Proud boys are done with the pretense. Going full Nazi

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Proud Boys Infighting Sees Leading Member Form Breakaway Neo-Nazi Group

Kyle "Based Stickman" Chapman announced Proud Goys while attacking chairman Enrique Tarrio on Telegram.

www.newsweek.com

We will no longer cuck to the left by appointing token negroes as our leaders. We will no longer allow homosexuals or other 'undesirables' into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization.

I know it may surprise you guys but these guys were actually racist. Or at least throwing away any pretense about it.

Also they're thinking of changing their name to Proud Goys. Fun fact about the word Goy in Brazil it's a term for self-identify as men who are attracted to men, but not as homosexual or bisexual.

That name is almost too perfect.

 

[Buyetyen]

You mean the thuggish gang founded by a racist demagogue turned out to be racist? Man, you can't trust anybody these days!

 

[Agema]

You mean the thuggish gang founded by a racist demagogue turned out to be racist? Man, you can't trust anybody these days!

But... but... there was a photo of them and one of them was black. And they don't officially claim to be white nationalist. So they can't be racist.

 

[Shadyside]

Stand back and stand by.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Out of interest, are any of the people who decided they weren't white supremacists going to rethink their positions, or just quietly forget they defended them?

 

[Revnak]

Very funny to see actual Proud Boys calling Tiny a token. No honor among right-wing street gangs, amirite?

 

[Gergar12]

This is why we should ban the AR-15.

 

[Kwak]

Well, these guys want to racist which is why they are breaking off and are no longer Proud Boys - ergo Proud Boys are not racist.

I'm being sarcastic, but that will be houseman and dwarvenhobble's argument.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, these guys want to racist which is why they are breaking off and are no longer Proud Boys - ergo Proud Boys are not racist.

You're not being sarcastic. You're being sensible.

 

[gorfias]

Out of interest, are any of the people who decided they weren't white supremacists going to rethink their positions, or just quietly forget they defended them?

I can see them split by forces and turn into something they are not supposed to be.
An example of this sort of thing: you had a somewhat Libertarian movement, The Tea Party, which was about small government, taken over by the radical Christian right causing some to ask rhetorically, "how did 'get out of my wallet` turn into , 'ban men from marrying each other'?

As for who the Proud Boys claim they are? https://proudboysusa.com/tenets/ :
Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

 

[Agema]

You're not being sarcastic. You're being sensible.

It is an argument with some logic to it. It's not necessarily a good argument, though, because there is no reason to assume key split was between the racists and the non-racists. It could have easily been between the extreme racists and the not-so-extreme racists, or a difference in strategy, or competing individuals in authority, or an argument about the catering at their last function which spiralled out of control.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Well this is news to me. I had no idea they even bothered with a pretense.

 

[Agema]

I can see them split by forces and turn into something they are not supposed to be.
An example of this sort of thing: you had a somewhat Libertarian movement, The Tea Party, which was about small government, taken over by the radical Christian right causing some to ask rhetorically, "how did 'get out of my wallet` turn into , 'ban men from marrying each other'?

Because a high proportion of people who think "get out of my wallet" also think "ban men from marrying each other". Everyone knows that US libertarianism has long had a thick streak of social conservatism.

 

[Neuromancer]

 

[BrawlMan]

Not surprised in the slightest. Wolfestein II stays relevant as always. Someone show these guys clips of Nazi killing action just piss their pussy asses off.

 

[stroopwafel]

Because a high proportion of people who think "get out of my wallet" also think "ban men from marrying each other". Everyone knows that US libertarianism has long had a thick streak of social conservatism.

No, I don't believe that. It's more ehm..'marriage' of convenience because there are way more bible thumpers than libertarians. Usually it's only women who want to get married because they like to wear the dress and feel special and enjoy the circus around it(or other motives when the bloke is rich). I've never heard a chap getting all fluffy about what tutu to wear and getting all emotional about what color marzipan the wedding cake should be. For religious people marriage have some other meaning because of the children born from it.

Personally I have never seen the point of marriage if you're dried up old fruit or fairy. Other than perhaps to make a statement. It's like this completely outdated ceremony that serves no purpose other than perhaps to tell the children ''pa & ma are married''. So yeah, I'm not surprised marriage is still the most important for bible thumpers since ofcourse they have lifted pointless rituals to an artform and nothing ever changes for those people. Marriage is one of those things that, if it didn't exist would anyone actually want to invent it? Not in the least because you also need to revise the document to protect your finances. Which in many cases also makes it pointless risk.

I guess it's a big deal for some because marriage is still mostly embraced by those that cherish traditional values. And they see gay marriage as an attack on those values with that marriage as a statement(because let's be honest, what else is the point?). A libertarian couldn't care less.

 

[gorfias]

Because a high proportion of people who think "get out of my wallet" also think "ban men from marrying each other". Everyone knows that US libertarianism has long had a thick streak of social conservatism.

Makes sense. And that White Supremacists would be down with Western Chauvinism.
How to maintain a group identity (in this instance, explicitly anti-racist) from being infiltrated and taken over?
And I'm sure it does happen on the left. You can be for big government and end up with outright Marxists in your organization.

 

[Buyetyen]

How to maintain a group identity (in this instance, explicitly anti-racist) from being infiltrated and taken over?

For starters, they might want to try being sincere about the anti-racism thing. When your founder is a white supremacist, it's kind of hard to shake the feeling it's a very specific denial.

 

[Silvanus]

Personally I have never seen the point of marriage if you're dried up old fruit or fairy.

You're seriously just throwing out homophobic insults now? Where the fuck is this coming from?

 

[gorfias]

For starters, they might want to try being sincere about the anti-racism thing. When your founder is a white supremacist, it's kind of hard to shake the feeling it's a very specific denial.

You mean Gavin McInnes? He'd make a very strange "white supremacist." To be such, as I would define one, you must be against white people inter-marrying with members of other races. McInnes is married to a woman that I think is at least part Native American:" Since 2005, McInnes has been married to Manhattan-based publicist and consultant Emily Jendrisak, who is the daughter of Native American activist Christine Whiterabbit Jendrisak who describes herself as a liberal Democrat. " https://www.the-sun.com/news/1562850/who-proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes/