Optics

*sniff*

Attached: 15248231739494.png (568x552, 125K)

Hitler is dead and his country destroyed because of Jews and their puppets, would you have preferred he sit back and let his nation and content be plundered? or actually stand up with a humble cause and fight for your existence.

Attached: BRAPPoscope.png (640x360, 283K)

You think "optics" is a synonym for cucking. It's not.

Optics means looking attractive to the people you want to convert to your side. That's it.

Her ass is too big

*SNNNIIIIIFFFFDDLFFFFDJ*

Attached: BfvcnIYAAbEBO.jpg (500x281, 18K)

Fuck no:

"Everything is discussed openly in Germany and every German claims the right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic, the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question. Discussions happen in public and where matters are unclear or confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.

The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.

Quickly he turns the attacker’s charges back on him and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack."

When people talk about "bad optics" it is synonymous with them cucking 9 times out of 10.

I only open these threads because the nihonjin girls have the flattest asses I've ever seen

>Optics means looking attractive to the people you want to convert to your side
I don't care what political ideology people have as long as they are counter Semitic and pro-European they are on my side and I am on their side.

Munch.

for some.

You are misunderstanding it.

Low IQ

>Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack.
100% truth right there.

HITLER invented optics

No, I'm not misunderstanding it. There are plenty of "right wing" people who shame others for talking about Jews, calling it bad optics. This is most of the time because they themselves either don't believe the JQ is real or they are scared of talking about it.

no u

it probably smells like shit

Lots of white people in the west don't meet that requirement.

We need to develop a platform that is attractive to those people who are not currently on our side.

>they themselves either don't believe the JQ is real or they are scared of talking about it
Low IQ false dichotomy

How about you come with some real arguments instead of just using insults?

The Germans of that era never sat in holocaust class for 12+ years of their lives. They never believed kikes were their greatest ally, and they still had a sense of themselves as a coherent people. Of course we should name the jew, but going in dry like Patrick Little did just triggers the programming of normies. Jews need to be thoroughly delegitimized, discredited and otherized before they are put on trial. Attacking them head-on is suicidal.

His demands for reform in social care and criticisms of previous and contemporary governments made him a last resort for the conservative German politicians, since his movement had a morally conservative identity, even if his policies were more modern and even progressive (before that term was ruined). He might have even allied with center-left parties he wasn't so vehemently against them on principal, but it was not to be. Maybe he couldn't because the Marxists were shifting the left window of discussion too far, maybe because he needed to clearly differentiate from the competition for position of reform party in the Reichstag, which were the anti-establishment lefties.

Attached: 1523975434760.jpg (750x699, 148K)

Can Amerimutts stop pretending they are the equals of the NSDAP? You're not veterans of the most brutal war in history. You don't have a society unified by war and generations of conscription. You don't have dueling fraternities and a culture of martial honor. You don't have a network of friendly business oligarchs and judges.

Americans are a self-indulgent, undisciplined mass of lard asses. Do any of you retarded niggers ever read Mein Kampf and think critically about not just the content, but the context in which the ideas and accounts are described?

You can be aware of the JQ without acting like a window-licking retard in public. You can be aware of the JQ and run a campaign that isn't focused on it. You're like far lefties that never go outside your internet echochambers. Your shit isn't appealing to voters.

Well, people say things for all sorts of reasons, so I'm sure you're right in some cases. If people use it in another way, they're wrong about the idea.

The concept of optics (like the word suggests) is looking good. Looking attracitve. You want to build a platform that attracts people. You don't want to build a platform that repulses people.

How you communicate.
How you present yourself.
How you talk about your issues.
How you act in public.

These things matter. There's a way to present your issue such that it will be attractive. And there's a way to present your issue such that it will be repulsive. .... For the same issue. It's not a question of changing facts. It's a question of optics.

>Horst-Wessel-Lied
>LIED

its right there

Hitler was a moron who decided to take on an enemy far stronger than himself.

It's like screaming "Lions are evil!" and running into a lion pit, trying to wrestle them to death.

I don't care if he was right, he's a loser, and should not be emulated.

Attached: 1524802244399.jpg (460x670, 83K)

Literally all they had to do was forget about gangraping Poland for a while and do that Madagascar plan

jews are inferior in terms of morality and they rule everything by being disgusting creatures that are exceptional at manipulation and business

Also indeed Hitler was moron. Attacking Stalingrad and hitting Russia in winter is the stupidest shit you can do when youre winning

>burger education
stop, it's embarrassing

>spacing

Attached: 1527634724837.jpg (750x741, 139K)

Got any suggestions?

