology inflicted on us by blacks would likely dissipate given that the only blacks left to reproduce would be those capable of comporting themselves with the demands of civil society.

Sterilization for welfare recipients is also bandied about and should be part of a wider discussion as well.

The point is, we’re not talking so much about “eugenics” as we are trying to find ways to reverse decades of radical dysgenics. And the time is nigh.

“But RedStater,” I can hear the moaning commence, “Certainly this is all a pipe dream! This will never fly!”

Improbable, perhaps. Impossible? I don’t know the word. A few years back I received a standard, dim-witted forwarded email (replete with the gratuitous out-of-control font sizes and coloring) demanding a completely common-sense modification to our welfare policies: mandatory drug testing for anyone receiving any sort of taxpayer-funded living assistance. I thought, “Makes perfect sense—which is why it will never happen.” And just a few short years later, laws requiring drug tests for welfare recipients were on their way to the books in a number of states.

In other words, though the blue states may be a lost cause, the red states still have sufficient numbers in the voting public capable of recognizing a pragmatic solution to impending doom when they see it. If we have the chops to discuss what needs to be discussed and advocate what needs to be advocated, who knows how “improbable” it will appear over time.

But starting a fire is tedious and dispiriting work; it’s much easier to piss on the embers and claim the darkness inevitable.

We can take the latter route. It’s perfectly understandable. We’re all tired of fighting this seemingly hopeless and endless and perpetually uphill battle. But I’d have a hard time calling myself an American if that’s the path I decide to take.

Wanderer posted:

Sure.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/what-is-a-cuckservative/

I hesitate to call someone crazy because of ideological differences, but I have a hard time coming up with a better word.

quote:

Mr. Hood has been active in conservative youth movements in the US.

Nessus posted:

What is with these people's hundred year obsession with sterilizing poor people

katlington posted:

Please link it, all i found was a podcast and this: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/cuckservatives-trump-and-the-future-of-the-west/

Guavanaut posted:

The NRx Overton window:


e: Also at the fact that they don't have anything left of the SPLC.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

how are cruz, perry and santorum on the cuckservative side. because they dont advocate blacks get exiled/gassed?

OwlFancier posted:

Is there a rundown of what the things listed in the title of the thread are?

Because I've never heard of them before and am having a little trouble piecing it together from the answers given.

OwlFancier posted:

Is there a rundown of what the things listed in the title of the thread are?

Because I've never heard of them before and am having a little trouble piecing it together from the answers given.

OwlFancier posted:

Oh wait that says racial realism, I've been reading it as "radical realism" because that sounds less stupid.

From the other thread it looks like it's what you'd get if Tolkien had written Atlas Shrugged and Mein Kampf.

OwlFancier posted:

From the other thread it looks like it's what you'd get if Tolkien had written Atlas Shrugged and Mein Kampf and then all the terrible tolkienesque fantasy still happened after he died and this is the kindle-only published derivatives of that.

quote:

HBD - Human Biodiversity. There's a lot of diversity in human life, and it all fits exactly into one of those 19th century pictures with 'negroids' and 'mongoloids' on it. I am not a racist btw this is serious science.

katlington posted:

Please link it, all i found was a podcast and this: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/cuckservatives-trump-and-the-future-of-the-west/

computer parts posted:

Because I spent all this effort I'll post it anyway:

Race Realists posted:

anime avatar

i




EDIT:

Anyway, what's always astonished me about the "Alternative" Right is cognitive dissonance that a majority of them seem to share. For example this individual.

http://angrywhitedude.com/2013/01/on-race-realism-and-white-supremacism/


He seems to be against being called Nazi or even remotely related to Fascism

and then i come across this

http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/07/preemptive-abortion/


How does he not see that forced birth control is an inherently Fascist concept?

Or am i wrong? Please correct me if so.


http://angrywhitedude.com/2012/05/putting-the-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube-chapter-9-contra-dysgenics/

quote:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can’t say “friend of the family”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family.”

ocrumsprug posted:

Out of curiosity, what happened in May 2009 that caused our two thousand year regression to the 50's?

Seems like I would remember such a monumental event but I've got nothing. Google have a bad quarter or something?

Main Paineframe posted:

He's not against Nazism or fascism, he's against being called those specific words because he thinks people will use them as an excuse to dismiss him as a "bad person" and write him off. He's pro-fascism, but if he openly calls himself a fascist then he won't be able to convince many people to listen to his ideas, because there's such a cultural taboo and hatred against fascism that even the gullible and the politically unaware won't listen to a self-proclaimed fascist. So instead, he's trying to invent a new word that describes basically the same thing as fascism but doesn't have the same history attached, so people don't realize he's talking about the same things Hitler did.

Same goes for eugenics. Hitler wasn't the only eugenics believer in the 1930s, but the Nazis were so evil and extreme and cartoon-villainy about it that WWII basically killed the credibility of eugenics in the West. This guy believes that eugenics is still a reliable and supported scientific theory, and that the only reason it lost support among the American populace is because it was associated with the Nazis. That's why he's rebranding it as another thing which means the exact same thing but has a less familiar name. That's also why he's pretending his idea of sterilizing (black) convicts and (black) welfare recipients is a fresh new idea no one's thought of before...when in fact it's something that was actively practiced by eugenics boards all over the US, until states ended their eugenics programs during the period between Pearl Harbor and the Civil Rights Act.

This isn't unique to him or to his movement, either. Elememts of the far right who know that much of society loathes their ideas often try to rebrand, replacing particular trigger words with something more obscure and unfamiliar to people to avoid being recognized right away, or abandoning the overt statement of their aims in favor of a more abstract dogwhistle. The idea is to come up with something that's still intelligible to people who share their views but seems innocent and new to someone who isn't already a believer. It's not even slightly new, either - think of this context when reading the infamous Lee Atwater quote about how they had to change the way they appealed to racists so that non-racists wouldn't accuse them of racism.

ocrumsprug posted:

Out of curiosity, what happened in May 2009 that caused our two thousand year regression to the 50's?

Seems like I would remember such a monumental event but I've got nothing. Google have a bad quarter or something?

Mel Mudkiper posted:

What weirds me out about these kinds of people is that most destructive racist beliefs I can at least attribute to the comfort and incuriousity of the average American. They don't really think hard about this stuff and chose the most personally affirming position which is usually "gently caress the minorities"

These people are completely conscious of what they are advocating and why, and the fact they do so completely eyes open and unapologetic is shocking. Its a rigorous intellectual consistency of absolute idiocy.

Woolie Wool posted:

Unlike Atwater though, they are profoundly stupid so their dog whistles are extremely transparent.