>Americans are a self-indulgent, undisciplined mass of lard asses.
Exactly. And this comes from Judaism, wherein the greatest good is collecting as much meaningless material shit as possible, and using other people as stepping stones towards this goal.

>You want to build a platform that attracts people
I agree, but if you want to make PRO European domestic policies, the left will attack that. If you want to make PRO European foreign polices, the right will attack that. So if you were going to run for something, what would your basic policy positions look like? Or at least what would the common ground be?

I think there are some great suggestions in here:
youtube.com/watch?v=pS5pUe8f0eA

THIS THREAD IS NOW PROPERTY OF THE JEWISH INTERNET DEFENSE FORCE. WE MAY HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE OF ANTI-SEMITIC ACTIVITY. PLEASE REMAIN CALM.

Attached: 1512334467457.png (250x250, 41K)

Attached: 1528153240303.webm (1280x720, 1.01M)

>voters
Change has never happened by voting you stupid fucking kike

I got you covered nipposter

Attached: 1528320473115.jpg (1024x768, 104K)

The National Socialists had the moral high ground. After all, the German people were objectively culturally and physically superior. The music, the literature, the architecture, the clothing, the attention to detail in every aspect of life. They were clearly superior in terms of their physical aesthetic (blonde hair and blue eyes). Their claim on Europe was in these senses justified.

But they dressed their officers in Hugo Boss leather jackets and hats with skulls on them. The main symbol of the National socialists was a giant red flag with a bizarre occult symbol in the middle. They preached a violent rhetoric from the podium, even after the seizure of power. Their goose-stepping soldiers of the SS will always be remembered for their ruthlessness, even if their cause of a pan-Germanic Europe and a removal of the Jewish parasite was justified in the long term.

Had Hitler been replaced with a “friendlier” face after 1933, toned down the violent rhetoric, reduced the ostentation of their marches, and rebranded their military to look less menacing it would have given them a lot more support from foreign peoples who, whether deservedly or not, perceived Hitler and the National socialists as bloodthirsty warmongers.

What WW2 should teach us is 2 very important lessons: 1) the importance of optics in getting your message across, and 2) that very often you obtain the opposite of what you set out to achieve - so make contingency plans. All or nothing thinking can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Germans had simply waited Russian Bolshevism would probably have collapsed all on its own.

Attached: 9690DD52-FCFA-4C37-AD3C-236F6872ED8A.jpg (288x288, 9K)

Attached: l-27336-i-see-what-u-did-there-also-over-here.jpg (700x530, 22K)

It couldn't happen because global media control and everyone would just call hitler a Zionist today

Attached: blubbb.jpg (260x194, 7K)

>muh Turner Diaries
Just stop

>. So if you were going to run for something, what would your basic policy positions look like?

I've given this a lot of thought. I think it's a very tough question.
I think in america, you want to appeal to the founding fathers. Colonial aesthetic.

Honestly though I think we need to build infrastructure before we can get elected on the big stage.

This really has good ideas

Attached: 1526870331953.jpg (480x360, 37K)

>>. So if you were going to run for something, what would your basic policy positions look like?

Let me just say though, that if I had to run, and wanted to win, I would run as a democrat. I would give them all the social positions they want. (tranny, global warming, vaccines). I would be pro-science.

And I would be "America first" on immigration/international issues. I would say that we should only let the smartest people immigrate, and only if they want to assimilate into our great culture.

Something like that.

>Hitler
>Master of Optics
>Ripped everything off from Mussolini.

Attached: Chad Blackshirt v Virgin Stormtrooper.jpg (866x692, 127K)

There's nothing about being a master of optics that says you can't have learned from another master.

(((schicklgruber)))

>I think in america, you want to appeal to the founding fathers. Colonial aesthetic.
I like that, but we need a master morality. Something metaphysical, greater than man, that people want to fight for rather than against.

Like Wrote:
>The National Socialists had the moral high ground.

The founders were mostly theists, so would you go for a Christian morality? IMHO the Church is useless today in the fight against race mixing and Zionism.

Cool, I'll take look.

I want to smell a girls dirty butt so bad, like have her poop and not wipe and I can play around with her anus after, rub some hot fresh poop on my finger and smell it.

That is fucking incredible.

>I like that, but we need a master morality. Something metaphysical, greater than man
One possibility is a compassionate christ. Compassion for Europeans.

I agree that the church is broken, but if we are successful, they will follow us.

I've beem thinking about this a long time but, has anyone seen a civilization fall?

Of course, no, since I'd guess most of the posters here are like in the range of 20 - 40 like myself, but we're witnessing one right now.

The Gaul or Germannic people, ever since the time of the Romans, have been a warriorlike, aggressive people. Julius Caesar wrote about the difficulties in subduing them and Augustus succumbed the northern territories after losing his legions in an ambush.

Fast forward thousands of years later, the Prussian state fough countless wars against various European nations. Also won against France and gaoned territory and prestige as a nation in world stage. Eventually starting World War I under treaty with Austria, defeated yet rose again in WW2 until their defeat in 1945.

Now, can anyone tell me how can a warrior nation state get cucked so bad that they see their nation get destroyed from the inside and people are just allowing this shit to happen? Can anyone say that the same blood of the fierce Gaul and Germannic blood still run through these people?

Isn't this the fall of the Germannic people?

Attached: 1527916432857.gif (500x280, 884K)

Hitler cared a ton about optics.

Jews were already hated and anti-semetism was already popular fucktard. Hitler literally named his party "National Socialist" party despite not really being a socialist, but just to get the working-class vote

You are a fucking retard. Leave politics, leave this board, and go get split roasted by AIDs ridden faggots like you were born to

Attached: MOOSE1.png (676x430, 539K)

it would be more precise to blame the French than the Jews for the Germans' misery.
BTW, ALL German parties wanted to attack Poland and retake lost land. The liberals too. Hitler was not exceptionally evil in this regard.

>Compassion for Europeans.
That would be a good message, I'd actually go back to Church.

A while ago, I made a thread to try to untie the libertarian and fascist elements in the right, but no one had anything to say:

yuki.la/pol/170113047

Attached: 4F818055-DD52-48FF-B528-B96947146F26.gif (200x150, 1.11M)

Hitler didn't have to deal with Hitler desu.

I have to take off but I will read this later

The NSDAP gained popular BECAUSE of its explicit anti-semitism. Namely its touting the Stab-in-the-Back myth

Attached: Anne Frank-lifdrs_001.jpg (511x850, 508K)

white and redpilled.

fpbp

Attached: 1528768794720.gif (480x360, 3.82M)

>the Stab-in-the-Back myth
>myth
Hi retard.

>Namely its touting the Stab-in-the-Back myth
>myth

The Jew is your comrade, the Gentile is not a comrade. (Talmud Sanhedrin 72b, Tosafot).

As long as the Jew does the will of Jahwe, his work will be done by the hands of others. (Talmud Terakot 35b)

It is permitted to incite the sinners (Gentiles) of this world into war. (Talmud Berakot 7b, Megilla 6b)

Kill the best of the Gentiles! (Talmud Aboda zara 26b, Tosafot)

The belongings of Gentiles are like the desert, and he who first seizes them may keep them. (Talmud Baba batra 54b)

There is no honor among the Gentiles. (Talmud Sanhedrin 74b)

while it is beautiful I also wonder why don't they just walk around naked. I mean at this point, they wear as revealing as they can. If they are gonna continue assert it is their choice and shit and it is not somehow not whoring then just fucking walk naked.

Attached: 1528672576669.jpg (500x285, 47K)

Attached: 26AF51B1-05A0-47AF-B6CA-164BE94840C4.jpg (450x450, 21K)

I wanna chancel up in her Germany, IF you know what I mean...

Did you read those Tractates or are you quoting another source?

shape is more important, and she has a perfectly shaped bum

Sniff sniff

Attached: 1528148245209.gif (480x366, 1.7M)

>Germany in the 1930s is the same as America in the 2010s

Attached: brainlett.png (811x628, 93K)

>Would Hitler have become the chancellor of Germany if he refused to name the Jew?

Anti-semitism was widely accepted and common at all levels of society.
Politics is down-stream of culture so Hitler was able to make 'anti-semitic' arguments and sufficiently large sections of the population agreed with them. We don't have the same option today except in the freer spaces of a Surinamese Checkers board.
Subtler arguments and more broadly conceived of enemies are called for.